1998-07-023817SENATE465601998-07-02The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.465610001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:46563671QD4Brown Sen BobTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.For permanent protection of old-growth forests and all other areas of high conservation value, and for the implementation of tree plantation strategies.This petition from the undersigned respectfully points out that: there is an increasing and urgent demand from the people, to protect all remaining high conservation value forests which support flora and fauna unique to Australia, thus complying with the United Nations Biodiversity Convention to which Australia is a signatory. We have a responsibility to future and present generations, and the necessary reasons, knowledge and technology to act now on the following achievable solutions.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate legislate to: immediately stop all logging and woodchipping activities in high conservation value native forests; ensure intergenerational equity by planning for the rights of future generations, and protecting in perpetuity all biologically diverse old-growth forests, wilderness, rainforests and critical habitats of endangered species; facilitate rapid transition of the timber industry from harvesting high conservation value native forests, to establishing mixed-species farm forestry on existing cleared and degraded lands, using non-toxic methods to protect ecological sustainability; maximise use of readily-available plantation timber for industry needs, using appropriate forestry techniques and progressive minimal-waste processing methods, such as radial sawing, and wherever possible, reuse and recycle wood and paper products; support incentives for nationwide employment in composting, soil remineralisation programs, and the planting programs of trees and annual fibre crops, inter-grown with appropriate fruit and nut trees and medicinal plants; encourage sensitively-managed, environmental education tourism in appropriate forest areas, with full respect for natural ecosystems, Aboriginal cultural heritage, sacred sites and other sites of significance; and progressively utilise technological expertise and resources transferred from the military sector, to help implement these tree planting solutions; and to motivate the international community to follow this example.And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.Senator BrownQD4Senator Brown(from 3,671 citizens)465615QD4Brown Sen BobTo the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled;This Petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully points out that: there is a growing demand for urgent federal government intervention, to protect all Australia's remaining natural heritage forests. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate to call on the Federal Government to: immediately implement the moratorium clause in the national forest policy statement; permanently protect all remaining high conservation value native forests throughout Australia, adequate to secure the bio-diversity and natural and cultural heritage, by bringing them under the guardianship of indigenous peoples; utilise our extensive plantation timber for industry needs; create economic incentives for farm forestry employment on existing cleared lands in the propagation, establishment and management of sustainable permaculture style, mixed-species timber plantations, inter-grown with a variety of annual crops for fibre and food production; encouragement investment in the growing and marketing of indigenous, plantation based tree products such as wattle seed, eucalyptus and tea tree oils, and other medicinal and nutritional resources; develop educational eco-tourism as a sensitively managed industry in appropriate forest areas, and with full respect for Aboriginal heritage and sacred sites;And further support the above initiatives by the progressive utilisation of the military to assist rural communities to implement sustainable plantation forestry practices.And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.Senator BrownQD4Senator Brown(from 15 citizens)Petitions received.Business46574657Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2 p.m. today:No. 9— Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998No. 10— National Measurement Amendment Bill 1998No. 11— Taxation Laws Amendment (Landcare and Water Facility Tax Offset) Bill 1998No. 12— Family Law Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998No. 13— Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 19974657Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Woodley for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4657Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1203 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to the Common Youth Allowance, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4657Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1101 standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, relating to the appointment of a select committee on government consultancies on waterfront reform, be postponed till the first day of the spring sittings 1998.4657Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1205 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to a legal dispute between Microsoft and the Government of the United States of America, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4657Motion (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.4657Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Murphy) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1199 standing in the name of Senator Murphy for today, relating to the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy of 1995, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4657Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4657Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to:That business of the Senate 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.Miscellaneous46574657Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I ask that Government Business notice of motion No. 2, relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for the week commencing Monday, 6 July 1998, be taken as formal.Leave not granted.Miscellaneous465709:35:004657Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1202, standing in my name and relating to assets of ex-president Suharto, be taken as formal.Leave not granted.465809:36:004658Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely, a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 1202.I do this because this is an urgent matter. If you read today's Sydney Morning Herald , you would see that the AFP has reported that the Indonesian Attorney-General, Mr Andi Ghalib, announced yesterday that his department would conduct an audit of 13 foundations run by Mr Suharto and announce the results publicly. We have the situation where the new Indonesian government, which is putting increasing distance between itself and the Suharto family and their cronies, is doing audits into the Suharto foundations and an assessment of the legality of the dealings of the Suharto family during their long tenure of dictatorship in Indonesia. What we do know from Forbes Magazine is that the Suharto family assets—which were estimated to be worth $40 billion before the crash—still remain estimated to be worth some $4 billion to $5 billion. That is not taking into account the so-called extended family of the Godfather, the assets of cronies who have done very well out of the Suharto family's period in power.There have been direct calls to Australia and other countries from opposition parties in Indonesia, including the People's Democratic Party. A letter from the PDP says that the Suharto family or its associates have extensive assets in Australia. The party says that it wants the Australian government to freeze those assets and channel them to the people of Indonesia and pro-democratic groups in Indonesia. The PDP also says that the Indonesian people would not need an International Monetary Fund bailout and austerity programs if that money were to become available.In this letter, the International Representative Office in Australia of the People's Democratic Party points out the need for a demand to be put on the Australian government to freeze the assets of Suharto. The party identifies three main components. The first component is First Pacific Davies, a real estate company under the First Pacific Group. The Salim Group is under the management of Liem Soei Liong, Suharto's long-term business friend, who is the major shareholder of the First Pacific Group. The PDP says that Suharto's family is represented in this group through his stepbrother Sudwikatmono.The second component is the 2,098 square kilometre Tipperary Station in the Northern Territory. The letter from the People's Democratic Party says:Bakrie brothers, who have a 50 per cent stake in the station were one of the closest cronies of the former president Suharto.The third component is the Robina Land Corporation, which is currently developing Australia's biggest shopping precinct near the Gold Coast. The PDP says:The owner of Robina Land corp is Robin Loh, a Singaporean businessman who has had close links with Suharto since 1975. In the late 60's he was Pertamina's (state oil company) major supplier of pipes and equipment and he had built a close relationship with Suharto through his crony, Ibnu Sutowo, the former corrupt director of Pertamina.It is rumoured that there are more extensive assets of the family or associates of Suharto in Australia, including real estate assets in Western Australia. The Indonesian government is moving to do an assessment.Notice of motion 1202 standing in my name calls for this assessment to be done by the Australian government so that in the event—and I think this is inevitable—of a call for a freeze of assets in Australia, the assessment has been done and some action can be taken to stop the hiding of these funds in the meantime. It is a very responsible motion. It is calling for action now because action later may be too late. It is in response to calls from opposition parties in Indonesia. It is a call that should be heard. I ask the Senate to support the motion for urgency so that we can debate the matter and have the motion passed.09:40:004659Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—As Senator Brown and honourable senators would be aware, the issue before the Senate is the question of whether, in this circumstance, it is appropriate to reorder the business before the Senate to deal with this particular notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Brown. Most senators would acknowledge that, in the last sitting fortnight, we have had an extraordinary situation where not only opposition senators but senators around the chamber have cooperated with the government to ensure a significant number of late-night Senate sittings.The Senate sat last Friday. The government plans to have the Senate sit again tomorrow. The opposition has very generously proposed that general business not be dealt with this afternoon to maximise the amount of time the government can utilise on its legislative program. The task during this suspension of standing orders is for the Senate to make a judgment about whether the motion that stands in Senator Brown's name should take precedence over a range of other matters that are before the Senate. That is how the opposition will be approaching its decision on this particular question. Senator Brown's general business notice of motion No. 1202 says: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.Such a motion, on balance, ought to follow a formal request from the Indonesian government. For that reason, and because of the competing interests in terms of the Senate's program, the opposition will not be supporting Senator Brown's motion for the suspension of standing orders today.The issue of the wealth and assets of former Indonesian President Suharto, his family and associates is, in our view, in the first instance obviously a matter for Indonesia itself. An important point to make during this debate, as Senator Brown and honourable senators will be aware, is that Indonesia has actually instigated its own investigation.I want to make it clear that the Australian Labor Party whole-heartedly supports cooperation with Indonesia to conduct appropriate investigations into any such wealth or assets located in Australia. However, a proposal like this to establish an undefined inquiry without considering who might conduct it or what its terms of reference would be does have weaknesses and does take away from the seriousness of the proposition that is before the Senate. The Australian government should certainly be prepared to discuss this issue with Indonesia. If a request is made by Indonesia, it should conduct such investigations as may be necessary and appropriate.Having said that, I point out that the issue of balance for the Senate to give consideration to today is whether the standing orders should be suspended to deal with this issue. (Extension of time granted) I thank the Senate for its courtesy. I was going to conclude with one more sentence. Actually, I cannot remember what I was going to say, if you really want to know. I know that I was going to make some comment about Senator Brown. I have no idea whether it was laudatory or condemnatory. Whatever it was, I am sure that it was right!09:46:004659Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—The Australian government is aware that the Indonesia government has begun an investigation into corruption under the previous Suharto regime. Indonesian government ministers, the leader of the armed forces and the past and present Attorneys-General have confirmed that former president Suharto will not be immune from these investigations. The investigation itself is completely a matter for the new Indonesian government and people to undertake. An inquiry into the Suharto family wealth and assets in Australia would depend on a formal request from the Indonesian government. If such a request were to be made in the future, the government would consider it. At this time, I oppose the suspension of standing orders as urgency has not been made.09:47:004660Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—The Australian Democrats, as I am sure honourable senators will remember, brought this up as a question a few weeks ago. We asked if the Indonesian government had approached us about this. Senator Hill was going to get back to me. I am sure that he will at some point. It sounds from what he just said as though the Indonesian government has not yet approached us. I think that is probably right.There are a couple of very small points in this motion, probably in part (b), that I would want clarified and expanded before we agreed to it. I saw a draft of an amendment that the opposition had a week or so ago which covered my concerns. If we suspend standing orders, there does not seem to be a great deal of enthusiasm for discussion, so I do not think it would take very long to deal with it. I would quite like to see this dealt with as long as it did not take very long. We would agree to a suspension.09:48:004660Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—The Senate is evolving every morning into a foreign policy making body. I do not believe that that is the purpose of the Senate. There is an executive and a foreign minister. They make decisions on behalf of the country, and our job is to scrutinise them. There is a whole range of methods by which they can be scrutinised. For instance, the prime committee of this parliament is usually acknowledged as being the foreign affairs and defence committee. It is certainly the biggest, the best remunerated and the best resourced committee in the parliament. I hope that the House of Representatives is still fulfilling that function and not us. That is the appropriate body to take these sort of resolutions through in the first event.Senator Brown is devaluing the currency of Senate resolutions and the view of this place by every day getting up and moving some new foreign affairs resolution. We have made it quite clear—I do not know whether he accepts it yet—that we will not have those resolutions go through without debate. I think he can at least see the point in that.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Here's an opportunity to debate it.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I will come to that in a moment. One of the problems is that some of these resolutions are a bit like a curate's egg; they are good in parts. You can agree with part of it and not other parts. Therefore, taking them through without a debate does not give senators an opportunity to express a view as to why, on balance, they may support something with reservations, which can be taken into account when that resolution is carried. We have at least got to the position where the Labor Party—I think the government agrees, but it does not really want to say so—believes that you cannot carry foreign affairs resolutions at the drop of a hat.I do not think Senator Margetts was surprised that what was regarded as a foreign affairs resolution about torture went through yesterday. We have said that the recognition of international days and the sort of issues Senator Margetts was talking about yesterday are appropriate to go through without debate. They are in recognition of an international day or an international issue. However, we do not believe that resolutions expressing an opinion or calling on the government to do something should go through without debate.We then have to decide how many of these things we will debate, how long we will debate them and how much Senate time should be put forward in debating them. Inevitably, in part, we have to take into account two factors. The obvious one is whether it is absolutely urgent at the moment for us to pursue these issues. The second one reflects how much of the motion we agree on and how relevant we think the motion is. Certainly part (b) is jumping the gun. My understanding is that the Australian government has not had a request from the Indonesian government to investigate these matters.I like to put ourselves in reverse. I wonder how we would feel if the Indonesian government set up an inquiry into certain high wealth Australian citizens. Would we feel at all offended if they decided to look into high wealth individuals, especially people who own—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—If their actions are undertaken in Indonesia or their business is in Indonesia, it might well be appropriate.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I am just asking in the theoretical, Senator Margetts, in terms of national sovereignty, without a request, how you launch such an inquiry. Or are you arguing that this particular family has high investment interests in Australia? Certainly no evidence has been adduced so far that that is in fact the case.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—That's what is being sought.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Senator Brown says that that is what they are seeking. Well there is a limit to fishing expeditions, I have to say. You would need some evidentiary base before you would in fact authorise an inquiry. Senator Brown would respond, if he had the opportunity—he may yet have it—that it may exist, that it may be there. I do not think that is quite good enough in this case.But, again, what it really comes back to is that, firstly, foreign affairs resolutions should not be carried by this chamber on the nod. Secondly, to successfully carry them, you have to argue the urgency of the matter. Thirdly, you then have to give some substantiation in the issue you are raising that it is actually relevant to the Senate and proper procedure. I do not think it is proper for this Senate at this stage to call on the Australian government to have an investigation into these matters prior to an official request coming from Indonesia.09:53:004661Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—In arguing for the need to suspend standing orders, I would like to remind the Senate that on a large number of occasions the Senate has played a very positive role in helping to shape and change foreign policy in Australia. I think it would be conceited of any government to think that it is the sole repository of information or ideas in relation to appropriate foreign policy lines.I can give you some examples. I refer to the issue of bringing forward information on the Kurds in Turkey. Also, the information on landmines, which a former foreign affairs minister from the Labor government said was hopelessly utopian, is now part of mainstream foreign policy. The issue of French nuclear testing also springs to mind. The issue of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which the Greens brought up by way of notices of motion on several occasions, is now coming home to haunt Australia in relation to nuclear testing by India and Pakistan. Australia's role in that was not necessarily what was given to us by the foreign affairs minister at the time, or by the Department of Foreign Affairs. It seems that one of the options for this place is to go to briefings by Foreign Affairs or briefings by ministers to find out that the information is not necessarily correct or that it may be challengeable through other means.We have constituents who believe that foreign affairs issues, and Australia's role in foreign affairs issues, are something that under democracy they have a right to have an opinion about. We as parliamentarians have a responsibility to express those opinions within the parliamentary sphere. I would fight very strongly for my belief that there is no way we should be gagged in presenting those concerns from our constituents, because the Greens believe that those community groups have a right to be heard.I can talk about East Timor. Once again, issues such as this which maybe a few years ago were considered to be hopelessly utopian are now part of the mainstream agenda. There is also the matter of Bougainville, self-determination in many different countries and issues of human rights abuses. Bringing such matters forward into the parliamentary sphere is a very important and legitimate function of the Senate. I would challenge anybody to say this is not a legitimate and very important function.The fact that it is more likely to be done by the minor parties in the Senate is indicative of the role the major parties play; it does not mean that it is not legitimate. So I therefore say that even the debate we have had today about the urgency of this motion has been a very useful exercise. It has brought the issue of the Suharto family and their assets on to the public agenda. It is on the public record, and I believe it warrants further debate. Therefore, I support the suspension of standing orders. Question put: That the motion (Senator Brown's ) be agreed to.10:01:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.43Bishop, M. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, G.Campbell, I. G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Evans, C. V. *Ferguson, A. B.Forshaw, M. G. Gibson, B. F.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lundy, K. Macdonald, I.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Neal, B. J.O'Brien, K. W. K. Patterson, K. C. L.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous4662Motion (by Senator Denman) agreed to: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.Business46624662Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous4662Motion (by Senator Carr) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the Government's response to question no. 52 from the Employment, Education and Training Legislation Committee's estimates hearing of 16 September 1996, which outlines a drop in real terms in funding for government schools, (ii) that this answer gives lie to the Government's claim that funding for government schools is actually increasing, and (iii) that it is being denied an update on information that it was provided with 2 years ago, on the spurious claim that it may be used to calculate cost index parameters; and(b) condemns the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) for his: (i) refusal to update these figures despite the agreement given at the Employment, Education and Training Legislation Committee's estimates hearing of 25 February 1998 to do so, (ii) display of contempt for the committee system by refusing to provide the infor mation requested despite the agreement given to take the matter on notice, and (iii) heavy-handed attempt to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and stifle debate on the funding of government schools in Australia.Miscellaneous466310:05:004663Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I ask that general business notion of motion 1190 standing in my name, that proposes an order for the production of documents, be taken as a formal motion. Before I proceed down that path, I seek leave to make a very brief statement on this matter.Leave granted.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Thank you. Senators will note in general business notice of motion No. 1190, which is an order for the production of documents, that the motion requests that these documents be laid on the table by no later than 3.15 p.m. on 2 July 1998. Can I say that often in these circumstances these sorts of motions are amended by leave if there is agreement.In the ordinary course of events it is my intention to proceed with the motion. I understand the time constraints that are necessarily contained within this motion. As you will be aware, Madam Acting Deputy President, since this notice was given it has become clear we are likely to have an extra sitting week of the Senate. My expectation is that, if the Senate agrees to this order, then the Leader of the Government in the Senate obviously will indicate on behalf of the government a different time frame.I acknowledge that that would be appropriate in this circumstance, but I think the best and simplest course of action for the Senate to take is for the will of the Senate to be tested by my seeking formality in relation to this motion. My expectation is that there would be consultation and discussion between the opposition and the government on an appropriate time for the government to comply with that order. Therefore, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1190 be taken as a formal motion.10:08:004663Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—by leave—I am not sure what Senator Faulkner is getting at. If the Senate decides to pass the motion in its current form, will the requirement for 3.15 p.m. on 2 July be included or not? Are you saying there will be discussions between the opposition and the government as to the best way of handling this?10:09:004663Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—Senator Harradine, you do go to the point of the issue that I raised before the chair. Given that today is 2 July, I would not expect the government to comply with an order of the Senate, if it is agreed to, by 3.15 this afternoon. There are two choices here. The first would be to seek to amend the motion, by leave, so it would read Wednesday of next week. The difficulty is that probably there will not be agreement by the government to the order. Notice has not been given of that amendment. Subsequent to this notice being given, we now know that the Senate will sit for another week.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—The Senate hasn't decided that yet.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I appreciate that. That is why I made the point that I did. We are dealing with my seeking formality for this matter prior to a formal decision having been made by the chamber on its routine of business and sitting hours for the prospective sitting week next week. That is the difficulty we are in. This is my last opportunity to seek formality. My approach was to say that I appreciate the constraints because of the date. In this circumstance I would expect Senator Hill, on behalf of the government, to have some discussions with me, as the mover of the motion, to agree on a date, perhaps for Wednesday of next week. Given the circumstances that we face of this being the last technical opportunity to deal with the matter, it was my intention to proceed with seeking formality now. Senator Harradine, I acknowledge the point you made. My statement, by leave, was an attempt to address that, given these unusual circumstances.I ask the Senate to accept my request in the spirit in which it is made. I do this assuming that the government may well not accept formality. Formality may be agreed but, of course, the motion may not be agreed. That is the difficulty we are in. That is why I have asked the Senate to deal with it in that form. I assume the government would think that was sensible in the circumstances. I formally seek formality for the motion. As often happens with returns to order, we will probably have some discussions about what might be a date on which the government—if the order of the Senate is agreed to by the Senate—could comply.Motion (by Senator Faulkner) proposed:That there be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill), by no later than 3.15 pm on 2 July 1998, electorate issues briefs prepared by Commonwealth departments at the request of ministers and their offices.10:17:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V. *Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Neal, B. J. O'Brien, K. W. K.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.33Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Conroy, S. O'Chee, W. G.Gibbs, B. Ferris, J.Lundy, K. Synon, K. M.Quirke, J. A. Hill, R. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous4664Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the hepatitis C virus is commonly transmitted through blood-to-blood contact and that the most common means are from sharing needles or syringes or from unsafe tattooing or body piercing, (ii) less common means of transmission are from mother to baby at birth, sharing razors or toothbrushes or through sharps injuries, (iii) hepatitis C has not been found in the breastmilk of mothers with hepatitis C, (iv) fewer than one in 100 000 transmissions occurs through blood donation, (v) hepatitis C is not classified as a sexually transmitted disease, and (vi) research shows that sexual transmission of hepatitis C is rare;(b) calls on the Government to embark on a public awareness campaign about appropriate measures to prevent hepatitis C transmission and to correct recent misleading media articles which have suggested that hepatitis was a sexually transmitted disease; and(c) acknowledges the hurt and anxiety experienced by those who have hepatitis C and whose relationships are affected by misleading information on the virus. Miscellaneous466510:22:004665Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I seek leave to recommit the vote on Senator Faulkner's motion, as there was a mistake made in the pairing arrangements.Leave granted.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Patterson)—The question is that Senator Faulkner's motion be agreed to.10:23:004665Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—As you would know, Madam Acting Deputy President, the government knows that the opposition believes the principle of the will of the Senate being reflected on votes on the floor of the Senate is an important one, and there is no problem with the division being held again. However, the Manager of Government Business in the Senate is saying that there was a mistake made in the pairing arrangements. The pairing arrangements were precise. I think there was a difficulty in internal government arrangements in relation to Senator Colston's vote. I did not want there to be any suggestion that there is a reflection on the whips. Certainly, leave is granted for the division to be held again or for the vote to be taken again. On that basis, so that we are sure that the will of the Senate is reflected, that ought to be the way we proceed.10:24:004665Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—Certainly, what Senator Faulkner says is correct. The government has made its position in relation to the voting in the Senate absolutely clear and has stuck by that. When it comes to pairing on some of these votes, on some counts it is more like a baker's dozen on our side and a dozen on the other side.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous466510:24:004665Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Synon, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1195 be taken as formal.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is their any objection to the notice of motion be taken as formal?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—We are objecting.Bills4665s1724665Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, and for related purposes.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.466510:26:004665Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table the explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill 1998 proposes amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. This Act provides the legislative framework for the regulation of broadcasting services in Australia, including television and radio services transmitted by the free to air broadcasters, and the services provided by subscription broadcasters.The purpose of the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill is to improve opportunities for the live television coverage of designated events and series by introducing an `anti-hoarding' regime for free to air broadcasters, and to introduce a new retransmission regime which will require pay TV operators wishing to retransmit free to air radio or television broadcasting services to seek the consent of the originating broadcaster.Under the current provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act, free to air broadcasters are given priority access to the purchase of broadcasting rights to a number of major sporting events. These events are set out in the anti-siphoning list and include, for example, games in the Australian Football League competition, international matches involving the senior Australian representative cricket team, and games in the National Rugby League competition.While the anti-siphoning rules have been widely understood as conferring a power on the Minister to ensure that certain events are broadcast on free to air television, there is nothing in the legislation to actively encourage free to air broadcasters to exercise the rights they have acquired. For example, after obtaining the rights to broadcast an important sporting event live, a free to air broadcaster may choose to delay coverage of the event, or even to televise only a small proportion of the event.One course of action open to the Minister is to remove events from the anti-siphoning list. However, this is unlikely to be effective in situations where the free to air broadcasters who have acquired rights to a major series decide, often at short notice, not to televise all of the events. Such a situation occurred in 1997 when the Nine Network decided not to show the first session of play in the test matches of the Ashes cricket series being played in England. Australia went on to win that exciting series, but many cricket supporters were extremely disappointed that they could not view Australia's important victory in full on free to air television.These developments underline the need for a strengthening of the current legislative provisions to combat hoarding, while providing alternative avenues for coverage of important events and series on free to air television.Therefore, the government has decided to amend the Broadcasting Services Act by introducing an `anti-hoarding rule'. The proposed scheme consists of a `must offer' obligation to be imposed on free to air broadcasters and their regular program suppliers who have live rights to designated events or series but who do not intend to facilitate live television coverage of these events. Free to air commercial broadcasters in this situation will have to offer the unused rights to the ABC and SBS for a nominal charge. The ABC and SBS will have to offer such rights to each other in similar circumstances.The operation of these anti-hoarding amendments will be confined to events and series designated by the Minister. It is envisaged that the Ministerial designation power will be used only in limited circumstances. For example, the Minister may designate an event or series where there is a widespread public expectation, based on past practice, that the event or series will be televised live and in full on free to air television. Such a designation will be a disallowable instrument in order to enable scrutiny by the Parliament.This bill also amends the Broadcasting Services Act to provide for a new retransmission regulatory regime, and to make consequential amendments to other legislation. In addition, the bill amends the Broad casting Services Act to prevent the programs of metropolitan commercial television services from being freely imported into regional areas as part of a pay television service, thereby preserving the integrity of commercial television licence areas.The introduction of a new retransmission regime will overcome an anomaly in the current retransmission rules which allows pay TV operators to retransmit free to air television and radio services without the agreement of the originating broadcaster or the payment of any compensation for the use of intellectual property which belongs to others. The existing retransmission provisions were directed at facilitating `self-help' arrangements and were not intended to be used for commercial advantage.Complementary arrangements will be made in legislative proposals which will amend the Copyright Act 1968 to provide for a new broadly-based technology-neutral right of communication to the public and will require pay TV operators to compensate owners of underlying copyright material in broadcasts for the retransmission of those broadcasts.The government has consulted widely with all relevant interest groups over a considerable period of time on this issue and their views have been taken into account in developing these legislative proposals.The new retransmission regime will only provide for retransmission of free to air broadcasting services without the agreement of the originating broadcaster in situations where this is considered to be in the public interest, for example, in remote areas and for `self help' purposes.In all other cases the consent of the free to air broadcasters will be required before their services will be able to be retransmitted.Through retransmission a large number of Australians receive improved reception of free to air signals and some Australians receive channels they would not otherwise receive due to poor or no reception. Retransmissions enable pay TV operators to offer their customers a greater range of channels and at the same time enables the free to air operators to have their programs more widely distributed.There is a clear mutual interest in both free to air broadcasters and pay TV operators reaching agreement on such retransmissions.In the interests of television viewers, the government expects the free to air and pay TV operators to reach reasonable arrangements and as part of this process that the free to air broadcasters will not extract exorbitant fees from the pay TV licensees which are then passed onto the pay TV subscribers.The current `self help' arrangements which allow retransmission of national broadcasting services, and commercial and community broadcasting services within the licence areas of the broadcasters, for the purpose of obtaining or improving reception, without the consent of the originating broadcaster or the need for the compensation of copyright owners are to be continued. This is in line with the recommendations made by the Copyright Convergence Group in its 1994 Report Highways to Change.The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill will also introduce a regional preference rule to ensure that pay TV subscribers, in regions where licence areas of regional and metropolitan commercial television services overlap, continue to have access to their local free to air television services on their pay TV systems where retransmitted services are available.The government wishes to maintain the integrity of the licence area concept on which licensed broadcasting services are based. Therefore, all retransmissions outside the licence area of commercial and community broadcasters will be prohibited except with the written permission of the Australian Broadcasting Authority. For the same reason, this requirement is to be extended to the re-broadcast of programming on regional pay TV services which is substantially similar to metropolitan commercial television services.As it will be necessary to make changes to the Copyright Act to complement the amendments relating to the new retransmission regime, it is proposed that these amendments commence on Proclamation. Proclamation will be timed to enable the retransmission provisions of the bill and the amendments to the Copyright Act to come into effect at the same time. This timing will also allow the parties the opportunity to make preliminary arrangements and undertake the necessary commercial negotiations prior to the new retransmission scheme coming into operation.The amendments in this bill are expected to have no significant impact on Commonwealth expenditure or revenue.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned until the first sitting day of the spring sittings 1998, in accordance with standing order 111.Committees46674667466710:26:004667Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Sandy Macdonald, I present the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Publications.Ordered that the report be adopted.4667466710:27:004667Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I present the second report of the Economics References Committee on outworkers in the garment industry, together with submissions and the transcript of evidence.Ordered that the report be printed.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I wish to advise the Senate that only a limited number of photocopies of this report are currently available from the committee secretariat and the Senate Table Office. The report will be loaded onto the Internet later today and printed copies are expected to be available by the end of the week.This report indicates that the committee has concluded a rather lengthy process in dealing with the matter of outworkers in the garment industry. It was some time ago that Senator Sid Spindler referred this matter—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many conversations going on in the chamber. Senators, please resume your seats or leave the chamber.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—I thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President, for giving me the opportunity to highlight the importance of this report. As I indicated a moment ago, this matter was first referred to the Senate Economic References Committee some time ago by the former Senator Sid Spindler. The committee reported in December 1996 but at that time there were a number of ongoing issues in relation to the problems associated with outworkers in the garment industry. The committee determined to review progress in a further 12 months and this report indicates the culmination of that review.I would like to take this opportunity in tabling the report to congratulate the committee secretariat and members of the committee for completing this process on the important issue of the exploitation of outworkers in the garment industry and how we may deal with resolving some of the problems. In tabling this report, I am pleased to be able to indicate that there has been significant progress, with voluntary action within the industry, in coming to a homeworkers code of practice which will impact on a significant number of workers in the garment industry who are faced by potential exploitation as outworkers. I congratulate the union and the Council of Textile and Fashion Industries on the work they have done in furthering this voluntary code of practice.The report notes that, while significant progress has been made, there are areas where further assistance is needed: firstly, in furthering the work that has been done with this voluntary code of practice; and secondly, in respect of those areas within the industry where voluntary action will never reach. The report notes that the government can still take action to assist the voluntary action within the industry.The first comment I will highlight within the report is in relation to the TCF Advisory Board. The committee congratulates the government on establishing this board but indicates that a working party or committee, specifically focused on outworker issues, would probably further the work done to date in relation to outworkers. The committee suggests accordingly.The committee also indicates that, with respect to government assistance in the textile, clothing and footwear industry, the government should look at ensuring that, where industry assistance and the like is directed into this industry, it is not directed towards furthering the exploitation that is occurring in some sectors. Therefore, the majority members of the committee recommend that only retailers and manufacturers who are signatory to voluntary agreements with respect to the employment of outworkers should benefit from industry assistance and support.Finally, as many note in many sectors in industry, government procurement practices can play a significant role in the functioning of an industry. The committee also suggests that the federal government follow the lead of the New South Wales government by directing departments and agencies which deal with clothing procurement to enter into a home workers code of practice or deed of cooperation along the lines of the New South Wales code.This report touches the important question of areas within the industry where voluntary action will never reach. There is still an estimated 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the work force which will never be reached by voluntary action, and which requires regulation if we are going to prevent some of the extreme forms of exploitation that have been highlighted to the committee, such as workers working for $2 an hour.Perhaps the most topical of those relates to the award review process. We are today in the wake of the award simplification changes coming into full force. The majority members of the committee note that the government's interpretation of the outworker allowable matter has been very narrow indeed and that, if the commission were to take such a narrow perspective, some of the protections currently in place within the Clothing Trades Award, for instance, would be removed from the award and we would be taking steps backwards in relation to the employment conditions of outworkers.The problem here, as I said, is one of a very narrow interpretation. You can take a narrow interpretation of what is directly related to pay and conditions of employment for outworkers, as the government appears to have done in its representations to the committee to date, or you can take a broader perspective which says that mechanisms need to exist in the award to ensure that the pay and conditions of outworkers are enforced.For instance, as we noted in our first report, being able to trace the chain of parties involved in the production of a garment is absolutely vital to ensuring that outwork is conducted in an appropriate fashion. Some of the award provisions such as clauses 26, 27 and 27A of the Clothing Trades Award in fact ensure that that is possible. If they are removed from the award, it will not be possible to trace that chain and it will not be possible to enforce appropriate pay and conditions for outworkers.The second area we comment on in relation to regulation is the clarification of the em ployment status of outworkers. The problem is whether outworkers are regarded as employees or individual contractors. Unfortunately, during the 18 months since our last report, not much progress has occurred in looking at how this situation might be resolved as we recommended. The department of workplace relations response to the committee's request for further information in this area essentially again relies on the jurisdictional arguments that it is difficult in the federal jurisdiction to pick up coverage of independent contractors and therefore perhaps, as the union has suggested, deem them to be employees.However, the majority members of the committee note that in relation to the government picking up the jurisdiction to cover Victorian employees at the federal level they did in fact pick up the jurisdiction to cover independent contractors in relation to freedom of association. So, quite rightly, the committee notes, `Well, if we can do it for freedom of association, why can we not do it with respect to outwork.'This issue is still yet to be considered further by the government and the states, and we hope that what the committee raises here will be considered accordingly. We state that it appears to be a problem of political will. We hope that that comment will be taken into account. One other area of concern raised with respect to what the government has done to date in the intervening 18 months relates to the ILO convention with respect to homework. The report highlights that the government has been delaying dealing with ILO convention 177 with respect to homework. The committee feels this is totally unsatisfactory and the government should undertake to resolve the matter quickly. The government has indicated on a few occasions now that it has not met its reporting obligations, and the committee notes accordingly that this is inappropriate. I would like to conclude on one final area, and that is in relation to child labour. Unfortunately, the department indicated to the committee that it was not a recognised problem in Australia. The committee received correspondence from a number of outworkers which seemed to indicate children are in jeopardy. (Time expired)10:38:004669Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—I wish to speak only briefly to the report entitled Review of outworkers in the garment industry in response to a couple of matters that have been raised. Firstly, can I also add my thanks to the secretariat of the economics committee. It is a very hardworking secretariat because it handles a enormous number of bills as well as a number of inquiries. They really do an excellent job. I can do nothing more than add to the congratulations of Senator Jacinta Collins for the work that the committee does, particularly in this area.I would also like to congratulate Senator Collins on the cooperative manner in which she has gone about both this inquiry and a number of others that we have been involved with. It proves that, if you seek to try to work with a common resolve, it can often be done. Senator Collins has done a very good job in making sure that, in our own quiet way, we have been able to get the report down with the minimum of fuss.This is probably one of the most important inquiries that I have been on in this committee. I think we started the inquiry in 1995, and there was the opportunity for this review at a later stage. Even during that inquiry there was a great deal of cooperation and bipartisanship in preparing the initial report. It does not matter what side of politics you were on, it was easy to recognise there was a potential problem. In some cases, it was thought that it was only a perceived problem. But the report identified lots of areas where we were all in agreement that conditions existed that should not exist in Australia. At the outset of the inquiry I also said that we would have to be very careful in our considerations because we needed to make sure that, at the conclusion of the inquiry, the people we were trying to assist would thank us for what we were doing and not find themselves without a job or without any work at all. Depending on what the inquiry reported, it is possible that manufacturers may move offshore in search of cheaper costs of production. We had the difficult circumstances of trying to make sure not only that the people who were doing the outwork in this country were receiving due reward for the efforts that they made but also that they were not pricing themselves out of the market.The government agreed with the general thrust of this additional review on what had happened. For that reason, we said that we were quite supportive of the general thrust of the report. However, I must say our philosophical differences mean that it was impossible to have a unanimous view on the details of every issue that was raised in the review. Those people reading the report and the statement that was made by government senators at the end of the report would understand that we heartily endorse many of the things that were said in the review. However, there were some criticisms of government actions and government attitudes to some of the issues raised in the bulk of the report. Our philosophical differences basically mean that it was impossible for us to make it a unanimous report. So we sought to make a statement at the end to clarify our position on those issues rather than put in a minority report—or any other form—to explain the position of the government.I conclude by saying that the one thing about this whole inquiry which started in 1995 was that, because the inquiry was held, just the fact that we were looking into those matters has made great gains for the people in the industry—not only for outworkers but also for the attitude of contractors and manufacturers. There was a lot of publicity in 1995 and 1996 when the inquiry was initially held. It proves that the very fact that Senate inquiries of this nature are being held stirs some action amongst those people who are affected—at both the employee and employer ends—into concluding some agreements which leaves the whole outworking industry in a far better shape than it was when we first started the inquiry. With those few short remarks, we concurred with much of what was said in the report that was tabled by Senator Collins.10:44:004670Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I wish to make a few comments on the report of the Economics References Committee entitled Review of outworkers in the garment industry . It is, as both of the previous speakers have indicated, both an interesting and topical report. I remember back in the middle and early 1980s that this issue of outworkers received an enormous amount of press with alleged exploitation of home based labour and improper use of predominantly female and migrant labour. The issue then went off the radar horizon, if you like, in the later part of the 1980 and the middle 1990s, from memory.It is interesting that this issue of outworkers has now come squarely back on the agenda in the last two or three years. In a broader sense, it squarely raises issues such as free trade, fair trade, migration policy in this country and the obligations we as a nation owe to that segment of the labour force that we import into this country, which is predominantly non-English speaking, female and, by and large, unskilled and not able to access appropriate welfare benefits or proper employment as everyone else in this chamber usually experiences. It raises also the issues of industry policy and the nature of the industries we want to attract and retain over the next quarter of a century in this country. Do we want to have high value industries that offer interesting and innovative work and that can afford to pay high wages to their work force? Within the TCF industries there are large sectors that, indeed, can be characterised as high value and which can afford to pay high wages. The design, advertising and display sectors of the textile industry, and clothing that is produced for designer purchase for females and quality suits and other garments for males, are all high value productions for a range of reasons, and hence those sectors can afford to pay high wages.In another sense, the TCF industries are critical to the industrial development of all nations around the world—in particular, in those seeking to depart from the traditional agricultural base as their main source of production and come into the industrial world. They are critical now in developing countries in Africa, the Middle East, the subcontinent and parts—only parts—of Asia. They were critical 25 years ago in what are now referred to as the high performing East Asian countries—particularly Singapore, Malaysia and South Korea. They are critical now to the other countries I mentioned because the development of those industries within domestic economies allows surplus production—or savings at a national level through the credit system—to be transferred to other industries which are higher up the value chain and which contribute to the industrial development of a particular nation.The TCF industries are also of value, of course, to those sectors of agricultural production within particular countries where surplus labour can be used for clothing production and thus help develop additional savings within regions of those countries. Either way, at a national level where savings are developed, additional moneys can be allocated to investment in other industries and the living standards of all in particular nations and regions increase over time.The fact that, in 1998, in still—in both relative and absolute terms—one of the richest countries of the world, we continue to need public inquiries—two in two years—and continuing reviews by the Senate into the nature of employment in the clothing, textile and fashion industries in this country is nothing short of a national disgrace. One does not blame the large numbers of Middle Eastern and Arabic labour in New South Wales or the predominantly Asian labour that seeks employment in significant sectors of Victoria and South Australia. Those people are not to be blamed in any way for seeking employment, for seeking to raise their living standards, for seeking to offer benefits to their families over time.But one does question the huge costs kicked back to government which are associated with the willy-nilly development of those sectors of low wage industry in those states. The committee has had reported to it on many occasions the huge cost in injury to workers: hospitalisation of those affected workers; continuing and declining health of those workers and their families and family members; and the increased access needed to pension, disability and welfare benefits because of the exploitation of labour in those industries in those states. Indeed, a number of references in the report itself implicitly acknowledge that. Paragraphs 1.7 to 1.17, which address the homeworkers code of practice, are essentially an attempt to impose regulation on the industry. This will also, one presumes, increase the cost to those participants in the industry which will necessarily encourage and result in innovation and efficiencies.Paragraphs 1.18 to 1.21 address government procurement practices and are, again, an attempt to impose or enforce certain minimum standards on industry or those sectors of industry that wish to cater to or attain government purchasing contracts.The critical paragraphs are 1.22 to 1.25, which address government assistance. If the recommendations of opposition senators are accepted, they will go a long way to cleaning up the abuses in the industry. As we say quite specifically and clearly, if the employers and the manufacturers involved in the industry are to receive government assistance, they should sign up to a particular code of practice. We understand and hope that the consequences of that will be that employment practices improve in the industry, both in terms of increased costs incurred by employers in the industry and in the practice of having large numbers of non-English speaking females and their children, from the ages of eight to 14, engaged in the industry. These are children who should be at school and engaging in other activities that our children engage in.We trust that if those companies sign up to this code of practice and adhere to the standards and hence receive government assistance, then the standards in the industry will improve, costs will increase, and some of those terrible abuses that occur will cease. Abuses have been reported to the committee from parts of Victoria and New South Wales and, to a lesser extent, in South Australia. We need to eliminate these and to ensure they do not come back onto our radar horizon in another three or four years time. That is a necessary consequence of government assistance and, one presumes, part and parcel of the intent of the drafters of that particular regulation.In conclusion, I wish to make a few comments on the introductory paragraphs about deeming outworkers as employees, in the additional comments made by government senators. Under the heading `Deeming outworkers as employees', government senators say:It is reasonable for an outworker to make a legitimate choice whether to be an employee or an independent contractor. Deeming provisions would eliminate that ability to choose. Therefore deeming provisions, in absolute terms, are not supported.That is not a proposition that the opposition senators can support. Senator Ferguson, in his remarks, commented that there had been considerable bipartisanship in the work of this committee and preparation of this report, and he acknowledged the work of Senator Collins in that respect, and, indeed, we return the favour. However, he did say that there was a fundamental matter of principle that caused government senators to prepare additional comments to this report, and he is right. It does go to that fundamental issue of choice because we do not believe that it is entirely necessary, proper or desirable in the interests of individual workers, of those industries in those states or of this nation as a whole, for individual employees to be choosing to categorise themselves as—(Time expired)10:54:004672Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I wish to speak briefly on the outworker inquiry. May I precede my remarks by complimenting both the chair of the committee, Senator Collins, the deputy chair, Senator Ferguson, and the members of the committee for the manner and the method adopted for the inquiry. Frankly, the economics committee, in my term on it, which is now two years, has always been populated by people who, whilst they may have strong political and personnel differences, are extremely cooperative and judicious in the way in which they deal with issues. Several members of that committee are here, and I record the thanks of the Democrats for the way in which they approach an exceptionally heavy workload. In doing so, we thank the secretariat for their approach too.The outworker issue is dear to the heart of the Democrats, and it was former Democrat Senator Spindler, my predecessor on the committee, who did, in fact, initiate the reference. I must say, it is to the credit of every other party that has been involved that the issue of outworkers has been wholly embraced. Despite what Senator Ferguson described as a philosophical difference on a few points, which Senator Bishop characterised as fundamental differences, I have had no doubt whatsoever that all parties wished to see the conditions, status, nature, protection, health, safety, welfare and remuneration, in the bigger sense, of outworkers improved. That broad attitude has driven the committee to produce what is another helpful milestone in advancing the cause of the outworkers.Having acknowledged the work of former Democrat Senator Spindler, I must also acknowledge the government with regard to outworkers because it was in negotiations between minister Peter Reith, me and my adviser, John Cherry, that the outworkers, for the very first time, gained recognition in our national industrial relations legislation. That was a direct result of a government and Democrat agreement. On that hook, I hope that we can hang the clothing, if you like, of much better consequences for that class of workers.In particular, it is important to us that the government does not view the award provisions and the general industrial relations provisions for outworkers narrowly. It is important that, with them entering the formal machinery of industrial relations for the first time—and I say for the first time because the act was proclaimed on 1 January 1997, so it is only a little over 18 months old—the Industrial Relations Commission takes as broad and as flexible an approach to outworkers involvement in the formal machinery of industrial relations, certainly to begin with. Later on you can iron out the problems with perhaps unintended consequences, which I think is what Senator Ferguson was implying with his note about philosophical differences, or a fundamental problem, which I think is what Senator Bishop was fearing.Frankly, none of us can yet see where the road will take us and how well those people's welfare and needs will be improved. All I know is that the work of the committee has exhibited for me the very best of Senate and parliamentary work whereby we have been able, on a cross-party basis, not a bipartisan basis, to genuinely advance the cause of outworkers quite considerably in cooperation with the unions, who have done an outstanding job on this particular issue, and many of the major employers, who have also done an outstanding job. I am hopeful and optimistic, in fact, that outworkers lives will be improved as a result of the work done by this committee and its predecessors, by the government, with regard to the Workplace Relations Act, and by the unions and employers in the broader community. That said, we recognise there are many deficiencies and problems, and those are clearly identified by Senator Collins in her remarks and in her report.Since so many of those outworkers were not English speaking when they arrived here—and many of them are probably still not English speaking—and many of them are not Caucasian, I cannot not help wondering whether the committee would have had a much more difficult time coming to a consensual agreement if it had had a One Nation person in there, with their peculiar attitudes to people who are not necessarily of Anglo-Saxon stock, such as those I am addressing right now. In that sense, I am very glad that the committee completed its work before the possible entry of One Nation into the Senate after the next election.Having said that, I urge the chair and the deputy chair of the committee to keep the matter on the agenda. I think they have done exceptionally well, with a bit of help from the rest of us. We should continue to look for ways in which we can advance the cause of those workers who are probably the most disadvantaged, the weakest and at most risk in our existing system.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Murray, do you seek leave to continue your remarks?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Yes. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I call Senator Calvert.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Excuse me, Mr Acting Deputy President, I think I was next to be called in relation to this report.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You should actually stand so that the chair can recognise you.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—I did.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I had encouraged Senator Murray, when nobody stood in the chamber, to seek leave to continue his remarks so that the report could continue on the Notice Paper . There was nobody standing when I asked Senator Murray to do that, but I will call you now.11:01:004673Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I apologise for that, Mr Acting Deputy President. Perhaps I should have been more speedy in getting to my feet.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It would help.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—There was some momentary confusion there. I wish to make some short remarks on the report of the Economics References Committee entitled Outworkers in the garment industry . I would also join with Senator Murray in thanking the secretariat for the work they have done on the outworkers report. I would also extend my congratulations to the chair, Senator Jacinta Collins, and the deputy chair, Senator Ferguson, for what was a very strongly cooperative approach on this critical issue. I came on to the Economics References Committee at a point when most of the hearings on the outworkers inquiry had already been conducted. In his absence, I would also like to pay tribute to Senator Childs, who is no longer with us—C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—In the chamber.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—in the Senate. I understand he is leading a very satisfactory and happy life outside of the Senate at the moment. I guess many of us at this point would envy him that opportunity. Senator Childs was very committed to this issue and, together with Senator Collins, they were the two Labor members of the committee who conducted most of the work on this inquiry.I would like to refer briefly by way of background to the fact that, as was indicated yesterday by Senator George Campbell, yesterday was D-day for the award simplification process. It is ironic that we are now considering this report in the context of, from our perspective, what was and what will continue to be a very black time for workers in Australia with regard to the award strip back and award simplification process that is required to take place under the Workplace Relations Act.The reality is that it is precisely this group of workers who will be most affected by the award strip back and award simplification process, in that they are probably the most vulnerable group of workers in Australia. As Senator Murray has already indicated, they are in the main women and children, and I would like to say a few words about that later. Also, as Senator Murray indicated, these workers are mainly from non-English speaking backgrounds and the majority are not Caucasian. They come to Australia with those difficulties and, therefore, they are ripe for exploitation by unscrupulous middle people and employers. That is very sad. The main point I would like to make is that most of them are women.The difficulty with the Workplace Relations Act and the industrial relations agenda of this government is that this group of workers are going to be most affected, and the type of exploitation that we have clearly seen with regard to outworkers, I believe, will balloon and become more common. That is very sad, but that is the difficulty when you are working towards a totally deregulated industrial relations environment and a totally deregulated labour market. The price one pays for that is a lack of protection and also a lack of security with regard to employment. So I think it is sad. With the award strip back process which is now in train, we will see more incidences of this cohort of workers being exploited in terms of the laissez faire approach of the government to industrial relations.However, I do recognise the veracity of Senator Ferguson's remarks. I believe that Senator Ferguson and other government members of the committee exhibited genuine concern with regard to the plight of outworkers. I am not intending to be personal about Senator Ferguson in particular, but I do understand that, as far as we on the opposition side are concerned, the government is effectively crying crocodile tears with regard to outworkers, because here we have the exemplification, if you like, of a group of workers with difficulties in terms of protection and exploitation. However, in terms of the comments of government members—EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—We must remember that you did nothing for 13 years. For 13 years, you had a chance to do something.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I will come to that. As I was saying, not a lot of substance actually goes to assisting it. I acknowledge what Senator Ferguson said: it has been a difficulty for a long time with regard to outworkers. One of the reasons why the inquiry was instigated was because Labor recognised that this needed to be looked at. The point I am attempting to make is that the workplace relations regime we currently work under is going to exacerbate what is already a difficult situation. It is going to make it significantly worse for that group of workers. I do not think that point is argued anywhere in the community these days.I will now turn briefly to the detail. I acknowledge the frustration of the Democrats that this matter has been included in one of the allowable matters. I appreciate that the government has not allowed interpretation in the fullest sense that Senator Murray alluded to. As a result, there is an incapacity to provide protection for those workers and to provide right of entry for union officials to trace through the somewhat Byzantine working arrangements and find out precisely where the difficulty is coming from. While I have a huge disagreement with the Democrats on what happened with the Workplace Relations Act, I appreciate that they did make an attempt on the allowable matters front.On the notion of choice, which the government members referred to in sections of the report, the notion of choice here is, to say the least and probably to be more charitable than I feel, somewhat ephemeral in its application. The reality is that if these people are not deemed employees they will have even more difficulties than they currently have. They are not independent contractors. Nobody who sat through those hearings could say that these people would want to be independent contractors. It is precisely that type of definitional difficulty which contributed to the exploitation that the committee saw so very starkly.I do not know how a child, for example—and Senator Ferguson knows what I am referring to—can deem him or herself to be an independent contractor. In many of these situations it is not simply the parents who are involved but also the children. Not only that, but what is happening in this country is illegal in terms of children working. I think the notion of choice, as we have found with a number of policy initiatives by this government, is ephemeral and, in reality, there is not a choice. Time does not permit me to go through the litany of examples I have with regard to this provision.I conclude by commending the committee for the report, and indicate that I enjoyed the time I had on this inquiry.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—You were going to say something about your 13 years when you did not do anything.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I was going to pay another tribute to Senator Ferguson, but now I will not. I pay tribute to Senator Jacinta Collins, who has done a sensational job on the report. I appreciate that the sentiment was certainly there, Senator Ferguson, in terms of being sympathetic to the plight of these workers, but I fear that the concrete action that was required was, unfortunately, sadly lacking on the part of the government.4675Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I seek leave to continue my remarks later on the report that has just been so well spoken to by Senator Mackay.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Miscellaneous46754675467511:12:004675Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—I present, on behalf of Senator Gibson, additional information received by the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee in response to the 1998-99 budget estimates hearings.Committees46754675467511:12:004675Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee entitled The incidence and management of Ovine Johnes disease in the Australian sheep flock , together with submissions and the Hansard record of the proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I point out to the Senate that at this stage the report is in a photocopied form and that the printed form of the report will be available next week. This inquiry quickly turned into a much more complex issue than anyone thought it would at the beginning. I pay tribute to and compliment Senator Kerry O'Brien for his persistence in moving this inquiry. At the beginning, no-one thought it was the issue it turned out to be. I think the Senate owes Senator O'Brien a debt for being persistent in having this reference carried through.An issue that became very clear as we proceeded into the inquiry was that one of the questions is certainly about the science of testing, and the possibility of any cure or vaccine which might be available really depends on what at this stage is incomplete science. We must get the science right in terms of this particular issue, and that remains to be concluded. For that reason, this is an interim report. The committee will continue to monitor the issue. I believe that it will revisit the issue when the actions taken by the federal government—belatedly, I might say—have had time to have some effect.We believe that this issue cannot be dealt with any longer by the states in isolation. Part of the problem has been the inaction of the New South Wales state government over many years. The government, having been notified in the early 1980s that this disease was prevalent in the Australian sheep flock, did not do anything for many years. The over-reaction of the Victorian government caused quite a serious problem for many sheep growers who discovered Ovine Johnes disease in their flocks and had to have all the flocks disposed of. That has caused some really serious problems for some of those growers.We believe that the federal government must be involved. We are pleased that at long last it is becoming involved in this issue. It will have to put in some serious resources. The committee is prepared to wait and see just what comes out of the various actions and projected actions that will be taken. We were told in evidence on a number of occasions that, while a number of properties have been notified as having Ovine Johnes disease, the real number could be three to 10 times that number. If that is so, we really have a very large issue on our hands.I particularly thank Andrew Snedden and John O'Keefe for their work in keeping this issue going and in writing the report we have before us. I also want to thank those who gave evidence. For many of them, it was a very emotional experience. They were talking about the devastation of their livelihoods and of the loss of flocks, particularly of the genetics in some of those flocks which are very important to sheep growers. You can imagine that at times the hearings were quite emotional. I compliment those who gave evidence. Even though it was a very emotional experience for them, they were prepared to help the committee to understand the extent and outcome of their having discovered this disease within their flocks.The response of state governments has not always been appropriate. The tardiness of the federal government has also probably added to the emotional response that we had on the part of some witnesses. That is all I want to say at this stage. Again, I compliment the committee, the committee secretariat and Senator Kerry O'Brien for his persistence in having this reference brought to the attention of the committee.11:18:004676O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I thank Senator Woodley for those kind remarks. I too would like to thank the committee staff for their work and time in relation to the preparation of this report and the gathering of evidence for it. It is important to note that this committee travelled to parts of Australia that probably a lot of Australians have not been to. I am not saying that they are so far-flung but a lot of people have probably not travelled to them. In one day, we travelled from a Launceston hearing to a Flinders Island hearing and then travelled to Melbourne. On another day, we commenced hearings in Hamilton, travelled to a Bairnsdale hearing and then travelled back to Melbourne. We have also had hearings in Orange in New South Wales and in Canberra as well as in Melbourne.The work of Hansard staff was quite remarkable. They set up in a short time to record the evidence. They then dismantled and packed their equipment and loaded it on the aircraft to travel to another part of the country. They would then set up the equipment again, record more evidence and then dismantle it again in time for us to get a plane out for the next venue. I want to acknowledge that none of these committees could function properly without the very valuable assistance of Hansard.I also want to acknowledge the work of Jack Lake, my staffer, who has been of great assistance. I know that a lot of people have been in contact with Jack when I have been in the chamber or away on committee business. He keeps me updated on just what has been happening in the industry. It would be inappropriate for me not to acknowledge the very important work that Jack Lake has done in assisting me in pursuing this matter and getting a grip on all the information that I need to pursue the matter.In relation to the evidence that the committee received, I have to say that this committee's report is part of its inquiry into Ovine Johnes disease. Unfortunately, it provides yet another illustration of the lack of leadership by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Anderson. Unfortunately, it took the minister some time to come to the view that OJD was a national problem rather than a regional one. He is reported as saying on 14 November 1997, on the question of a national eradication program for Ovine Johnes disease:It is a question of the state governments and their various instrumentalities as well as industry agreeing on a national approach. And I have to say to you at the moment that that is not at this stage showing me overwhelmingly convincing signs of developing. Western Australia has a different perspective on this. Therefore, I just say that a watertight case with national agreement is a prerequisite for me being able to reasonably put this before the Commonwealth government.Unfortunately, in the end, although the minister indicated he was not going to involve himself in this matter, he had to. It is good that he has done that to date. I think this report reflects the activities of the Commonwealth government in that regard, which, in effect, commenced earlier this year with the commissioning of a consultant's report on this matter.Unfortunately, by the time the Commonwealth became involved, the Victorian government had chosen to launch its own campaign, with, I might say, disastrous results for a number of growers in that state. At the end of 1996 that state launched an eradication campaign which, I suggest, was ill-considered technically and offered inadequate compensation to growers who were either forced or persuaded to destock their flock.A key recommendation in this report is a request to the Victorian government to immediately review the level of compensation paid to growers who were required to destock their properties as part of the state's eradication program. A study by Mr Andrew Patterson, an economist with the Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment, found that producers would lose between $22 and $47 a head, following destocking and the payment of compensation under the Victorian scheme. On the evidence we have received, it appears to me that these producers have been badly treated and that the Victorian government must revisit this matter, as I am sure this committee will with further inquiry into the matter.A number of witnesses gave evidence to the committee that the Victorian scheme itself was badly flawed, and there was considerable evidence criticising the approach of the Victorian government to the control of the disease. That is the basis of the committee's findings in this regard. Producers told the committee that not only was the basic process wrong but there was a lack of counselling, information and support for affected farmers. The Victorian program was also described in evidence as not coherent, but as a series of ad hoc decisions made after hasty consultation with a committee with limited technical expertise.The Victorian government, unfortunately, did not even bother to make a submission to the inquiry, despite the importance of this issue to hundreds of farmers in that state. Despite the fact that the committee formally wrote to the responsible minister, Mr McNamara, at the commencement of the inquiry inviting his input, he chose not to respond at all.The Victorian Farmers Federation was also subject to criticism, particularly in relation to the amount and quality of information it supplied to its members concerning the Victorian scheme. The minister, Mr McNamara, after evidence was taken in Victoria, was provided with all submissions to the committee, together with the Hansard of the committee's Victorian hearings. Senators will note that the report says:The committee received no reply and was disappointed in this apparent lack of interest by the Kennett Government in the experiences of Victorian producers affected by the Victorian OJD program.Affected growers in New South Wales were also highly critical of the management plan applied in that state, with many producers suffering financial and social hardship as a result.A further recommendation is for the development of a strategy to assist those regions affected by OJD. This strategy must involve those communities as well as local, state and Commonwealth governments.The committee is of the view that the rural partnership program model, which was devel oped by the former Labor government, provides the best means of assisting these farmers. That model allows communities access to a range of services from the Commonwealth, state and territory governments in a single submission. It allows rural communities the opportunity to develop strategies to address complex issues in an integrated way, and it allows the three levels of government to coordinate the delivery of support and other programs.The committee also recommended that adequate funding be made available for ongoing research, and that is one of the key findings of the committee report. Research is the key to dealing with this disease. The problems with the approach taken to date in dealing with OJD has been a lack of political leadership and a lack of coordinated effort by all relevant agencies as well. As a consequence, main producers affected by the disease, and even producers in areas where the disease has been detected, have suffered severe economic and social hardship.This is the first report on this matter, and once the national plan of action to deal with OJD is finalised, the committee will further consider that plan and report back to the Senate. But there is a clear and urgent need for all levels of government to work together with affected communities to develop and implement plans to enable those communities to effectively deal with this problem. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.4678467811:27:004678Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Coonan, I present the 15th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties relating to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and treaties tabled on 1 April and 12 May 1998, and the 16th report entitled OECD Convention on Combating Bribery and draft implementation legislation , together with submissions, transcripts of evidence and minutes of proceedings. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to these reports and to incorporate the tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.C16Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNAN—I move:That the Senate take note of the reports.The statement read as follows—The Report I have just tabled is the Committee's response to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions , and to the draft enabling legislation which was also referred to us by the Minister for Justice.The Convention has been seen as a first step against international corruption which is a major global problem. Corruption can take many forms, including extortion, nepotism, cronyism, bribery and money laundering. It can be active or passive, ranging from active involvement to `turning a blind eye'.The effects of corruption can include distortions to trade, reduced economic competitiveness and fraudulent enrichment of elites in developing countries. It can extend to impacts on fragile economies and systems of government, and has played a part in causing many of the problems currently found in Asian and South East Asian countries.The OECD has 29 members and five other nations are also interested in this Convention. This is not a large group and, for example, it does not include any developing nations or South East Asian nations. The Committee agrees with those witnesses who stressed the importance of a multi-lateral approach to the global problem of corruption.It has recommended that Australia undertake through diplomatic channels the cooperation of other OECD members to work towards increasing the number of adherents to the Convention. Adherence to the Convention and passage of complementary domestic legislation should also be raised by Australia with members of the South Pacific Forum and the Association of South East Asian nations.The Committee has recommended that Australia should sign and ratify the Convention as soon as practicable.We also consider that the draft enabling legislation, the Criminal Code Amendment (Bribery of Foreign Public Officials) Bill 1998, as amended by our recommendations, be introduced into the Parliament as soon as practicable. The Committee is of the view that the legislation will be both more effective and enforceable if its recommendations are adopted.The scope and objectives of the Bill are limited to dealing with `grand corruption'. Many witnesses addressed a wide range of issues in their submissions and verbal evidence. Because of the narrow scope and objectives of the Bill, it was not always possible to consider some of these matters, but the contribution made by all those who forwarded sub missions and gave evidence has been very much appreciated.Among the many matters raised by the Convention and the draft Bill which were addressed and on which we made recommendations, two of the most important and conceptually difficult were the treatment of facilitation benefits and jurisdiction. The Committee believes that the approach it has suggested in each of these matters in particular will increase the effectiveness and enforceability of the Bill.Facilitation benefits .Facilitation benefits are small payments or benefits provided in some countries to public officials for non-discretionary, routine governmental actions, such as the connection of a telephone, in order to carry out business.The Bill provides two options for dealing with facilitation benefits:. that the amount of the benefit was less than a threshold amount, yet to be specified, and. a formulation which would leave the decision about a particular benefit to a jury by specifying that the benefit was `small'.The Committee did not favour the option of providing a threshold amount for a facilitation benefit. There is an obvious difficulty in capping a transaction that may be paid by instalments. Moreover, currency fluctuations might turn a transaction which is a permissible facilitation benefit one day into a prohibited bribe the next.Nor were we attracted to leaving facilitation benefits to prosecutorial direction on the basis that a benefit was `small' and not worth pursuing, or that prosecution would be too difficult or too expensive to pursue a relatively minor offence. Another criticism of this option was that a small payment in some circumstances may be a large benefit in others.An alternative approach can be found in the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended in 1988. Based on a purposive approach, this provides an exception to a charge of bribery if the benefit was paid for provision of a `routine governmental action', such as the provision of a document to which the payer would have been entitled to in any event.It is clear that many Australian businesses and individuals have to provide facilitation benefits to carry on business overseas. The Committee accepts that there should not be potential exposure to criminal convictions for such conduct. We consider that the legislation should therefore spell out as clearly as possible that it is the purpose for which a benefit is provided which could make it illegal, rather than the amount. Jurisdiction .The offence created by the legislation applies to conduct within and outside Australia, unless providing or offering the benefit occurs wholly within Australia. That is, it provides a territorial nexus so that, to establish an offence, there must be a territorial connection with Australia or it territories.Once it is accepted that the conduct sought to be proscribed is essentially international criminal activity likely to take place wholly outside Australia, the question is whether imposing a territorial nexus as a precondition to the exercise of jurisdiction over such an offence will render the legislation ineffective and unenforceable.In an increasingly globalised world, it is the Committee's belief that both effectiveness and enforceability would be reduced if jurisdiction was limited to only partial territoriality. We therefore consider that the Bill's objectives will be met more effectively if there is extra-territorial jurisdiction defined on as wide a basis as possible. The Report therefore recommends extension of jurisdiction for the proposed offence to any of territoriality, nationality, residence, place of incorporation or business operation.We have also recommended extension of jurisdiction on as wide an extra-territorial basis as possible to the ancillary offences to the primary offence of attempt, complicity, incitement and conspiracy to bribe, where they relate to conduct proscribed in the offence which occurred or was planned or expected to occur in Australia.Because conduct leading to the offence will almost always occur overseas, the Committee is aware that investigation and prosecution of alleged offences will be expensive. This could have significant resource implications for both the Australian Federal Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions.The Report includes recommendations on such other topics as the definitions in the draft Bill, resolution of any inconsistencies between the Bill and the legislation of the States and Territories, and examination of the feasibility of an education program to be undertaken by the Government with peak industry bodies about the provisions of the draft legislation.This inquiry was the first occasion on which draft enabling legislation had been referred to the Committee, together with a treaty. It has proved to be a worthwhile and challenging task, and I would like to thank all of my colleagues who participated in the inquiry.I commend the Report to the Senate.C16Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNAN—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills4680r5604680Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Kemp) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.468011:29:004680Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—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 puts in place arrangements that will fulfil the terms of the Commonwealth's offer of general revenue assistance to the States and Territories at the 1998 Premiers' Conference. The bill also provides authority for the Commonwealth to pay to the States and Territories the revenue it will collect in 1998-99 under the safety net arrangements which have been implemented to protect State and Territory revenues following the High Court decision in 1997 which severely curtailed the States' capacity to raise revenues through business franchise fees.The bill will amend the States Grants (General Purposes) Act 1994. The existing Act covers the provision of financial assistance for 1997-98, with interim arrangements for the continuation of payments for a maximum of six months. The bill extends for a further 12 months the provisions of the Act relating to the payment of financial assistance grants and State and Territory entitlements to payments under the safety net arrangements.The general revenue assistance to be appropriated by this bill is about $17.1 billion, or around 12 per cent of estimated Commonwealth outlays in 1998-99. Accordingly, these payments constitute a significant element of the Commonwealth Budget and have an important bearing on the spending and borrowing of the public sector as a whole. The States and Territories are able to allocate the funds provided by the Commonwealth under this Act according to their own budgetary priorities. In addition, revenue replacement payments to the States under the safety net arrangements are estimated to be $6.5 billion in 1998-99. The safety net arrangements are revenue neutral for the Commonwealth.I turn now to the elements of the bill which give effect to the Commonwealth's funding commitments to the States and Territories.The States and Territories will be provided with real per capita growth in financial assistance grants in 1998-99 and the real per capita guarantee for financial assistance grants will be extended to 2000-01. Amendments to the Act are consistent with the per capita element of the real per capita guarantee being conditional on States meeting the terms of the Agreement to Implement the National Competition Policy and Related Reforms. This Agreement also provides for up to $217.2 million in competition payments to the States and Territories in 1998-99. The views of the National Competition Council will be taken into consideration by the Commonwealth in deciding whether a State or Territory should receive the payments provided under the National Competition Policy Agreement in 1998-99.The major part of the assistance provided under this bill is the payment to each State and Territory of a share of the pool of financial assistance grants which is estimated to be about $16.8 billion in 1998-99. The distribution of financial assistance grants will be in accordance with equalisation per capita relativities recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its 1998 Update Report. The bill updates the per capita relativities accordingly and makes appropriate amendments to the definition in the Act of the amount of unquarantined health funding to be used for calculating the combined pool of financial assistance grants and health care grants.The Australian Capital Territory will also receive $25.0 million from the Commonwealth in 1998-99 in the form of transitional allowances and special fiscal needs. This payment is outside the scope of this bill and has been included in the Appropriation bills.The payment of financial assistance grants to the States and Territories will be conditional upon the States and Territories meeting their commitment to make fiscal contribution payments of $313.4 million in 1998-99. This represents a 50 per cent reduction from the total fiscal contribution of the States and Territories in 1997-98. State fiscal contributions will cease after 1998-99. The States and Territories agreed at the 1996 Premiers' Conference to make the fiscal contributions in recognition of the deficit reduction task required to stabilise the national economy. The Commonwealth's fiscal consolidation effort remains a cen tral priority, particularly in light of the recent instability in the Asian region.Since its election in March 1996 the Government has turned around the fiscal position of the Commonwealth from a budget deficit of $10.3 billion in 1995-96 to an expected surplus of $2.7 billion in 1998-99, with continued surpluses expected over the forward estimates period. The improvement in the Commonwealth's fiscal position has played a major role in shielding the economy against enormous volatility and instability in the Asian region. Continued fiscal improvement is essential if Australia's vulnerability to these and future external shocks is to be minimised.The Commonwealth will continue to provide States and Territories with maximum flexibility concerning the method of payment of the State fiscal contributions. A State's share can be paid by way of deductions from general revenue assistance, direct payments to the Commonwealth or a reduction in funding provided under a specific purpose grant. Provisions have been included in the bill to allow for States' 1998-99 fiscal contributions to be deducted from general revenue assistance.Finally I turn to the elements of the bill which relate to the safety net arrangements.The safety net measures introduced by the Commonwealth protect State and Territory revenues following the High Court decision of 5 August 1997 on State business franchise fees. The Commonwealth is using its tax powers to collect the revenue that the States and Territories previously collected by way of business franchise fees on petroleum products, tobacco and alcoholic beverages. The States and Territories acknowledge that this represents a State tax imposed and collected by the Commonwealth at their unanimous request and on their behalf.The proposed amendments provide authority for the Commonwealth to pay the States and Territories the revenue it collects under the safety net arrangements in 1998-99. These payments are estimated to be $6.5 billion in 1998-99.The amendments also include provisions which return to the States and Territories any tax revenues the Commonwealth might receive under the Franchise Fees Windfall Tax (Collection) Act 1997. This will ensure that State and Territory finances are protected from claims for refunds, on grounds of constitutional invalidity, of past payments of business franchise fees.As I noted earlier, the safety net arrangements are revenue neutral for the Commonwealth. Revenue replacement payments will simply return to the States and Territories amounts raised by the Commonwealth on their behalf, after allowing for Commonwealth administrative costs.I commend the bill to the Senate. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the first day of the 1998 spring sittings.Committees46814681468111:29:004681McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—I move:That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges:Whether there was an unauthorised disclosure of the report of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority on the committee's third evaluation of the National Crime Authority and, if so, whether any contempt was committed by that disclosure.I move this motion on behalf of the Chair of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority, Senator Ferris, although I am a member of the committee and am aware of the issue before the Senate that we seek to move off to the Senate Committee of Privileges.It should be noted that the procedure followed in this matter has been proper and has the unanimous support of the committee. I need only refer to the President's words on Tuesday when she determined that the motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee may have precedence. The President said:I am advised that the committee has followed the procedures laid down by the Senate in the resolution of 20 June 1996. This resolution requires that, in cases of unauthorised disclosure of committee documents, the committee concerned shall seek to discover the cause of the disclosure and come to a conclusion that the unauthorised disclosure has caused substantial interference with the work of the committee, before raising a matter of privilege under standing order 81. The committee having followed that procedure, the matter meets the criteria which I am required to consider.The matter relates to the following. The committee had undertaken a comprehensive inquiry into the procedures and authority of the National Crime Authority. It was entitled, `Third evaluation of the National Crime Authority'. The committee examined such matters as the constitution, role, functions and powers of the authority; the efficiency and effectiveness of the authority; the accounta bility and parliamentary supervision of the authority, and the need for any amendments of the National Crime Authority Act 1984.At the time, the inquiry was undertaken in an atmosphere of great publicity and controversy over the role and actions of the National Crime Authority. I need only remind the Senate of the criticism of the authority and the publicity given to it by Mr John Elliott, let alone his appearance before the committee. I think it is agreed that, in that atmosphere, there are very few committees like the one that deals with the National Crime Authority. That warrants the utmost confidentiality and the confidence of the general public—and, indeed, of this parliament—because the committee members are exposed to extremely sensitive briefings, particularly in relation to organised crime and investigations under way.This particular inquiry was no exception. It was important that the witnesses that came before the inquiry could be confident and assured that the evidence they gave, albeit in camera, would not find its way into the media and that it would remain confidential. Yet I have to say that this committee, during this inquiry, suffered a number of leaks—or, to give it its technical term, unauthorised disclosures of material regarding its proceedings. Inevitably they always turned up in the Melbourne Age.Overall, the disclosures have hurt the committee's reputation as a watchdog over the National Crime Authority. Nevertheless, on each occasion—and I am referring to previous unauthorised disclosures—the committee secretary wrote to committee members asking them whether they had any further knowledge to add regarding the unauthorised disclosure, but we could not progress the matter any further than that. It was then judged by the committee that each individual unauthorised disclosure was not material in itself and, therefore, on those occasions we did not refer matters to the Committee of Privileges.But the problem was that each disclosure added up to hurt the committee and to create a very material situation. Therefore, when it came to the unauthorised publication on 6 April in the Age newspaper, with this series of unauthorised disclosures behind us, the committee simply could not ignore the matter any further. A description of the contents of the report and its major recommendations appeared in an article on the front page of the Age of 6 April headlined, `Call to boost NCA's powers'. This was on the day the report was tabled. No respondent and no committee member has been able to explain the unauthorised disclosures.Therefore, at a meeting on 25 June, the committee resolved that the disclosure had a tendency to substantially interfere with its work and that accordingly the matter should be referred to the Senate Committee of Privileges. I believe it would have been negligent of the committee to have done otherwise.It can be said that, frequently, committee reports around this place are leaked on the day of their tabling. There is evidence of that. It is true that the culprits are rarely, if ever, found. This should not lead to an attitude that no action should be taken, least of all with this particular committee dealing with the National Crime Authority, because the cascading effects and the consequences of being blase about these matters, about the fact we have been unable to find the person, are obvious. Discredit will be brought to the committee system.To give a measure of the importance of this matter and why we are referring it to the Privileges Committee, I quote from the Age, which indeed had the report lock, stock and barrel. The opening lines read:A parliamentary committee has recommended substantially greater powers for the National Crime Authority and has cleared the organisation of running a political vendetta against the Melbourne businessman Mr John Elliott. . . The committee has rejected Mr Elliott's claim that he was the victim of a politically inspired vendetta and that the NCA knowingly acted illegally.From there it quotes directly from the report:. . . is of the view that there is no evidence that the vigorous investigation and prosecution reflects a vendetta.Then it quotes five recommendations straight from the report itself. Therefore, the NCA committee unanimously has considered the matter material and worthy of referral to the Privileges Committee.11:37:004683Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—The opposition will be supporting the reference of this matter to the Senate Committee of Privileges. The normal procedure, when matters of this nature arise, is that the committee, or a representative of the committee, writes to Madam President laying out the case. Madam President normally seeks some advice from the expert on privileges matters—usually the Clerk of the Senate—and then reflects on the matter and determines whether it should be given precedence. Giving a matter precedence means that this chamber must, in fairly short order, debate it. If a matter was not given precedence, it would sit on the Notice Paper either to come up in general business or, quite possibly, to be subject to a contingent notice of motion, the suspension of standing orders, precedence and debate at that stage. So it is a long and harrowing process if Madam President does not give a matter precedence.There is no doubt that in the last two years the President of the Senate has taken these matters seriously and has given them serious consideration. In fact, I endorse all her adjudications on these matters. She has got it right every time. On this occasion she has again indicated that there is enough substance to the proposition put forward by the NCA committee to at least have precedence to go to the Privileges Committee. This is not an endorsement by Madam President that it must go. There is simply a prima facie case and enough elements in it to justify consideration by this chamber. The opposition generally takes the view that these matters should be dealt with on a formal basis, but they do not necessarily require debate.On the last occasion a matter such as this came up, the matter was raised with Madam President. She gave it precedence, but it was not regarded as formal in this chamber. The reason it was not regarded as formal in this chamber and the reason the mover of the motion before us voted it down was that it directly concerned one of his colleagues. They were not even willing, despite the absolute precision of standing orders regarding the declaration of pecuniary interests, for the Privileges Committee to examine the matter because it affected one of their own colleagues. This was one of the worst divisions the Senate has had in its history. A prima facie case was made but, for partisan, petty and political reasons, the coalition combined to defeat at least a reference and an investigation by the Privileges Committee.In my view—I can now comment because the matter is not before the Privileges Committee—it may well have been a matter that, in the end, would have advantaged the minister concerned to have it go to the Privileges Committee. A very close reading of standing orders, especially in terms of intent, could well have meant the Privileges Committee bringing back a report that cleared that minister of contempt of the Senate. But in their rush to try to protect an embattled minister, all principle went out the window. No consideration to the convention of the Senate and to the rules of behaviour was to be countenanced. Because a colleague was under fire they threw all that out the window.We on this side of the chamber are supposed to be the group in this parliament that are least hidebound by convention and rules. It is always interesting that, when it comes to the crunch, we on this side of the chamber tend to obey the conventions. We do not appoint the Senator Fields and Senator Buntons of the world. We do not rat on agreements about elections of deputy presidents. We do not do those things. In the end, when push comes to shove, the coalition just cannot help itself.What Senator McGauran raises today is not a novel situation. It is becoming a perpetual situation, which I think he somewhat indicated in his speech. The leaking of committee reports or details of what is occurring in committees is an ongoing problem to the Senate. Let me tell the Senate, in general terms, what the Privileges Committee is up to at this point, without disclosing any of the details. We have five such cases before us at the moment and we are in the process—hopefully this afternoon—of resolving those cases to a point where we can advance the matter. In addition to that, we have tried to write a first chapter to the report covering the other five cases reiterating what the principles should be in the behaviour of senators, to draw it to their attention and to then trust that they will obey that guidance in future.People may say that this is long overdue, but we are going to reiterate that it is not acceptable behaviour to leak committee reports. Senator McGauran has given evidence today that those leaks have materially affected the workings of a committee. I assume, from what he said, that an element of mistrust has developed on the committee. Most committees in this parliament try to avoid high partisanship. On certain occasions it is absolutely impossible to do so. Let us be honest: sometimes we go in with our mind made up, we do our duty and we all accept the ground rules. But on many other occasions we go in with an open mind and, quite often, it stays open throughout the whole inquiry. Senators across the whole spectrum of the Senate come together, look at matters as objectively as they can, and bring down their findings.When you look back over the history of the committee system of the Senate, you find that it does set an example to many legislatures around the world. I have often said that this place is nothing more than an anarchistic swamp, but that is mostly in the way this chamber operates. Outside the chamber, many of the things adopted by the Senate, in its committee system and its reports, have contributed enormously both to scrutiny, to policy development and to resolving what were intractable issues by way of agreement.The Senate estimates committee process represents one of the finest scrutiny bodies of any legislature in the world. I have always said that, even if I could gain 39 votes in this chamber, I would never vote to abolish the estimates process. In my experience, it keeps the departments honest, it keeps ministers up to the mark. You say to yourself that you do not want to do this because, during the estimates committee process, if Senator Patterson or Senator McGauran were in opposition, they would catch us red handed, and vice versa. So we must make sure that the committee system operates well. Senator McGauran made assertions here today that the NCA committee will not work well in the future because it lacks basic trust amongst its members because elements of its work continually are out in the public domain. He has talked about the article in the Age on 6 April, which does not come to mind, but I certainly would have read it at the time and expressed surprise at the detail of that report.I turn to some of the difficulties and problems with Senator McGauran's motion. Senator McGauran has informed us that the secretary of the committee has written to all members about this unauthorised disclosure. Well, congratulations to the committee and to the secretary. Too often, the trend is that the committee refers these matters to a privileges committee without trying some investigation themselves. With this motion, we have the first building block placed there. The committee has done the appropriate thing; it has written to all members. I assume, although Senator McGauran did not say it, that all the responses were, `I didn't do it.' I assume that is what happened.Now, all of a sudden, this goes to the Privileges Committee. What happens then, Senator McGauran? Can you give us a useful suggestion as to how we find out who the leaker is? We do not have the Federal Police, an inspector-general or a Star Chamber to be able to investigate. We cannot take a rubber hose to Senator McGauran and all his colleagues to find out and get them to fess up.That is a problem, I think you would have to conclude—that it is very difficult for us to have better investigative powers in the committee. You cannot make a finding on deduction as to in whose interest the leak would be, because then you get the really smart ones leaking to embarrass their opponent because everyone will think their opponent leaked it. So we cannot do that.If this is referred to the Privileges Committee, unless there is a break, unless there is some clue that we do not know about, we are going to struggle to find out who the leaker is. This does not mean that therefore Senator McGauran's reference is totally futile, because at least if the case is proved that there was a premature disclosure, the Privileges Committee can indicate that a contempt of the Senate has occurred. Unfortunately, it cannot appor tion blame for it unless there is some evidentiary base as to who leaked this material.It is not just a one-sided transaction. For this material to be published, a newspaper has to publish it; a journalist has to publish it. Being realistic, we know that in any circumstances at all there is no way we can pull the reporter in, find them in contempt and gaol them. That is not quite the way in which our political system works. Therefore, we have very limited powers. We can only really chase the leaker, not the person to whom the material was leaked.We often send off a letter to journalists asking them why this occurred. You always get a three-page letter back from their editor accusing you of being Attila the Hun, saying, `How dare you, surely you know that journalists cannot disclose their sources.' All of those things come out in these proceedings and therefore make them very difficult to bring to a conclusion.Finally, I hope that this chamber will get back to a situation, unless there are exceptional circumstances, in which, when Madam President gives precedence to a motion, we can knock it through on the nod. I still remain very disappointed that that did not occur in the previous debate in this chamber. That is one of the reasons why, in future, we may have to insist that these resolutions be moved in the way in which Senator McGauran has so moved today.He has covered the key elements, which was essential before anyone could make a decision. He has said that there was an unauthorised disclosure. I will listen to the chamber later to see whether anyone will dispute that, but it appears to be so. He has said that it has materially affected the work of the committee and the trust within the committee. I accept that statement. He has also said that the secretary of the committee, at the behest of the committee, has written to all members and the indication is that no-one has owned up to this episode.This proposed resolution should be carried today. It should be referred to the Privileges Committee. I have to be sanguine about the fact that, given our history, unless there is obvious evidence, it is very difficult to come to a conclusion on these matters, other than to say that a contempt may have occurred. But to identify those guilty parties in the contempt is extremely difficult.11:50:004685Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I add a few remarks to what Senator Ray has already said. He has brought forward a very important issue. It is an issue that we probably do not address often enough in this chamber. Senator McGauran has made out a prima facie case, which is the sort of case that should be made out, to send this matter to the Privileges Committee.Senator Ray referred to the last issue that was before us, which was not sent off to the Privileges Committee. In a sense, that did raise a problem that, hopefully, will pass, and it is this: somehow the Privileges Committee was seen as a partisan committee. It is a political committee, there is no doubt about that, and there are people on it with strong political views. During my years as a member of that committee, it has never been a committee that has taken a particular approach for a political purpose. I know Senator Ray is the sort of person who would be upset, perhaps tears would even come to his eyes, if he thought that people regarded him as anything but a kind and tender person.One of the reasons behind what happened last time was the perception that Senator Ray is a hard man, a man who would want to punish people if they did what was not right, a person who would allow his very great sense of justice to, in some way, be turned aside by a passion for revenge. That would be absolutely wrong, as you know, Madam Acting Deputy President. The point I want to make in all seriousness is that he chairs that committee fairly and well. On no occasion when I have been there have I heard him in any way take other than the approach which should be taken in a body of that sort.Perhaps I can tell you the other people on that committee. There is Senator Coonan, Senator Sherry, Senator Eggleston, Senator Knowles, Senator Payne and me. They are all people whom we can trust, and it is an organisation that we can trust. One of the central figures in the way the Privileges Committee has worked over the years is Anne Lynch, the Deputy Clerk. This is an appropriate time to pay her a great tribute for the way in which she has kept this committee going over the years—I think everybody would agree with that—and has made it a central committee of the Senate. The Privileges Committee does what many a committee does; it does the work that is appropriate for the Senate. I see Senator Heffernan over there nodding in agreement that he would like to see the Senate work as well as it could.If I could echo what Senator Ray has said, the Senate committee system in Australia is an excellent system. It has attracted attention from around the world, and very positive attention at that. The Privileges Committee is a central part of that committee system. Senator McGauran presented his case well today and as it should be presented before the Senate.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Jeff Kennett; remember Jeff Kennett?SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—On this occasion, Senator Carr, we are not approaching this in a partisan way.Honourable senators interjecting—SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—We are listening to the material that is put before this Senate and we, not as party political people but as people who have a responsibility to the Senate, will do something about it.Honourable senators interjecting—SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—The best safeguard for the committee system is a sense of responsibility on the part of the Senate itself. In the end—Honourable senators interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Patterson)—Order!SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Thank you for calling for order, Madam Acting Deputy President, because the Senate can get unruly. I noticed you, this morning, bringing the Senate into its proper state. This leads on to the next point I want to make. It is only through a sense of honour and—2L6BISHOPSenator Bishop—Integrity.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—And integrity and a sense of what we need and owe to the Senate that this system can work. It is a pity that anything concerning a senator has to go before the Privileges Committee because our own sense of the responsibility that lies on our shoulders, as elected members of the various states and territories which we come from, is what should keep us going, rather than the threat of penalties.Perhaps I will pause there because I cannot remember the Privileges Committee handing out a penalty that, in itself, would seem to be terribly severe. Nevertheless, the finding is often a significant issue for people. Just in recent times we have made findings, and bodies against whom we have made the findings have accepted them and acted accordingly. That, I hope, is not yet a problem that has fallen upon any of the senators I can think of in this chamber. If it did, I hope they would accept that finding in a way that this chamber has assessed.RF4COOKSenator Cook—And do you think the committee should have the power of imprisonment, Senator Cooney?SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I have been asked: does this committee have the power of imprisonment?RF4COOKSenator Cook—No; should it have?SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—In fact, it does not have, but the Senate does. On the recommendation of the Privileges Committee, the Senate can imprison people, Senator Cook.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Do you think that is right, though?SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Depending on the severity of the offence—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator, it would be better if you did not respond to the injections and if you kept to the topic.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Thank you for bringing me back to the proper matter that is before me, Madam Acting Deputy President. I get distracted by these people. Thank you for bringing me back to a proper balance.It would be a pity if ever the situation arose in this chamber where people use the Senate, through the processes of the Committee of Privileges, in a political way. What I mean by that is not in a party political way but by bringing actions against people as a payback or as a means of embarrassing them. The conduct of the Privileges Committee should be on a high plane. It has been on a high plane and it is intended, as far as the committee members go, that they be kept on that sort of plane.I say to Senator McGauran through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that the matter about to go before the Privileges Committee on his instance will get the thorough, fair and learned consideration that it deserves.There is only one thing I worry about with the committee: it takes a long time, because of the nature of things, to get matters disposed of. I do not know the way round this, because all members of the committee are very busy. I do think it is not a good thing to have people waiting for a long while for a decision about their fate. I would like to have a discussion about that at some time, because it is wrong that people are left in suspense for the period they are. I will talk to Senator Ray and the other members of the committee about that, but that is the one problem I can see with its present functions.It is said by Senator Ray that we do not have the means of obtaining the information that we need as a committee—if we are going to impose anything on anybody to get them to produce evidence, we would have to bring them back to this chamber. That is awkward. I think that by and large it has worked well. The Deputy Clerk, Anne Lynch, is one of the main reasons—if not the main reason—over the years that the committee has kept going. It is running very well at the moment. In doing that, it is carrying on a tradition that has been set in the past by very learned people, and I can see that it will continue in the future. We hope to give your matter, Senator McGauran, the very proper consideration it deserves.Question resolved in the affirmative.Business46874687Motion (by Senator Heffernan, at the request of Senator Ferguson) agreed to:That business of the Senate order of the day no. 1 relating to the presentation of the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Part-Time Students) Bill 1997, be postponed till a later hour.Miscellaneous468712:03:004687Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move:That regulation 15 of the Migration Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 104 and made under the Migration Act 1958 , be disallowed.I want to explain what this regulation does. Statutory rule No. 104 amending the migration regulations would remove the requirement that producers of motion pictures filmed in Australia with offshore funds give Australian performers a reasonable opportunity to participate in all levels of production and remove the requirement for consultation with a union. At present, the migration regulations allow the minister to grant temporary visas for foreign actors to work on such productions, provided:(c) the application is supported by a certificate given by the Arts Minister . . . confirming that:(i) citizens or residents of Australia have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to participate in all levels of production; and(ii) the foreign investment or the private investment guaranteed against the foreign returns by a distributor, in the production, is greater than the amount to be expended on entertainers sponsored for entry.Statutory rule 104 would allow the minister simply to certify that:(ii) . . . the production is fully funded offshore.And the producer would no longer have to have `consulted with the relevant Australian unions'. So what we have here is an attempt by the government, by regulation, firstly, to remove the requirement that they consult with the media alliance regarding the foreign funded film or production and, secondly, to remove the requirement that some opportunity be given for Australian actors and production crews to be involved in the production. It seems to me that this can only mean one thing—that the emphasis this regulation imposes to encourage the employment of Australian actors and production crews will be removed.As I understand it, what happens in practice is that the union is consulted about applications and, generally, in consultation with the producer of the overseas production, it arranges for a casting process to ensure that Australian acting talent has the opportunity to be reviewed by the producers with a view to their taking acting parts in the production. This is mainly for smaller parts. Often foreign funded films come with their own major lead parts already allocated, but the idea is to give the opportunity for Australian actors to get smaller parts in these productions.I think that that in itself is a very useful thing. There is no evidence, to my knowledge, that this is not working well in its current form. There has been no evidence produced to prove problems exist with the current system. As I say, this is a question of encouraging use of Australian talent and about protection of Australian jobs. It is not about union power; it is about protecting Australian jobs—giving opportunities to Australian actors and production crews to participate in foreign funded films. So I think the key word is one of opportunity. The current provisions are not a crude quota system. Producers are not forced to take a certain proportion of Australian actors. Rather, all they are required to do is to go through a process which allows them to cast Australian actors and encourages them to have a look at the Australian talent.The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, which is the relevant union, has no right of veto in the regulations, only the right to be consulted. They take their role of encouraging the use of Australian actors very seriously. They have a keen interest in promoting Australian talent and in gaining opportunities for work for their members. So they get consulted but they have no role of veto. As I understand it, in the last decade, the alliance has never once recommended against granting any visa for foreign performers in a foreign funded production. The union is given a maximum of 10 days to comment. On aver age, the process only takes four or five days and, sometimes, the turnaround is even quicker.Since 1994, the value of offshore funded productions in Australia has doubled from $97 million to $194 million. So it is not an insubstantial amount of investment. The history of this matter under the current regulations is that the value of offshore funded productions has doubled since 1994. These are based on figures provided by the Australian Film Commission's national survey of feature film and independent TV drama production for 1996-97. So, far from seeing any suggestion that foreigners are not prepared to invest in productions in Australia, we have seen a doubling of that investment since 1994, and since 1991 every major US film studio and television network has filmed in Australia. There is no evidence of people being unwilling to invest substantial sums of money in productions in this country.There is a minority of American and some other producers who are unwilling to participate in countries like Australia. They do not like some of the regulations involved. They might include this regulation, but I understand they also include things such as safety requirements, the need to pay extras for appearing in the films, the requirement to secure a bond against payment of wages—all the normal sorts of security and industrial issues that we take for granted in this country. There is no doubt some producers do not want to come to countries like Australia where those sorts of regulations are imposed.But I am afraid my view is that we do not want them if they are not prepared to take the proper precautions to protect the actors, to ensure they are properly paid and to ensure the production is professional. As I understand it, they tend to go to places like Mexico where those requirements are not necessarily enforced. But, as I say, the major production houses—the people we are interested in getting to this country—have shown no sign of being deterred.I do not understand what the government's motivation for this is. I will be interested to hear the explanation given by the Minister for Justice (Senator Vanstone) because, on the evidence I have seen, I have no understanding of what motivates the government other than my concern that maybe it is again a question of the government punishing its critics. All I can detect from the evidence I have reviewed is that there may be a problem with the government's attitude to involving the media and arts alliance in this consultation process. I have seen what the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) has had to say on the subject. His concentration seems to have been on the question of union consultation, but he has not paid much attention to the question which is at the heart of this issue, and that is the protection and encouragement of Australian jobs. That is what concerns me about the regulation proposed by the government, and that is why I am moving this disallowance motion.I understand that many of the American producers who have come to this country have been pleasantly surprised by the suitability of local talent, and they have taken the opportunity to cast local talent in many of these productions. I think Australians are all very proud of the success of Australian actors both here and abroad in recent years. The current regulations have allowed a win-win situation to occur in that actors have secured work and foreign producers have been spared the expense and logistics of bringing actors to this country. This has helped underpin the development of expertise among Australian actors, the development of their skills, which has allowed them to contribute to the growth and development of the Australian film industry. It is important that we look at the plight of actors in this country, because it is vital that we provide some encouragement for them. They are not generally very well paid or very secure in their employment. I know people tend to concentrate on the major stars and the sort of money they make, but the reality of life for most actors is one of continuing long periods of unemployment and very poor wages.I understand that the average unemployment rate for actors is around the 85 per cent mark and their annual income, according to the Australia Council, is in the order of $12,500. So we are not talking about the Mel Gibsons or whatever of the world; we are talking about local acting talent who go long periods without work and who work for quite low wages in trying to develop their skills, gain experience and develop their careers. It is these people who will be affected by the removal of this regulation, not the big name stars. In case someone was concerned that this was somehow some sort of unique Australian phenomenon, I want to point out that similar approaches are applied in both the United States, and the UK and other sections of Europe where the local actors are protected by similar regulations. The regulations for Australian actors trying to get work in somewhere like Hollywood are far more restrictive and far harder to crack than for those American actors seeking to get work in Australia. We are not a leading protectionist nation when it comes to this issue. We have a very modest system to encourage the promotion of local talent and to encourage the use of local actors.The regimes that exist in the United States and Britain are far more stringent. They reflect the concern of those countries to protect their local talent and to encourage their industry. Anything we can do to encourage our film industry is a good thing.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—And their culture.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Senator Sherry quite rightly interjects to raise the issue of culture, the protection of Australian culture. This is also an issue. When we look at encouraging Australian performance and Australian talent, it is an important contributor to promoting our unique Australian culture.There are a number of good reasons why this regulation ought to remain in existence. The onus is clearly on the government to justify changing the rules. At this stage, I have heard no convincing argument as to why we should not leave the regulations as they are. The government has to make out its case. My main concern with the government's approach is that it might have a bit more to do with politics and the punishment of their critics rather than the central issue which is promoting jobs in the film industry.When Minister Alston announced this change in November 1997, he referred to `perceived barriers to offshore funded productions'. I do not know what these perceived barriers are. I do not know what evidence is around to support that assertion. As far as I know, there has not been one single example of a production that was prevented from coming to Australia because of these rules. As I have already stressed, the evidence is that investment has doubled since 1994. All the major studios in America have had some productions involving filming in Australia. In my view there is no evidence to support the removal of these regulations.I understand the minister relies, in part, on the Gonski report into Commonwealth assistance to the film industry, which recommended that union consultation should no longer be mandatory. I think it is important to note, if the government is going to rely on that report, that that report did not include the issue of whether Australian performers should be given a reasonable opportunity to participate in offshore funded productions. That was not one of its terms of reference. Most of the parties, if not all, who made submissions to that report did not canvass this issue because it was not raised with them. I do not think the government can rely on the Gonski report in defending this action; there has not been any debate that would warrant it. Even the conclusion of the Gonski report does not go nearly as far as the government is proposing with this measure.I am not sure if the government just want to punish the Media Alliance. This regulation will not harm the union officials; it will harm the ordinary actors that they represent. It will harm the Australian film industry as a whole by reducing the valuable experience which locals gain when participating in offshore funded productions. No-one will be harmed if the government's amendment to this regulation is disallowed. Who could object to a requirement that local entertainers be given a reasonable opportunity to work on an offshore funded production? This is not a trade barrier. This is saying that we ought to allow Austral ian actors—citizens of this country—a reasonable opportunity to participate in foreign funded films that are filmed in this country. It is a most reasonable requirement. The move by the government to remove the regulation is unreasonable and is not supportive of creating jobs in Australia. I do not think they have any case to support their proposition.If the government succeeds in removing this requirement, hardship will be inflicted on the many people struggling to earn a living in the film industry in this country. There is no good reason to allow the government's statutory rule No. 104 and every reason for the Senate to take steps to continue to protect the livelihood of Australian actors.12:17:004690Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—The government opposes the disallowance of this motion. The motion is to disallow regulation 15 of statutory rules 1998 No. 104. As Senator Evans has made clear, this regulation relates to the removal of mandatory consultations with unions where foreign actors are coming into Australia for film and television productions; but only for one particular category of film and television production—those that are fully funded offshore. We are not talking about film and television production where Australians have put money in or where there is a part combination of funding, but where the film and television production is fully funded offshore. That means people from somewhere else are paying for the lot and they would like to come here and make a film.At the moment, there is a requirement that there be consultation with the relevant union in the use of actors from overseas. Let us put this in perspective. You are an overseas producer and you would like to put an enormous amount of money into Australia. Film is a very expensive investment. It is not cheap to make the blockbusters. Potential producers in this country look for more certainty before committing big money to a project here. In other words, you are not going to put a lot of money into Australia unless you can be certain that you can make the sort of film that you want. The casting of lead roles with international stars, as they are called, can be absolutely critical to a producer getting investment and pre-sales of the film to distributors; that is, unless you can guarantee some investors that you have some big names signed up to be a part of this movie or television production, you might not get the investment and the distribution contracts all lined up prior to going ahead. In other words, you might not be able to go ahead unless you have the big names there.For those reasons, the uncertainty engendered by these current arrangements can actually impede—be a brake on, put a stop to, make limits on—rather than enhancing the employment opportunities for local actors. That is the bottom line here. We have got people overseas wanting to put money into Australia and we are saying to them, `Look, you can't really go ahead with that unless a union here agrees with your suggested list of stars. That is basically what it comes down to.There are currently no limits on how many foreign actors come into Australia for productions which are fully funded offshore, but there are strict guidelines that still apply if Australian funding is involved. So the only change being proposed is this requirement for mandatory union consultation for a big producer who wants to put a lot of money into Australia. We are saying they should not have to consult with the Australian union, because it is a disincentive to invest in our film and television industry.The relevant union indicates that it opposes this amendment—of course it does. It says that it wants to make sure that every effort is made to employ Australians. In other words, the union says, `Make them consult with us and we will make sure that more Australians are employed.' We say that is simply not so. We believe that this amendment will lead to greater employment opportunities for Australians. I can explain why. Australia is a much sought after film and television location for a number of reasons. We offer great scenery; we have very highly skilled crews; we have competitive labour rates; we have excellent post-production facilities; and outside shooting can take place, pretty well, all year round. We want to encourage further development of that sector. We consider it appropriate and necessary to streamline the entry requirements for foreign actors to take part in film and television productions.Under the amendment, overseas producers will be able to invest in this country by having the freedom to use foreign leading name actors—without the perceived barriers of having to negotiate with the relevant union. So you can basically say to people who want to put a lot of money in, `You can come, bring all the work that comes with doing your production here, and bring the actors you choose' or you can maintain the situation that is there at the moment and say to producers, `You can only come if the union agrees with your choice of actor.' If anyone thinks that that latter proposal is going to increase employment, they are very misguided.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Unemployment has been going up, not down.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—Coming from someone who was a part of the government that had the worst unemployment rates this country has ever seen and that took us into the deepest recession we have had in God knows how long, that is a bit rich. Nonetheless, several United States producers who do not currently use Australia as a location, who do not use Australia at the moment—these are people who have yet to bring big money here for big productions—have indicated to the Department of Communications and the Arts, or to the local industry, that they will consider investing in Australia a considerable amount of money for these sorts of productions, provided they have their choice of actor. It does not seem unreasonable, does it, to say to a film production company, `You can choose your actors'? Where are we when we have the union interfering in this?It is hard to give details as all such information is commercial-in-confidence, but we are aware that some $200 million of this alone will be spent on sequels to movies originally made in England and America. That is, there are some big movies that have been made in the United Kingdom or the United States, and sequels to those movies are likely to be made. They could come here, but they want to choose their actors.Sequels will also be made in England, if the producers are required to jump what is seen as a frustrating and bureaucratic hurdle when there is no Australian money involved. That is important to repeat. We are talking about the union having a say in who the lead actors are in films made in Australia when there is no Australian money involved. When other people want to bring their money here, invest it and create jobs, we want to say, `You can't choose your actors. You have to consult with the union.' That is what we say at the moment. This government wants to change that.This example is very informative. In a recent case study, a production worth $31 million—$31 million worth of work coming to Australia, in a sense—took three months to negotiate—that is, a quarter of a year. Imagine you have $31 million invested—this is big time money—and you want to make a film in Australia so you spend a quarter of a year negotiating, everybody wants to know what is happening and just three weeks, 21 days, prior to the start of shooting, the union gives approval. That situation cannot be allowed to continue.Why would people with $31 million to invest invest it in Australia if it takes a quarter of a year to get approval and if you can only get approval 21 days before the start of shooting? For that production, 70 Australian actors, 930 Australian extras and 180 Australian technical staff will be employed. There is where your employment comes from. Let someone with the big money, the big film, some of the big name actors and all overseas money come here and make a film and you are likely to get the use of Australian actors, Australian extras and Australian technical staff.The overseas based producer was on the point of pulling the project and indicated that $30 million worth of future investment would now not proceed. Overseas producers would prefer to use lead actors who are well known to increase the level of investment in their productions and to ensure pre-sales to distributors.This amendment will increase employment opportunities for Australian technical crews and actors. Australian cast and crew will benefit because they will have the opportunity to perform in higher budget movies, and that will increase the range of their skills and experience. The government encourages productive working relations between Australian film and television industry workers and their representatives and overseas producers. The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) will monitor net employment effect over the next two years.This amendment, it is important to note, is strongly supported by the Australian production industry. The government financed agencies and lobby groups, such as the Screen Producers Association as well as the offshore based producers—that is, the producers in Australia, the Australian production industry—as well as the overseas bodies, want this change to go ahead.Foreign investment is very important to the Australian film industry. In 1996-97, it was $194 million, and foreign investment had increased by 100 per cent since 1993-94. One studio complex alone, the Warner Roadshow Movie World, over the last seven years, through fully funded offshore productions, has attracted $270 million in export earnings, spent $41 million on Australian crew and spent $8 million on Australian casts and extras. That clearly indicates the value of fully funded offshore productions and the need to encourage more of them.At the same time, many actors in Australian funded movies forgo fees in order to enable a movie to be made on a low budget. Foreign investment in our industry complements Australian investment, both public and private, and provides opportunities to Australian cast and crew not available on our local lower budget movies.The requirement for compulsory union consultation does, however, impede the growth for this investment. This view has been put forth forcefully by offshore producers, yes, to the arts minister, to the Ausfilm office in Los Angeles, to the Screen Producers Association of Australia and to foreign owned studios in Australia. This amendment will encourage a healthy level of private offshore investment, leading to greater em ployment opportunities in the film industry. The arts minister has strongly advised the industry to work together to develop a best practice model for encouraging the use of Australian actors in these productions that are fully funded offshore.The union has indicated a concern that the definition of productions fully funded offshore will include Australian investments secured against overseas pre-sales, as currently defined in the department's guidelines. The union has already been assured that this will simply not be the case. As is often the case, though, when the facts are told, they fall on deaf ears. This change that the government wishes to proceed with will increase opportunities for fully funded offshore investment in Australia, and that will increase opportunities for local actors and crew. The motion to disallow should not be supported.12:29:004693Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—The Democrats are not convinced of the evidence that the government has put forward in this case, so we are inclined to support the opposition's disallowance motion. It was interesting to listen to the arguments that were put. Senator Vanstone said that overseas film makers are looking for more certainty but it would seem to me that there is plenty of certainty. There is freedom to employ foreign lead actors, which seems to be a crucial part of the argument. The unions do not stop that. All the unions require under this regulation is that there be consultation. I am convinced that that consultation has led, in large part, to more work going to Australians rather than less.I think the problem with this debate is that we have not had the evidence put forward. We have had excuses about commercial-in-confidence when we have asked for case studies. The answer has been, `We can't tell you that because it is commercially sensitive.' So it has been very difficult to make judgments about this case, which means we ought to err on the side of caution.What should be said today is that Australia is not alone in requiring that conditions be placed on films which are made in this country, even if they are fully funded offshore. The United States, Canada and the United Kingdom also have similar conditions. The Senate needs to note that recently the United States government refused a visa for an Australian actor to work on an Australian advertising campaign promoting the 2000 Olympics. That was produced by money in Australia; it was produced by the Sydney Morning Herald, in fact. So it is all very well once again for us to completely remove regulations and any conditions which might protect Australian jobs and say, `Just come on in. Whatever you choose to do in this country is okay by us.'There is no evidence that film makers are going to go elsewhere. New Zealand has no restrictions, as I understand it, and there is no evidence to show that New Zealand has attracted enormous numbers of investors and film makers to that country because of it. The union does not have the power of veto, as has been said today. It simply requires that film makers see what is available in this country. New film makers who come here would not otherwise be fully across what is available in terms of the skills and the opportunities in this country, so it seems to me that this process is a useful one. I would be interested to have more details on the claims that have been made today that it takes three months to negotiate but, once again, we ask for the details and they are never available. The Democrats will be supporting the opposition in this disallowance.12:33:004693Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I tried to think what might be the government's rationale for proposing these changes to the migration regulations in relation to the film industry, but I could not entirely be clear what it would be. I thought there were a few options. One is an ideological preference that the free market will serve everybody's interests. There might even be a belief that, if Australians can provide bit part actors and extras in films that might give individuals a revenue of $200,000 and maybe some technical assistance, it might be worth Australia providing all the assistance for multimillion dollar films. In some instances, we could get a bigger chunk, but it does seem somewhat naive. So ideology could be part of it. Revenge might be part of it as well, I suppose. It may be that, like a number of community groups, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance may have opened their mouths and criticised some elements of government policy in recent times. It could be that issues such as the Australia-New Zealand treaty—which is impacting on the ability of Australian television and film productions to continue to have time to produce Australian content—might be threatened and they are putting that forward. Or it might be related to the fact that Australia is positioning itself to be pre-emptive to our further negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.It must be pointed out—and I am not sure that all senators are aware of this—that cultural issues are not one of the exemptions under the negotiations for the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. So should Australia sign up—as we were going to a couple of months ago; it will be back on the table in about four months time—any investors would have the right to demand that they have no restrictions on their investment in arts of any nature or in cultural activities in Australia. It basically says that the dollar is right: the dollar rules all.This is not an extraordinary thing that is being asked of the alliance. It is being asked to continue a situation where reasonable opportunities need to be offered to Australians or sought at all levels of the production before approval will be given for overseas actors. All the alliance can do, despite what the government says, is provide advice on these criteria. It is not the alliance which provides the actual approval. Its advice is forwarded to the Department of Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, and of course the minister makes the final decisions.Is the government saying that it is not reasonable to continue with the present system where reasonable opportunities are offered to Australians? I would think other countries may think that is somewhat naive on Australia's part. It has been pointed out in the debate so far today that countries like the United States have very restrictive conditions. It does seem somewhat hypocritical that some companies in the United States are insisting that Australia not have even some regulations or some areas of self-interest in relation to the arts.This government is being less helpful to the arts in some ways by saying that the arts and other sectors of the community now are more likely to have to find their funds from their own private sources. These sources are not necessarily easily found within Australia, so you might have an Australian production, an Australian writer and an Australian producer having to go overseas to seek funding. Think about it: wouldn't it be extraordinary if we had an Australian film, that might even be on Aboriginal issues, and you could not even argue that you should have Aboriginal people portraying Aboriginal characters? I saw an American film where they had people from Papua New Guinea played by North American negroes. It is rather extraordinary that they should think that is appropriate.Potentially, we could have a situation where a film written in Australia—our intellectual property—which was produced by Australians, so that all the brain work was done by Australians, needed an overseas investor. The irony would be that there would be no requirement for reasonable opportunities to be offered to Australians, simply because the government believes that this industry ought to go for averages and populism, and ought to look overseas for investment. The government's arguments do not hold water. It is reasonable to assume that it has no specifically valid arguments in relation to this. I would like to quote briefly from a letter from Lyn Gailey, the imports policy officer from the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. She says:When Senator Alston announced the proposed changes last November, it was to announce that the consultation with the Alliance would no longer be required—click, go, your services are no longer required—The amendments to the Migration Regulation are even more serious than those flagged. The removal of the requirements to consider Australians is a devastating blow that will impact badly on a sector of the community whose unemployment averages 90 per cent. It is not just that there will not be consultation with the body representing media, entertainment and the arts in Australia; it is that the government believes that it is no longer reasonable to suggest that films that take place in Australia using our resources—and there is an opportunity cost for using the assistance and the resources—should, where possible, utilise the abilities and skills of those in Australia, given that this sector has 90 per cent unemployment on average. I do not think the government has made its case, and I will be supporting the opposition's disallowance motion.12:40:004695Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—in reply—Firstly, I want to reiterate that Senator Vanstone failed to present any compelling case in support of the changes to the regulations that she proposes. The government has no evidence to support its case. In fact, Senator Vanstone admitted that the figures I quoted in terms of the growth of the industry since 1994 were correct. So she is saying, `Under these current regulations we have a huge increase in investment—people are investing in film-making in this country and employing Australian actors in doing so—but we want to change the regulations to remove the requirement for them to look at Australian actors.'That is nonsensical. We are interested in Australian jobs, we are interested in foreign investment coming to this country, but we want some benefits to flow from that, and one of those benefits is work for Australian actors. Under the current regulations, that is encouraged. The change proposed by the government would remove that encouragement.The other point Senator Vanstone tried to make was that the union had some sort of veto over a recent case which she mentioned but did not name. Under these regulations, there is no right of veto for the Media Alliance. The minister makes the decision. The minister's approval is required. All he is required to do is to consult, and so, if a project were held up, it would be held up by the decision of the minister. That is not an argument to support the government's proposed changes to the regulations.It is also important to mention that the minister's argument relied very much on the question of leading actors. As I understand it, that is not the issue. The Media Alliance and the industry generally accept that leading actors may be brought in for these productions. What they are looking to achieve is getting jobs for Australians in supporting roles to build up their experience and help develop the industry here. It is not an argument about leading roles, as the minister tried to argue. In conclusion, the disallowance ought to be supported. The government has not made out a case for the changes it seeks.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4695r5504695Debate resumed from 25 June, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.12:44:004695Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The opposition does not oppose the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 —and I am sure the government needs all the help it can get in the next election.12:44:004695Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Democrats support the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 . This legislation relates to extending entitlements to veterans in relation to the gold card. We believe that it is a good thing. However, I would like to briefly mention the situation facing Vietnam veterans. I realise that, as with all things, affordability is an issue, but I urge the government to give greater attention to ensuring that the needs of Vietnam veterans are also adequately addressed.I have spoken in this chamber a couple of times before about the fairly extensive and ongoing evidence of widespread health problems with Vietnam veterans and, just as importantly, their families, partners and children. There are not just physical illnesses with their children but also, unfortunately, instances of suicide. This is over and above the normal range of illness in the community, which is evidence that the problems that Vietnam veterans have faced and the damage that has been caused to many of them are at risk of being extended to future generations. I am sure that all senators and Australians would agree that that is something we need to avoid at all costs.I ask that the government, in its ongoing attention to veterans' issues, gives greater attention to the very clear and real needs, and obviously still inadequately met needs, of the Vietnam veterans community. Today I received a letter from the Vietnam Veterans' Federation of Australia relating to the most recent Vietnam veterans healthy study. It deals with illnesses in veterans and veterans' partners, which clearly demonstrates again the greater instance of ill-health amongst Vietnam veterans and their partners and children.It also contains a repeated request to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Bruce Scott, that the wives of Vietnam veterans whose husbands are currently in receipt of a gold card should themselves be granted a gold treatment card because of the ill-health which results from their caring role. The letter has various attachments indicating the reality of that ill-health. Whilst I commend the government for its move in this regard, I ask that it give greater attention to the needs of Vietnam veterans and their families and look at more ways of addressing the clear needs that are still not being adequately met.12:47:004696Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I accept the comments and support of both the opposition and the Australian Democrats. We all recognise that it is important that there be an ongoing commitment to our veterans. The government is certainly very deeply conscious of the gratitude to Australian veterans for their courage, dedication and sacrifice. The particular initiatives outlined in this legislation relate to the extension of gold card health benefits to 50,000 veterans. It will mean an additional net cost to the Commonwealth of $508 million over four years. This new initiative has not been funded at the expense of existing benefits.I appreciate the comments that the Australian Democrats have raised with regard to Vietnam. The government is aware that many deserving groups of people are also seeking access to the gold card, such as veterans from the Korean and Vietnam wars. Already 8,000 Korean-Malay veterans and 12,000 Vietnam veterans have been granted the gold card as a result of their individual level of war-caused disability or their financial situation. However, World War II veterans are generally older than their counterparts from the Korean and Vietnam wars and their health needs at this time are generally considered to be significant. The extension of the gold card to other groups of veterans will remain under review. Any views expressed by the veteran community will be taken into account. I appreciate the support of all the parties in the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills4696r5034696Consideration resumed from 29 May, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills4696r5444696Consideration resumed from 24 June, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Bills4697r5534697Consideration resumed from 1 July, on motion by Senator Brownhill:That this bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills4697r2504697Debate resumed from 25 June 1997, on motion by Senator Brownhill:That this bill be now read a second time.12:55:004697O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—The Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 makes a number of amendments to a range of aviation legislation, all of which are supported by the opposition. The amendments to the Air Navigation Act 1920 seek to clarify responsibility for sterile security areas at airports. The amendments to the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959 ensure that de facto spouses are eligible for compensation in the event of their partner's death or injury as a result of an air accident.The main effect of the amendments to the International Airservices Commission Act 1992 transfers the role of allocating Australia's fifth freedom rights—that is, those between two points outside Australia; the so-called `beyond rights'—from the department to the International Airservices Commission, with appropriate grandfathering of existing rights for five years. There are also a number of amendments of a technical nature.The amendments to the Airports Act 1996 and the Airports (Transitional) Act 1996 are largely of a technical nature, including those which are covered by the amendments to be moved by the government today, clearing up some problems that have arisen during the airport sales process. The bill also seeks to amend the Air Services Act 1995 to make promoting and fostering civil aviation in Australia a function of Airservices Australia. The Labor Party supports this objective and this amendment; however, we wonder whether the government does.Senators will no doubt recall the farce that surrounded the membership of the CASA board during 1996 and 1997, instigated by the disgraced former transport minister, Mr Sharp, which ultimately led to the resignation of the board of CASA and the Director of Aviation Safety, Mr Leroy Keith, an aviation regulator held in high regard around the world. Sadly, Mr Keith has now left Australia and is probably lost to our aviation industry forever.Only in the last week have we seen the re-emergence of the doctrine of `affordable safety', with the proposed closure of CASA offices at Townsville, Archerfield, Coffs Harbour, Tamworth, Wagga, Jandakot, Moorabbin, Parafield and Darwin. Over 100 CASA staff are employed in these offices, and this is yet another example of the Howard government withdrawing services to regional Australia. This will not in any way improve safety outcomes in the Australian aviation industry and shows the total lack of commitment of this government to, in the words of the bill before us today, `promoting and fostering civil aviation in Australia'.The opposition has been informed that this campaign of office closures is being developed by a Mr Wes Willoughby. We have been told that Mr Willoughby, who appears to occupy a new position of executive director at CASA, was appointed by the Chair of CASA, Dick Smith, only recently, after having been retained as a consultant for some time. Mr Willoughby was made redundant from the Civil Aviation Authority when Dick Smith was last in charge of aviation safety regulation in Australia. Not surprisingly, questions have been asked about the manner of Mr Willoughby's appointment. It is also alleged that Mr Willoughby is being paid $1,000 a day in this new role.These rumours do have some currency within the industry, so I think it would be helpful for all concerned if the minister in the chamber at the moment could contact the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, Mr Vaile, and find out for me precisely what conditions Mr Willoughby is employed under and how he was appointed. If these allegations are true, this is the third strike for Dick Smith. First we had the policy of no mandatory transponders in Class E airspace, the so-called see and avoid policy, which was ultimately abandoned because of industry pressure. Secondly, we had the advice to CASA staff that if they were not happy about how safety related complaints were handled by their superiors, they should go to the media. Now we have a program of office closures led by a person reputedly appointed under strange circumstances and being paid a substantial per diem. All of these actions have damaged our safety standards and our international safety reputation.This government drove the previous CASA board and Leroy Keith from office for much less. Mr Vaile needs to think very hard about what will come next and at what point he must act in relation to the behaviour of the CASA board.I would now like to turn to Airservices Australia. This is the public sector organisation that provides air traffic control and fire and rescue services at airports. It is a body that performs what is essentially a safety and regulation function—it is a bit like the local traffic police and fire brigade at an airport. In a statement yesterday in relation to terminal navigation services, the minister, Mr Vaile, said:The owners of leased Federal airports can negotiate with Airservices for the supply of these services under commercial contract or by another service operator.It is clear from this that private airport operators are now the ones making the decisions as to who provides air traffic control services at airports and that private companies will end up policing our skies.Australia's airspace is a public good, and it should be regulated and policed by public bodies. Handing air traffic control over to private companies means less public accountability and more incentives to cut corners on safety. What follows the privatisation of Airservices, an aviation safety regime where if you do not like what you get from CASA you can try another? A Labor government will retain air traffic control in public hands. The Howard government is drastically reducing aviation safety resources in order to reduce the costs of certain sectors of the aviation industry. The safety of Australian travellers and the general public is under threat because of the government's decisions.The government's regional aviation policy is a total shambles, and this is not better illustrated than by the case of Launceston. As of yesterday, the terminal navigation charge at Launceston—that is essentially the charge for using the control tower—will increase by a massive 30 per cent. This is a result of the move to location specific pricing. The total charges levied by Airservices Australia for a typical commercial flight from Melbourne to Launceston will increase by 9.9 per cent and from Sydney to Launceston by 8.1 per cent. At the same time the charge for a typical flight between Sydney and Melbourne will fall by a staggering 14.8 per cent. So, again, we have the Howard government slugging regional Australia by increasing charges to access essential services.But the problems at Launceston are greater than that. There is a small business called Bass Flight Services that provides flight training in Launceston. As a result of the new charging regime, their hourly costs for operating a small light training aircraft will increase by over $20. They have indicated that they will either have to move to another airport or close down. They and many other flight training operators have approached the government to fix this problem. I am told that those who have approached Minister Vaile's office and spoken to his aviation adviser have been hung up on. No doubt this is another example of the government's efforts in promoting and fostering civil aviation in Australia.At the 11th hour, the minister backed down saying in a press release yesterday, the day the charges were to come into force, that Airservices would waive the charges during a transitional period. There was no mention of how long this period might be or what might determine how it will end. This looks very much to me like a stay of execution, not a pardon. But I do say this: I do hope that Minister Vaile will now actually consult with the aviation training industry prior to any further actions in this regard—something he should have done in the first place.The Labor Party is committed to the promotion of flight training as an industry in Australia and no more so than in Launceston. Recently, whilst acting as shadow minister for transport, I announced Labor's intention to work towards developing Launceston as an aviation training centre. I have had very useful discussions with both the chief executive officer of the airport and the principal of the Australian Maritime College and Labor's discussions with these and other organisations are ongoing.The proposals have even received the grudging support of the member for Bass, Warwick Smith. But Mr Smith is a minister in a government that is putting up charges at Launceston airport, as well as other locations around the country, and is cutting regulatory services which will not only inhibit the growth of the industry but ultimately cost lives. This government is not about `promoting and fostering civil aviation in Australia'. We are. And, when elected at the next election, the people of Australia, particularly Launceston, will see the strength of that commitment.13:04:004699Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—As the Senate knows, I have amendments in circulation to the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 . They were originally sent to both the government and the opposition many months ago. The revised amendments were circulated last week, as revised sheet No. 650, and I will be calling for a vote on the voices later in this debate. I thank both the government and the opposition for their willingness to consult on this bill and for their responses to my request for consideration of my amendments. I regret that I am unlikely to be successful. Nevertheless, I do thank them for their response.Over the past decade we have all witnessed the debacle surrounding Sydney airport. I am sad to say that it is the view of the Democrats that a similar situation is developing at Perth airport, with the potential in due course to reach similar levels of community outrage and airport operational turmoil. Regrettably, the failings of government that we have become familiar with in relation to the Sydney airport are again in evidence. These include a failure to ensure that adequate long-term planning is in place; a refusal to genuinely consult with and listen to local communities; a refusal to conduct proper and thorough environmental and social impact studies; a willingness to surreptitiously put commercially driven changes in place and then pretend to consult the public on how to ameliorate the effects of the changes; and a willingness to put commercial interests above the interests of sections of the community.As governments move more and more in the direction of privatisation and deregulation, they are more and more inclined to back-pedal on community and environmental standards and safeguards so that what they call a `more attractive investment climate' can be created. We have had much reference to the backlash that is now starting to be exhibited in voting patterns, and I would suggest to you that this attitude helps create such a backlash.This process of lowering or refusing to implement standards extends from the global, as in the case of greenhouse gas controls, right down to the very local. As is the case in so many cities, with Perth we have an increasingly busy airport which is now surrounded by residential suburbs in every direction. What was once a relatively countrified airport is now slap bang in the middle of suburbia. If the planners and the government will not keep houses away from airports, so allowing them to operate for 24 hours in reasonable freedom, then something has to give. People are more important than aeroplanes and a `quiet time' is essential.Unlike the airports of the past, which were just arrival and departure points servicing a relatively modest number of flights, today's airports develop into small cities involving huge amounts of capital, extensive retail premises and ever increasing numbers of flights and people. Perth airport's new owners—and I remind the Senate that we opposed the privatisation of Perth airport as a monopoly—are on record as saying that they are working to `attract more aircraft, more pas sengers and more freight'. That is quite a natural objective of someone who is in it for the money. Governments are presumably in office for the people, which is an entirely different objective. Those two objectives can conflict unless governments are more interested in markets and money than they should be, which is the case here.A planning nightmare is rapidly unfolding, and no current government seems capable of coming to grips with it. Governments that are keen to allow real estate developers to pursue new housing developments right up to airport boundaries at the same time allow airport operators increasing flexibility in aircraft numbers and flight paths. It seems as though governments believe that, as long as they have created a climate for increasing money making, solving the problems that arise as a result can be ignored or left to the so-called marketplace. I remind you that markets are neutral—they have no morals.Governments then shrug their shoulders and say what can they do about the problem they have created? We must ensure that proper regulation and controls are in place to protect the health, safety and quality of life of all the thousands of people who are affected by the operation of the Perth airport. The Perth problem is not as intractable as the Sydney problem. It is not as difficult as the Sydney problem. The purpose of our proposed amendments, after extensive consultation, was to get the government to move in time to address this problem.The amendments I will move have four main purposes: firstly, to create a curfew at Perth airport between half past midnight and 5.30 in the morning, which would mean that for five hours at least a night there would be a `quiet time'—hardly an excessive request; secondly, to require the reinstatement of pre-existing Perth airport flight paths pending the completion of a full environmental impact statement and the preparation of an environmental management plan for the airport; thirdly, to create an ability to cap aircraft movements at Perth airport pending the completion of a full environmental and social impact statement and the preparation of an environmental management plan; and, fourth ly, to prevent the use of Perth airport by training aircraft pending the completion of a full environmental impact statement and preparation of a management plan. I remind those senators who are not familiar with Perth that there are several other airports at which it is possible to conduct training.Most senators will be well aware that provisions such as caps and curfews are either in place or under active consideration elsewhere in Australia and around the world. As Perth becomes increasingly busy, its residents should be afforded similar protections. We have at Pearce an airport which is solely dedicated to military purposes, and many airports around the world operate both military and civilian operations from a single airport. In Australia, Sydney, Adelaide and Essendon airports all have curfews, and the Howard government itself is committed to capping for Sydney airport.The need for these amendments arises from a series of escalating changes introduced at Perth airport over the past couple of years. These changes have been introduced with insufficient genuine consultation and with only inadequate levels of environmental and social impact assessments. Two of the major changes and impacts now being felt around Perth airport are new flight paths introduced in December last year and the increasing presence of training aircraft and flights. The new flight paths, supposedly introduced as a trial and now seen as permanent, impose a wide range of health, safety and lifestyle impacts on a large number of suburbs and communities. As a result of these new flight paths, large numbers of non-jet aircraft are being sent over previously quiet suburbs. The increasing presence of training aircraft over densely populated areas surrounding the airport raises many concerns about safety as well as noise levels.Other significant planned changes with serious implications include, firstly, a planned second wide-span runway for jet aircraft—and, as the Acting Deputy President, Senator McKiernan, would know, this has occasioned some debate and concern in the community at present; secondly, decreasing traffic controllers from four to two, at the same time as ever increasing aircraft movements—and, as frequent flyers, the Acting Deputy President and I would be concerned if they reduced controllers below the safety level; and, thirdly, urban infill in the rural buffer surrounding Perth and Jandakot airports.Large numbers of residents in a number of areas affected by new flight path regimes are now suffering stress and their lives and the lives of their families have been overshadowed by a dark cloud of noisy uncertainty as to what the future holds for them. Many residents have contacted my office to complain once they learned that I was interested in the topic. They speak, for example, of a barrage of noise commencing at 5 o'clock in the morning and involving up to 40 overflights by aircraft, many of them heading out on new flight paths to mining operations in the north of the state. It is just not fair. Many of those people bought their houses under the old regime, not the new regime, and they are experiencing a much diminished quality of life as a result. The necessity for a good sleep is something that every one of us understands. I cannot understand governments that cannot pay attention to it appropriately.Residents speak of track shortening by aircraft traffic controllers, sending other aircraft over previously quiet areas. They speak of many planes flying overhead at below permissible altitudes. They speak of increasing numbers of training flights taking place over heavily populated residential areas and involving incessant noise as these planes circle overhead. As senators would be well aware, the smaller aircraft is often noisier than the bigger aircraft because of the noise of the engine concerned. They speak of the contrast between their lives a year ago when they lived with two to six flights a day and today when they regularly log 50 flights a day overhead. They speak of being or becoming increasingly tired and stressed. They cannot sleep. They say that they cannot sleep even when planes are not overhead because they are simply anticipating the renewed aircraft noise. This is intolerable.They speak of constant excuses being made for all these impacts by airport managers. They rightly ask: if changes as major as these can be imposed on so many people so quickly and with so little real notice, what will they try to impose in the future? My amendments attempt to give government the ability to deal with these issues. It is deeply concerning that bureaucrats in Canberra, who are not affected by the Canberra airport, give their ministers advice to ignore these kinds of protective devices and the ministers respond to them. I think it is atrocious.Let me go back to the Sydney situation. I remind my fellow senators that the findings and recommendations of the Senate inquiry into aircraft and airport noise fell on deaf ears. That inquiry pulled together large amounts of information about the seriousness of the impacts of aircraft and airports, the inadequacies of government processes, and the need for careful assessments and planning. Many of the issues highlighted in that report apply directly to Perth, and many of the recommendations of that report should be implemented in the case of Perth.One of the most fundamental elements of that inquiry was its exposure of the failings and duplicity surrounding the carrying out of environmental impact statements with regard to airports. Let us learn from the mistakes of the Sydney experience and ensure that they are not repeated in Perth. We can still avoid so much anger, frustration and despair if we put in place now the measures needed to address the legitimate concerns of residents. Those measures will simply mean that the airport we end up with will be an accepted and beneficial feature of Perth that is managed on an acceptable social basis, rather than being a deeply resented environmental health and safety hazard.I tell both major parties that when you compete for government in any area affected by an airport you will continue to get stress, in terms of your political interaction with the people, for as long as they feel you do not attend to these needs appropriately and in a reasonable fashion.I call on both state and Commonwealth governments to set up, as a matter of urgency, a high-level inquiry into environmentally and socially acceptable options for the future development needs of air transport in the greater Perth region. As an important step in this direction, the amendments that I put forward were carefully compiled. I have here a social impact assessment report headed `Prioritising community consultation: a social impact assessment of the recent flight path changes over the shires of Kalamunda and Mundaring'. The research, commissioned by the Australian Democrats, was conducted by five persons in November 1997 for the Curtin University of Technology. Mr Acting Deputy President, I have approached both the opposition whip and the government member on duty earlier to request permission to table it. They have both agreed, and I therefore seek leave to table it.Leave granted.I advise the Senate that I do not intend to speak further to my amendments in the committee stage. I will move them and await the result on the voices.13:17:004702Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I too rise to speak to the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 . Like my colleague Senator O'Brien, I would like to draw attention to the fact that, despite the minister having stated that this bill was for the purpose of promoting and fostering civil aviation in Australia, I too wonder, as a result of the debacle at Canberra airport with respect to terminal navigation service charges, whether or not that is the government's intent.Looking at the situation at Canberra airport, we see with great regret that this government, through its inept imposition of its policies, has put the new owners of Canberra airport in an uncompetitive position with respect to TNS charges. This circumstance has quite some history, and I think shows flaws in both the process and the methodologies used by Airservices Australia in calculating the appropriate charge for Canberra airport. But, prior to looking at those processes and methodologies, we also need to revisit just how the status of Canberra airport was changed from its previously listed regional status to that of non-regional.The implications of this were great for Canberra airport, specifically with respect to terminal navigation service charges, because no longer was Canberra airport eligible under the subsidy provided by the government that would have capped TNS charges at $6.75. It is interesting to note at this point that Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd believes that it can provide the service for $6.25 per tonne. The situation that we now find ourselves in is that Airservices Australia has sought and gained the approval of the ACCC for the imposition of a charge, not $6.75 or indeed $6.25—as Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd indicated it could cost it out at—but at a rate of $8.34 per tonne.Looking at the way Airservices Australia presented its arguments, it seems that it made a submission to the ACCC, prior to that determination on 26 June, seeking a charge of $9 per tonne. Airservices Australia has come up with this figure of $9 not on the basis of the calculations provided by the actual airport and the data available but on its own estimations of air traffic movements.This draws into question the methodologies I spoke of earlier. The information and the way in which Airservices Australia prepared and documented its calculations for establishing the TNS charge appear to be fundamentally flawed. They appear to be based on an underestimated number of movements of aircraft traffic at the Canberra airport, hence shifting a greater burden onto that airport. I suppose what is almost unique about Canberra airport is that there is still a proportion of the military who utilise it and that that proportion, because of a structural barrier within the legislation, cannot be calculated into what a fair and appropriate charge would be with respect to TNS charges for Canberra airport.The list goes on. My point is that, within the methodologies contained for the calculation of that $9 charge that Airservices Australia submitted to the ACCC, it varied greatly from Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd's own calculations, which showed that they could provide the same services for around $6.25. The upshot of this was that the ACCC supported, to a degree, the submission put before it by Airservices Australia to the tune of the new rate of $8.34. This represents a 60 per cent increase in the terminal navigation service charges for Canberra airport. I do not see how this government can possibly argue that this represents any sort of progression, advancement or promotion of civil aviation in this country, particularly for an airport that was recently privatised and, therefore, is getting its grip on how it will be competitive as far as regional airports go.I now turn to the process through which these new charges were established. Correspondence provided to me by Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd indicates that, although there is a requirement by Airservices Australia to consult with all parties in relation to this matter, it had great difficulty in getting access to Airservices Australia to present its case. It documents a series of attempts to make contact to discuss these issues to no avail, to the point where the final submission from Airservices Australia to the ACCC was presented without Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd being satisfied that it had had the opportunity to present its views and to enter some sort of discussion around the merits or otherwise of the data that Airservices had used to calculate the $9 rate.Sadly, I believe that there has been some negligence on behalf of the ACCC because, between the time that the submission was received from Airservices Australia and the ACCC's decision on 26 June, no consultation took place with the Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd or the Canberra Airport Users Group—the group of very active general aviation users at that airport. In making that decision, the ACCC did so without having the opportunity to peruse or discuss with the proponents from the airport in depth the merits or otherwise of the case prepared by Airservices Australia, and as a result it has approved the $8.34 tonne rate at Canberra airport.Interestingly, the ACCC did consider it to some degree and dropped it from $9 down to $8.34, which means that there must have been some assessment of the level of merit contained within the case of Airservices Australia, in the sense that it did reduce the amount somewhat. That indicates that perhaps the material put forward by Airservices Australia left something to be questioned in terms of its accuracy of content.Nonetheless, this 60 per cent increase is now virtually unchallengeable. There is one opportunity for the Canberra Airport Users Group and the Canberra airport owners to challenge this, but it requires a judicial process and, no doubt, lengthy legal fees. In the meantime, this new charge came in on 1 July—yesterday—so already the Canberra airport is required to pay these increased charges.We know that the move by the government or by Airservices Australia to location-specific pricing does have some justification, and it does make some effort to put in place more equitable charging regimes. However, in this particular circumstance, Canberra airport seems to be at a specific disadvantage. I know that other airports are affected in the same disadvantaged way, but I have chosen to focus my remarks on our local situation here in Canberra.The latest development, with respect to this issue, is the minister's efforts to try to go into damage control. We have seen, just today and yesterday, the minister make some statements about the aviation training organisations, which were bound to be severely disaffected by the imposition of these massive charges. In fact, the minister appears to have back-pedalled somewhat and has provided some special rates. This, however, will not assist at all the general aviation airport users at Canberra airport. I have a letter from one of the Canberra airport users that I will refer to. It says:As discussed, I understand that Transport Minister Vaile has made a statement today that the 13.09c/litre reduction in the Avgas levy will more than offset the introduction of the new Airservices charges. This is demonstrably false.The basic trainer that my school uses is the Grumman Cheetah—it burns 35 lph. The saving in excise is, therefore, $4.5815 per hour. The additional cost of each landing (additional because we will still pay the airport owner landing fees) for Airservices new charges will be $8.32. The Cheetah weighs 998kg and the rate is $8.34/tonne.Accordingly, if the aircraft only does one landing per hour—and how realistic is that with a training school—we are $3.74 per hour worse off. Obviously, if it does more landings we are more disadvantaged.I think that sums up exactly, more than anything else, what the imposition is on Canberra airport users. Minister Vaile should at least acknowledge this situation and take it upon himself to intervene with respect to: firstly, Airservices Australia's calculations and methodologies in establishing that original $9 rate; secondly, the presence of the military at Canberra airport—which does have an impact on the aircraft movements and therefore the efficiencies contained within the air services and air traffic control staff efficiencies and so forth—and, thirdly, redressing the issue of Canberra's status as a regional airport, which is probably the most simple and practical way that they can avoid all of this kerfuffle and the unfair imposition of a 60 per cent increase in TNS service charges.In summing up my comments I would like to make three points. First of all, this whole exercise has been presented by the minister as a gift to airport users—that in some way they will reduce their costs and create greater efficiencies. That may well be the case in some areas in the bigger airports, where I know the airline carriers have come to an agreement. Indeed, at Canberra airport the major airlines have come to an agreement and accepted the $8.34 charge, to the great disadvantage of every other airport user.It must be said that, while there would be some advantage for the larger airlines in the larger airports because of the sheer economies of scale, it would be worth the trade-off of suffering a higher rate at a smaller airport like Canberra given the respective reduction in the number of air traffic movements. But that does not let the government off the hook when it comes to the disadvantage suffered by the local airport users and general aviation users at that airport. They cannot claim that there is an overall benefit to the civil aviation sector with respect to these changes.Once again it is a regional airport. As I said, Canberra is one of about three or four that are in the same situation. It is regional airports and regional users that find themselves in exactly the position of being at a disadvantage. This is such a typical phenom ena under this government. Yes, this bill is non-controversial. Yes, we are supporting it, but the changes contained in it do not excuse the minister for being so irresponsible as to allow this oversight to happen and to allow Airservices Australia to conduct themselves in the way they have with respect to Canberra airport.Secondly, there is the issue of process. There are two examples throughout this whole mess where the Canberra Airport Users Group and the new owners of Canberra airport should have been provided with an opportunity to at least present their case. The first was in the preparation of the Airservices Australia submission and figures in arguing for the increase at Canberra airport. That was not available to these people. They have made representations to me that, in fact, they were dissatisfied with the response from Airservices Australia in their attempts to meet with them. The second was with respect to the ACCC in coming to their decision. There is a requirement that all interested parties be consulted with respect to that. That also did not occur.The last point I want to make is what happens next? What happens next, given the processes, the legislative barriers that are in place and the inevitability of this decision sticking, will require a degree of either the minister intervening in this case with respect to Airservices Australia or Airservices Australia acknowledging that they were remiss in the way they calculated and applied the charges to Canberra airport in the first place and needing to revisit it. They are the two options. Everything else is pretty well inaccessible in terms of this particular group.In the meantime, Canberra airport users will be suffering a 60 per cent increase in TNS charges. Some major airlines have agreed to that. For some it will mean the difference between their business being viable and their business going under. For others, it will make their experience at Canberra airport more expensive. Perhaps that will subsequently reduce their usage of that airport, hence putting Canberra, as I said at the start of my speech, at a distinct disadvantage. The government needs to think long and hard about its application of competitive policies, particularly when it involves regional areas such as the Canberra region and putting our local airport at such a blatant and appalling disadvantage with respect to TNS charges.13:34:004705Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I simply conclude the debate by thanking all relevant senators for their contributions.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4705The bill.13:34:004705Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 24 June 1998. I seek leave to move government amendments 1 to 4 together.Leave granted.JX4Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHIN—I move:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 5), after subclause (3), insert:(3A) Schedule 6 is taken to have commenced on 9 October 1996, immediately after the commencement of the Airports (Transitional) Act 1996 .(2) Schedule 2, page 14 (before line 5), before item 1, insert:1A Section 5 (definition of joint-user airport )Repeal the definition, substitute: joint-user airport has the meaning given by section 7B.1B After section 7AInsert:7B Meaning of joint-user airport(1) For the purposes of this Act, each of the following airports is a joint-user airport : (a) Darwin Airport; (b) Townsville Airport; (c) an airport specified in the regulations, where the site of the airport is a Commonwealth place.(2) For the purposes of this Act, Canberra Airport is a joint-user airport . However, the regulations may declare that, for the pur poses of this Act, Canberra Airport ceases to be a joint-user airport at a specified time.(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the boundaries of the site of an airport are to be ascertained in accordance with the regulations.1C Section 11Omit "have one airport lease", substitute "lease one airport".1D Subsections 16(1) and (2)Repeal the subsections, substitute:(1) The Commonwealth must not grant a lease of the whole or a part of an airport site to a person who already holds an airport lease or an interest in an airport lease, unless each of those leases relates to the same airport site.(2) The Minister must not approve the transfer of a lease of the whole or a part of an airport site to a person who already holds an airport lease or an interest in an airport lease, unless each of those leases relates to the same airport site.Note: The heading to section 16 is altered by omitting "only one airport lease " and substituting "airport leases for only one airport site ".1E At the end of subsection 17(1)Add ", unless those leases relate to the same airport site".Note: The heading to section 17 is replaced by the heading "Simultaneous grant of leases to the same person must relate to the same airport ".1F Subsection 19(1)Omit "if there is already", substitute "to a person if another person already holds".Note: The heading to section 19 is altered by omitting "lease per " and substituting "person to hold airport leases for an ".1G After subsection 19(1)Insert:(1A) If there are 2 or more airport leases for the same airport site, the Minister must not approve the transfer of any of those leases unless the Minister is satisfied that, immediately after the transfer of that lease, all of those leases will be held by the same person.1H Subsection 19(2)After "grant", insert "or approval".1J At the end of subsection 20(1)Add ", unless those grants are to the same person". Note: The heading to section 20 is replaced by the heading "Simultaneous grant of leases relating to the same airport site to be to the same person ".1K After section 20Insert:20A Airport leases for an airport site to expire on the same dayIf there are, or are to be, 2 or more airport leases for the same airport site, the Commonwealth must ensure that the term of each of those leases expires on the same day.1L After paragraph 24(3)(d)Insert: (da) on the grounds set out in subsection 19(1A); or1M Subsection 32(4)After "airport-lessee company", insert "for an airport".1N Subsection 32(4)After "lease", insert "or airport leases".1P Section 73After "lease", insert "or airport leases".1Q Section 74Omit "lease is", substitute "lease or airport leases are".1R Section 118After "lease", insert "or airport leases".1S Section 119Omit "lease is", substitute "lease or airport leasesare".(3) Schedule 2, page 14 (after line 14), at the end of the Schedule, add:3 At the end of subsection 192(2)Add:Note: For the meaning of airport service , see subsections (4A), (4B) and (5).4 After subsection 192(4)Insert:(4A) The ACCC may make a written determination providing that a specified service, or a specified use of a specified facility, at an airport is taken to be an airport service for the purposes of this section.Note: A service, use or facility may be specified by name, by inclusion in a specified class or in any other way.(4B) The ACCC may make a written determination providing that a specified service, or a specified use of a specified facility, at an airport is taken not to be an airport service for the purposes of this section.Note: A service, use or facility may be specified by name, by inclusion in a specified class or in any other way.(4C) A determination under subsection (4A) or (4B) has effect accordingly.(4D) A determination under subsection (4A) or (4B) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .5 Subsection 192(5)After "this section", insert ", unless the contrary intention appears".6 Subparagraph 251(4)(b)(iii)Omit "the airport lease", substitute "an airport lease".(4) Page 21 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 6—Amendment of the Airports (Transitional) Act 19961 Paragraphs 20(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)Repeal the paragraphs, substitute: (a) a core regulated airport (within the meaning of the Airports Act 1996 ); (b) Mt. Isa Airport; (c) Tennant Creek Airport; (d) Archerfield Airport; (e) Essendon Airport; (ea) Jandakot Airport; (eb) Moorabbin Airport; (ec) Parafield Airport; (ed) Bankstown Airport; (ee) Camden Airport; (ef) Hoxton Park Airport;13:34:004706O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—The opposition will support the government's amendments.Amendments agreed to.13:35:004706Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Before I commence with my amendments on revised sheet 650, I want to remind the committee that, because some of the personnel have changed, I will not be speaking to these amendments. I will simply be moving them, so we can take the matter on the voices as they go. The second thing I would like to say is that I omitted to thank in particular Gail Kelly who supervised the work surrounding the study that I tabled earlier. I thank her for that work. The third thing is that I want to advise the committee that I will not proceed as per the running sheet because items 1 to 3 are pretty well consequential. Therefore, if item 4 falls over, I will simply withdraw items 1 to 3.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—So you will be moving amendment 4?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I will indeed do that. I move:(4) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 25), after item 11, insert:11A After section 19HRInsert:Part 2B—Aircraft movements at Perth AirportDivision 1—Interpretation19HRA Interpretation(1) In this Part: aircraft means any machine or craft that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air. Airservices Australia means the body called Airservices Australia that is established by the Air Services Act 1995 . authorised has the same meaning as in the Air Services Act 1995 . curfew period means the period commencing at 30 minutes after midnight on any day and ending at 5.30 am on the following day. land —an aircraft lands when it touches the ground. operator of an aircraft means a person who conducts an aircraft operation using the aircraft. Perth Airport means the airport known as Perth Airport. take-off —an aircraft takes off when it leaves the ground. week means a period of 7 days commencing at midnight on Sunday.19HRB Time is legal time in Western AustraliaReferences in this Part to time are references to legal time in Western Australia.Division 2—The Curfew19HRC Prohibition on taking off or landing during curfew periods(1) An aircraft must not take off from, or land at, Perth Airport during a curfew period, unless the take off or landing is permitted under Division 3.(2) If the operator of an aircraft knowingly or recklessly allows the aircraft to take off or land in contravention of subsection (1), the operator is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by a fine not exceeding 200 penalty units.Note 1: If the operator is a body corporate, the maximum fine that may be imposed is 1000 penalty units (see subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 ).Note 2: For the value of a penalty unit, see subsection 4AA(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 .Division 3—Aircraft movements permitted during curfew19HRD Delayed aircraft(1) Subject to subsection (2), an aircraft intending to land at Perth Airport must not take off from its last port of call unless its estimated time of arrival at Perth Airport will be at, or before, the start of the curfew period.(2) An aircraft which complies with subsection (1) but which is substantially delayed during the flight to Perth Airport by: (a) unforecasted headwinds; or (b) thunderstorms; or (c) operational conditions; or (d) unexpected traffic congestion;may continue its flight and land at Perth Airport.19HRE Early aircraftAn aircraft whose estimated time of arrival at Perth Airport is at or after the end of the curfew period and which arrives before the end of the curfew period must not land before the end of the curfew period unless its specified fixed fuel reserves would be reduced by continuing in a holding pattern until the end of the curfew period, or section 19HRH applies.19HRF Diverted aircraft—international passenger aircraft(1) For the purposes of this section, an aircraft is an international passenger aircraft on take-off from, or landing at, Perth Airport if: (a) the aircraft is being used to carry passengers for hire or reward in an air service that is covered by an international airline licence granted under the Air Navigation Regulations; and (b) for a take-off from Perth Airport—the first port of call of the aircraft after taking off from Perth Airport is outside Australia; and (c) for a landing at Perth Airport—the last port of call of the aircraft before landing at Perth Airport was outside Australia.(2) An international passenger aircraft which is diverted to Perth Airport must not land before the end of the curfew period unless its specified fixed fuel reserves would be reduced by continuing in a holding pattern until the end of the curfew period, or section 19HRH applies.(3) An international passenger aircraft which is diverted to Perth Airport may take off during a curfew period, regardless of its time of arrival.19HRG Diverted aircraft—domestic passenger aircraft(1) A domestic passenger aircraft which is diverted to Perth Airport must not land before the end of the curfew period unless its specified fixed fuel reserves would be reduced by continuing in a holding pattern until the end of the curfew period, or section 19HRH applies.(2) A domestic passenger aircraft which is diverted to Perth Airport and which lands during a curfew period may take off during the same curfew period only if the reason for landing during the curfew period was an in-flight emergency.(3) A domestic passenger aircraft which is diverted to Perth Airport may take off during a curfew period, regardless of its time of arrival.19HRH Aircraft may take off or land in emergenciesAn aircraft may take off from, or land at, Perth Airport in circumstances that would otherwise contravene section 19HRC if the aircraft is involved in an emergency as described in section 19HRJ.19HRJ EmergenciesAn aircraft is involved in an emergency if: (a) the aircraft is being used for or in connection with: (i) a search and rescue operation; or (ii) a medical emergency; or (iii) a natural disaster, including flood or fire; or (iv) a mercy flight; or (b) the pilot of the aircraft has declared an in-flight medical or other emergency; or (c) the aircraft has insufficient fuel to be diverted to another airport; or (d) there is an urgent need for the aircraft to land or take off: (i) to ensure the safety or security of the aircraft or any person; or (ii) to avoid damage to property.Division 4—Restriction of aircraft movements19HRK Daily aircraft movements(1) In this section, a reference to aircraft movements is a reference to aircraft landing at, or taking off from, Perth Airport.(2) Subject to subsection (3), the maximum daily number of aircraft movements must not exceed the prescribed rate.(3) A regulation to increase the maximum daily number of aircraft movements provided for under subsection (2) must not take effect before: (a) the responsible Minister has: (i) established a Commission under section 11 of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 to inquire into the environmental impact of the proposal to increase the rate; and (ii) when the Commission has reported, published an environmental management plan consistent with the Commission's findings; and (b) the time within which the regulation may be disallowed by each House of the Parliament has expired.19HRL Prescribed air routes(1) An aircraft must not take off from, approach or land at Perth Airport except along prescribed air routes unless the aircraft is involved in an emergency as described in section 19HRJ.(2) If the operator of an aircraft knowingly or recklessly allows the aircraft to take off, approach or land in contravention of subsection (1), the operator is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by a fine not exceeding 200 penalty units.Note 1: If the operator is a body corporate, the maximum fine that may be imposed is 1000 penalty units (see subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 ).Note 2: For the value of a penalty unit, see subsection 4AA(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 .(3) A regulation to prescribe air routes in the vicinity of Perth Airport must not take effect before: (a) the responsible Minister has: (i) established a Commission under section 11 of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 to inquire into the environmental impact of the proposed air routes; and (ii) when the Commission has reported, published an environmental management plan consistent with the Commission's findings; and (b) the time within which the regulation may be disallowed by each House of the Parliament has expired.(4) Until a regulation first comes into effect under this section, an aircraft must not take off from, approach or land at Perth Airport except along air routes designated by Airservices Australia for use as at 1 July 1996.(5) If the operator of an aircraft knowingly or recklessly allows the aircraft to take off, approach or land in contravention of subsection (4), the operator is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by a fine not exceeding 200 penalty units.Note 1: If the operator is a body corporate, the maximum fine that may be imposed is 1000 penalty units (see subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 ).Note 2: For the value of a penalty unit, see subsection 4AA(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 .19HRM Suspension of training flights(1) In this section, flying training has the same meaning as in the Civil Aviation Regulations.(2) Until a regulation is first made under section 19HRL, an operator must not allow an aircraft to be used above residential areas within a 30 kilometre radius of Perth Airport for the purposes of providing flying training.(3) If an operator knowingly or recklessly contravenes subsection (2), the operator is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by a fine not exceeding 100 penalty units.Note 1: If the operator is a body corporate, the maximum fine that may be imposed is 500 penalty units (see subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 ).Note 2: For the value of a penalty unit, see subsection 4AA(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 .Division 5—Provision of information19HRN Authorised employee may require the provision of information(1) An authorised employee may, by notice in writing given to the operator of an aircraft, require the operator to give the authorised employee, within 30 days of receiving the notice: (a) information relevant to determining whether a take-off or landing of the aircraft was permitted by paragraph 19HRJ(a); or (b) information relevant to determining whether use of a non-prescribed or non-designated air route was permitted by paragraph 19HRJ(a).(2) The operator must not knowingly or recklessly fail to comply with the notice.Penalty: 50 penalty units.Note 1: If the operator is a body corporate, the maximum penalty that may be imposed is 250 penalty units (see subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1974 ).Note 2: For the value of a penalty unit, see subsection 4AA(l) of the Crimes Act 1914 .(3) This section does not affect a person's right to refuse to give information on the ground that the information, or giving the information, might tend to incriminate the person or expose the person to a penalty.19HRO Provision of false informationThe operator of an aircraft must not, for a purpose connected with this Part, knowingly or recklessly give information to an authorised person that is false or misleading in a material particular.Penalty: 50 penalty units.Note 1: If the operator is a body corporate, the maximum penalty that may be imposed is 250 penalty units (see subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 ).Note 2: For the value of a penalty unit, see subsection 4AA(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 .I also wish to have a vote for and against the specific options in that amendment determined on the voices. The four options I will be putting will be as follows. The first option is the cap, the question to be divided in respect of section 19HRK. The second option I will put will be to the curfew, the question to be divided in respect of divisions 2 and 3. The third option I will put will be to flight paths, the question to be divided in respect of section 19HRL. The fourth option I will put will be to training flights, the question to be divided in respect of sections 19HRL and 19HRM. I have provided the clerk with a summary of that. I would appreciate it if the committee would therefore indulge me on that basis.13:37:004710Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I place on record the government's position with respect to the Australian Democrat amendments. The government does not support the proposed amendments which would essentially cripple the operations of Perth and Jandakot airports. The amendments would put in jeopardy the jobs of thousands of workers who rely on Perth and Jandakot airport operations and throw into disarray a network of domestic and international night flights connecting Perth to the rest of Australia and the world.The Airports Act 1996 already has adequate provisions covering demand management and airport capacity. These require proper consultation should any such proposal be required in the future. That act also contains specific provisions covering master plans, major development plans and environment strategies where the community and other interested parties can make submissions on the operations of the airport. These documents all require ministerial approval.The introduction of prescribed air routes or flight paths under these amendments would effectively restore current air routes to those previously in existence, losing the safety benefits from previous airspace changes around Perth. The suspension of training flights until air routes have been prescribed would probably close down Jandakot airport where significant international training activity is currently undertaken by overseas airlines which is an important export industry for Western Australia.13:38:004710O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—The ALP will not support these amendments. Whilst the ALP shares the concerns of the Democrats over noise issues at airports, the ALP supports the provision of noise insulation as is provided in relation to Kingsford Smith airport wherever there is a demonstrated need. I must say that it should be noted that this policy was in fact announced in Perth. We are concerned that the government does not have the same concern over noise issues, because only earlier today in the House of Representatives the government voted down an amendment regarding noise insulation near Adelaide airport. That is an issue which we would be seeking to take up in government. In relation to the provision of insulation in the Perth area, we obviously support this provision where there is a demonstrated need.As to the question of how these matters are best dealt with, at this stage the opposition would agree with the government that it would be best to deal with some of these issues when dealing with the airport master plan for both airports. We would, therefore, not support imposition by legislation of the measures proposed. We are also concerned that the passage of these amendments would potentially financially expose the Commonwealth given that, during the sales process, these issues were apparently not notified to tenderers. We share the government's concerns that the passage of the amendments which relate to training would curtail training at Jandakot airport. We support the continuation of training in Perth at this stage.13:40:004710Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I will speak briefly in response to the minister. Minister, you did make some unsubstantiated remarks about thousands of jobs and commercial chaos. There is a difference of opinion on that, as you would expect. I have research which can refute that. However, I will not explore it in view of the time that we have available to us.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that the Democrat amendment in respect of section 19HRK be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that Democrat amendment in respect of divisions 2 and 3 be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that Democrat amendment in respect of section 19HRL be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that Democrat amendment in respect of sections 19HRL and 19HRM be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that the remainder of the Democrat amendment be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.13:42:004711Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I therefore formally withdraw my amendments 1 to 3 on revised sheet 650.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.4711Bill (on motion by Senator Minchin) read a third time.Bills4711r2064711Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Senator Hill:That this bill be now read a second time.13:43:004711Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—We have already had a second reading debate in respect of this measure. I do not really need to talk at length this afternoon in respect of it. It is a bill that, as I said last time, represents the fulfilment of yet another commitment made by the previous Labor government. It is quite interesting to note that, as we just about end the term of this government, this government is still introducing and debating legislation that was being prepared by the previous Labor government. We have never seen a government in the history of Australia run out of ideas so quickly. To keep its agenda running in this place, this government is still relying on legislation and ideas that we introduced some time ago.As I say, it was an initiative that was heralded in the Justice Statement of May 1995 which, at that time, said:. . . a forensic procedures bill to allow police to apply for court orders to take samples from suspected criminals for identification.The statement went on to say:The use of forensic samples is a very important tool in crime investigation. The compulsory taking of samples is necessary for effective law enforcement. The lack of such powers might advantage criminals. The Commonwealth legislation will build in substantial civil liberty safeguards.As we promised in that statement, we did introduce a bill in 1995, and it passed through the House of House of Representatives. It was based on the Model Forensic Procedures Bill, developed by the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. In turn, the model bill drew on the recommendations of the report on body samples and examinations, published by the Victorian Consultative Committee on Police Powers of Investigation. The 1995 bill found its way to the Senate. Following consideration by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, a committee which reported in October 1995, the bill lapsed when the parliament was prorogued for the 1996 election.The bill currently before us relies heavily on the 1995 bill, although amendments have been made adopting most of the 20 unanimous recommendations of the Senate committee. Only three of those recommendations have not been adopted in full. Recommendations 1 and 3 sought to limit the power to take body samples and to conduct examinations—particularly of breast swabs, in the case of recommendation 3—to circumstances in which the offence was punishable by imprisonment of five years or more. The government has applied this recommendation, save that it has reduced the scope of the exception to apply to indictable offences only. It also appears on the basis of further consideration that, in agreeing to recommendation 3, the Senate committee failed to fully appreciate the nature of the procedures contemplated by the relevant provisions. So we take no exception to the government's exemption or lack of implementation of recommendations 1 and 3.Recommendation 2 prevented the taking of dental impressions. This recommendation was based on the state of forensic odontology as it was in 1995. We have been advised since that technological developments have been made that mean that less invasive techniques for the taking of dental impressions are now available. As a consequence, we do not believe that that recommendation needs to be implemented either. The bill was in fact further referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, which reported back in 1997. The majority on that committee, which included members of both the government and the opposition, suggested that only one further minor amendment should take place, and that amendment is now in fact incorporated.More substantively, Senator Murray, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, has made a number of recommendations, the substance of which is now contained in the amendments moved on his behalf. I can say that, with the exception of amendment 14, which establishes a formal and broad review of the operation of the bill, the Labor Party will be opposing the amendments. I have no doubt in saying that they are born out of genuine concern by the Australian Democrats that some provisions in this bill may be abused. However, I believe that this view, well-meaning as it is, may in fact not be realised. But to the extent that we do have concerns, the broad review recommended and proposed by the Australian Democrats—as opposed to the more limited one recommended by the government—will also put sufficient leverage over the system to ensure that abuse is kept to a minimum. In conclusion, we do support the bill and we support only one of the Australian Democrats amendments, that being amendment No. 14.13:48:004712Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill 1997 has required a number of important issues to be addressed: firstly, striking an appropriate balance between the needs of law enforcement and the civil liberties of individuals; secondly, creating a Commonwealth law to end reliance on outdated and inconsistent state and territory provisions; and, thirdly, ensuring that the Commonwealth will have an influence over the rules that will apply to databases which will hold information derived from forensic procedures.The bill has been subjected to very close scrutiny. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee considered it twice. Most recommendations of the committee's first report were accepted, and all of the majority's recommendations in the second report were accepted. The bill will be monitored to ensure that an appropriate balance between law enforcement and civil liberties is maintained, and it is proposed that that review occur after two years.Senator Bolkus, on behalf of the opposition, has indicated support for the bill and has said that the opposition will in the end oppose all of the Democrats amendments except one, when they are considered during the committee stage. Senator Bolkus, I understand, believes that the protections in the bill are sufficient and that the Democrats' amendments, except for one, place unnecessary limitations.However, Senator Murray, on behalf of the Democrats, believes that the bill raises some significant concerns. He has said that the bill significantly alters civil liberties but that, however, there is no information to suggest that advanced criminal detection rates will result from the bill. That is the position taken by the Democrats. The government would put the view that that is simply not correct. For example, there is increasingly more evidence to suggest that DNA profiling has dramatically improved the criminal detection rate in other countries.Senator Murray also stated that the bill treats the question of relevance of evidence as a matter to be determined by the police, not the courts. In response, let me say that it has been a long-accepted practice that the police should, subject to strict rules, be able to pursue all relevant lines of inquiry in the investigation of an offence. If the police believe that it is necessary to obtain a forensic sample from a suspect, the bill's provisions provide the mechanism by which this can be performed. However, the bill ensures that the forensic procedure proposed to be conducted is performed only in accordance with strict safeguards. Those safeguards ensure that the information permitted to be gathered from a person is relevant to the offence for which that person is a suspect.Senator Murray also expressed the concern that the bill extends, presumably unduly, police powers. On behalf of the government I say that is not so. Australian Federal Police officers have similar powers available to them under state and territory laws. Enactment of the bill will ensure that suspects for Commonwealth offences will have greater safeguards than those currently available to them under state and territory legislation. With those few comments, I thank relevant senators for their contribution to the debate on this bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4713The bill.13:51:004713Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 5 December 1997. I seek leave to move government amendments 1 to 3, together.Leave granted.JX4Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHIN—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 19 (line 27), omit "the suspect is a child, or".(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 41 (line 5) to page 42 (line 7), omit section 23XN, substitute:23XN Certain forensic procedures generally to be carried out by person of same sex as suspect(1) If practicable, an intimate forensic procedure (other than the taking of a sample of blood, a sample of saliva, a buccal swab or a dental impression) is to be carried out by: (a) if the suspect is an adult—by a person of the same sex as the suspect; or (b) if the suspect is a child—by a person of the sex chosen by the suspect or, if the suspect does not wish to make such a choice, by a person of the same sex as the suspect.(2) If practicable, a non-intimate forensic procedure for which the suspect is required to remove clothing other than his or her over coat, coat, jacket, gloves, socks, shoes and hat is to be carried out by: (a) if the suspect is an adult—by a person of the same sex as the suspect; or (b) if the suspect is a child—by a person of the sex chosen by the suspect or, if the suspect does not wish to make such a choice, by a person of the same sex as the suspect.(3) If practicable, a person asked under section 23XO to help carry out a forensic procedure covered by subsection (1) or (2): (a) is to be: (i) if the suspect is an adult—a person of the same sex as the suspect; or (ii) if the suspect is a child—a person of the sex chosen by the suspect or, if the suspect does not wish to make such a choice, by a person of the same sex as the suspect; and (b) is to be a person who is not inappropriate to help carry out the forensic procedure.(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 53 (after line 34), at the end of section 23YF, add:(3) If section 23YD requires forensic material taken from a suspect by a forensic procedure to be destroyed, the investigating constable must ensure that any video recording of the carrying out of the forensic procedure is also destroyed.13:51:004713Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The Australian Democrats advise the government that they will support their amendments.13:51:004713Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—We have no opposition, Madam Chair.Amendments agreed to.13:52:004713Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—In view of the remarks of the shadow Attorney-General, I seek leave to move Democrats' amendments 1 to 13 together.Leave granted.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I move :(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (lines 11 and 12), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of suspect .(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (before line 1), after Division 2, insert:Division 2A—Limitations on forensic procedures 23WCB Limitations on forensic procedures where suspect not charged or summonsed Forensic procedures which may be carried out on a person who is a suspect because of paragraph (a) of the definition of suspect are limited to the following non-intimate forensic procedures: (a) the taking of a sample of hair other than pubic hair; (b) the taking of a sample from a nail or under a nail; (c) the taking of a hand print, finger print, foot print or toe print.23WCC Limitations on forensic procedures where suspect under arrest and in custody but not charged Forensic procedures which may be carried out on a person who: (a) is a suspect because of paragraph (a) of the definition of suspect ; and (b) is under arrest; and (c) is in custody; are limited to non-intimate forensic procedures unless the person is suspected on reasonable grounds of committing an offence under Part IIIA.(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (line 4), omit "A person", substitute "Subject to Division 2A, a person".(4) Schedule l, item 1, page 13 (line 3), omit "Nothing", substitute "Subject to Division 2A, nothing".(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 20 (line 31), omit "A person", substitute "Subject to Division 2A, a person".(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 21 (line 12), omit "Nothing", substitute "Subject to Division 2A, nothing".(7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 21 (line 24), omit "A senior constable", substitute "Subject to Division 2A, a senior constable".(8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 23 (line 15), omit "A person", substitute "Subject to Division 2A, a person".(9) Schedule 1, item 1, page 23 (line 28), at the end of section 23WR, add: ; provided that the suspect is not a suspect because of paragraph (a) of the definition of suspect .(10) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 9 to 14), omit the definition of appropriately qualified , substitute: appropriately qualified , in relation to carrying out a forensic procedure, means: (a) if a person is a constable: (i) qualified under the regulations to carry out the forensic procedure; and (ii) having successfully completed a course of training approved by the Minister; or (b) in any other case: (i) having suitable professional qualifications or experience to carry out the forensic procedure; or (ii) qualified under the regulations to carry out the forensic procedure.(11) Schedule 1, item 1, page 40 (cell at table item 10, 2nd column), omit "constable".(12) Schedule 1, item 1, page 40 (cell at table item 11, 2nd column), omit "constable".(13) Schedule 1, item 1, page 41 (cell at table item 14, 2nd column), omit "constable", substitute "appropriately qualified person".The committee will recall that I addressed this bill during the second reading debate on 14 May 1998. The committee has also acknowledged that the Democrats have been a part of all the extensive reviews, and I acknowledge that the government and its predecessor have tried to attend to many of the recommendations and requirements laid out in those reports. I should indicate for the record though, that it is a concern to us that this bill does intrude into civil liberties, and the question is whether the bill significantly advances the public good in so doing.The minister did point out that we had raised the issue of whether significantly advanced criminal detection rates will result from the bill, and we had said that it was readily apparent from the evidence put to the hearings that no such case is made by the proponents of the bill. The minister has dismissed our concerns, I presume based on the brief put before him. However, I would like to advise him, for the record, that the advice we received that there was no quantified detection rate expected from this bill was provided by none other than Mr Alan Mills, general manager of national operations, Australian Federal Police, and Dr James Robertson, director of forensic services, on behalf of the Australian Federal Police, in their submission to the hearings. If you wish to check the Hansard record, you will find that they declined to be specific. Obviously, there is a general inference that there will be increased detection rates and they acknowledge that, and we acknowledge that.Obviously, DNA testing is to the advantage of criminal detection. We acknowledge that and we accept that, and in many respects, in fact, we regard this bill as having some very attractive characteristics. Our concerns, Minister, were to provide amendments which just addressed our concerns without moving away from the intention of the bill which was to improve Australian policing. I should make those remarks in respect of amendments 1 to 13.Amendments not agreed to.13:55:004715Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Madam Chair, I do not think I need to address the committee further. I move:(14) Schedule 1, item 1, page 60 (after line 10), at the end of Part ID, add:Division 13—Review of operation of Part 23YV Review of operation of Part (1) The Minister must cause an independent review of: (a) the operation of this Part; and (b) the extent to which the forensic procedure permitted by this Part have contributed to the conviction of suspects; and (c) any other matter in relation to this Part which, in the Minister's view, should be considered; to be undertaken as soon as possible after the second anniversary of the commencement of this Act. (2) A person who undertakes the review must give the Minister a written report of the review. (3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after its receipt by the Minister. (4) In this section: independent review means a review undertaken by persons who: (a) in the Minister's opinion, possess appropriate qualifications to undertake the review; and (b) include a nominee of the Attorney-General, a nominee of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, a nominee of the Director of Public Prosecutions and a nominee of the Ombudsman.13:55:004715Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I should place on the record the government's position, given the opposition's proposal to support this amendment. In relation to amendment 14, I advise that some forensic procedures under part 1D may be conducted by non-Commonwealth law enforcement agencies. That is a result of the definition of `constable' under the Crimes Act 1914. Senator Murray's proposed section requires state and territory police forces to record and retain information on forensic procedures that it conducts. I am advised that the Commonwealth in fact has no power to compel a state or territory to do so. As a result, any independent review tabled in parliament could well be incomplete and misleading.It is not possible to determine where forensic evidence in a criminal proceeding has led to the conviction or acquittal of a defendant. The jury must consider forensic evidence in combination with other evidence presented at the trial before reaching its verdict, and those matters are simply not made public. Therefore, the government cannot support the Democrats' amendment.13:56:004715Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I advise the committee that the Australian Democrats would not consider it misleading for a report to include in it a note to the effect that it was unable to gather the appropriate information from a state or territory which you have to make a request to and could not oblige them to comply.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.4715Motion (by Senator Minchin) proposed:That this bill be now read a third time.13:58:004715Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I formally advise the Senate that the Australian Democrats will vote against this bill on the third reading.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Sitting suspended from 1.59 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice471647164716Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, my question is directed to Senator Hill, the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Minister, if the native title deal is fair and equitable for all, why did the Prime Minister agree that the Commonwealth would pay Western Australia the vast majority of its compensation bill for future acts of extinguishment? Why are Australian taxpayers being asked to sign a blank cheque to allow Western Australia to take away indigenous Australians' property rights?4716Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Madam President, we think what has been achieved is a fair deal for all parties concerned. This has been a difficult issue that wasAW5CARRSenator Carr—Except for Aboriginals.BH4Senator HILL—In particular Aboriginals, Senator Carr. This has been—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You've got to be lying when you say that! There is absolutely no way you know anything about it!Senator Alston interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Bolkus, Senator Alston, stop yelling across the chamber. The question has been asked of Senator Hill, and he is the one who should answer it.BH4Senator HILL—Madam President, this has been a difficult issue that this government inherited from the previous Labor government. All honourable senators will remember the Australian people being assured by the previous Labor government that native title had in fact been extinguished by pastoral leases. They will recall what former Senator Bob Collins said on 20 December 1995—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You know nothing about it!LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—On a point of order, Madam President, is it acceptable for Senator Bolkus to constantly sledge across the chamber and say, `You know nothing about this; you know absolutely nothing about it; you know nothing about it'? How can that possibly contribute to a sensible debate on a very important issue? How can it possibly enable Senator Hill to give a considered answer?This is nothing more or less than a continued campaign of denigration to try and reduce the standards in the Senate and to ensure that answers cannot be heard. So, Madam President, I simply want to draw your attention to it in case you could not hear it because of the snide way in which Senator Bolkus normally says these things out of the back of his mouth.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order, Madam President, can I suggest that it is of course disorderly for any senator to interject and, if you were to call Senator Bolkus or any other opposition senator to order, you would probably have to call Senator Alston to order far more regularly as the worst offender, the most constant offender in the chamber in terms of breaching the standing orders. All I would say on the point of order is that it is disorderly for any senator to interject, and of course everyone knows Senator Alston is the worst offender in the Senate.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I make no comment on that.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—I was not planning to rise on the point of order but, in view of the comments that Senator Faulkner made, Madam President, you will be aware that virtually every time a minister gets up to attempt to answer a question we are subjected to a tirade of abuse from Senator Faulkner. So, as to his claims, I have to say, as bad as Senator Bolkus is, he is nowhere near as bad, in my view, as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate who constantly sledges and makes it very hard for answers to be heard.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no question but that interjections are disorderly. I think it is totally inappropriate to have some sort of competition to see who is the worst behaved in the place. Senator Bolkus is aware of the standing orders, and I would ask him, and other senators, to abide by them.BH4Senator HILL—Madam President, I was reminding the Senate of the state of affairs which we inherited from the Labor government, and in particular the assurances that had been give by previous Labor spokesmen that in fact native title had been extinguished on pastoral leases. In particular, I was reminding senators of the statement of former Senator Bob Collins on 20 December 1995 on that issue when he said:The question is an irrelevancy. It is an absolute nonsense.I also remind honourable senators of what former Senator Evans, who was leading the debate for the Labor Party in this chamber, said:. . . when this comes to be formally decided again—that is, native title—. . . the High Court decision will confirm that properly granted pastoral leases, for example, do in fact extinguish native title. The Prime Minister—that is, Mr Keating—. . . has said as much.This was the state of affairs when we came to office. This is what pastoralists and the Australian people as a whole had been assured by the previous Labor government—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left will cease interjecting. There is an appropriate time to debate these matters, and this is not it.BH4Senator HILL—Of course, as honourable senators know, when the High Court brought down its judgment, it proved to demonstrate that Labor had in fact misled the Australian people. What this government, the Howard government, then had to do was clean up the mess, and it has been most unhelpful to witness the approach that has been taken by the Labor Party ever since.Madam President, just remember Mr Gareth Evans's contribution to the debate in the other place when he attacked the Prime Minister by saying:He seems to never be so happy as when he is bashing blackfellas.What a constructive contribution from the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party in this country! Or remember the contribution from Mr Melham, the Labor Party's Aboriginal affairs spokesman, when he said on 29 May on the ABC's 7.30 Report :There is only one thing missing from the debate about the stolen generations, and that is the white sheets and burning crosses, and that has been the undercurrent of this debate.Madam President, that has been Labor's approach to this debate—to divide the Australian community, to incite anger, to create an atmosphere in which to make it as difficult as possible to find constructive and fair solutions to a very difficult problem. Of course, Mr Melham was at it again today. This time he has had to publicly apologise for his offensive contribution this morning.These Labor frontbenchers have been allowed to poison the public debate in this country to a background of a very important national issue. Notwithstanding that attitude of Labor, this government proceeded to progress the matter. I am pleased to say that out of the agreement that has been reached we have a careful balance between the interests of native titleholders, pastoralists, resource developers and other Australians, and respect for native—(Time expired)4717Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I ask a supplementary question.Senator Lightfoot interjecting—Senator Cook interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Lightfoot! You will desist from shouting across the chamber in that fashion. Senator Cook, you will do likewise.5K4Senator FAULKNER—I ask Senator Hill: how much will Commonwealth taxpayers be liable to pay for these future acts of extinguishment? Has not the Prime Minister just bought off the states, particularly Western Australia and the Northern Territory, with a bottomless bucket of money over which the Commonwealth has no control? I specifically ask the minister: in light of this massive expansion of potential call on Commonwealth expenditure through coverage of future, undefined acts, will the government be adjusting the statement of contingent risks to the Commonwealth fiscal situation contained in the budget papers?4718Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—As I was saying, we have been able to find a resolution to this difficult question, which provides a careful balance between the various stakeholders, which respects native title, which reduces uncertainty and which provides improved workability of this vital piece of Australian legislation. I take the opportunity to commend those who have been parties to the negotiations.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I raise a point of order. Madam President, you will note that the minister has deliberately chosen not to answer either my question or my supplementary question. My question was about compensation and my supplementary question was about how much Commonwealth taxpayers would be liable to pay for these future acts of extinguishment. He has only a few seconds left. Madam President, can you direct him to answer the question that has been properly asked of him?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I think you are challenging the minister's motives by the adjective you have used in describing his answer. He was dealing with the question that you raised. He may not have answered it precisely as you would like.BH4Senator HILL—I was going to address the issue of financial assistance. The government made commitments about assisting the states and territories with financial assistance following the Wik decision. The government has told state and territory governments, particularly those most affected by native title, that the Commonwealth will look again at how it can assist the states with compensation liabilities and relevant administrative costs. These liabilities include compensation for acts which affect native title, such as new public works and the cost of new state tribunals.47184718Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, who ought to be congratulated. The Leader of the Opposition has attacked the fair and balanced arrangement that the government and Senator Harradine—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I cannot hear Senator Macdonald when senators near to me are shouting so much. Senator Macdonald, will you start your question again, please?CX5Senator SANDY MACDONALD—The Leader of the Opposition has attacked the fair and balanced arrangement that the government and Senator Harradine have reached on native title, stating that it will—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Sliming up to the Liberal Party really well.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, I bring you to order. Order! The behaviour of the Senate is totally disorderly.CX5Senator SANDY MACDONALD—guarantee endless litigation. What is the government's response to this claim?4718Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I thank Senator Macdonald for his question. The government has for the last two years been working very hard in the national interest to try to resolve the self-evident problems of the Labor Party's Native Title Act and the obvious problems that have arisen for that legislation as a result of the Wik decision. I am naturally very pleased that the government has been able to reach an agreement with Senator Harradine to ensure that, at long last, the Native Title Act can be amended and we can have workable legislation. I record my appreciation for Senator Harradine's very constructive approach to those discussions.What has been the Labor Party's position throughout this debate? Regrettably, it has been one constantly and chronically of opposition, obstruction and frustration. Regrettably, they fell into an opposition mind-set within a day of coming into opposition. Mr Beazley's reaction to the agreement announced last night was, regrettably, entirely predictable. Straightaway, off the top of his head and probably without having read anything about the agreement, he said that it would result in endless litigation—the mantra that he thinks will get the response he wants. He provided absolutely no substantiation for that criticism of this excellent agreement.I have to say that Mr Beazley's position is really laughable when you look at the absolute disaster that Paul Keating and Kim Beazley presided over in the passage of the Native Title Act which, with due respect to my legal colleagues, is a lawyers' picnic. This has been compounded by the Labor Party's proposed amendments to the Native Title Amendment Bill, which the Labor Party moved in both December and April, which would make the current abysmal position with the Native Title Act that much worse.I remind the Senate what the Labor Party tried to do to the Native Title Amendment Bill in those two debates. The Labor Party, unbelievably, opposed the coalition's full validation of all acts done on pastoral leases before the Wik decision was announced. They well know that that position, if ever implemented, would lead to endless court battles over the validity of those leases—mostly mining leases—issued in good faith over pastoral leases. The Labor Party also opposed our confirmation of the extinguishment of native title on exclusive possession tenures. They know full well that that would lead to endless litigation over every single exclusive possession lease in this country. Thousands of innocent Australians would be dragged into court because of the Labor Party's proposed amendments to that bill.Worst of all, the Labor Party wanted to subject the Native Title Act to the Racial Discrimination Act—something which it would not do in government. Former Senator Bob Collins, Father Frank Brennan and many other Labor spokesmen have said it would be a disastrous policy and the Labor government would not do it. But the Labor Party in opposition insists on it. They know it would lead to endless litigation and the potential for challenge to everything done under it. Labor wants the full right to negotiate to apply across 79 per cent of Australia—something that would be legally disastrous for this country. Our deal provides the legal certainty that is so desperately needed, and minimises the prospect of litigation. Labor's amendments create even greater uncertainty and would guarantee years and years of endless litigation.47194719Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Minister, if the native title deal is, as you claim, fair to all parties, why did your government refuse to consult with indigenous Australians? Given that the interests of our indigenous Australians are fundamental to this matter, why was there no attempt to treat them equally and with respect by including them in those secret discussions that you have had over recent days?4719Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I am pleased that Senator Bolkus has raised the issue of equality because that is what this resolution is all about—equality of all Australians in the face of this difficult challenge that we have been presented with. The Prime Minister consulted at length with indigenous Australians on the issue of the native title legislation. I can even recall the Indigenous Working Group walking out on consultations with the Prime Minister.Senator Bolkus interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, cease interjecting.BH4Senator HILL—The question is falsely premised. The Prime Minister has consulted with indigenous Australians at length, has fully taken into account their perspective and has come up with a final resolution of this issue that is fair and just for all Australians.4719Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam, President, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Isn't your argument that there was no need to talk to indigenous Australians because their position was well known, as you just said, both spurious and offensive? Isn't it the case that all parties—miners, farmers, the states and even your government itself—had indicated that their positions were immovable? Minister, what was your real reason for denying indigenous Australians natural justice and the right to be heard on this most fundamental of issues? Minister, haven't you left them with no option but to seek justice through the courts, a process which will definitely lead to uncertainty and which will take decades to complete?4719Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Senator Bolkus obviously did not listen to my answer. He said that I said there was no need to talk because the position of indigenous people was well known. In actual fact, I said that the Prime Minister has consulted with indigenous people on this issue, the reform of the Native Title Act, at length, and that justice has therefore been provided to all parties. The Prime Minister's door was constantly open to all parties during the course of this negotiation. This negotiation has gone on for a very long time. I remind Senator Bolkus: who walked out of the negotiations? Was it the Prime Minister or was it the indigenous people?47204720Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I have a question for the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. I refer the minister to the proposed amendments to the Native Title Act announced last night by the Prime Minister. Will the minister explain to the Senate what these amendments mean for indigenous Australians?4720Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Eggleston for the question. The proposed amendments preserve the principles of native title established in the Mabo and Wik decisions. They recognise and protect potentially co-existing native title on pastoral leases. One of the most common complaints I have heard from Aboriginal Australians is that Labor's Native Title Act divided the indigenous community. It actually divided families and friends. I even had two sisters speak to me about the legal advice they had received.The proposed amendments set a higher registration test which will limit overlapping and multiple claims. This will greatly assist unity within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. Importantly, the proposed amendments recognise indigenous Australians who were removed from their families and, in the process, lost their connection with their traditional land or were locked out of their land. The amendments allow claims not just by those removed from their families, but also by their children. Under the amendments, native title claimants who had access to pastoral lease land at the time of the Wik decision will have that access confirmed. They will also have the right to be consulted in relation to mining and compulsory acquisitions on pastoral leases and in cities and towns.It is important to understand that this right to be consulted provides both native title claimants and pastoralists with equal rights. Equal treatment with equal rights is all that indigenous Australians seek. The government recognises that native title issues may be resolved by agreement rather than by long and expensive litigation. The amendments will provide, for the first time, a detailed framework for strong, fair and lasting negotiated agreements with native title holders on all aspects of native title.One of the great failures of the existing legislation is that it has been caught up in a complicated and divisive legal web. The proposed amendments provide greater certainty to all, including indigenous Australians, and their passage will help to defuse much of the divisiveness that native title has created in this country. This is a major step forward in the reconciliation process.I acknowledge that some indigenous spokesmen are disappointed because they did not get all that they wanted. I say to Senator Bolkus in particular that it was the Indigenous Working Group's own decision to withdraw from direct discussions with the government in May last year, but even so, technical discussions at the officials level with the group's legal advisers have continued. Senator Bolkus obviously has not been informed of that.It is a fact that some indigenous spokesmen are disappointed, as I said. I say to them that so are some primary producers and miners. The amendments agreed to are a fair and equitable outcome for all Australians. There can be no question that the current Native Title Act produced by Labor failed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. The facts speak for themselves. By June this year, there had been 783 native title claims lodged under Labor's legislation and only two had been settled.Labor's failed Native Title Act allowed multiple claims which led to bitter disputes within the indigenous community. We now have an opportunity to move forward in a constructive and positive way. We have amendments that recognise the importance of land to indigenous Australians, yet still provide the necessary certainty to miners and pastoralists—in fact, to all Australians.47214721Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer. Can the minister confirm that he notified the Registrar of Senators' Interests, in a letter dated 26 March 1998, of a change in his pecuniary interests, namely that—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease interjecting. Senator Parer is entitled to hear the question being put to him.RF4Senator COOK—Namely that the trustee company of his family trust, Investment Management Pty Ltd, had become inoperative and `will be deregistered as soon as possible'? Can the minister confirm that, in the 3½ months since lodging his pecuniary interests declarations, the only change notified to the ASC regarding this company is to remove the minister and his wife as directors of the company? Can the minister confirm that IMPL remains a company registered with the ASC and that he has failed to fulfil the requirements of section 573 of the Corporations Law to have IMPL deregistered? Why has the minister misled the Senate yet again and failed to deregister this company, as he informed the Senate he would? Is it because he is trying to retain access to $2 million worth of coal company shares?4721Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Madam President, what I said was that it would be deregistered as soon as possible. Those instructions were given to lawyers and accountants. Where it sits, I do not know. All I know is that it is a shell company. It is not a trustee company any more. It does not have any control at all.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You haven't followed it through; you don't know what is happening.KI4Senator PARER—We have Senator Cook coming in here with his longstanding campaign to mislead the Senate and to make remarks like that. The Register of Senators' Interests is available to everybody. I provided the register with two returns of each registered interest, for my wife and for me, which are on the public record. These returns show that I fully met the commitments that I made to the Senate and to the Prime Minister on 23 March. They were accompanied by a statement by a leading firm of accountants in Brisbane, Howarths, who have been my accountants for may years—including their predecessor. They certify the accuracy of those returns on senators' interests.4721Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has just said that he will deregister as soon as possible, that he issued the instructions but does not know whether the deregistration has occurred. Is this an example of the minister being conscientious in his obligations to the Senate? Can the minister confirm that he has simply placed two members of his family as directors of IMPL to look after his $2 million of coal interests? Can he confirm that he can regain control over these interests within minutes of ceasing to be the Minister for Resources and Energy?4721Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Senator Cook, as usual, is wrong, wrong, wrong. The investment management company is no longer trustee of the family trust.47214721Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Minister, last night the Prime Minister claimed his amended Wik plan will `provide equal rights for people affected, irrespective of whether they are native title claimants, pastoralists or others.' Minister, will you confirm absolutely and unambiguously, where freehold titleholders have veto over most aspects of mining on their land and pastoral leaseholders have veto over mining within 100 metres of property and infrastructure, as they do in Western Australia, that native title holders will have the same equal rights of veto over mining? Minister, is it not the case that the Prime Minister's 10-point plan still contains bucketloads of extinguishment, in particular for your rather election-shy National colleagues, but at the same time further entrenches the status of indigenous Australians as third-class citizens in their own country?4721Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Quite to the contrary, this bill respects native title. It does not extinguish native title, as is being suggested by the honourable senator. It is true that the settlement that has been reached has been in terms where we have sought to provide an equality of treatment between native title claimants and pastoralists. Time will tell, as you seek to apply that to each mining law as it exists around the states and territories of this country, but we believe that the formula we have included in this settlement does protect that equality and is consistent with our principle that all Australians should be treated equally.4722Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I argue strongly that there is no equality of treatment in the 10-point plan. I ask the minister: is it not the case that the plan confirms the privileged position of the mining industry where a miner can come onto native title or pastoral land and start mining with minimal notification? Why is it that in this government's priorities the big mining companies come first, the pastoralists come a poor second and the Aboriginal people come a very poor third? Is it not true that the real objective of the 10-point plan is not in fact equality, but a deliberate relegation of native title holders to the bottom of the economic scrap heap?4722Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—There is a misunderstanding on the part of Senator Lees. When there is a mining application on a pastoral lease, our attempt has been to provide an equality of treatment between the native title claimants and the pastoralists and we believe that we have achieved that goal.47224722Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—My question is directed to Senator Ellison representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, what is the government's response to a constituent of mine from Redbank Plains who rang Drake Personnel to inquire about a particular vacancy, to be told that they could not assist her unless she registered with Centrelink. This constituent was then told by the Centrelink office at Goodna that she could not register because—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—On a point of order, Madam President: this question is clearly hypothetical. We have not a skerrick of evidence to suggest—Opposition senators interjecting—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—If the opposition want to table the details with the consent of the family involved, let them do so. This is the oldest trick of the book. You run around, put together a few facts and figures and pretend that somehow you know the basis of a concern. If that is not the case, if it is not hypothetical, then the question can be put in concrete terms and properly answered, but you should not allow it to go forward in this form.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order, Madam President: I make two points. This is clearly not a hypothetical question. These are questions of fact being addressed by Senator Gibbs to Senator Ellison. The second part of my point of order is that, again, we have an example of Senator Alston deliberately using the device of a point of order to give Senator Ellison an opportunity to catch his breath. We all know he has lost his confidence. We know that Senator Alston has been given the job of protecting Senator Ellison who is not up to the job of representing Dr Kemp in this chamber.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, I think you are getting close to casting a slur on senators. As to the question, hypothetical questions cannot be put to ministers. If there is hypothetical material within the question, the minister may ignore it. There may well be other matters that Senator Gibbs wishes to put, and she may continue with her question.6L6Senator GIBBS—This constituent was then told by the Centrelink office at Goodna that she could not register because her husband is employed full time and therefore she could not receive a DSS benefit. Minister, what does this government say to my constituent who is being discriminated against in the new employment services market because she is married and not eligible for unemployed benefits? Why is the Howard government discriminating against unemployed women such as my constituent who are simply seeking employment and are given absolutely no assistance by the new privatised system?4722Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—This is yet another attempt by the opposition to nitpick in relation to the Jobs Network reforms. We have a situation where not only those who are on benefits can use this system but also the non-allowees—they are being referred to jobs as well. It is open to a person to go into Centrelink and use the jobs vacancy teleservice, the number that any employer can use for placing a job vacancy. That is available to anyone who walks in the door and can use it. So there is absolutely no question that this can be done.If somebody finds a job provider who is not up to scratch, they can choose another one. In fact, in Queensland we have 268 job sites, 268 choices for job seekers. That is a vast improvement on the previous 51 CES sites that were available. This is a competitive environment, a competitive program where your constituent can try some other jobs providers. There are over 300 organisations in the business of finding people work.4723Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, why is it that a number of specific questions have been asked this week about the serious individual problems with the new employment services market, and yet no member of the government has been able to point to a concrete solution for these problems? Isn't it the case that this new system is a complete shambles for jobseekers, employers and service providers?4723Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—Jobs Australia, which comprises 40 member organisations which are involved in this area, said this:It was unfortunate that media coverage of the new Jobs Network arrangements has generally focused on the negative and that stories about smooth and successful operations and positive outcomes for unemployed people do not get the attention they deserve.That is from someone involved in this very area of finding jobs for people. They are saying, `Let's have less negativity and more positivism. Let's look at the positives that this new reform is delivering to unemployed Australians.'47234723Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Given that Woolworths, Coles and Franklins control around 76 per cent of the food and groceries market and are increasing their share and that Woolworths and Coles Myer have nearly 40 per cent of the total retail market and no other country has anywhere near such concentration of their food or retail market, how does this clearly anti-competitive situation accord with national competition policy? Is the government investigating this concentration in market power and the impacts on consumer choice and rural and regional communities? Is the government proposing to amend the Trade Practices Act or to develop anti-trust laws so that there is a focus on anti-competitive, anti-choice outcomes so that the ACCC can investigate this issue.4723Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Margetts, I think you have a question on notice of a very similar type to the one you just posed to me.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—No, I haven't.WW4Senator KEMP—You haven't? In any case, I will certainly answer it. It is an important question. If you have any evidence at all of anti-competitive behaviour by anyone—in other words, if you are worried about these examples that you have quoted—you can of course take your complaint to the ACCC. You have that right. You have raised an issue on which you obviously feel there may be evidence. You have not been able to sustain that, but if you have the evidence you have the right to take your case to the ACCC.Australia does have laws, which you are aware of, which prohibit the monopolisation and concentration of market power. Section 50 of the Trade Practices Act generally prohibits mergers or acquisitions which have the effect or the likely effect of lessening competition in a substantial market for goods and services. Of course, parties can also apply for an exemption from section 50 which will be given if they can demonstrate substantial public benefits from the merger or acquisition taking place.Under section 46 of the Trade Practices Act, that prohibits a business that has substantial market power—I think that is the point you are making—from taking advantage:. . . of that power for the purpose of:(a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor . . . That may have been the underlying theme that ran through your question. It goes on:. . . or(b) preventing the entry of a person in that or any other market; or(c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market.As I said, where you feel you do have some evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, it is up to you—if you wish to—to bring it to the Productivity Commission.The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is an independent statutory authority which is responsible for ensuring compliance with the competitive conduct provisions of the Trade Practices Act. It is easy to stand up and impute motives to people but, if you feel that you have the evidence, the doors are open to you to make a complaint. The final point I would make is that the Productivity Commission—which, if I remember rightly, I do not think you are the greatest fan of, Senator Margetts—will be undertaking a public inquiry into the impact of competition reforms on rural and regional Australia. Again, if you have concerns, you may wish to make a submission to the Productivity Commission. I am sure that they will be pleased to hear from you.4724Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister says that I can contact the ACCC. We have. The ACCC say they have no power to deal with anti-competitive outcomes, and that is what I am talking about. Given that the Western Australian Council of Retail Associations has estimated that 1,800 full-time jobs were lost for every one per cent of growth in the big chain stores and the last ABS retail industry Australia survey of 1991-92 outlined that every one full-time job in large discount stores equates to 2.25 jobs in smaller shops, and that one part-time job in large discount stores equals 1.5 part-time jobs in smaller shops, does the government recognise that this concentration in market power of large retailers is having a negative impact on employment in Australia? Does the government think this negative employment impact is a good enough reason in itself for them to investigate this incredible concentration of market power?4724Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—One of the points that I would make in response to the question is that it is generally agreed that Australia overall has to become more competitive. Australia has to have an economy which can effectively compete in the world economy.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—This is oligopoly.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Why don't you free up newsagents?WW4Senator KEMP—It is very easy to make a general complaint, but you have to put down the specifics. You have to recognise that, where you believe there are detrimental outcomes as a result, you can take your concerns to the ACCC. I have to tell you, Senator, that the door is open to you in relation to an inquiry which is being done by the Productivity Commission. (Time expired)47244724Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Can the minister confirm that, since the transfer of jurisdiction from the former Industrial Relations Court in early 1997, the court is still staffed by 30 persons and that some of these staff will remain under contract until December 1999? Is the minister aware that the salaries of the judicial registrars with nothing to do was almost $1.4 million in 1997-98 and that the total cost for staff and accommodation for this non-existent court was $6.76 million last financial year? How can the government possibly defend this disgraceful waste of money and court resources—potentially up to $15 million—between the closure of the court and the expiry of all staff contracts?4724Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator Murphy for the question. You ask about the cost of making what this government believes are appropriate changes, and you make the assertion that any cost involved in making those changes, vis-a-vis the industrial court, is not worth bearing. I do not impute any bad faith to you; I simply say that I do not take the figures you assert at face value. I will go away and ask someone in the Attorney's office to verify those figures. If there is anything in particular that merits a further response, I will come back to you.I just make the point—it is a pretty obvious one to everybody else, I would have thought—that there is often a cost to making a change. People like you over there want to focus on that cost without focusing on the benefit. That is the mistake you make all the time. You are always complaining about what you see as the negatives and never looking at all the good things that follow from them.4725Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. We might accept that there might be a cost, but the general idea would be to try to minimise those costs. Given that you will investigate the matter, can you also confirm that these staff, particularly the judicial registrars, have had negligible work since the transfer of the court's jurisdiction and that this situation continues despite various promises of appropriate work coming from the Federal Court? Minister, why were these legal resources not put into use in the Federal Court or the Industrial Relations Commission, instead of just wasting some $7 million each year until the end of the century?4725Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—Once again, I do not take the figures you put forward as being ones that one should necessarily believe. I do not take them at face value. I will get them checked. I do not assume that these people have not had appropriate work to do, but I will refer your question to the Attorney. If he wants to say anything to you about it, he will.47254725Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. Is the minister aware of a misleading scare campaign currently under way in regional communities about the government's commitment to post offices in rural and regional Australia? Is the government committed to full public ownership of Australia Post and maintaining the present standard letter service at a uniform price for all Australians?4725Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—We said a number of things about Australia Post before the last election and paramount amongst them was the proposition—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You also had a lot to say about the ABC. Do you remember that?LD4Senator ALSTON—And anything I did say had nothing to do with any pre-election commitments, and you well know it. What we did say about Australia Post is that we would never privatise it; in other words, it would remain 100 per cent government owned. We also said that we would maintain the standard letter service; in other words, that all Australians would be guaranteed a standard letter service at a uniform price wherever they happened to live.Now those were cast iron, rock solid guarantees; and we have delivered in full. Not only that, but, in response to a recent report from the National Competition Council, we also made it very clear that our response would not involve the closure of any post offices or mail centres. The Prime Minister has said that and I have said that ad nauseam. I have also ruled out the NCC's principal recommendation which was that the business mail market be fully deregulated, and I have made it very clear that Australia Post's CSO will continue to be fully funded by way of an internal cross-subsidy.None of that has stopped the most shameless and disgracefully dishonest scare campaign in living memory. One very good example of that is this sort of rubbish that goes out from the CEPU, either taxpayer funded or union funded—but it doesn't really matter. The really lazy ones, like Senator Schacht, just have an overprint saying, `Printed and authorised and with the compliments of.' And what does it start with? It says, `The Howard government's National Competition Council.' Well, who set it up? This was the Keating-Beazley National Competition Council, right? It is an arms-length independent outfit. It is not ours. If it is ours, it sure is yours.It goes on with things like, `It is estimated that up to 15,000 of the approximately 40,000 employees will lose their jobs.' Estimated by whom? Of course, it is estimated by no-one except the union, who are out there trying to scare the pants off ordinary people in rural areas. You look at the numbers on it—I don't expect you to have read this, all you did was put a stamp on it, but if you do read it one time what you will see is claims that more than half the post offices in Australia will close as a result of this. The only possible way you could get to a figure of that dimension is to assume that somehow Australia Post would, overnight, lose every last cent of the revenue it earns from its currently reserved service.It is a preposterous allegation, because the facts are that in the last five full years before you got thrown out, you managed to close nearly 300 post offices. That was your performance figure. That is the bottom line for you. In the two full years since we have been in government, we have actually opened up more than 150. Look at the trend line. It is a preposterous and disgraceful campaign that is being run. The worst part about it is that if we did have truth in advertising, you would get five years for this—for misleading and deceptive conduct—because it is quite clear that no-one in their right mind would believe such nonsense.You continue to think that you can sit back on your oars, as you have done for the last two and a half years. Your idea of earning a living is to wander in here for an hour each day and slag off at the government; then, when parliament is not sitting, you wander around your electorate trying to whip up monumental scare campaigns; and you put your hand out to be paid as though you have done a full day's work.4726Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, would you like to elaborate further on the impact of Labor policy on the Australia Post services under the previous government's regime?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Heffernan, that question is out of order.47264726Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Minister, can you confirm that the government's savings rebate which has been promoted as an incentive to save is the same rebate that Treasury officials confirmed in Senate estimates would not in fact increase national savings? Is this the same savings rebate that high wealth individuals can get, even if they wind back their total savings over the course of a year? Is this also the same savings rebate which will give a bonus of $450 for taxpayers getting income from $60,000 or so of investments while wage and salary earners, who do not usually pay personal superannuation contributions, will receive on average only $20 per year?4726Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Isn't this typical of the Labor Party? Here we have a major government initiative to encourage savings and all you can do, in the usual Labor Party style, is stand up and knock it. Senator, let me make a couple of points which will assist you.We were able to deliver an incentive for savings. Your party was not able to deliver. You remember the 1993 election when you went to the people promising l-a-w law tax cuts? You remember that? What happened? Failed to deliver. Then the Labor Party said, `We can't actually deliver our l-a-w law cuts, so what we will do is throw this whole issue off to the never-never and develop what we will call the co-contribution scheme,' which cut in years later. The truth of the matter is you could never deliver that, you could not afford that. So the first point is that we have been able, through prudent budget management, to deliver an important incentive to savings.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Kemp. You should direct your remarks through the chair.WW4Senator KEMP—Through you, Madam President, to Senator Collins: the second point is that you mentioned the evidence before the Senate estimates committee. I would not adopt the habits of some of your colleagues of not actually reading what is said. Don't take a question before you have actually had a chance to read the Senate estimates carefully, read the particular debate there and read fully what the Secretary to the Treasury said. Because this is an important savings measure. This provides an incentive for people to save.And the third point I make, in relation to your imputation that this will largely flow to higher income people, is that the modelling on the savings rebate shows that a substantial proportion of the benefits will actually flow to lower and middle income people. So you have not looked.We have had questions on this, I would say, for at least a year. I have stood up in this parliament, I am sure, on quite a number of occasions and pointed out this evidence to you, which has never been queried by the Labor Party. Even Senator Sherry, who sort of occasionally knows the odd fact or figure in relation to the economy and the budget, has never been able to get up and knock this particular statistic.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—I have—I have knocked it constantly.WW4Senator KEMP—No, you have not, Senator. You have tried to, very unsuccessfully. Let me conclude by making these points. This is a very important savings measure. It is welcomed by the vast majority of Australians. Millions of Australians will benefit as a result of this measure. Most of the benefits of the measure will flow to low and middle income people.Senator, you should recognise, and the public will recognise, that we have been able to deliver a savings initiative. The Labor Party, despite all its promises—and perhaps the greatest broken promise since Federation was in 1993—was never able to achieve that. Why do you not, for a change, adopt a constructive approach, recognise that this is an important initiative by the government and, rather than attempt to indulge in puerile knocking, welcome it like the rest of Australia?4727Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Thank you, Minister. I did, in fact, follow the Senate estimates discussion on this matter. I ask you if you could table the modelling to which you have referred in your answer. Additionally, I ask: is this the same savings rebate that will give every member of parliament a $450 tax break merely for being in the parliamentary superannuation scheme? Is this the same savings rebate that the Prime Minister felt was such an unfair windfall for the wealthy that he said he would personally refuse it? Will you refuse it, Minister? Is this also the same savings rebate that Senator Parer will be able to rort and ensure that each and every beneficiary of the W.R. Parer family trust will qualify for a $450 savings rebate, which will entitle each of them to a $7,600 per year tax free trust distribution?UW4CRANESenator Crane—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Earlier in proceedings here today in a previous question, you ruled that Senator Kemp had to answer through you. That question then was directed entirely straight at Senator Kemp. I would ask that you rule it out of order. At no stage was it directed through you, Madam President. As such, that question should be ruled out of order, bearing in mind your previous ruling that Senator Kemp himself had to answer the question through the chair.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You are absolutely right, Senator. Senator Kemp's last answer was directed across the chamber to the questioner. The question was directed back the same way. They both are not complying with the standing orders, and I am being very tolerant about the amount of time I take in pulling people up. But you are correct.4727Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Collins, you and your colleagues—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, having been reminded of the standing order—WW4Senator KEMP—Through you, Madam President, Senator Collins and her colleagues, with their votes, attempted to defeat the superannuation surcharge in this parliament. Senator Collins, I invite you to stand up after question—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Kemp. You cannot even hear me call you to order because of the noise on the other side. I would ask senators to abide by the standing orders and not make so much noise. All shouting together like that means that no-one in the chamber hears question time and those listening do not either.WW4Senator KEMP—I invite Senator Collins to stand up after question time to indicate the savings that she would have personally made on her superannuation if the Labor Party had been able to defeat the surcharge. I invite you, Senator Collins, to stand up because the assessments are out. What would you have saved if the Labor Party had been able to defeat the surcharge? Stand up and tell this parliament.47284728Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Vanstone. I refer the minister to the policy released yesterday by the One Nation Party dealing with multiculturalism and immigration. This policy is clearly discriminatory and, if it were ever to be implemented, would result in major economic and social damage to Australia. So I ask the minister: given that One Nation has now released a policy which is clearly discriminatory and is unequivocal in its proposal to abolish multiculturalism, will the government and, in particular, the Prime Minister now make a clear, simple and unequivocal statement in support of multiculturalism and the prosperity it brings to Australia?4728Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank the senator for his question. Senator, I do not know if you were in the chamber a couple of days ago when Senator Brown asked me a question with respect to one aspect of One Nation's immigration policy, so described. I am not sure that I would give it the credence of calling something like that a policy. Our position on immigration is perfectly clear.This is the party that got rid of the white Australia policy. These are the parties that first welcomed Indo-Chinese refugees to Australia after the Vietnam War, in opposition to the people opposite who did not want this to proceed. There is no question about the coalition's commitment to immigration at all. Frankly, Senator, why anybody tries to continue to give Ms Hanson and her ratbag nonsense collection of policies any publicity, I do not know.4728Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My supplementary question is to ask the minister to address the question I asked the first time around and, particularly in light of her answer, to provide her with the opportunity not to give One Nation a platform but to remove that platform by actually having a clear and unequivocal statement from the government in support of multiculturalism. My question related to multiculturalism, not to the immigration program. I would ask the minister whether or not the government and the Prime Minister in particular will now make a clear, simple and unequivocal statement in support of multiculturalism.4728Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I have two things in response. We would all like some clear and unequivocal statements. Some of us on this side of the chamber would like a clear and unequivocal statement on your immigration policy and what net zero immigration means. Who are you going to lock out? If you are having net zero immigration, you have to lock somebody out, so we want to know how you are going to go about that. As to the matter of multiculturalism, Minnie Itson married Carl Hennings and then they married Mortimers and Tierneys, and that is how you got me. Lucky you. We are a multicultural country.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous4728472815:01:004728Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister for the Environment and the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Hill, for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to questions on notice Nos 1192, 1193 and 1203, which I asked on 13, 14 and 29 May respectively. I will move:That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill), by no later than 3 July 1998, the answers to questions on notice Nos 1192, 1993 and 1203.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You cannot move that. You may ask the Minister for the Environment, Senator Hill, why certain questions have not been answered, and you should at least listen to his answer first.BH4HILLSenator Hill—The answer is that I do not know but I will find out.4729Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Due to that unsatisfactory explanation, I therefore move:That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill), before the adjournment of the Senate on 3 July 1998, answers to questions on notice Nos 1192, 1993 and 1203.As late as the day before yesterday, my office again asked Senator Hill for the answers to these questions.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Asked me?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, you—that is, my office asked your office. Senator Hill is responsible for the inaction in his office on this matter. It comes right from the top; it comes from his own failure to act, presumably because these questions are related to the environment.The questions are important. Two of the questions are to do with the marauding impact on the Victorian forest environment of the regional forest agreement system. They were questions asking for explicit assurances about the regional forest agreement in the Central Highlands of Victoria. Two weeks ago, there was a response that one-quarter of one of those questions could not be provided at the time because there was a Victorian public servant away somewhere. There has been no answer since then.The third question relates to the Basel Convention and the failure of Australia to ratify the important component of that convention which would prevent Australia, along with other OECD nations, from dumping toxic wastes in less well-off countries. We have seen Greenpeace alert the world of the hazardous waste being shipped out of Australia to Hong Kong. It is a despicable situation for Australia to be in, and we are in that situation because of the despicable failure of this minister to ensure that this government brought Australia into line with other enlightened developed countries. But the minister, who sits there reading a book—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—He's reading the standing orders!QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I am told that it is the standing orders he is reading. Whatever it is, he will need to read fast because the provision in the standing orders is that he has to do more than simply say, `I don't know what is going on in my office.' It seems that he does not know what is going on with his own legislation. We are told that there is important legislation coming before this parliament later today when somebody in his office gets the papers ready. What is that legislation about? It is about more dereliction of duty to the environment. It is about this minister shedding his national responsibilities to the environment through legislation which would deprive future federal governments of the responsibility and the authority which the Hawke government used to save the Franklin and later the Daintree, for example.This minister has been such a comprehensive failure. Despite what I might have had to say about previous ministers, I am afraid they do not measure up to this minister when it comes to his ability to do the environment in. He is head and shoulders above the rest in his failure to be able to address the environment and act responsibly on behalf of the nation. Senator Faulkner looks like an absolute paradigm compared with this minister—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Paragon. The expression is paragon of virtue!QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The reality is that this is a serious matter. The minister is not only failing in his duties to the environment but, as we see him rifling through the pages of the standing orders, he is flouting the Senate. He has 30 days in which to answer questions. The standing orders say that he should answer the questions within 30 days. These are mightily important questions which relate to the constituency in Australia who are concerned about the environment, and isn't that everybody? The minister says that himself.The minister is not only flouting his responsibility on the environment and thumbing his nose at Australians who are concerned by the environment; he is flouting the Senate and the standing orders. There is no ostensible reason—and he says he cannot give one himself—as to why he cannot answer these questions and answer them now. He has, through the provision of this motion, been given 24 hours in which to do so. He has got 24 hours to shape up and show some shred or indication of environmental responsibility.One would have thought that, along with the Democrats, the Greens and the Labor Party, he would have been able to raise some form of celebration about the fact that yesterday was the anniversary of the saving of the Franklin in 1983. He could not even mention it. What did he do today to mark his recognition of that period of environmental gain in this country? He stumbled towards bringing in legislation which is going to do the country's environment out of a responsible voice and presence at a federal level.For example, today, when Senator Hill was asked on radio what this new legislation would do to protect species threatened with extinction on private lands, he did not know. He ummed and ahed and fiddled and fumbled around, but he did not know. He does not know what is in his own legislation and he does not know how to answer simple questions about important and critical environmental issues. He cannot handle them.The minister is not a new member of this place. He is the leader of the coalition government in the Senate. His conduct is not just unbecoming, it is derelict. It is unsatisfactory. The minister is a disgrace to his portfolio. It is a disgrace for him to be ostensibly representing, according to his title, the environment of the Australian nation, a nation which holds the environment in great regard. Senator Hill is contemptuous of it, but Australians are not.Senator Hill is contemptuous of the spirit in Australia which says that we have to do a lot better by the environment. As he has his back turned to you now, Madam President, he turns his back on the Australian people, and he has done so in everything he has done in the period of his failed ministry. I recommend this motion to the Senate. I ask for Senate support to do get this minister to do something responsible. He has failed to meet the standing orders. It is about time he was brought into line. I hope the Senate will help me bring him into line on this matter.03:09:004730Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Speaking on the motion on Senator Hill's failure to answer a question on notice, we expected Senator Hill to address some of the issues raised by Senator Brown in order for the opposition to make an evaluation as to which way to vote on the motion. We have heard Senator Brown's case. We have heard certain matters raised by Senator Brown, but there has been no response whatsoever from Senator Hill.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Still open-minded are you, Robert?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—We were open-minded on it because, when Senator Brown first raised the issue, Senator Hill indicated across the chamber that he did not know about it. The normal practice is that, when a senator rises in this place under this particular provision of the standing orders, the senator would give the minister a tip-off a couple of hours beforehand. You do not do that to benefit the minister; you do it to benefit yourself, because it usually sparks in the minister's mind the idea of speeding up the process. Senator Brown, when that process is followed, it is amazing how often an answer will come back very quickly.Senator Hill indicated that he personally had not known that this had been raised. Senator Brown then came in—and I have no reason to disbelieve him—and indicated that he had contacted Senator Hill's office the day before yesterday about these matters. There could have been a breakdown in communication in Senator Hill's office that led to no reason being prepared to give after question time today.It is this frustration that has caused Senator Brown to move this motion. Although I must say that I am still puzzling over his reference to Senator Faulkner as a `paradigm'. That has me confused, because I understand that a paradigm is an example of a pattern, especially of the inflexions of a noun or a verb. We do not know whether you have insulted our leader—and if you have, we are going to vote this motion down—or whether you have praised our leader—in which case you are in like Flynn with our 28 votes! But we do not know, and we probably will never know.A long response is not required from Senator Hill to indicate what his position on this has been. I understand from Senator Brown's speech that it has been a considerable period of time since he asked this question, probably much longer than 30 days. Senator Brown has indicated that it was mid to late May, so it is on the edge. In these instances, the complexity of the question that has been asked must be taken into account. It is quite proper for a minister to get up and say that a particular question on notice was extremely complex and extremely difficult to answer. That has been done before. When it is done, I think senators around the chamber should accept that as a relevant excuse.I should just tell Senator Brown that the 30-day rule was introduced by this side of the chamber against a Labor government. We were not enthusiastic about it at the time, I must say.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—We are now!UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Yes, a small change in geography has enthused us much more on this particular matter, but we are very disappointed that those on the other side are no longer consistent on this issue. They were passionate believers in the 30-day rule—as they were on the cut-off motion and everything else—until it applied to them, and now they are not so passionate. The 30-day rule has been introduced, essentially, to try to pressure ministers to give answers to questions on notice in a reasonable period of time. It does not exist in the other House. There, matters have to be taken up with the Speaker, the Speaker has to agree to write to the relevant minister, and then a response comes. In the Senate, we have a more economic and automatic provision.In certain cases there are genuine excuses for ministers not being able to respond within 30 days, especially if they have to go into the archival material and if it involves complex and interrelated matters. However, at the very least, what is required when notice is given to a minister's office is that some reasonable explanation be given to the senator concerned as to why questions have not been answered.Some questions on the Notice Paper have gone beyond the 100 days and have yet to be answered, but senators take into account the complexity of those questions and are very patient. What is required now, other than Senator Hill's contribution before Senator Brown moved the motion, is some sort of explanation as to, for instance, firstly, why the question has not been answered or, secondly, an assurance from Senator Hill that he will chase this matter up and get an answer to Senator Brown by the end of the week. That would mean that Senator Brown could then withdraw his motion.The Senate has to grapple with the situation where Senator Brown's motion is carried yet physically the answer cannot be got across. If we make an order of the Senate and it is simply impossible for the minister's department, given their stage of work on this question, to answer it properly tomorrow, it might be a matter that we will have to discuss tomorrow. However, one would hope that this series of questions that he put to Senator Hill can be answered by tomorrow and that Senator Brown can benefit from those answers. We should at least give Senator Hill a chance to try to swing the jury on this side by putting up some explanation. We will keep an open mind. I am certain that Senator Faulkner will keep an open mind before he instructs us which way to vote.15:15:004731Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I thank Senator Ray for giving me the opportunity to get some further and better information on this matter. I can now table an answer to question 1193, which was the question on the ban clause. It was delayed because of a difference of view between my office and the draftsman in the department on one small aspect. It will be a puzzle for Senator Brown to work out at his leisure. The other matter concerned questions 1192 and 1203. I understand that it was addressed to me in my position as the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The answers are still within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. I am also chasing up that matter. I undertake to get the answer to Senator Brown as quickly as possible. I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT(Senate Question No. 1193)Senator Brown asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 14 May 1998:With reference to the Basel Convention and the Basel Ban:(1) With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 896 (Senate Hansard, 30 October 1997, p.8542), in which it was stated that `The Australian Government will make a decision, after appropriate consultation, on whether or not to ratify the ban amendment when the technical aspects of the Basel lists are finalised': now that the new hazardous waste lists have been adopted at the Conference of Parties (4), together with a process for continued improvement of them, has Australia's concern been addressed.(2) When will the Australian Government start ratification of the Basel Ban, Decision 111/1 of the Basel Convention, into domestic legislation.(3) Will the Government ban the export of hazardous waste for recycling and recovery to non-annex VII (non-OECD) countries.Senator Hill— The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) At the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention, or COP 4, adoption of the lists (A and B) of wastes as new annexes (Annexes VIII and IX) to the Convention was a priority for the Australian Government. Decision IV/9's adoption of the lists of wastes provides much greater precision as to the Convention's scope.Some wastes remain on list C, a list not included in the new Annexes because it contains wastes whose status is yet to be decided. However, because list C is no more than a list of wastes proposed to be considered by the new review mechanism, there will always be some wastes on list C.However, COP4 also considered amendments to the list of countries in Annex VII. Decision IV/8 provided that no amendments to Annex VII would be made until the ban amendment, Decision III/1, enters into force. It also commissioned the Convention's technical and legal groups to report to the Parties on the issues relating to Annex VII. This means that the scope of Annex VII is not clear and consequently, the implications for implementation of Decision III/1 are not settled and will need to be clarified. This uncertainty remains a concern for the Australian Government which has not been addressed by Basel Convention Parties. (2) The Australian Government will consider both of these COP4 decisions, through the usual procedures of consultation with stakeholders. It would, of course, be necessary to prepare a National Interest Analysis before any decision was taken to ratify the Basel Ban amendment set out in Decision III/1.(3) See (2).15:16:004732Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Noting that offer by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill) and expecting that it means certainly before we rise in this session, I am happy to withdraw the motion. I give notice that it will be back in here again at about this time next week if I do not have an answer by then. I seek leave to withdraw the motion.Leave granted.Questions Without Notice4732473215:17:004732Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Yesterday Senator Brown asked me a question with regard to capital works spending on the Murray-Darling Basin. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Anderson, has provided a detailed response. I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—RESPONSE. The decision to fund capital works contributions to the Murray Darling Basin initiative is entirely consistent with the natural resource management objectives of the Natural Heritage Trust as described in Part 3, paragraphs 9 and 17 of the Natural Heritage Trust Act.. In this light, an additional amount of around $12 million will be provided to the Murray Darling Basin Commission for capital works over the period 1998-99 to 2000-01.. This funding is to ensure that water regulation structures operate effectively to achieve economic and environmental objectives along the river. Over this period of time it is expected that the water business will be established as a SEPA rate entity and operate in a er consistent with COAG water reform requirements.. The government's capacity to deliver on the important objectives of the Natural Heritage Trust or the Murray Darling Basin 2001 program is fully secures. It is important to note that the current federal budget allocates close to $43 million to Murray Darling Basin natural resource management programs.. This compares to just $13.8 million provided for similar activities in the last year of the Keating government.. The Howard government's commitment to the environment, natural resource management, and the Murray Darling Basin is an enormous increase on teat provided or promised by the previous government, and confirms once again that the coalition has a track record on environmental matters which the opposition could never compete with.473315:18:004733Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) to a question without notice asked by Senator Jacinta Collins today, relating to savings rebate plan.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—How much did you save?GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Can I say in response to that silly interjection that I am very disappointed, in taking note of the answer, that Senator Kemp has left the chamber. He asked me at the end of question time, after issuing a challenge, whether I would respond. I responded that I would take note of his answer, but he has left the chamber. He will have to wait to hear how I will deal with the matter he raised. I am still anticipating Senator Kemp's tabling of the modelling that I asked for in my supplementary question. He has not dealt with that issue. Senator Kemp tried to claim some thread of fairness in this measure and referred to modelling. We know not what that modelling is, and he has not indicated any preparedness to table it. I do not really think Senator Kemp should be the one issuing challenges in this sort of matter.His implication that the Labor Party opposed the superannuation surcharge measures on the basis of the personal impact it would apply, for instance, to my superannuation arrangements was very unfair. He knows full well that the reasons we opposed these measures were based, firstly, on the fact that the government had come into office on the claim that it would not increase any taxes. This is obviously a tax. Secondly, there were unfair administrative burdens in this measure that would impact unfairly on low and middle income earners. That was the second reason why the Labor Party opposed this measure.I want to comment on the broader issues of tax policy. As I said, Senator Kemp referred to the superannuation surcharge. The superannuation surcharge is a tax, as is the savings rebate, and an unfair one at that. The GST is another unfair tax measure. The savings rebate is unfair. Unfortunately, Senator Parer has also left. He sat around for a while after question time. I was hoping that he would remain. I am going to give this measure the Parer award. We now have the Parer award, the Parer test and the Parer principle. The Parer award is granted to Senator Parer, in my mind, because this measure will allow him to further minimise his taxation arrangements.Let us look at the example of a family of four. By 1999-2000, such a family will be able to structure its affairs in such a way that it will attract a rebate of a mere $2,000. This is only those families that are in a position to be able to structure their affairs that way; it is not the majority of middle and low income families, whose income is predominantly from wages and salaries.2L6BISHOPSenator Bishop—And consumed.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—And which is consumed, as Senator Bishop kindly reminds me. The savings rebate is not really a savings rebate. It is a rebate that rewards those with savings related income rather than those who are actually engaged in saving, as my question highlighted. The question also highlighted the cost involved. Treasury and the retirement incomes modelling task force point out that this measure will cost $2 billion by the period 2000-01.The other comment I would like to make on this measure is that it is a pretty weird policy if you look, for instance, at what I highlighted in relation to members of parliament. On the one hand we have the super surcharge being applied to MPs; on the other hand we allow the savings rebate. So we take with one hand and give back with the other. For a government that supports small government, it is difficult to understand why they are introducing measures that will simply burgeon the tax bureaucracy. It does not make sense.What I highlighted about the Prime Minister is also weird policy. Prime Minister Howard says, `I won't take it.' Why does he say that? Because it is unfair of course. But it is not going to stop his mates taking it. Of course not. Senator Kemp issued a challenge, and that is fair enough; but he stepped away from the question I asked him which was: the Prime Minister says he will not take it; what about you? There was no answer there at all. As I said, this is weird policy.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—What about you?GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Senator Ferguson asks: what about you? It is not my policy. That is a pretty fundamental point. (Time expired)15:23:004734Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The coalition welcomes the debate about savings policy.2L6BISHOPSenator Bishop—You haven't got one.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—The Australian Labor Party sure had one. Senator Bishop is clearly proud to be a member of a party that had such a clear record when it comes to national savings. Senator Jacinta Collins is the emerging economic expert in the Senate.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Don't be so patronising.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—People know that Senator Peter Cook is looking at Geneva; he is looking at the ILO. He is looking at Lake Geneva.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—I've just come back from there.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Senator Collins has just been there. Maybe she is going to beat Senator Cook to that place. She has this big interest in national savings. The coalition does, too. We compare our record with the record of the Australian Labor Party. They have a very long record in savings that you know well, Madam Deputy President, because you were a part of that government.Senator Bishop interjecting—H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Senator Bishop, if he was smart, would say, `Look, I wasn't really here when they did all that.' The Australian Labor Party government had a great record. That record should never be forgotten by the Australian people: $12.2 billion a year for 10 years on the trot. They were in government for 13 long years and Senator Jacinta Collins comes in here and says, `We care about national savings.'The record of Labor in 13 years of government was that for 10 of those years they ran deficits. For national savings, they say, `We don't put any money in the bank. We don't save as a nation; we will actually spend $12.2 billion more than we earn as a nation'—year in, year out for 10 years on the hop. Each year they make a decision: are we going to save as a nation this year; what is the government going to contribute to savings? The Australian Labor Party sit down in the cabinet room to discuss the budget and say, `No, we are not; we are going to spend $12.2 billion'—in 1998 dollars—`every year.' They made that decision. They have sat in cabinet for 13 years and they have probably had quite a few mini-budgets along the way.They made those decisions. They made a cold, hard-edged decision that they were going to put Australia into debt. When we talk about Australia, what do we think of? We really think of her citizens, of the taxpayers. What we should be thinking about is not only the taxpayers of today but of the taxpayers of tomorrow. Perhaps Labor were thinking about them; maybe they weren't.Kids in school at the moment who are contemplating going into the work force have a much bigger chance now under a coalition government than they did under a Labor government. In fact, when you talk about employment, getting into the work force and paying taxes under Labor, people often say: how did I get into the work force under Labor? In those days, you went to a CES office and you stood in queues for a few hours—queues of hundreds of people—outside bureaucratic, centralised and controlled offices. But what happens now under Senator Ellison's and Dr Kemp's reforms? They go inside, sit down, talk to people and get a job. Labor had a million people outside the tax system, a million people in these long queues. Madam Deputy President, you would remember those huge queues of unemployed people in New South Wales—the Australian Labor Party's army of unemployed standing in queues outside their lovely CES offices.Let's defend to the death the CES; let's get back to the queues. That is the Labor Party policy. We are talking about savings here today. You do not save by having a queue of a million people standing outside this shrine of the CES that they will die in a ditch to defend. That is what the Labor Party thinks about savings—$12.2 billion a year.What have we done for low and middle income families in Australia? We have said, `If you save, we'll give you a tax break.' For the first time in Australian history we have actually changed the tax system. Under Labor, it was: if you save, you get hit. If you save and actually earn some interest, you get hit by tax. What do the Liberal's say about savings? We say, `If you save, if your household puts away some money for a rainy day or saves for your kids' education or saves for a deposit on a house, we'll give you a tax break.'What do Labor say? `We don't like that. That's rude; that's crude. We don't want that; we want to tax you.' That is their tax policy and that is their savings policy. Their savings policy is $12.2 billion a year in debt. Their savings policy is: if you as a household save, if you put a little bit of money away, we will take some tax on that. So on 1 July, for the first time in history, if you are an Australian saver, you will get a tax break. Labor says, `No, that's not good enough for us.' That is the Labor Party's policy. The people will have a choice to make at some stage, and that is the choice. (Time expired)15:28:004735Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I also rise to take note of the answer by Senator Kemp to a question raised by Senator Collins. I agree with remarks by previous speakers that the issue of savings is critical to the future of this nation. It affects corporations, individuals and, necessarily, our public sector.Firstly, it is directly related to the current account and the high real domestic interest rates that are needed to attract and retain capital in this country. As we know, over the last two or three years that problem has been getting worse and worse, with the current account blowing out to of the order of $30 billion on current figures. Secondly, it affects the value of the currency and associated movements in the currency markets and, thirdly, it affects trade—trade patterns and trade markets. We only have to look at yesterday's papers to see the impact of the currency. When the trade deficit came in at around $500 million or $600 million, that was received well by currency markets, and the dollar jumped by somewhere between a half a cent and 1½c instantly. So it is both proper and essential to address the savings problem in Australia.At the outset, what is the government's solution? Firstly, a 7½ per cent rebate from 1 July this year; secondly, an additional 7½ per cent from 1 July 1999; thirdly, it applies to all forms of savings, however derived; and, fourthly, it applies to all income earners.In summary, we can say that it is unnecessary and wasteful. It is nothing more than a kickback to those who have engaged in past savings—that is, whether it be for savings in banks, personal superannuation, share bonds or income derived from assets. Any form of saving, no matter how worthless or inappropriate, is the subject of reward to the value of $450 per annum.What does this savings rebate do? It transfers government savings to private consumption. In an era of budget surpluses, it reduces government savings and transfers those savings to members of the public who can engage in spending or consumption. It actually achieves the remarkable result of reducing the total net savings of Australia.Why is this? It is because it is $450 per individual, $900 per couple and $1,800 for a couple with two dependent children and appropriate financial structures. These recipients have the option of taking that rebate and spending it, so in that sense it is nothing more than a transfer of government savings into private consumption. Not only does it not address encouraging or increasing national savings; as I say, it also actually achieves the amazing result of reducing the total net savings in this country.We have been told repeatedly in the life of this government over the last two or three years that we need budget balances or surplus budgets. That result has been achieved by limiting growth in outlays in the next few years or by reducing and cutting a whole range of government services. In the last two years, we have had numerous debates about cuts in pensions, child care, education, youth and training and other social entitlements. All of those cuts have been justified on the basis of the need to reduce government outlays as a way of achieving budget balance or budget surplus.We are told the budget surplus will be something in the order of $2.7 billion up to $10 billion over the next three to four years, and hence we will achieve higher levels of public savings. A significant amount of the entire savings achieved through cuts and cutbacks to public services and community services will be spent or wasted by the offer of this rebate. Most of that rebate will go, as the government well knows—and as it intended in its discussions at estimates—into private consumption, further blowing out the net debt of this country. Even if all or most of that rebate were saved by private individuals, it is only a transfer from public savings to private savings.So we have a major problem. The government has put forward a flawed solution. It has not put forward any serious policy response to that, and there is no guarantee for the future. We ask the question: why is there this transfer—(Time expired)15:33:004736Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—Madam Deputy President, Senator Bishop says that the government has put forward a flawed solution. Can I say to Senator Bishop that he had 13 years but never brought forward any solutions at all to encourage people in Australia to save.This morning I had some kind words to say about Senator Collins's attitude toward a different matter, a report, but I am afraid I cannot continue in the same vein this afternoon. Here we have had Senator Collins talking about a $450 rebate that some people, including members of parliament on this side, would get, yet she is a member of a party—as are Senator Bishop and Senator Murphy—which voted against the 15 per cent surcharge on superannuation. They voted against that in order to save themselves something in the vicinity of $6,000 a year.Now they have the hide to come in here and say that some members of parliament on this side will perhaps gain a rebate of $450 a year when those opposite tried to vote themselves something in the order of $6,000 a year. That is an outrageous proposition. Senator Collins and Senator Bishop have come in here and criticised the government's performance in trying to encourage savings in this country when they were trying to vote themselves an extra $6,000 a year—VJ4WATSONSenator Watson—Maybe more.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Maybe more, as Senator Watson says, in some cases. They were determined to line their own pockets and then criticise some people who might get $450. The trouble is that the opposition sees everything through the eyes of a salary and wage-earning PAYE taxpayer, partly because none of them have ever worked for themselves or tried to earn an income or had to save for their own future because there was no-one else doing it for them.What about the hundreds of thousands of people who are self-employed in this country, who in many cases are struggling but who are also wishing to save for the future? The savings rebate which this government introduced yesterday is designed to provide some incentive for particularly those people who are self-employed, for people who have to provide and prepare for their own future, to do so.It is anticipated that the bulk of the savings rebate will go to individuals who are earning less than $40,000 a year. Not only are we giving them the rebate, but people who are paying up to $1,000 as a personal superannuation contribution, as Senator Bishop knows, will not only get the savings rebate but will also get the existing 10 per cent rebate which is available to people earning up to $31,000. I think that is a marvellous incentive to encourage low income earners to save and to put something away for their retirements. Unlike PAYE taxpayers and wage earners, and those who come under the superannuation guarantee, these people need some incentive to ensure that in retirement they can be self-sufficient.At no stage have I heard the opposition say what a great benefit this will be for those people who, unlike them, have worked for themselves and battled to earn a living and, in many cases, set up their own businesses. This is an incentive for them to be able to do something for themselves in retirement so that they, when they reach retirement age, will have the possibility of living a lifestyle equivalent to those people who are having an enormous amount put in by their employers in order that they can have a reasonable standard of living when they retire.What did the opposition do to help low and middle income earners throughout the 13 years they were in government? Absolutely nothing. Their high deficits—the fact that the government had to pay so much extra in interest—and the way the economics of this country operated during those 13 years meant there was absolutely no incentive for low and middle income earners to save. As a matter of fact, it took away one of the very few incentives for people who contributed $3,000 a year to a personal superannuation fund. It took away that right from many self-employed people and wage earners who wanted to supplement their retirement incomes by contributing $3,000. That was a disincentive to people who were trying to provide for their own retirement. (Time expired)15:38:004737Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—There were a number of howlers in the last address. It would be fair to say that Senator Ferguson is a good friend of mine, but I have to take him to task on a couple of those howlers. He said a minute ago that all of us on this side of the chamber were miserable because we were trying to get ourselves an extra $6,000 as a result of one of the bills coming through the Senate.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Or more!ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Or more, he says now. Senator Watson was agreeing. It is no wonder these two are on the backbench. No-one was getting anything out of it. What the government were doing was taking 6,000 bucks off everyone. In fact, stupidly—and I use that word advisedly—they were going to take even more off their own ministers. When they found out about the full impact of this Costello plan, there was a whole string of ministers absolutely spewing over this because they found they would be paying a fortune. They thought that it would be getting all of our old ministers who had retired. That is not what happened.The other thing I want to say—and I will not go too far into it—is that I am handling some representations on this matter for Liberal members of parliament. They do not want to approach their own Assistant Treasurer; they do it through me. I have three of them right now that I have had to take round to good Senator Kemp and say, `Look, Senator Kemp, some of your blokes are not all that happy about this and would like to know about it. Are you really doing this to them?'I do not want to go into that any further but, then again, I did not open this matter: those opposite did. But if they want to know more about it, all they have to do is talk a bit more about us over here. I am handling no representations for our lot, but I certainly am for theirs. They cannot believe what Costello has done to them. They are not at all pleased about it. A couple of them are even suggesting they might vote for us.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—I raise a point of order. Madam Deputy President, I thought you would have pulled up Senator Quirke for not referring to a person in the other place by his correct title.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—That is a very good point of order. Senator Quirke, would you please refer to Mr Costello appropriately and correctly?ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—The reverend or the Treasurer?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The Treasurer.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Righto. I could have been talking about the reverend. The other howler to come in here was the one that we did absolutely nothing for 13 years about the savings problem in this country. I do not know how anyone could get up and say that with a straight face. We brought in superannuation for all wage and salary earners. We did it over the top of Senator Ferguson's mates. Senator Ferguson now says that we took away the $3,000 limit in which he and a number of others could have participated. We brought in a comprehensive scheme which has pumped, as I understand it, about $400 billion so far into this country's savings.The big problem Australia has is the savings rate and the need for capital because we are a nation of 18 million people in over five million square kilometres. The development of infrastructure and everything else in this country requires a pool of capital. Superannuation, as we brought in over those 13 years—the other day it lifted to seven per cent and is on its way to a higher figure—has been the only success story in what is a very sad story about the question of savings rates in this country. That is the only success story so far to date.The reality is that this scheme represents nothing more than just a few quid in the back pocket of those people who do not need it. No wonder they think this is such a great idea. It is one of the few paybacks to some of their bigger supporters. It is not much of a payback—there is not that much in it—but it is going to all those people who do not need it. Those opposite stand up in here and make out a case that this is one of the greatest schemes around the place. I honestly have to scratch my head about this government. Of the many things they do, some are just stupid and others are inept—like this scheme.15:43:004738Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Recently I had the opportunity, as part of the economics committee, of visiting New Zealand for about four days. There I had the opportunity of having dinner with the New Zealand Commissioner for Retirement, and an instructive evening it was. Following that meeting Mr Blair sent me a number of brochures and videos that his office were playing on television outlining the need for New Zealanders to save, and to save a lot more. Perhaps one of the most poignant messages that came out of those videos was from two elderly people, who were not in strong financial circumstances, with the concluding words: `If only I had known then what I know now.'That message illustrates very graphically the need for people, at an early age, to start saving for their retirement. There is something magical about compounding—in putting your money away early in one's working life and contributing regularly over a long period to build up retirement savings. Increasing personal savings is imperative in Australia. Retirement savings must be increased around the world. What Australia needs is a bipartisan attitude towards savings. That is perhaps the second important message that I got from Mr Blair, the New Zealand Commissioner for Retirement.In New Zealand, there is largely cross-party or bipartisan support for long-term savings. Actuaries tell us retirement savings must be a long-term commitment that must start early in one's working life. I am rather disappointed at the increasing politicisation of retirement savings debate in this country. There will not be a great future for retirement savings unless there is a stable, long-term approach to savings which gives people confidence in putting money aside over a long period so that, in their latter years, they can retire with dignity and with adequate financial support.Around the world, working patterns are changing quite dramatically. There have also been demographic changes. Many in the work force are changing jobs frequently. Some are retiring a lot earlier than they used to. Jobs for life are gone. But what is important is that people are living a lot longer. Over the long term—and it is not only an Australian problem—economists and demographers tell us that it will be increasingly difficult to provide the sorts of retirement incomes that we have enjoyed in the past.In some countries, the amount of government support by way of pensions is being reduced. Other countries are raising the age at which people become eligible for retirement incomes. In this country, we certainly have bipartisan support for a lower safety net where low income people become eligible for a government pension. The majority of Australians aspire to something more than a safety net pension. I believe there is a need for both a compulsory and a voluntary approach towards saving. However, voluntary contributions generally require some sort of an incentive.I am therefore somewhat disappointed at the tone of the debate, which attacked incentives in the form of the recently enacted savings rebate. Admittedly it is not a lot, but it goes a long way for some people in terms of some incentive to provide after tax income for their retirement savings. The federal Liberal government has a good record of encouraging and spreading the opportunities for saving for retirement. I refer, of course, to the recent spouse rebate initiative which encourages a wider spectrum of savings across families and raising the age at which people contribute to their saving.The USA has provided a number of interesting retirement models. Interest has been shown by a few European countries that have relied heavily on government supported savings arrangements in the form of pensions. The American models that I am referring to rely on the marketplace to provide the mechanism for maximising pension benefits. In other words, one can obtain a better retirement income through relying on investing through the market than through government instrumentalities. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Matters of Urgency4739473910000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 2 July 1998, from Senator Murphy:Dear Madam PresidentPursuant to Standing Order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move:That in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The Government's failure to adhere to and implement the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy of 1995 and its 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 the need for the Government to immediately:(a) constitute the Wood and Paper Industry Council under its original terms of reference with appropriate funding necessary to enable it to achieve the outcomes contained in the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy;(b) 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;(c) enter into immediate discussions with AMCOR, the relevant trade unions, the Tasmanian Government and the Burnie City Council to determine what actions need to take place to retain the pulp mill in Burnie;(d) 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;(e) 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(f) implement legally available measures to ensure that any wood, pulp or paper products imported into Australia comes from forests that meet applicable and internationally certifiable environmental standards of forest management.Senator Shayne MurphyIs the proposal supported?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.15:51:004739Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I move:That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The Government's failure to adhere to and implement the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy of 1995 and its 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 the need for the Government to immediately:(a) constitute the Wood and Paper Industry Council under its original terms of reference with appropriate funding necessary to enable it to achieve the outcomes contained in the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy;(b) 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;(c) enter into immediate discussions with AMCOR, the relevant trade unions, the Tasmanian Government and the Burnie City Council to determine what actions need to take place to retain the pulp mill in Burnie;(d) 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;(e) 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(f) implement legally available measures to ensure that any wood, pulp or paper products imported into Australia comes from forests that meet applicable and internationally certifiable environmental standards of forest management.This is a very important urgency motion because the industry which the motion is about is currently on its knees, and it is on its knees because this government, since winning office, has not followed through on the commitments it gave prior to the last election. The industry is on its knees because the government has not followed a strategy that we put in place in 1995, despite the fact that the industry minister, Mr `Black Jack' Moore, said—Senator Watson interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Watson!FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—and I quote from a letter dated 17 July 1996 in which the minister said:The government has endorsed the Strategy—this is the wood and paper industry strategy that Senator Watson is singing out about; it will be very interesting to see how you vote at the end of the day, Senator Watson—which includes a $38 million package to promote development of internationally competitive wood and paper industries based on ecologically sustainable management practices.The Strategy is complementary to the development of Regional Forest Agreements and the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Package, which will create resource security for the industry and facilitate restructuring. It will help to create a stable policy environment, allowing industry to confidently plan and invest in value added activities.The Government recognises the importance of effective communication between all stakeholders and to this end is currently reviewing the consultative arrangements covering the major forest issues.Details are expected to be finalised in the near future and once the new arrangements are put in place I am sure that they will ensure the wood and paper industry makes a significant contribution to the future economic development of Australia.In so far as the industry is concerned, the only thing this government has succeeded in achieving is a 40 per cent increase in export woodchips. How many jobs have we lost? Thousands. How many paper mills have we lost? Indeed, we are looking down the barrel of another pulp mill closing. How many new ones have we seen? Zip.What did the minister do about the strategy—and the Wood and Paper Industry Council that was supposed to drive it? He scrapped it. He threw the strategy out the window on the one hand and cancelled the Wood and Paper Industry Council. It was not until a disallowance motion in the Senate with respect to woodchip regulations that we were able to get it reinstated. That is what happened; it took us to get it reinstated. Of course, it was never reinstated in its proper form. It was never provided with any funding. Since it was reconstituted in a different form, it has met but twice and cancelled another meeting. It has served as a mechanism for driving absolutely nothing. The executive summary of the wood and paper industry strategy of 1995 says:The Wood and Paper Industry Strategy is a four year Commonwealth initiative to encourage investment, value adding and jobs growth.Investments of between $4 billion and $6 billion are at present under consideration. Industry and unions predict between 15,000 and 25,000 . . . jobs over the next decade.How wrong they were.Senator Calvert interjecting—FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I heard Senator Calvert, and obviously I will hear from Senator Abetz. I can recall the Prime Minister talking about the regional forest agreement and what it has done. We know what the Prime Minister and the Premier said when they signed the RFA in Tasmania: `One thousand to 1,500 new jobs.' How many do we have? Absolutely zip. The wood and paper industry strategy says in the executive summary:In implementing the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy, the Government will provide a further $38 million to work with the industry and its workforce to take full advantage of emerging investment opportunities. The Strategy will provide a stable government policy environment in which the industry can plan and invest with minimum risk and maximum confidence. Seizing these investment opportunities will generate import replacement, increased export earnings—The original terms of reference for the Wood and Paper Industry Council were:. to advise the Government on the implementation and further development of the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy;. to promote job creation, industry development, value adding opportunities and investment initiatives; including at the enterprise level; and. to act as an agent of change in the industry until Regional Forest Agreements are finalised and implemented.What has this government done? We rightly call upon the government. When this last occurred, when we forced this government to take one little step—albeit a failing step— towards doing something for the industry, when they set up a wood and paper industry forum of no use, Senator Harradine said that he would keep an eye on it. You only got Senator Harradine's vote at that time because you made a promise to do something, which you have not done. On this occasion, I hope that Senator Harradine will vote in the interests of the workers and in the long-term interests of this industry.What happened when the Burnie mill closed? Who did the government send down? They did not send `Black Jack' Moore down there.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Would you please refer to the minister by his correct title, Senator Murphy.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Mr `Black Jack' Moore.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—His correct title.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—The Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, Mr `Black Jack' Moore.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Murphy!FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—The Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, Mr Moore, who is known as `Black Jack', he did not go down. Who did they send? They sent the Minister for Social Security. They offered a few hundred thousand dollars and said, `Workers, we're sorry about your plight, but you'll just have to go.' Mr Fahey, who was all aghast at the fact that there was so much resilience in the community, said, `Oh dear, we'll go back, we'll make the company open their books and we'll speak to them real strong. That's what we'll do.'9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Sternly.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Yes, sternly. Has he done it? No. What else has the government done? The Prime Minister, in a meeting with the workers representatives, the Burnie delegation which came up here last week, said, `We'll make a big announcement.' Well, not too many announcements have come out of the Prime Minister's office.Prior to the last election, in giving a commitment to Alec Marr and a few greenies in the bush, this Prime Minister said that he would reduce export woodchips. You have failed again, Prime Minister. It was obviously not a core promise. He has not reduced export woodchips. Indeed, he has increased them by 40 per cent.I go again to the last point of this urgency motion, which calls on the government to implement legally available measures to ensure that any wood or paper products imported into this country come from forests which are managed on an ecologically sustainable and certifiable basis.Of course, I am going to hear from government senators opposite that that cannot be done. They are very silent about that. But I will listen with interest to what they have to say—because I note that they are all Tasmanians—to see whether or not they are prepared to stand up for the workers in Tasmania, let alone the rest of Australia. I hope that they have some determination—I could say something else but I will not—to take some steps that will ensure that this country has, in future, a downstream processing industry in forest based industries, and that we set out on a course of a huge import replacement program, because imports in this country have doubled since 1992. I say to Senator Watson, through you, Madam Deputy President, that they have doubled in the last two years because of the inaction of this government and its failure to do anything in the interests of an industry that does require intervention from a government.16:01:004742Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—Isn't it ironic that the Labor Party should be attempting to blame the coalition government for the shutdown of a pulp mill and for the lack of major investment in a pulpmill? It is as if by implication it believes that, if it were in government, it would be investing billions of taxpayers' dollars itself in that industry. What nonsense. All that governments can do is to remove the impediments to people investing. We are talking about an international commodity industry.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Leave it to the market.BX5Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSON—I would like to know how else you are going to do it.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—We got more exports from woodchips and logs than you lot.BX5Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSON—Isn't it ironic that the Labor Party is endeavouring to criticise this government for inaction? It is this government that has removed one of the major impediments to investment in this industry in this nation—and, in particular, in Tasmania—by removing uncertainty over the future of the forests. The Labor Party deliberately played green politics with it over a period of 13 years and, as a consequence, frightened investment away from the industry and lost the only genuine opportunity that Australia had for a world-class Kraft eucalypt pulp mill—it was blown—and we will have to wait for that opportunity to arise again.In north-west Tasmania those pulp and paper mills have basically been in trouble. Why? Because, going back a long period of time, previous owners did not take the trouble to upgrade their facilities to meet international competition and to become internationally competitive. They did not do that. But when they did make their first major attempt to do so with the Wesley Vale pulp mill proposal in the late 1980s, what happened? We had the ALP federal government playing green politics with suburban Melbourne and Sydney, against the forest industry throughout the nation, and it killed that project dead. Who killed that project dead? Former minister Graham Richardson killed that project dead. That is basically what happened. It was the only opportunity for a major investment in that industry at that time.It is important for those listening and for the Senate to understand that the pulp and paper industry is a commodity industry. It requires huge investments. For a greenfield mill we are talking about a minimum of $500 million up to $1 billion or $1½ billion. Investment in the industry is a cyclical business. It tends to have a rush all round the world over a few years and there is a great oversupply in that industry—and then it usually takes five, eight or 10 years for that extra capacity to be used up around the world before another opportunity arises for people to invest. That is the cycle in this industry. That is what happens in this industry.Australia had an opportunity back in the late 1980s, when there was a gap, a shortage of fine paper pulp, eucalypt Kraft pulp. APPM and others—a consortium—put up a $1.2 billion project, which was going to turn chips, which are currently exported and were being exported then, into pulp and then eventually into paper. And what happened? The federal Labor government of the day killed the project dead, and then continued to play green politics by trying to influence suburban voters in Melbourne and Sydney against the forestry and forest industry.I believe the opportunity will come again for another Kraft pulp mill in Australia—and particularly in Tasmania, because we have an excellent resource there. But the opportunity was lost in the late 1980s, and it will be some years before the world market opportunity will arise where people can invest. It is not for governments to make that decision. All governments can do is remove impediments. Governments can help and they can hinder. The Howard government is helping this industry to remove impediments. We have done that. The ALP government of the past hindered the development and stopped the investment.This shows that the opposition does not understand the investment process. It has no idea what drives the Australian economy. The two drivers are, first, productivity within existing firms—lifting productivity; and, second, investment in existing plants and investment in new plants and service. The ALP government killed off the one opportunity for this industry in Tasmania some years ago. Because capital is today a worldwide commodity—it is not tied to national boundaries; people do not have to invest in Australia or Tasmania or anywhere—we have to provide encouragement for people to invest in particular places by removing impediments to investors' confidence.The key thing in the forest industry was resource availability. The Labor government of the past sacrificed resource availability in order to curry green votes in Sydney and Melbourne suburbia. That is what happened. They tried to play both sides of that conflict, between the environmentalism on the one hand and development on the other hand, but ended up killing a large slice of the forest industry.Since we have been in government, what has happened? We have finalised the regional forest agreement, RFA, process. I am sure my colleagues will say something about that later.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—It was Labor policy; it was a Labor initiative.BX5Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSON—After a long time, after many years of arguing. I was involved in negotiations for many years as an industry representative. The Labor government of the day would not take any initiative until, in the end, they were forced to do so. That is what happened. When we got into power, what happened? Action immediately. Things are now falling into place. Legislation to lock in those agreements was introduced in the other place yesterday. This resource availability does not guarantee investment, but it is necessary. It is necessary but not sufficient. We then have to persuade people who are in that industry to invest in that industry when the time is right. The Howard government has been supportive of the Burnie community. As Senator Abetz said earlier, what happened in Burnie when the Burnie pulp and paper mill reduced its work force by 600 in 1992-93? The Labor government of the day took no action. What happened in 1995 when the titanium plant was closed costing 225 jobs—any action? No action at all from the federal Labor government.By contrast, when Amcor announced it was closing down its pulp mill just recently, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) immediately sent down a cabinet representative to meet with the company and the local community, and then followed up with a grant of $600,000 for that community for industry training and for local business action. Since then, Minister Parer has been down there and has given a grant of $300,000—again for north-west Tasmania—to encourage a study of infrastructure requirements for that region, because there are mineral prospects that can be devel oped in that region. We hope that getting gas onshore and development out of those mineral deposits will go ahead.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Now that's a sound industry policy.BX5Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSON—It is a real sound industry policy. Senator Murphy suggested that we should be banning imports of pulp. The government has made a commitment to look at that proposal. But I should remind the Senate and listeners that there are great difficulties in banning anything coming into Australia. Australia is committed to its WTO obligations. We have to be very careful that we do not infringe those obligations.The other thing I should say to the Senate is that most pulp that is manufactured and traded around the world does come from sustainable forests. They are well managed, sustainable forests.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Indonesia's?BX5Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSON—Senator Sherry mentions Indonesia. There may be some doubts about some of the sites in Indonesia, but that is a tiny proportion of the world pulp market. The world pulp market is largely dominated by the industry in north Europe and in North America, and those forests are run on sustainable bases. There is no problem there. The government is committed to sustainability. (Time expired)16:11:004744Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The first thing I need to say is that the forest products that are coming into the country from the so-called `well managed' resources in North America, let alone Indonesia, are not coming from sustainable forest practices—for Senator Gibson to say that is to exhibit extraordinary ignorance. Anybody who has been to British Columbia, for example, would have seen the stripping bare of vast areas of the mountainsides there, and anybody who has gone further south into Washington and Oregon states of the United States would have seen a massive environmental tragedy afoot.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Are there any sustainable forests in the world?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Abetz, you will get your time a little further down the line. If you want to draw on my information and overcome some of your own ignorance afterwards, I will be happy to avail you of that knowledge. The key point of parts (e) and (f) in this motion, which I would support but with some reservations, is to find some way of banning the imports of forest products coming from unsustainable logging. I have for a long time, both in the state parliament of Tasmania and here, sought to get ministerial intervention from successive Labor governments to prevent the import of rainforest timbers from Malaysia, for example, where the Penan people are having the rainforests cut down around their heads, their universe destroyed. We have had representatives of the Penan people in Sarawak come to Hobart. They did not visit the Labor party and they did not visit the Liberals. What they did see was the extraordinary devastation of Tasmania's forests under successive Labor and Liberal governments in the state.I give the following warning. The Indonesians are marauding and unsustainably logging their forests and allowing Malaysian logging companies in to do the same, and of course they are across the border in Papua New Guinea. The Malaysian government, which is corrupt in this area, has loggers in Sarawak and Sabah and on continental Malaysia cutting down forests with unsustainable practices. Unlike the Tasmanian forestry authority, Forestry Tasmania, and corporations like North and Amcor which make prodigious profits out of logging native forests in Tasmania, those countries do not descend to firebombing areas of pristine rainforests and world heritage value tall eucalypt forests, with all their wildlife, at the end of the logging process, and then moving in with 1080 and putting that on the—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Firebombing?ZW4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, firebombing. Senator Sherry questions the word `firebombing'. The forestry authority that he supports—and remember, the Malaysian and Indonesians as far as we know do not do this—fly over areas like the Tarkine and the great southern eucalypt forests of Tasmania after they have been destroyed by Forestry Tasmania at the behest of the woodchip corp orations, and drop thousands of ping-pong balls full of incendiaries which ignite when they hit the ground—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Why do they do that?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—They do that to make profit, Senator Sherry.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—They do that to regenerate the forest.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—You see, it is a different attitude in here, Mr Acting Deputy President, when I draw your Labor colleagues out on this matter. They then get themselves into strife. Senator Sherry says, `Why do they do that?' They do that, not to regenerate the forest at all but to destroy the cotyledons and the root systems of the rainforest, for example, which are treated as weeds. They do not want them competing with the artificial eucalypt component brought in—the monoculture or two or three cultures of eucalypts which replace those pure rainforests, for example, in the Tarkine.It is a scorched earth policy and its deliberate intent, by Forestry Tasmania, backed by the Labor Party in Tasmania and the Liberal Party, is to destroy the ecosystem so that it cannot compete with the industrial forestry which replaces it. So we have got dills in the Labor Party and the Liberal Party in Tasmania then calling for some sort of certification for the import of timbers coming from practices elsewhere in the world which are no worse and, abominable as they might be, arguably better than the practices which the Labor Party and the Liberal Party endorse in Tasmania.What a shocking indictment of those clods. What a shocking indictment, indeed, of the deputy leader, Mr Lennon and leader of the Labor Party, Mr Bacon, in Tasmania. As you will know, Mr Acting Deputy President, it was Mr Bacon, the current leader of the Labor Party in Tasmania who moved in in 1991 when the Greens opposed Labor putting legislation through the parliament for so-called resource security, which gave the big corporations the forests on a platter—there was not a dollar for it—and stitched up a deal between the weak-kneed then Labor Premier of Tasmania, Michael Field, and the avari cious then leader of the Opposition in Tasmania, Robin Gray. So we had the then union leader, now Labor leader, stitching up the deal to give the forest to North and Amcor, who came in after that, with no strings attached.Had they insisted that part of the bargain of giving the Tasmanian public forest to these big out of state companies was downstream processing, we would not see 300 people being put out the factory gate. And we would not have seen the 600 people that the government has just been referring to put out the gate straight after that abominable legislation went through the parliament. Labor and Liberal are responsible for the fix in which the Amcor employees find themselves in Tasmania. You cannot help but feel sorry for those employees, because they have been duped. Wouldn't it be good to see the size of the cheques that are for coming from North and from Amcor into the big party's coffers? And might I remind people taking part in this debate that there is a standing order requirement that anyone who holds shares in any of the corporations which might be advantaged or otherwise affected by this debate should declare it. I hope that standing order has been observed in this debate.Whichever way you look at it, Tasmania is in a fix. But it is not because of the Greens in Tasmania who, for years, have been fighting to have a better organised forest industry. It is not because of the Greens who recognise there are 18,000 jobs in tourism in Tasmania, some 3,000 of which are directly dependent upon keeping our wilderness and forests intact. Yet, after October, there will be only 2,200 jobs in the whole of the logging industry which marauds those forests for woodchipping. And those jobs are being shared even as the increased woodchipping occurs in the forest, if your submission to this Senate is correct, Mr Acting Deputy President.We have got a woeful record from the two major parties in Tasmania, with only the Greens offering an alternative which says, `Let us look to the service industries and let us get behind the home based businesses in Tasmania which put their profits back into Tasmania and which are committed to Tasmania.' Let us have a pulp mill which is state-of-the-art, and non-polluting, depending on the plantation resource in Tasmania and sited where Tasmanians will accept it. Not a Wesley Vale pulp mill sited in the middle of one of the richest vegetable growing areas of the state—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Where would you put it?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The Labor Party senator interjects. But Bob Hawke himself said, `How could we get behind something that was putting 13 tonnes of organochlorines into Bass Strait each day', not to count the amount that was coming out the chimney onto those vegetable fields. A pretty abhorrent policy and one that Labor should hang its head in shame about. (Time expired)16:21:004746Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I have a couple of comments about some of the contributions made today. Senator Brown accuses past Tasmanian governments—Labor and Liberal—of firebombing forests. Senator Brown knows, and it should be pointed out to the Senate, that to regenerate eucalypt forests that have been logged you have to burn them afterwards or you do not get regrowth of adequate quality. Also, most of the areas that are currently logged in Tasmania and are intended to be logged in Tasmania have been logged before and burnt before, if not by deliberate human action, by forest fires started by lighting. An essential part of the eucalypt forest cycle is fire.Senator Gibson raised a couple of matters. I want to place on record that the RFA process was Labor-initiated policy. Secondly, he talks about removing the impediments. But we need to do a lot more than removing impediments. We need to have an active, urgent industry policy to assist the industry in downstream processing.Senator Gibson says things are falling into place. The RFA process is now in place, I accept that, but the jobs are falling out of place. There is not going to be much of Burnie left at the current rate, if this is the way things are falling into place.Another point I would mention is that Senator Gibson talks about sustainable forests in Europe. I would accept that many of them are managed in a sustainable way, but a number of European countries have put in place policies to ensure that the importation of forestry products from countries that do not have sustainable environmental practices is forbidden.Forest industries are of major importance to Tasmania's regional economy. They cover a wide range of activities in the logging of both native and plantation forests. The resource is utilised for sawlog production for sectors as diverse as housing, furniture and craft products and chips for export—unfortunately, export—and also, importantly and relevantly in this debate, conversion to pulp and paper production.This value adding to pulp and paper is done at Burnie, Wesley Vale on Tasmania's north-west coast and New Norfolk in southern Tasmania. Our forest industries constitute between 15 and 20 per cent of the Tasmanian economy. They employ more than 5,000 people. Senator Brown, of course, says, `Let's get rid of it all and totally depend on service industries.' To add to the perspective of their importance, Tasmania has almost one-half of Australia's sustainable forestry resource. A large portion of that is state owned and state managed. A large part of the value adding and the local jobs are now under threat.The recent announcement by Amcor, owners of pulp and paper operations in Wesley Vale and Burnie, that pulp operations, employing 250 people directly, are to close in October and that pulp is to be imported from overseas, primarily from Indonesia, is a highly undesirable exclusion of value adding from the forestry process industries in Tasmania. It also puts a further question mark over the remaining 500 jobs in paper operations on the north-west coast.Forestry has always been a controversial activity. Many past practices have been both economically and environmentally unsustainable. Labor's approach in government had two fundamental themes. The first was to ensure a sustainable economic and environmental forest industry by a process known as regional forest agreements, RFAs. It is a scientific environmental assessment of each region. The areas that are not to be logged for sound environmental reasons are put aside. Where areas are to be logged, sustainable practices are put in place. Effectively, it is resource security.The second part of Labor's approach was a wood and paper strategy to lay a blueprint for downstream processing and value adding, maximising jobs. It is this second element that is incomplete. Indeed, it has been wilfully neglected, and I think deliberately ignored by the current Liberal-National Party hardline economic rationalists, and that includes the current Liberal member for Braddon, Mr Miles.We need a strong dose of government intervention in the forest industries, a strong industry and regional policy pursued with vigour—the carrot and stick approach needs to be adopted. Tasmania has a number of significant natural advantages. I have referred to our well-managed forestry resource but, secondly, it also has a highly skilled, educated, trained and responsible work force.In referring to the work force, the recent crass, ignorant, ill-informed comments by the National Party Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs, Mr Truss, with the nodding agreement of Mr Miles, I might add, that the past work practices made wharfies look like a work gang—in other words, blame the workers—must be rejected. The weak Prime Minister, Mr Howard, failed to pull him into line for what was clearly a misleading statement. The comments are untrue.As a Burnie resident, I know many of the former and current Amcor employees at Wesley Vale and Burnie. They are dedicated, committed and always have worked, and currently work, a decent day's work for a decent day's pay. Not even the management blame the workers for the current problems. Mr Truss and Mr Miles must stop blaming workers.The responsible and positive approach taken by the work force is well illustrated by the set of proposals put to Amcor yesterday by unions to identify $30 million in savings over the next five years, but a further element must be the rejection of pulp imports into Australia. Why? Indonesia and, for that matter, most Asian countries are grossly irresponsible in the management of their forest industries. Their approach is little short of economic and environmental rape. This is reflected in their pricing policies.Tasmania now has world's best forest management practices. We should reject imports from countries such as Indonesia that do not do the same. The playing field must be level. Firm legal action can and should be taken by the federal government to ensure forest products imported into Australia come from forests that meet certified environmental standards, but we should go further.The implementation of such an approach must be coupled with incentives to encourage investment in downstream processing and value adding. A package must be developed and implemented by Amcor or, for that matter, any other proposed pulp and paper operator to upgrade technology, to invest and to ensure value adding and jobs result. Such financial incentives, even in the quantum of $5 million to $10 million a year, will not be as expensive as the significant economic and social costs of the unemployment that we are to see.Tasmania is a region of significant long-term unemployment. There are few alternative job opportunities. The unemployment payments for the 250 lost jobs, if that goes ahead in October, will be at least $2 million per annum. You can double that, if the flow-on of job losses are included, to $4 million. You can triple that, if the paper operations are shut down in future years, to $12 million a year minimum.It is also in the national economic interest, particularly given our soaring trade deficit in forest products, for that to be reduced in some way. Value adding provides part of the solution to that forest products trade deficit. I would also like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the unions, the local councils, the businesses and the media, particularly the Advocate, for the very strong and, I think, responsible and positive campaign they have been running not just in respect of Burnie, which is the immediate issue at hand, but the long-term development of forest resources not just in Tasmania but in Australia in general.To sum up, resource security is now guaranteed to the private sector. Value adding of pulp and paper must be guaranteed by the private sector. Government has a strong role to play. It owns a significant part of the resource; it is not as though this is a resource that is owned primarily or totally by the private sector. It is not.Labor will act. It will act to ensure imports must come from well-managed, economically and environmentally sustained forests. Labor will act to provide incentives for a strong industry and regional policy to ensure downstream processing and value adding. Most importantly, it is in the interests of hundreds of pulp and paper industry workers to secure their future.16:30:004748Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—It is well known in financial and manufacturing circles, and particularly in Amcor itself, that had it not been for the strong action of the Liberal government, Tasmania would have lost two paper mills and the associated jobs. Today we have one of the most hypocritical and inaccurate urgency motions that has ever been presented to this Senate.We have Senator Murphy portrayed as the great white knight of the wood and paper industry. However, Senator Murphy, I submit to you, apart from a small core within the Amcor group, is a bit of a joke—the man who promises a lot and delivers little, the man who has been responsible for more loss of jobs at those factories than anybody else in Australia, and everybody knows it. The sad joke is the loss of jobs. The other joke is his lack of knowledge about the industry. His continual references to shiny paper, rather than coated paper, are a source of amusement amongst the blue-collar workers at the paper mill.I suggest in kindness, Senator Murphy, that this urgency motion is not of your own writing. It is my suggestion that the motion came from Mike O'Connor of the CFMEU, who is leading the charge against Amcor and the government. Your comments regrettably come too late.The CFMEU have at last come out of the woodwork. They did not put a great deal of effort into saving jobs before today. Where were they on the anti-dumping issue? The paper industry lobby group TasPEAC were here in Canberra, but the CFMEU were absent and calm on the issue and it was at the time of mill workers greatest need.The AMWU fought for its workers; so has TasPEAC. These unionists want to protect their industry. They do not want any regulation that will close the industry down. They are fearful for their jobs. They are fearful of the consequences of action that is being taken today. The workers are fearful of the ultimate ramifications of the CFMEU action because, if we stop that paper pulp coming in, Amcor will walk away as they proposed to do and close their mills. It was the Liberal government that retained those factories—unfortunately, in not the same employment numbers as we would have hoped.No, Senator Murphy, you are not the spokesman for the electorate at large. You are the spokesman for the CFMEU and sections of the labour movement only. You have created a great amount of havoc through strike action around the country. Who cares if Amcor uses the blocking of imported pulp as an excuse to shut down the remaining Amcor investments at Burnie and Wesley Vale so long as the CFMEU wins? Is this your aim? Is the wellbeing of the people of Burnie and Wesley Vale and their jobs and the welfare of those in the 250 jobs that have been lost at the Burnie pulp mill your aim, or is it is the CFMEU winning at any cost?When in government in 1992-93, when the pulp mill reduced its work force by 600, Labor took no action at all. Again, in 1995, when the titanium plant closed costing 225 jobs, the Labor Party took absolutely no action. Where was this man who is the originator of this motion? He was at the barricades himself, inciting action, and what was the result? APPM walked away from its investment, and what followed was a substantial downsizing—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Six hundred jobs lost.VJ4Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSON—There were 600 jobs lost in a fragile part of Tasmania. And who was responsible? Here we see a man initiating action that could result in the complete closure of that mill, despite the positive actions of the Liberal Party. The Liberal government is committed to working closely with the wood and paper industries. The government wants to encourage investment and create real, long-term jobs, particularly in regional areas.The wood and paper industry make a substantial contribution to the Australian economy and the Tasmanian economy. The annual turnover exceeds $10 billion, which is about seven per cent of the manufacturing industry, and there are currently 60,000 people employed in this industry. And yet you, Senator Murphy, want to take action that is going to destroy many more of those jobs. The dumping of paper products in Australia has impacted particularly hard on the Tasmanian paper operations. The government's reform of the anti-dumping laws will provide welcome assistance in responding to future dumping cases.The Liberal government came to office with a commitment to reform the anti-dumping system, a system criticised by the industry on many counts. Our government has delivered on that commitment and the industry now has the toughest anti-dumping legislation deliverable in the world. Prior to that, in supporting anti-dumping action, we arranged for up to 80 per cent of customs officers to be directed to work urgently on assisting Amcor to defeat dumping practices.The Senate may be interested to know that Senator Murphy and I had a bet about the success of our anti-dumping legislation. Senator Murphy was so dubious about us getting such a bill through parliament by 30 June that he and I had a friendly bet. He did not believe that the Liberal Party could deliver on a successful anti-dumping bill. Now I say to Senator Murphy, put your hand in your pocket and pay up that $5 that you owe me. We got the legislation through. We delivered on our election promise, but yet again Senator Murphy fails to deliver.In stark contrast with Labor's abysmal record at Burnie, within 48 hours of Amcor announcing the closure of the pulping section, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) had acted. A cabinet delegation consisting of the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) visited the city to hear the concerns of the workers and the communities. Where were your shadow ministers in similar situations? A package of $600,000 to generate new employment and business opportunities in Burnie has been announced and there will be more initiatives to come. This government is committed to ensuring that the Burnie region has a long and sustainable future. People within the community are working to provide medium- to long-term solutions, and the community welcomes this sort of action. (Time expired)H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, is it against standing orders to have a wager with a presiding officer on a subject before the chamber, and do you have a conflict of interest in making this ruling?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—There is no point of order, but I will take advice on that matter later.16:38:004749Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I was actually going to comment on exactly that issue. In September last year, in regard to the forest industry in Tasmania, the federal member for Braddon and Parliamentary Secretary [Cabinet] to the Prime Minister, Mr Miles, said:In regard to Tasmania and the Regional Forest Agreement, there is no doubt there will be a good solution come out of it for Tasmania and for the Australian people. It has listened to the Australian people and to the Tasmanian people. It is not complacent. There is stability coming into the forest industries and this debate, and there will be security for 20 years.At the signing of the regional forestry agreement, the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and the Premier, Mr Rundle, said that the agreement would provide more jobs, greater certainty for the industry, development and better conservation for Tasmanian forests.They were heartening statements on the face of it, but they were flawed from the outset. Those statements were not flawed because of the signing of the RFA. The RFA is crucial to providing certainty. With certain ty comes the opportunity to address our trade imbalance. It is ludicrous that last year Australia imported forest products to the value of $2.6 billion, while we exported only $1.3 billion worth. Unfortunately, the coalition, which is only too happy to adopt the line of least resistance in policy development, believed that the signing of the Tasmanian RFA would be a panacea for the struggling local industry. How simplistic.As Senator Murphy has said many times in this place before, the jobs that the member for Braddon promised would flow from the signing of the RFA have not materialised. The coalition wanted to continue travelling down easy street. It wanted to continue allowing major companies to export boatloads of woodchips for a couple of hundred dollars per cubic metre. The coalition has never been prepared to put its shoulder to the wheel in the quest for industry, investment and value added exports.To what extent the Asian crisis will have an impact on Tasmania's woodchip industry is difficult to gauge. As we know, many economists disagree on the extent to which the economic crisis in Asia will have an impact. However, there is consensus among economists that, in the forestry sector, there will be an increasing downturn in the demand for Tasmanian woodchip exports and more competition from Indonesian hardwoods.The difficulty is that the Tasmanian economy is currently so fragile that, with the expected rebound in Asia still some way off, the damage to the economy of my home state could be devastating. The impact of the crisis in Asia should be taken in tandem with events like the recent loss of 250 jobs at the Burnie pulp mill. There is also the prospect of massive job losses if hundreds of Tasmanian forest workers are stood down within the next few months, while private owners of timber reserves are compelled to ensure the legality of their operations. Further, as my Senate colleague Senator Murphy pointed out last night, there are some deeply rooted problems associated with the Forestry Corporation and the industry as a whole. Taking into account the sorts of difficulties being experienced, one can understand the reason for this matter of urgency.In particular, Australians and Tasmanians are becoming increasingly intolerant of Australia losing employment generated investments by exporting woodchips. With these types of events occurring, you can understand why people like the AMWU organiser Brian Green, who has worked tirelessly for the workers since Amcor's announcement at the Burnie mill, are frustrated. Mr Green was quoted in the Advocate yesterday as saying:Workers are frustrated. They know how much it costs to produce pulp in Burnie, they know how much Amcor's proposal to bring imported pulp will cost, and they are frustrated—Burnie is a profitable operation.16:43:004750Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—The motion we are discussing this afternoon is a typical ploy by the Australian Labor Party. Its ploy is quite transparent; its actions hollow. Its ploy is to distract the public's attention from the excellent record of this government, a government which has worked tirelessly and effectively to provide certainty to timber workers, their families and their communities.During 13 years of Labor government we had mammoth job losses and ongoing uncertainty. Forest policy lurched from crisis to crisis. Labor Party ministers were engaged in mortal combat with each other—Senator Faulkner and Mr Beddall—and policy paralysis had set in. The forest workers blockaded federal parliament. If ever there was an indictment of the forest policy of a national government in this country, it was highlighted by that blockade. Throughout that period, Labor senators who have taken part in today's debate kept a guilty silence. In so doing, they betrayed regional Australia.Since March 1996, when the Liberal-National parties were elected, there has been a growing confidence amongst the timber workers and their families and communities, especially in my home state of Tasmania and Victoria. New South Wales, unfortunately, is still suffering from the Carr Labor government's decimation of the forest industry. As soon as we came to government, we dealt with the vexed issue of woodchip regulations. Despite Labor's 10-point $5 billion Beazley black hole, we found the necessary funds in the very first budget to expedite the regional forest agreement process. We now have three signed up: one in my home state of Tasmania and two in the state of Victoria. Others are progressing. We have introduced the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . We have moved and been pro-active. We have examined the issues and given security to both reserves and the need for productive forests.We have also introduced and passed vital anti-dumping legislation, to which Senator Watson has referred, to protect Australia from the economic evil of dumped paper. For 13 years, Labor did not move. Within two and a bit years of this government coming to power, we had a full and proper inquiry. We liaised with industry and passed the legislation. What we could do in two years and four months of office Labor failed to do in 13 years, yet its members come in here parading as the champions of the forest industry. The record speaks for itself. The blockade around this building spoke for itself. I can tell you that, if the workers in the forest communities were to revisit this parliament, it would be to congratulate this government on its effectiveness and responsible management of a very difficult issue. They would not be here to blockade.We have delivered to the industry not 100 per cent of what they wanted but 110 per cent, and we did it in two years and four months of government. The reason I say that we delivered 110 per cent is that in the Regional Forest Agreements Bill we have gone further on behalf of the workers and the industry in which they work than they had actually asked for at the very beginning of the process. We have delivered, in less than one-fifth of Labor's time in office, everything that the timber workers and their communities have requested. In so doing, we have ensured that there are comprehensive, adequate reserves of forest types right around Australia.In my home state of Tasmania, 40 per cent of the landmass is now locked up. It will never again see a chainsaw or an axe. Most people would say that that sort of reserve system covering 40 per cent of the landmass is appropriate and adequate. It looks after the conservation needs of the country and it also allows for good, productive and sustainable forestry to provide jobs and economic growth, especially in depressed regional areas.It is when one considers this background I have just given to the Senate that it becomes so apparent that the motion moved by the Labor Party today is just so breathtaking in its audacity. Its record was abysmal, a complete and utter failure, yet it comes in here asserting that somehow it will now champion the forest industry. The introduction to the motion is absolutely overflowing with duplicity. It expresses concern about the 250 jobs to be lost at the Burnie pulp mill. I share the concern of the potential loss of those jobs. I simply ask why they are endangered. Senator Gibson dealt with that very effectively when he recounted the situation with Wesley Vale.If the Labor Party was genuinely concerned about jobs, I simply ask where it was when this same company shed 600 jobs in Burnie from the same plant. Where was it? There was not a word. Did it send down cabinet ministers to discuss with Amcor the saving of jobs? No action was taken. When Tioxide closed, with the same loss of jobs in Burnie, did Labor send down a cabinet subcommittee to have a look? Did it move motions of urgency in this place? No, it did not. It did absolutely nothing.But within 48 hours of the announcement of the Burnie pulp mill possibly losing 250 jobs, what did the Liberal government do? Within 48 hours, there were two senior cabinet ministers in Burnie discussing the very issues and aspirations of the workers and the community. We then delivered $600,000. There is more to come, because the ministers said, `After having listened to your concerns and aspirations, we will now go away and seek to develop a package for you.'That is the sort of industry policy that we need. It is not the Labor party do-nothing policy, where over 1,000 jobs went. Indeed, there was an attack on my friend the federal member for Braddon (Mr Miles) in relation to jobs. The Labor Party presided over the loss of over 5,200 jobs in the electorate of Braddon between 1989 and 1996. There has now been a growth of over 2,000 jobs in Braddon since the Liberal government came into power. Within two short years, we have increased the employment numbers in Braddon whilst under Labor they were in free fall. The Liberal Party has an excellent record in relation to the forests and forest industries of this country and, in particular, in my home state of Tasmania. Question put: That the motion (Senator Murphy's ) be agreed to.16:55:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. *Evans, C. V.Forshaw, M. G. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Neal, B. J.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.33Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. *Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. O'Chee, W. G.Conroy, S. Ferris, J.Faulkner, J. P. Synon, K. M.Gibbs, B. Alston, R. K. R.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Ministerial Statements4752475217:00:004752Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a statement by the Attorney-General on the Constitutional Convention, and I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Mr Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to table the Report of the Constitutional Convention held in February this year.The Convention was a unique moment in Australian history. Over the two weeks of the Convention, 152 Australians came together to discuss the future of our country. All had Australia's best interests at heart. All were concerned to progress the debate on whether or not we should become a republic.The report includes comments by the Chairman of the Convention, the Rt Hon Ian Sinclair, and the Deputy Chairman, the Hon Barry Jones, who both take an opportunity in the report to reflect on the contribution of those who participated, and on the emotion of the occasion. Both comment that the Convention demonstrated our inherent national unity, despite the wide range of views expressed. This is a view with which I wholeheartedly agree.The experience of the Convention gave me a great deal of confidence in the capacity of the Australian people to play an active part in the evolution of our democratic institutions. The debate was spirited, but for the most part conducted with respect and goodwill. I have great confidence that the forthcoming referendum will be held in an environment of healthy and constructive debate.This full record of the events of the fortnight of the Convention will provide an invaluable resource for anyone interested in debate about our system of government.The report is available on the Convention website. Copies will be sent to municipal and university libraries and will be available for purchase at government bookshops. All the Convention delegates will receive a copy.At the time of the Convention, people all over the country gave more than a passing thought to our Constitution and what change might mean. And while the debates were widely reported in the media at the time, it is well worth casting an eye back over the transcripts in volumes 3 and 4 of the report. The words on paper can still evoke the passion and commitment delegates brought to their arguments for and against change.Clearly the next steps are important. In line with a resolution of the Constitutional Convention, the Prime Minister has written to the State Premiers, the Territory Chief Ministers and the Leader of the Opposition to seek their assistance in developing the referendum proposal.The referendum will be our opportunity to make a choice between the model supported at the Convention and the system we currently have. I am sure there will be further robust public debate as the time to cast a vote draws nearer.17:01:004753Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the statement.The Constitutional Convention was an event that will certainly stick in my mind as a delegate to that Convention. I think it is an appropriate time at the tabling of this statement to revisit the outcomes of the Constitutional Convention.In reminding the Senate of the events that took place, I think the major impact was the bringing together of both elected representatives and members of the public in a way that fostered lively debate about an issue pertaining to the future of this country. There were many frustrations aired. There were many views presented, but the debate was constructive and positive in most instances and focused on what was positive about the republic and the way forward for this country.One of the interesting outcomes of this Convention was the question of what happens next. The communique that was circulated and signed by all delegates after the Constitutional Convention included a statement related to ongoing constitutional review and attached a process to that. The timing and circumstances of any change that emerged from the Constitutional Convention were that a referendum for a change to a republic or for the maintenance of the status quo would be held in 1999 and that if the referendum returned a result for a republic then that would come into effect on 1 January 2001. Part of that decision was that, prior to the referendum being put to the people, the government would undertake a public education program directed to constitutional and other issues relevant.Turning to the ongoing constitutional review process, the terms of reference were quite narrow at the Convention. It was to the great disappointment of many of the delegates who prepared their submissions and comments on the basis that they would have the opportunity to traverse far beyond just the issue of the actual construct of an Australian republic. Indeed, I would like to turn my comments to those issues which I believe map some of the way as to the ongoing process of constitutional reform that I believe is desirable.The Convention resolved that if a republican system of government should be introduced at the referendum at a date being no less than three years or more than five years thereafter, the Commonwealth government should indeed convene a further Constitutional Convention and that two-thirds of such a convention should be directly elected by the people. This was done on the basis of, in the first instance, a very positive and general reflection upon the event that took place in February at Old Parliament House.For the first time in my memory we saw a formally convened public debate. The debate that occurred did a lot more than canvass the issues. It gave an opportunity for all Australians to take out a stake in our future. I say that not just on the basis of having involved both elected representatives and members of the public but on the basis that the momentum, the support and the media involvement in presenting that Convention to Australians allowed it into people's homes and allowed people to have an active stake in what was occurring.In current times when there is so much disillusionment about political processes and political parties, I believe that we can all take stock and learn much from the Constitutional Convention. Conducting a debate of that nature, not in this place amongst the estab lished political parties but in Old Parliament House involving the wider group of people, was something that I think contributed greatly to bringing such a positive interest. In saying that, it forces me to reflect upon people's attitudes towards this place and the gulf between the response that we get from the public as opposed to the response that was attained by the Constitutional Convention.I think every political party, indeed every politician who has spent some time in this place, would understand how critical it is to involve the public in our democratic processes. The ongoing constitutional review process therefore presents a unique opportunity to do exactly that. It links an open forum and, therefore, hopefully the involvement and engagement of the Australian public in a political issue that will assist us in determining our future path.The broad nature of the agenda that has been flagged for that ongoing constitutional review, I think, sends a very powerful message as to what the concerns of people are with respect to their involvement in our democracy. The list goes as follows: the role of the three tiers of government; the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; whether the Commonwealth should have the environment power; the system of governance and proportional representation; whether the mechanism for constitutional change should be altered; constitutional aspects of indigenous reconciliation; equal representation of women and men in parliament; and ways to better involve people in the political process.In the time critical lives of citizens these days, it is a difficult task to actively engage them in considerations of this type. To seek their views and ensure that that input comes into this place is something that is beholden on all of us as representatives. I am hopeful that an ongoing constitutional review process will facilitate this in the most positive way. It will provide a focus on which people can be involved, not in a negative sense. I suppose the traditional way that people become politically active is through fighting against child care or nursing home cuts and against losing their job or their job security. That is usually what inspires people's political activism. It is a negative thing and it is born out of being hurt in some way.This process is the first example I have seen of a positive way to involve people in our democratic processes and systems, particularly for young people. It has provided an opportunity for them to feel like they did have a stake, a say and a grip on their future. It is incredibly important for us as a parliament to ensure that such positive opportunities for encouraging political activism occur. It is not good enough to deny particularly young people but all Australians the opportunity to participate in an active and positive way.I believe that the ongoing constitutional review process is important. I believe that the statement by the Attorney-General (Mr Williams), whilst canvassing the issues—quite dryly, I might add—about the convention, provides a statistical analysis. It does not take the time to draw upon the reflections of the convention about ongoing constitutional reform and the broad expression of view of those at the convention that this was but the first step in widening the discussion and scope of considerations about our constitutional future. (Time expired)10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—I call Senator Schacht.17:11:004754Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Mr Acting Deputy President—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—What?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht was the first one that caught my attention. You will get a chance.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—I know that.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I just jumped to my feet. I am not in any way trying to cut other people out of the debate, but I do want to speak to the motion to note the ministerial statement on the Constitutional Convention. I was not a delegate to the convention, but I have had an interest in the issue for a long time. I had the honour, of which I feel very proud, at the 1991 national conference of the Labor Party, to move a motion committing the Labor Party to the policy of having Australia become a republic by 1 January 2001. I have spoken in this place on a number of occasions, in various debates, about the need for Australia to become a republic, so I welcome this opportunity to speak to the report of the Constitutional Convention.During the period of the convention, especially the last week, I was laid up in bed at home with a very bad dose of the flu. I found myself inexorably drawn to the television set to watch the direct telecast by the ABC, particularly during the last three days of the debate. Like many other Australians, especially those who are not members of parliament, I felt there was a certain excitement towards the end of the conference when the motions were adopted in favour of Australia becoming a republic. I would have to say that many of the speeches made by delegates, from all sides of the debate, were excellent speeches and did credit to themselves, to the conference—the convention—and, above all, to Australia.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—You were very critical before it started.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I will come to that, Senator Ferguson. I do not withdraw my criticism which the Labor Party had that the convention should have been all elected rather than appointed. Having half of it appointed really affected the result and the style of it. Had it been a fully elected convention and the vote taken at the end, whichever way it had gone there could have been no argument about the credibility—that this was a proper expression of the will of the people. We were also critical of the postal ballot arrangements. We wanted a full election under Commonwealth law of people attending a polling booth to vote.We know that this convention was drawn up in a fit of panic, in a hurry, by Alexander Downer when he was leader of the Liberal Party. But despite all those inhibitions and the structural weaknesses of the convention, the delegates to the conference certainly performed in a way that brought credit to themselves and Australia. As I said, I spent three days, I think, watching the convention on television. I congratulate all of those delegates who participated—from all sides—on the contributions they made.One of the things that came out of the convention was that, in the end, even the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) was overcome to an extent by the success of the convention and accepted that there was now a strong view that there ought to be a direct referendum of the people to decide, in the next term of the Australian government, whether Australia should become a republic. There were two models to be put: the status quo; and the model proposed by the convention, which is that of a president appointed by a consensus majority of the Australian parliament. There was much debate at the convention about the merits of directly electing the president or appointing the president, and that is all contained in these reports. Those are issues that I think the convention addressed very eloquently.For most of us, the fundamental issue is that, if you elect the president, you change the very nature of representative government in Australia. If you appoint the president as a ceremonial head of state, you maintain the present system of government in Australia, where the Prime Minister, elected by the people, is the political head of the country so long as he or she maintains the confidence of the House of Representatives, along with the other arrangements within our federal constitution.One of the things that came out of the convention was that, while we certainly should have the referendum as soon as possible after the next election, we need to determine whether we will have a president as the head of Australia. I believe that the first function of the new president should be to declare open the Sydney Olympic Games in September 2000.The Prime Minister has tried to suggest that the Prime Minister should open the Olympic Games, because if you stick to the head of state, under the present Olympic rules, the Queen of Australia—the Queen of Great Britain—would have to open the games. I think most Australians overwhelmingly want an Australian head of state to declare open the games, not the Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister has tried to get out of that, and I think that shows weak leadership.With the success of the referendum to have Australia become a republic, the subsequent debate that will clearly follow will be on the issue of having a unique Australian flag that reflects Australia, without having 25 per cent of it reflecting another country. I note that some people in the chamber at the moment are wearing ties that suggest that 25 per cent of their support may be for another country. I think we need a unique Australian flag that—EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Even South Africa has a Union Jack on their flag—the Republic of South Africa.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Senator Ferguson, I am trying to wind up. I point out that the new South Africa has adopted a unique flag which is now recognised automatically around the world. We should also move, after we become a republic, to have a uniquely Australian flag that reflects Australian values, and not have 25 per cent of it representing another country. I look forward to the referendum and to Australia becoming a republic by the time of the Sydney Olympic Games.17:19:004756Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank Senator Schacht for closing his remarks, and I thank Senator Ferguson for his patience. I will explain the reason for the exclamation by Senator Margetts and me earlier. It related to the convention that the chair gives due consideration—I know it does theoretically—to both sides of the House. I assume that means all parties, and we were very keen to get the call. I will be brief so that Senator Ferguson has an opportunity also to address this report of the Constitutional Convention.It is quite exciting to see these volumes tabled in the parliament today. It is testimony to a wonderful and very moving event—emotionally, intellectually, politically and, I suppose, democratically—that took place for two weeks in February this year. As I remarked on that occasion, it was a great convention which reflected—more so, I believe, than any meeting in our nation's history—the richness of the nation that we have become.I say that for a number of reasons, having looked at the diversity and the difference that was reflected and represented at that convention. There were young people, older people, indigenous Australians, non-indigenous Australians and people from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. I make special note of distinguished Australians, ranging from Dame Roma Mitchell to Don Chipp, the founder of my party. There were the younger delegates to whom Senator Lundy referred, who are renowned for their talent and abilities—people like Mia Handshin, Misha Schubert and Jason Li. There was a range of talent and experience. That, alone, was a wonderful expression and symbol of the nation that we have become.Notwithstanding the fact that we had very different views on occasions, I think we managed to reach a point, not of unanimous agreement on determining the model that we would take to a referendum, but certainly of an overwhelming desire to see an Australian head of state. That high figure that voted for the move towards an Australian head of state was not necessarily reflected in the final model.A number of models were discussed at the convention. Firstly, there was the McGarvie model—perhaps the one with which I had the most difficulty as a republican. Secondly, there was the so-called bipartisan model—the Australian Republican Movement's model. Again, I would like to think of that as more of a cross-party model; nevertheless, it still emphasises the role of the two major parties in our parliament. Thirdly, there were direct election models. I put on record that that would be my personal preference—an ambit claim, if you like—but not without very substantial constitutional changes as well.I have remarked in this place before about my concerns with some of the elements of that final model, not least of which is the unappreciation of the role of the Senate. I think the Senate was undervalued in a number of the models discussed at the convention. I place on record yet again my concern that the Senate does not necessarily play the same role as that of the House of Representatives, certainly in the appointment of a head of state under the final bipartisan model. I think there is a disproportionate advantage given to the House of Representatives; understandably, in a joint sitting of parliament, it is very clear where the majority of numbers lie in that circumstance.Also, I have a concern about the lack of a role for the Senate in the dismissal of the Australian head of state under the particular model, because I think there is an element of natural justice involved. Some of you may recall that the preferred model came up with a process for dismissal that would allow the Prime Minister essentially to sack the Australian head of state, albeit with ratification of the House of Representatives, after he or she made that decision—within 30 days, I believe, was the figure given. But even if the House of Representatives did not ratify the Prime Minister's decision to sack the head of state, that person would still lose their job. They would remain eligible to stand again for that position, but there is still an outstanding element of natural justice there. I am also concerned that the Senate does not have a role in that dismissal process. So there are still outstanding concerns.I would like to place on record how happy I was that an overwhelming number—I think almost a unanimous number—at the convention voted to remain part of the Commonwealth, and why wouldn't we? Why not aspire to be and remain part of something more than a single nation, being a member of a family of nations as diverse as our own cultural make-up and hopefully all dedicated to the wellbeing and peace of this planet? There was also interest in changing the preamble of the constitution.I conclude by saying that this is a wonderful opportunity—and this was recognised by some at the convention—to address other structural problems with our constitution. As a Democrat, I believe in more substantial constitutional change, but I recognise it is going to happen in bits and pieces, not all in one go. Again, I urge the Australian people to take this opportunity, perhaps in the near future more than later, to address issues such as electorate reform, the role of the states, the powers of the Governor-General or head of state, perhaps the need for parliamentary ratification of troop deployments or of treaties, and how we can enshrine in the preamble or in our constitution our uniquely multicultural society and give recognition to traditional owners of this land. There are many other areas that I could happily mention, but I will end off with one other, that is, perhaps recognising the environment in our constitution.17:25:004757Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—I was very fortunate to be an appointed delegate to the Constitutional Convention as a Liberal Party representative. I heartily concur with the sentiments expressed by Senator Stott Despoja about the success of the Constitutional Convention. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the first week of the convention owing to the death of my brother, but I did follow it with keen interest. During the second week, I was able to be part of the ongoing functions of the Constitutional Convention.It was amazing to hear Senator Schacht speak the way he did, when I remember how bitterly opposed the Labor Party were to the holding of the Constitutional Convention and the manner in which delegates were half elected and half appointed to that convention. When members of the Labor Party spoke on the legislation when it came before the Senate they said it could not possibly be a success because the convention would be stacked with people—because 76 were appointed—in order to contrive a result that the Prime Minister would want. How wrong those people proved to be. Even at the end of the convention, when the Leader of the Opposition spoke he acknowledged the fact that they had made a mistake in suggesting that the Constitutional Convention would be anything other than the success that it was.If we had elected all of the delegates to that convention, many of the fine young people who Senator Stott Despoja spoke about would not have been there. We made sure that there were groups of people from ethnic origins, a certain percentage of young people and a certain number of Aboriginal people who all had the opportunity to be there to contribute and represent those sections of the community which would have found it very difficult to get there under a system of election.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—That is what Idi Amin used to say. That is how he ran Uganda.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Senator Quirke, you obviously were not at this Constitutional Convention and you do not quite understand. Had Senator Lundy and Senator Stott Despoja been here, they would have acknowledged, as was acknowledged by those people who were at the convention, that they would not have been there unless they had been appointed and special consideration had been given to the groups of people who would have found it very difficult to be elected. Some were elected, but the majority of people mentioned by Senator Stott Despoja were actually appointed as delegates to the Constitutional Convention.We heard Senator Schacht speak at length about the decision that was made in relation to the proposal that will be put to the people after the next election—and that commitment was made prior to the Constitutional Convention—that a referendum of the people would be held after the next election. I do not share his view about the importance of the Olympic Games when you are talking about constitutional change. The Olympic Games is a very important sporting event, but there are far greater considerations, when talking about altering a constitution which has served us well for 100 years and we hope will serve us well for many more hundreds of years into the future, than fitting in with a sporting event that is going to happen in Australia. There will, of course, need to be change as time goes by. There always has been over the past 100 years. However, we are now talking about a major change and the timing of a sporting event is not something that I think should determine when a change should take place.It is also interesting to note that at the start of the convention the Prime Minister urged people to give an indication. He said, if clear support for a particular republican model emerged from the convention, that that model would be put to the Australian people in a referendum before the end of 1999, and he committed his government to that referendum. It is interesting to note that the proposed model that came out of that convention did not have the support of 50 per cent of the people at the convention. I am not suggesting that there were not 50 per cent of the people there who were in favour of Australia becoming a republic, but 75 out of 152 convention delegates—which is just less than 50 per cent—in the end supported the model that was put forward as the most popular model.That gives an indication that, as far as any possible change of Australia to a republic is concerned, there is still a lot of uncertainty within the Australian community as to how that should take place. That is why I think that if change is to be made we should be making haste slowly. I think it would be wrong for a change to take place that less than 50 per cent of the Australian population were happy with. It means that all those people at the Convention still could not come up with more than 50 per cent support for the model that was proposed.I did consider it an honour and a privilege to attend that Constitutional Convention. I think it was a marvellous event for Australia. The interest that was shown by Australians through the direct telecast by the ABC indicated that people were very keen to see a debate taking place without the acrimony or the antics that are sometimes staged in this place and in the House of Representatives. People debating in a very sensible way the issues at hand and the large viewing audience indicate just how important this Convention was. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the initiative in making sure the Convention was set up and the manner in which the Convention was held. I also particularly commend the way it was conducted by the Rt. Hon. Ian Sinclair and Mr Barry Jones as Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Convention.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Senator Margetts.17:31:004758Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Thank you—1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Chairman. I have been in this chamber since this debate started. I consistently stood up when the call was given, and my colleague who has just been called has not been here.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. I have called Senator Margetts.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Yes, I did have to duck out of the chamber momentarily, but I was actually standing when the first—1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—I did too, and each time since.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Yes. One of the issues that was brought up by Senator Stott Despoja at the initial stage was that we thought this was a 30-minute limited debate, and of course, that was of great concern—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is a limited debate, Senator Margetts. You have very limited time.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Well, I would like to make the point then that the problem for this debate was that there were two Labor people chosen in a row—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Margetts, I suggest you use the time you have rather than debate that issue.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I think I am allowed to use my time in the way that I choose to.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired. I might point out, Senator McKiernan, that, as Senator Margetts said, there had been two Labor speakers, and that is why she was called.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—That was no reason to overlook me, Mr Acting Deputy President, no reason at all. If you are incompetent in the chair, you want to give the job away.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! I take that as a reflection on the chair. Will you apologise.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—You can take it any way you like, Mr Acting Deputy President.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator McKiernan, I ask you to retract that comment. I ask you to remove that reflection on the chair, by retraction. Senator McKiernan, are you going to respond? I name you, Senator McKiernan.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—I think that Senator McKiernan, on refection, would agree that it was a reflection on the chair. It hardly warrants a major confrontation over a matter of this significance. I was present at the time Senator Margetts was overlooked, I thought. She was on her feet. I hardly think it warrants a major confrontation. I would ask Senator McKiernan in the interests of order that he withdraw the reflection on the chair.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was watching on the television, and I do not pretend to be across all the detail of what occurred. Perhaps the wisest course of events now would be to go to the next item of business, and allow you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and Senator McKiernan to review the Hansard . Then perhaps Senator Calvert and I could use our good offices to ensure that the matter is resolved, rather than waste the time of the Senate in an unfortunate and potentially ugly dispute. That process would at least allow us to get on with business. I offer that as a suggestion of goodwill for solving the problem.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Yes, I think that might be a sensible suggestion. The point I was making prior to Senator McKiernan's reflection on the chair was that I had called two Labor senators earlier in the debate and Senator Margetts had therefore missed the opportunity to speak on that occasion. I then called a government senator, as is normal practice. Then it was appropriate to move back to the opposition side and appropriate to call Senator Margetts from that side, given that two Labor senators had already spoken in the debate. Notwithstanding the fact, Senator McKiernan, that you had stood, it was still appropriate to choose an alternative opposition senator from that side.Committees475947594759Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I present the government's response to the President's report of 2 December 1997 on outstanding government responses to parliamentary committee reports, and I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS RESPONSE TO THE SCHEDULE TABLED BY THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE ON 2 December 1997CERTAIN FAMILY LAW ISSUES (Joint Select)Funding and administration of the Family Court of AustraliaThe Government response was presented out of session to the President of the Senate on 25 February 1998.COMMUNITY AFFAIRS REFERENCESAccess to medical recordsThe Government is considering its response to the "Access to Medical Records" Report following consultations with key stakeholders. It is anticipated that the response will be tabled during the 1998 spring sittings.CJD settlement offerThe Government response was tabled on 31 March 1998.COMMUNITY STANDARDS RELEVANT TO THE SUPPLY OF SERVICES UTILISING ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES (Senate Select)Overseas sourced audiotex services, video and computer games, R-rated material on pay TVInformation on recent developments is currently being included in a draft response. The Government response will be tabled following consideration of these changes.Regulation of computer on-line services—part 2Regulation of computer on-line services—part 3The Government proposes to make a single response to these reports. To ensure that the response reflects settled policy, the Government will respond when the detail of proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 implementing a regulatory framework for the content of on-line services is finalised.R-rated material on pay TV—part 1R-rated material on pay TV—part 2 and Review of the guidelines for the classification of film and videotapesThe Government response was tabled on 2 July 1998. Report on the Portrayal of Violence in the Electronic MediaClearance of the response was sought from all Ministers on the Committee of Ministers on the Portrayal of Violence and other Ministers with responsibility for issues covered in the recommendations of the report. The responses from Ministers have recently been received and they raise issues which will need to be considered before the response can be finalised. It is expected the response will be tabled in the 1998 spring sittings.ECONOMICS LEGISLATIONCustoms Legislation (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1997 andCustoms Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1997The Government response to the report will be addressed during debate on the bills in the Senate. The Government does not intend to provide a separate formal response.Taxation Laws Amendment (Trust Loss and Other Deductions) Bill 1997 and three related billsThe Bills were passed by the Senate on 23 March 1998. The Government does not intend to provide a separate formal response.ELECTORAL MATTERS (Joint Standing)Inquiry into the conduct of the 1996 Federal election and matters related theretoThe Government response was tabled on 8 April 1998.Industrial Elections: Report of the inquiry into the role of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in conducting industrial elections.The report's recommendations are currently being considered. The Government response is expected to be tabled in the near future.EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING LEGISLATIONVocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1997This Bill was passed by the Senate on 20 October 1997. The Government does not intend to respond further to this report.EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFERENCESInquiry into AustudyThe Government response was tabled on 8 April 1998.Childhood mattersThe Government response was tabled on 2 July 1998. Beyond Cinderella—Towards a learning societyThe Government response was tabled on 27 May 1998.Inquiry into the implications of private and commercial funding in government schoolsThe Government response was tabled on 26 May 1998.ENVIRONMENT, RECREATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS REFERENCESMarine and coastal pollutionThe Government response is currently being considered by the Government.FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATIONReport on annual reports tabled January 1995—June 1995The Government response was tabled on 2 July 1998.Format of the Portfolio Budget Statements The Government response was tabled on 2 July 1998.FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFERENCESProperty Management in the Australian Public ServiceThe Government is considering its response to this report given major changes in Commonwealth property policy and public sector reforms such as privatisation of government businesses and further devolution of responsibility to departmental heads. The response is not expected to be tabled until the 1998 spring sittings.FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE (Joint Standing)Papua New Guinea Update—Report on Proceedings of a Seminar—11 and 12 November 1996, CanberraThe Government response was tabled on 28 May 1998.Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner and Commonwealth Ombudsman: Report on public seminars, 20 and 25 September 1996, CanberraThe Government response was tabled on 23 June 1998.Sharpening the focus: Report on a seminar on the Simons Committee reportThe Government response was tabled on 8 April 1998.From Empire to partnership: Report on a seminar on the Commonwealth of NationsThe Government response was tabled on 23 June 1998. FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE REFERENCESAustralia China relationsThe Government response was presented out of session to the President of the Senate on 14 April 1998.LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (Senate Standing)Off the record—shield laws for journalists' confidential sourcesIn October 1994 the then Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs released its first report entitled "Off the Record". The report was part of the Committee's wide ranging inquiry into the rights and obligations of the media generally. The report addressed only one aspect of the terms of reference given to the Committee, that is whether journalists should be allowed to protect the identity of their sources on information.The "Off the Record" report raised issues that were related to other aspects of the Committee's work which it is planning to examine as part of the inquiry. The Government believes that it is appropriate to await the completion of the Committee's work on the remaining issues raised by the terms of reference before it responds to the report. This will allow the Government to provide a comprehensive response to all of the issues raised by the Committee's inquiry.LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIONRole and function of the Administrative Review CouncilThe Government response was tabled on 1 April 1998.Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1997The Government response to the report will be addressed during debate on the bill in the Senate.Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) andMigration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 5) The Majority report into both bills recommended that they be passed without amendment.In relation to the Minority report, Recommendations 1 and 2 have already been addressed by proposed Government amendments.The other recommendation in the Minority report will be addressed by the Government during the Senate debate.Constitutional aspects of the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997The Committee's recommendations were addressed by debate and Government Amendments to the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997. The Government does not intend to table a separate response to this report.LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCESInquiry into the Commonwealth's actions in relation to Ryker (Faulkner) v The Commonwealth and FlintConsideration of the Government response to the Committee's report is at an advanced stage.Payment of a Minister's Legal Costs Part 2Consideration of the proposed response to the report is well advanced and a response is expected to be finalised shortly.Inquiry into the Australian legal aid system (1st report) and (2nd report)The Government response was tabled on 27 May 1998.MIGRATION (Joint Standing)Australia's visa system for visitorsThe Government response will be tabled as soon as the relevant consultations are completed.Working holiday makers: More than touristsThe Government response will be tabled as soon as the relevant consultations are completed.NATIVE TITLE AND THE ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER LAND FUND (Joint)Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 (10th report)The Committee's recommendations were addressed by debate and Government amendments to the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997. The Government does not intend to table a separate response to this report.PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (Joint Statutory)JCPA ReportsAs a matter of general practice this explanatory schedule does not include reports from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts unless such reports contain policy recommendations. Reports that address administrative or operational matters are usually responded to in the form of Finance Minutes. These are normally provided to the Committee within six months of the tabling of the report and are then tabled by the Committee.Advisory report on the Tax Law Improvement Bill 1996 (Report No 348)The Government response was tabled on 4 December 1997.Review of Auditor-General's reports 1995-96 (Report No. 349)The Finance Minute for this report was tabled on 25 June 1998. Review of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97—First quarter (Report No. 350)The Finance Minute for this report was tabled on 25 June 1998.Review of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97—Second quarter (Report No. 352)The Finance Minute for this report was tabled on 25 June 1998.Aboriginal Councils and Torres Strait Island Councils: Review of financial accountability requirements (Report No. 355)The Finance Minute for this report will be transmitted to the Secretary of the Committee shortly. Tabling of the Finance Minute will be organised by the Committee.RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT LEGISLATIONLive-stock Transactions Levy Bill 1997The Government response was addressed during debate of the bill in the Senate. The bill was passed by the Senate on 4 December 1997. The Government does not intend to respond further to this report.Sun Fund Bill 1997The Government response was tabled on 2 July 1998.RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT REFERENCESValue-adding in agricultural productionThe Government response was tabled on 23 June 1998.SUPERANNUATION (Senate Select)Super guarantee—its track record (15th report)Super and broken work patterns (17th report)The Government response is being updated to take into account the Government's initiative in relation to superannuation and the Family Law.Investment in Australia's superannuation savings (21st report)The Government response was tabled on 2 July 1998.Super—Restrictions on early access—Small Superannuation Accounts Bill 1997 (26th Report)The Government response is being prepared.Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Bill 1997 and six related bills (27th Report)The Government response is being prepared. TREATIES (Joint)Two international agreements on tuna (3rd report)The Government response was tabled on 26 May 1998.Australia's withdrawal from UNIDO and treaties tabled on 11 February 1997 (7th report)The Government response was tabled on 14 May 1998.Treaties tabled on 18 March 1997 and 13 May 1997 (8th report)The Government response is in preparation and is expected to be tabled in the 1998 spring sittings.Amendments to the Bonn Convention (9th report)The Government response was tabled on 27 May 1998.Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation Treaty (12th report)The response is currently subject to the required consultative processes.URANIUM MINING AND MILLING (Senate Select)Uranium mining and milling in AustraliaThe Government response was tabled on 13 May 1998.476347634763Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I present the following government response to a committee report: Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Report on the Sun Fund Bill 1997 .I seek leave to incorporate the response in Hansard.Leave granted.The document read as follows—PreambleThe Government has considered the report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee into the Sun Fund Bill 1997 and is pleased to provide the following response. The Government would like to acknowledge the Committee for preparing a concise and clear report which seeks to address the range of issues relating to the Sun Fund Bill . The Committee's recommendations are addressed in turn below. Recommendation 11) The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee recommends that the Bill in its current form not be supported because of the linking of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme (DFRS) to the conservation objectives of the Bill. It would make the Bill more controversial without achieving the funding objective intended. In addition the Bill does not address the fact that any scheme would require the development of hybrid systems based on today's technology.The Government agrees with this recommendation.The Sun Fund Bill 1997 proposed the creation of the Sun Fund using money that would otherwise be paid as diesel fuel rebate on fuel used for electricity generation. Farmers and others eligible for the diesel fuel rebate can opt instead for a grant to subsidise the capital cost of installing renewable energy systems to replace diesel electricity generation.The Committee concluded that the scheme, as proposed by the Bill, for payment of capital contribution to assist acquisition of renewable energy generating plant has two weaknesses.The first weakness is that the diesel fuel rebate is not disbursed from a specifically appropriated fund, but is a rebate scheme under which Government foregoes revenue already collected as excise in accord with a statutory scheme.In their submissions to the Committee, the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism pointed out that the scheme is not revenue neutral in that, if the Sun Fund were to be introduced, the diesel fuel would not be sold and the excise would not be paid to revenue and would not offset grant payments. The Committee was of the view that "the operation of the Sun Fund will not be revenue neutral to the Commonwealth Government if flow-on effects of the Fund are not considered. Even if offsetting revenue considerations of `externalities' resulting from the operation of the Fund are considered it is far from clear that the Sun Fund would be revenue neutral or positive. The significance of `externalities' in this debate cannot be clarified without an in depth and complex economic analysis of the flow-on effects of the Fund on both Commonwealth Government finances, private industry and the community."The second weakness identified by the Committee is that the Bill does not take into consideration that primary producers and others who wish to switch to the use of renewable energy systems would, on evidence to the Committee, need to continue consumption of diesel fuel in backup generators. These producers, using hybrid systems, would still be eligible for payment of the rebate for the diesel fuel used. Recommendation 22) The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee recommends that the Government investigate the implementation of a scheme to also encourage the increased use of renewable energy systems in regional and remote areas of Australia. The Committee considers that it could have the following beneficial effects:. eligible beneficiaries of the scheme would have the capacity to jointly use diesel and renewable energy generation;. provision of up front financial assistance overcomes one of the most significant impediments to the expansion of renewable energy, namely the comparatively high capital cost;. jobs would be generated in rural and regional Australia in manufacturing, sales, installation and service; and. Australia's greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced directly through the conversion from fossil fuel electricity generation to renewables; more significantly the competitiveness of the expanded renewables industry should be improved compared with conventional generation with increased savings in greenhouse gas emissions into the future.The Government notes this recommendation by the Committee, and has in place a range of measures to support the greater uptake of renewable energy, including in regional and remote areas.These include support for R&D of renewables through a range of government initiatives, for example, the Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy which supports the development of efficient and cost-effective renewable systems, and the R&D Start program aimed at assisting Australian industry to undertake R&D with high commercial potential. The Renewable Energy Industry Program assists in the development of a viable renewable energy industry through technology commercialisation and market development.The Australian renewable energy industry has also been a major beneficiary of overseas aid projects being provided through Australia's international aid agency, AusAID.The Commonwealth Government's climate change package announced in November 1997 will provide a major stimulus to the use of renewable energy in Australia.The package provides $5.6 million to accelerate market reforms of the energy industry, including rapid progress to full cost-reflectivity in energy pricing which will remove current distortions which can disadvantage renewables.The package also includes a target for electricity retailers and wholesale purchasers of electricity to source an additional 2% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010. Although this measure refers to on-grid applications, it will significantly enlarge the domestic market for renewables generally, including off-grid applications in regional and remote areas of Australia where renewables are most likely to be competitive. This is because the economies of scale gained by producers selling into the on-grid market will bring down unit prices for renewables appropriate for regional markets, both on- and off-grid.The climate change package also has a major focus on commercialisation in the renewable energy area.The first of the new initiatives is the establishment of a Renewable Energy Innovation Investment Fund to provide equity for the commercialisation of renewable energy technology. With private sector financing on a 2:1 basis, a fund of at least $20 million will provide venture capital funds managed by an independent funds manager.The second initiative is a $30 million package of concessional loans and grants for strategically important renewable energy projects that have strong commercial potential. This will be integrated with the existing Renewable Energy Industry Program. Expert advice will be sought from the renewable energy industry on the implementation of this initiative.A $10 million showcase fund will also be set up to support leading edge renewable energy projects. Here priority will be given to projects which have significant industry support; which are close to becoming commercial; and which have great potential to be replicated.Lastly, a renewable energy technology Internet web site will be established to provide information on renewable energy technologies, which will be accessible to even the remotest regional community.The overall package of renewable energy measures provides effective market stimulation for technology commercialisation. The Government believes that the range of measures put in place will provide effective support for the application of renewable energy technologies where they are most cost-effective, and prepare Australia for greater uptake of renewable energy in the medium and long term.17:37:004764Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I wish to speak briefly on the government response to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee report on the Sun Fund Bill 1997 . The government response to the Sun Fund Bill report and, indeed, to the bill itself is totally inadequate. The outcome of the committee's report was effectively that the committee said it did not support the bill in its current form. However, the committee pointed out in recommendation 2 that there was a lot going for the thrust of the bill and that the government would do well to investigate ways of implementing the idea behind the bill; namely, that people in rural areas and in freestanding situations—that is, disconnected from main energy grids—should be given help to get up alternative energy options such as solar power, wind power and so on.But the government has done none of that. In this report it window-dresses and tries to cover the fact that, since it came to government, money spent on research and development of energy renewables has been going backwards. This is an extraordinary business with Australia, the country in the sun, actually spending less on research and development into solar and wind power than countries like Switzerland.It is an extraordinary failure of the government to come to grips with the fact that, in the energy field, we are in an age of energy renewables coming to the fore. This is shown in the fact that the minister representing the coal industry in this place—the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer—has ensured that more research and development goes into dirty, polluting coal power with a view to fixing it up and giving it a green face, with the hopeless objective that, somehow or other, magically it will not be a major polluter and greenhouse gas producer and therefore not a threat to the whole planet in the future because of its contribution to global warming. The very sparse amount of money that was spent by the previous Labor government on research and development into solar power and wind power has been cut to ribbons.I reject this response. It is totally inadequate. It shows a government that has got its head stuck in the sand; it shows a government that is turning its back on innovative small business in this country; it shows a government that is turning its back on some of the world's best research and development into energy renewables, as other countries forge ahead into producing the energy renewable know-how that will give them the lead in a multi-billion export business in the years to come; and, I guess worst of all, it shows it is a government with its head in the sand as far as regional and rural Australia are concerned.The idea of the Sun Fund Bill is that it would have created 1,000 jobs in our rural and regional areas. Yet it is being dismissed by a wave of the hand in this totally inadequate response from the government. What happened in the end was that the government got stuck on the fact that the Sun Fund Bill, which was an attempt to divert money out of the diesel fuel rebate into energy renewables, could not be shown to be neutral in terms of spending. But the government is prepared to pour millions into research and development for the coal industry, which is already making millions and billions by extracting coal from the planet but at the same time putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.The government response has totally missed the point of the Sun Fund Bill. I think it has also totally missed the report of the committee, which was that Australia would benefit from taking up energy renewables that would steer us away from our pretty poor record globally in terms of polluters and greenhouse gas producers. This response is a failure. It just corroborates the idea abroad amongst the energy renewable community in this country that the government not only does not understand but also has applied a studied ignorance to an area in which Australia should be leading the field—not being dragged back by a government which does not understand.17:42:004765O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I wish to speak on this government response, having been a member of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee which produced the report on the Sun Fund Bill 1997 . Firstly, it is important to note, as mentioned by Senator Brown, that the committee was not prepared to support the Sun Fund Bill in the way it was proposed. Recommendation 1 of the committee's report stated that to accept the bill:. . . would make the Bill more controversial without achieving the funding objective intended. That is the point Senator Brown made about the proposal being cost neutral. But then the committee said:In addition the Bill does not address the fact that any scheme would require the development of hybrid systems based on today's technology.In other words, that any scheme would require back-up diesel powered schemes. So what was needed to be developed was something which took into account those factors in any scheme which was to be funded.In recommendation 2 the committee highlighted one of the significant issues that arose from the inquiry, that it was necessary for there to be provision of up-front financial assistance to overcome one of the most significant impediments to the expansion of renewable energy; namely, the comparatively high capital cost. Unfortunately, the government response does not address that point. That is one of the key points in the implementation of alternative energy strategies, particularly in rural and remote Australia.It seems to me that the government response has ignored what is essentially a key finding of the committee. If the government is serious about having renewable energy sources taken up in the bush—where in many areas there is not access to electricity grids and where we are talking about small power usage units such as farms, stations and the like, rather than mining camps, for example, that have a significant need for power and which might in some respects be catered for by the government's response—and if the rural producers operating in regional and remote Australia are going to take up this option then they need to be provided with up-front financial assistance to overcome the impediment—the comparatively high capital cost—to the implementation of these sorts of schemes.It is true that, if the schemes are taken up and assistance is given, jobs will be created in rural and regional Australia, potentially in the manufacturing of these systems as well as in their installation and maintenance. There is potential for the generation of jobs in rural and regional Australia by the promotion of the use of renewable energy systems. But the view of the committee is that this is not going to happen unless there is some up-front financial assistance provided to primary producers in rural and regional Australia, in particular, so that they have the wherewithal to take up this option which delivers an outcome for the government in its greenhouse gas reduction strategy.I believe it would be important for this Senate to further consider this matter. Obviously it is a matter for Senator Brown whether he seeks to introduce further legislation and whether he deals with it in the same fashion. The reality, frankly, is that unless this issue is picked up by the major parties, as is suggested by the report endorsed by both sides of this committee, we will simply be talking about this issue and not doing anything about it. That is the problem with the government's response. It does not look like it is willing to pick up this issue. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.476647664766Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I present the government response to the following reports: Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies—Reports on R-rated material on pay TV: Parts 1 and 2 and Review of the guidelines for the classification of film and videotapes and I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—Senator J FerrisChairSenate Select Committee on Information TechnologiesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator FerrisI refer to the reports of the Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies ('the Committee') entitled: . Report on R-rated Material on Pay TV Part 1 (tabled in the Senate on 9_February 1995); and. Report on R-rated Material on Pay TV Part 2 and Review of the Guidelines for the Classification of Film and Videotapes (tabled in the Senate on 17 October 1996).I also refer to your letter of 25 May 1998 in which you advise that the terms of reference of your Committee include receiving and considering outstanding Government responses to the reports of the Committee.I note that the previous Government did not respond to the Committee's Part 1 Report. Although the response to that Report is long overdue, I set out below, for completeness, the Government's response to each of the Committee's recommendations in both the Part 1 and Part 2 Reports.Report Part 1Recommendation 1: The Committee, having regard to the following matters:(i) the community's concerns about the levels of violence in the media, especially depictions of sexual violence, and of realistic and degrading, demeaning or exploitative sexual material;(ii) the contradictory views expressed about the effects of such depictions on attitudes and anti-social behaviour; and(iii) the lack of clarity of the R classification which permits an excessively broad range of material to be permitted within its definition;recommends that R-rated material be not permitted on pay TV.See response to recommendation 1 in the Committee's Part 2 Report.Recommendation 2: The Committee also recommends:That the Office of Film and Literature Classification undertake a comprehensive overhaul of the R classification to define with greater precision the criteria to be used in rating violent, sexually violent, realistic and degrading, demeaning or exploitative sexual material, taking into account its intensity and extensiveness, to ensure its appropriateness for viewing in the home environment.When the Attorney-General has tabled a revised R classification, the Committee will reconsider its recommendation.The Commonwealth, State and Territory co-operative censorship legislative scheme has been revised since the Report was tabled. The revised scheme commenced on 1 January 1996 with the commence ment of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act).Under the Act, classification guidelines approved by Ministers are required to be gazetted and, by inter-governmental agreement, to be tabled in Commonwealth, State and Territory Parliaments. Further amendments to the classification guidelines require the unanimous approval of participating Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers.During 1995, the Commonwealth, State and Territory Censorship Ministers implemented a full review of the Classification Guidelines for Films and Videotapes (the guidelines).The review commenced in September 1995. Advertisements calling for submissions from the public were placed in all major National, State and Territory newspapers on 14 and 21 October 1995.The previous guidelines and a draft of revisions for discussion were sent to all members of Commonwealth, State and Territory Parliaments, to 403 members of the film and related industries, to 338 members who had responded to the advertisements, to 67 previously recorded complainants to the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) and to 30 community organisations.In total, 146 submissions from members of the public, community groups and industry bodies were received by the OFLC. Two submissions were received from members of the NSW Parliament and, as you will be aware, a joint submission from your Committee.In summary:. 66% of submissions expressed concerns about the portrayal of violence. 53% of submissions expressed concerns about the portrayal of violence and sex on television. 20% of submissions expressed support for the work of the Board. 15% of submissions expressed the view that standards had become too lax. 8% of submissions expressed the view that standards had become too strict.The submissions were scrutinised by Professor Peter Sheehan, an independent person with expertise in the classification area, who is Pro Vice Chancellor and Head of Post-Graduate Research at the University of Queensland, and by Dr Judith Bowey, a language expert also from the University of Queensland. Professor Sheehan's and Dr Bowey's recommendations were incorporated into a revised draft of the guidelines.The revised draft guidelines were unanimously endorsed by Commonwealth, State and Territory Censorship Ministers on 11 July 1996. They were tabled in the Senate on 31 October 1996 and in the House of Representatives on 30 October 1996. The revised guidelines have tightened standards applied to the classification of violence, and particularly sexual violence, in films and videotapes. Depictions of violence which are excessive and previously warranted a `high level violence' consumer advice in the `R' classification are now classified `RC' (refused classification).Report Part 2The response to recommendations 2 to 9 has been endorsed by all Censorship Ministers.Recommendation 1: That the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 be amended to define with greater precision the manner in which reception of subscription narrowcasting services is to be limited under section 17 of the Act, by removing section 17(a)(v) so as to prevent the broadcast of R-rated and X-rated material through the medium of Subscription Broadcasting Services (Pay TV).The Government has reviewed the adequacy of current provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act regarding X and R-rated material on pay television and decided to extend the prohibition on X-rated material, and any replacement category, to all narrowcasting services and to prohibit R-rated material on open narrowcasting services. R-rated material will continue to be prohibited on subscription broadcasting services.Pay television providers who have canvassed the possibility of providing an X-rated narrowcasting service will be limited to providing R-rated narrowcasting programming. The Television Subscription Narrowcasting Code of Practice, which was registered with the Australian Broadcasting Authority in September 1997, restricts access to R—rated material to those with appropriate disabling devices and restricts services devoted predominantly to adult erotica to late night access only.The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997, which contains the Government's proposed amendments in relation to X and R-rated material on narrowcasting services, has been passed by both Houses of the Parliament.The Government is also considering the Committee's latest report: Report on the Portrayal of Violence in the Electronic Media.Recommendation 2: That the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 should be amended to make amendments of the National Classification Code under section 6 and determinations or amendments of the classification guidelines under section 12 to be disallowable instruments by the Commonwealth Parliament.The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act) is the Commonwealth's contribution to a revised co-operative Commonwealth, State and Territory censorship scheme which came into effect on 1 January 1996.The Act is based on the Australian Law Reform Commission's (ALRC) Report on Censorship Procedure . The ALRC was required to report on how Australia's censorship laws could be made more simple, uniform and efficient, while preserving the co-operative nature of the then current scheme. Censorship is an area where the Commonwealth does not have comprehensive Constitutional power.The Act reflects the ALRC's preferred option for reform. It is a federal Act for the ACT which establishes the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board and sets out the procedures for the making of classification decisions. The complementary State and Territory legislation picks up decisions made under the Act for the purposes of enforcement in their respective jurisdictions.To give effect to this scheme it was necessary for the States and Territories to voluntarily give up some of their legislative powers, in particular their power over the procedures under which classification decisions are made.An integral part of the ALRC's recommended approach was a classification code agreed to by the Commonwealth, States and Territories which would contain the classification categories and criteria. In commenting on this the ALRC notes (in paras 2.12 and 2.13, respectively of its Report) that:"The classification categories and criteria, however, would not be legislated by any State or Territory, nor by the Commonwealth. Instead, they would be, as they are at present, agreed to by the States, the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth. They would form a `code'. An agreement between governments would include provision for amendment of the code from time to time. The classifying body would be instructed by the federal Act to make decisions in accordance with the terms of the agreed code as in force for the time being. The text of the code as it stood when the federal law was enacted would be published for information as a schedule to the federal Act. The schedule would not, however, be part of the Act.""This alternative [i.e. the preferred option] accurately reflects, and maintains, the balance of responsibilities that has been arrived at between these jurisdictions. It recognises that, in relation to the classification criteria and categories, the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory [and following a decision of Ministers, the ACT] are equal partners, and that policy on these matters is derived from agreement between all the jurisdictions. There will be a single procedure, avoiding the overlaps and duplications that presently exist, and the classifiers will derive their powers from a single source, removing the difficulty that they sometimes face now of conflicting legislation from different jurisdictions. Provision will need to be made for amendments to the code to be published."The code referred to is the National Classification Code (the Code) set out in the Schedule to the Act, which was agreed to by all jurisdictions.Classification decisions under the Act are also to be made in accordance with the classification guidelines and the comments made in relation to the Code are equally applicable to the determination and amendment of those guidelines.There are clear benefits to the industry and the Australian community from the much simplified and more uniform scheme reflected in the revised scheme.During the passage of the Commonwealth Bill, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills drew attention to the fact that it enables the Code to be amended by the agreement of Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers without reference to the Parliament. The Committee's report includes an extract from the former Attorney-General's response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee on this matter. He noted that the Commonwealth conducted its negotiations with the States and Territories on the basis of the ALRC's recommended legislative approach and the concern expressed by some States and Territories that, having agreed to forego legislative power in certain areas, particularly in relation to the classification categories and criteria, subsequent agreements reached on these matters could be undone by the Federal Parliament. He also drew attention to the fact that there is often a need for some compromise to achieve co-operation between Australian Governments.This question was also addressed by the Committee in its November 1994 Report on the Consideration of the Provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Bill 1994 .In that Report the Committee recommended that the classification guidelines and amendments to the Code and classification guidelines be tabled in both Houses and that State and Territory Ministers be urged to do likewise in their respective Parliaments.The former Government agreed with these recommendations, as did all State and Territory Ministers. This requirement (under which any agreement to amendments to the Code and guidelines must be unanimous) is now reflected in the inter-governmental agreement relating to the revised scheme.A key feature of the ALRC's recommendations was that amendments to the Code and the guidelines should be subject to a public consultation process. This has also been endorsed by all Censorship Ministers and is reflected in the inter-governmental agreement.The public consultation process that was undertaken for the computer games guidelines in 1993/94 and the recent extensive consultation on the revision of the films guidelines gave ample opportunity for all sections of the Australian community to have input into the content of these guidelines. I note that comments were also sought from the Committee and its members as part of the film guidelines review.Further, the requirement to table amended guidelines and the amended Code in all Australian Parliaments gives the opportunity for Parliamentarians to debate the content of these documents.The Government is of the view that these procedures strike an appropriate balance between preserving the revised co-operative scheme, with the benefits it bestows on the industry and the community, and the need to provide adequate safeguards to ensure that amendments to the Code and the guidelines adequately reflect community views.In this context, the current position under the new scheme should be contrasted with the position that existed under the previous scheme. Under that scheme few jurisdictions recognised, legislatively, the existence or role of the classification guidelines in making classification decisions and there was no requirement for a public consultation process in amending the guidelines.In view of the above, the Government is not convinced of the need to make amendments to sections 6 and 12 of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 as recommended by the Committee.Recommendation 3: That the current position of Director of the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) be re-styled as the Chief Executive Officer of the OFLC and that there be new positions of Director and Deputy Director of the Classification Board to be appointed from the community representatives on the Board.This recommendation carries with it the implication that the current position of Director of the Classification Board precludes the occupant being considered to be a representative of the community like other Board members. If implemented it would also appear to remove any managerial duties from the Deputy Director's position.Under the Act, the statutory positions of Director and Deputy Director are subject to the same appointment processes as other Board members, i.e. the need to ensure that appointees are broadly representative of the Australian community and the requirement to consult about the appointments with State and Territory Ministers. Further, the positions are filled on merit following the selection of suitable candidates after public advertisements.The Director and Deputy Director are thus intended to be just as representative of the community as other Board members. The only difference is that in selecting persons to fill these positions regard is had not only to their suitability as representatives of the community in performing classification functions, but also to their capacity to represent the public face of the Board and to their managerial expertise. These latter attributes do not conflict with their community representative role.In addition to their classification functions, the Director and Deputy have administrative, policy and managerial roles in the running of the Office of Film and Literature Classification.The OFLC is a small office and it is quite appropriate and cost effective for the Director to also fulfil the function of Chief Executive Officer. As the OFLC exists to provide administrative support to the Classification Board, the introduction of a new Chief Executive Officer position appears to be unwarranted, unnecessary and inefficient during a period of cost restraint and pressure to improve efficiency as the OFLC moves onto a user pays cost recovery basis. The proposal is difficult to justify when the current arrangement provides for the effective management and administration of the affairs of the Classification Board.The Government's view is that the current structure provided in the Act is an appropriate model.Recommendation 4: That a community committee be established, representing major interest groups such as parents, teachers, churches, academics, women, youth, aboriginal and ethnic representatives:(a) That the community committee would be asked to consider: . any decisions of the Classification Board in relation to the release of a film or video with an MA or R rating about which the Board was not unanimous; and . any decision of the Review Board to vary a Board decision to refuse to release, or release a film or video with a recommended R or MA rating at a lower classification, than recommended by the Board.(b) that the Review Board be required to take the community committee's recommendations into account in its deliberations, and(c) that the Attorney-General be required to make a determination on any decision of the Review Board to release a film or video at a lower classification than approved by the unanimous decision of the Board, and be required to take into account the community committee's recommendations.In its October 1993 Report on Video and Computer Games and Classification Issues and its November 1994 Report on the Consideration of the Provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Bill 1994 the Committee recommended the establishment of a community committee, which it saw `as a means of assuring the general community that the voting system on both Boards did not lead to the oppression of a sizeable minority by a slim majority'.I note this recommendation was rejected by the previous Government with the support of State and Territory Censorship Ministers.I am informed that one of the factors that led to the Committee first recommending a `community committee' was the decision taken by the then Film and Literature Board of Review to release the film Salo on appeal from the then Censorship Board's decision to retain the longstanding ban on its release. This decision was, however, taken in 1992 and much has changed since then. The fact that concern is expressed by some about one particular decision among the many thousands that have been made both before and since does not, in my view, lead to the conclusion that the system under which classification decisions are made is flawed.In its latest report the Committee calls `for a restructuring of the OFLC to make it more reflective of community standards'. It also considers that establishment of a community committee, in conjunction with a review of the composition of the two Boards and the continuation of the OFLC's program of research into community standards `should lead to more appropriate classification decisions'.The assertion that the Boards are delivering `inappropriate' classification decisions is not supported by the evidence provided by research, by analysis of complaints received by the OFLC, or submissions received from members of the public during the recent review of the guidelines for the classification of films and videotapes.Figures provided by the Motion Pictures Distributors Association of Australia show that 69.9 million cinema tickets were sold during 1995 and figures provided by the Australian Visual Software Distributors Association show that 13.5 million videos were sold over the same period, of which 3.3 million were sold to video rental businesses. During 1995-96 the OFLC received a total of 255 complaints, of which 41 (16%) related to cinema films, 20 (8%) related to videos, 158 (62%) related to publications and 36 (14%) related to television programs over which the Board has no authority.There is no legislative requirement that there be unanimity in Classification Board decisions (or for that matter decisions of the Review Board) and nor should there be. For most significant decisions, a panel of at least three Board members is involved, although more problematical material may be referred to the whole Board for decision. Many Board decisions are made on a majority vote. This is not surprising, given the diversity in views about censorship that exists within the community that the Board members represent.Under the new censorship legislative scheme, questions relating to whether Board decisions reflect community standards have been addressed by providing that the membership of the Boards be broadly representative of the Australian community and that members remain abreast of community attitudes.Representative nature of the BoardsAs the Committee notes in its Report, the Ministerial Committee on the Portrayal of Violence in the Media recommended that the Commonwealth Attorney-General should review the composition and terms of appointment of members of the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board.It does not follow from this, as the Committee suggests, that the `Commonwealth Government is not confident that the subsequent reforms introduced in the Classification Act have been a success'. It does, however, afford an appropriate opportunity to review the appointment processes and the current composition of the Boards to ensure that the requirement in the Act `that regard is to be had to the desirability of ensuring that the membership of the Board[s] is broadly representative of the Australian community' is being met.The issue of ensuring that the Classification Board's membership remains representative has been addressed in a number of ways.Appointments to the Board follow public advertisement, interviews and recommendations on the basis of merit. A representative of the States and Territories sits as a member of the interviewing panel.Further, there is now a requirement in the Act that State and Territory Censorship Ministers be consulted on all appointments. This consultation process is treated seriously by all Censorship Ministers.There is criticism from time to time from a variety of sources that this process does not result in a Board membership of sufficient diversity in background and qualifications to adequately meet the requirement of a membership that is broadly representative of the Australian community.While there may be some merit in this argument it does not follow that Board decisions can be said, as a consequence, not to reflect community standards. However, I decided that the actual selection process itself should be reviewed to see if it requires modification in order to attract a more diverse range of suitable applicants.This review has now been completed and the results will be reflected in the next selection round for appointments to the Board which will take place in the near future.Community attitudesAs to keeping abreast of community attitudes, the ALRC's recommendation for an on-going public consultation program has been implemented by the OFLC. Additionally, the OFLC regularly commissions research into community attitudes about classification issues and the adoption of new entertainment technologies in the Australian community. Some of this research is commissioned jointly with the Australian Broadcasting Authority. Recent studies include Computer Games and Australians Today , Families and Electronic Entertainment and a review on the effects of playing computer games on young people.Community Assessment PanelsNotwithstanding the above factors, the Government acknowledges that concerns are expressed from time to time about whether some of the Board's decisions can be considered to reflect general community standards.The Government considered, therefore, that there was merit in putting in place some form of external community assessment process to assist classifiers in their work.Accordingly, in December 1996, I announced a proposal to establish Community Assessment Panels to ensure a greater community input into the classification of films and videos.The proposal was endorsed by State and Territory Censorship Ministers at a meeting on 14 March 1997.The panels will help make film classification decisions representative of the broader Australian community by maintaining awareness of community standards.Panels will comprise up to 20 members who will be drawn from a broad cross section of the community. They will represent various age groups and diverse backgrounds. There will be three panels established in the first 12 months of the scheme.The panels will have an advisory role in assessing classifications made by the Classification Board and will be reporting both to the Board and to Censorship Ministers. This will enable the Ministers to monitor community involvement in the classification of films and videos and the extent to which the Board's decisions reflect general community standards.The panels will not delay the classification process by imposing an extra tier of decision making.Independent consultants will select the members of the panels and will facilitate the reporting by the panel. The first panel has now met in Sydney, the second in Brisbane and the third in Wagga Wagga.Censorship Ministers have recommended that the panels be constituted in different jurisdictions throughout Australia as the scheme proceeds so that they will be able to properly assess community views throughout all parts of Australia.The cost of running the panels will be met from within the budget of the Office of Film and Literature Classification.Recommendation 5: That the Classification Board launch, as a matter of high priority, a program of recall and reclassification of material in all classifications where the new guidelines suggest that a higher classification is warranted.While the Government supports, in principle, reclassifying certain films where this is warranted as a result of changing community standards, or the introduction of a new classification such as the MA category in 1993, it considers that, from a practical point of view, this should be restricted to films which have been the subject of a complaint.In this context, the possible reclassification of stronger M films classified prior to the introduction of the MA category in 1993 was considered by Censorship Ministers at their meeting on 25 October 1996.For this purpose, the Office of Film and Literature Classification conducted an initial audit of video titles classified M between July 1991 (the codification system employed in the search commenced at that time) and May 1993. This revealed that a total of 1172 (or 18.3%) of video titles were classified at the M level during the period. Of these, 58 contained high level M violence. This represents 4% of titles classified M during the period and 0.9% of the total number of titles classified during the period.The search only included video titles as there are unlikely to be pre-1993 cinema films still in circulation. Films of this vintage are likely to have been distributed on videotape.Of the 58 titles identified as containing high level M violence, none, as far as could be ascertained, had been the subject of complaints nor, according to the Australian Visual Software Distributors Association, were they titles in high demand. Further, in some cases, the distributors of these films may have changed or gone out of business, rendering the wholesale reclassification of such films impractical. In the light of the above factors, Ministers unanimously agreed that pre-1993 M films would be recalled for reclassification on a case by case basis and on receipt of a complaint.The revised guidelines reflect some changes in community attitudes, particularly in the area of violence and sexual violence. The Committee is now suggesting that any film which may warrant a higher classification under the revised guidelines should be recalled for reclassification.If this approach was to be implemented, each time there was a perceived change in community standards it would be necessary for the Classification Board to spend very significant amounts of time and resources attempting to identify films from the past to see whether they would warrant a re-classification on this basis. Older films do not generally enjoy a wide circulation or high popularity. Most popular films disappear from the 100 top films lists, which are compiled by industry bodies, within 2 years of release (films cannot be reclassified within 2 years of the initial decision). The level of complaint about specific titles follows this trend.In these circumstances, the Government does not consider it is either practicable or necessary to try to undertake an extensive reclassification. However, as with certain pre-1993 M films, it does consider it appropriate to consider a reclassification if complaints are made about a particular film. This would include older films that are re-released.Recommendation 6: That the film and video guidelines for each of the categories be amended to explicitly state that the classifiers must take account of community concerns about the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.The National Classification Code states as a principle that classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to ". . . the need to take account of community concerns about . . . the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner."This principle applies to all classification decisions, as the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 requires such decisions to be made in accordance with the Code. The principles are also formally included in the revised classification guidelines which were approved by Censorship Ministers on 11 July 1996, being set out in full on page 3 of these guidelines.The issue of the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner was also taken into account in formulating the revised guidelines for each of the classification categories.The Government's view is that classifiers are already required to take account of community concerns about the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner and that additional references as suggested by the Committee are unnecessary. Censorship Ministers are, however, considering this matter in the context of the classification guidelines for the proposed new `NVE' classification to be created on abolition of the `X' Classification.Recommendation 7: That separate guidelines be introduced for the classification of videotapes to ensure that higher standards are applied than for the equivalent categories of film for cinema release.The Government does not support this recommendation.The Government's Law and Justice policy for the March 2 election states that it will ". . . work with States and Territories in pursuit of clear standards for film, television, literature, computer and video games, audiotext and bulletin boards that operate to prevent the excessive portrayal of violence or obscenity."Current policy sets the film and video criteria at identical thresholds.Research reveals that there is clear support for the idea of having a similar classification scheme operating for television, film and video (79%). There are persuasive arguments that the system should continue in its present form to promote community understanding of, and confidence in, the classification process and to provide business certainty on a national basis.The situation already exists where a free-to-air TV M, a film and video M and a computer game M may differ. Considerable consumer confusion is likely to follow if further differences are introduced, for example, a difference in content between a video M and a cinema M. This is particularly so as the content is invariably the same and the video version is usually released shortly after the end of the cinema season.The Act also makes provision for consumer advice giving information about the content of films and videos. This enables adults and, in particular parents, to make informed choices about what they view and allow their children to view.The hire or purchase of a video involves a conscious choice by a person. In relation to denying access by children to unsuitable material so obtained, this is a matter which falls directly into the area of parental responsibility. There are definite limits to what Governments can do or be expected to do in controlling what occurs in individual homes.The fact that some parents may act in what some may consider to be an irresponsible manner in this area is not an adequate excuse for curtailing the availability of material to adults generally (which could be the case if `R' rated material is to be classified at a higher threshold for videos) or parents who do act responsibly. Recommendation 8: That the Standing Committee of Censorship Ministers regularly discuss and review enforcement procedures in relation to the sale, hire, distribution and display of film and video material.The enforcement of the national classification scheme is the responsibility of the States and Territories. Commonwealth, State and Territory Censorship Ministers meet regularly and discuss a variety of issues which include issues relating to the enforcement of the national classification scheme.Censorship Ministers have considered problems of non-compliance with the legislative requirements following the commencement of the national classification scheme in January 1996. Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory have agreed to participate with the Commonwealth in an educational scheme to assist distributors and retailers to meet their legal obligations under the national classification scheme.The Community Liaison Officer scheme commenced in February 1997 for an initial trial period of twelve months.Recommendation 9: That the OFLC's reviews of the guidelines for the classification of publications and computer games should be conducted in a publicly accountable manner, including through the involvement of the Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies.Censorship Ministers approved a sequential review of the classification guidelines for films and videotapes (now complete), and publications and computer games. In so doing, Censorship Ministers approved a review process which includes extensive public consultation and expert input.The Committee was closely involved in the review of the Classification Guidelines for Films and Videotapes. All members received the guidelines package which was distributed for public comment. In lieu of providing a submission to the review, the Committee chose to hold a hearing with Mr Reaburn and OFLC senior statutory officers in November 1995. A second public hearing on the classification guidelines was held in July 1996. In each case the OFLC then provided written advice in response to requests for information from the Committee, including 48 questions on notice.The Committee's views were taken into account in the revisions made to consecutive drafts of the guidelines which were prepared during the review.I note that the Committee's claim that the review process was conducted with undue secrecy appears to be based on the SCAG convention of not publicly releasing or discussing matters which are under consideration or which are listed for discussion by Censorship Ministers.The Committee has expressed its dissatisfaction with the review process, suggesting that the OFLC has not addressed its prior recommendation regarding the review of the `R' guidelines in any meaningful sense. However, the Committee was accorded ample opportunity to express its views on the matter, as were all Australian Parliamentarians and members of the public. The review process commenced in October 1995 and was completed in July 1996. The Committee issued a report on the subject after the event in September 1996.I note from the Hansard that despite the concerns which the Committee has expressed regarding the `R' classification, the Committee considered and commented upon the revised guidelines for each classification category during its hearings on the review of the guidelines.The Government strongly supports open public consultation and the involvement of experts in the foreshadowed review of guidelines for the classification of publications and computer games.I am arranging for the Government's response to the Report to be tabled in the Parliament at the earliest opportunity.Yours sincerely,(signed)DARYL WILLIAMS17:47:004774Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I want to make some remarks on the ministerial response to the Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies. Today, the select committee is still in existence, but it has changed its form and gone on to bigger and probably better things. In essence, it is keeping a watching brief on what is being broadcast. Somehow or other we are not able to get away from what is being broadcast. Many members will remember that the other week we had some hearings in this building into Sex/Life and one or two other programs. We are rapidly going more into the whole technological realm. In particular, we are looking at a number of the problems associated with the Internet, e-commerce and other very important developments.This response from the minister is fairly late in coming; in fact, it picks up recommendations which were made by the previous committee at the end of 1994, early 1995 and in the course of the last quarter of 1996. I note the Attorney-General's response on these matters stemmed from a letter sent by the committee, of which I am the deputy chair, in May this year to speed up a response and find out exactly what was happening.What the Attorney-General said in his response is rather interesting. He has virtually said they are going to hasten very cautiously; they are going to move very slowly. He agrees that the matter is very important and that there are a number of recommendations which need to be picked up and addressed. The response talks about ministerial council meetings that have taken place over the last three years in an attempt to get some resolutions—in particular, the broadcast of explicitly violent and sexual material.I am not disagreeing with the Attorney-General's response. I think it is sensible to deal with it as an all-jurisdiction response. I would suggest, however, that anyone who thinks that in the last couple of years all of these measures have had any success is probably not watching a lot of prime time television, which is something I enjoy doing when I am in Canberra. I would suggest the Sunday night movies have become considerably more violent in the last three years.7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—What about the soccer?ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I am not a soccer fan. I am the only one around the place who is not bleary-eyed for that reason. We will be speaking to the Attorney-General again about some of these matters. I note that we are particularly looking at the self-restraint of commercial television broadcasters and radio broadcasters at this stage. There is a difference between the two of them. Certainly in respect of television, there have been a lot of complaints raised by me and other senators about some of the programs that appear on commercial networks. In general, I have some concerns about the timing of some of these programs. I do not have any great problems with them being on television; I have a problem with the time slots. I made that pretty clear at the committee meeting the other week.As to radio broadcasting, there is no doubt that the material being broadcast on a number of radio shows should be available at the local sex shop. If people wish to buy that sort of stuff and they are over the age of 18, then that is where they ought to get it—instead of over the airwaves. That is my own conservative view on these things. I have no problem with adults having access to this material. I think it ought to be packaged and sold in places where it is less likely to fall into the hands of those under the age of 18. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.477547754775Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I present the following government response to a committee report: Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Format of portfolio budget statements. Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows —Government Response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee's Report "The Format of Portfolio Budget Statements", tabled 30 October 1997.The Government welcomes the report of the Committee into the format of the Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS). The report identifies strengths and weaknesses in the existing PBS document, and provides valuable observations and suggestions for the PBS following the Government's foreshadowed implementation of an accrual budgeting and management framework.The Committee acknowledges some unique factors which contributed to the generally unfavourable reception for the PBS during the 1996/97 estimates round. The current reference is a result of this generally unfavourable reaction to the documentation.The Government is pleased to note that the Committee found that there were no major problems with the format of the documents, and that it was supportive of recent and proposed innovations for the current program and outlays based PBS, partic ularly:. that the reporting format should not be mandated at the micro level for agencies with widely disparate levels of appropriation and numbers of budget measures, and. changes to the reporting of cross portfolio budget measures.Purpose of the PBSThe Government agrees with the Committee's view that the purpose of the PBS is to explain the Appropriation Bills to the Parliament, and particularly to the Senate Legislation Committees.The Government notes the Committee's observation that "the PBS and the process for which they are intended [consideration of estimates by Senate Legislation Committees] are basically mismatched and neither .contributes particularly well to the ostensible purpose of assisting in the passage of the Appropriation Bills", and that "a major stumbling block in the path of program budgeting has always been the cumbersome linkage of the Appropriation Bills to the program framework".The Government expects that the process of considering estimates, and the linkages between the Appropriation Bills and the PBS documentation, will be greatly improved as a consequence of examining elements of an accrual based budgeting framework and associated documentation.Response to the recommendations of the reportThe report contains three recommendations, but makes a number of other suggestions, observations and comments. Some of these have already been referred to above. Of the three recommendations, one is directed to the Senate, and the remainder to the Department of Finance and Administration.The Committee recommended that "all [Senate] legislation committees" be required to comment on the format and content of the PBS". While this is clearly a matter for the Senate to decide, the Government supports such a recommendation. Considered comment on the format and content of the PBS will not only clarify where the format of documentation can be improved, but also each Committee's and portfolio's expectations of the role of the PBS in the consideration of estimates.The Committee recommended " the Department of Finance [and Administration] circulate its proposed format for the PBS under accrual budgeting, when it is available, to the Committee for comment so that the Committee, and through it the Senate, can have input to the final form of the documentation". The Committee further recommended that "the Department of Finance [and Administration] circulate to the Committee the comments of departments and agencies on the proposed format for the PBS, so that the Committee can be aware of the attitude of those departments and agencies directly".The Committee noted the substantial number of important issues that need to be resolved if accrual budgeting is to succeed. The Government appreciates the Committee's feedback and the Department of Finance and Administration has noted the points raised. The process of examining aspects of an accrual budgeting framework involves wide ranging consultation and the development of a training curriculum that will be available to all agencies and other stakeholders.The Department of Finance and Administration proposes to keep the Committee informed on developments in the accrual budgeting project, particularly on areas associated with appropriations and the PBS.The Department of Finance and Administration is currently developing a draft proposal for the revised PBS. The Department will be consulting widely regarding the contents and refining the draft as appropriate. The Committee's views would be extremely valuable in this regard. The Department sees consultation with the Committee as a high priority and expects to seek input from the Committee at various stages over this year.The Government notes the Committee's recommendation that the comments of departments and agencies on the proposed format be provided to the Committee. When the Department of Finance and Administration provides a draft of the documentation to the Committee it will include information on the comments received from departments and agencies on the draft.ConclusionThe Committee's report on the format of Portfolio Budget Statements is a very useful document in clarifying many of the key principles and preferences regarding the documents. The report is very timely as input to the considerations regarding accrual budgeting and will provide valuable guidance in redesigning reporting and accountability arrangements.The Government sees the Committee as an important stakeholder in considering changes to reporting and accountability and any further input from the Committee is welcomed.17:52:004776Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I wish to take note of the government's response to the report of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee entitled Format of the portfolio budget state ments . I will only be some four or five minutes and just put on the record the background to this government response. The report of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee arises out of the 1996-97 budget process. Subsequent to that, there was an inquiry conducted by the department arising out of the significant number of complaints as to the inadequacy of the PBSs in that budget estimates process.The key recommendations that arose from the committee are fairly self-evident—that is, that portfolio budget statements be relatively concise, adhere broadly to a recommended but not standardised format, and refer to ancillary information that is of interest to senators and members of the public but not necessarily repeat it. The committee had three key recommendations, firstly, that the Department of Finance and Administration circulate a proposed format, secondly, that the DOFA circulate the comment of relevant departments and agencies on that format and, thirdly, that all legislation committees, when they give their summary of estimates, comment on the format and adequacy of the portfolio budget statements. I do not have any problem with those recommendations and hope that they are adopted in due course.I do note in passing that the recommendation of the committee that the PBSs have a reference to ancillary information but not repeat it has been something that has been honoured in the breach, if you like, by the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business. Where there had been significant questioning on particular issues in the Office of Employment Advocate at last year's estimates by Senator Collins and Senator Mackay, and the relevant officials were uncomfortable, or the minister or the government—or both—was uncomfortable with the thread of that questioning, they took the opportunity in this year's PBSs to simply refer us to page whatever or a footnote in the annual report instead of having the same information.So, instead of that department, or the officials responsible for putting together the PBSs, honouring the intent of the recommendations of the Finance and Public Administra tion Committee and, indeed, the government's response as tabled today, the officials of that department took the opportunity to, at best—if one were being charitable—make it difficult for senators to pursue a particular line of questioning. I formally put that on the record and hope that the department can bring itself to adhere to the necessary processes where individual senators can ask questions that are pertinent to their area of interest.Two issues arise out of the government recommendations—firstly, accrual budgeting and, secondly, the workload of the Economics Legislation Committee. Firstly, with respect to accrual budgeting, the government, through all departments and agencies, is part way through the implementation of accrual budgeting in the Commonwealth. It is some two or three years before it will be finalised.Accrual budgeting is a different process from cash budgeting. Cash budgeting is mainly balancing ins and outs, much like the normal chequebook that most people have. As long as the amount that comes in balances what is going out, you do not have a problem. Accrual budgeting is different. It enables departments and accountants to value capital and operational items, outlays of expenditures, over time. Hence, much more information is displayed and much more information can be analysed in terms of the documents, giving greater information to interested readers about the nature of programs, subprograms, outlays, departments and activities of government. It is something that has been part and parcel of corporate life in public companies for many years. You know you have major problems if a company does not have accrual budgeting because you cannot get any accurate information as to the financial state of that company.With the introduction of accrual budgeting across the Commonwealth, firstly, it is going to give rise to much more information being available and will necessarily lead to an increased volume of questions by individual senators and a different type of question because there is more information on display and, hence, open to examination. That means that estimates will probably be somewhat longer in the future, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does suggest the need for staff of senators to be trained adequately in an understanding of accrual budgeting.It is my knowledge that a lot of staff of senators do not have a proper understanding of financial statements and the intricacies of accrual budgeting. When that is part and parcel of the process of all departments and agencies, it might be appropriate for the relevant employer, at law, to put on a seminar, probably going over 1½ or two days, to explain the process of accrual budgeting, what it means, what its historical roots are and the sort of information that is displayed. In that way, electoral staff of individual senators can engage in serious preparation for the process. I just put that on the record.The second issue that arises out of the estimates process is the exceptional workload that is carried by the Economics Legislation Committee. It has a range of significant departments—Treasury, Workplace Relations and Small Business, the Sports Commission and others—attached to its responsibilities. Time is always of the essence. Because of that and the nature of the important issues that are covered by those relevant departments, individual senators are not able to examine in sufficient detail the operations of those relevant departments. I know this government is committed to open and transparent government because it has told us so repeatedly. It is possibly time to review the workload of that particular committee.17:59:004777Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I wish to speak on the same matter. I have had quite a deal of interest in the PBSs since I first arrived here, so much so that I think it can be said that, at least in the Defence estimates, the PBS has been changed to fit in with comments I have made on previous occasions at those estimates, and I am very grateful for that.I note in the government's response tonight a number of issues which still concern me and I do not know if they are being addressed properly. Whilst the response refers to the evidence that came out of the 1996-97 years, I do not know if we are really tracking through what is happening with the PBSs. A classic example is in the area of Veterans' Affairs. The Department of Veterans' Affairs set about putting their PBS in a more user-friendly format. Unfortunately, when it came to estimates this year, we found that the PBS as presented by the Department of Veterans' Affairs was not in a user-friendly style at all, so much so that Senator West and I spent quite a deal of time during those estimates trying to unravel the new style that had been presented to us, with the admission coming in the end from Dr Johnston that:We provided you with more information than last time, but it is not quite as helpful as it could be in some respects.My concern is not just with this, but I found it also with the Defence PBS. The information they provided did not allow one to follow the trail in terms of the shift in personnel brought about by the defence efficiency review or the defence reform program. It did not allow one to follow the trail in terms of dollar savings.I must admit that I was very pleased with the response I received from officials of the Department of Defence. They went away and in the space of 24 hours redid the figures, and that enabled one to follow that trail quite clearly from one year to the next. I do not think part of this exercise that has been going on—and I have not noted it anywhere in the government response—is the ability to road-test what the various departments are doing. Whilst they are not constrained to a particular format, one nonetheless must see that, if these things are being revised, they must be in a user-friendly style so that the people who are going to use them in the estimates process can, in some ways, make the estimates process easier by not having to unravel the language in which some of these PBSs are couched.In particular, I have a concern about the move to accrual accounting. Again, what we must be able to see is the trail from the current cash accounting system to the new accrual accounting system. I note in the government response that they refer to the fact that the Department of Finance and Administration is currently developing a draft proposal for the revised PBS. One would assume that this is according to the report based on the change to accrual accounting. We are going to be in a hopeless mess if this has not in some way been road-tested before it finally gets to the estimates process. I do not know how that would be achieved, but one would think that, in light of the government response and in light of the importance of the estimates process, the government does consider additionally not only that there be a draft proposal for a revised PBS under the accrual accounting system but that this be given some form of road-testing.I think it is essential that, if the estimates process is to have relevance to us, to the parliament and to the community at large, it must be in a user-friendly style which enables us to follow the progress from one year to the next. That has not been available to date. I have found difficulties on a number of occasions following the PBS from one year to the next. If this is the time to do something about it, then it is appropriate that the government take these comments on board and ensure that we have a user-friendly system which enables us to follow the flow from one year to the next.This links in directly with the annual reports, and that is another problem which must be overcome. Whilst the annual reports will report a cash based accounting system, they will also have to deal with the transition from cash to accrual. One would hope that this is taken care of in the government response.I welcome the fact that progress has been made in the revision of the PBS documents that we are challenged to read. But as I said, the main thing that I would hope for in the longer term is that we do get a document which can be widely used. There is a need in some instances for the PBS to be related to the external references that occur in a PBS. The reason I say that is that the PBS for Defence related to a document entitled Future directions for the management of Australia's Defence: Report on the defence efficiency review, and that did provide the basis of many of the decisions and many of the questions that were raised under the 1997-98 PBS and the 1998-99 PBS. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.477947794779Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I present the following government response to a committee report: Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Report on annual reports tabled January 1995—June 1995. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—Government Final Response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee's "Report on Annual Reports Tabled January 1995-June 1995".1. The Committee recommends that an unclassified annual report by the Office of National Assessments be presented to Parliament.After careful consideration, the Government has decided not to proceed with an unclassified annual report by the Office of National Assessments. There are already extensive accountability arrangements in place, and there would be difficulty in producing a report that provided meaningful information.2. The Committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, in conjunction with the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, develop appropriate guidelines to govern reporting to Parliament by Commonwealth/State bodies with a high level of ex-officio membership, including in this category those bodies which have New Zealand as a member.As the Committee notes, the requirements for reporting on non-statutory bodies (drawn up in 1987) do not apply to Commonwealth-State consultative bodies with high level ex-officio membership only. These are councils or committees, of ministers or senior officials, which provide a forum for discussion and agreement but do not exercise the decision-making responsibilities of the governments represented on them; and their members' activities are only one aspect of the duties of offices they hold subject to more general accountability arrangements. Departments providing secre tariat support for consultative councils are subject to the departmental annual reporting requirements.Commonwealth governments have been involved through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), in putting in place protocols and other guidelines regarding the operation of Ministerial Councils and related officials' committees. COAG has agreed that a compendium of ministerial councils should be published and updated, showing in respect of each council its scope and objectives, its composition, chairing arrangements, frequency of meetings, associated meetings of officials, secretariat arrangements, and contact points. The compendium shows any involvement of New Zealand or other regional ministers or officials.The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's Commonwealth-State Relations Secretariat published the compendium in 1992 and 1994, and it is intended to update it regularly. When the Department next writes to other departments about their own reporting requirements, it will remind them of the Parliament's interest in any participation in and support they provide for Commonwealth-State consultative councils.3. The Committee recommends that the Australia New Zealand Land Information Council annual report be presented to Parliament.The Australia New Zealand Land Information Council has agreed to publish a National Report covering the period 1994-97 and annual reports subsequently, which will be submitted to the Committee.4. The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Spatial Data Committee annual report be presented to Parliament.The Commonwealth Spatial Data Committee has provided the Senate Committee with copies of its 1995-96 and 1996-97 annual reports and intends to continue this practice.5. The Committee recommends that the Construction Industry Ministers' Conference report to Parliament, either separately, or within the Department of Administrative Services annual report.The Australian Procurement and Construction Ministers Council (APCC) was formed in October 1996 and performs the role previously provided by the Construction Industry Ministers Conference. The APCC, including the secretariat function, is jointly funded by Federal, State and Territory governments. A report on the Department of Finance and Administration's involvement with the APCC will be included in future annual reports of the Department. 6. The Committee recommends that the Australian Liaison Committee on Remote Sensing by Satellite report to Parliament, either separately, or within the Department of Administrative Services annual report.The Australian Liaison Committee on Remote Sensing by Satellite was disbanded in 1993.7. The Committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet consult with the Land Councils and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, concerning both the appropriate means for reporting by Aboriginal Land Trusts to Parliament, and the nature of the information to be supplied.Land Trusts are established primarily to hold title to land, and to deal with estates and interests relating to that land at the direction of the respective Land Councils. The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs will contact Land Councils to settle arrangements regarding coverage of such dealings in the annual reports of Land Councils, which are tabled in the Parliament.8. The Committee recommends that the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council financial statements be presented annually to Parliament.The recently passed Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 requires Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council to table annual reports in the Parliament commencing with the financial year ending June 1998.9. The Committee recommends that, while the Advisory Council for Inter-government relations remains a statutory authority (though inactive), a note to this effect be placed, either in the annual report of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, or in the information available on request.A note about the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations was included in the information made available on request in association with the Department's annual reports for 1994-95 and 1995-96. The practice of including such a note will continue as long as it is appropriate.10. The Committee recommends that departmental annual reports, or material available on request, include information on any inactive statutory authority or non-statutory body, to allow monitoring of compliance with reporting requirements.Departments are required to make available on request information about portfolio legislation and statutory authorities. Inactive statutory authorities should be shown as such in this information. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will advise departments accordingly when it writes to them next about reporting requirements. It will also remind departments to include in information available on request notes on any non-statutory bodies which have become inactive without ceasing to exist.478047804780Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I present the government response to a committee report: Employment, Education and Training References Committee—Childhood matters: report on the inquiry into early childhood education. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—IntroductionIn July 1996, the Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee released its report `Childhood Matters' on their inquiry into early childhood education. The terms of reference for the inquiry were broad ranging, concentrating on the experience of Australian children up to age seven and included:The examination of recent research dealing with:- early childhood factors which impact upon capacity to learn during formal school education;- the impact of early childhood education on learning success in later years; and- the role of parents as early childhood educators, particularly with respect to literacy and cognitive skills generally.Analysis, and cost assessment of, remedial and other interventions required in the primary and middle school years to enable students to achieve the necessary learning competencies for successful completion of secondary education to Year 12, and to provide a basis for independent, lifelong learning.Examination of recent notable early childhood education initiatives in Australia and OECD countries and report on any implications for, or desirable changes to, Commonwealth policies and priorities in education and child support.Assessment of the existing relationships and policy interface between the early childhood services sectors and the schools sector in Australia and report on their effectiveness in achieving the successful transition of children into formal schooling. The report makes 24 recommendations across child care, preschool and the early years of schooling. Broadly, the Committee advocates a view of early childhood services which embraces both education and care, drawing child care and preschool together. Recommendations have implications for Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments.Many of the issues covered by the Committee of relevance to the Commonwealth have been examined, independent of the Senate inquiry, through a range of Commonwealth Government initiated processes.The Government response to `Childhood Matters' has been prepared in a climate of significant change for both of the major portfolio areas responding to the report; the Department of Health and Family Services and the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA).In broad terms the Commonwealth Government's direction for children's services is one which will provide equity and fairness in the distribution of quality child care to Australian families. The Government's strategies regarding the provision of child care are also designed to ensure that the child care sector remains affordable and sustainable for both families and governments into the future.Although the Commonwealth Government had historical links in the provision of preschool education, changes to Federal Government policies introduced under successive Governments since the 1970s have led to the current situation where the responsibility for development of the preschool system and the provision of preschool services has been fully transferred to State and Territory Governments. From 1985, the Commonwealth's Children's Services Program has been directed to the development of child care services, primarily to support female participation in the paid workforce. Preschool education is no longer a Commonwealth responsibility, and, except under the national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy, DEETYA policy responsibilities in the early childhood education area are only in relation to children attending school and include some preschool programs delivered on school premises in Queensland and Western Australia.The Commonwealth Government's child care reform process commenced in the 1996-97 Budget and provides a strong foundation for the future development of the Program. The Government has allocated an estimated $4.7 billion on child care over the next four years, with expenditure expected to grow from $1 billion in 1997-98 to $1.3 billion in 2001-2002. Reforms target more equitable assistance to families irrespective of the service used, offer fair and reasonable access to funded care and appropriate distribution of new services to meet family needs. The reforms are the result of extensive family research and consultations with parents and industry.In terms of education, the Commonwealth Government takes a broad view of the elements necessary to achieve high quality outcomes from the Australian education system. The Government makes a direct link between the availability of high quality education, including early childhood education, and an individual's employment potential in later life. In developing and implementing education policy the Government remains focused on the links between high quality education and the economic development and social well being of Australians generally.The Commonwealth Government accepts a role of leadership in school education in recognition of the vital significance high quality school education is to the future of Australia. As part of its contribution to the national effort for Australian schooling the Commonwealth provides supplementary funding to States/Territories and to non-government school authorities to assist in the achievement of specific objectives agreed upon by the Commonwealth and the States/Territories.It is within this context that the Government provides the following responses to the recommendations presented in the Senate Committee's report `Childhood Matters'.Recommendation 1The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government through the Minister for Health and Family Services establish a National Centre for Research in Early Childhood Development, Education and Care, possibly based on an existing research facility. The National Centre will:conduct longitudinal and other studies into the cognitive, emotional and social development of children from birth, including studies of children whose development is at risk because of economic, social or disability factors; andcontribute to the development of theory on child development and on early childhood practice from the perspective of Australian research findings.The Commonwealth Government supports the conduct of longitudinal and other relevant studies into early childhood education and care particularly with a focus on the Australian experience.There is value in comprehensive and nationally relevant research into early childhood because early childhood experiences are known to have a far reaching impact on a child's emotional, social, physical and intellectual development. A longitudinal, Australian focused, approach to research would provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and appropriateness of our early childhood services. The Government already supports quality research projects and draws on the findings of such research in the development of Government policy.Separate portfolio areas covering early childhood, Health and Family Services and Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, currently fund and oversee a wide range of research projects. The Australian Institute of Family Studies currently undertakes longitudinal research and data collection on a range of family and community welfare issues, including childhood development, which promote a greater understanding of the needs and profiles of families targeted by all levels of Government.In 1996, DEETYA directly funded early childhood education research through grants for early childhood literacy research. The Australian Council for Education Research and Schools of Early Childhood Education within higher education institutions also undertake research into early childhood issues.Given the diverse nature of existing research arrangements, the Commonwealth will continue to consider opportunities to maximise access to relevant research and data regarding the provision of services for children and to utilise this information in the context of longer term policy directions.Recommendation 2The Committee recommends that, in determining approvals for the establishment of child care facilities, planning authorities take into account the viability of proposals brought before them in the light of existing patterns of provision in the area.This recommendation has been addressed by the Commonwealth Government's 1997-98 Budget measures, including the National Planning System, National Information Strategy and supply limits. These measures will provide for more equitable access to subsidised child care for families and better distribution of new child care services which will support sustainable growth in the sector. As a result of participation in these processes, Local Government will have improved access to relevant information on which to assess the viability of proposals for expansion of service delivery.The Commonwealth Government's vision for delivering a sustainable child care system that provides accessible, affordable and high quality child care will be complemented by the National Information Strategy, a component of which aims to better inform investor decisions.The National Planning System and the decision to slow the rate of growth of centre based long day care to 7,000 new child care places for the calendar years 1998 and 1999 will ensure that new places approved for Childcare Assistance establish in identified priority areas. Recommendation 3The Committee recommends that the governments of the Commonwealth, States and Territories devise consistent nomenclature and descriptors for the years of early childhood and of compulsory schooling. This will entail:common nomenclature for the primary school years and the `pre-primary school' years; and;a common starting age for, and a common date of eligibility for entry to, compulsory schooling, and similarly for the year before compulsory schooling (the so-called `preschool' year).The Committee suggests that, in all States and Territories, the first year of compulsory schooling should be designated `Year 1'; the year immediately before `Year 1' should be designated `Preschool'.The Commonwealth Government recognises the merit of this recommendation and acknowledges the confusion experienced by families by the current inconsistencies in nomenclature and school starting ages.The report has been referred to State and Territory Government Ministers with responsibility for children's services and education for their consideration. Examination of issues concerning national consistency across child care, preschool and primary schooling is important if the anomalies which currently exist within these services and across States and Territories are to be redressed. There is also a need to ensure fair and equal access to quality services across Australia and to facilitate portability of a child's educational status between the States and Territories.While State and Territory governments have the major responsibility for school education, including the standardisation of grade entry points, the Commonwealth also has an interest in common entry points for all students in all sectors of schooling. The issues of a national school entry age band in Australia and standard nomenclature for the two years preceding Year 1 have been raised with the Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. A taskforce has been established to consider this matter and has established agreement across all States for a common nomenclature. No agreement has been reached on a common starting age band at this stage.Recommendation 4The Committee recommends that the proposed National Centre for Research in Early Childhood Development, Education and Care gather national data on participation in preschool education, according to: age. funding source (that is, public or private). type of early childhood setting. socio-economic status. geographical distribution.Information should also be gathered concerning non-participation.The Commonwealth Government recognises the benefit of having access to sound data in order to accurately profile participation and non-participation in preschool education. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare currently collects, collates and analyses data in the welfare services field including child care and preschools.Given the State and Territory Government responsibility for the provision of preschool education, the co-ordination of data collection for this sector needs to be done in cooperation with individual States and Territories.The Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision, which operates under the auspices of the Council of Australian Governments, has been established to report on the effectiveness and efficiency of Government funded services, including children's services.Performance of children's services (formal child care and preschool services) was included in the 1997 Report on Government Service Provision; however, the report does not cover non-participation in preschool.Recommendation 5The Committee recommends that the proposed National Centre for Research in Early Childhood, Education and Care collects information on the provision of, and participation in, all early childhood services. Information should include:age. funding source (that is, public or private). type of early childhood setting. socio-economic status. geographical distribution.The Commonwealth Government recognises the need for sound data on which to profile the provision of, and participation in all early childhood services. Existing Commonwealth data collection mechanisms, ie the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Commonwealth Child Care census and the ABS Child Care Survey already provide comprehensive coverage of data relating to child care provision and participation. The ABS Child Care Survey also covers preschool provision.Recommendation 6The Committee recommends that: the Commonwealth assume responsibility for policy development and funding for the care and education of children from birth until they begin compulsory schooling. The implementation of that national policy and the effective application of Commonwealth funds to those national goals will be achieved through a partnership of the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments;there be universal provision, across the range of early childhood settings, of preschool programs for the year before a child enters school. The governments of the States and Territories shall ensure that appropriate transition mechanisms are in place for children's entry into school from early childhood settings;a National Early Childhood Services Commission be established to develop national policy, to coordinate data collection concerning the care and education of children during the early childhood years, and to monitor the implementation of national policy. One of the Commission's first tasks should be the convening of a National Summit to set out clearly Australia's commitment to children and to the provision of equitable, accessible and affordable early childhood services for families; and that, national policy be predicated upon a commitment to the optimal development of all young children, and to enhancing the status of all practitioners in early childhood care and education services.The Commonwealth Government does not support this recommendation, as a range of Commonwealth/State forums exist to deal with Children's Services and early education issues.Proposals for the Commonwealth to take and fund State/Territory functions are not supported on grounds of likely increased costs for the Commonwealth.Coalition Senators, Tierney, Patterson and Troeth dissent from Recommendations 6 and 19, and instead recommend as follows:The Coalition Senators recommend thatwithin State and Territories, existing early childhood services make the administrative and other changes necessary for implementing an integrated, multi-service approach—perhaps along the lines which currently apply in South Australia with its Department of Education and Children's Servicesthe Commonwealth makes Specific Purpose Payments to the States and Territories for the delivery of an integrated approach to early childhood education and care the Council of Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers responsible for family services, in consultation with the Ministers for Education, ensure a co-ordinated and consistent approach to policy development for early childhood services across the country.The Commonwealth's new National Planning System, currently being implemented, makes provision for an integrated approach to child care planning with all levels of government being represented in new child care Planning Committees. Issues of childhood education and care delivery will be considered in future Commonwealth/State discussions regarding the roles and responsibilities of each level of Government.Recommendation 7The Committee recommends that the National Standards for Centre Based Long Day Care, which include standards for adult-child ratios, be amended to also include standards for group size.National Standards for centre based long day care are a State and Territory Government responsibility. The report has been referred to State and Territory Government Ministers responsible for children's services and education for their consideration.Recommendation 8The Committee recommends that the proposed National Centre for Research in Early Childhood Development, Education and Care conduct a longitudinal study into the impact of small class size on the quality of education in the early years of schooling. The study should provide for the comparative assessment of educational attainment and effective socialisation arising from small class experience, and be integrated with a longitudinal study of the long term cost-benefits and personal and social outcomes arising from the projects.The Commonwealth Government is supportive of measures which would expand the body of knowledge in this area, but notes that class size is only one of a number of factors which may impact on the quality of education in the early years of schooling. As the findings of such research would impact most on State and Territory Government regulations, the report has been referred to State and Territory Government Ministers responsible for children's services and education for their consideration.Recommendation 9The Committee recommends that all State and Territory Ministers work towards a goal of having all primary contact child care workers in licensed child care centres possess the relevant qualifications. To that end, State and Territory Ministers should require that centres should ensure that, from 1998, all newly-appointed staff shall have qualifications appropriate to their level of appointment, and that in the meantime, existing unqualified staff will be assisted to begin gaining qualifications. In particular, all child care centres offering preschool or preschool-type programs should employ practitioners with teaching qualifications in early childhood to deliver the preschool program.The Commonwealth Government strongly supports the principle of appropriate qualifications and has endorsed Competency Standards for child care, developed by the National Community Services and Health Industry Advisory Board (National ITAB) covering all types of formal child care services (for children aged 0-12) including those funded by the Commonwealth.The specific provisions of child care licensing guidelines are a State and Territory Government responsibility. The report has been referred to State and Territory Government Ministers responsible for children's services and preschool education for their consideration.Recommendation 10The Committee recommends that the National Standards for Family Day Care state that, as a minimum requirement, all coordinators of Family Day Care services possess a professional qualification appropriate to early childhood services.The Government supports measures which promote quality and best practice in Commonwealth funded services. The responsibility for National Standards for Family Day Care rests with State and Territory governments. The report has been referred to State and Territory Ministers responsible for children's services and preschool education for their consideration.The Commonwealth is committed to the provision of quality care and recently announced funding for the development of a quality assurance system for Family Day Care.Recommendation 11The Committee recommends that State and Territory Education Ministers ensure that, where appropriately qualified early childhood trained teachers are available, they should be given priority over generalist teachers for appointments to positions at the junior primary school level.State and Territory Governments have direct responsibility for the training, certification and employment of teachers. The report has been referred to State and Territory Government Ministers responsible for children's services and preschool education for their consideration. Recommendation 12The Committee recommends the Commonwealth, State and Territory Education Ministers commission the development of a draft set of national goals and guidelines for best practice in the pre-service education and training of early childhood practitioners. These guidelines should highlight the importance of early childhood practitioners working closely with parents in caring for, and educating, their children.The Commonwealth Government recognises the value of professional development for early childhood educators and endorses the principles underpinning this recommendation.Pre-service education and training for early childhood practitioners is, however, the responsibility of State and Territory Governments and the report has been referred to State and Territory Government Ministers responsible for children's services and preschool education for their consideration.Recommendation 13The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs include in the National Professional Development Program the inservice professional development of qualified early childhood practitioners.The National Professional Development Program of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, was terminated in 1996-97. The inservice development and training of qualified early childhood practitioners is a State responsibility. The report has been referred to State and Territory Government Ministers with responsibility for children's services and education for their consideration.Recommendation 14The Committee recommends that the National Child Care Industry Council prepare an issues paper dealing with the career structure and remuneration of people working in the early childhood sector. Following the principles of competency-based remuneration, the issues paper should address the skills and qualifications appropriate to the various levels of appointment within early childhood education and care, and the responsibilities which are assumed by staff at the various levels.The National Child Care Industry Council was discontinued following a comprehensive review of all Ministerial advisory committees and councils in the Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services. The Commonwealth Minister for Family Services has recently announced the establishment of the new Commonwealth Child Care Advisory Council. The role of this new Council will be to provide advice to the Commonwealth Minister on the development of strategic policy directions, research and reform of the Commonwealth's child care responsibilities.The National Community Services and Health Industry Training Advisory Board (National ITAB) has been established to advise government on the provision of education and training for the community services and health industries and to promote the development of national competency standards curriculum and training opportunities. However, the Standing Committee of Community Services and Income Security Administrators have recommended that the implementation of competency standards would not be used as a basis to justify wage increases. Employees shall continue to be classified in accordance with awards and agreements. Consistent with the principles of the Joint Industry Council Agreement of February 1995, employers and employees shall retain the flexibility to develop classifications with current and future industrial arrangements.Recommendation 15The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers together:commission an independent review of the K-2 elements of the National Profiles and Statements to assess the extent to which they incorporate the principles for developmentally appropriate practice; andrequest the Curriculum Corporation to develop curriculum guidelines for the early childhood years which articulate with the curriculum arising from the (revised) K-2 National Profiles and Statements.The Commonwealth Government does not support this recommendation as it is based on an incorrect understanding of the function of the curriculum statements and profiles. Statements outline the major elements of learning in eight defined learning areas and profiles provide a series of student learning outcome statements which are intended to be used as a framework for reporting student achievement. Although developed through a national collaborative curriculum project, neither statements nor profiles give coverage of the process of achieving the learning outcome. The project itself was explicit that matters relating to learning and pedagogy (which this recommendation refers to) are the responsibility of the States and Territories.While State and Territory Governments are responsible for school curriculum matters, the Commonwealth Government supports moves by State and Territory Governments to cooperate in the development of curriculum materials to address national priorities in early childhood education. The Commonwealth Government will draw the concerns of the Senate Committee to the attention of the Curriculum Corporation to reinforce the need for personnel with appropriate qualifications and experience in early childhood education to be involved in the preparation, consultation and trialing of materials targeted to K-2 students and/or teachers.Recommendation 16The Committee commends initiatives being undertaken in the States and Territories to find ways of improving children's learning in the early years of school. In particular it notes the Victorian First Steps Multi-Age Pilot Project for the First Three years of Schooling (1994-96), and recommends to the Victorian government that the evaluation of this project include an assessment of the impact of the methodology on teachers, and of the implications of its more general implementation for the professional development of teachers, for classroom support and for resource allocations across the system.This recommendation has been referred to the Victorian Minister for Education for further consideration.Recommendation 17The Committee recommends that the Minister for Health and Family Services ensure that the National Standards for Centre Based Long Day Care include a specific requirement relating to the allocation of space, and other relevant aspects of the physical environment, both indoor and outdoor in which early childhood programs are conducted. Specialist consultant expertise and the Australian Early Childhood Association should be involved in the development of these physical environment standards.National Standards for centre based long day care are a State and Territory Government responsibility. The report has been referred to State and Territory Government Ministers responsible for children's services and preschool education for their consideration.Recommendation 18The Committee recommends that State and Territory Ministers ensure that the procedures for monitoring child care centres' compliance with licensing regulations be significantly upgraded. This should involve, in additional to annual inspection routines, random compliance audits of licensed centres.Licensing of child care centres is a State and Territory Government responsibility. The report has been referred to State and Territory Government Ministers with responsibility for children's services and preschool education for their consideration. Recommendation 19The Committee recommends that the proposed National Early Childhood Services Commission be empowered to inquire into, and report annually to the Australian Parliament on, the extent to which the prescribed National Standards for Centre Based Long Day Care, Family Day Care, and Outside School Hours Care have been implemented.The Commonwealth Government does not support the establishment of the proposed National Early Childhood Services Commission, but if States and Territories agree, annual reports could be presented in the Report on Government Service Provision which provides annual performance reporting across States and Territories.Recommendation 20The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Minister for Health and Family Services establish accreditation schemes for Family Day Care and Outside School Hours Care similar to the Quality Improvement Accreditation Scheme for Long Day Care Centres.The Commonwealth Government is committed to the development of quality assurance systems for Family Day Care and Outside School Hours Care.Funding for preliminary work on quality assurance systems for both Family Day Care and Outside School Hours Care was announced by the Commonwealth Government in late 1997.Recommendation 21The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Minister for Health and Family Services increase the resources available through the Remote Area Children's Services to enable the extension of the Kidmobile service.The Commonwealth Government is committed to improving access to child care for families in rural and remote areas of Australia. The Commonwealth Government has recently provided supplementary funding to community services in severely disadvantaged areas where no other child care is available and capital funding to develop innovative services in rural and remote areas. This recommendation will be considered in the context of available resources and competing priorities.Recommendation 22The Committee recommends that the State and Territory Ministers review their guidelines for licensing child care centres to allow for greater flexibility to address the needs of small and remote communities.Licensing of child care centres falls within State/Territory Government jurisdictions. The report has been referred to State and Territory Ministers responsible for children's services and preschool education for their consideration.Recommendation 23The Committee recommends that:the Commonwealth ensures that the agencies and private bodies it funds to provide early childhood services in Aboriginal communities involve the parents in decision-making relating to content, delivery and administration of those services;early childhood services in Aboriginal communities should take a holistic approach to the education and care of the children, involving relevant health care and other family support services;agencies providing preschool services should employ Aboriginal teachers and teaching aides wherever possible, and the Commonwealth should ensure an adequate supply of training places for Aboriginal practitioners across the range of early childhood courses; and thatthe Commonwealth should support bilingual approaches to early childhood services, encourage the teaching of Aboriginal languages in preschools and primary schools with a predominantly Aboriginal population, and promote learning about indigenous cultures across the school system.The Commonwealth Government supports a consultative approach and the involvement of parents in service development as a way of ensuring that services best meet the needs of individual communities.The Children's Services Program has introduced a number of measures to address the needs of Indigenous people. Multifunctional Aboriginal Children's Services (MACS) provide flexible services to meet the social and developmental needs of Indigenous children. MACS offer care for preschool and school aged children including long day care, play groups outside school hours care, school holiday care and cultural programmes. Multifunctional Children's Services and Mobile Children's Services and Toy Libraries, while not exclusively targeted to Indigenous people, address the special needs of small and isolated or rural communities by providing flexible services, resources, information and support for children and parents.The issue of consultative development is addressed in current programmes relating to Indigenous education, including preschool education. These consultations currently involve parents, teachers, administrators and Indigenous communities, particularly in rural and remote areas. The Commonwealth supports bilingual approaches to early childhood services, encouraging the teaching of Aboriginal Languages in preschools and primary schools with a predominantly Aboriginal population, and promoting learning about Indigenous cultures across the school system.The Commonwealth provides supplementary funding under DEETYA's Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program to education providers participating in the Commonwealth's National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy to improve the educational outcomes of these Indigenous students. Preschool education providers are encouraged to take an holistic approach to delivering early childhood services.While DEETYA recognises the need for an adequate supply of training places for Indigenous practitioners across the range of early childhood courses, it is not possible for the Government to compel universities to make such places available.The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission supports this recommendation but expresses some concern about the availability of resources to dedicate to specific projects and about implementation given the cultural diversity among Indigenous communities. There may be scope for some innovative improvements to be made at minimal cost rather than establishing projects which require high recurrent support costs.Recommendation 24The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth, through the Minister for Health and Family Services, extend its support for teaching of Languages Other Than English (LOTE) to early childhood services such as child care centres and preschools.The Commonwealth Government while offering support for the teaching of languages other than English in child care and preschool is not in a position to mandate or provide additional funding for the teaching of languages other than English.However the Children's Services Program supports children from non-English speaking backgrounds through the provision of Supplementary Services funding to assist inclusion of these children in mainstream child care services. The language support component of this Program is focussed on assisting mainstream services to help children `settle in' to child care. Supplementary Services support may include advice, resources and casual staffing support which may include access to pools of bilingual workers.478747874787Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I present the following government response to a committee report: Government response to the 21st report of the Sente Select Committee on Superannuation—Investment in Australia's Superannuation Savings. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—Recommendation 3.1The Committee recommends that the government review the intent and operation of the infrastructure borrowings concessions and clarify the position.On 30 June 1997, legislation was enacted to discontinue future access to the infrastructure borrowings (IBs) tax concession scheme, and to prevent any variation of conditions underlying existing certificates that increase tax benefits. This legislation was introduced because of problems with the IBs scheme, in particular that applications increasingly sought to exploit the concession for tax minimisation purposes.In the 1997-98 Budget, the Treasurer announced a new infrastructure borrowings tax offset scheme, which clarified the Government's approach to supporting private sector infrastructure investment. The scheme is open to new private road and rail infrastructure projects and related facilities, and project proponents which had applications pending for the previous IBs tax concession scheme. The offset will be set at the current company tax rate for all taxpayers (therefore low marginal tax rate payers such as superannuation funds will be able to obtain a benefit which exceeds the tax payable at the marginal rate) and will be available for up to five years from the time of first borrowing for a qualifying project. The cost of the new scheme is capped at $75 million for a full year.Legislation for the new scheme, contained in Division 396 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 , was passed by Parliament in April 1998. Subsequently, the Government has called for applications under the new scheme and will assess projects against a set of assessment criteria so funds are put to the most effective use.Recommendation 4.1The Committee recommends the government investigate the establishment of an independent and investor based credit-rating system for SMEs as a joint initiative of government and the relevant business groups.The Government does not consider the implementation of such a credit rating agency by Government would be appropriate. However, in its response to the Final Report of the Financial System Inquiry, the Government recognised that a lack of benchmarking and performance management information about SMEs adds to the cost of SME fundraising. The Government indicated that, in principle, it is of the view that data-collection agencies such as the proposed Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Bureau of Statistics should consider the requirements of credit-rating agencies and fund managers when reviewing SME data collection.The Government is confident that the continued growth of superannuation funds will lead to higher levels of investment in SMEs through diversified investment strategies. In addition, the measures announced in the Government's response to the Final Report of the Financial System Inquiry will further improve the availability of capital to SMEs.Recommendation 6.1The Committee recommends that the government review and monitor its superannuation policies and legislation to ensure the maximising of retirement incomes is not being unduly affected by short term investment considerations.The Council of Australian Government's program of review of legislation and the operation of Regulatory Impact Statements to test regulation against specific criteria provide scope for the Government to ensure new and existing legislation meets broader policy objectives.In addition, the Insurance and Superannuation Commission has continuously reviewed superannuation legislation under its administration against Government policies, financial market developments, administrative experience and representations from industry and interested parties, and this will continue to be done.It is yet to be decided which body will undertake the legislative review role under the new arrangements coming out of the Financial System Inquiry.Recommendation 7.1The Committee recommends that a review of superannuation investment polices and practices be undertaken by this Committee in three years time.The Government concurs with this recommendation.478810000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—In accordance with the usual practice, I table a list of parliamentary committee reports to which the government has not responded within the prescribed period. The list has been circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, the list will be incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The list read as follows—PRESIDENT'S REPORT TO THE SENATE ON GOVERNMENT RESPONSES OUTSTANDING TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS AS AT 2 JULY 1998PREFACEThis document continues the practice of presenting to the Senate twice each year a list of Government responses to Senate and joint committee reports as well as responses which remain outstanding.The practice of presenting this list to the Senate follows the resolution of the Senate of 14 March 1973 and the undertaking by successive governments to respond to parliamentary committee reports in timely fashion. On 26 May 1978 the then Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) informed the Senate that within six months of the tabling of a committee report, the responsible Minister would make a statement in the Parliament outlining the action the Government proposed to take in relation to the report. The period for responses was reduced from six months to three months in 1983 by the then incoming government. The then Leader of the Government in the Senate announced this change on 24 August 1983. The method of response continued to be by way of statement. Subsequently, on 16 October 1991 the former Government advised that responses to committee reports would be made by letter to a committee chairman, with the letter being tabled in the Senate at the earliest opportunity. The current Government in June 1996 affirmed its commitment to respond to relevant parliamentary committee reports within three months of their presentation.The list does not usually include reports of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works or the Senate Standing Committees on Appropriations and Staffing, Selection of Bills, Procedure, Publications, Regulations and Ordinances and Scrutiny of Bills, though such reports will be included if they require a response. Government responses to reports of the Public Works Commit tee are normally reflected in motions for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered. Responses to reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts are usually made in the form of Finance Minutes which are tabled by the committee. Where a response has been made by way of Finance Minute, the date of presentation has been appropriately annotated.Legislation committees report on bills and on the provisions of bills. Only those reports in this category that make recommendations which cannot readily be implemented through the bill, and therefore require a response, are listed. The list also does not include reports by legislation committees on estimates.A guide to the legend used in the `Date response presented/made to the Senate' column# See document tabled in the Senate on 29 November 1995, entitled Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports-Response to the list tabled in the Senate by the President on 30 June 1995 , for Government interim/further interim response.## See document tabled in the Senate on 27 June 1996, entitled Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports-Response to the schedule tabled in the Senate by the President on 30 November 1995 , for Government interim/further interim response.+ See document tabled in the Senate on 12 December 1996, entitled Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports-Response to the list tabled in the Senate by the President on 28 June 1996, for Government interim/further interim response.@ See document tabled in the Senate on 25 June 1997, entitled Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports-Response to the list tabled in the Senate by the Deputy President on 12 December 1996 , for Government interim/further interim response.++ See document tabled in the Senate on 2 December 1997, entitled Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports-Response to the list tabled in the Senate by the Deputy President on 25 June 1997 , for Government interim/further interim response.@@ Response by presiding officers.@@@ Further response by presiding officers. Certain Family Law Issues (Joint Select)Funding and administration of the Family Court of Australia28.11.95Presented 25.2.98 Tabled 2.3.98No Community Affairs ReferencesAccess to medical records26.6.97Not receivedNoAustralian Human Pituitary Hormone Program Settlement Offer1.10.9731.3.98NoHousing assistance2.3.98Not receivedNoPublic Dental Services in Australia 28.5.98Not receivedTime not expired Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies (Senate Select)Overseas sourced audiotext services, video and computer games, r-rated material on pay TV29.6.94#, ##, +, @,++NoR-rated material on pay TV,part 19.2.952.7.98NoRegulation of computer on-line services,part 230.11.95##, +, @,++NoR-Rated Material on Pay TV,part 2 and review of the guidelines for the classification of film and videotapes17.10.962.7.98NoPortrayal of violence in the electronic media13.2.97@, ++NoRegulation of computer on-line services,part 326.6.97Not receivedNo Economics LegislationAustralian Prudential Regulation Authority Bill 1998, and ten related bills13.5.98Not receivedTime not expiredProvisions of the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 199824.6.98Not receivedTime not expired Electoral Matters (Joint Standing)Inquiry into the conduct of the 1996 Federal election and matters related thereto16.6.978.4.98NoIndustrial elections: Report of the inquiry into the role of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in conducting industrial elections20.10.97Not receivedNo Employment, Education and Training ReferencesInquiry into Austudy29.6.958.4.98NoChildhood matters21.8.96 (presented 3.7.96)2.7.98NoBeyond Cinderella, Towards a learning society6.5.97 (presented 28.4.97)27.5.98NoNot a level playground: Inquiry into the implications of private and commercial funding in government schools25.6.9726.5.98NoA class act: inquiry into the status of teachers and development of the teaching profession31.3.98Not receivedNo Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Provisions of the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 199827.5.98Not receivedTime not expiredTelevision broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 and Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 199823.6.98Not receivedTime not expired Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts ReferencesMarine and coastal pollution27.10.97Not receivedNo Finance and Public Administration LegislationFormat of Portfolio Budget Statements 30.10.972.7.98NoReport on annual reports tabled: January 1995,June 199528.6.952.7.98No Finance and Public Administration ReferencesProperty management in the Australian Public Service29.6.95#, ##, +, @, ++NoInquiry on the contracting out of government services14.5.98Not receivedTime not expired Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (Joint)Papua New Guinea: Report on proceedings of a seminar, 11 and 12 November 1996, Canberra24.2.9728.5.98NoHuman Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner and Commonwealth Ombudsman: Report on public seminars, 20 and 25 September 1996, Canberra18.3.9723.6.98NoSharpening the focus: Report on a seminar on the Simons Committee report,Australian Overseas Aid Program20.10.978.4.98NoFrom Empire to partnership: Report on a seminar on the Commonwealth of Nations20.10.9723.6.98NoDefence Sub-committee: Visit to Sydney Harbour foreshores defence properties, 14 November 199723.3.98Not receivedNoAustralia and ASEAN: Managing change6.4.98Not receivedTime not expiredFunding of Australia's Defence8.5.98Not receivedTime not expiredThe Asian currency crisis,report on a seminar on the Asian currency crisis and its effect on Australia, 19 March 199825.5.98Not receivedTime not expiredImproving but. . . Australia's regional dialogue on human rights29.6.98Not receivedTime not expiredAustralia's trade relationship with India29.6.98Not receivedTime not expired Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade ReferencesAustralia China relations26.6.9614.4.98No Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Senate Standing)Off the record,Shield laws for journalists' confidential sources10.10.94 (presented 7.10.94)2.2.95 (Interim) 21.11.95 (Second interim)No Legal and Constitutional LegislationRole and function of the Administrative Review Council19.6.971.4.98NoAdministrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 199720.10.97Not receivedNoMigration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 4) 1997 and Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 5) 199730.10.97Not receivedNoCopyright Amendment (No 2) Bill 19971.4.98Not receivedTime not expiredSpecial benefit provisions,Newly arrived resident's waiting period2.4.98Not receivedTime not expired Legal and Constitutional ReferencesInquiry into the Commonwealth's actions in relation to Ryker (Faulkner) v The Commonwealth and Flint30.4.96 (presented 29.4.96)+, @,++NoPayment of a minister's legal costs Part 2, Guidelines, Reporting to Parliament 27.2.97++NoInquiry into the Australian legal aid system, 1st report, 2nd report, 3rd report26.3.97 26.6.97 25.6.9827.5.98 27.5.98 Not receivedNo No Time not expiredInquiry into sexuality discrimination2.12.97Not receivedNo Migration (Joint Standing)Australia's visa system for visitors30.4.96 (presented 27.1.96)##, +, @,++NoWorking holiday makers: more than tourists3.9.97Not receivedNoDeportation of non-citizen criminals29.6.98Not receivedTime not expired National Capital and External Territories (Joint)The right to protest19.6.974.9.97@@ 25.3.98, and 12.5.98@@@Yes National Crime Authority (Joint Statutory)Third evaluation of the National Crime Authority 6.4.98Not receivedTime not expired Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund (Joint) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (11th report)2.4.98Not receivedTime not expired Examination of 1996-7 Annual Reports in fulfilment of the Committee's duties pursuant to s.206(c) of the Native Title Act 1993 (13th report)24.6.98Not receivedTime not expired Public Accounts and Audit (Joint Statutory)Advisory report on the Tax Law Improvement Bill 1996 (Report No 348)6.3.974.12.97NoReview of Auditor-General's reports 1995-96 (Report No 349)20.3.97Finance Minute 25.6.98NoReview of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97,First quarter (Report No 350)20.3.97Finance Minute 25.6.98NoReview of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97,Second quarter (Report No 352)2.9.97Finance Minute 25.6.98NoAboriginal Councils and Torres Strait Island Councils: Review of financial accountability requirements (Report No 355)25.11.97Not receivedNoTax Law Improvement Bill (No 2) 1997 (Report No 356)12.3.98Not receivedNoThe Jindalee Operational Radar Network Project (Report No 357)24.3.98Not receivedNoReview of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97,Third quarter (Report No 358)31.3.98Not receivedNoReview of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97,Fourth quarter (Report No 359)31.3.98Not receivedNoInternet commerce. . . To buy or not to buy? (Report No 360)24.6.98Not receivedTime not expiredReview of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97,First quarter (Report No 361)25.6.98Not receivedTime not expiredGeneral and specific purpose payments to the States (Report No 362)29.6.98Not receievedTime not expired Publications (Joint)Future of the parliamentary papers series2.12.97Not receivedNo Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport LegislationSun Fund Bill 19972.12.972.7.98NoPrimary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 199724.6.98Not receivedTime not expired Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport ReferencesValue-adding in agricultural production14.5.9723.6.98NoCommercial utillisation of Australian native wildlife30.6.98Not receivedTime not expired Scrutiny of BillsThe appropriate basis for penalty provisions in legislation comparable to the Productivity Commission Bill 1996 (8th report)24.6.98Not receivedTime not expired Superannuation (Senate Select)Super guarantee,its track record (15th report)8.2.95#, ##, +, @,++NoSuper and broken work patterns (17th report)28.11.95##, +, @,++NoInvestment in Australia's superannuation savings (21st report)10.12.962.7.98NoSuper,Restrictions on early access,Small Superannuation Accounts Amendment Bill 1997 (26th report)23.9.97Not receivedNoSuperannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Bill 1997 and six related bills (27th report) Taxation of Superannuation,Information paper10.11.97 4.3.98Not received Not receivedNo NoCommonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1997 and two related bills1.4.98Not receivedTime not expiredWorkplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 199726.5.98Not receivedTime not expired Treaties (Joint)Two international agreements on tuna (3rd report)18.11.9626.5.98NoAustralia's withdrawal from UNIDO and treaties tabled on 11 February 1997 (7th report)24.3.9714.5.98NoTreaties tabled on 18 March and 13 May 1997 (8th report)23.6.97++NoAmendments to the Bonn Convention (9th report)1.9.9727.5.98NoAustralia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation Treaty (12th report)1.12.97Not receivedNoTreaties tabled in Parliament on 25 November 1997 and 3 March 1998 (13th report)6.4.98Not receivedTime not expiredMultilateral agreement on investment,Interim report (14th report)1.6.98Not receivedTime not expired Uranium Mining and Milling (Senate Select)Uranium mining and milling in Australia15.5.9713.5.98NoMiscellaneous479410000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—I present the report of the Parliamentary Delegation to the mid-year Executive Committee Meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in Swaziland and a bilateral visit to China which took place in April and May 1998.Documents4794479418:06:004794Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Documents are tabled in accordance with the list appearing on today's Order of Business . With the concurrence of the Senate I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The list read as follows—Australian Law Reform Act—Australian Law Reform Commission—Report—Australia's federal record: A review of Archives Act 1983 (No. 85)Australia's young people: Towards independence—Report on youth affairs by the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp), June 1998.Department of Defence—Special purpose flights—Schedule for the period 1 July to 31 December 1997.Committees4795479547954795Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—On behalf of Senator Murphy, I present the second report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee on the review of the operation of the order for the production of indexed lists of departmental files.Ordered that the report be printed.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I seek leave to give notice of a motion.Leave granted.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—On behalf of Senator Murphy, I give notice that, two sitting days after today, he will move: That the Senate adopts the recommendations of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee contained in its second report on the review of the order for the production of indexed lists of departmental files, as follows:(a) the trial loading of file lists from the Department of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs on the committee's internet home page be discontinued:(b) each department and agency provide, on its internet home page, access to an indexed list of all relevant files created from 1 January 1998 with the present exclusions to continue (departments and agencies may choose to maintain on line an indexed list of all new files created from that date or to maintain on line an indexed list of, as a minimum, the most recent year's file creations); and(c) the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996 be varied to provide for the tabling in the Senate on the present six-monthly basis of letters of advice that such indexed lists of files have been placed on the internet. 479547954795Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Woodley, I present a corrigendum to the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on commercial utilisation of Australian native wildlife.Ordered that the corrigendum be printed.Bills4795s1734795Motion (by Senator Hill) agreed to: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.Motion (by Senator Hill) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.479518:09:004795Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 is perhaps the most important proposed legislation dealing with environmental issues that will have been presented to the Commonwealth Parliament.The bill represents the only comprehensive attempt in the history of our Federation to define the environmental responsibilities of the Commonwealth. It proposes the most fundamental reform of Commonwealth environmental law since the first environment statutes were enacted by this Parliament in the early 1970's.Reform is necessary because the existing suite of Commonwealth law does not ensure high environmental standards in the areas of Commonwealth responsibility. Just as importantly, the existing legislation does not provide the community with certainty as to the Commonwealth's role, nor does it provide an efficient and timely assessment and approval process.Over the last two years, the Federal Coalition Government has worked co-operatively with the State Governments to identify the reforms needed to produce a more effective and efficient national approach to environmental management. The result was an agreement, given in-principle endorsement by the Council of Australian Governments in 1997, which defines the Commonwealth's role by reference to certain matters of national environmental significance. The COAG Agreement also seeks to ensure the seamless integration of Commonwealth and State laws through a transparent mechanism for Commonwealth accreditation of State processes.The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 implements the COAG Agreement. In doing so, it provides the framework for a more effective national approach to environmental management, ensuring resources are focussed on delivering better environmental outcomes at all levels of government. The Commonwealth's role in this national approach will, for the first time, be clearly and logically defined.The bill will replace five existing Commonwealth Acts—the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 , the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 , the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 , the Whale Protection Act 1980 and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 .As a result of the previous Labor government's neglect, the Commonwealth's environmental law regime has not evolved to keep pace with the rapid advances in environmental management. Accordingly, while existing Acts may have represented best practice in the 1970's, they now require comprehensive reform.The bill will establish a new legislative framework to overcome the deficiencies of the existing regime and to allow Australia to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century with renewed confidence. The bill will promote, not impede, ecologically sustainable development and will conserve biodiversity. The bill will ensure the Commonwealth is equipped to deal with current and emerging environmental issues in accordance with contemporary approaches to environmental management.National Environmental SignificanceA major deficiency in the existing regime is that Commonwealth involvement in environmental matters is determined by ad hoc and indirect triggers such as foreign investment approval and Commonwealth funding decisions. Reliance on such triggers has undoubtedly limited the effectiveness of the Commonwealth's contribution to environmental protection. It has also created significant and unnecessary delay, uncertainty and duplication for industry.More fundamentally, the use of indirect triggers means the Commonwealth becomes involved in the assessment of projects which raise environmental issues of only local or state significance. This should not occur. Conversely, under the existing law, the Commonwealth is sometimes locked out of contributing to an issue of genuine national significance because of the absence of an indirect trigger.In accordance with the COAG Agreement, the bill therefore abandons the reliance on ad hoc and indirect triggers in favour of appropriate environmental criteria.The bill introduces a new and more efficient assessment and approval process that applies to actions which are likely to have a significant impact on: the Commonwealth marine area; . world heritage properties; . Ramsar wetlands of international importance; . nationally threatened species and ecological communities; and internationally protected migratory species.The bill also applies to environmentally significant nuclear actions, actions on Commonwealth land and actions by the Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies.An activity which does not have a significant impact on one of the matters of national significance will no longer trigger Commonwealth involvement in the assessment and approval process—even if it requires a Commonwealth decision or approval such as foreign investment approval.In accordance with the COAG Agreement, the bill provides a framework for recognising any additional matters of national environmental significance after consultation with the States and the proper consideration of State views.AccreditationAnother deficiency in the existing regime is that it does not enable early, transparent and effective accreditation of State processes and systems.For projects of national environmental significance that trigger Commonwealth involvement, the bill substantially increases the capacity for the Commonwealth to `accredit' State processes and decisions. The Commonwealth will seek to rely on State processes which meet appropriate criteria by entering into bilateral agreements with States which detail accreditation arrangements. In summary, the Commonwealth will be able to `delegate' to the States the responsibility for conducting assessments under the bill where State processes meet appropriate criteria.The capacity for accreditation of State processes in the bill is significantly greater than under existing legislation. For the first time, legislation will allow the Commonwealth to provide: 'up-front' accreditation of State processes; broader accreditation of State processes and systems (avoiding the need to provide accreditation on a case-by-case basis for all projects); and accreditation of state decisions (eg, for agreed management plans).The bill provides a framework for identifying appropriate criteria for use in the accreditation process. An efficient environmental assessment and approval processThe bill implements a modern environmental assessment and approval process that will transform the Commonwealth process from its archaic, 1970's structure.Reliance on direct environmental triggers will substantially increase the certainty and efficiency of the assessment and approval process. Accordingly, the new process delivers significant benefits for proponents, without compromising on environmental standards:the proponent may trigger the process, avoiding the current delays associated with designation under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974;by relying on specific environmental criteria as the trigger (and not the existing indirect triggers), the proponent and the community know up-front whether the Commonwealth is involved—there is not the existing capacity for late intervention;tight statutory timeframes are now included at all stages in the process to ensure timely decision-making;Commonwealth assessment is confined to impacts on the matters of national environmental significance (the Commonwealth will not assess matters which are more appropriately the responsibility of the States); andthere are appropriate linkages to State processes at all stages, ensuring an integrated assessment process that minimises delay and duplication.The decision whether to grant approval is made after considering social and economic factors as well as the matters of national environmental significance.Other features of the new process include express recognition of the precautionary principle and the other principles of ecologically sustainable development, the adoption of a strategic assessment process to promote cumulative and regional assessments, and the establishment of a framework for State accreditation of Commonwealth assessments (eg, for projects affecting more than one jurisdiction).Biodiversity ConservationThe loss of biodiversity represents the greatest environmental challenge facing Australia. The Howard government has demonstrated its commitment to addressing this challenge by establishing the largest environmental program in Australia's history—the Natural Heritage Trust.The bill now provides a substantially improved legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of Australia's biodiversity to complement the Natural Heritage Trust.Some of the features of the bill which will improve Australia's capacity to protect its biodiversity include:providing for voluntary conservation agreements with landholders for the conservation of biodiversity;enhancing protection for threatened species through improvements to the listing process, providing for the recognition of vulnerable ecological communities and conservation dependent species and the application of specialised criteria to assess the conservation status of marine biota;providing that regulations may be made for the control of access to biological resources in Commonwealth areas;. providing for the improved management of Commonwealth reserves, including through application of the IUCN Protected Areas Management Guidelines;removing an existing impediment to the creation of marine reserves;. improving protection for world heritage properties;for the first time, providing legislative protection for Ramsar wetlands of international importance and migratory species;recognising and promoting improved management for Biosphere reserves;. promoting bioregional planning; andproviding for increased recognition of the importance of identification and monitoring of components of biodiversity. The bill also provides for the formal establishment of the Australian Whale Sanctuary. The establishment of this Sanctuary complements Australia's efforts at the international level to secure, through the establishment of a truly global sanctuary, a permanent international ban on commercial whaling.The reforms presented in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 represent the product of a long period of negotiation with the States. The reforms have also been developed after taking into account nearly 300 public submissions made in response to a public consultation paper released in February 1998. I propose that the bill be examined by the relevant Senate legislation committee and I look forward to considering any advice from the Committee which will further improve the operation of the bill. Furthermore, if the Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 comes into force, appropriate adjustments will be made to the bill.Ultimately, of course, we need more than just the best possible environmental law regime to protect Australia's environment and promote ecologically sustainable development. Accordingly, not all of the matters of national environmental significance recognised in the COAG Agreement are being addressed in this bill. The Howard Government is dealing with issues such as land degradation and the retention of remnant bushland through the Natural Heritage Trust, air pollution issues are being addressed through the National Environmental Protection Council, and reducing the growth in greenhouse gas emissions is being achieved through a $180 million policy announced last year.The COAG Agreement also identifies heritage places of national significance as a matter of national environmental significance. However, in this instance the Consultation Paper on the Reform of Commonwealth Environmental Legislation indicated that development of a National Heritage Places Strategy by the Commonwealth and the States should be concluded before legislation to give effect to a new national framework for heritage protection is progressed. The outcomes of the National Strategy will, as necessary, be translated into future legislative reforms. At the Commonwealth level, these reforms can be accommodated within the framework of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998.The COAG Agreement also deals with Commonwealth compliance with State law. Another stage in the reform of Commonwealth law will involve making any necessary amendments to ensure those aspects of the COAG Agreement dealing with Commonwealth compliance with State law are implemented.In conclusion, the bill enables the Commonwealth to join with the States in providing a truly national scheme of environmental protection and biodiversity conservation recognising our responsibility to not only this, but also future generations. It does so by respecting and building upon the strengths of our Federation and the primary responsibility of the States for delivering on-ground natural resource management. It does so also in a way that is `user friendly' with predictable, transparent and timely assessment processes. By accepting Commonwealth leadership, respecting the role of the States and providing best process for users, the bill provides a framework within which to build public confidence and support for its vitally important objectives.Ordered that resumption of the debate be adjourned until the first day of the 1998 spring sittings.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 be referred to the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee for consideration and report by 7 October 1998.Business47984798Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—as amended by leave—proposed: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 1.00 pm, and 2.00 pm 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 for approximately 45 minutes from approximately 12.30 pm. (d) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 3.45 pm.18:12:004799Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—I move:Paragraph (1), omit "Friday 10 July 1998", substitute "Thursday, 9 July 1998".Omit paragraphs (2) to (6), substitute:(2) The hours of sitting and routine of business shall be in accordance with standing orders 55(1) and 57.(3) The order of government business shall be: (i) the government business order of the day relating to the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997; and (ii) other business as listed on the Notice Paper .The government is asking the Senate to sit for an extra week because of its desire to get through a wish list of legislation in the current sittings. This is legislation that the government has been unable to schedule in such a way as to facilitate the orderly and expeditious debate of its legislative program.The government's request, amazingly enough, is being made after two weeks of extra sittings, with late nights, early starts and sittings on Fridays, and the opposition even agreed—and in fact offered—to give up general business today. I must make the important point that the opposition agreed to all these additional sittings, with more time for the government's legislative program, on one basis: to avoid the need for additional sittings next week.We are not of a mind to simply set aside all the earlier understandings—although I know that in the modus operandi of the government understandings mean nothing—and agree to sit an extra five days to suit the government's convenience. However, we do accept that Senator Harradine, having finally consummated a deal with the government on the issue of native title, and the government having determined to bring the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] back to the parliament, has created an exceptional circumstance.I have to say that, while we do not consider the deal itself to be in the national interest, we do accept that this is an issue of national importance. We are prepared to make the time available for the purpose of debating the Native Title Amendment Bill. We are not prepared to make the time available just for the purpose of taking the pressure off poor old Senator Ian Campbell. This is not for the purpose of allowing Senator Ian Campbell to get the ministers in the Howard government off his back because he has failed to manage the government's legislation program properly and to get the legislation through. Accordingly, I am moving on behalf of the opposition, firstly, that the Senate follow its usual routine of business next week and, secondly, that the Native Title Amendment Billbe listed first on the order of government business on Monday of the extra sitting week.Should this amendment find favour with the Senate, the opposition will continue to cooperate in moving through the remainder of the government's legislative program expeditiously in what remains of the sittings for this week, as we have so far. We anticipate that next week will be taken up with the debate on the native title bill. At the end of a sitting period or session, there are inevitably bills on the program that are held over until the next sittings. It has always been the case. Certainly we have seen during the life of this parliament for the first time in well over a decade an opposition that is willing to work constructively with the government. We do not come with the negativist, carping attitude that the coalition had to our then Labor government's legislation program. We have always taken the view on these sorts of issues that we are not just an opposition. We approach these sorts of matters from the perspective of an alternative government. The next sittings are scheduled to commence on 10 August.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Estimates a week before.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—And estimates, as Senator Ray properly says, are a week before. That would delay any legislation that is held over only four weeks, which is one of the shortest times I can ever recall between the sessions of any parliament. Given that the native title bill will have passed the Senate and that the so-called need for an early federal election will have evaporated, we do not believe this should cause the government or the parliament any major inconvenience.We now have before us the list of legislation that the government wishes to see dealt with before the Senate rises for the winter recess. This list has been circulated by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. I assume that it has the authority of the government as a whole. What does this circulated list say about the government's priorities for the remainder of this sitting? It is apparently the case that the government sees country of origin labelling, gas pipeline access, intellectual property and aviation legislation to be of greater priority than the native title bill. They are important bills, but I fail to comprehend how anyone could suggest they have more importance or political currency than does the Native Title Amendment Bill.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Do you think we should deal with it before the piece of legislation comes across?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—What is the House of Representatives going to do tomorrow?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—They are going to deal with it.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Exactly. That is what I said, Senator Campbell. You have to catch up with what is happening.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—But you are saying— 10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Order! Senator Campbell, your turn to respond will come in a minute.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—What I am saying is that you will deal tomorrow with those bills in the legislation program that you can. You will then deal with the Native Title Amendment Bill from Monday next week. You have to listen. Take some advice from someone who knows a great deal more about this than you.Even more telling in considering the proposed order of business next week, an additional week for these sittings, is that we find the Manager of Government Business in the Senate indicating that the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill should be dealt with before the native title bill. That is what Senator Campbell is saying. We want to know on what basis he says the parliament should do that.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—No I don't.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—That is what your forward legislation program shows—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—No it doesn't; that's not a priority.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—That pathetic document that you have produced for us.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It never has and it never will.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—The Labor Party—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You are a liar.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—The Labor Party has always believed that native title is a fundamentally important issue for the nation.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—We have always acted on this basis during all parliamentary debates on the issue while in government or opposition.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, might I just interrupt. Senator Campbell, you will withdraw that remark. H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—That he is a dope, a liar or a paradigm?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You will withdraw all of the remarks that you have made. You know that it is a breach of the standing orders. It is unparliamentary. I ask you to stand in your place and withdraw.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I withdraw.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I also say that you should not continue your interjections because they are also unparliamentary, and you will have your chance to respond. I call Senator Faulkner.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—It is because of the significance that we attach to this issue—as everyone would know—that we have engaged in serious and detailed consideration of native title amendments in the past, and we will do so when the bill is before us again. I would remind the Senate that the bill has been passed in this place not once but twice in recent times, contrary to the Liberals' assertion that we have been obstructionist. The opposition, of course, has always addressed the matter in a very constructive manner. We have always focused on issues regarding basic rights and workability for all parties involved. The Senate has never obstructed this bill.We are keen to closely examine the new bill and the deal that the government has done with Senator Harradine, with the objective of doing our best to have a workable and equitable set of arrangements passed by the parliament and operational as soon as possible. I have to say that, in contrast to this, there is no urgency attached to the Telstra privatisation bill.Of course we know that the Prime Minister's plans for an early election have mostly been derailed by the disaster that the coalition parties suffered in the Queensland election. As Kim Beazley said, the Prime Minister has lost his alibi for an early election. But 10 August is only five weeks away. The Prime Minister does not need to take the country to an election until next year, and the logical thing would be to set the Telstra sale bill aside.I would remind the Senate of the commitment the government made in relation to Telstra. It was the Prime Minister who in fact said that he would not be proposing the full privatisation of Telstra during this parliament. That was yet another one of the Prime Minister's non-core promises because here we have it before him, even though there is a very significant amount of disputation in the government parties about this issue. We all understand that he has a device before the people now to say that he will not submit the bill for royal assent until after the next election.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Never, ever, ever?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—That is right, never, ever. That is a device to enable the Prime Minister to claim that he is trying to honour one of his election commitments to privatise only one-third of Telstra in this term. We know that the Prime Minister believes, whatever the outcome of the general election, that the Senate will be far more difficult for him on the full privatisation of Telstra after a new Senate is sworn in. So he can take advantage of the current numbers. The thing is the current numbers: the current Senate, if there is a half-Senate election, will be in place of course until 30 June next year.This is a gimmick; this is misleading the Australian public. It really exposes the claims of the government that this is an urgent matter and that particularly it is a more urgent matter than native title. That is what this government is saying. If there is truly no intention to submit this bill for royal assent before the next election, given that there is now no need for an early election surely there can be no legitimate reason that anyone in the government can offer for the listing of the Telstra sale bill before the debate on native title next week.We are well aware of the fact that the government actually needs to have this bill listed for other reasons—political reasons. We know that they need to do it sooner rather than later. But the longer the Telstra bill lies on the Notice Paper the more problems there are for the coalition, the more problems there are for the National Party. It will fester and corrode within the coalition parties.Of course, Senator McGauran would know that. He knows that this is just dynamite for the coalition. We had Ms De-Anne Kelly, the member for Dawson, come out today and bag the Prime Minister. Let us make it absolutely clear: she is the first Nat to rat on this. She is not going to support the full privatisation of Telstra; she wants to hold her seat. We will see whether the Senate Nationals will take the same action as Ms Kelly has in Dawson.Senator Sandy Macdonald made one of his few public statements since he has been in the parliament. He has not been a very prominent member of the coalition, as you know, but he did sort of start to get out of the starting blocks on this one. He has taken on that very weak and miserable leader of the National Party, Mr Fischer, on the issue of privatisation. We know that some members of the National Party are opposed to the full privatisation of Telstra, not out of any ideological commitment and not because they actually care about services to people in rural Australia, but because they are scared beyond belief of what the electorate might do to them in the next election if they are seen to cave in on this issue. That is why we have Telstra listed on the government's program for next week.We do not think that these are valid reasons for the government to propose that you deal with the Telstra bill and then the native title bill. They are not valid reasons for the Senate to help the government get out of a problem of its own making. We want to deal constructively with this issue.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It's a better draft than your native title legislation was in `93.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Where are your amendments from `93? Show us them.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Let us talk about 1993. I am glad you raised that, Senator Ray. This is what John Howard said on the John Laws program on 23 January 1996.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.As I was saying before the break, we now know that the National Party had another crisis meeting today. They are in continual crisis meeting mode. Tim Fischer was summoned into the National Party room, kicked around a bit. Imagine being shirt fronted by, of all people, Senator Sandy Macdonald! How do you think Mr McEwen, Mr Sinclair or Mr Anthony would have dealt with Sandy Macdonald? They would have brushed him aside in the most derisory way, but not Mr Fischer, who is under threat because of Telstra. There is a rebellion in the bush. There is a rebellion in the National Party. There is now even a rebellion in the ranks of the National's coalition partners, the Liberal Party. That is what we are debating here at the moment.This government will not even have Wik, the Native Title Amendment Bill, dealt with before Telstra. They have to get Telstra out of the road before the whole shows falls apart. We know that divisions are rife in the National Party. We know they are falling apart. We know they cannot sustain this level of internal dispute and disruption. The only way to deal with it is to try to get it off the agenda. Hang what Mr Howard has said is the most important national issue, that of native title—put that aside and get on with Telstra. We are not going to be part of this mechanism to try to control the leadership and internal political tensions within the coalition parties and between the coalition partners.The government stands exposed on this issue. The Labor Party is putting forward a sensible amendment on this issue. I urge all senators to support the amendment that I have moved on behalf of the opposition.19:33:004803McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—by leave—Mr Acting Deputy President, early this afternoon I made some comments which you took offence to. I withdraw the words that I said.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Thank you very much, Senator McKiernan. I appreciate the gesture.19:33:004803Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—We had presented to us yesterday a unilateral proposition put by the government to change the terms of the sitting arrangements for next week. This was after the opposition had agreed with the government to an extensive period of extended hours to allow for quite an extraordinary array of government business to be dealt with. This proposition was put to us with 24 hours notice.It is interesting when we see Senator Ian Campbell—he likes to throw around epithets willingly and freely—behave in such a petulant and childlike manner and an amateurish and inexperienced way try to abuse members of the opposition when the opposition criticises the way in which the program is actually managed here or what passes for management here. It is important for Senator Campbell to be reminded of the history of some of these matters. Only recently an officer in my office drew my attention to statements made by Senator Hill when he was opposition leader. The parliamentary database is littered with Senator Hill's pearls of wisdom when it comes to the way in which the opposition should be treated by governments.On one occasion on 8 November 1990, Senator Robert Ray, as manager of government business at the time, gave the opposition 18 days notice of an additional week's sitting, to which Senator Hill wanted to strongly protest. He said:We plan our diaries and commitments according to the program that the Government sets down for us. That program that this particular week as a week in which the Senate would not be sitting. Yesterday we received notice that the Senate will sit which not only is of great inconvenience to honourable senators but, more importantly, is an inconvenience to those with whom they had made appointments for that week. A number of my colleagues have important obligations that week covering all of Australia, and those commitments cannot now be met.That was with 18 days notice. He goes on to say:The important point is that, if the Government had planned its program with any degree of reasonable competence, it would known a long time ago whether that week had to be a sitting week.Quite clearly, this government has not planned its program with any degree of reasonable competence. A proposition was put to us yesterday which clearly showed that the government had not planned a legislative program. We have heard from the manager of government business this evening that no bill had been drafted, yet there is an expectation that we sit next week. According to the letter he gave to me this morning, he said that the government had set aside an additional sitting week to deal with Telstra and Wik. That was the proposition put to us this morning. It is little wonder that Senator Faulkner took the view that it was clearly the government's preference to deal with legislation in terms of the forward program they had given us this morning, which lists clearly that for week six we will deal with Telstra and then the Native Title Amendment Bill.But for this sitting week it was proposed that a whole string of legislation be dealt with including trade practices, gas pipelines, primary industries, intellectual property, wheat marketing, national transmission, copyright, aviation, child support—all of which are important measures but one would have thought no more important than Wik—in fact, considerably less important given the status that the Prime Minister has attached to the Wik legislation. Yet that is the proposition that was put to this chamber to consider. In fact, this government, in terms of the crisis that is emerging within the government, wants to talk about any other business before those measures are dealt with.It is quite clear that the government's program is very badly managed. It is an appallingly managed program. We have seen a proposition advanced to this chamber without consultation, after we had given considerable consideration to the government's program. During the life of this parliament we have seen a total of some 318 hours and 51 minutes—nearly 319 hours—of additional government business time facilitated by the opposition, which is the equivalent of almost 21 weeks of extra sitting time. In 1996, there was an additional 95 hours—almost six additional weeks; in August 1997, 43 hours and 52 minutes; in the budget sitting of 1997, 58 hours; in the spring sitting, 60 hours; in the autumn sittings, 27 hours; and in the budget sittings for this year, 28 hours. As of this week, an additional six hours and 15 minutes has been provided.It is not as if the Senate has been sitting around doing very little. Last week some 22 bills were carried. This year close on 90-odd bills have been carried, which is far in excess of what would normally be expected in any sitting period. In this session of parliament well over 400 bills have been carried. A massive amount of time has been offered by the opposition. There have been extraordinary levels of cooperation. This stands in sharp contrast to the actions taken by the government when in opposition in its attempt to frustrate and to derail the Labor government's legislative program. We see a sharp contrast in the attitudes that we have taken.I suggest to the Senate that the government is being hypocritical in its approach. You cannot rely upon the word of this government. You cannot assume that what this government tells you about its forward program will, in fact, be its program. When this government says that arrangements will be made, you cannot rely on its word and plan accordingly because time and again the government has not kept to its arrangements.We saw attempts last week to try to frustrate the appropriation processes. When Senator Hill was away, Senator Alston tried to undermine the government's legislative program by insisting that digital TV be given consideration over and above the appropriation bills. Last week we pressed the issue and forced the government to acknowledge its responsibilities to meet its commitments to ensure that the budget was passed. This week we have considered Appropriation Bill (No. 1), Appropriation Bill (No. 2), the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill, the Health Care (Appropriation) Bill and the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill. We have considered a series of legislation on veterans' entitlements, national measurement, taxation laws, family law and aviation.It is not as if the Senate has been sitting around doing nothing in this period. Yet the government is still unable to manage its program. This government simply does not know what it is doing. That is essentially the problem. The government does not have a clue as to where it is going, because it is seriously divided in its political priorities. There is division with Senator Alston and his telecommunication issues. The Prime Minister was desperate to build up the circumstances in which a double dissolution would be justified. He was desperate to construct an enormous explosive device to blow apart the Australian political system, which he thought would be in his favour, only to discover that he was desperately wrong because what actually occurred was that the bomb-maker himself was blown up, particularly by the actions of his Liberal branch in Queensland, which has obviously been mauled and now been reduced to less than party status in the Queensland parliament.The Prime Minister had the opportunity and the option available to him to say to One Nation, `It's not on. Your sorts of policies are not acceptable in this country. We will ensure that you are put last. We will ensure that you are not part of the political dialogue in this country because the views that you represent are totally opposed to the country that we are trying to build.' What does this government do? It says, `No. We will seek—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I raise a point of order under the standing order relating to relevance. You can have a fairly wide ranging debate, one would expect, on proposals to extend sitting hours. I think Senator Faulkner did range wide. He talked about the politics of Telstra and other matters. But to start talking about preference allocations, particularly from the mouth of someone who represents a party that put Australians against further immigration ahead of the Liberal Party in the most recent federal by-election, is not only gross hypocrisy but also outside the standing orders. Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask you to call him to order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—I counsel Senator Carr to make sure his comments are relevant to the matter under debate.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I appreciate your advice, Mr Acting Deputy President. These are the tactics that Senator Campbell learnt when he was in the Democrats—the irrelevant points that he makes and the devices he seeks to introduce which are, quite clearly, inappropriate and totally off the mark. This government is in deep crisis. Yet what it seeks to do is to ask us to get it out of that crisis. It puts forward a motion which is, quite clearly, contrary to the understandings normally reached in this place. With our assistance, almost 21 weeks of additional sitting time have been provided and a massive number of bills have been carried. Unprecedented levels of support have been provided. But what does this government do? It breaks its word, it goes back on undertakings and then suggests to us, after making arrangements with other groups in the chamber, that it does not need to consult with other senators: it does not need to get the support of the senators around this chamber. What it needs to get is 50 per cent plus one.I advise you, Senator Campbell, that another thing you should have learnt while you were with the Democrats was that that sort of politics does not work, and you will come unstuck with it. You will find out just how difficult it is to get on with business when you abuse people in the way in which you have, by undermining the arrangements that are made in this place by going back on your word and then seeking to stitch up sleazy arrangements in such a manner that you then seek to ignore the views of other senators in this place.To come in here and move a motion that proposes to have government business only is to add insult to injury. You have proposed, under the routine of business that you are suggesting, that the opposition should stand aside from the normal routine of business; that it should stand aside from the consideration of such matters as, on a Monday, petitions, notices of motion, the postponement and re-arrangement of business, the discovery of formal business, or any matters in regard to MPIs or urgency motions. You are suggesting we should just put that aside without noticing it, that we will not get annoyed about that sort of sleazy, underhanded, miserable attempt to try to hoodwink people.On Tuesday, it is proposed that the same process applies. The government is suggesting that we can do without petitions, notices of motion, the normal discovery of formal business processes and that, once again, we can do without urgency motions and matters of public importance. We have not sought to abuse these rights, but we do not like sleazy attempts to strip them away from senators without consultation. You will come unstuck with that sort of miserable approach to running the affairs of this chamber.On Wednesday, we see a similar pattern emerging. With matters of public interest, senators have an opportunity to express a view about matters of some substance which are important to them. They may not be important to ex-Democrats like Senator Campbell. They may not be important to people like Senator Campbell who have now understood the full truth of how to run a bankrupt regime. I note that Senator Faulkner looks puzzled. I do not suppose he realises what an illustrious career Senator Campbell had as a leading Democrat in Western Australia. He learnt some very bad habits. With this sort of action, he seeks to deprive the opposition of its opportunity to discuss matters of public importance on Wednesday. For that matter, he seeks, once again, to deprive the opposition of the opportunity to draw to the government's attention its failures in terms of various committee reports and government documents.On Thursday, during the time normally set aside for opposition business, what do we see from this government? A miserable, weak attempt to slip away from its obligations, to try to silence the opposition and to prevent the opposition from giving adequate consideration to important matters of public policy. We notice that, missing from this government, is any real decency in its dealings with other parties in this chamber. That, to me, will lead to serious problems for this government in terms of the management of its legislative program.The opposition has bent over backwards to assist the government in terms of allowing its program to be considered. We make no pretence that we think it is a miserable program. We think that the policies you are proposing are going to do lasting damage to this country—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—And so do many of their own people.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—They all know it, because of the revolt that is occurring, even within the weak elements of the National Party. Jeff Kennett has had to point out some of the grave problems that are occurring in rural Australia and the failure of the Liberals to stand up to their critics within rural areas of Australia.We understand how weak your policies are, but we have always thought you should have the opportunity to come here, to have these issues debated and to be exposed for the hypocrites and the frauds that you are. The public ought to have every opportunity to see what sort of positions you really take.What we are seeing with this sort of proposition is an attempt to silence the opposition. It is an opposition that will not stand for that sort of behaviour. You will find that this is an extremely costly approach to take. A more reasonable approach to take, I suggest, is the one that Senator Ray took in the past when he was the manager. Senator Hill indicated that it was not good enough when he gave you 18 days notice of an extension of sittings. It was extraordinary generosity, clearly not repaid, clearly not understood and, clearly, the ingratitude of this miserable government is being seen by all here tonight.Essentially, the government is in deep crisis. It has tried desperately to cobble together arrangements in regard to Wik, in terms of native land title. It has tried desperately to put together a legislative program, but cannot really manage it because it has to chop and change, and duck and weave, depending on who is on top at any particular time within the coalition parties.The real crisis is on the coalition benches. Costello is doing his very best to undermine the Prime Minister. Senator Hill thinks that his position is under some question in terms of his deputy. We understand the difficulties; we have seen it all before.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I think he is.I think his real problem is that he steps out, Senator Ray, for one day, and the legislative program is overthrown; digital TV is more important than the appropriations. Senator Hill is not here to protect himself. Does he get any assistance from Senator Campbell? Of course not. Senator Campbell is very keen to look after himself.The National Party are the really big losers in this proposition, because they are trying to stich you up, Senator Boswell, good and proper. Everyone should understand that the government's policies in terms of the privatisation of Telstra will see the end of the National Party in this country. Like so many other areas of government policy, what we are seeing is a government that is actually aiding and abetting One Nation. They are unable to cope with the crisis of their own creation in terms of building expectations for a double dissolution, on the cheap idea that they could somehow take limited, short-term advantage. They now find that the whole mechanism has blown up in their faces and is now consuming them. What we find is an attempt to cobble together this miserable compromise to seek to allow the Prime Minister more time, and some respite for an embattled Prime Minister who is unable to cope with the problems confronting us.Quite frankly, it is just not good enough, Senator Hill, for you to try to stich us up with a proposition in the same way you are trying to stich up the National Party. We have got a bit more going for us than the National Party.We will make sure that everybody understands that it is a miserable attempt which will fail. It will fail because, essentially, it is predicated upon an assumption that you, and only you, have the right to be consulted about these matters. In this place, that is not the way it works. It is not the sort of thing that we expect; it is not the sort of thing that we will tolerate.Finally, the opinion polls are going to cost you because you are so terrified of them. You are unable to lead, you are unable to actually work out where you want to go as a government. You should not come into the Senate and try to stitch up these arrangements to protect yourself.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Bring back Joan Kirner.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Here we go again; the Democrat voice, the man who has learnt nothing from his days in the Western Australian Democrats. Even the Greens in Western Australia understood how to sort you out. I am sure the National Party will help out. If they need any assistance, perhaps Senator Brown could provide some advice because he understands how to deal with ex-Democrats like Senator Ian Campbell.I am afraid this motion is just not good enough. The Labor Party's amendment seeks to correct some of the excesses that you are proposing. It seeks to establish a legislative program which demonstrates the clear priority of Wik over Telstra. It seeks to demonstrate that you have made a terrible error in trying to trick us into a proposition which clearly will not work. The proposition which was put to us this morning clearly is not acceptable. (Time expired).19:54:004807Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I will not take 20 minutes like all opposition speakers who have decided to run this filibuster to fill out the night and avoid government legislation. I have just been told that in the last 31¾ hours, apart from the non-controversial bills at lunchtime, we have had one hour of government legislation. Senator Carr and Senator Faulkner say that the opposition is so generous, that it provides the government with extra time, such as willingly forfeiting opposition members' time on Thursday afternoon. But what they do not say is that they decide to filibuster, to fill up the day with other activities and thus not enable the government to debate its legislative program.We know what this is all about: the Labor Party is sore that the government has been able to find a settlement to the longstanding Wik problem. That is in the national interest. The Labor Party left an awful mess in relation to native title. It misled the Australian people over pastoral leases. It left a native title act that was unworkable—I think two cases have been settled since that legislation was brought in. There are hundreds of claims out there which are unsettled, demonstrating that the legislation does not work.This government has had to face up to that and it has reached a settled position which is fair and just to all parties and will give certainty to the Australian people. What the Australian people now want is for this parliament to legislate the settlement in order to get on with their lives, in order to give certainty to the indigenous people and to other stakeholders, including the pastoralists, the miners and those who have been disadvantaged by the mess that Labor left.What this government wants—very reasonably, I would suggest—is adequate time to complete this legislative program. That should include the Wik settlement. I hope that we can complete this work in another week. We certainly can in all circumstances, except of course if the Labor Party decides to wreck the program and simply talk out the hours. Nobody disputes that it can be done. There are many opportunities for oppositions in this place to destroy a government's program, if that is their determination.There are about 50 pieces of legislation on the Notice Paper for debate in this session. We are seeking to complete nine packages which have been on the table for a long period and then to debate the two larger bills, the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] and the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . With any reasonable degree of cooperation from the Labor Party—the opposition in this place—by the end of business tomorrow night, Friday, we would have been able to get through the nine smaller packages. Some of them have already been debated for hours. They include the Televi sion Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 . We were told that that would take about an hour; it has now been debated for three or four hours. We do not know how long Labor is going to continue to talk on that. Senator Schacht, who has the conduct of the bill for the Labor Party, said it would take an hour and has spoken for 1½ hours himself.We want the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 , which has been around for too long. It is important for business, for trade and for industry. We want the Gas Pipelines Access (Commonwealth) Bill 1998 . It is not a big bill, but it is very important to delivering gas at competitive prices in Australia, to help greenhouse, and I would have thought even Senator Brown would be supportive of that. We want the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 , which includes a number of important provisions for primary industry; the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1998 ; the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , which is critically important; the National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1997 , which has also been debated for many hours; the copyright package; and the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998.Nine pieces of legislation could easily have been dealt with in a thorough way by the close of business tomorrow, but what we have had is an opposition, the Labor Party, which has been determined that the government will not get its legislative program. So now what we are faced with is not only those nine pieces of legislation but also the extra two which I mentioned. It would still be the government's intention to seek to get through the nine pieces of legislation by the close of business tomorrow. With goodwill and a bit of cooperation, that can be achieved.We would want to start the native title bill at the beginning of the sittings next Monday, complete that bill, and then debate and complete the Telstra bill 1998. It is not an unreasonable program, and it is not unreasonable for the people of Australia to expect this Senate to deliver at least that part of the government's program before it gets up for its break. What we have faced is an opposition that has taken an extraordinary length of time with practically every key reform bill that the government has had. And that is what has been the difference. It is true that it has been an opposition that has given the government extra time from time to time. I appreciate that and I have gone on record as appreciating that. But it has been balanced by the time that the opposition has then taken, which has been record or near record times, with so many pieces of legislation.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Not us.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—Not always the Labor Party either. I concede that it is sometimes other parties in this place. The two native title bills we have had have totalled over 88 hours—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It's the one bill—88 hours.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—That is right: one bill debated twice. The workplace relations bill took 48½ hours. The Telstra bill took just a fraction under 30 hours. The telecommunications package took 22 hours. The social security youth allowance took just under 19 hours. The Public Service bill—which did not get through in the end—took nearly 16 hours. The natural heritage trust bill, which all parties in this place said they supported, took over 15 hours. The retirement savings bill took nearly 13 hours. The Charter of Budget Honesty Bill took up nearly 13 hours. The Constitutional Convention (Election) Bill took 12 hours. The Productivity Commission Bill took just a fraction under 12 hours. The aged care bill took 11½ hours.Take into account that in a normal sitting week there are about 15 hours for debate of government business, and one can see how impossible the program has been made by other parties in this place being determined to take an excess of time in debate. I am not arguing that this is not the place for thorough legislative consideration. Of course, it is, but it just seems to be extraordinary that during this parliament we are breaking so many records in relation to so many bills. One can only suspect that there is a determination to talk out these bills. The result of that is that we do need some extra time to complete at least part of this legislative program.We have suggested and have put on the table an extra sitting week next week. We are suggesting that there be question time and taking note of questions for the first four days of next week and that the Friday be without question time. We have not included the other various procedures on the first four days—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Having always argued for it when you were leader. Always.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I hear what you say. I always argued for it for opposition. And sometimes Labor gave it and sometimes they did not.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Every time you got—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Rubbish. What about 1993?BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I was just going to remind him of 1993 when, for five days, he and the other parties that made up the numbers in this place had this Senate sit to debate native title with—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—That was because the sittings were suspended.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—Correct, but it was a technique, Senator Ray, to avoid giving the opposition question time or any of the other rights that you now say are so precious to oppositions. So the circumstances change according to who might be on one side of the chamber. All I say is: just reflect on the totality of Labor's experience in government and you will find that when Labor has needed extra time for the job it has taken extra time, no matter which way is necessary to achieve its goal.So we think that what we are putting is reasonable in relation to next week. It provides enough hours to enable this parliament to complete the bills that we have set down which, as I have said, are only about a quarter of those that are on the Notice Paper for this sitting. I have not included those that have already been adjourned until the next sittings of the parliament, which is about another 15 bills. What we are now seeking is support from this place to sit those extra hours in the way we have suggested in order that this Senate might complete a reasonable legislative program for this session. As I said a moment ago, I think that is what the Australian people would expect of us. I think it is reasonable, and I would urge senators to support the motion moved by Senator Campbell.20:05:004809Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I always take a slightly more sanguine view of sitting hours than some of my colleagues; I take a much more iconoclastic approach than they do. It has been a rather curious debate. We have had Senator Carr talk about throwing around epitaphs, so I would duck in future if a gravestone comes your way. I am sure he will correct the Hansard record to that effect. We have also had Senator Carr accuse Senator Ian Campbell of being a member of the Democrats, which I know not to be true.AW5CARRSenator Carr—It is true.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—It is not true, Senator Carr. He campaigned on their behalf but he was never a financial member. He was recruited into the Liberal Party by an ex-senator of the Liberal Party. The preselection of Senator Campbell depended on his largesse, and in his moment of despair Senator Campbell denied him thrice.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It's not true either.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—But he was never ever a member of the Democrats. He knew to draw the line somewhere. And I really think that Senator Carr at some stage should be forced to withdraw that accusation.Senator Hill, playing the good cop, comes in here tonight and in that reasonable, reasoned manner of his—in that sort of urbane, laid-back style—makes a plea for goodwill. I tell you where goodwill starts, Senator Hill: before you decide to have an extra sitting week with government business only, five days with three late sitting nights, you should trot around to visit or ring up the Leader of the Opposition and the manager of opposition business and have a little discussion with them. You at least test the waters.Nothing we have said tonight indicates that we oppose sitting next week. We have not said that we oppose sitting next week. We have said that there would have been at least two discussion points in those negotiations that should have occurred. The first point would have been whether it would be government business only for the week, and the second point would have been the order in which we deal with legislation.But no—yesterday, in a burst of machoism, the Manager of Government Business barges into this chamber and gives notice of motion for an extra five sitting days of government business only with long sitting hours. What gave him the courage to do that? What motivated this Manager of Government Business, who quite often does consult and certainly is not beyond smarming up when he wants to get something through, to come into this chamber and do that? I will tell you what motivated him—38 votes. He got his courage up when he knew he could deliver 38 votes, or the equivalent after pairing, in this chamber. So there is no need to consult the riffraff. Senator Brown is irrelevant. The Democrats are irrelevant. As for the Labor Party, we do not mind that sort of treatment; we are pretty robust. But I can imagine the hurt that Senator Brown has suffered through not being consulted. I can imagine the hurt.I have also heard many speeches in this place from one Senator Harradine who has not been consulted on occasions about sitting hours and times. We have heard him make complaints in this chamber that the major parties have ignored him. Where is he tonight? Why doesn't he come in and justify why we are having government business only for five days next week? Why doesn't he come in and say, `We weren't consulted,' when he has so often complained in the past that he has been either ignored or not properly consulted? Senator Hill refers to the fact that we had 88 hours on Wik in two major debates. That is absolutely right. But let me put on the record why we had 88 hours on Wik. The reason is that this opposition had the intellectual capability to draw up and move over 300 amendments—along with the Greens and the Democrats. When the equivalent circumstances occurred back in 1993, the coalition did not have the wit, the wisdom or the intellectual capability to develop one amendment. Their approach to the bill was just to oppose it in its entirety—not try to modify it, not try to improve it, just oppose it. That was not a philosophical stance, Senator Boswell; that was because you were incapable of developing coherent and cogent amendments to that particular bill. Naturally, a bill as big as Mabo or a bill as big as Wik will take time to debate in this chamber. But we are not in a position at the moment even to start developing our amendments. Why not? Because we are told by Senator Ian Campbell that the Wik bill has not even been drafted yet. Yet we are supposed to give it mature consideration. We are supposed to develop all our amendments over the weekend—if we see a copy tomorrow—and be ready to go next week. The same applies to a lesser extent with the Telstra bill, which I will return to. One fact should be put on the record: as a former Manager of Government Business, I would have killed for the extra hours, the extra days and the extra weeks that we have granted you. As manager, I always used to get whinge after whinge from the coalition parties if we sat an extra hour, let alone an extra day and let alone an extra week. It was because of our experience in coming out of government that we knew that we had to cooperate more than the previous opposition and that we had to be acquiescent to demands for longer hours, for more days and for more weeks. I am not going to go through and repeat that marvellous piece of evidence put on the record by colleague Kim Carr, who detailed it greatly.C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—Comrade.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Yes, Comrade Kim Carr. You have had more cooperation on the program; you have had more cooperation on days. But you have not had such cooperation today. Why should we cooperate with you when you ambushed us yesterday and when we know that tomorrow and the next five days there will be no other business but government business transacted? So today we have had to take the time to deal with remaining issues.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Explain our position.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Explain our position, as the Leader of the Opposition says, on a variety of issues. And I think we are only putting—unless the coalition really annoys us—three speakers on this particular motion.The most recent agreement that we entered into with the government was that we would sit late on the last two Tuesday nights, that we would sit late on the last two Thursday nights and that we would sit Friday last week and Friday this week. In addition—what was never really ever much granted to us when we were in government—we are giving you large slabs of government business at a time. All day on those two Fridays and those two late night sittings were government business only. We also gave up general business today. Until today, and until the insult and ambush yesterday, we had not been moving matters of public interest or urgency motions. Any of those that emerged were from other minor parties in this chamber. We were cooperating.Senator Hill comes in here and talks about goodwill, but he has ripped up the goodwill. Goodwill according to him is when he needs the numbers and it is a bit difficult he will come and talk to the Labor Party. But, when he has the numbers, he gives us the finger salute. He just sends his manager in to propose this notice of motion and expects us to bow and scrape to the government—no way to that particular proposition. We have also seen too little regard being given to senators' rights over the next six days. Senator Hill said, `Oh well, back in 1993, the sittings of the Senate were suspended each time to deal with the Wik legislation,' because at that stage it was absolutely urgent that it get through. I do not know on how many occasions when we had to move for extra sitting weeks that we would draw up a relatively generous proposal only to have remits from the coalition saying, `Look, you have allowed notices of motion, you have allowed this, you have allowed that. But we would like to have the opportunity to have matters of public importance added to the list.' I cannot think of an occasion when I, as manager, did not tick that and insert that in the motions. But what is being proposed for next week is not only that we cannot have MPIs—and I have to say that basically we could live with that; we would like the opportunity but I do not think we would exercise it—but also we cannot even have notices of motion. You cannot have that urgent committee report that might come in debated at all. It is just the draconian regime of government business only.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—No petitions?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—No petitions.FY5DENMANSenator Denman—No adjournments?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Yes, we are to have adjournments and I congratulate the government for leaving that in.AW5CARRSenator Carr—No government documents.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—But we don't have petitions.AW5CARRSenator Carr—No noting of questions?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I am not so sure about that. I think we do have noting of questions. I think a little bauble has been thrown to us, Senator Carr. I think we have been allowed that little privilege in life to have noting of questions after question time. So I have got something to look forward to next week, haven't I—listening to all those speeches on the noting of questions; I am really thrilled about that.Of course, we do have a provision for moving government notices of motions on Thursday, which Senator Campbell has not explained to this chamber. I am only presuming that that will give the government a capacity to move motions on Thursday to be executed on Friday as government business. I assume that is to do with giving senators leave and those normal mechanical things that this draconian imposition would in fact prevent otherwise. I assume that the government is not intending to misuse its ability alone to move government notices of motion on Thursday other than for the normal mechanical procedures that normally attend the last sitting week in the parliament.I have to say that the opposition always argued, when we were in government, to have some rights when we sit an extra week—MPIs, notices of motion, petitions and those sorts of things. I think a decent manager of government business could have come to us and said, `Look, we will give a reasonable regime for next week. Can we have a commitment in terms of MPIs, notices of motion, contingent notices of motion to suspend standing orders and that sort of thing?' And Senator Carr, being a reasonable person, probably could have given some guarantees in that regard.Over the years—15 or 16 years—I have seen all the grandstanding speeches attacking managers of government business in this place. I saw Don Grimes attacked and Senator Evans occasionally attacked. There was the odd mauling and hurtful thing said about my management technique, which was completely different from the previous two. I never hassled anyone. I used to just wait. I was always a very patient manager of government business. I was so patient that I was once able to wait to declare 62 bills urgent, simply because of mistakes made by the opposition.And then we had Senator McMullan and Senator Faulkner. Time and time again we got grandstanding speeches from those opposite saying how badly they had managed the program. I do not make the same general speeches against Senator Campbell today because I have lived through all that and I know how hypocritical quite often those speeches are and how inaccurate they are, because managing the Senate is not an easy job. Getting the government program through is not an easy job.It is especially difficult for Senator Campbell, who rarely understands procedural matters in this place and who, the moment he doesn't get his own way, shows all the petulance of Kim Carr's youngest child and absolutely throws—AW5CARRSenator Carr—What a shot at Seamus!UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Well, I apologise to Seamus. I withdraw that particular allegation, Senator Carr, and hope you won't pass it on to Carole because I am more scared of her than I am of you. That is not the way. Petulance does not get you anywhere in this chamber. Sitting there, throwing out the odd insult, whingeing, rolling your eyes, abusing us does not get the task done.It would not happen to an old pro like Senator Brownhill, who is sitting there as duty minister at the moment. If he wanted an extra sitting week, he would come around with a bottle of red in his hand, wouldn't he, Senator Carr? He would have some reasonable propositions. He would say to us, `Look, a bit of turkey on our plate, a bit of turkey on your plate; let's all get the last plane home on 10 July at 4.50 p.m.' or, in the case of Acting Deputy President Chapman, the direct flight to Adelaide at 4.15 p.m. That is what Senator Brownhill would have done. And we would have succumbed to his charms and come to some agreements. But, of course, that does not happen with the petulance kid, the ex-supporter but not member, Senator Carr, of the Australian Democrats, the ex-protege of Senator Crichton-Browne who then turned on him. It would not have happened with the current Manager of Government Business.Our attitude, in summary, is that we have put up an amendment that concedes five extra sitting days because, if that amendment is carried, we will then vote for the motion. And that amendment, which Senator Faulkner moved, is in two parts: part one is normal sitting procedures next week; part two dictates that Wik be debated first and the other legislation that is remaining second. That amendment is also capable of being split. If the government says, `Look, we really cannot concede on having them as normal sitting days; we insist on government business only' and if they then indicate to us, `We will knock that part off, but we will accept the second part of the amendment', again, we might be in a position to support the motion by the Manager of Government Business with that one amendment.You see, we have this suspicion: having done their revolutionary deal on Wik, having drafted it and after pumping it through the House of Representatives tomorrow—even though we cannot see the legislation—why wouldn't they deal with that first? Why would they give priority to the privatisation of Telstra? We would have to be suspicious on this particular matter. After all, it was on 23 January 1996 that Mr Howard said on the John Laws program:During the first term of the Howard government, that's over the three years from whenever the election is called, we will privatise no more than one-third of Telstra and we will retain the remaining two-thirds fully in government ownership. If we decide at the end of our first term to privatise more of Telstra, then we will go to subsequent elections seeking an explicit mandate to do it.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Non-core promise.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—A non-core promise by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). But I will tell you why he is doing it now. He is doing it for two reasons. The first reason is the old agrarian socialists have threatened to jump the fence on the issue. You have only to look at the remarks in the press release of Miss De-Anne Kelly MP, the federal member for Dawson, who says she is going to cross the floor. On the 7.30 Report tonight, she indicated that Uncle Ron might jump with her. We know that Senator Sandy Macdonald has made all sorts of threats on this issue. So the whole idea of the government is, `Wik is important. More importantly, we can use it as leverage on Telstra. So let's get the debate up, the legislation carried, before the momentum hits for them to jump the fence.'There is, of course, another reason why Mr John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia, wants this matter resolved. He knows that this Senate is a perverted Senate. He knows that the numbers do not accurately reflect what the voters voted for. He knows he has one person in this place who is an Independent now who was elected on a Labor ticket.So there are two reasons the Prime Minister wants to get Telstra up first. What a cynical attitude. He says Wik is the issue of the decade, but he is willing to put it off. He is willing to put it off for petty, cynical reasons, for party reasons, so he can get the Telstra stuff through before everyone jumps out of the paddock, before they all disappear off into the horizon, cross the floor and vote against the legislation. That is what he wants. He is not concerned at all about cementing Wik in as the first major item in the debate next week. We have had the manager tell us that we cannot see the Wik bill because it has not been drafted. That shows you how much they think of the House of Representatives because they are going to whack it through that chamber tomorrow. That is the forward plan, isn't it? So no-one is going to get to see it until tomorrow morning, but I bet it will be through so they can get on the 4.50 p.m. flight out tomorrow. I bet it will be through that particular chamber.Just to reiterate our attitude on this: we are saying that, yes, we will cop the extra sitting week, reluctantly because of the discourteous way it has been put. But it should be a normal sitting week. If the government refuses it to be a normal sitting week, at least it should give a commitment that it will begin the Wik debate on Monday as the first available piece of government legislation.20:25:004813Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I thank the previous speakers, not least Senator Ray for that forceful, somewhat entertaining and historic coverage of reasons as to why we should not be accepting this government motion. I want to add that the Greens will not be supporting any move to sit next week. I am full of dread about the outcome of next week. We have seen the Wik legislation revived by the absent Senator Harradine, who has sold out comprehensively on his own principles, as stated in this chamber at the end of last year, in defence of, for example, the right of indigenous people to negotiate on mining.I need to remind the Senate that the indigenous people had already been disempowered, deprived of their rights to have a say in what happens to their land on the whole range of prospective developments in the next century whether they were cotton crops, deep sea fisheries, dams, quarries or a whole range of other land use activities. All that was left was holes in the ground. Now, through this backsliding, despicable act by the domestic Neville Chamberlain that Australia has in its midst, we have Senator Harradine siding with this puny government and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) in determining that the indigenous people will be robbed of even that right to have a say in holes in the ground.The legislation—and I only wish the press gallery were listening; I know they are not—is going to disempower the indigenous people of this country. While sifting through the minutiae of this Wik pact that has been signed between Harradine and Howard, with Hanson looking on, the media is very liable to forget the overall picture. In this case, the devil is not in the detail; it is in the overall picture. This is a devil of legislation. This is the first real time the national parliament has determined that it will steal from the indigenous people of this country.First we had the stealing of the lands from the indigenous people two centuries ago. In mid-century, we had the stealing of the children. Now we have the stealing of the rights of the indigenous people. The difference is this time it is the national parliament that is thieving from the indigenous people of this country. Who would have thought in 1998 we would be faced with that prospect?As I said, it fills me with dread. I am not going to be an agent of setting up the timetable for this Howard government, which I believe will be remembered for this infamy long after whatever other actions it has taken are forgotten, to shove that piece of reprehensible legislation through this place. The government has the numbers in the House of Representatives, and it may be able to rush this horror Harradine-Howard pact, but it is a different matter when it comes to the Senate.I do not think the Senate—at least those who are decent enough to say, `If this legislation has to be debated here, let there be time for it to be considered'—should be taking part in falling in line with a government that wants to ram the legislation through this place in the coming week. How can the people of Australia adequately look at this legislation and report back to their representatives how they feel about it when it has not yet been revealed? Above all, how can the indigenous people of this country—who have been cut out of the negotiations in the Prime Minister's office and Senator Harradine's office over recent weeks—have a hope of understanding the ramifications for them if the legislation is going to be snapped through the House of Representatives this Friday and pushed through the Senate by next Friday?I will tell you what is at stake here for the government; I will tell you what is driving the government here. It is their wish to have everything tidied up so that they can choose whether or not to have an election between now and August or September. The indigenous people's rights and livelihood for years to come do not matter a fig to this government compared with their own self-invested and petty need to be able to be free to set an election date if they so care.I find the whole business reprehensible. While I will be supporting the amendments which ameliorate the program if we are forced to come back next week, unlike the opposition I will be opposing the move to have us come back next week at all. What is the rush about this? Should not Australia have a month to look at this piece of legislation coming out of the Howard-Harradine sell-out pact? Of course the people should. Why can't we be debating this in August? Let us remember that this term of parliament should not be finishing until May next year.It is obscene that, because of the self-interest of the Prime Minister and his party—and to the very limited degree that they may or may not want to hold an election in coming months—the whole wide interests of the indigenous people of this country for decades to come have to be sacrificed, or at least the ability to properly debate them, based on information coming back from the indigenous people of this country, is going to be sacrificed. If we have a debate on this matter here next week, it will be with our blinkers on. It will be yet again, as Noel Pearson said, keeping the indigenous people at the woodheap while we discuss their future in this place without them being able to adequately feed into it. They cannot feed into it unless they have had adequate time to understand the ramifications of this slimy pact that has been made between Senator Harradine and the Prime Minister.Let me look at the words in the first sentence of Senator Harradine's press release on this matter yesterday. Senator Harradine said that this deal he struck is `honourable and just'. Yet he struck this deal without any real negotiations with the indigenous people. My father used to tell me that, if somebody proclaimed themselves as having greater honour or justice than somebody else, watch them. You do not have to watch Senator Harradine too clearly to see that those have become hollow words when they come from him. This is the man who has serially sold out on the Tasmanian environment from Lake Pedder through the Franklin River to the forests. Although he proclaims he goes out and enjoys—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Acting Deputy President, I have a point of order. As I said on an earlier point of order, this has been a wide-ranging debate, but now Senator Brown is getting into the personality of Senator Harradine and what he may or may not have done in relation to things. I would have thought Senator Brown would need to try to link his speech to the matter at hand—that is, the motion relating to the sitting hours of the Senate next week. I think Senator Brown has stretched a long way from that motion.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—On the point of order—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Senator Brown, I was going to say that there is no point of order. I rule that there is no point of order and you can continue your remarks.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Thank you. That is a good ruling. The point I am making is that we have in Senator Harradine a person who has serially changed positions. We are going to be asked to debate his latest change in position next week, without adequately being able to dissect why he has made that change and what the ramifications are for the indigenous people. I remember him last November—and you will too, Mr Acting Deputy President—in here angrily defending the welfare rights of immigrant people to this country. Yet I sat here in February this year when, between one Wednesday and one Thursday, he changed his mind and sold out on that sector of our community. That is what he is doing again: a different sector, same action.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I have another point of order on relevance. Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask again how Senator Harradine's voting on a migration bill could possibly bear any relevance whatsoever to a motion in relation to the sitting hours of next week.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, with regard to your point of order, as you said, it has been a wide-ranging debate. Therefore, there is no point of order. I call Senator Brown.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Thank you for that ruling again. I think the best way to answer any debate I might have here is for Senator Harradine to come back into this chamber—he has been absent for I do not know how long—and try to defend himself. I would be interested to see even him trying to defend the indefensible, his own behaviour, in this matter. So far as I am concerned, if there is any good in coming back here next week—because it appears Senator Harradine will give the government the numbers to have us back here next week—it is that we will be able to take him on across this chamber with him present. He will not be able to duck responsibility for the behaviour he has been exhibiting and his so-called honour, trust, justice and goodwill.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—I thought we lived in a democracy.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, as Senator Calvert said, it is a democracy, and the democratically elected senator for Tasmania should be here to take part in this important debate. I have no doubt that if the government needs the numbers for this vote later tonight, Senator Harradine will suddenly appear in the chamber and give the government the numbers it needs to get this motion through.In the meantime, let us look at the program the government has. Let us look at how the government shapes up in terms of its justification for urgency in getting through other pieces of legislation. I will look at two. The first is the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 . This deals with how we treat the label `Made in Australia'. The government wants to pull a swiftie on the people of Australia, on everybody who goes shopping in this country. The government is saying that it will allow `Made in Australia' to be put on goods which are only half made in this country or for which only half the ingredients come from this country. The government wants to get this bill through swiftly because it does not want a public debate on how consumers feel about this piece of legislation.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: the standing orders clearly say that you cannot anticipate debate on a matter that is on the Notice Paper , and I ask you to bring Senator Brown to order.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—On the point of order: I am speaking on a matter that is on the Notice Paper , and that is the list of legislation that we are being asked to deal with in this motion.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—That is out of order, Senator Brown. I ask you to avoid speaking on bills that are on the Notice Paper and to continue your remarks.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Unfortunately, Senator Campbell made his point of order a little too late, as the government does not want me to warn consumers about what it has in this piece of legislation which it wants to deal with in the next 24 hours. In recent days, I have been lobbied by a very big corporation—and that is not normal for the Greens—which has been given the run-around by this government on another piece of legislation which is on the Notice Paper , the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1998 .If the government cannot deal fairly and squarely with a drug corporation in this country which has a right to fair dealing, then it ought not to be rushing legislation through which is going to do the wrong thing by that corporation. By pushing us into dealing with this string of legislation tomorrow, that is what it is doing. I suggest that the government talks to Astra Pharmaceuticals again and does the right thing by that corporation so that it is not treated unfairly and it is not made incapable of getting the benefits from an extended life on the patency of its drugs, the same as other corporations do. It is a very important matter.If the government wants to expedite the debate in this place tomorrow—and I put this to the government in a genuine spirit of constructive debate—it should deal with that company. It should open the door and fairly and squarely solve the small problem that has occurred in that legislation. Otherwise, I can assure the government that there will be a debate tomorrow because I, for one, am not going to glibly allow legislation through on a hurried timetable—legislation that treats one corporation differently from the rest and to its disadvantage.The good senator from the opposition, Senator Ray, has drawn attention to the fact that, as this motion puts it, we will not be able to have private members time next week. Important motions come forward, very often from the Greens and Democrats, on a whole range of matters affecting the people of Australia and, indeed, as the opposition uncomfortably recognises, on international affairs. One of the highlights of debate in the Senate, and one of the most important things that happens in the Senate outside government business, is being wiped off the agenda because the government does not feel that time should be given to what other members of the Senate consider important. The government wants only its own timetable dealt with. I do not go along with that. I do not believe that is a proper way to run the business of this parliament. It does not belong to the 37—or if you include Senator Harradine, 38—members of the government opposite; it belongs to the whole of this chamber.I do not concede that the government, which is run out of the caucus rooms of the Liberal Party and the National Party, should dictate to this parliament what it will and will not debate. I do not concede that the government should limit the ability of the whole of the Senate and every elected member here to bring forward matters of importance whenever we are sitting. I will not be supporting this motion. I will support the amendments, because if we have to sit next week they will make it a bit more tolerable, but I will not be supporting this motion. And I will not be supporting the prime piece of legislation—the Wik legislation—that this government intends to hurtle through here if it gets its way with this motion.20:43:004817Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I will just sum up by responding to a couple of points which I think need clarification. The government issued a list of legislation at the request of Senator Kim Carr yesterday. We gave notice of this motion because, quite clearly, it would not be dealt with by the Senate unless notice was given yesterday. Senator Carr, by leave, asked a couple of questions. I responded within a matter of hours by providing him with a list of the legislation we sought to deal with.AW5CARRSenator Carr—That was at 8.30 this morning. It was not a matter of hours; it was a substantial number of hours.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—We provided at 8.30 this morning to Senator Carr at his request a list of the legislation that the government sought to deal with prior to the sittings. We indicated this on that list, as we do very regularly in this place. I can say without any fear of contradiction that we have done more consultation in relation to this program than any previous government in the history of the Australian Senate. (Quorum formed) I thank my colleagues for coming to the chamber, because I am sure there will be a division within a couple of minutes. I was making the point that this government has consulted more than any other government in the history of Australia in relation to the program.Senator Carr is quite right: the opposition has indeed offered to the government hundreds of extra hours. As Senator Hill pointed out, the opposition has then used those hours in spades. Three of the longest debates in Australian history have occurred in the last two years. There were 88 hours spent on the native title legislation, nearly 50 hours spent on industrial relations, and over 30 hours spent on the Telstra sale. They are the three longest debates. Four pieces of legislation over a two-year period took 190 hours to debate in this place.Senator Faulkner and Senator Carr say that they like to give detailed consideration to legislation. I remind honourable senators that the Native Title Bill, as it was then, was introduced in the last hour on the last sched uled sitting day in 1993. We proceeded to sit for about five days with no question time, no taking note of answers, no government documents, no petitions, no nothing. We sat for 50-plus hours and set a record. We were accused, and with some justification, of filibustering. Mr Acting Deputy President Murphy, I think you were here then. Senator Ian Macdonald was here, because he spoke in the debate. Senator Winston Crane was here.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Senator Teague was here then.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Senator Teague was here. We were accused of filibustering. We took 52 hours on that debate. Senator Brown was not here then.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I was in the gallery.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—He was in the gallery. There were a lot of people in the gallery. The previous government used the guillotine and the gag, supported by the Australian Democrats, to close down that debate. They accused us of filibustering for 52 hours.The Labor Party talks about a detailed consideration of legislation. A comparison of the consideration of the Native Title Bill in 1993 with the Australian Labor Party's detailed consideration of the Native Title Amendment Bill in 1997-98 shows that we have spent 88 hours this time. They accused us of filibustering for 52 hours in 1993. Senator Faulkner is saying that we need to give this detailed consideration. He has indicated that tonight with smoke signals. He has implied that we will have a big debate again.Mr Acting Deputy President, in being a long-time stalwart of Labor Party national conventions, you would know that when Senator Carr, Senator Faulkner or Senator Ray say that we will have a long debate, it means that we will have a long debate. You can trust them on those things. If they say that it is going to be a long debate or a complicated bill, you know that you are in for a big sitting.What have they done to assist the government in a cooperative way this week? Senator Hill, our leader, got it wrong tonight. I guess that we are all entitled to our mistakes. He said that we had done, in the last 31 hours and 45 minutes, leaving aside the lunchtime bills—the non-controversial legislation where we have no divisions or quorums; it is legislation that is generally supported by the chamber—one hour of business. I have to correct the record. In the last 33 hours, Senator Alston has been sitting here waiting to deal with the digital television legislation. We were told that this would take an hour, but it has taken 3 hours. In the last 33 hours or thereabouts, we have not done one hour of government business other than what was dealt with at lunchtime today.AW5CARRSenator Carr—That is not right.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I will give Senator Carr the statistics. There are probably hundreds of Australian taxpayers listening tonight. Since 2 o'clock on Tuesday, how many hours of government business have we done, apart from lunchtime today?UW4CRANESenator Crane—None.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—No, we have done some. This generous opposition gave us an extra six hours; that was very good and very helpful. Since 2 o'clock on Tuesday, what have we done by Thursday night at 9 o'clock? How many hours of government business has this place done? The Australian taxpayers should know this. Since 2 o'clock on Tuesday, Mr Acting Deputy President, just after you finished your sandwich and walked in here for question time, we have done seven hours and 40 minutes of government business, leaving aside lunchtime today. From 2 o'clock Tuesday to 9 o'clock Thursday night, we have done seven hours and 40 minutes—and that is cooperation. Thank you very much, I appreciate it.One other item needs to be pinned down in summing up this debate—and I will be only another minute or two because we would like to get on at some stage this week with government legislation—and that is about the program provided to Senator Carr at 8.30 this morning at his request. He asked for two things. He said, `We want a commitment out of the government on supplementation' provided to him at 8.30 this morning, and he wanted to know the bills we are dealing with. We gave him a list of bills which, apart from the bills that have actually been passed, was identical to the list—with one, I think, exception—he was provided with on 24 June. There are a couple of exceptions.AW5CARRSenator Carr—A couple.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I have said one of them was different. The order is almost identical, Senator Carr. There was one new item on it—confirmed to us late yesterday afternoon/early evening, obviously, at about 7 o'clock, was the need to put the Native Title Amendment Bill on the list again.AW5CARRSenator Carr—So you stuck it on the end. Isn't that right? It becomes the least important matter.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Senator Carr is provided, Mr Acting Deputy President—through his continual interjections—with these lists. Every time we have a leaders' meeting, we actually say, `Senator Carr, this is not the order we are doing them in. This is not the priority order, Senator Carr.' This is what we tell him, so I am not directing my comments to him, I am talking to you, Mr Acting Deputy President. We say, `This is not a priority order; don't attach any special significance to the order, but these are what we are doing.'I am sure Senator Carr's son, Seamus, will not grow up like this, but with Senator Carr, you cannot tell him enough. You have to put it in very big black and white letters, with pictures if it helps, because he does not get the message. All of these bills were on the list on 24 June, and yesterday at about 7.30 p.m. the Prime Minister announced that we had reached an historic settlement on Wik and that we will seek to legislate it. So that is why it has been added to the list. That is the big change, Senator Carr: we have added a bill.As Senator Hill said, the government intends to deal with that at 12.30. One of the reasons why Senator Faulkner and Senator Carr could not get this through their brains at least is that the government's program does not have the native title bill on it at the moment. They are saying we put Telstra ahead of it. I got into trouble with you, Mr Acting Deputy President, because I said that was a lie, and I withdrew that remark. It is grossly misleading to say that we put Telstra ahead of the Native Title Amendment Bill on our program.The Native Title Amendment Bill is not on the Notice Paper. The bill will be introduced into the House of Representatives tomorrow. How can you put a bill on the Notice Paper that has not even been introduced? Senator Carr and Senator Faulkner would have you believe that Senator Faulkner was the greatest Manager of Government Business this place has ever seen. But he has not quite learned the fact that you have actually got to have a bill introduced into the parliament before you put it on the Notice Paper—and this bill has not been.I give this assurance to the Senate, to all honourable senators, that the government will be dealing with the Native Title Amendment Bill as the first item of business at 12.30 on Monday if it is passed through the House of Representatives tomorrow. But we also seek to deal with these pieces of legislation which have been on the list since 24 June. They are the important matters that needed to be responded to. The Notice Paper has not changed much.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—What's on tomorrow?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Senator Schacht asks what is on tomorrow. The Notice Paper has not actually changed at all since 2 o'clock on Tuesday. It is in the same order. We have not actually moved. We have done seven hours and 40 minutes of business since 2 o'clock on Tuesday.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—But you change the order every day.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—We do change it, and we generally change it to suit the whims of the shadow ministers. When Senator Schacht comes to me and says, `Look, I've got to go out to dinner tonight,' or someone says, `I've got to go and move house tomorrow,' or, `I've got to go to Adelaide to a function,' we say, `Okay, we'll take that bill off and put another one on.' We do change the order, generally to meet the social requirements of the shadow ministers, including Senator Schacht. On a number of occa sions, you will have to admit, Senator Schacht, you have come to us and said, `I don't want to deal with that tonight because I have other important engagements,' and we say, `Okay, we'll put something else on.' And that is okay; that is part of the management, the consultation, that takes place.Mr Acting Deputy President, we do need an extra sitting week to deal with these pieces of legislation, and there is no doubt that had we actually done some government business today, we would have made a good bite at most of those items on the program and been able to deal only with native title and Telstra next week. Quite clearly, unless the Senate can deal with these other items tomorrow, it will be a hectic program. But there is nothing that cannot be done on this program.Senator Ray made the point that we have not even seen the bill yet. You have not seen the bill. That bill contains some amendments to a piece of legislation that have been debated for 88 hours. It is a total furphy to say that it is unreasonable for us to have to deal with this bill because we will only see it tomorrow morning. This bill has been debated for longer than any piece of legislation in Australian history. This comes from an opposition that landed 300 amendments on the Senate chamber within minutes of the debate starting last time and the time before. In 1993 we came in here—and we will never forget this—they introduced their legislation within the last hour of the last day and then sat us for five days non-stop, no question times, no taking notes, no petitions.I will conclude on this point: Senator Carr says that he has been generous by agreeing to a few hundred extra sitting hours, most of which have been chewed up by an extraordinary debate on an extraordinary number of bills—three Australian records in two years. At the end of 1993 the Senate agreed to an extra 80 sitting hours in one short session. I commend the motion, without the Labor Party's amendment, to the Senate.21:00:004819Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTONPF4QLDIND00—I ask that the amendment be divided so that the first part reads `Paragraph (1), omit "Friday, 10 July 1998", substitute "Thursday, 9 July 1998".' and the second part will be the remainder.21:00:004820Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I ask that part (3) of my amendment be put separately.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—The question is that the first part of the amendment, as requested by Senator Colston, which reads, `Paragraph (1), omit "Friday, 10 July 1998", substitute "Thursday, 9 July 1998".' be agreed to. Question put.21:06:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)31Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Colston, M. A. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Evans, C. V.*Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H.* Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ferguson, A. B. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. O'Chee, W. G.Conroy, S. Ferris, J.Cook, P. F. S. Synon, K. M.Neal, B. J. Kemp, R.Denman, K. J. Ellison, C.Crowley, R. A. Vanstone, A. E.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question now is that the second part of Senator Faulkner's amendment to omit paragraphs (2) to (6) and substitute that the hours of sitting and routine of business shall be in accordance with standing orders 55(1) and 57 be agreed to. Question put.21:10:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)31Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Colston, M. A. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Evans, C. V.*Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.31Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H.* Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ferguson, A. B. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J.Conroy, S. Ferris, J.Bolkus, N. O'Chee, W. G.Cook, P. F. S. Synon, K. M.Denman, K. J. Ellison, C.Crowley, R. A. Vanstone, A. E.Gibbs, B. Watson, J. O. W.Neal, B. J. Kemp, R.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question now is that proposed paragraph (3) of the second amendment moved by Senator Faulkner be agreed to. Question put.21:16:00The Senate divided. 0Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Colston, M. A. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Evans, C. V.*Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.0Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H.* Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ferguson, A. B. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J.Conroy, S. Ferris, J.Bolkus, N. O'Chee, W. G.Cook, P. F. S. Synon, K. M.Denman, K. J. Ellison, C.Crowley, R. A. Vanstone, A. E.Gibbs, B. Watson, J. O. W.Neal, B. J. Kemp, R.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question now is that the motion, as amended, moved by Senator Ian Campbell, be agreed to. Question put.21:18:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)32Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H.* Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.30Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Evans, C. V.* Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.Ferris, J. Conroy, S.Ellison, C. Denman, K. J.Kemp, R. Neal, B. J.O'Chee, W. G. Bolkus, N.Synon, K. M. Cook, P. F. S.Vanstone, A. E. Crowley, R. A.Watson, J. O. W. Gibbs, B.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous482210000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I present details of the Department of the Senate senior officers' travelling allowance payments for 1997-98. These details are tabled annually, as suggested by the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee on 8 May 1997.Committees482248224822Motion (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 Tuesday, 7 July 1998.Bills4822r513Billsr5144822TELEVISION BROADCASTING SERVICES (DIGITAL CONVERSION) BILL 1998Consideration resumed from 1 July.The bill.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—The committee is considering the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 , as amended, and amendment No. 1 on sheet 1062 moved by Senator Bourne. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.21:23:004822Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I can see that Senator Woodley is on the phone to Senator Bourne who will be with us shortly, but I want to say to the minister how pleased we are to see him in the Senate. I know he has been sitting in his office totally frustrated by the hopeless management of this place which has meant he has been backwards and forwards to this chamber 15 or 20 times already today. I thought I saw a ghost out there earlier; Senator Alston was floating around, waiting anxiously to bring up his digital television legislation. Then I saw Mr Peter Reith out there asking where the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 is because the House of Representatives want to pass it tomorrow. How are we going at getting Senator Bourne, Senator Woodley?HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—She's on her way.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—We should have addressed the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 at about half past ten this morning. I was very hurt when Senator Hill and Senator Ian Campbell suggested that the delay was due to our being a bit garrulous.Honourable senators interjecting—UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Oh, he's in the House of Representatives; yes, he is. At last, we can get back to some serious business. I will make this one serious point though, while still awaiting Senator Bourne's arrival.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Why do you now hate Gareth? You used to be a great fan of his.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I still am a great fan of his, Senator Alston. We could actually have got to this, Senator Alston—if you have been suffering frustration—just through a bit of common courtesy from your manager. When he wants to bring in a whole new week of sitting, he should knock on the door, say what he is doing, we get done on the numbers and we take our medicine; but that did not occur.21:26:004822Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I would like the minister to let us know, if this amendment does not go through, whether or not a reference to a Senate references committee would be appropriate?21:26:004823Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I am not sure I can give you a definitive answer on that. If there is a motion in favour of the Senate committee, then I imagine that that is something the Senate should consider carefully. In the first instance, we would prefer that your amendment No. 1 simply be opposed, but if there is then a motion to establish a Senate committee, I would certainly think we would give that careful consideration.21:27:004823Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—As we get back into the swing of this debate, it seems like a day and half since Senator Bourne was speaking to the merits of her amendment on what euphemistically is called in the industry `the blue skies amendment', and she gave a very good reason why the Democrats are moving this amendment.The opposition supports the Democrats in this amendment. We have made it clear to the industry that we believe the unsatisfactory outcome of the High Court ruling that the production of television programs in New Zealand can actually count as Australian content is an absurdity. Ask any ordinary Australian whether they think a television program produced in New Zealand, whether it be a mini-series, a drama, a game show, a kids show or children's television, using New Zealand actors, paid for by New Zealanders or investors from countries other than Australia, can be counted in Australia as Australian content, and ordinary Australians will say that is an absurd outcome. If it is absurd by the nature of the Broadcast Services Act, which is the one we are dealing with here, or as a result of the CER arrangement, they would demand the parliament amend it so that the Australian content rules would only apply to production in Australia, by Australians, clearly produced as part of our television and film industry to go on television.In the debate some day and a half ago on another part of this bill, we made it very clear that one of the justifications for providing the free-to-air commercial television stations with access to the seven megahertz to develop digital television free of charge was that we understand that, if you want high Australian content with high quality production, you have to ensure that the television networks have a revenue base which is big enough to pay for the quality production. That was one of the main justifications—not the only one—for the Labor Party's support for many years of having a limited number of television licences operating in this country. If there are too many operators in commercial television broadcasting and you spread the revenue base too thin, it means none of them will be able to afford to pay for quality Australian production. That will mean fewer jobs for Australians—whether it be actors, producers, technicians, film cameramen, scriptwriters, et cetera.One of the great developments that all Australians have taken great pride in over the last 25 years since the early 1970s is the development of an indigenous Australian television and film industry. The reason that has developed is that we started insisting on local content rules for Australian television. That flowed through to help develop the Australian film industry as well. But the reason the commercial stations could afford the higher cost of making the productions in Australia is that their revenue base was big enough, guaranteed by a limited number of licences.There is no doubt that you could issue a lot more television licences in Australia and have six or seven networks operating, but the revenue base would not be big enough to pay for quality Australian production, and you would end up with imported junk making up much of the programming. Therefore, we would not only lose the jobs in Australia but Australians would lose the right to see Australian made production on their televisions—seeing Australians, their own image, being reproduced on television. That flows through to the film industry.So when, under the CER agreement, a group of New Zealand producers took the opportunity to challenge our content rules and say, `Under CER that can be counted as Australian content', initially the Federal Court—I think it was—ruled against the New Zealand application. It was appealed to the High Court, which ruled that it could be counted as Australian content, but did it in such a way that it was left for the ABA—Australian Broadcasting Authority—to determine how it was to be done and whether, under the content rules as they exist, a different definition could be applied to ensure that Australian content as we know it could be preserved.When the Australian Broadcasting Authority appeared before the recent ERCA estimates committee, I asked them a number of questions—and so did other senators. They indicated that, as a result of the High Court decision they are now holding an inquiry into whether they can interpret the High Court decision in such a way as to guarantee that the content rules—in commonsense terms as ordinary Australians would expect them to be interpreted—could so be interpreted. They indicated that the inquiry would take the next few months to maybe January of 1999, and then they would make their decision.The ABA also indicated that they had received an undertaking from the New Zealand producers that they would not attempt to bring New Zealand content into Australia and claim it as Australian content during this period of review, until the ABA made its final decision. That information was most useful at the estimates hearing.I ask the minister, whichever way the debate goes on this amendment, to provide the Senate with the undertaking given by the ABA that none of the New Zealand producers would attempt to import New Zealand content into Australia until the ABA completes its review. I do not expect you to produce a letter, Minister, in five seconds flat, but it would be useful if we could have a letter tabled in the Senate from those producers giving that commitment by the time this debate has concluded on all other matters.We in the Labor Party feel strongly about this issue. We will vote for the Democrat amendment. We will support it. I hope the Senate votes for it. I know that there will be some arguments raised by the government about issues of CER, free trade, WTO trade rules, et cetera—and they are legitimate issues to be raised—but, if there is a deficiency in the legislation that allows New Zealand content to be counted as Australian content, I am sure ordinary Australians would demand that that be fixed at the first opportunity.It is just coincidental that the bill before us is amending the Broadcasting Services Act, which has the clause in it. It is clear from legal advice and comment that this amendment which deletes paragraph 160D—if we repeal that paragraph—achieves the outcome. It is a simple amendment. It is not pages in length. We are advised that deleting that paragraph would achieve the outcome that New Zealand could not be counted as Australian content.I know some people have been lobbied by the New Zealand High Commission that this is a retrograde step under CER, but when the CER was going through the parliament over a decade ago now, if someone had suggested in the parliament that that CER bill would allow a definition to stand so that material produced in New Zealand could count as Australian content, I am sure we in the parliament would have raised our eyebrows, to say the least, and we would have sought an amendment to exclude that from being a part of the CER—closer economic relations—bill. I cannot speak for my previous colleagues but I am sure that would have been the outcome. Certainly, I imagine the Australian television and film production industry would have been demanding an amendment at that time to that legislation because, quite rightly, they could have said, `This is a nonsense to say that New Zealand content can count as Australian content.'Senator Bourne has asked for the minister's view about a Senate committee. Minister, I do not know if you have considered whether that is a select committee, the ERCA legislative committee or whatever. Although that would be a useful process, I would point out that the ABA has already got a review under way. They will make their decision.But I also have to say from the opposition's point of view, why wait for a review and a select committee? If there is going to be an argument with New Zealand about this, let us have the argument now while the matter is before the parliament. The parliament then makes that decision. Although I would be interested to hear if the minister has any details about a possible committee, on this issue the opposition will be voting for the Democrats' amendment. If it is carried, we would hope the government would accept it and, when the bill goes back to the House of Representatives, not insist on the amendment being opposed. In conclusion, there has been a lot of debate in Australia in recent years about free trade, competition policy, globalisation, international competitiveness and so on. On many of those issues, all sides of the major parties in this parliament have made commitments that this is the way to go to ensure that we have an efficient economy. But we also know there are forces out in the community that are consistently attacking such concepts as free trade and open arrangements with other countries. In recent times, that has become even more spectacular as a result of the Queensland election.We have to show a commonsense attitude on these sorts of issues before us. If you want to give succour to those who say that free trade is stupid and that openness in economic and trade matters is not in Australia's favour, you would leave an example like this of trying to tell people, `We're supporting this because the law says New Zealand content counts as Australian content.' Ordinary Australians will say, `That is rot. We do not accept that.' That is not the common meaning of what they would understand.Therefore, if we want to defend the basic principles of free trade and openness—and many of us in this parliament do—we need to make sure that what we would see as an unintended consequence, which is before us today as a result of the High Court decision, is dealt with expeditiously by this parliament so that those arguments cannot be used against the broader economic arrangement. I would say that openly to our New Zealand colleagues. Therefore, the opposition will be supporting the Democrats' amendment. We certainly urge the committee to carry the amendment.21:41:004825Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Just briefly, because I note that Senator Schacht has managed to take almost 15 minutes again on the first round of the resumption of consideration of this bill. If this amendment is defeated, then we would move a motion to refer the matter to the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee. I do not want to debate the merits of this because I think we all understand what it is about. But let me make two points very quickly: first, Senator Schacht says that somehow there were some unintended consequences, the deficiencies of which have been exposed by the High Court decision. That is absolutely wrong and you know it.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—What?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—You may not know it. Let me explain: the relevant minister at the time was Senator Bob Collins. He was advised that, if he proceeded to insert section 160(d) in the legislation, it may well conflict with CER. He nonetheless chose to go ahead, and the High Court referred to his letter in their decision. Let there be no doubt at all about it: the reason for the current situation is a direct result of Senator Collins's insistence on that subsection.The second point is that, as far as we are concerned, the ABA is already addressing these issues. We view the outcome of the High Court decision with concern. We believe there are some matters that the ABA does need to take into account, particularly the extent to which there is a higher level of government subsidy for the film industry per capita in New Zealand than in Australia. The other major issue is the way in which what is really first-run material could be regarded as second-run material if it is shown first in New Zealand. We want those and any other relevant matters to be fully taken into account before a final review is undertaken.To answer Senator Schacht's specific questions: my understanding is that the commercial networks in Australia have undertaken not to attempt to treat New Zealand product as being within the Australian content standards. The New Zealand government and Project Blue Sky have also agreed not to pursue the matter pending the outcome of the ABA investigation.21:43:004826Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—The issue of content is one that is worthy of far greater emphasis than it has currently received in this debate. I say that because we do know that content is one of the greatest strengths remaining to Australia in its potential to develop export markets, export products and quality content generally in the area of new technologies, particularly digital technologies. I believe the ability of Australian companies, be they large corporations or small to medium enterprises, to be creators of innovative content underpins this particular amendment.Again, I refer to the OECD report that I have been referring to throughout this debate on the basis that it is about content as a new growth industry. It cites the economics that underpin the content industry, including relationships between revenues returned through advertising and other sources and the ability of each particular section of the media to generate revenues to support and grow indigenous content. There is so much scope within this current debate that it enables one to look quite specifically at the economics behind it. Given that the government is providing the commercial free to airs and national broadcasters with a subsidy in many respects in the provision of spectrum, there is an argument that, in return, the emphasis on producing quality content—be it in the form of drama, documentaries and all those other areas that we know so well—is quite legitimate. In the very first instance this amendment tries to tip that balance back a little towards innovative Australian content which could actually be produced as an outcome of this whole exercise.I mentioned the economics of the industry, and this is a critical point. Everyone must understand that this bill will change the economics of the broadcast industry. No longer will the free to airs or the national broadcasters in many respects be able to argue on the same basis that they have in the past about their inability to fund content. We all know that the level of Australian content has to be mandated legislatively and enforced. The expense involved in producing such content is continually a burden on these organisations. In changing the economics of the broadcast industry, I believe that this amendment goes a small way towards tipping the balance back in creating the content in Australia that would ultimately be broadcast.As to the proportion of Australian content that we currently view, I certainly endorse the comments made by Senator Schacht and Senator Bourne on New Zealand content. But it does raise a number of questions which I would like to explore with the minister: the type of content that is perhaps not being provided through the scope of this bill and, alternatively, the type of content that will be available through datacasting.I would like to go back to a response the minister provided to a question yesterday, that is, datacast services not provided across the digital spectrum would not be embraced in the review that is pending. You mentioned that another review would be conducted on convergence. I seek your clarification on which review will relate specifically to convergence and at what point that will be conducted in the context of this bill.21:48:004826Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The relevance of datacasting is in order to ensure that broadcasters do not transgress into an area that they are not allowed to move into without having to pay normal commercial rates and, similarly, to ensure that any new entrants are confined to datacasting and do not cross the boundary into broadcasting. So the inquiry in the first instance is simply confined to the boundary lines within which terrestrial broadcasting ought to occur. If there are a range of other issues that arise as far as content is concerned in the separate and presumably later inquiry into convergence, then—7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—When?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—We have not set a date on any of these things. We have simply said all these inquiries have to be completed by the beginning of 2000. That is an outer boundary. Clearly we would want to see most of these inquiries conducted as quickly and as expeditiously as possible. The boundary arguments about multi-channelling and datacasting would clearly be of greater urgency than convergence. Convergence is an ongoing issue, but it is not critical to getting this regime off the ground. If you are asking me in terms of the priorities of the range of inquiries, then I would say convergence would rank behind those other two. But we have not set any date for any of them in the legislation.21:50:004827Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I want to follow that question up. Minister, what you are describing is a situation that I find quite ludicrous. Given that at the moment the very broadcasters that you are seeking to—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I think we have been very generous to date in this debate. As we all know, we were hopeful that the debate might go for somewhere between one and two hours; we are now beyond the fourth hour. What Senator Lundy is proposing to do is to regurgitate material that has already been gone over comprehensively.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—It's about Blue Sky.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—This has absolutely nothing at all to do with the matter before the chair, which is project Blue Sky. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with it. You have just asked about datacasting and convergence. I have answered those questions again today.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—Because you didn't answer them yesterday.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I am sorry. That is the best we can do. That is the shorthand. I answered them yesterday; they are not relevant to today. Today's amendment before the chair is to do with project Blue Sky and the extent to which Australia's obligations under international treaties ought to be taken into account in setting Australian content standards. It has nothing at all—7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—On a point of order—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Just a minute, I am on a point of order. It has nothing at all to do with boundary lines between datacasting, multi-channelling or anything else.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—On the point of order: if you take the minister's narrow definition about this debate, he may have a point. But, remember, Blue Sky is about Australian content rules. Content rules will be relevant to the issues of datacasting because that is a matter that will have to be resolved. It is not unreasonable for a senator to ask questions about content on datacasting and multi-channelling, as far as their structure is concerned, even though those issues have been dealt with in the bill. This amendment is about content rules and about whether New Zealand content can end up being used in datacasting or multi-channelling.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Let me be quite clear, this section that we are dealing with is confined to free-to-air commercial television. There are no local content restrictions in relation to datacasting. Therefore, it cannot be relevant to this debate.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—My ruling on the point of order is that it is sustained; that this particular amendment does not relate to the issues that are being raised, even though there has been, to a degree, a wide ranging debate. It may be more appropriate to raise those issues later.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—I seek clarification from the chair. At what later opportunity will I be able to question the minister on issues relating to content on datacasting services?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We have to deal with the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 , and that would be an appropriate opportunity to raise those issues.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—Can I take the opportunity to say a number of things in relation to this matter. First of all, I asked the minister a series of questions yesterday relating to the way datacasting services were going to be treated. I thought I would save time by asking the minister succinct questions now as clarification so we could make sure of his responses. There are a number of questions that he did not respond to in that process yesterday.I am more than happy to stand up and construct a 10-minute speech around each question, but I thought I would assist the minister in his pressures for time and actually confine my questions. But, seeing he is being so pedantic about this, I would like now to turn to the issue of Australian content with respect to digital services.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Lundy, just before you proceed, the appropriate time to raise the questions which you are raising would be when the motion for the bill, as amended, to be passed is under discussion. That is when you can revert to those more general issues. But, in dealing with this particular amendment, you need to keep the issues that you are raising more narrow.Senator Schacht interjecting—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—They are precisely the matters that were raised yesterday or the day before to which no objection was taken. I am simply complaining that Senator Lundy is repeating the precise subject matter.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Shouldn't you be standing? Is this an interjection, Richard, or is it a speech?LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—This is a strategy to ensure that we do not complete the bill tonight, as long as that is clear.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order!7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—Mr Chairman, can you provide me with an assurance that I will have the opportunity outside the scope of this particular amendment to ask the minister questions pertaining to these bills?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Lundy, I have already explained to you that there will be an opportunity to do that.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—Thank you. I will make the most of it when it arises.21:55:004828Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I have a simple question of the minister. He mentioned that, if this amendment is defeated, he will move a motion to refer the issue to the Senate ERCA committee. For the record, can you give us an indication of what the reporting date is and whether there will be the normal processes of a legislative committee where submissions can be sought and hearings can be held on the matter and the terms of reference of the legislation?21:56:004828Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I confirm that it will be the normal procedures. In other words, you will have every opportunity to leak information at regular stages throughout the process. But the date, for the record, is 31 October. You will be able to, presumably, make submissions and do whatever the committee itself determines because it controls its own agenda. But, as far as we are concerned, that will enable the committee to take into account the report of the ABA and, therefore, to canvass all of the matters that the committee itself would need to canvass. I just indicate that I will move that at the end of the committee stage. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Bourne 's) be agreed to.22:02:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)31Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Colston, M. A. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Evans, C. V. *Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.31Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ferguson, A. B. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. O'Chee, W. G.Conroy, S. Ferris, J.Cook, P. F. S. Synon, K. M.Crowley, R. A. Ellison, C.Denman, K. J. Vanstone, A. E.Gibbs, B. Minchin, N. H.Neal, B. J. Kemp, R.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.22:04:004829Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—The next amendments on the running sheet, I believe, are Democrat amendments 4 and 5.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—According to the running sheet, it is amendments 4 to 8 being taken together.TW4Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNE—I see. I would like to talk about 4 and 5 together, firstly. The reason I want to do that is that I believe those two are probably unnecessary because they come under the schedule 4 provisions that we agreed to earlier.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—So you do not want to move those.TW4Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNE—No, but I would like to ask the minister one question about what was going to be in those amendments, just so I could have his answer on the record and so I know what he thinks. I believe that closed captioning and an electronic program guide, for instance, could be defined as datacasting. Will that sort of thing be looked at when the minister commissions the review of datacasting?22:06:004829Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Yes, it will be covered by the review.22:06:004829Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Senator Bourne has suggested that her amendments 4 and 5 are already covered by amendments that were carried yesterday and, therefore, basically are unnecessary. That is our view as well.22:06:004829Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I now wish to deal with 6 and 7 separately to 8. I believe they are also covered by schedule 4.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—If you are not moving them, Senator Bourne, the appropriate process would be to move amendment No. 8 and ignore the rest.TW4Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNE—I think that is a sensible idea and I would like to do that. I move:(8) Schedule 1, item 12, page 24 (after line 12), after subclause (3), insert:(3A) The ABA must consult with national broadcasters about the implementation of the scheme.Amendment No. 8 concerns consulting by the ABA and it relates to the independence of the national broadcasters. Consistent with both of their acts—that is, the ABC Act and the SBS Act—we believe it is appropriate that the minister, rather than the ABA, has the role of implementation of the national broadcasters conversion schemes. Amendment 8 says that, in developing the conversion schemes, the following should be objectives. That puts the ABA in a consultative capacity, which means that the ABA has to consult with the national broadcasters during the scheme's development, rather than the ABA doing it, and then it goes back to the minister.22:07:004829Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—We support Democrat amendment No. 8. We believe that the consultation process is the best way to go. As I understand it, Minister, it has always been accepted that ABA is about commercial broadcasting in Australia. The national broadcasters—ABC and SBS—have their own distinct act and are responsible to the parliament through you as minister. The opposition always holds that that is a necessary separation.Because the ABA is carrying out a number of things and is involved in the planning of the introduction of digital television, it is clear that it should be in consultation with the national broadcasters. Those discussions should take place on the basis of goodwill on both sides. If they fall apart, then probably both sides should get a rap over the knuckles. We think that is the best way to go to maintain the longstanding wish of parliament that the national broadcasters be separate from the ABA under planning arrangements. We support that amendment.Amendment agreed to.22:09:004830Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 12, page 26 (line 22) to page 28 (line 7), omit clause 20, substitute:20 National broadcasters to give implementation plans to the Minister(1) As soon as practicable after the formulation of the national television conversion scheme, a national broadcaster must give the Minister one or more implementation plans relating to the conversion, over time, of the transmission of the national television broadcasting service concerned from analog mode to digital mode.(2) In preparing an implementation plan, a national broadcaster must have regard to the following matters: (a) in the case of an implementation plan that relates to a coverage area that is not a remote coverage area—whether the implementation plan is directed towards ensuring the achievement of the following policy objectives: (i) the objective that each national broadcaster should be required to commence transmitting the national broadcasting service concerned in digital mode in each metropolitan coverage area on 1 January 2001; (ii) the objective that each national broadcaster should be required to commence transmitting the national television broadcasting service concerned in digital mode to regional coverage areas (other than remote coverage areas) on or after 1 January 2001 so that all regional coverage areas (other than remote coverage areas) have digital transmission of the service by 1 January 2004; (b) in the case of an implementation plan that relates to a coverage area that is not a remote coverage area—the objectives mentioned in subclause 19(3); (c) in the case of an implementation plan that relates to a remote coverage area—the special circumstances that apply to the transmission of national television broadcasting services in that area; (d) such other matters (if any) as the national broadcaster considers relevant.(3) If an implementation plan is given to the Minister under this clause, the Minister must: (a) approve the implementation plan; or (b) refuse to approve the implementation plan.(4) In deciding whether to approve an implementation plan under this clause, the Minister must have regard to the following matters: (a) in the case of an implementation plan that relates to a coverage area that is not a remote coverage area—whether the implementation plan is directed towards ensuring the achievement of the following policy objectives: (i) the objective that each national broadcaster should be required to commence transmitting the national broadcasting service concerned in digital mode in each metropolitan coverage area on 1 January 2001; (ii) the objective that each national broadcaster should be required to commence transmitting the national television broadcasting service concerned in digital mode to regional coverage areas (other than remote coverage areas) on or after 1 January 2001 so that all regional coverage areas (other than remote coverage areas) have digital transmission of the service by 1 January 2004; (b) in the case of an implementation plan that relates to a coverage area that is not a remote coverage area—the objectives mentioned in subclause 19(3); (c) in the case of an implementation plan that relates to a remote coverage area—the special circumstances that apply to the transmission of national television broadcasting services in that area; (d) such other matters (if any) as the Minister considers relevant. (5) Before deciding whether to approve an implementation plan under this clause, the Minister may direct the ABA to give the Minister a report about the matter.(6) If the Minister approves an implementation plan under this clause, the implementation plan comes into force on approval.(7) If the Minister refuses to approve an implementation plan under this clause, the Minister may, by written notice given to the national broadcaster concerned: (a) require the national broadcaster to give a fresh implementation plan under subclause (1); and (b) advise the national broadcaster that, if specified changes were incorporated in the fresh plan, the Minister would be disposed to approve the fresh plan.The notice must also set out the reasons for the refusal.(8) The Minister must cause copies of a notice under subclause (7) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the giving of the notice.(9) A national broadcaster may give the Minister a variation of an approved implementation plan that relates to the national broadcaster. Subclauses (2) to (8) (inclusive) apply to the variation of an implementation plan in a corresponding way to the way in which they apply to an implementation plan.We prefer this amendment to Democrat amendment No. 9. Our amendment No. 1 allows the national broadcasters to formulate their own plan in the first instance. They then submit the plan to the minister for approval or refusal. The minister must have regard to a number of matters in so considering. If the plan is approved, it comes into force. If it is refused, then the minister may, by written notice, require the national broadcaster to give a fresh implementation plan and advise that, if specific changes were incorporated, the minister would be disposed to approve. The notice must also set out the reasons for the refusal. Copies of the notice must be laid before each house of parliament within 15 sittings days. The national broadcaster may give the minister a variation of an approved implementation plan.22:11:004831Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—The opposition supports the government's amendment to the Democrat amendment. I think consultation between all parties on this has been quite useful. In the government amendment, as circulated on sheet B98BA581.WB, there are only two areas where I think there might still be some marginal differences. Firstly, I understand that after the word `other' in 4(d), the Democrats want to insert the word `related'. The opposition does not support that.TW4BOURNESenator Bourne—I thought you did.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I hope there has not been a misunderstanding, Senator Bourne. I know that there have been discussions. What we are dealing with here is a cultural difference between the Democrats, who are always in an opposition position vis-a-vis the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, one of which always hopes to be the government the next day, the next week, or after the next election. It is a matter of judging the balance between the power of ministerial direction and so on.After careful consideration, we believe that, the way the government has worded it, without putting the word `related' in, it is clear enough. We believe it should be left that way because you never can tell when something out of left field may turn up to be dealt with, and we believe that if you put `related'—that is related to the rest of the—TW4BOURNESenator Bourne—To the legislation.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—That is related to the rest of the legislation. As I say, I think this is a cultural difference. Those who have had some experience in government, where you actually get hung or hooked on a description like this in the way you have devised it, know that you are then left out on a limb. However, I agree with the Democrat position on transparency—the minister having to table things and so on. That is the protection: if the minister tries to rort the process, he or she has to lay on the table the reasons why they are in dispute. A public debate will then take place, and in matters of broadcasting there will always be a vigorous public debate no matter what the issue. It will not be avoided, no matter what the minister of the day may think. With understanding, that process will naturally come into play.We support section 4(d) of government amendment No. 1. We also support the insertion, under section 8, of the Democrat amendment to delete `15' and put `seven' sitting days. I understand the reasons for that. I accept that 15 days can be rather a long time and things could roll on without being dealt with. We accept seven days. As a former minister, I would probably argue for 15, but while I am in opposition I will argue for seven, and I will live with it as seven days when we are back in government.22:15:004832Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—We will accept seven.22:15:004832Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—The Australian Democrats, as Senator Schacht has mentioned, would rather see the word `related', and not just in subsection (d) of part 4 but in subsection (d) of part 2. We do not see why either the ABC, the SBS or the minister should be able to put in anything that they feel they might like to put in. I can understand the minister and the shadow minister seeing this from the point of view of the minister. Obviously, they both consider that they may well be the minister when this comes down. I am looking at it from the point of view of the rest of the world, which is not the minister, including the ABC and the general public. Most people would rather that the minister confined his or her—one day it will be a `her'—remarks to whatever is related to this legislation. However, I accept that we have two ministerial aspirants for the next parliament here, and I can understand what they are talking about.I thank both the minister and Senator Schacht for accepting seven sitting days. We all understand that 15 days could blow out to months and months, if you timed it correctly. Seven is much more likely to be within a couple of sitting weeks. I move:Paragraph (8), omit "15", substitute "7".Amendment, as amended, agreed to.22:17:004832Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—The Democrats oppose the following item in schedule 1:(10) Schedule 1, item 12, page 28 (lines 12 to 15), clause 22.Considering that we have accepted the government's amendment and that there is more autonomy with the national broadcasters than with others, it is appropriate that the minister has the role in the national broadcasters' implementation plans rather than the ABA. It should be the respective boards of the national broadcasters rather than the minister who makes the final decision on implementation plans. In those government amendments, I accept that we have lost having the board make the final decision. We will come back to the minister doing it, putting on the table what should be put on the table. I still believe that the ABA should have a consultative role, and that is what this achieves.22:18:004832Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—We are not accepting the Australian Democrats' position.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—We are neutral.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I will read what I have here and try to make sense of it. The Democrats appear concerned that this clause is unnecessary as the ABA already has powers conferred under section 164 and that this new clause potentially confers wider powers on the ABA over national broadcasters than those currently available. They also appear to consider that the apparent ability of the ABA to create those powers through its own development of the conversion scheme is appropriate.We say that it is legally necessary to ensure that the ABA is empowered to make decisions of an administrative character within the scope of the conversion schemes. An example of such a provision in the digital conversion scheme would be a power for the ABA to approve technical specifications for digital transmitters. Without the power to make administrative decisions, the ABA would need to formulate an extremely prescriptive legislative scheme which provided for all the outcomes of the digital conversion process and included no flexibility for the ABA to exercise any degree of statutory discretion.Under this clause, the ABA could not confer powers on itself which were beyond its power to make decisions of an administrative character in relation to the conversion scheme. In other words, there are administrative constraints on the exercise of the ABA power. In our view, it is very important that it has a flexibility that is not fettered in the way that the Democrats' amendment would have it. The ABC's concerns in relation to this matter are therefore unfounded.22:20:004833Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—We will accept the government's view on this.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—The question is that schedule 1, item 12, clause 22, stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.22:20:004833Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—by leave—I move:(11) Schedule 1, item 12, page 28 (line 30), omit "exceptional circumstances", substitute "circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen".(12) Schedule 1, item 12, page 29 (line 20), omit "exceptional circumstances", substitute "circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen".(13) Schedule 1, item 12, page 30 (line 18), omit "exceptional circumstances", substitute "circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen".We are seeking to substitute for the term `exceptional circumstances' the term `circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen'. As I understand it, the problem that the national broadcasters have with the term `exceptional circumstances' is that there could be three circumstances that might occur together, none of which are exceptional but which, when taken together, will cause problems. The exceptional part of it would be that they all happen together. They believe that substituting `circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen' will cover everything and that it will be a real safety net for them.22:21:004833Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I think the minister is getting advice. My note is that this is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Unless Senator Bourne can give me a specific example that her amendment would overcome in definitional terms, I think I will stick with the government's position of exceptional circumstances. It seems to me that under any common knowledge—I know that that is not a legal way of handling it—`exceptional' covers most things. We think it is six of one and half a dozen of the other.22:22:004833Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I think it is probably 6½ of one and half a dozen of the other. I cannot give you a specific example because one was not given to me or, if it was, it has gone out of my head since I spoke to the national broadcasters. It did seem reasonable to me at the time. If it is six of one and half a dozen of the other, the national broadcasters believe that they would be better off with the other and it is not going to make any difference, I cannot see why we do not change it. I do not think it will hurt to change it.22:22:004833Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Can I perhaps explain why. The proposition that we are contending is: if you are committed to digital and you are moving, hopefully, towards full HDTV, what you do want to insist on is that the networks therefore gradually implement that scheme. What we say is: use it or lose it.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I think that is the wrong one. We are doing 11, 12 and 13; that is 14.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Is it?22:23:004833Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—As I understand it from my running sheet, or my note, use it or lose it is actually 14. In the document I have of Democrat amendments, 11, 12 and 13 are compliance issues and 14 has a subheading, `Digital television requirements.' Am I right or wrong? I am advised by my adviser that it could be both. Thank you, that has probably made it very confusing.As I understand it from Senator Bourne, we were dealing only with the wording of 11, 12 and 13. In your explanation, minister, you have started to move into the `use it or lose it' concept, which is 14—as I am advised. Is there a connection between the two?22:23:004834Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—As I understand it, we are generally concerned with the progressive introduction of digital and, ultimately, HDTV. The concept of `use it or lose it' says that you are required to move in that direction and it is only in exceptional circumstances that you would be excused. What the Democrats are suggesting is, no, you would be excused from compliance with that progressive rollout if there were circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen.We simply say that that is a weaker test because there could well be unforseen circumstances that are quite trivial. On the Democrats approach, you would be let out on a technicality. We do not want to see that happen, and I would not have thought that they would either. We simply want to ensure that it is only in exceptional circumstances that you would be excused.22:24:004834Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Senator Bourne may be able to clarify this for me. I thought 11, 12 and 13 were separate from 14. But now I am advised that Democrats amendment 14 is actually connected to 11, 12 and 13 and that they should be put together. I just wondered if that is correct and whether Senator Bourne can clarify that for me.22:25:004834Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I think No. 14 is actually related to schedule 4. I think that one would be part of the standards reviews because it is the `use it or lose it' concept. I think it would be part of the standard reviews. In fact, when we go over to it, I have only one question to ask of the minister, and I intend to withdraw that one, too, if I can get an answer from him. But I did not see it as being a part of this item.Can I also make one further point. The minister said that the three trivial circumstances could be a loophole. They could be three really significant circumstances but, because they may happen in one go, that might mean, perhaps—and if the minister agrees with this, I guess that would something—that that might constitute an extraordi nary circumstance. But what I do not want is something being taken away from the national broadcaster because of a loophole.I can see that the minister is saying that the other might be the case. I do not believe it would be. I believe it would go the way that I have been saying, and I also believe that if there is very little difference between the two, why don't we take the one that they believe would be more reasonable for them?22:27:004834Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I contend that it is not six of one and half a dozen of the other, that exceptional circumstances is a higher test. Yours is a weaker test. We do not see any reason to differentiate between the commercials and the national broadcasters. Neither of them should be able to skate out on a technicality. If you simply said, `Unforseen circumstances,' it is not hard to imagine something that is unforseen that is not all that significant, let alone exceptional.The concept of exceptional circumstances is that you are bound to adhere to a programmed rollout, a progressive movement towards HD, unless there are exceptional circumstances. If it is merely unforseen, you might say, `We didn't realise that there would be a high level of inflation, so it's going to cost us a bit more money. That was totally unforseen, so we're allowed out of it.' Whereas we would say, `There is nothing exceptional about that. You should have been prepared to commit yourself to whatever it might cost. You should have built in inflation, et cetera.' So exceptional circumstances makes it tougher all round, and it ensures that none of the broadcasters are able to avoid their obligations to move progressively towards HD. We do not see why you would give the national broadcasters a lesser or weaker test.22:28:004834Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I just love the minister's example. It just occurred to me out of nowhere that perhaps it might have been unforseen, and I am confident that this will not happen, to one of the national broadcasters, and indeed to all of us, that they receive only $20.8 million, for instance—picking a figure out of the air—for digitisation when in fact they need, and have been proven to need, $180 million, and the government has accepted that the metropolitan networks may need $250 million each.I am using that purely as an example, of course, but this may well be unforseen. I certainly would not foresee it, but I do not know whether you would call it exception. Therefore, if that were the case, if the national broadcasters were totally underfunded, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for that to be seen as being unforseen. But, perhaps, if they became funded in the future, they would be able to pick that up again. I do not know if that would be an exceptional circumstance or an unforseen one. But I think it is worth having a look at.22:30:004835Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I will put it another way. I apologise for my mind not being able to conjure up any more exciting examples than this one, but let us stick with it for the moment. If they thought they were going to get $4 million and they only got $3½ million, you could say that would be unforeseen, but it would not be exceptional. Let us say that there was only $100,000 difference or even $10,000 difference, you could argue that that would be unforeseen; in other words, unforeseen would cover the range.Progress reported.Adjournment483510000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 10.31 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.483522:31:004835Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I would like to talk a little about regional Australia tonight and the way in which regional Australia has benefited from the policies of the Howard government.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—This will be a short speech.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—Senator Lundy, this will, of course, be of great interest to you. You will be quite stunned by the extent to which the Howard government has benefited regional Australia. These benefits range from infrastructure funding commitments for roads and telecommunication services, to the provision of extra doctors for regional and remote areas and specific benefits under the youth allowance for young people in rural areas. It can be said from the record of the Howard government that the Howard government quite clearly understands the needs of regional and remote Australia and, in particular, of regional Western Australia.In addressing issues relating to regional Australia, I would firstly like to comment on the announcement last night of the agreement on the Native Title Amendment Bill. Native title has been a great impediment to regional development in Western Australia, as it has all over Australia. I would like to personally put on record in the Senate my thanks to all the Western Australian senators and members who, since 1992, have fought for a fair and equitable mechanism for the determination of native title claims. I thank them on behalf of the people of Western Australia as a whole.I would also like to thank Senator Harradine, who, as a Christian person with considerable political courage, could see the divisiveness in the community that the present Native Title Act was bringing and knew that a resolution to this problem was necessary. I think we should all recognise that Senator Harradine took a great step forward in terms of personal political courage in doing what he had to do for our nation.Having said that, I would like to move on to what the Howard government has done for infrastructure. Enhanced infrastructure is vital to the future of regional Australia. The Howard government has delivered the framework for business development through enhanced access to telecommunications, programs for the expansion of export markets, and other items which I will mention during the course of this address, which will ultimately mean that there will be greater job creation in Western Australia and, in general, the people of regional Australia will benefit.Telecommunications is a very important issue throughout regional Australia. Through the regional telecommunications development fund, the Howard government has sought to bring modern communications to the people of regional Australia. In the 1998-99 federal budget, the Howard government committed $250 million over five years to the regional telecommunications development fund. These funds are contributing to communications infrastructure which will provide improved services to regional and rural Western Australia, including contributing to the provision of fast fax and access to data capability technology.For example, the shires of Meekatharra, Sandstone, Menzies, Leonora, Wiluna and Laverton, and the town of Leinster will benefit from the allocation of $10,000 for project `mobile telephony'. A consultant will be engaged to identify the most appropriate mobile telephone facility, and other telecommunications needs of people in such remote areas will also be addressed.Funding through the regional telecommunications development fund has also been allocated to the remote area broadcasting services. This involves funding of some $11.2 million for a Commonwealth contribution of $750 towards the conversion cost of a new digital decoder in each existing direct to home remote household for the reception of television, and $2,500 towards the replacement of each existing decoder in remote Aboriginal communities. I think this is going to be very useful to these communities because it will bring them not only entertainment, but also education, and it will do much to improve the knowledge of people in remote Aboriginal communities of the outside world.One of the recent successes of the Howard government has been the provision of SBS television for regional Western Australia. People in regional Western Australia have been seeking to have SBS for some 10 years. Western Australia has the highest proportion of overseas born people of any state or territory in Australia and, in general terms, more than one-quarter of the population of Western Australia was born overseas and more than one half has one or both parents born overseas. In putting SBS television on the satellite over Western Australia last November, after a fairly short period in office, the Howard government delivered on a promise made to the people of regional Western Australia. The Labor Party in their 13 years in office had done nothing, although they had promised SBS to the people of regional Western Australia.I would like to mention analog telephone coverage. Many people in regional Australia are very concerned to see analog mobile phone services retained because analog phone services do have a wider range of area under which they can be used. As it happens, the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) has commissioned a review to find a way around the agreement which the previous government made to phase out analog and only have digital services in Australia, which has had an adverse reception in most of regional Australia because it means that mobile services will be available in a more restricted area. The minister is coming to an agreement with the major carriers under which, in the absence of any other services, analog will be preserved.Roads are another very important matter in regional Australia. The Howard government has devoted a total of $61.42 million for construction and ongoing maintenance work on the 4,640 kilometres of national highways in Western Australia to improve these roads. This also means that extra jobs will be created in regional Western Australia to the extent of something like 2,500 positions.In the recent budget there was an important announcement for people involved in private aviation and air charter in Western Australia. As in all areas of regional Australia, aviation is very important. That announcement was that the price of avgas would be cut by some 13c per litre. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia has welcomed the reduction in this price and see it as a great boon to private charter companies in regional Western Australia.The federal government has also addressed the need for improved health services in regional Australia. In the 1998-99 budget the government announced an additional boost to attract extra doctors into regional Australia. This will involve a one-off of 100 extra places in medical schools for suitably overseas trained doctors to bring themselves up to the standard required for the Australian examination so enabling them to practise in this country. That means there will be an increased number of doctors in regional Australia.The youth allowance has specific benefits for regional Australia and will mean that young people in regional Australia benefit directly from its introduction. The Howard government has a very strong and positive record of assistance to regional Australia which the Labor government could only have envied.483722:41:004837Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—This evening I present to the Senate the federal parliamentarians code of race ethics. This matter was debated in this place in 1996 when, after a particularly divisive federal election campaign, a number of us felt there was a need for parliamentarians to give a commitment, as parliamentarians, to promote tolerance and harmony in our multicultural society.When we debated the issue in the Senate we agreed unanimously that the Senate condemned the use of any racial material to manipulate public opinion during election campaigns. We reminded parliamentarians that they are elected to represent all of their constituents and that it is totally reprehensible for any parliamentarian to announce that they will refuse to represent a particular group. We considered developing a code of race ethics to be observed by all members of the national parliament in the interests of community harmony. That motion was accepted on 9 May 1996. The idea of a code of race ethics came, very appropriately, from the indigenous people of Ipswich.After we had this debate a number of us, including a member of staff from Senator John Herron's office, Senator Woodley, Daryl Melham from the House of Representatives and a number of other people, put their heads together and worked from three documents. The first, `Politicians and citizens roles and responsibilities', was written by John Warhurst. It is a Catholic social justice publication. We also referred to the `Commercial television industry code of practice' and a submission by the Hon. Kevin Rozzoli, who was then the Speaker of the New South Wales parliament. He prepared a document called `Code of practice for parliamentarians'. We worked on the document, circulated it several times and received feedback from people who were unhappy about certain areas and wanted the words changed slightly.Finally, in readiness for Human Rights Day in December 1996, we circulated the document. On that occasion we were able to attract the signatures of 90 parliamentarians. It was accepted at a ceremony in Parliament House attended by a number of church and ethnic leaders, representing all churches. Because I will seek leave to table the document in a little while, I will just read out some of the people there. We had the President of the National Council of Churches in Australia; Cardinal Clancy; Commissioner Clinch from the Salvation Army; Patricia Firkin, Presiding Clerk of the Religious Society of Friends; Archbishop Gibran, Primate of the Orthodox Church; Commissioner John Gowans, the Territorial Commander of the Salvation Army; Pastor Cecil Grant of the Federal Aborigines Board, Churches of Christ; the President of the National Conference of Churches of Christ; and Bishop Malcolm, Chairperson of the National Aboriginal Anglican Council.I apologise to all of those who I will not name because it would take me too long to do so in this short address this evening. Representing a number of ethnic communities we had Pat Turner from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission; the Reverend Frank Brennan from Uniya, Sydney, the Catholic Social Justice Commission; we had representatives from the Federation of Chinese Community of Canberra; the Czechoslovak Australian Association; the Australian-Indonesian Family Association; the coordinator for the anti-racism campaign; the Philippine Australian Association of the ACT; the Salvadorian Women's Group; the Lao community; the Sakyamum Buddhist Centre; the Afghan-Australia Council of the ACT; and the ACT Jewish community. Honourable senators will be able to see the full list of those present. I again emphasise that this ceremony was endorsed by both the National Council of Churches in Australia and a number of key ethnic community representatives.That was our contribution in 1996. I suppose many of us hoped that we had somehow assisted in focusing on the lack of tolerance in that election campaign and that certainly those parliamentarians who signed it—and, indeed, many who at the time did not choose to sign it for various reasons—would work towards a much more harmonious debate in coming years, leading to what we assume will be an election some time in the next six months or so.Sadly, of course, as we know, there have been forces at work that have meant that the Australian community has become even more divided. Yesterday, the new political party, One Nation, launched an absolutely disgraceful immigration policy that takes us back to the bad old days of White Australia. It is an absolute disgrace for Australia that such a policy is launched in 1998.Many of us are concerned about the next election campaign. I have, together with Senator John Woodley, today and yesterday circulated again this code of race ethics. About 97 parliamentarians, as of tonight, have now endorsed this code. There will be those who say they do not sign things on principle and that they do not believe these gestures really mean very much, but I urge them to think again. I will read from a letter from the National Council of Churches in Australia that was sent out to its constituent groups at the time. They refer to the code in their letter and they detailed many of the pledges, which include: to uphold principles of justice and tolerance; to recognise and value diversity; to speak and write in a manner which provides factual commentary on a foundation of truth about all issues being debated in the community and the parliament; and to promote reconciliation with indigenous Australians. The commentary was:A good set of principles. One hopes that many more parliamentarians will endorse them. Indeed, whether or not a particular candidate has signed up should be deemed a relevant consideration when the electorate next goes to the polls, and it would be entirely in order for the churches, if need be, to inject that thought into the pre-election debate. The writer also makes this very pertinent comment:One also hopes . . . that the hosts of some of the more inflammatory talkback radio shows might discipline themselves similarly.Madam President, I seek leave—I have already discussed this with the whips—to table this document which contains the background to the development of the code of race ethics, the details of the code itself and the names of all people and organisations to whom it was presented on Human Rights Day in 1996.Leave granted.483822:49:004838Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I rise to speak on a familiar topic for me—that is, electromagnetic radiation. Tonight I thought I would update the Senate on that issue from some examples of research overseas and here in Australia.In 1996, I drew the Senate's attention to the fact that the standard governing emissions of radiofrequency radiation in Australia and New Zealand was about to be relaxed. Fortunately, the government took action at that time and that did not happen. I also drew the Senate's attention to the fact that the subcommittee of Standards Australia dealing with this issue was made up primarily of industry and military representatives. Until recently, there was no-one representing the Australian consumer, but the Consumers Federation of Australia has now appointed two people to that committee for this task. I congratulate Standards Australia and the Consumers Federation for their efforts in this respect.Another step in the right direction has been taken by the Wollongong Council in New South Wales, which has implemented a policy for the siting of communications infrastructure that takes into account community concerns regarding the health effects of microwave radiation from mobile phone towers. This policy reflects the community's desire for a precautionary approach for the siting of mobile phone towers. My office still receives calls and correspondence from people around the world, especially some local elderly people who say that their health is suffering as a result of living in proximity to a tower.The New South Wales Local Government Association has set the stage for such policies in its recommendations to councils last year to set limits on how close towers should be installed to residences, schools, hospitals, et cetera.Since deregulation of telecommunications last year, many community groups have been successful in working with their local council to negotiate alternative siting with the carriers. Their successes have meant a great deal to the communities concerned and, while being reported in the local press, were not covered by the broader media, giving the impression that the concern had died away. But I can assure the Senate that it has not.The number of community groups interested in this topic or involved at the grassroots level is becoming extensive indeed. I will mention a couple of those groups which have joined up, as it were, to form some sort of coalition. They are the NSW EPA, Choice Magazine, Total Environment Centre, EMR Alliance of Australia, Albury-Wodonga Environment Centre, North Coast Environment Centre, Radiation Awareness Network, United Firefighters Union, Workers Health Centre, Australian Chemical Trauma Alliance, Integrative Medicine Association, the National Council of Women of Australia, Naturopathic Practitioners Association, Natural Resonance Products, Monash University, Wollongong University, Sutherland TAFE, Microshield Industries, and the list of groups which are working in some way in this field and have contacted my office goes on and on.In developments overseas, Dr Kjell Hansson Mild of Sweden's National Institute for Working Life in Umea has released a two-year study of 17,000 mobile phone users in Scandinavia. They showed a 30 per cent incidence of headaches and other complaints amongst Norwegian users of mobile phones and the number of people presenting symptoms rose rapidly according to how much time they spent talking on their phones. Dr Bruce Hocking has said that this finding is consistent with his study on mobile users last year. Dr Hocking has also just completed a study showing an increase in blood pressure in mobile phone users equivalent to that experienced during vigorous exercise.In the UK, scientist Roger Coghill has served a summons on a retail distributor of Motorola and Orange mobile phones under Britain's Consumer Protection Act. His claim is about the failure of distributors to put labels on the phones warning of the potential health risks. He has also looked at the way mobile phone coverage has spread across Britain and said he was shocked to find that it was followed by a regional sharp increase in lymphoma. The Senate will recall that last year a study was released of research into mice which were exposed in the Adelaide hospital to electromagnetic radiation and that the result was that double the number of lymphomas were found in mice exposed to the frequencies.Also in the United Kingdom, a 27-year-old woman is currently taking action against phone manufacturers for a brain tumour which she claims was caused by the use of a mobile phone for an hour a day, six days a week. The firm representing her is also representing other such cases. Similarly, victims of brain tumours in the US are suing the industry. I have just received correspondence from a private telecommunications company in Texas, America, which has carried out extensive and detailed measurements of both mobile phones and microwave ovens and discovered that the frequencies and power levels of the phones are somehow related.In Sweden, the National Board of Health and Welfare has recommended that the government create electromagnetic radiation free zones in Stockholm. This proposal has been endorsed by three political parties—the liberal party, the socialist party and the environment party—who say in a letter to the City Planning and Building Control Committee:It is urgent that one or several electromagnetic free zones are investigated before the community has locked its position in an altogether too high coverage of mobile telephone antennas.At least some governments are listening to the concerns of people in the community. In Europe, the Italian parliament is currently discussing the possibility of a more stringent emission standard, with the cost of reducing electropollution going to taxpayers. In the US, a coalition of citizens and citizens associations has challenged the FCC radiofrequency radiation rules, which it says are endangering public health and violating constitutional laws of free speech, due process and reserved state powers.The Ad Hoc Association has filed an 80-page brief in the US Court of Appeals in New York. Their demands are broad ranging and include a request that the standards agencies take into account scientific findings showing adverse health effects to biological systems when exposed to non-ionising radiation. The Japanese government has also committed funds for research in this area, with many Japanese scientists assisting in the global effort to find a mechanism for cellular damage.Back in February, I wrote to tree National Health and Medical Research Council. This eminent body, the Senate will recall, is the one which decides how the $4.5 million which the government earmarked more than a year ago for research into the possible health effects of electromagnetic radiation will be spent. They have set up what is called the Electromagnetic Energy Expert Committee—the EME Expert Committee. Of course `energy' sounds so much nicer than `radiation'. I wrote to the committee because I was concerned that this committee, the one which hands out those dollars and which we were assured by the government would be absolutely independent from the telecommunications industry, has as a member Dr Ken Joyner. I have said before in the Senate that Dr Joyner is a well qualified scientist and I take nothing away from his fitness for this task, except that he is employed by Motorola. He was also quoted in the Financial Review in April this year as saying that there is no possibility that mobile phones are involved in a cancer scenario because the power output of phones is just too low.For years, scientists have been saying that the risk is about power, but we all know that it is nothing to do with that; it is about frequencies. Dr Joyner was also the first to criticise the Royal Adelaide Hospital study which showed that genetically engineered mice contracted lymphoma at twice the expected rate when exposed to radiation similar to the levels emitted by digital phones. What did he complain about? He said the mice were genetically engineered to be cancer prone. We all knew that; that was the whole point of the exercise. But even as recently as in April, he was saying that that study was next to useless.Anyway, the co-chair of the Electromagnetic Energy Expert Committee wrote back to me and said that it was okay that Dr Joyner was on the committee. He said:We said that bodies funding programs on electromagnetic radiation should only be chaired by people who have not been identified with industry interests in this issue.So presumably you can have the committee stacked to the eyeballs with industry reps but, provided the chair is independent, that is okay. The reply to my letter then goes on to further demonstrate the fitness for the task of this committee by advising that Mr Max Suich, one of the co-chairs, resigned on the day he was retained on a marketing consultancy by a phone company. (Time expired)484023:00:004840Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—In 1988 the then European Community restricted the use of anabolic agents in animal husbandry. Since that time, the United States and Canada as a primary party, and Australia and New Zealand as a third party, have been arguing their rights for unrestricted beef importation into the EU, through the World Trade Organisation.Australia does use growth enhancing hormones in some beef production. To maintain its $83 million beef trade quota into the EU, Australian producers have spent considerable funds and time imposing special procedures to ensure that our meat is hormone free, to comply with the EU's strict guidelines for importation.The EU's stated reason for legislating against the importation of meat from animals fed growth promoters includes public opposition, the likely growth in beef production in an already overburdened market, and a possible fall in consumption. The cynical amongst us may suggest the EU is protecting their own meat industry. But for whatever reason the EU implemented the legislation, buyers state that opinion polls have shown that EU meat eaters prefer the meat they eat to be free of added growth promotersThe question is: should farmers be allowed to use substances that promote growth of livestock? In 1988, when the EU legislated the restriction, growth promoting agents were few in number. Today, there is a whole array of growth promoting agents for the producer to choose from: antibiotics, preparations of natural reproductive hormones, synthetic chemicals and growth hormones. Suppressing the effects of metabolic enzymes by means of antibodies and exposing the animals to periodic light adjustment have also been experimented with.But are any of these methods safe to use? Can they damage the health of the animal? Can they damage the health of the people who eat the meat? The industry believes there is no reason to suppose that the use of reproductive steroid hormones is dangerous to meat eaters. But what about the animals? There is evidence that the animals might not be so lucky. Bovine growth hormone is sanctioned for use in Australia. Because of the EU policy, the United States, via the World Trade Organisation, took the EU to task in an endeavour to win compensation for its beef producers. Failure of any scientific evidence to show any danger of hormone treated beef to human health was behind the US decision to challenge the EU. The US stated that the EU ban violated the Uruguay Round trade rules that stipulated that trade curbs imposed on health or safety grounds must be justified scientifically and not be based on prejudice or used just as a trade barrier.The World Trade Organisation, in May last year, did rule against the EU. They ruled there is no scientific justification for the EU ban and that the EU failed to produce any risk assessment to support its ban of hormone treated beef. Meat and public health are sensitive political issues in the EU, however. The BSE scare is, not surprisingly, uppermost in people's minds. The words `Mad Cow Disease' are well chosen for a scare campaign.Despite the WTO ruling, the EU declared it would not drop its hormone ban, and it did not. The EU used its right of appeal. On 29 May this year, the arbitrator circulated his report to members ruling in favour of the US, giving the EU 15 months from 13 February 1998 to alter its legislation to allow the importation of meat from animals treated with growth-promoting hormones. Australia spends a reported $10 million a year on ensuring that its meat, destined for the EU, is hormone free.Will Australia maintain its costly program to service the emotive market for hormone-free meat? To safeguard its reputation for quality meat, my state, Tasmania, is taking a stand against hormonal growth promotants. The EU stance suggests that customers want pure, high quality meat. The beef industry in Tasmania is worth $250 million. The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association's Meat Council moved in December to control the use of growth hormones on Tasmanian cattle. It is taking a position against the US and the rest of Australia. The council is not banning the use of hormone growth promotants altogether, it wants the authorisation for use to be put in the hands of the Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industry and Energy. Tasmanian beef producers have not used growth promotants since 1995. The EU and, importantly, Japan have very clearly indicated that they do not want meat treated with hormones. The decision therefore is a marketing issue and is not made on scientific grounds. The consumer demands meat free of hormonal growth promotants, and the Tasmanian industry delivers. After all, the consumer is the ultimate customer.It is ironic though that, despite the stance taken in Tasmania, supermarkets can still bring into our state and sell meat from animals treated with growth-promoting hormones. A call for packaging to indicate where hormones, genes or other methods have been used on meat would be the ultimate test, as too would be the increased price of compliance being added to the differentiated product. It is interesting, isn't it, talking of meat free of hormones or genes being differentiated? Once it was the standard article. But shouldn't we the consumer, supposedly in charge of our own health, be given the option of purchasing all food, including meat, with or without genetic engineering or hormone growth promotants? Perhaps there is no scientific evidence of harm to our health, but the consumer should at least be given the choice. Coming from Tasmania, Tasmania's disease free status is aggressively guarded, and I have certainly attempted to do that through my role in this Senate. And now, our customer focused, hormone growth promotant-free stance adds to the state's pride in our cleanliness of food and environment. I thank the Senate.23:08:004842Senate adjourned at 11.08 p.m.Documents48424842The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Postal Corporation Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 183.Carriage of Goods by Sea Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 174.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Exemption No. 23/98.Instruments Nos CASA 205/98 and CASA 206/98.Corporations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 184-186.Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 —RHQ Company Determination No. 6 of 1998.Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 194.Insurance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 189.Insurance Contracts Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 195.Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 190.National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 182. Live-stock Transactions Levy Act and National Residue Survey (Sheep, Lambs and Goats Transactions) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 181.Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 173.Public Service Act—Locally Engaged Staff Determinations 1998/27 and 1998/28.Reserve Bank Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 188.Retirement Savings Accounts Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 176, 178 and 192.Student and Youth Assistance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 179.Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 196.Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 197.Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 175, 177 and 193.Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act—Declarations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 168-172.Taxation Determinations TD 98/13-TD 98/16.Workplace Relations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 187.Answers to Questions on Notice4843The following answers to questions were circulated:4843(Question No. 1132)11324843Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator ColstonPF4QLDIND00 asked the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:(1) How many 013 or similar telephone operators, including call connect operators, full-time staff and headcount, were employed at Cairns, Gold Coast, Ipswich, Maryborough, Nambour, Rockhampton, Roma and Toowoomba as at 10 December 1996, 30 June 1997 and 31 March 1998.(2) What were the totals for these eight locations and for each date in paragraph (1).(3) (a) From which location or locations in Australia are call connect services provided; and (b) how many are employed at any of the locations in paragraph (1).4843Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from Telstra, is as follows:(1) Telstra has advised that the following table sets out headcount details of telephone operators employed at OAS centres and includes full time staff, part-time and contract staff:LocationStaff Levels31/12/96*30/6/9731/3/98Cairns84#7865Gold Coast115117118Ipswich333330Maryborough797382Mackay**676753Nambour121115104Rockhampton110106Roma565441Toowoomba115108147***- National DA Cell Connect Centre11510820Total Country785755746***- National DA Call Connect Centre20* 1996 figures are only available as at 31/12/96** Mackay has been included in order to illustrate full Queensland workforce allocation.*** Includes 20 National DA Call Connect Centre staff.# There have been changes in demand and increased efficiencies in Operator Assisted Services, Queensland. As a result, a number of operating staff at some centres, such as Cairns, have elected to move into other areas of Telstra's operations.(2) See answer to question (1).(3) Telstra has advised that National strategic sites for call connect services are located at Toowoomba, Hobart and Lismore. Telstra has further advised that two other centres (Gold Coast and Dromana) handle call connect traffic on an overflow basis only and consequently staff at these centres are not specifically allocated to handle such traffic. Telstra has also advised that there are 20 staff employed at the Toowoomba National DA Call Connect Centre.4844(Question No. 1194)11944844Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 May 1998:(1) Is the Minister aware of the campaign by Bronwyn Davis of Hobart's Prego Restaurant reported in the Mercury, 11 May 1998, against the proposed tips taxes.(2) Is the Government considering such taxes or has the Australian Taxation Office entertained the option; if so: (a) has the Government dismissed the option; (b) what representations have been made to or by the Minister alluding to tips taxes during this period of office; (c) what impact would such taxes have on employment; and (d) is there a means of ensuring such a tax is tailored to each individual's income derived from tips.4844Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Yes, I have been advised about an article in the Mercury of 11 May 1998, which refers to a campaign by Miss Davis against a supposed tips tax.(2) The Mercury article suggests that the Government is proposing to introduce a tax on tips received by workers in the hospitality industry as part of its tax reform proposals. The Government will announce its tax reform proposals at the appropriate time. But in any event, the article ignores the fact that tips are already subject to income tax under existing tax arrangements. Tips received by waiters, hospitality workers, taxi drivers and the like are ordinary income, which is taxable in the same way as other income. This has been the tax position in Australia since at least 1936.4844(Question No. 1197)11974844Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BourneTW4NSWAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1998:With reference to the next round of the proposed bilateral dialogue between the Governments of China and Australia:(1) (a) What is the date of the talks; (b) where will the talks be held; (c) who will be party to the talks; and (d) what are the issues to be discussed.(2) Will the Australian Government raise with the Chinese Government the issue of human rights, with particular references to the situation in Tibet and Eastern Turkestan.(3) Will the Minister be seeking input and/or advice be sought from non-Government organisations (NGOs) in the development of the Government's briefing material.(4) Will any NGOs be present at the talks, either as observers or participants; if so, who will they be; if not, why not.4845Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) The talks are expected to be held in August; (b) the talks will be held in Canberra, followed by associated discussions with various institutions in one or two other cities, the details of which have yet to be finalised; (c) the composition of the respective delegations is also still to be finalised; (d) although the agenda is yet to be finalised, we anticipate that the talks will provide an opportunity to follow up on a range of issues raised last year in Beijing, including the human rights situation in Tibet and that affecting other ethnic and religious minorities within China, treatment of dissidents, and China's progress in accession to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).(2) As indicated above, the situation of human rights in China will be raised, including the situation of ethnic and religious minorities.(3) and (4) These are officials-level talks, which form part of a comprehensive pattern of bilateral discussions with China on a range of issues, including disarmament and regional security, international and regional political issues, economic issues, aid, cultural and consular issues. We regularly consult with the Australian NGO community on a wide range of human rights issues, and will continue to do so in the lead-up to the Australia-China human rights dialogue as part of our efforts to ensure that Australian community concerns are reflected in the dialogue discussions. As was the case last year, we will provide a full post-dialogue briefing at the next round of DFAT-NGO human rights consultations.