1998-07-083817SENATE519501998-07-08The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills5195r4555195Debate resumed from 7 July 1998, on motion by Senator Minchin:That the following report from the committee be adopted: The committee has resolved not to insist on the amendments made by the Senate to which the House of Representatives had disagreed and has agreed to the amendments made by the House.upon which Senator Bolkus had moved by way of amendment:At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate:(a) expresses its concern that indigenous people were not consulted in the recent negotiations on the bill and notes from the statement issued by the National Indigenous Working Group on 7 July 1998 that indigenous people do not consent to the bill in its current form and have not endorsed the bill in any previous form; and(b) notes the inadequacy of the bill to deal with the implications of the Federal Court's decision in the Croker Island case".09:31:005195Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—This parliament has come to the end of the longest debate since Federation on a particular measure, namely, the Native Title Amendment Bill. The length and intensity of this parliamentary debate and consideration of the matter were completely justified because this bill deals with the rights of the Aboriginal peoples of this ancient land and deals with the interface of those rights with the rights of other Australians.The parliament was given a challenge by the High Court of Australia in the Mabo decision. The Mabo decision, as we all know, did away with the legal fiction of terra nullius. The parliament responded to that by the 1993 legislation. We, of course, have since found that there are difficulties with that legislation. The legislation is not delivering justice as it was intended to do. It is not delivering as it was intended to do for the indigenous people of Australia.The High Court in the Wik decision has presented the parliament with another challenge—that is, a challenge to consider the implications of the possibility of native title rights co-existing with the rights of pastoral leaseholders, and to do so in a manner that reflects the decision of the High Court.As has been said in this debate, it has not been a matter of the High Court granting native title. It has been a matter of the High Court acknowledging the underlying existence of native title. Our response, I believe, has been in the finest traditions of this parliament. The parliament has exercised its true functions—the House of Representatives and the Senate.I stand here, as a member of the Senate, acknowledging the fact that we in this chamber have exercised our true function of review. We are not the government. The government is elected to govern, but we are elected to review legislation and particularly to do so against the requirements of our function to uphold human rights. We have done so, and the government has responded. The government has responded by accepting 314 amendments to their original Native Title Amendment Bill. I believe, as a result of this, that the purpose and effect of the bill have been radically altered.The result is that, after this vote, we will have legislation which upholds and preserves the common law native title rights of indigenous people and provides the mechanism for the practical realisation, the efficient realisation, of those rights, in a way that also provides fairness and certainty to the other stakeholders, particularly for the miners and for the pastoralists.I am personally pleased that we have come to a satisfactory end, a satisfactory legislative conclusion, about this matter, on the basis that I have said. I am personally pleased for many reasons. I will just give you two: first, because of my familial relationship with a particular indigenous group; and, second, the fact that I have been a supporter of indigenous rights over many years.I sometimes feel a little upset when you hear dogs barking at your heels. I can recall, when I was Secretary of the Trades and Labour Council in Tasmania and a member of the ACTU executive, being intimately involved with the activities in the mid 60s to achieve wage justice for the indigenous people of Australia. Where were some of these people who are accusing me of selling out indigenous rights? Where were they? I believe that this outcome is a most important outcome.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, on a point of order: Senator Harradine is making a very significant and in many respects—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You are not in your correct seat, Senator Alston. You cannot be heard.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Sorry, Madam President. It is now, I think, just over six minutes into this speech, and we have had 13 separate interjections from Senators Brown and Margetts. I would ask you to be strict in ensuring that Senator Harradine is accorded the respect that he is entitled to in this chamber.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—What about respect for Aboriginal people? Where's that?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Margetts, cease shouting! I call Senator Harradine.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—The parliamentary debate on the Native Title Amendment Bill has now concluded. It has ended. It is now up to the stakeholders, to the indigenous peoples, to the miners, to the pastoralists, to the state governments and to the federal government to see that this legislation works in the best interests of all.It is gratifying that the miners, the pastoralists and the state governments have indicated a willingness to work with the legislation. That really is a remarkable situation—as those who have been intimately involved in the discussions would be able to tell you, if they could. I say that it is remarkable because these very same people objected strenuously to Mabo and to Wik. I give credit, frankly, to them—although they have come to the realisation late in the piece—for agreeing to try to work with this legislation to see that it works properly.My hope is that the indigenous peoples will see that this legislation can work to their advantage and that they will see that it does. Already, the Chairman of ATSIC, Mr Gatjil Djerrkura, has expressed that he is comfortable with what I have done in this particular matter. He and other members of the indigenous communities are, of course, concerned about substantial aspects of this legislation. One of the constant concerns has been expressed as though I am responsible for it; that is, the wholesale validation that will take place as a result of the actions of a Labor Premier in Queensland, Mr Goss, and his successor, Mr Borbidge. That was not a matter that was determined by my vote. It was a matter of agreement between the government and the opposition.I would like to remind the Senate that, after the last debate, it was agreed, it was acknowledged, that there were four sticking points. There were more, of course, but the four principal sticking points have now been resolved in a manner that upholds the native title rights of indigenous people. That is absolutely clear, and history will prove that. There were a number of other significant amendments and improvements to this legislation which I am grateful the government agreed to.I think there were about 88 amendments in this particular series, but I will mention just a couple. There is the crown to crown grant situation: have a look at what happened there. There is the question of extinguishment when rights are determined between pastoral leaseholders and native title holders or claimants. Of course, in accordance with the Wik decision, the former takes precedence over the latter. It was proposed in the legislation that those interests be extinguished. This bill does not extinguish them; it simply suspends them until the lease ceases, runs out. We have left to the common law the decision as to what occurs then. Hopefully, the common law will determine that they are to be revived.Madam President, I put to you that there are a number of Caucasian Australians who will benefit in unexpected ways. For example—I will not mention the state—the government accepted my proposition that when it comes to compulsory acquisition, the decision as to whether the acquisition is meritorious or not will not be left, as is now, for Caucasian residents of that particular state, in the hands of a public servant, but must be dealt with by an independent tribunal. This will benefit no doubt not only the indigenous people of that state but also the Caucasian residents of that state.There were a number of other matters which were dealt with, but I will not go into those. Suffice it to say that a huge amount of work has been done on this matter right from the beginning. I know that there were substantial discussions, negotiations, et cetera by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and others with stakeholders leading up to the introduction of this legislation. There were also a large number of discussions with other people last year and this year. I was very disappointed at the outcome before Easter, but I had been thinking of the matter all of those days since Easter, and a great deal of work had been done.I want to acknowledge a few people. I thank my wife and family for their support, and I am sure all honourable senators feel that way with their families. I want to also thank the officers of this Senate and the way I have been advised by them. Indeed, the way that this legislation was able to be dealt with in only two days is the result of the advice given by Mr Harry Evans. I want to thank all of those who contacted my office. Unfortunately, the mainframe was jammed on a number of occasions because of the emails that were coming in. Because of my small staff, I cannot possibly acknowledge them in writing, but I do so now. I want to thank my small but dedicated staff.The professional advice given to me by John McCarthy QC and Jeff Kildea has been shown to be absolutely first-class. I have not of course always followed that advice, but I take responsibility for that. I would like to thank Philipa Horner and Robert Orr, members of the government's Wik task force, and Catherine Murphy, and Senator Minchin. Nobody around this place can deny that Senator Minchin has an absolutely accurate and deep knowledge of this issue. I want to thank the Prime Minister as well, because I believe the Prime Minister has shown that he put the interests of this country above sectional interests or political interests. I know Senator Lightfoot will not mind my thanking him. At a particular stage, he said something publicly which threatened `to throw a spanner in the works'. I can assure him that that strengthened my resolve and after that I got a couple more things out of the government which I did not think I would. So I thank all of those people. I also thank Father Frank Brennan. Actually, he had not been involved in the preparation of the amendments, but I have had a great regard for his writing on Aboriginal matters over many years.Before I conclude I would like to put this matter all into context. If my negotiations with the government had not achieved an honourable, just and workable outcome, then I would not have voted for or supported the bill. I was motivated to reopen the discussions. Put yourself back to three weeks ago: we were heading headlong into a divisive double dissolution election which would have torn the fabric of our society and set race relations back 40 or 50 years. That is where we were heading and everyone around this chamber knows that is where we were heading. But I wanted to avoid that, but I was not prepared to purchase that avoidance by sacrificing the native title rights and interests of indigenous people.We now have an opportunity to move forward from the bitterness which has divided the nation over the last few years. If we give the amended Native Title Act a chance to work, I am confident that in time indigenous and non-indigenous, country and city, will be reconciled on this issue. The community's recognition of native title after 200 years is not the panacea which some people believe it to be, nor is it the demon that others have tended to characterise it as. It is a crucial aspect of the ongoing process of reconciliation which we must continue to pursue with justice and fairness. With these amendments to the Native Title Act, we can put in place a firm foundation for our future.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—So we come to the end of what I believe—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no reply to an amendment, Senator.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Are we in committee?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—We are not in committee.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Well I—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator, we are not in committee. That is the end of the debate, and there is no provision in the standing orders for a right of reply to an amendment at the end of debate on an amendment.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I raise a point of order. Once we move off the amendment, I presume we can still debate the motion that Senator Minchin moved.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—No, the debate is concluded at that point. There are two motions now to be put. I put the question that the amendment moved by Senator Bolkus be agreed to.09:57:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.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. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.35Abetz, 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. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Conroy, S. Kemp, R.McKiernan, J. P. MacGibbon, D. J.Stott Despoja, N. Hill, R. M.Neal, B. J. Herron, J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Minchin be agreed to.10:01:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)35Abetz, 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. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. 33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.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. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J. Kemp, R. Conroy, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McKiernan, J. P.Hill, R. M. Stott Despoja, N.Herron, J. Neal, B. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bills5199r5005199Consideration resumed from 3 July.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The Committee is considering the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 , as amended, and government amendment 1 to schedule 2, page 11. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.10:07:005199Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—In the debate on the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 on the last occasion, there was some discussion with the minister about the exact effect of this amendment. Frankly, there seemed to be a lack of certainty about what it meant. I was wondering whether the minister could elaborate further about the effect of this amendment. Perhaps he can talk for a while until his advisers arrive.10:07:005199Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I think the amendment to which Senator Neal is speaking now is a consequential amendment. The more substantive one that she is really addressing is in the bill itself. She is addressing the government amendment.It is more relevant to her own proposed amendment contained on sheet 1010, which proposes to amend schedule 2 in the bill itself. The government's amendment now before the chamber on sheet B98AD370WB, to which we refer, is a consequential amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to insert a drafting refinement to make it clear that the reference of part IV—restrictive trade practices proposed to be added to subsection 87(1B)—concerns applications made by the ACCC on behalf of persons who allege a contravention of part IV. This particular amendment does, however, include a reference to subsection 87(1B) in part IV but only in the context of the operation of subsection 87(1B) itself, which is amended by schedule 2 of the bill. The opposition is opposed, I understand, to this amendment, not because of what it does in legislative terms but because it has a nexus with subsection 87(1B), which is the real focus of Senator Neal's objection.10:08:005199Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The reason I ask, Minister, is that in some of our informal discussions on the last occasion, you advised that an amendment you were moving—and I thought you were referring to this one—took away the capacity for retrospective action to be taken by the ACCC. Is that the case?10:08:005199Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—That was certainly the intent at the time, Senator, but I understand that the Democrats themselves have moved an amendment which has that effect, and which we will support.10:08:005199Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—So the amendment that you referred to is not this one but one that at that stage had not yet been drafted. Is that the case?10:08:005199Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—No, Senator, this is a consequential amendment. The one that you are objecting to is actually in the bill. It is a schedule to the bill. This is only consequential on that.The amendment that I was referring to informally with you was an intention on our part because of concerns that had been raised in the other place that maybe there should be some retrospectivity. Of course, there was ultra-sensitivity, as you know, on the part of the Labor Party, with regard to the ACCC being able to take action on behalf of small business, that that may have applied to actions taken in the past by the MUA. We had indicated in those informal discussions that we were prepared to correct that because that was not the intent. However, in the meantime, the Democrats indicated that they would be proposing an amendment which would remove retrospectivity from the schedule to the bill, and we indicated we would support that.NaN:00:005200Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—My difficulty is that, as the government seems to be well aware, we are opposed to schedule 2 items 3 and 5 and I outlined our reason for that in some detail in the second reading debate, though there will be further debate on it. But it is a bit difficult having a consequential amendment before the vote on the substantive matter is actually dealt with. Maybe I should have picked this up when the running sheet was first circulated. In fact, I think we got it only as the debate began on the last occasion. Would there be any difficulties for the government in deferring this matter until we actually resolve the issues of items 3 and 5 entirely?KI4PARERSenator Parer—No, Senator; no difficulties.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—I am not exactly certain of the form but I assume I move that this matter stand until all other amendments are dealt with.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is it the wish of the committee that government amendment 1 on sheet 370 be deferred? There being no objection, it is so ordered. We now move to schedule 2, Democrats amendment No. 1 on sheet 1072.10:11:005200Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:(1) Schedule 2, page 11 (after line 19), after item 2, insert:2A Subsection 80(1)Before "(1A)", insert "(1AAB),". 2B After subsection 80(1AA)Insert:(1AAB) A person is not entitled to make an application under subsection (1) for an injunction by reason that a person has contravened section 45D, 45DB or 45E unless the first mentioned person is adversely affected by the alleged contravention.This amendment modifies section 80 of the Trade Practices Act to regulate who may apply for an injunction under the secondary boycott provisions of the act. The amendment is, in our view, necessary because of a significant change in policy within the ACCC in respect of boycott actions.The Democrats' position is quite clear and has always been quite clear: unless a secondary boycott involves competition issues, we do not believe that the ACCC should be involved. That was the longstanding policy of the ACCC's predecessor, the Trade Practices Commission, from 1977 to 1996. Not once in that period did the Trade Practices Commission engage in a secondary boycott action. Indeed, the TPC made its views known to the Senate employment committee's inquiry into secondary boycotts in late 1993 in its policy stance. I quote:It is the anti-competitive class of case that the commission, as a competition authority, is primarily concerned with. The company damage class of case, without substantial lessening of competition, is better left to private action.From 1994 to 1996 this position was also reflected in law, with section 45D, covering secondary boycotts in the Trade Practices Act, restricted to boycotts involving substantial lessening of competition and other boycotts in the Industrial Relations Act. In 1996 the secondary boycott provisions were transferred back to the Trade Practices Act.In our discussions with the ACCC and the government when we were considering the Workplace Relations Act, it was made pretty clear to us that the ACCC's primary interest would be the competition class of cases, and that is its specific brief. Its brief is not industrial relations; its brief is competition. The ACCC chair confirmed to the then leader of the Democrats that he had no interest in industrial-type boycotts not involving competition issues.We accept the role of the ACCC on competition matters, but not on industrial relations matters. Indeed, one would have thought that the objects clause of the Trade Practices Act, which expressly refers to competition, would have restricted the ACCC's role in any case to dealing with boycotts involving competition issues. This was particularly drawn to our attention by the government at the time in its arguments why the ACCC would not assume some new role in secondary boycotts beyond its historical role.However, over the last year the ACCC has, without any public announcement of a change of policy, changed a 20-year precedent and started going after secondary boycotts that do not involve competition issues. The issues concerned were industrial relations issues. This is, in our view, an inappropriate use of ACCC's scarce resources. If a company want to use the secondary boycott provisions against a union, in our view they should use their own money and not get public funding through an ACCC action. It is open under the law for a company to take action, but in our view it is not appropriate for the ACCC to be doing so where the issue is not one of competition.Our amendments seek to reinstate in law the distinction between competition and non-competition secondary boycotts and make it clear that the person suffering the damage must instigate boycott action if there are no competition issues involved. This is done by stating that the only person who can apply for an injunction in respect of the secondary boycott provisions other than 45DA, which deals with competition issues, will be the person or company affected. This will ensure that unions, often with limited financial resources, will not find themselves facing a publicly funded opponent in what is essentially a dispute of employee rights between a company and a union.The ACCC and even the minister have argued that secondary and primary boycotts like the waterfront dispute did involve competition issues. They say the issue was competition between union and non-union labour and that the so-called monopoly of the MUA to represent workers was wrong. We believe this argument is spurious. The so-called monopoly of the MUA is a right to represent workers. That is a right granted by the Industrial Relations Commission and granted under the Workplace Relations Act. It is a decision by waterfront workers to all belong to one union, and under the freedom of association rule that is entirely lawful. They are entitled to do so. Similarly, the right of workers not to join a union is also enshrined in the Workplace Relations Act and regulated by the Employment Advocate. But you cannot force people in one direction or the other; it is a free choice. That is what freedom of association means.There is, in my view, no role for the ACCC in these sorts of disputes from a competition angle. The industrial relations issues are to be dealt with by the Industrial Relations Commission and the ACCC has to focus on competition issues. If there were a competition argument, the ACCC should have used section 45DA as its tool. It did not; it used section 45DB, which refers to the primary boycott provisions. As we all know, primary boycotts are related to employment issues. I think that choice in itself shows a spurious argument from them. Accordingly, we have moved to make the matter explicit. In our view, it does not take away from the proper role of the ACCC. It confirms what that role has been over a 20-year period, and I think will put industrial relations issues back where they belong, and that is as a matter for the IRC to deal with and not the ACCC. I commend my amendment to the Senate.10:18:005201Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I thank Senator Murray for his thoughtful contribution. However, I must say, on behalf of the opposition, that we still have difficulties with the Democrat amendment, whilst accepting that it is substantially ameliorates the government's position. I am particularly heartened to hear that the government will be supporting the Democrat amendment with regard to retrospectivity. We would have opposed that retrospectivity in the provisions of all the amendments that have been moved.Whilst I do understand and appreciate Senator Murray's position, the problem that the opposition has got is essentially the definition of `anticompetitive'. As has been seen, this government is prone to use whatever weapons it has at its disposal in industrial relations, most notably and seminally displayed in the waterfront dispute. Our difficulty remains as to the definition of `anticompetitive', and our genuine fear is that it may be misused. I believe that fear has been borne out in what can only be described as the partisan activities and partisan attitude of the ACCC in the waterfront dispute. One of the articles I read described Alan Fels as a warrior in terms of the MUA and the industrial relations regimen. Our concern, therefore, is that we do not want to give the ACCC any further powers.Whilst I understand the Democrats' position and I understand where they are coming from in terms of the small business constituency, our concern is a much broader concern, which is that the government and the ACCC may be tempted to use this for a similar action down the track. Here again, it very much goes to the definition of what is anticompetitive. As I said before, the ACCC has taken a wide brief with regard to its activities and its capacity to act of recent times, and there appears to be very little indication that it will not take a similarly wide approach in the future. So, whilst understanding and appreciating the sentiments of the Democrats' amendment, we are more sceptical than the Democrats about assurances that they may have got from the ACCC. We are even more sceptical about the likelihood of this government misusing this in a way that does disadvantage organised labour, in a way that does go to de-funding unions, in a way that does substantially diminish people's capacity to be represented by unions, by taking actions in the guise of this initiative through the ACCC.Accordingly, we do not support the Democrat amendment because of that, and because of the potential breadth of the definition of `anticompetitive'. We think the ACCC has got enough on its plate. As Senator Murray rightly pointed out, we do not wish to stretch its scarce resources with additional work. Putting aside those somewhat facetious comments, we are genuinely concerned that we are giving it yet another string to its bow in relation to what has been recently a very partisan organisation.Whilst I understand the sentiments, our concern is that the Democrat amendment is narrow. I would reiterate the point that, if this type of initiative was to have been taken, it should have been done in the context of the fair trading provisions rather than what seems to be a strange and peculiar place to put this initiative—that is, in this bill. We do not support the Democrat amendment. Whilst understanding the motivation is sound, we have fears which continue to be unallayed with regard to the ACCC and the government. We will continue our opposition with regard to this and we will not be supporting the Democrat amendment because, failing a very prescriptive definition of what is anticompetitive and precisely how the ACCC and Professor Fels would use this in prospective action, it is very difficult for us to provide any assent.We do not trust the government anymore on industrial relations matters and I do not think anybody in Australia trusts the government on industrial relations matters. This government has, by its actions, empirically proven that it is not to be trusted. We do not believe that it is in the interests of working Australians to give the ACCC more power that is potentially unfettered, if you look at the breadth of the potential definition of anticompetitive. We do appreciate the Democrat sentiment and what the Democrats are intending to do, but we do not trust this government and we do not trust the ACCC. Events over the last 18 months have borne this out. We will not be supporting the Democrat amendment.I would urge Senator Murray to perhaps rethink this. It may well be, Senator Murray, that this section of the bill in relation to schedule 2 could be laid aside to allow further discussions as to the nature of what is meant by anticompetitive. I understand Senator Neal had some indication from some sections of the government that they were prepared to do this because this, essentially, is our major sticking point on this bill. We are keen to expedite it in other areas, but this is a major sticking point. We think it is very strange that it has been popped in here when it should have been part of the fair trading package. We will oppose the Democrat amendment.10:25:005203Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—This amendment moved by the Democrats would limit the power of the court to grant an injunction against a breach of the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act unless the person was adversely affected by the alleged contravention. At present, the court can issue injunctions before the action occurs. The Democrat amendment therefore diminishes existing rights and the power of the courts to take preventive action. The government opposes this amendment on the grounds it unreasonably fetters the direction of the Federal Court to grant appropriate injunctions against alleged secondary boycotts and, I repeat, diminishes the existing rights of small business.The amendment would reduce the existing rights of small business and would limit the options available to a court when dealing with alleged secondary boycotts. Since 1977, the court has expressly recognised that an injunction should be available regardless of whether an applicant's interest is affected by conduct contravening part IV. In particular it would remove the ability to seek a pre-emptive injunction to prevent an industrial dispute involving one firm from directly involving firms totally unrelated to that dispute.Removing the discretion of the Federal Court to grant such an injunction places unreasonable uncertainty on the carriage of industrial disputes and forces firms to wait until they suffer loss or damage before they can seek relief. This is a recipe for escalating disputes, with the only winners being the lawyers. Those supporting the amendment obviously believe the Federal Court is not able to use its discretion wisely with respect to its ability to grant injunctions. The government rejects this, believing the longstanding powers of the Federal Court in this area should continue.Amendment not agreed to.10:27:005203Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:(2) Schedule 2, item 3, page 11 (line 21), after "IV", insert "(other than sections 45D, 45DB or 45E)".As you would expect, the Democrats generally support granting the ACCC the right to take representative actions—those that are appropriate. But we do not believe that that right should extend to secondary boycotts not involving competition issues, as I have already spelt out. The Reid committee report on fair trading did recommend that the ACCC be given the power to undertake representative actions, particularly in respect of section 46, which is the misuse of market power provision. In its report, the committee argued that this power `will marginally improve small business access to justice'. That report was a particularly impressive one. It was unanimous, for a start, among all the major party participants. Secondly, it was a particularly thoughtful report in many respects.When it writes that it is a `marginal improvement', you have to be alert to the fact that a small business positive report was not going overboard about the potential impact or effect of these provisions. Therefore, to my mind, we have to weigh up what I think Senator Mackay fears would be the intended consequences of what we are seeing here. But there may be far greater consequences on other issues in other areas, and that is why we have to be particularly careful. It is a pity that the representative actions provisions should therefore be at risk. But they are rightly at risk in this debate because of the particular concerns we and other parties have with the other alternatives. Under representative actions, the report said the following:4.54 The ACCC submitted to the Committee that it should have the power to take representative actions for breaches of the restrictive trade practices provisions of the Trade Practices Act, including section 46, notwithstanding there is already provision for seven or more businesses to take `group proceedings' in the Federal Court.4.55 This proposal would not change the law on restrictive trade practices but, rather, would marginally enhance enforcement of the law.In other words, they had enlarged it and improved it. The report further stated:4.56 For example, if the ACCC's proposals were to be adopted, the ACCC would be empowered to take action on behalf of a number of small businesses hurt by a corporation's misuse of market power.That was obviously supported by the ACCC. For those who wish to refer to the report, the relative sections were 4.54, 4.55 and 4.56. It went on right through to 4.59.The Democrats support the general proposition of ACCC representative action powers as recommended by the Reid committee, and we broadly support the provisions in the act, but the Labor opposition has properly raised an important concern with these provisions, arguing that it will also give the ACCC the power to take representative action on secondary boycott provisions. Rather than oppose the provisions, the Democrats would instead prefer to address the concern about secondary boycotts by removing the right of the ACCC to take representative action in respect of non-competition secondary boycotts. Amendment 2 specifically, therefore, excludes sections 45D, 45DB and 45E to make it explicit. Accordingly, I commend my amendment to the Senate.10:32:005204Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—This Democrat amendment tries to some extent to limit the negative issues that arise from schedule 2, items 3 and 5 of the government's bill. I talked at some length in the second reading stage about the concern that the opposition had about this bill, which is essentially about country of origin, having slipped into it in a fairly underhand manner these provisions which allow the ACCC using taxpayers' money to pursue unions in industrial disputes in what is a private dispute between representatives of workers and their employers about their terms and conditions.It has been a matter of some discussion between me and some members of the community who see some great benefits coming from this bill. They are obviously concerned that a disagreement over matters that are entirely industrial relations are going to delay the progress of this bill. Yesterday I was contacted by Mr Bonanno from the sugar board. He was very concerned to see that this bill was being delayed, particularly in relation to an amendment that is being proposed that he believes is necessary to ensure that the sugar board does not collapse overnight.Because he is an expert in the field, I accepted his view of it and informed him that, that being the case, the opposition would like to cooperate as best we could to ensure that this did not occur in relation to the sugar board. But we had difficulty with this industrial relations matter that had been introduced in a fairly underhanded way by the government. Certainly we would do our best to get the bill through as quickly as possible, but this issue could not be resolved. We told him that he might want to talk to other people in the government about this issue. I understand that he had some discussions with Senator Boswell, who I understand is the Leader of the National Party in the Senate. Despite my having had some discussions with Senator Boswell, there seems to have been some misunderstanding between us. I thought that, by saying that items 3 and 5 of schedule 2 would be withdrawn, it meant that they would be withdrawn. Apparently that was subject to an unspoken rider about getting the agreement of the Liberal members of the coalition.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Like Telstra.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—Yes. I understand that, even though the National Party's vote is declining at the moment, the senior partners in the coalition are not so concerned about their views on these sorts of matters. I understand that Peter Reith's dispute with the MUA and his commitment to pursuing the MUA and other unions to the death overrides any concern they have for the National Party. It certainly overrides any concern that the sugar board and those people in rural areas who rely on the sugar industry might have.I am disappointed that this is holding up the bill; that it is holding up some important provisions for manufacturing in relation to the country of origin labelling. It is also holding up a very important provision in relation to preserving the sugar board. Despite my best efforts and it seems the best efforts of Senator Boswell to try to speed up this process, the Liberal Party, the senior partner in the coalition, is not listening. They are quite prepared to sacrifice the sugar board in terms of their ideological commitment to union busting. I find that very disappointing. I understand that Senator Boswell also finds that very disap pointing. I know that he has a real commitment to the rural community, but it seems that that commitment that he has personally is perhaps not reflected in this government.I suppose I cannot give the National Party advice about how they operate within the coalition, but if I were a member of a coalition that acted in that way I would be extraordinarily concerned, particularly in light of the situation at the moment where there are many people who have traditionally supported the National Party who feel that they have not really been given the due consideration that they should be in light of their fairly traditional support.There is every indication at the moment that the traditional National Party base is transferring to the new One Nation Party. To some extent it arises from the National Party not being given proper regard within the coalition and not being allowed to pursue policies that protect the people that it tends to represent.We are proceeding with items 3 and 5 of schedule 2. I find that disappointing. This government put before us a bill that is titled the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 . When I was having a flick through the standing orders—something I try not to do too much—I noticed that there is some suggestion that amendments should not be moved that actually are not in accordance with the name of the bill. I could not find anything that said that all sections of the bill proposed by the government should have some relationship to the name of the bill. It does not appear me to be in breach of standing orders.I would have thought that, in the general spirit of the way in which legislation is presented, there should be some relationship between the content of the bill and the name of the bill which gives the general public and the chamber some indication about what is contained in it. Certainly, this section of the bill—the section that the Democrats' amendment and also our later amendment relate to—has absolutely nothing to do with country of origin representations, although it does relate to the Trade Practices Act.My concern about this aspect of the bill is that, even though it ostensibly uses the Trade Practices Act as a vehicle for introducing this mechanism, it substantially changes the intention and spirit of the Trade Practices Act as it has always existed, in that it relates to industrial relations disputes. Senator Murray has already alluded to the fact that the ACCC since its creation has always seen fit—and I think quite properly—to steer away from industrial disputes and use the Trade Practices Act for what it is properly there for, and that is to deal with disputes between competitors and commercial parties.It is a matter of great concern that Professor Fels has seen fit to branch out in this way. Some people might say unfairly that Professor Fels should not have acted in this manner and I agree with that. I do not believe it is appropriate for the ACCC to venture into industrial relations. This body is essentially meant to be a fair arbiter and referee and it is suddenly weighing in as an enforcer, strongarm man or bouncer for employers in an industrial relations dispute. When a body that is meant to be an independent referee ventures in in this way not only is it improper in terms of the powers of the ACCC within the Trade Practices Act but also it erodes some of the areas that the ACCC is traditionally and properly involved in. It reduces the esteem which the community holds for the ACCC as that independent body.I suggest that Professor Fels should be cautious in extending the use of his powers into industrial disputes. Also I indicate to the government that, if we want to preserve the good things done by the ACCC and its role as an independent referee, perhaps they should not use the ACCC in this fashion.10:43:005205Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—Senator Neal made some reference to me and basically what she said was right. Last Friday I approached Senator Neal and said that there was an urgency particularly for the sugar acquisition amendment, and I asked her whether she could hurry the bill through. Her reply was, `If you get the amendment regarding industrial relations taken off, we will get it through quickly.' I then saw Senator Hill in another place and Senator Neal repeated her request. I said I would try; maybe I went a bit further than that. I did try. I approached the people who had responsibility for it and was unsuccessful. I want to make the point that what Senator Neal said is basically right. She approached me and I said that, in the interests of getting this legislation through quickly—because there is a great deal of urgency in it—I would try to get that amendment taken off, but that was not to be the case.I want to take up some of Senator Neal's responses. The reason why this bill is up now, in a line of 70 or 80 bills in a logjam in the Senate, is due to the National Party continually pushing the leadership of the Liberal Party to give this bill clear passage through the Senate. To say that I am not doing anything for our constituents is quite wrong. As you would know, every minister in this place would be clamouring to get their legislation up in the closing stages of this session. The fact that this bill is up now is testimony to my action in getting it jammed in between two major pieces of legislation—native title and Telstra.I have just about worn out my welcome in Senator Hill's office in order to get this bill up. I know the urgency of it. And it is not because we are being blackmailed by One Nation. The Labor Party have suggested to me that some of our constituents are going over to One Nation. Let me say that their blue-collar workers in the towns, particularly in the sugar areas, have gone over to One Nation. I suggest to the Labor Party that they should reconnect with their people, as we are going to reconnect with our people up there. But let's not say things about One Nation and that we are not standing up for our people. That is basically wrong. We are.I want it to be noted that this amendment is urgent. I have proved that. I have even gone to Senator Neal, because she is the spokesman for this particular area, asking if we could get the legislation through urgently. She responded in a positive way. I do not normally seek out the spokesmen on the various bills, but this legislation is urgent. If it does not go through within a certain time there will be very significant ramifications. In conclusion, I am committed to the sugar industry, as is the National Party. That is why we are getting the bill through now.10:47:005206Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The government opposes this amendment on the grounds that no justification has been made for treating the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in any way different from the other provisions of part IV. Those secondary boycott provisions provide a very important remedy for persons who suffer, or could suffer, loss or damage resulting from an industrial dispute in which they are not involved directly.There are many sectors of the community who can be affected by secondary boycotts to a greater or lesser degree, but many of those affected will not have the legal resources to seek relief in the courts. Representative actions by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission are an important mechanism to assist those people who do not have legal resources to have their cases heard by the courts. Preventing the ACCC from taking representative actions against secondary boycotts in the manner that this amendment would do would mean denying their people their legal rights simply because they cannot afford to take action. This would affect small business, in particular. It is something that the government does not wish to see happen. Therefore, we are opposing this amendment.10:48:005206Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I think I got my answer from my colleague. I know that we are debating the Democrat amendment at the moment. I wanted to make sure, in relation to the two government amendments, that when we vote we will be voting on the two government amendments separately and not together.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crowley)—The question before the chair at the moment is Democrat amendment 2.10:49:005206Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I just have a couple of comments on Senator Boswell's contribution. I appreciate that he is absolutely genuine and appreciate the efforts that he went to to talk to my colleague Senator Neal on the expedition of the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 . It is interesting that, despite positive representations or a positive hearing from Senator Neal in terms of expediting the bill, the government still remains intent on pursuing the ACCC initiatives. I think that basically bears out concerns that both Senator Neal and I have already articulated—that is, this really is not about what it seems to be about.These initiatives should not be in this bill, as Senator Neal has indicated. They should have been part of the fair trading packages, or they should have been in a separate bill. The fact that the government did not accede to Senator Boswell's quite reasonable request to withdraw the schedule 2 amendments is an indication and vindication of our position as to what the agenda basically is.It is not our wish to unduly hold this bill up because the legislative program is very heavy. We are very keen, as you know, Madam Chair, to get onto the Telstra debate. If the government ever gets around to sorting out its position on it, we may end up debating it—hopefully today. We are extremely suspicious. I appreciate that Senator Boswell's actions were utterly in good faith, and I do not question in any way at all his commitment in relation to his comments, but the response that he got from the government does add to our suspicion as to what this is about. Our position, as Senator Neal has already indicated, remains the same—implacable opposition.10:51:005207Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I ask the government: does this section have a retrospective component to it?10:51:005207Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—In response to Senator Brown, this is a Democrat amendment. I would have thought the Democrats would be in the best position to answer that.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—He is asking about the schedule.10:51:005207Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—It is a Democrat amendment to a government provision which is in the government's legislation. The government says:. . . the Trade Practices Act 1974 as amended by item 3 applies to conduct in contravention of a provision of Part IV whether engaged in before or after the commencement of that item.I ask the government whether or not this means that a retrospective component has been built into this.10:52:005207Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I am informed that item 5 is retrospective.10:52:005207Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—In these circumstances, I oppose it and will support the Democrat amendment. With regard to Senator Boswell's contribution, I totally support the desk pricing scheme for sugar in Australia. It enables growers to get a decent price and not be picked off by the big players—not least the supermarkets in this country and people purchasing from overseas—one grower as against another so that primary producers end up with the lowest possible price.I am forever amazed at the way in which primary producers spend months growing something and then end up with 10, 15 or 20 per cent of the retail price. The middle people and the city handlers, merchants and sellers who may have the product in their hand for a few hours or a few days, end up with the vast majority of the money that comes out of the sale of that product. There is something very, very wrong. This is not just a national problem; it is a global problem. The people who put the toil into the soil are not recompensed, and they are robbed by the economic rationalist policies of the government, including the National Party.Senator Margetts has fought those policies from when the World Trade Organisation provisions first came into this parliament. She fought them item by item, but they went through. I might add that the press gallery totally ignored Senator Margetts when she took on that fight in this place. At the height of their economic rationalist subservience to the then Keating government, the National-Liberal parties decided that opposition to this particular component of economic rationalism was not something that the Australian public should be interested in.The press gallery failed to report on an extremely important change in the way Australia approached the protection of its home grown industries. The outcome was not only massive job losses but falling incomes for regional and rural people in particular. It has undeniably had an impact on regional towns and cities around this country. It was the Greens, long before One Nation was ever heard of, who were fighting this trend against the big parties. It is the Greens who will continue to fight this economic rationalist concoction, which says, `Disempower the people who are the producers and hand the rights across to the stock exchange, empower the stock exchange. Disempower the parliament. Get rid of rules—hand them across to people like Professor Fels who can ensure that nobody gets in the way of anything that is going to make a quick buck.'Senator Troeth has talked about the impact the laws prohibiting secondary boycotts will have on people, but she has left out some—indigenous people, for example, trying to protect their lands against the Jabiluka uranium mine at the moment, who are effectively engaged in a secondary boycott. They are trying to boycott the establishment of a uranium mine for other purposes—so that they can keep their spiritual and physical attachment to the land. They are the people locked out, remember. It is ERA, the big mining combine, that has its bulldozers in there.The 500 people protesting up there today are effectively running the risk of being hit with a secondary boycott suit. Senator Troeth, there are other people in the constituency besides those who might be contributing to Liberal Party coffers at the next election who are affected by the laws that you are talking about. Once again, the Greens, as our friends in the Democrats will know, have fought against the tightening of provisions to prevent unions as well as community groups taking part in protests which are for the wider good on social or environmental grounds. We have not had the numbers to do that, but the chickens are coming home to roost. The Australian electorate is becoming more and more rested—it seems powerless to have a say not only about economic processes but also about life in general. So curiously enough, I support Senator Boswell as far as the desk price system in Queensland is concerned. I just wish that primary producers of everything from asparagus to—GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Zucchinis.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Not zucchinis, but we will include those as well. I wish that primary producers of all the great primary products of this country were organised to defend themselves against being picked off by the big corporations which purchase their products and make the giant share of the profit out of those products, despite having put very little into the production of them.10:58:005208Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—Thank you, Senator Brown, for that economic lecture. I would like to assure you that I saw enough truck drivers who suffered because of secondary boycotts during live sheep disputes to be quite sure that there are many people in the small business bracket who would wholeheartedly applaud what the government is doing under this section. They are not people who contribute to Liberal Party coffers. They are part of the wider small business community, and they will be the sorts of people who benefit from the support of this amendment. I would also like to say to Senator Brown that I understand that the Democrats will be moving an amendment shortly which will remove the retrospectivity of item 5 to which I have referred and that the government will be supporting that.10:59:005208Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—We understand that the Democrats are trying to fix items 3 and 5 of schedule 2. Essentially, we do not think they are fixable. Unfortunately, though we agree with their point of view, we do not agree with their methodology. So the opposition will not be supporting this particular amendment.Amendment not agreed to.11:00:005209Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The opposition opposes the following item in schedule 2:(1) Schedule 2, item 3, page 11 (lines 20 and 21)This actually represents the guts of our position in relation to schedule 2. Items 3 and 5 are the provisions in this bill which give effect to the ACCC being able to take action against those involved in secondary boycotts—in particular, against those bodies involved in industrial relations disputes. If the Democrats and those others who are opposed to this provision would like to see it removed, this is an opportunity to take schedule 2, item 3 completely out of the bill.11:01:005209Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Having had our repair amendments rejected by the Labor Party, they have, in a senatorial sense, manoeuvred me into a position where I am unable to do anything but support them in their amendment, because I am concerned that the government amendment will confirm what is, in our view, a misplaced new policy of the ACCC. Therefore, I advise the chamber that we will support the Labor Party's opposition to item 3, schedule 2.11:02:005209Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—As I have said, the government supports representative actions as a way of improving the capacity of small business operators and consumers to obtain access to justice. Representative actions are already possible for breaches of part IVA, part V and part VA of the act. The Reid committee report recommended that the ACCC be given these powers to protect small business from unconscionable conduct and anticompetitive practices.I remind the ALP that, when in government, it supported exactly this policy. In its response to the Law Reform Commission report Compliance with the Trade Practices Act, the ALP accepted the commission's recommendation that the act be amended to allow representative action for any breach of the act.Opposition to this amendment would deny support of the ACCC to small businesses and consumers who had suffered losses or damage for breaches of part IV. It would allow well- resourced parties to breach the act, knowing that ordinary Australians could not afford to enforce their rights through the courts. This would be a betrayal of the interests of consumers and small business.I remind the committee that part IV is the key Commonwealth legislation dealing with anticompetitive practices, including such practices as price fixing, exclusive dealing and misuse of market power. These are broad provisions which are relevant to all Australian consumers and small businesses. The government will not agree to the opposition to this amendment.11:03:005209Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I dispute the assumption in that statement that this provision, item 3 of schedule 2, puts into effect the recommendation of that report. That is not entirely correct. To hold up that recommendation or make that assumption and then say that the ALP supported that recommendation and therefore they should support this provision is entirely incorrect. It goes a lot further and directs itself to many other matters that were not originally contained in the recommendation of that report.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crowley)—The question is that schedule 2, item 3, stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Could you repeat what the question was, Madam Temporary Chairman?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question before the committee was that schedule 2, item 3, stand as printed, and it has been defeated. It is not standing as printed, as I understand it. Are you clear now, Senator Troeth?GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Has the opposition amendment been rejected?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—It is not an amendment; the item in the schedule has been removed.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—I would like the vote to be recommitted, Madam Temporary Chairman. 11:06:005210Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I will be tolerant about this, but the government should be a bit sharper about the matter. It is necessary to be on top of votes such as this, where there can be double negatives. We, as single representatives—Senator Harradine will know about this—have to be able to do so. So it is important that the government is able to do so. These are important amendments. Essentially, what we are being asked to do is to resubmit this matter to a vote. I am happy to do that. It will save a much longer process later in the day. But the government needs to sharpen up a bit.11:06:005210Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Senator Troeth is quite understandably confused. I came into the chamber as the question was being put and I said to Senator Troeth, `I'm going to vote against this.' That is where the confusion was. What I meant was that I would vote against the item in the schedule.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—That's fine. That's what she called.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Quite so. I am at fault here; I apologise for that. I am happy to see it recommitted, but I will be voting against the question that schedule 2, item 3, stand as printed.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crowley)—On request from Senator Troeth that the vote be recommitted, I now do so. The question is that schedule 2, item 3, stand as printed.11:12:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)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.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E.32Allison, 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.*Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. 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.West, S. M. Woodley, J.Kemp, R. Conroy, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McKiernan, J. P.Hill, R. M. Stott Despoja, N.Herron, J. Bolkus, N.Patterson, K. C. L. Faulkner, J. P.Watson, J. O. W. Forshaw, M. G.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.11:14:005210Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:(1) Schedule 2, page 11 (after line 21), after item 3, insert:3A After subsection 87(1B)Insert:(1BA) Subsection (1B) does not apply to conduct in contravention of Part IV engaged in before the commencement of Schedule 2 of the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Act 1998 .I refer the committee to amendment No. 1 on sheet 1088. The amendment relates to the retrospectivity matter that has been previously discussed. I think the issues have been aired sufficiently. I thank the government for their indicated support for that amendment.11:15:005210Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Very briefly, this amendment ostensibly prevents retrospective action in relation to items 3 and 5 on schedule 2. It only goes so far as to prevent retrospective actions by way of injunction. It does not prevent retrospective actions being taken in relation to damages. Therefore, again, it is one of those fix-it clauses that really do not go far enough to solve the problem. Bearing in mind that we are opposing item 5, we will not support this attempt to fix the difficulties—we will contain our energies to opposing item 5. Hopefully, the Democrats may see the difficulties that we have raised in terms of damages.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crowley)—Senator Murray, can you make clear to the committee whether or not your amendment is necessary in light of the removal of schedule 2, item 3? This chair does not mind if you take 30 seconds or longer to think on that.11:16:005211Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Madam Chair, I am always delighted when the chair and indeed the table pick up an obvious error. I actually knew it was an obvious error and I was just testing to see whether anybody else had picked it up. I would assume that your indication is correct, that in fact it does not need to be moved, because of the removal of the item. Would that be the opinion of the clerk advising you? I think it is correct.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I think, Senator, we have a lack of clarity and maybe we could ask if Senator Troeth and her advisers might also assist you and us.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Thank you. In the meantime, Madam Chair, would you like to me to continue with the earlier debate where we discussed sugar when we were in fact dealing with industrial relations?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—This chair sees no need to add sweetness, but we could—10000Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I am not an expert on sugar, but I do know something about bananas and I do recall that they were a moment of hilarity.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—They are probably a measure of the need for lunch, the way we are going at the moment. Senator Troeth, can you contribute?11:18:005211Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I am advised that, as item 3 has fallen away, item 5 now falls away with item 3.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The chair wonders whether Senator Troeth might actually seek information for the committee's assistance on whether Democrat amendment No. 1 on sheet 1088 is necessary in the light of the removal of schedule 2, item 3.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—I am informed that it is not necessary.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—To be clear: the Democrat amendment is not necessary with the removal of item 3 on schedule 2. We have got that clear now, Senator Murray, at least we think, on this advice. That is the understanding we are all working on.11:19:005211Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Madam Chair, I appreciate the advice from the parliamentary secretary and her advisers, and indeed your own earlier signal to me, and I withdraw Democrat amendment No. 1 on sheet 1088 accordingly.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Moving to the next item listed on our sheet, I note that the opposition and the Democrats both have identical propositions, that is, to oppose schedule 2, item 5.11:19:005211Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I do not think we need to debate this any further. It is really just to clean up and get rid of a section that made item 3 operative. For neatness, I think we should remove it, but I do not think it has any real major effect.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question before the committee is that schedule 2, item 5, stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will turn to postponed government amendment No. 1.11:20:005211Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—This is an amendment that was consequential in relation to items 3 and 5 of schedule 2. Since they no longer exist, I would not think that the government would want to pursue it.11:20:005212Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—by leave—I withdraw the amendment standing in the name of the government.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to the end of the bill. I understand that the government intends to move an amendment to add a schedule.11:21:005212Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I move:(2) Page 11 (after line 29), at the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 3—Amendment of the Trade Practices Act 1974 relating to section 51 authorisation1 At the end of Part XIIAdd:173 Authorisation for the purposes of subsection 51(1)(1) In deciding whether a person (including a corporation) has contravened section 50 of this Act, the vesting of ownership of primary products in the person by legislation is to be taken, for the purposes of subparagraph 51(1)(a)(i), to be specified in, and specifically authorised by, this section.(2) In this section: primary products means:(a) agricultural or horticultural produce, including produce that has been subjected to a manufacturing process; or(b) crops, whether on or attached to the land or not; or(c) animals (whether dead or alive); or(d) the bodily produce (including natural increase) of animals.Note: An example of agricultural produce that has been subjected to a manufacturing process is sugar cane that has been transformed into raw sugarThis amendment removes any uncertainty that may exist as to whether the statutory acquisitions of primary products under state or territory marketing schemes relating to primary products are caught by section 50 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 which governs the prohibition of acquisitions that would result in a substantial lessening of competition.This amendment confirms, once and for all, that the purchase of primary products by state or territory marketing schemes relating to primary products does not breach section 50 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The government is proposing this amendment on the advice of the Queensland state government, which has indicated it believes the matter is not completely free from legal doubt. The intent of the existing section 50 exemption is clear and the government, seeking to act prudently on this matter, is merely reinforcing this intent through this clarifying amendment.11:22:005212Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The opposition will be supporting this amendment. Once again, it is a provision that really has nothing to do with the primary purpose of the bill, which relates to country of origin. Essentially, primary produce was exempt from the provisions of section 51(1) and now we have had an marginal extension on that to include primary products that have been subjected to a manufacturing process.The list of primary products seems trivial on the face of it, but in fact it is quite extensive for those people who have looked at those sort of issues. But, putting aside the fact that it is not really trivial, I have been contacted by Mr Bonanno from the Queensland sugar board, and I understand their concerns that the way this provision operates could put them in jeopardy, so I am certainly keen to assist them. I will support the government on this amendment.11:23:005212Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—The Democrats will be supporting this amendment. As far as I am concerned, this really is a tidy up of a mess that the government made for itself. It really has to do with the whole debate about the restructuring of the sugar industry in Queensland and northern New South Wales in which there was a trade-off between a very minimal sugar tariff and the single desk selling operation which is unique to the sugar industry in Queensland and northern New South Wales.This was very controversial at the time and caused a great division within the industry in Queensland and between the two organisa tions in Queensland—the Queensland cane growers, which is the statutory body, and the Queensland cane farmers, which is a voluntary body—and I am not sure that that division in the industry has been resolved. The cane growers, being a statutory body and close to the government, of course, supported the abolition of the sugar tariff on the understanding that they would then retain the single desk selling authority. The cane farmers did not support the abolition of the sugar tariff. The Democrats were able to secure a hearing at which these issues were canvassed very widely, and then we had a strong debate in the Senate. We were supported by the Labor Party in seeking to retain the sugar tariff but that was lost.Then, after all that happened, all of a sudden, the ACCC came into the equation and said, `The single desk is now under threat because it is anticompetitive,' which put the wind up everybody, particularly the cane growers, because they had gone out so much on a limb in agreeing to abolish the tariff in order to retain the single desk issue. There was a real panic on. In order to ensure that the government did not actually betray the whole basis for getting rid of the tariff, they then moved this amendment. Of course, the Democrats support it. We have had conversations with Mr Bonanno, who felt quite estranged from the Democrats and, I think, the Labor Party over the sugar tariff issue. But we believe that this is the appropriate thing to do. We ought to fix this up and make sure that that trade-off is in fact supported by legislation because it is critical that we do retain that ability in Queensland to market our sugar through the single desk authority.11:27:005213Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—As I said earlier, I totally support the single desk scheme. I only wish that other primary producers also had the assured prices that this brings to Queensland sugar growers, and I think that other industries should look at that. If there is one further indictment of the ACCC, it is the fact that it sees this as a monopoly that should be broken down. Broken down in whose interests? Big confectionary manufacturers? Big supermarkets which want to trade off one sugar grower against another and send them to the wall? It is certainly not in the interests of rural Queensland or, for that matter, in the interests, if the scheme was available, of rural New South Wales. I support the sugar growers and I support the House in making this move.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments.5213Motion (by Senator Troeth) proposed:That the report from the committee be adopted.11:29:005213Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:At the end of the motion, add "and that the Senate: (a) notes the Government's intention to spend $1.2 million on a public education and awareness campaign about country of origin representations; and (b) calls on the Government to ensure that this campaign honestly informs consumers that items labelled as `made in Australia' can legally contain imported ingredients or components, provided their value does not exceed 50% of the cost of production, without the need to disclose this fact".If the government is going to spend over $1 million of taxpayers' money on an education campaign, presumably aimed at Australian consumers, I am totally opposed to that money going into a campaign that adds up to the mass deception of Australians, not least the people who go shopping in supermarkets and reach for made in Australia goods by preference. I think that is most Australians. What this piece of legislation does, because the Green amendments failed, is allow a mass deception of consumers in Australia. It pulls the rug from under those dinkum Australian producers whose products are 100 per cent or virtually 100 per cent made in Australia of Australian ingredients.This legislation that the government, supported by the Labor Party, has put through enables producers who have spent 50 per cent of the cost of production here in this country to get away with labelling their products `Made in Australia' with no further explanation, although 49 per cent of the cost has been accrued overseas. As costs are very often lower overseas than in this country, it means, for example, that the majority of ingredients in the product on the supermarket shelf can be from overseas but that the item still has `Made in Australia' on it.I will give an example of a jar of strawberry jam. One jar of jam can contain strawberries wholly produced in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania or Western Australia while the jar next to it can contain strawberries wholly produced in South America or South Africa. But both can have `Made in Australia' on the labels. Consumers do not know which is the Australian ingredient product or which is the imported ingredient product. There will be no ability for consumers in these circumstances to go for the Aussie made goods.I find it quite incredible that we are facing now, within the next few minutes, a vote which is going to make this deception of consumers legal. You have to have a good imagination to work out some justification for this. You know what you end up with? You end up with exporters, principally multinational corporations, thinking that the made in Australia label enhances their business. People overseas value the made in Australia label, so if they can stick that on their produce, and not have to explain that the ingredients come from somewhere else, they will get a competitive edge overseas. The downside of this is that inside this country there are many producers—in particular the small businesses that Senator Troeth talked about a while ago—whose competitive edge is that the ingredients in their products as well as the work that is put into them are from this country. They should be able to put made in Australia pure and simple on their goods and gain that competitive edge. But they cannot under this legislation; they lose that competitive edge. The factory next door, which has components made overseas, can put exactly the same label on. As I said, the consumers cannot tell the difference.What the multinationals gain in deceptive advertising legalised through this format in their exports, the dinkum Australian producers lose. It is not only the dinkum Australian producers—and I am talking about thousands of small businesses across this country, in particular primary producers in regional Australia—who lose the advantage of having their product here in Australia, it is also the 18 million consumers in Australia. This is legalised deception of the consumers. If you cannot have truth in advertising coming from government, where on earth will you get it from? This is not truth in advertising; this is institutionalised fraud. It is nothing more or less.The best defence that Senator Troeth will have when she gets up is to say that there is a label that says `Product of Australia' and that will be the 100 per cent Australian made goods. I will respond to that in anticipation, because I will not get another say here. The Australian Consumers Association has cited a number of studies done by private enterprise in this country which show that consumers do not differentiate between the labels `Product of Australia' and `Made in Australia'. Why should they? If you look at the dictionary, they mean the same thing.I suppose what this $1 million will be spent on is a futile effort to get consumers, with their lifetime habits, discerning between `Made in Australia' and `Product of Australia'. It is a con and a waste of money. I believe this amendment should be adopted because it at least says that if are you going to spend that money you should be honest about it and inform the consumers of Australia—the Australian people—that when they see `Made in Australia' on their labels in the future it can mean that up to 50 per cent is not made in Australia. It is a simple act of honesty with the people of this country.I reiterate that this legislation did not begin in this place. It began in the House of Representatives. It had a swift passage through there with no opposition. Most remarkable of all, the member for Oxley, Pauline Hanson, the leader of the One Nation Party, who ascribes to being the real Australian defender, failed to get to her feet. She failed to take any part in this debate. She, by her silence, con sented to this sell-out of Australian buyers, small businesses and primary producers.No less remarkable is the stand of the National Farmers Federation and the representative of the pork producers whose silence is deafening and, worse than that, whose consent has gone into this legislation. How dare they consent to legislation which is against the interests of primary producers in this country. It is against the interests of primary producers because, when it comes to buyers—and 80 per cent of them are in the cities in supermarkets buying foodstuffs, for example, but this applies to all other goods—their produce is going to be indistinguishable from produce coming from elsewhere around the world where costs, particularly labour costs, are lower and where there is very often government assistance for exports—and that means for imports into Australia.We have seen all the concern about dumping in this country where our own producers are up against it. What is the government doing about that? It is pulling the rug from under our own producers—and the National Farmers Federation gives it a tick and says, `We'll support this one.' I cannot find rhyme or reason in this; it defies logic. Above all, it defies the dictum that there should be truth in advertising. When governments start to deceive their own people, you certainly lose faith in government and you lose faith in representation.I am very frustrated that this matter has not been properly aired in the public arena. I feel very frustrated that there has not been a proper public debate about this. I know from mixing with Australians and, in particular, Tasmanians in recent times that people are appalled when they hear about this. They cannot believe that not only the government but the Labor Party should be supporting this form of legislation. For the Labor Party to say, `If it doesn't work, we'll fix it later,' is not good enough. The time to stop this is now. We ought to be stopping it in its tracks right now. It is a shameful piece of legislation.Putting on a label `Made in Australia' that falsely implies that it is wholly made in Australia to people buying our goods overseas is bad enough, but to be doing it to the Australian public is reprehensible. I am not alone in this because it seems that when most people I know go to the supermarket, go to a liquor sales outlet or go to a clothing shop they will, like me, look for the `Australian-made' label. It might not be sensible shopping—I might end up paying a slightly higher price—but I don't care. It is about creating jobs in this country and it is about supporting businesses that put their profits back into this country. It is about standing by this country of Australia.It stonkers me to think that in future the ability to do that is going to be defrauded by this piece of legislation. This is one of the most amazing pieces of legislation I have seen in my time in any parliament—in Tasmania or in this place. I think the government should hang its head in shame.11:42:005215Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I will need to ask Senator Brown a question about the wording of his amendment to the report for the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 but I will make a quick couple of comments. Earlier in this debate, I did point out that the government's campaign will need to be very good. I do certainly agree with Senator Brown—although I am not sure I agree with all that he said—that there will be a confusion between `Product of Australia' and `Made in Australia'. The campaign will need to be very clear at that point, otherwise it is not going to be very helpful to the Australian consumer that we have debated this legislation and passed it in this place.The Democrats support this legislation as being better than nothing. It is an advance. We have done a lot of work on this issue. We have, in fact, on a number of occasions proposed our own legislation in this place and we have conducted tests in chain stores in Adelaide which show that people do want to buy Australian products if they can understand how they can do that. It is very clear that legislation is certainly needed.We would have preferred the scheme that we came up with or some variation of that, but we are stuck with `Product of Australia' and `Made in Australia'. I am aware that the Labor Party, as well as the government, seems to be stuck on this way of identifying products. I believe it is confusing. It really will be up to the government to make it very clear in its advertising campaign, otherwise the confusion will continue.I come to my question to Senator Brown. Senator, the last few words seem superfluous to me. In (b) you say:calls on the Government to ensure that this campaign honestly informs consumers that items labelled as "made in Australia" can legally contain imported ingredients or components, provided their value does not exceed 50% of the cost of production, . . .I would have put a full stop in there rather than a comma, because I am not sure what you mean when you then say `without the need to disclose this fact'. That does not seem to add anything in terms of meaning.11:45:005216Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—The phrase `without the need to disclose this fact' means that when there are imported ingredients in a product it ought to have `Made in Australia' with a subheading `of imported ingredients'. It is not going to under this legislation; it can simply have `Made in Australia'. We believe that an education campaign should tell people that there can be imported ingredients in a product and that it will not be stated on the label. The need to disclose imported ingredients in a made in Australia product will not have to be disclosed under this legislation.11:46:005216Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—A statement has been made already by the government that they will be expending $1.2 million to try to inform consumers of the difference between `Made in Australia' and `Product of Australia'. I am not certain that what may seem on the face of it a large amount of money in buying advertising is really going to be sufficient to explain that. That being the case, I cannot see that it is at all inconsistent with the amendment that is put forward by Senator Brown.There is one other matter I would like to comment on while I am on my feet, and it relates to a comment made by Senator Woodley that the opposition seems wedded to the particular terminology that is contained in this bill. That is not the case. It is not a view I have expressed anywhere in the debate. If you understood that to be the opposition position, maybe I have not made it clear. Our position is much like yours. We see a lot of concern in the community about the failure by this government to take action since the 1996 election, and we see it preferable to have something in place. We felt that the only way to ensure that something would be in place before the coming election was to allow it passage. But we are concerned about the way it operates and the terminology and the fact that it may not be possible to explain to consumers properly the difference between those two terms. As I have said during the debate, we will be monitoring it, and if it is necessary to make changes to the terminology or to the definitions of those terms we will be making those changes in the future.11:47:005216Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—Firstly, I would like to say to Senator Brown that the government will be supporting his amendment, but there are some comments I would like to make in relation to that. Many of Senator Brown's friends may know what to look for when they go into a supermarket, a liquor shop or a clothing shop, but it is an undeniable fact that many consumers do not know what to look for. This legislation will provide them with guidance on that with a much better definition of what `Made in Australia' and `Product of Australia' are all about. This legislation is not a con. It will be informing the consumer in a way that has not happened before. There has been a wide-ranging debate on this topic. Certainly ever since I have been in the parliament it has been the subject of many committees, and it is something on which constituents often approach me when I go out and speak in public. So the government have moved on this issue.It is important to note that we have asked the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, ANZFA, to consider the need for additional regulation in the food sector. That is a more appropriate way to address this issue of providing consumers with better information than by using a general act such as the Trade Practices Act to set industry specific requirements. Education is what this campaign is about. As Senator Neal has noted, we are using a rather large sum of money, $1.2 million, on a public education and awareness campaign. We do believe that this is a sensible and fair approach. It is consistent with international practice and it will maximise the opportunities that Australian consumers have to identify and buy Australian products. This can only be to the benefit of local jobs and investment.Amendment agreed to.Original question, as amended, agreed to.5217Bill (on motion by Senator Troeth) read a third time.Miscellaneous5217Motion (by Senator Troeth) proposed:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.11:50:005217Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—A lot of requests come to us during the sittings of the Senate to exempt bills from the cut-off motion. We have a lot of requests being put to us, especially when we have a huge workload and usually at the end of a session, in relation to exempting bills from the cut-off. When we came to this particular session in parliament, there was the assumption that there was a high possibility that the government were going to shoot themselves in the foot and put themselves and the country to a double dissolution election. The government have decided that that is not a particularly good idea and have worked out a deal to get out of something which in the end they did not wish to do. There is also a tax package which has not been released yet, and the government did make some promises about the fact that that would be released before they pushed the country to election. So the situation is that we will be back here in August and we will have the opportunity to deal with the legislation that has not been shoved through in this particular session of parliament. As I said, there are two elements to this request, the main one being urgency. I believe the argument in relation to urgency on the wheat bill has been unconvincing. You only have to look at the fact that it has been brought forward to see that it is not a bill that has been hanging around for several sessions in a completed form that everybody wants and that has a start-up date which has to be met or else the world will fall apart. It happens to be a bee in the bonnet of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson). The problem with that bee in the bonnet is that it is not the same bee in the bonnet of other people in the industry.Unfortunately, although there are some spokespeople from the grains councils and so on—and we will deal with these issues more fully when we come to the bill itself—the problem is that there has not been the opportunity for other models to be considered properly. I am hearing, very strongly, that there are many people on the ground who have a different opinion from the minister. Instead of pushing this forward—not just saying, `This has to be put through because it has been hanging around for a while,' but bringing forward a piece of legislation—despite the concerns of many people on the ground is not a particularly wise thing to do.If the coalition are happy to wave goodbye to many rural and regional voters in Western Australia, that is fine. I guess they have done that on a number of other issues, whether it be trade policy or competition policy or even the issue that Senator Brown has just been talking about, truth in advertising when it comes to whether or not Australian produce is in fact Australian produce or whether it is produce bought, at high ecological and employment expense, from another part of the world because it happens to be cheaper to bring in. Whether or not such produce is of better quality or is better for our health or anything else becomes more difficult to tell with our current labelling laws. It may have been irradiated because it had to come a long way, for example. We should pursue health and food standards and standards that assist in maintaining sensible employment in rural and regional Australia. We should be creating those goods and services which Australia is good at producing but not undercutting those by rather silly means or, in this case, deception.Here we have, again, a bill which is being pushed forward by the minister, who does not seem to want to listen to the people on the ground. He has a bee in his bonnet; he wants to corporatise and to privatise. I am very grateful that the Senate has accepted the need to review competition policy but, at the same time, we are seeing a National Party minister pushing through a proposal despite the very strong concerns of the people on the ground.I have had very strong representations from Western Australia, but it is not confined to Western Australia. People on the ground throughout Australia are very concerned about the model, about the way this is being pushed through and about the lack of interest in looking at alternatives. We have a National Party minister from a party saying, `We are listening to the people on the ground,' yet they are not listening. All they needed to do was to table this legislation in the Senate, adjourn it to the next session and give the industry and the people on the ground time to talk it through. That is not unreasonable. It is unreasonable to suggest that this should be shoved through before people have a chance to build up steam and change the decision.There is no logic to what is being proposed here. In my opinion, there is no reasonable argument for urgency. There is no argument that the world will fall apart if this bill does not get put through. The Senate has been extraordinarily generous in sitting this extra week, and we are being asked to sit this extra time for a bill that has been brought forward despite the deep concerns of people from my state of Western Australia and from other states as well. Even those supposedly representative organisations are not necessarily voicing the opinions of the people on the ground.There is that wide consensus, yet it seems to me that the idea is to put this through before that wider consensus becomes a stronger voice and before they have the chance to change the proposal to meet those concerns. The coalition are never going to learn any thing about the needs and concerns of rural and regional Australia unless they actually decide to listen to what is happening on things like competition policy and to the concerns of people who say, `If it is not broke, do not fix it with something that is going to be detrimental to us and take away our role.'The coalition seem to have a fear of anything where people have a say in the outcomes of the activities they are involved in. Whether it is community based education, community based child care or community based health, we have had funds removed from people and from organisations that speak up for themselves. Here we have the farmers saying, `Listen to us, please.' If you are going to have a piece of legislation which is, one would assume, for the benefit of wheat farmers, surely you should listen to the people who are likely to be affected.They are telling me that they have been put under undue pressure. They have not had a chance to have their models considered. The minister has not been listening, and they are telling me that this is not an urgent bill. I am not prepared to stand here and vote for the exemption of a cut-off for a bill under these circumstances. I would urge honourable senators to listen to those people who are saying that we should give this a four-week break to let the bill sit and be talked about. Then, if it is as good as the minister believes it is, we will consider it in August. If the community believe it is a worthwhile bill with worthwhile outcomes, it will stand and be supported in August.If that is what you are frightened of, I guess that is why you are pushing for this exemption from the cut-off now. It is an outrageous proposal in a situation where we are being asked to put an extra week into the program. The reason for that extra week was native title and the Telstra bill. This is neither native title nor the Telstra bill and we are being asked to give extra time to consider it. That is not acceptable and I will be voting against the exemption from the cut-off.NaN:00:005218Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The opposition is also opposed to the exemption from the cut-off. At the outset of my remarks, I want to pick up the comments made by Senator Margetts with respect to the program of the Senate. It is correct, and I endorse Senator Margetts's remarks, that the reason the Senate is sitting this week is the sudden change that occurred following the Queensland election with respect to the native title bill. Let us all understand precisely where we are now and where we were a couple of weeks ago. A couple of weeks ago we were inexorably heading down the path towards a double dissolution. It was very likely, as has been indicated, that once this Senate and this parliament rose at the end of the winter session we might not be coming back. At that stage, the government was wallowing around trying to figure out what particular legislation it might want to get carried before the end of the session. It was not too sure about Telstra, because it did not know whether it had the numbers in the Senate, but it thought it might throw that into the list.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—This has been on the program for weeks, and you know it.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—I will deal with those issues quite happily in a moment, Senator Troeth, if you just keep quiet and listen. They also listed the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . This bill has some history to it, which I will come to in a moment. Following the Queensland election, when the Prime Minister was spooked by the results and suddenly decided that his grand plan for a double dissolution race based election was not going to produce the results that he had hoped, and following Senator Harradine's proposal to renegotiate the outcome of the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] , we were told in the Senate that we will probably have to sit an extra week to deal with this native title compromise. That is the reason we are here this week.If parliament had run its natural course, there is every likelihood that this wheat marketing legislation would not have even been dealt with prior to the Senate rising at its normal proposed time last week. I agree with Senator Margetts. The question of urgency with regard to this legislation has had more to do with the conjunction with the fact that there has been an extra week allocated to deal with native title and Telstra than anything to do with the legislation itself.The Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 is the second half of a package of legislation that was originally put and passed by this Senate late last year. When considering the legislation that the government seeks to bring before the Senate, if it gets an exemption, I find myself in a position of wanting to read out the previous speech I made when we dealt with the first part of the legislation. But I do not need to do that because it is on the Hansard. What is so fascinating is that everything that the opposition said on that occasion was absolutely correct, and we told you so. What happened last year when the government brought forward its Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Billis that we said this legislation should not proceed at this time because there are too many unresolved issues; unresolved issues as to the company structure, unresolved issues as to the future of the single desk—GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—That's been resolved.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Senator Troeth, you can keep interrupting, but what you are saying is not correct, and I will demonstrate it to you shortly. There are unresolved issues as to the application of taxation to growers' interests in the Wheat Industry Fund and their future interests with shares in the new corporate structure. There was at that time a range of unresolved issues, and there was also a lot of disquiet across the industry. Senator Woodley knows this, and Senator Margetts has referred to it. That uncertainty, that lack of agreement, still exists today.What we said on the last occasion would have been a far more sensible approach for the government to adopt. It should not have proceeded with its first part of the legislation late last year. Rather, it should postpone it and bring back the entire package of legislation this year. The government said, `No, we do not need to do that because what is going to happen is this: we will put through the first part of the legislation and then we will proceed to further negotiate with the industry, have those discussions and in about May this year everybody will be in the cart, they will have all agreed and then we can put the bill before the parliament and finish off the restructuring of the Australian Wheat Board and so on.' That has not happened.We have legislation before this Senate, but when was that legislation introduced into the parliament? It was introduced into the House of Representatives on 14 May. As evidence given to the Senate legislation committee shows, that was about the first time that anybody in the industry even saw this second round of legislation. The House of Representatives passed the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 on 1 June. It was then introduced into the Senate on 26 June, literally about the time the Senate was due to rise. It was the last week or so of the normal sittings of the Senate. That is when the government introduced the bill into this place.What happened? The bill was referred by the Selection of Bills Committee to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for consideration—a quite appropriate course of action, given the uncertainty and lack of agreement that existed at that time in the industry and still exists. The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee was put in the position of not even having time to advertise its hearing and making arrangements to have a hearing virtually within one or two days of the bill being introduced.It was introduced on the 26th; the committee sat on the 29th. It had to get leave to sit during the sittings of the Senate. Witnesses were hurriedly advised that the hearing was on and, fortunately, the major participants were able to get to Canberra to give their evidence. The committee was put in the position of having to prepare and table a report the next day. What a way to treat legislation and the committees of this Senate! And why? Because the government thought that they were not coming back after the end of this session and they wanted to get this legislation through before the inevitable double dissolution that was then in contemplation.When the various interests in the industry came before the Senate committee at the public hearing, they expressed serious concerns still with this legislation. It was made very clear to us as opposition members of the committee—and I am sure to Senator Woodley who was there as well—that there were very serious matters that were still not resolved to the satisfaction of all the major interests in the wheat industry. Senators would have received—as they did last year when the first round of legislation was being dealt with—correspondence from a range of grower organisations. They would have received correspondence from the Western Australian Farmers Federation dated 23 June. I would like to read part of the correspondence sent to senators. It states:Dear Senator, This is a request from the Western Australian Farmers Federation for you to block the proposed amendments to the Wheat Marketing Act that we understand are being tabled in the Senate on Wednesday 24 June 1998.When this bill was suddenly dropped onto the list in the parliament, the grower organisations around the country found out about it. They had not been given any prior warning or had any understanding as to when this bill was going to be dealt with.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Absolutely wrong.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—The correspondence proves it. They were ringing our offices and writing to us saying, `Hang on a minute. We have not agreed with this legislation yet. We have not agreed with all of the aspects of the restructuring. We want you to delay it.' This is certainly what the Western Australian Farmers Federation said in their letter. They go on:This state is uncomfortable with a number of facets of the bill, namely potential loss of the single desk from the so-called grower company in 2004 and the power granted to the minister in deciding the structure of the company.The Minister for Primary Industries has already stated his intention to create the grower corporate model, or the company, and loss of grower control in his model is almost assured over the medium term. These two factors alone are more than sufficient reasons to oppose the bill in its current form and force the minister back to the negotiating table.Contrary to statements by the minister, the Honourable John Anderson, the WA Farmers Federation has never formally endorsed the GCM—that is, the grower corporate model—presently before you. So his statement that it has unanimous grower support is incorrect.Western Australian growers produce approximately 40 per cent of the nation's wheat crop and, more importantly, 60 to 65 per cent of the nation's export wheat crop. Better than 90 per cent of WA's production is exported. The minister should not impose this legislation on such a significant percentage of the nation's producers if they are opposed to it.They go on to outline in detail their concerns about the legislation, particularly the reference to the sunset clause, their concerns about ensuring grower ownership and control in the future, issues related to the proposed memorandum and articles of association—which still have not been clarified to this date—and so on. Time does not permit me to read the entire correspondence, but at the end of the letter it says:Until a model is produced that satisfactorily addresses the grower focused requirements outlined above, Western Australia cannot accept the minister's legislation and we urge the Senate to leave the existing legislation in place until we resolve the problem.The position here is that the major export state for wheat in this country is saying that we still do not have a resolution of these issues and it would be better not to proceed with this legislation at this point in time. They are saying that there is no urgency to deal with it, but rather we should allow the issues to be negotiated and hopefully resolved.We received correspondence from the New South Wales Farmers Association. Their position is interesting, because they actually do support the legislation being carried in its current form. Providing they get certain amendments that suit them, they support the legislation ultimately to be carried by the Senate. As they outlined on 22 June in correspondence, their problem is as follows:Dear Senator, The New South Wales Farmers Association does not support the Wheat Marking Amendment Bill as it currently stands before the Senate.Then they go on to outline their particular concerns, which no doubt will be referred to later in the debate. I acknowledge that they are happy to see the legislation proceed, but they are banking on their issues being re solved subsequent to the passage of the legislation. They acknowledged in evidence to the committee that, if their issues were not to be satisfactorily resolved, they would not support the legislation.It should be a bit of a concern to the members of the New South Wales Farmers Association that they have this somewhat schizophrenic view that they are prepared to see the legislation passed in the expectation that their issues will be resolved, particularly their concerns with regard to taxation. In respect of this particular concern they have about taxation, my colleague Senator O'Brien asked Mr Martin, representing the New South Wales farmers:Let me put it to you this way: would you want us then to vote for the bill if it had not been amended in that way?—that is, amended in the way they had hoped. Mr Martin said:If an amendment were not carried, such that it had that effect, then I would prefer the bill not to proceed.. . . . . . . . .Senator O'BRIEN —Has the government given you any assurance that they will move such amendments?This is in relation to taxation—Mr Martin —I have had no such assurance from the government. Because this matter was late to account, I believe that an understanding of the matter is only just coming about.Senator O'BRIEN —Would you have senators support this bill were it not so amended?Mr Martin —Absolutely not.The position of the Queensland Grain Growers Association is similar. Whilst they, in principle, support carriage of the legislation, they too are still highlighting the fact that they have major concerns about the single desk and taxation. They are saying to us, `If we don't get those issues resolved, we don't want this restructured wheat board.' The problem for those organisations is going to be this: if the legislation gets carried and they do not then resolve those issues satisfactorily, they are going to be stuck with a restructured wheat industry that they themselves have said to this Senate they will not necessarily be happy with.In all of this, we believe the most prudent course is to not grant the exemption. That would provide further time to resolve the issues that are still of major concern to the Western Australian Farmers Federation—the major wheat exporting state—and also of concern to other grain associations in the rest of the country, but particularly those in the two major states of New South Wales and Queensland.The position of the opposition is this: we have said all along that we support, ultimately, the process of restructuring the wheat industry. In fact, we started the process when we were in government. But we have said all along, as the growers themselves have said, that it should be restructured on the basis that there is acceptance of the restructuring throughout the wheat industry. At the moment, we do not have that. At the moment, we have major grower organisations telling the Senate committee, telling members of the Senate continually, that they are not happy with the outcome, that they need more time.On that basis, the position of the opposition is we are prepared to say the legislation should not be allowed to proceed to finality in this session. That will then give us the time to finalise these issues, and hopefully legislation brought back in the next session will have the support of all the parties in the industry and can be carried unanimously by this Senate.12:19:005222Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—The Democrats are supporting the cut-off motion but, I must say, without a lot of enthusiasm. That is because the process is a real problem and has been a problem. What Senator Forshaw and Senator Margetts have said, as far as it went, was true, but it is not the whole story. We should know the rest of the story.One of the real problems for a small party like the Democrats to try to achieve the best for the wheat industry in all of this has been a process which really, as Senator Forshaw has said, has been less than perfect. Let me just say on behalf of the secretariat of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee that they were put in a very difficult position in having to call witnesses and write a report in what really was an impossible time frame.But there is more to the whole issue—that is, on this particular legislation, there are a number of different opinions, as Senator Forshaw and Senator Margetts have said, but they are coming together. That really is something that Senator Margetts and Senator Forshaw did not say, but I do believe that these opinions are starting to come together.The real opposition to this legislation is in Western Australia. But let us put on the record that there are two farming organisations at least—one of which does support the legislation, the pastoralists and graziers, and the Western Australian Farmers Federation—which have many concerns. Let me indicate also that, of course, the Western Australian Farmers Federation supports a much larger group of grain growers in Western Australia than PGA. Nevertheless, there is division even between those peak bodies. In talking to the Western Australian Farmers Federation representatives, I got from them a number of concerns which, I believe, will be dealt with by the amendments that the Democrats are moving, and by one which I believe the government is moving, to do with the single desk operation and taxation.In terms of the single desk, I know that the government is coming up with an amendment that the Democrats can support, but we will have to look at that as the debate proceeds. In terms of taxation, I understand that the government will not support that amendment, but again I guess that will be revealed in the debate. But I hope the Labor Party might because that then would fulfil one of the big concerns of Western Australian farmers and other groups. So we look to the Labor Party to support that amendment as being a big solution to the problems that Senator Forshaw has raised.It is very difficult to try to represent different states in this, because there is not only a division between organisations in Western Australia but also a division between Western Australia and the other states. I believe that that is sad. I have to say to the government and to any future government that we really have to do better. We have to do much better in our consultation process in that we need to take on board all of the concerns that are being raised. It would not be so serious if we could say, `Well, it is just a few disgruntled farmers here or there.'We are talking about divisions between state bodies, divisions within state bodies and divisions between individual farmers and the bodies who represent them. Obviously, we all have to do a better job. We are just not getting there in terms of that process. I am not going to say that I am doing the job properly. I do not know how do it. I got involved in the division in the sugar industry in Queensland and was able to do a ballot of 5,000 canefarmers, which gave us some indication, but I do not know how I could, with my resources, do a ballot of 60,000 wheat farmers in Australia.We really have to do a lot more work. Peak bodies have to do a lot more work. They have to hear. They have to be able to take on board issues raised by significant numbers of their members or we will continue to have these kinds of divisions within industry. That really is of benefit to no-one, and it is not something we should make political capital out of because it is a concern that we all have. If there is a change of government some time in the future, that new government will have exactly the same problem. They will have to deal with these issues of how do you listen to individual farmers, how do you listen to peak bodies, how do you put in place a process which takes all of those different opinions and puts them together so that individual farmers and peak bodies can own the process.The minister would probably say, `I have done all the consulting I can possibly do, and this is a decision of the government.' I understand that, but this is just happening too often in the wool industry, wheat industry, sugar industry—you name it. It is happening too often. Somebody or all of us have to put our heads together and come up with processes. Senator Forshaw, if Labor happens to win an election some time in the future, you are going to have exactly the same problem, and you are going to have to find a solution. Let us put that on the table as well.The Grains Council, which is the peak body, also has problems with this legislation. They believe that if the amendments that the Democrats are moving and the government is moving now in terms of the single desk are passed then, by and large, their concerns would be met. We will see whether those amendments get through. By and large, the peak bodies that make up the Grains Council in South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland do support the position of the Grains Council. But, like Senator Forshaw, there are certainly individual farmers who are still raising concerns.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—And those associations as well.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Yes, they are, but what they are saying to me, Senator Forshaw, is that if the amendments which are now being proposed were carried, those concerns would be met. However, they would not meet all of the concerns of the Western Australian Farmers Federation. Let me indicate that I am well aware of that. I am not convinced, however, if we had a lot more time that the concerns of the Western Australian Farmers Federation could really be met within the current structure.I think what they are proposing is quite radically different, although they say to me that they could even live with this legislation as long as the memorandum and articles dealt with their issue. That is over to the government. I cannot influence that. It might be at that point the government needs to pick up the concerns that the Western Australian Farmers Federation are raising. Their cooperative model is one that I think deserves serious consideration. I do not know if that could be picked up, but it is over to the government on that. I cannot move an amendment to the legislation which would take account of their concerns. I note that Senator Boswell has just entered the chamber. You are needed, Ron. You are needed in this debate. I think you may have something to add.So for these reasons, I indicate that the Democrats will support, without enthusiasm, the cut-off motion because we can see that Senator Forshaw and Senator Margetts have raised a lot of concerns. We are not con vinced that those concerns cannot be picked up within the debate on the legislation, particularly if the amendments are supported. So we are prepared to allow the debate to continue. We certainly have had strong representation from the Grains Council and the Queensland Grain Growers Association saying that they wish the legislation to be debated. They do not want it to be prevented from being debated this week. I am persuaded by that.With some bemusement, I discovered that I had been the subject of a couple of debates in the government party room. I have been lobbied by government members on different sides of this debate. That underlines that there is a lively debate going on, but I am convinced that we can deal with that debate if we deal with this legislation. So the Democrats will support the cut-off motion.12:30:005224O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—In speaking to this motion, I want to highlight that what we are talking about in exempting the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 from the cut-off is the difference between the bill being able to be on the Notice Paper and debated today and the bill being able to be on the Notice Paper and debated in 33 days time—that is, on 10 August, which, as far as I am aware, is the next scheduled sitting day.That is essentially the character of the motion that we are talking about. We are talking about something like a 33-day difference. That is the first proposition that the Senate has to take into consideration. That is the practical impact of the carriage of this motion. It does not mean that if the motion is carried the Senate could not proceed to adjourn the debate on the bill, were it to come on, at any time. But, if the Senate expressed the view that the matter ought to be available to be debated now, it would be unlikely that it would be taken off the Notice Paper.The other possibility would be that the government decide they wanted to take it off the Notice Paper at some stage during the debate. That might happen, were it to be the case that, for example, the Grains Council or one of the constituent organisations of the Grains Council withdrew their support for the legislation if they were to find that it was not amended in some way that they had a commitment to. They are the possibilities that we are faced with in relation to the question of whether this legislation should be exempted from the cut-off and allowed to be debated, potentially, today.When I spoke to officers of the Grains Council about what was going to happen to this legislation, the view put to me was that there was a concern that if this bill was not debated last week or the week before—because we were not at that stage going to sit this week—there was a possibility, which everyone was concerned about, that the parliament would not resume in August; that there would be an election called; that the bill which had been passed by the House of Representatives would lapse; that at some stage the parliament would resume; and that there was a question as to whether this legislation would then be re-presented in a timely fashion. The Grains Council raised the issue of whether it would be some time next year before this legislation could come back before the parliament.That was probably a concern which had some validity at that time. However, since the Queensland election, it became clear that there was a distinct possibility that the very grounds that the government has been relying upon—indeed, felt compelled, it appeared, to act upon—to call a double dissolution were likely to disappear. This morning, those grounds have disappeared; that is, the Wik legislation has been passed by the Senate in a form that is, according to all the information that the government has given us, acceptable to the government. So it would appear that there is not going to be a double dissolution election and, therefore, it would appear—given that I do give the government some credit for good sense—that they are not going to now dissolve the parliament and call an election so that we do not return in August, because they have just gone through a process, apparently, to avoid that eventuality.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—They were celebrating last week.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—Senator Sherry says that there were parties taking place, they were celebrating last week, that there was an agreement on Wik which would obviate the need for a double dissolution election.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—They've had a stay of execution, have they?ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—It was on TV. It was the lead item on the ABC.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I am happy for the confirmation from senators that that is the case because, as Senator Sherry says, this was on television. Perhaps Senator Troeth will tell us that there was an entirely different matter being celebrated.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Your demise—that's what.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I would be interested, if you revisit that matter a little later, to hear how you think that is going to occur. In relation to this legislation, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, if this motion is not carried, the government can have this bill placed on the Notice Paper on 10 August, which is about 33 days away.The basis on which the Senate ought to consider this matter is not whether the government wants the bill exempted from the cut-off now, because I do not think that is good policy, but whether there is good reason for this bill to be exempted from the cut-off. What is the reason? The only reason that has been put to me by anyone is the double dissolution factor.I think there is another reason that is in people's minds which has not been expressed as to why they want this bill out of the way. The reason was touched on by Senator Forshaw and Senator Margetts, that is, there is a package of measures which clearly is not entirely agreed at this stage; nevertheless, that package is represented in the bill which we are discussing.The Western Australian Farmers Federation are saying that they do not want this package. There has been a bit of argy-bargy in that organisation as to whether their views were properly represented in the Grains Council. The evidence given to the Senate committee inquiry was that the Western Australian Farmers Federation representative had no authority to sign up to the package of meas ures now reflected in the bill. The representative was, in fact, instructed to get the authority of the Western Australian Farmers Federation before signing up. It was alleged that that representative did sign up to the package and was party to a press release by the Grains Council which supported the package of measures which is reflected in the bill before the parliament today, the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , and certain other measures which relate to the memorandum and article of association of the new Australian Wheat Board Ltd and the structure of the three companies that are to be reflected in this legislation.The Western Australian Farmers Federation are now agitating against the package and saying they do not support this model at all. They support a cooperative model, quite a different model. I think it is fair to say that they have been pursuing their view with various senators—with me, Senator Forshaw, Senator Woodley, Senator Margetts, who is nodding, and I am sure with the government. There is an argument within the industry about that model. I have to say that it may be that that argument will not be resolved. Certainly it is the case that pastoralists and graziers support the legislation in its current form.I am not in a position to say what the numerical basis of the two organisations is, but it has been suggested to me—and I think Senator Woodley said as much—that the Western Australian Farmers Federation has a much stronger representative basis in the wheat growing industry in Western Australia. But I want to say this: the pastoralists and graziers do not support the amendments to this bill proposed by the government, if I understand the submission that they presented to the Senate committee. The pastoralists and graziers do not support the single desk. They believe it should be an entirely free market. The government has acceded to pressures from the industry in Western Australia and elsewhere on the question of ensuring that the single desk does not lapse, effectively, in 2004, as is contained in the legislation in its current form. The government proposed amendments to remove the effective sunset ting of the single desk after they were pressured by a significant number of organisations.The position on the tax treatment of the wheat industry funds is not resolved. Senators heard Senator Forshaw talk about some of the evidence before the committee as to the position of certain representative organisations of grain growers from different states on the question of what their attitude to the legislation will be if the bill is not amended in a way suitable to them. I take that to mean if the bill is not amended to ensure that at least the earnings on WIF funds—if not also the capital value of the Australian Wheat Board, as represented in the ultimate value of Australian Wheat Board B-class shares—are treated as active assets for rollover purposes subsequent to the legislation.My understanding of the position of the New South Wales Farmers Association on this matter is that, if that proposition is not acceded to, they will not support the passage of the bill. My understanding of the position of the Western Australian Farmers Federation is the same—that they will not support the bill if it is not amended in such a form. The Grains Council, when questioned at the committee, were not able to say what their position was. I took that to mean that the officers at the table were not confident that they could give an answer to the committee which would be borne out by a decision of that body. In other words, the Grains Council's position on that matter was not clear enough for them to tell the committee, one way or the other, what the attitude of the Grains Council of Australia would be if the legislation were not amended in that fashion.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—And what's your position going to be?8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—The position of the opposition? I am quite happy to deal with that, Senator, and I will come to that. In relation to the time frame of this legislation, you have heard that the bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 15 May. The drafting instructions for this bill were issued at the beginning of April. In fact, it was circulated to the Grains Council in draft form on 28 April. It was passed by the House of Representatives think on 1 June, and introduced into the Senate on 26 June.I have dealt with the timetable for the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee to deal with this matter in relation to the motion to print its report on the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . To summarise that, it is clear that the committee did not have a reasonable time to give consideration to this matter, given that we are talking about one of Australia's major export industries—an industry with sales of billions of dollars a year which affects the livelihoods of thousands of farmers in Australia and thousands of their employees.This is a serious issue. This is an issue which I think warrants a further 33 days of consideration. The reality is that consideration of this matter by the Senate would be enhanced by that further consideration. As Senator Woodley said, this is an impossible time frame. This is a time frame which is more likely than not to give rise to measures which will need to be revisited—if, indeed, they can be.One of the things I am concerned about in questioning the department and representatives of the Grains Council about the grower corporate model that is reflected in this legislation—the new corporatised Australian Wheat Board—is that there is no fall-back position, that this is the position the industry must go on with. If there is an error in this formulation, there is no plan to correct it. There must, therefore, be ultimate confidence in this package by the government and by the council. And I hope, if the legislation is passed, that their confidence is borne out.I am concerned that the evidence before the committee is that there is not a fall-back position, that there is no escape clause—that this is it. We are making changes to this perfect model apparently on the run and there are issues that remain outstanding. I am doubtful that Senator Woodley can be confident that, as he puts it, the different opinions are coming together. They appear to be, to me at least, as far apart as they were when this legislation appeared. The issues are as stark. The only matter that appears likely to be resolved is the issue of the single desk, and there are still some grey issues about that.On the question of the tax amendment, the opposition has informed the Grains Council that we will not be supporting Senator Woodley's amendment. The opposition believes that the treatment of the WIF contributions, together with an amount to reflect the depreciation value, not being treated as taxable assets—in other words, they have been deducted without the deduction of tax and they will be recoverable through the B-class share sale as non-taxable assets; that is the position, as we understand it, that has been reported to the committee—is quite an advantageous position for grain growers and we would not be supporting amendments to improve upon that position. We will deal with that further in the debate on the matter. I believe the government understood our position to be that.It would appear, unless the government changes its position, that Senator Woodley's amendments will not carry. That leaves us not knowing what the Grains Council's position would be. I assume the New South Wales Farmers Association will withdraw their support for the legislation. I do not know if that is the case. They may change their position again. It just goes to show that we are dealing with this legislation on the run. If this motion is not carried, then the government will be able to introduce the legislation on 10 August and we would have a further 33 days to give consideration to these matters and refine them.Given that I agree with Senator Woodley in that the committee and all parties have had an impossible time frame to meet, I am rather concerned that we are trying to sweep this matter out of the way so that all those people who have been involved for years can say, `Oh, thank goodness this is over, we can get on with something else,' irrespective of whether we end up with the correct package or not. I urge the Democrats to reconsider their position and to vote against the motion exempting this legislation from the cut-off. What is lost by that is 33 days. What is lost by them taking the alternative position we do not know, but it might be a lot worse.12:49:005227West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—The Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 would seem to be not the most preferred option. The industry is still negotiating. What is the haste? Is it related to something needing to be debated in here which may take a bit of time so that they can avoid the Telstra issue for a bit longer?GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—No, that's not it.1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—That is not it. That is another matter the bush is very concerned about. It is quite apparent from the correspondence and from the evidence given to the committee that industry will not vigorously oppose this. They have preferred options. They would prefer further consultation and further negotiation. This is coming from a government that is supposed to be the friend of this group. When you see so many differing opinions, you wonder what consultation has taken place and whether it has been adequate.As Senator Woodley has said, he expects that a compromise will be reached in the near future. Why then are we debating the bill now? Why is it not being allowed to wait for an additional 33 days for the industry to continue its negotiations, to work out the best option for the whole of the industry and for the whole of Australia? I do not know what the situation is. I hope that negotiations and discussions will continue with the industry after the legislation is passed. When we come back here we will again be told that this is urgent legislation.If the government had got it right in the first place, we would not be facing this prospect. There are rumours in the corridors now that we will be back here next week. The reason for coming back repeatedly is obviously that the government is not getting through its negotiations and consultation processes accurately and adequately. After the consultation and negotiation processes have been completed, we will have to come back and do it again. That does not lead to certainty in the industry or to good government and good legislation. This is something this government has to think seriously about. This year, as the good season continues, we will have a good crop in many areas, particularly in New South Wales.But the government has still not completed its consultation with the industry as to what is the best marketing or selling method. We know the industry prefers single desk, but it is imperative that this government actually undertakes constructive and meaningful consultation and brings in legislation after that consultation has been completed. It is not happening here. I would wager anything that we are of—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—What about the National Party?1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—The National Party, I notice, are not even in here. They are probably out there trying to screw a deal on Telstra.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Are they here supporting their minister? It doesn't look like it.1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—That is absolutely correct, Senator Margetts. I should not pick up interjections, that is disorderly, but it is well worth noting that the National Party are not present in this debate. I hope they are going to speak later on in the debate because they claim to be the ones who represent the country areas—but one has to seriously wonder. I know the Liberal Party will tell me they have more seats in rural areas than the National Party. The senior partner in the coalition—GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—We are a coalition.1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—Yes, Senator, but some of those coalitions can falter. What we have to see with this bill is a coalition of the grain industry, the wheat industry, across this country. Because situations do vary from state to state—New South Wales and Western Australia would be the two largest producers of grain, but wheat is produced in other states—there has to be a coalition of agreement as to what is best for the industry as a nation, too. The coalition of political parties that forms this government does not appear to be taking notice of what the coalition of the grain industry, or the wheat industry, would appear to be trying to drive at. I think the government is to be roundly condemned for this. For 13 years, they would allege that we did not consult, but I would have thought this was one of their own core constituencies.A number of letters and a number of submissions were received by the committee in its hasty consultation process. It was forced into a situation where, whilst not opposing the legislation outright, it was very apparent that it was not the preferred legislation of the industry.This industry is vitally important to this country. It is a large export earner for this country. I would have thought that it was incumbent upon the government to ensure that it got the best results, the best piece of legislation. It does not seem that this will possibly be the case in this situation. Industry participation, industry involvement, is essential if you are going to get good legislation. That does not seem to be what is happening here.Whilst I do not intend to take long, I think it is important, and I cannot reiterate it enough, that the government undertake this consultation, that they get the best piece of legislation. Instead of having to debate this two or three times, if they had done it properly, we would have only had to have debated this once, and it might have even gone through as non-controversial on a Thursday at lunchtime—that should have been the ultimate goal, the ultimate aim, of this government because that would have then meant that the consultation process undertaken by the government with the industry would have been significant and meaningful to the industry. The industry would not have had to come and write to the opposition; it would not have had to lobby the Greens and the Democrats to ensure that some of the amendments were moved.Very clear indications were given that the industry was not totally happy with this piece of legislation. It is not their most preferred option; it is one they can live with. But should we be introducing in this country legislation that people can live with, but that they would rather they did not have to? In fact, if another 33 days had been taken, in all probability the industry would have got the legislation that it wanted. It would have then been able to go ahead with certainty, knowing that its needs were going to be met well into the future. Now, it continues to be faced with uncertainty, with cut-in dates and cut-out dates, and not with its most preferred option.We need to give our rural industries certainty. We need to listen to their needs. We need to listen to their demands. Being realistic, maybe you cannot meet all of their demands, but it is vitally important that they be given the opportunity to try to reach consensus through a consultation process. By forcing this bill through, to exempt it from the cut-off, that is not going to be able to be done.I will wager you, as I said before, that we will be back here discussing, and maybe amending, this legislation next time around, presumably, again, towards the end of a sitting session so they can try to use that as a pressure mechanism to get agreement on all sides. That is not the way that legislation should be working. Legislation needs to be carefully thought out. It needs consultation. That is not happening, and the government is to be condemned.I will finish by saying that I have grave reservations about the way this has been handled by the government. It could have been better handled. I am surprised that they have treated one of their core constituent groups in such a manner; that they have basically ignored and disregarded their need to obtain, or to come to a negotiated settlement on, the best piece of legislation for the industry. It is a good industry, it is a productive industry, and we should be giving it the best legislative chances to continue to be so.Sitting suspended from 12.59 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice522952295229Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Does the minister recall the apprehension of the vessel, Aliza Glacial , on 21 October last year for illegally fishing for Patagonian toothfish in Australia's exclusive economic zone near Heard Island in the Southern Ocean? Does he also recall the government patting itself on the back and calling the operation an outstanding success and a lesson to foreign vessels that illegal fishing in the EEZ would not be tolerated? Is it true that no penalties have been paid by the vessel's owners for the trespassing offence and that the government has allowed a Norwegian bank to repossess the vessel? Is it further true that the government is liable for the costs associated with this fiasco? If so, what are those costs?5229Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I thank Senator Murphy for that question. The Senate will recall that the Howard government did dispatch the HMAS Anzac to Heard and Macdonald Islands in October 1997. The Anzac arrested two foreign vessels allegedly fishing illegally in the area. They were the Salvora and the Aliza Glacial and, subsequently, the Big Star was arrested. A Norwegian bank, Bergenspanken ASA, holds the mortgage over the Aliza Glacial and has taken action to secure that debt, including through the arrest of the vessel. The Australian Government Solicitor has filed an application in the Federal Court to secure the vessel and is taking every measure to ensure that criminal proceedings prevail over the civil action taken by the mortgagor.On 14 May 1998, counsel for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority made submissions to the Federal Court in relation to making any sale of Aliza Glacial subject to the continuing rights of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. The Federal Court has reserved its decision.The Senate will understand that it is not possible for me to comment immediately on these allegations—that is, in regard to whether that has occurred. However, I have directed the department to seek urgent advice from the Attorney-General's Department on the documents and how they may relate to the current court proceedings. I point out that the government is totally committed to protecting our fisheries resources through the EEZ, including the subantarctic. The navy has arrested three foreign fishing vessels so far in daring operations in distant and harsh conditions.I have a warning for all illegal foreign fishing vessels. They will never know if the trail of smoke on the horizon or a blip on the radar screen is one of their illegal fishing mates or an Australian navy frigate coming to arrest them. I also point out that I heard just in recent days that the skipper and one other person did not appear before the court proceedings. If that does not occur within six months, the government automatically acquires the vessel.5230Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. With regard to the application by the Bergenspanken, which has been made under admiralty rules, given that it is likely that the Bergenspanken will succeed in securing the vessel, can the minister inform the Senate what steps the government will be taking to ensure that in future we are not confronted with this sort of situation?5230Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—All I can respond to in that question is the fact that this information was brought to the attention of myself and Senator Brown by the Tasmanian Conservation Trust. This matter has been, as I indicated, referred to the Attorney-General's Department—the particular documents that were given by the conservation foundation and how they might relate to the current court proceedings.52305230Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—My question is to the leader of the government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Is the minister aware of a report in today's Sydney Morning Herald that an Indonesian businessman, Mr William Soeryadjaya, paid the former Prime Minister Mr Paul Keating more than $US6 million for his half share in a piggery? Is this consistent with Mr Keating's advice to the Registrar of Members' Interests on 31 March 1994 stating that he had sold his interest to a Mr Achilles Constantinidis and associated companies? What implications does such a revelation have for the current disclosure requirements? I also ask whether the government will take action to ensure that similar episodes do not occur in the future?5230Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Yes, I did read this extraordinary article in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, which told us a lot about the way in which the former Prime Minister Mr Keating conducted his business affairs. It also told us a little about the way in which he treated his responsibilities to the parliament. What it demonstrates is the amazing hypocrisy of Labor Party members. For months they have been coming in here and attacking Senator Parer, arguing in the finest of ways, on occasions, that he did not make full disclosure in accordance with the rules of this place. The finest of arguments have been put to suggest that the—7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Small. Weeny.BH4Senator HILL—Yes. The finest arguments, as in narrow arguments, have been put. Technical arguments have been put—Senator Ray has excelled at it—to demonstrate that Senator Parer has in some way technically breached the obligations of this place and that, for that, he should pay the ultimate penalty. Week after week, the Labor Party has come in here and said, `We demand the highest standards of accountability to the parliament.' That is what the Labor Party has said. Yet what we learn today is that—Senator Cook interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—The former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, only a short time ago, Senator Cook, sold his interest in his piggery companies to an Indonesian businessman, Mr Soeryadjaya. But did he disclose that he sold it to the Indonesians? No. His return to the register suggested that he sold it to his former partner.Did the register also tell us that, in fact, he retained the right to purchase back his interest? No, of course it did not. Why did he not tell us that, as Prime Minister of Australia, he was selling off his business interests to Indonesians? Because, of course, that would be politically embarrassing. So what he did was apparently mislead the House of Representatives into believing, by his public statement, that he had sold it to his former business partner. But, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, he apparently implied he sold it for a lot less than what he ultimately got.Madam President, if you read the House of Representatives standing orders, you will find that that deliberate and wilful misleading amounts to a serious contempt. I can remem ber that it wasn't long ago that—isn't it interesting how quiet they are?—UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—Yes!BH4Senator HILL—Shouting only a few weeks ago—Government senators interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—Only a few weeks ago, Senator Ray booming across the chamber, `Senator Hill you have seriously—'Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill—BH4Senator HILL—Yes, Madam President.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, it is not appropriate to incite breaches of the standing orders.Honourable senators interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—Talk about throw out a hook and see what you catch, Madam President.Opposition senators interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—Now we're getting a bit of life in the place. Anyway, on the basis of the article in the Sydney Morning Herald , not only did Mr Keating mislead the House of Representatives in his return but he very seriously misled it. Furthermore, he obviously did it because it would have been political embarrassing for him to have told the truth. In those circumstances, what hypocrisy it is for the Labor Party to come in here and accuse anybody of not failing to disclose in full in accordance with the Senate's terms and rules.52315231Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Parer, the Minister for Resources and Energy. How many formal decisions has the minister made in relation to the operations of the mining company, Energy Resources of Australia Pty Ltd, since he became a minister in March 1996? How many specific decisions has the minister made in relation to ERA's application to mine uranium at Jabiluka?5231Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—In direct answer to the questions raised by Senator Chris Evans: first of all, I declared ERA as a proponent for an environmental impact assessment. You might recall, Madam President, that, prior to coming into government, we had a policy of getting rid of the absolutely stupid, ridiculous, lampooned three-mines uranium policy, which only came about because of the left wing of the Labor Party.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Alston and Senator Carr!KI4Senator PARER—I remind you, Madam President, the height of hypocrisy was that, while they had this so-called three-mines uranium policy, it didn't stop them—did it, Madam President?—from supporting the expansion of Olympic dam simply because it helped the then Labor Premier of South Australia. What utter hypocrisy!We got rid of the three-mines policy. We made the point from the beginning that it was not a matter of picking winners; that there was a market out there and that it was for people to go through the proper processes and do it. The company did go through a proper environmental impact assessment process which took close to two years—that is my understanding. As a result of that, I received back from Senator Hill a series of recommendations which we added to, to make them more stringent.That is exactly what has occurred with them. There are other uranium mines—I think there is Honeymoon, Beverley and Kintyre—which have indicated that they would like to go ahead. They have been declared as proponents to go through environmental impact assessments.5231Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I have a supplementary question, Madam President, although I am not sure that the minister answered the question I put to him. Perhaps he would prefer to take it on notice. I asked how many formal decisions he had made in relation to ERA, particularly related to Jabiluka. Also perhaps he could advise how many of those decisions on Jabiluka are of a process nature—such as environmental, construction, milling, transport or expert controls—and how many decisions are determinative, such as a grant of lease or permission to mine. If the minister can't provide the answer today, perhaps he could take the question on notice and provide that information.5232Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Madam President, you wonder how, after 13 years in government, they really don't understand the processes. Export controls are only issued just prior to shipment. I could not help but notice how deliberately all over the place the Labor Party is in regard to the development of the Jabiluka mine. We had, I think, Mr Kerr making statements just recently when they were questioned about what he intended to do and he said, `Is the Labor Party saying—?' What he was saying was that they will stop the mine unless the mine is in operation and all approvals are granted. No-one believes that, least of all the Australian Greens, Senator Brown. It is really tongue in cheek, having two bob each way while they are going around pandering to the—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—On a point of order, Madam President: I asked a direct question, both in the original and in the supplementary, to the minister. I am happy for him to debate the issue at the taking note stage, but I would like an answer to the question about how many decisions he has taken and the nature of those decisions.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.KI4Senator PARER—I answered that earlier. I am happy to do it again if you want to hear it repeated again. (Time expired)52325232O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—My question is directed to Senator Hill as the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the story in today's Sydney Morning Herald regarding the secret millions made by Paul Keating on the sale of his half-interest in a piggery. Is it a fact that, despite Paul Keating selling his piggery interests for at least $US6 million—as revealed in Sydney Morning Herald today—the amount on which tax and other duties were paid was only $A600,000? What implications would this have for the Commonwealth and what actions will the government take to ensure that its revenue is fully protected? 5232Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Madam President, that would—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The question is directed to Senator Hill.BH4Senator HILL—It is interesting, because the second method of attack, the second target, on Senator Parer in recent months has been that, because his family operated a family trust, he is a tax cheat. Week after week, Labor has come in here and accused Senator Parer of tax rorting because his family operated a family trust. There is no evidence of any tax avoidance whatsoever, no evidence of any illegality, but it is good enough for Labor to throw mud in the hope that a little bit of it would stick.It is suggested in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning that the affairs of the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, are much more complicated in that regard. It is said that on the public record he got $600,000, yet in actual fact he received over $6 million. One might wonder why someone would get paid $6 million for a business investment that had a debt of $13 million. That might be a little puzzling. But what is being suggested in the Sydney Morning Herald is that there has not been full disclosure on this particular matter.Has that upset the Labor Party? I wonder what internal actions they have taken today when that sort of suggestion is made about their former Prime Minister, until very recently the Leader of the Australian Labor Party. Nothing, of course, because that is different. A serious allegation on their side should be pushed aside, kept under the table. There should be no inquiry into that. Can you imagine Senator Ray getting to his feet and demanding action; can you imagine him demanding a full investigation? Can you imagine him getting up and calling Mr Keating a tax cheat? Of course not. He would say that there is not enough evidence. Why didn't he adopt the same standards in relation to Senator Parer? Because Senator Parer is on this side of the chamber. It is as simple as that: double standards and hypocrisy.Very strange circumstances are revealed in today's Sydney Morning Herald in relation to the business affairs of Mr Keating. I presume there is an explanation for these extraordinary circumstances. I believe that, if he was paid over $6 million by an Indonesian businessman for his interest, he must have had something of value in excess of $6 million. I assume that. Otherwise, one would have some very serious questions to ask.But my point is not so much that but what it tells you about the Australian Labor Party when they have got a problem on their side as compared to this side. They stand up here without a blush to say, `All we are interested in is principle, not the individual.' `We won't attack the man,' say the Australian Labor Party. This demonstrates again the hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party in this regard. If they were genuine, if they really did seek to demonstrate high public standards, they would apply it to their own former Prime Minister rather than to others in the parliamentary process.5233O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—Madam President, I have a supplementary question which follows on from the minister's answer. Given that there are serious consequences involved there, what are the consequences, for example, in relation to capital gains tax if the amount that was declared was in fact not the price at which these assets actually changed hands?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I raise a point of order, Madam President. I believe that, if you were consistently making a judgment about questions asked in question time, the original question that Senator O'Chee asked would have been ruled out of order by you. But I ask you how on earth, if you are going to make consistent rulings in relation to supplementary questions and questions that are in order in question time, you can direct the minister to answer this supplementary question. With respect, I think it is out of order and ought to be ruled as such. I think the primary question was out of order and I am surprised you did not rule that out of order. On this occasion I do not think there is any question—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. Senator Faulkner, you challenged the original question. You did that as an interjection during the question. The original question was clearly in order. The question to the minister was how was the government going to protect its revenue base, and that is a totally proper question to be asked of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I call Senator Hill.5233Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Not once can I remember Senator Faulkner getting up and objecting to questions from his side to Senator Parer suggesting that Senator Parer was behaving improperly in relation to taxation—not once. So why does he do it in relation to Mr Keating? Simply because it is referring to the Australian Labor Party, because it has demonstrated the double standards—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—The point is that Alston consistently has taken points of order. You talk about double standards; don't you talk about double standards to me.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner, cease interjecting. I am entitled to hear the answer.BH4Senator HILL—It demonstrated the real attitude of the Australian Labor Party to not only parliamentary standards, but also prime ministerial standards. When it is on their side, it is to be covered up, kept under the table. When it is on the coalition side, they have a national responsibility to bring it out and drive it home, even if it is baseless. That is the point. That is the distinction that we are witnessing today. All Australians will be treated equally under the taxation laws, and so they should be.52335233Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is also to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and, given his new-found desire to get at the facts, it is entirely appropriate. Why won't the minister table the letter sent by the Prime Minister to ministers in August 1997 outlining the restrictions on ministers and their staff in relation to the purchase of Telstra shares? Why was the minister prepared to selectively outline some of the contents of the letter in the Senate yesterday in answer to a question on Monday by Senator Ray but not table the entire text? Isn't it a fact that the Prime Minister's directive applied not only to ministers themselves but also to trusts, nomi nees and other proxy style arrangements? Will the minister now undertake to table a generic copy of the letter sent to ministers in August 1997?5234Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I am not sure what a generic copy of the letter is, but the point is that the question that was asked by Senator Ray related to certain matters and I answered from the letter in relation to those matters. The letter refers to other matters that were not within his question, and that is why I did not table the letter in full.Again, I welcome the opportunity from Senator Cook to explore what this is really all about: why the Labor Party has some political objective or is seeking some political gain out of what they claim to be conflicts of interest. They are doing it against a background of perhaps the greatest conflict of interest in the history of the Australian democracy, which was on their side only a few years ago.Opposition senators interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—The then Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Keating, ran this piggery business—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many interjections.BH4Senator HILL—He ran this piggery business and apparently sold at least some of his interests to Indonesian businessmen for a sum without giving the full story. According to the Sydney Morning Herald , he retained an interest. He sold his first element of it in March 1994—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I raise a point of order, Madam President. Surely, given that Senator Hill has been asked a specific question in relation to a letter the Prime Minister sent on Telstra shares, it is proper for you presiding in the Senate to draw the minister's attention to the question and direct him to answer it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You know that I cannot direct him to answer the question as you want it answered. I am entitled to expect that he will answer the question that has been put to him as he sees appropriate. I cannot direct him to give the answer that you want.BH4Senator HILL—The issue is ministerial standards—AW5CARRSenator Carr—You were trying to cover up, weren't you?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr!RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I respect what you say, that you cannot ask him to answer as we would want, but surely you can ask him to answer the question that was put. The question that was put was: is it not a fact that the Prime Minister's directive applied not only to ministers themselves but also to trusts, nominees and other proxy style arrangements? That is a clear question. And will he now table a copy of the letter? Surely he can answer those two very simple questions.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill is clearly dealing with the substance of the questions that have been—Senator Alston interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, if you do not cease interjecting, I shall deal with you.BH4Senator HILL—Senator Ray asked me certain questions about whether a letter in August required certain actions on behalf of ministers in relation to the Telstra matter. I believe that, yesterday, I answered the questions that he asked. If Senator Cook is asking me to go back and explore that letter in terms of the question he has asked today, then I will do that as well.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Table it.BH4Senator HILL—As to why I did not table the letter, I have already answered that.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—What are you covering up?BH4Senator HILL—I said it did not only deal with the question that Senator Ray asked. I answered Senator Ray's question of yesterday. Madam President, why is Senator Cook asking me this question? It is because they think they can make some political gain out of the issue of ministerial standards. What I am suggesting is that the last political party in the world that is justified in trying that is the Australian Labor Party.The Australian Labor Party cannot come in here with a straight face today and talk about ministerial standards when the Sydney Morning Herald suggests that perhaps the greatest conflict of interest has been rorted on the Australian people by Mr Keating who, until recently, was their party leader and Prime Minister. That is the point that I am making relevant to the question, Senator Faulkner. If you have no credit in asking the question, I am suggesting you ought to keep sitting in your seat and stop blushing on the issue.We on this side of the chamber will match ministerial standards against the ALP any day, and we will hold up the Sydney Morning Herald article of today as proof of our case. This article is an embarrassment for the ALP. It suggests that the former Prime Minister kept his hands in this piggery long after he disclosed to the House of Representatives that he had got rid of his interest; that he had retained a right to buy back his interest. In fact, a year after he disclosed to the House of Representatives that he had sold his interest, he was still negotiating for more money from the Indonesians. Against that background this opposition has no credibility. (Time expired)5235Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Hill asked, in his answer, why I am asking for the letter to be tabled. It is because it is a matter of public interest. The Prime Minister has boasted high ministerial standards in this country. He directs his ministers to do certain things. It is a matter of public interest that we see what it was that he asked and whether the ministers have complied. If you will not table the letter, will the minister at least confirm the extracts from the Prime Minister's letter, quoted in the media today:`It would not be acceptable for ministers, parliamentary secretaries and staff to purchase shares in the name of a spouse, other family member, or a nominee or trust.'Will you at least confirm that as an accurate statement, Minister?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—It came out of the Sydney Morning Herald .5235Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I am glad that Senator Ray gives credibility to the Sydney Morning Herald because, as I said, he ought to be blushing in this place today. I will recheck the letter, Senator Cook. But the point was, as I recall it, that the minister could not act in his own right and he could not allow someone else to act as his proxy. I think I said that to Senator Ray yesterday. But that does not in any way affect what I have been arguing, which Senator Ray seems to be acknowledging now, that the standards are on both sides. If you are trying to match the standard demonstrated by Mr Keating against that of Senator Parer, Senator Parer wins out overwhelmingly.52355235Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Herron. What is the government's response to recent research conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and others, which shows clearly that a lot fewer health dollars are spent on Aboriginal people compared to non-Aboriginal people? For example, they found that, for every Medicare dollar spent on non-indigenous Australians, the government spends only 27c on Aboriginal people. For every dollar spent by the government on specialist consultations for non-indigenous people, only 12c is spent on Aboriginal people. Even when all the targeted health services are added in, such as Aboriginal health services, the Commonwealth is still spending, on average, $276 less per head on indigenous Australians than on other Australians. Minister, what do you plan to do to address this unfair and unequal treatment of Aboriginal people?5235Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Lees for the question, and I acknowledge Senator Lees' interest in health care in general which she has conducted for at least eight years that I am aware of. The Commonwealth has taken a very constructive approach to the problems of Aboriginal health. Senator Lees would not be aware that I have the document in front of me that she referred to. It is a very good publication by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. I will read from the introduction:Australia is one of the healthiest countries in the world, and Australians are becoming even healthier. This is shown by declining death rates, increasing life expectancy, a low rate of life threatening infectious diseases and, for most people, ready access to health care when needed. But there is still room for improvement, and good health is not enjoyed by all, and the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is poor by any standard.This morning I was present at a meeting in Sydney of all the state health ministers and all the ministers for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, together with Dr Michael Wooldridge, to discuss this very problem that Senator Lees has mentioned. This is the first time this has occurred in the last three years at least. We acknowledge that there are disparities. One of the problems that came out this morning is the aspect of data collection. There is not good national health statistics overall. For example, reliable data on indigenous deaths are available only to the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia.To come to the question of disparity in health care funding, that data came from a report commissioned by Dr Wooldridge's department, and the report was based on 1995-96 data which states that health expenditure on Aboriginal people was then higher by approximately eight per cent in comparison to expenditure for other Australians. That data has to be put in context. Expenditure on indigenous peoples' health is the same as that for other Australians of similar socioeconomic status. For example, it is fairly easy to relate that the provision of health care in remote communities is, in many regards, minimal. There are no hospitals, there are no facilities available, so consequently, very few funds are spent there.Like other people on low incomes, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people rely much more on publicly provided hospital and community health services. They carry a heavier burden of illness and have a lower life expectancy than other Australians. Aboriginal people experience greater rates of disease. For example, as Senator Lees knows, diabetes is 12 to 17 times higher than for other Australians. In that same report you will see that, in an analysis of the United States and premature mortality, 50 per cent of premature mortality was attributed to unhealthy behaviour and lifestyles, 20 per cent to human biology, 20 per cent to the physical environment and 10 per cent to inadequate health care. I think that data has to be analysed in that respect too.A high proportion of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population live in remote areas, where providing health service, on the other hand, is more costly than in urban areas. Even though total health expenditure for Aboriginal people does vary from other Australians, indigenous people's access to Medicare and the pharmaceutical benefits scheme is estimated to be about a quarter of other Australians—again because of the lack of availability of those benefits.Progress is being made in improving the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. For example, infant mortality rates for the indigenous population has improved. Evidence from New Zealand and North America indicates that improvements in indigenous health were realised by establishing and maintaining a level of health care services over a long period of time, and that is what the government is doing. We are approaching it constructively with the states. (Time expired)5236Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, looking at infant mortality rates in particular, as you have just mentioned, is it not correct that it is the spending through specific Aboriginal health services that is making that difference? Considering that there is a total shortfall of around $97 million on Aboriginal health spending compared to the spending for the rest of us at Commonwealth level, are you prepared to stand up to those in the community arguing for a withdrawal of Aboriginal specific services, arguing that Aboriginal people have too much and should be brought back to where the rest of us are, and defend Aboriginal health services and commit to putting more money into them?5236Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am pleased to say that we are actually putting more money into health services. In particular, we announced a further $72.6 million over four years in the 1998-99 budget. So we are spending more on health care specifically in indigenous services than has been spent by previous governments. In that, there is $42 million over the next four years to provide additional resources.Three days ago I was in Broome, and I linked up with the Karma Medical Service and the Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Service. They have developed a CD-ROM for the education of indigenous health workers. That is one of the big progressive moves that we have done as a government, as Dr Wooldridge has, to get more funding to indigenous health workers so that they can get it at that level where they are meeting with communities, going to health education and then training the health workers. I am pleased to say that, of all the workers that have come through that program, 90 per cent are employed within their own communities. I believe that is the way of the future; that Aboriginal people will teach other Aboriginal people the basics of health care. (Time expired)52375237Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Will the minister acknowledge that the Prime Minister's letter of August last year explicitly prohibited the purchase of Telstra shares by ministers and their staff for 90 days following the float? Did the minister bring that letter to the attention of his staff? Did his staff comply with the terms of that letter? What steps did the minister take to ensure that his staff complied?5237Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—If Senator Faulkner cared to look at the answer I gave yesterday in question time, he would have noticed that I gave the answer to most of those questions. However, because he is not that bright, I will repeat it. I quote from yesterday's Hansard :The Prime Minister did write to ministers in August 1997 pointing out that ministers directly involved in the Telstra sale should not buy shares in Telstra at all. Other ministers were advised not to buy shares for 90 days after the first day of trading. Spouses and children could buy shares at any time, provided they were acting independently and not merely as a proxy . . . Madam President, I went on further to point out other things but that is not the question that Senator Faulkner asked, and I am not going to repeat them. The answer to your question is yes, Senator, I did draw it to the attention of my staff.5237Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that his media adviser, Mr Baudino, purchased 1,600 Telstra shares in his own name on 25 November 1997 in defiance of the Prime Minister's prohibition, and apparently in defiance of the fact that you brought this matter to the attention of your staff?5237Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I am unaware of that.52375237Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question also goes to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Madam President, you will remember—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! This question is being directed to Senator Parer. Senator Tambling. Start again, please, Senator Brown.QD4Senator BROWN—Thank you, Madam President. My question—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I need to hear this question and so does Senator Parer. Senators on my right will cease interjecting.QD4Senator BROWN—The minister will remember the Prime Minister giving an ironclad guarantee—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease chattering. Senator Parer is entitled to hear the question.QD4Senator BROWN—Thank you, Madam President. The minister will remember the Prime Minister giving an ironclad guarantee in the run-up to the last election that money from the Telstra fund—the Natural Heritage Trust fund—would not be diverted to other purposes. Yet last week the minister asserted that $12 million out of the $18 million Commonwealth contribution to fixing the Hume Dam will, indeed, come out of the Natural Heritage Trust fund. Madam President, this is a massive breach of promise. It is a massive diversion of millions of dollars out of the Natural Heritage Trust fund.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—What is your question, Senator?QD4Senator BROWN—I ask the minister: have further funds from the Natural Heritage Trust fund been diverted to repairing the Hume Dam via allocations to the states? If the states did the same thing as the Commonwealth, it could add up to $48 million being filched out of the Natural Heritage Trust fund.5238Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Senator Brown asked me a similar question last week. Following question time—and I have forgotten whether it was on Wednesday or Thursday—I gave a detailed response to Senator Brown provided to me by Minister Anderson. There is nothing more that I can add to that, except that I will refer the additional questions asked by Senator Brown in respect to the states to the minister and get him to reply.5238Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Having confirmed that, in fact, the Prime Minister's promise has been breached and money is going to non-environmental purposes from this massive fund, I ask the minister: has up to $48 million actually been diverted from the Murray-Darling 2001 program—which is for environmental purposes, including the improvement of the health of key river systems, encouraging ecologically and economically sustainable land use, restoring riverbank land systems, wetlands and flood plains, or improving water quality—to the capital works on this dam which have nothing to do with the environment?5238Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I will refer those detailed questions to Minister Anderson and get Senator Brown a reply.52385238Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—My question is to Senator Minchin, representing those elements of DoFA that he does. I refer to the government's decision to exempt certain information contained in the Kennedy report from release under the FOI Act. Can the minister confirm that the reasons cited in the section 26 statement for the exemption of certain material were: internal processes of government and the analysis of possible disciplinary offences; protecting the efficient conduct of the management of Commonwealth personnel; protecting the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about an individual; and legal professional privilege? Why then did the government exempt from release those aspects of the report that would have disclosed the prior knowledge of the Prime Minister's office of travel costs of ministers?5238Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—There was a report in the Canberra Times this morning about the so-called Kennedy report and it suggested that regular management reports went to the Prime Minister's office detailing ministers' travel expenditure. That, of course, was not in fact the case. What went were reports to the Prime Minister's office to give an indication of the quantum of travel being undertaken by ministers and parliamentary secretaries, not details of individual transactions.Of course, this government has responded to those matters in a most comprehensive fashion. We have taken very active measures to reform the whole system of parliamentary entitlements which we inherited from the previous government, which had not taken this sort of action in the 13 years it had been in office. We have done so through a very open and transparent process, including at appropriate times the Remuneration Tribunal in our reforms. Of course, we have engaged in a very thorough and complete overhaul of travel and travel allowance entitlements. Certainly, any suggestion that the government avoided acting on the concerns expressed about the entitlement system are completely unfounded.Turning to the Kennedy report, as Senator Ray knows, that does represent the findings of an internal inquiry within the Department of Finance and Administration. It was properly constituted under the Public Service Act to establish whether any officer of the former Department of Administrative Services failed to fulfil his or her duty in relation to the May 1998 tabling of travel information. It was not a review of the government's management of parliamentary entitlements and, as has been noted, appropriate sections of that report have already been released under freedom of information provisions. Further, I advise that it was not appropriate for privacy and legal reasons to release the full text of the report.Further, the Department of Finance and Administration will be following its usual procedures to determine whether there has been any unauthorised disclosure of information in this case. I am not able to go into the details of the privacy and legal reasons why the full text of the report was not made available. If I am able to give Senator Ray any further information either privately or in here, I will do so.5239Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Whilst I appreciate the extent of Senator Minchin's reply, he did not go to the thrust of my question. I concur with him that not all elements of the Kennedy report should be released, nor should they have been released to me under FOI. But, comparing the now complete report with the deleted report, I am just asking why this piece of information was deleted when it did not meet the criteria under FOI for deletion; when it had some hint of political sensitivity, no irregularity—it is quite proper for a Prime Minister to know whether his ministers are abusing travel allowance. But why delete that particular section when it meets no criteria under the FOI Act or by the FOI officer? Why actually expunge it when other matters, I agree, should have been expunged?5239Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The decision on the deletion was, of course, not mine, but I will have to take that question on notice and provide you with the information that you seek.52395239Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer the minister to a report in the CBD section of the Sydney Morning Herald of 27 May 1998, which states that the Australian Taxation Office is conducting a continuing investigation into the affairs of:. . . one of the country's most recognisable faces, regarding a snortingly good profit earned on his rural interests. Can the minister confirm public speculation that the person in question is none other than Mr P.J. Keating, the former Labor Prime Minister? As today's Sydney Morning Herald makes it clear that Mr Keating's true profit was many millions of dollars, what steps will the government take to ensure that all tax liability to the Commonwealth arising from the sale of Mr Keating's piggery interests has been made in full? Can the minister also inform the Senate of the status of the tax office's investigation?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. On consistent rulings that you have made, at least the first part of that question from Senator Abetz is clearly out of order.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I agree.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—And Madam President—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I need no further advice on the matter.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Well, Madam President, a further point of order: with respect, I think the second part is out of order also.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The second part is not; the first part is. I call Senator Hill.5239Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Yes, I saw this little piece about the `snortingly good profit' in the Sydney Morning Herald .5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on a point of order: hasn't the Leader of the Government just immediately flouted your ruling by canvassing part of a question that was directed to him that you have ruled out of order? I would ask you to enforce the ruling that you have made, enforce the standing orders, and not allow the Leader of the Government to flout your rulings in this way.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no suggestion he is flouting. He made an observation, on a part which is out of order. He will deal with the second part, which I will allow him to do.BH4Senator HILL—Perhaps Senator Faulkner knows more than I do because I cannot confirm that it is Mr Keating, but I do know that they apply a different standard to their own side. It is interesting that this little snippet at the trough refers to an issue over a windfall profit of $10.5 million. What we saw in the Sydney Morning Herald was a suggestion that Mr Keating had been paid $6 million, but that he had had a further interest that he had disposed of to the Indonesians a year later in March 1995 and then finally in 1996 got rid of the rest of his interest. Of course, none of this came out in the House of Representatives disclosure. That is a different issue.It is interesting that the third charge the Labor Party levels against Senator Parer is that he is wealthy. That is the basis for condemnation. Senator Carr gets to his feet every day and condemns Senator Parer for being wealthy, playing on the old politics of envy. Yet the former Prime Minister, the head of the Australian Labor Party, a multimillionaire, sells out his interest for millions of dollars to rich Indonesian businessmen, and that is an entirely different thing. Did we see Senator Carr come in here and condemn the leadership of the ALP for being wealthy? No, of course, that is entirely different. Did he condemn them for the circumstances of their being wealthy? No, entirely. I do not know whether it is referring to Mr Keating, but the Sydney Morning Herald suggests that—Senator Carr interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr.BH4Senator HILL—After the final settlement in 1996 of the sale of his piggery interest, he was able to settle on his $2.2 million mansion in Woollahra, Senator Carr—the leader of the battlers' party.AW5CARRSenator Carr—What about Senator Parer?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr.BH4Senator HILL—It was a $2.2 million mansion in Woollahra, and then he bought Mr Laws' riverfront house, a weekender, for another $1 million. It was a good deal for Mr Keating certainly, a very wealthy leader of the ALP. But that is not to be condemned by the Australian Labor Party because that does not suit their political interest. But because Senator Parer worked hard in his business life and made a dollar, for that, he should be condemned and he should be dragged through the political mire because he made a bit of money in the past. What hypocrisy! What double standards! We see them yet again.52405240Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Newman, the Minister for Social Security.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Did you have a lemon juice for lunch?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You had eight cream buns, we know that.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It was a moderate day: she had only eight cream buns; she usually has about a dozen.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I know it has been a long session, but question time is an important part of the day. Senator Collins, start again, please.GB6Senator JACINTA COLLINS—It has, indeed, been a long session. Minister, is it a fact that the government's youth allowance policies are designed to encourage 18- to 20-year-olds to stay at home? Can the minister confirm, though, that, at the same time, Centrelink is currently advising clients receiving the disability support pension that 16-year-old children are no longer considered dependent for the purposes of the income test and is cutting their pensions accordingly? Can the minister confirm that the Centrelink policy unit has confirmed that this anomaly exists? What action does the government intend to take to correct this problem?5240Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The answer to the first part of Senator Collins's question is no. As to the second part of her question, I will get advice from Centrelink and get back to her.5240Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. In seeking that information, I draw the minister's attention, as Minister for Social Security, to a Hampton Park Centrelink client who received advice in late June that his disability support pension had been cut from $140.80 per fortnight to $134.50 because his 16-year-old daughter, who is in year 11, is now receiving youth allowance, instead of Austudy, and is no longer considered depend ent for the purposes of the client income test. Can the minister confirm that clients contacting Centrelink are being advised that the Centrelink Policy Unit is considering measures to correct this absurd situation, and they are also being advised that the only way to rectify the situation at the moment is to leave their family?5241Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Of course the government is not prepared to endorse any suggestion that young people should be persuaded to leave their family. The youth allowance policy, which is very family oriented, is not intended to achieve that. Sadly, over the last few weeks the behaviour of opposition members, both in this chamber and in the other chamber, and of the Democrats' spokesman has led me to be very careful about what is stated by them to be the truth. We saw only the other day Senator Carr come in here and tell me that somebody was going to have all their payments cut off and in fact they are not. Senator Stott Despoja has told us how young people are going to breached if they do not return their forms. That is not true again. Senator Collins, as I said to you, I am very happy to look to see whether there is any anomaly in the system, but it sounds rather strange and I must investigate it. (Time expired)52415241Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I note that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be arriving in Jakarta today for a series of meetings with President Habibie, Foreign Minister Ali Alatas and Armed Forces Commander, General Wiranto. Does the foreign minister intend to discuss human rights in these talks? Will the minister specifically raise the role of ABRI in the death of six demonstrators and the wounding of 140 others in West Papua yesterday—people who had done no more than raise a flag? Finally, during these talks, will the minister advocate free and fair votes of self-determination in West Papua and East Timor or does the government believe that in Indonesia, as in Australia, the central government should determine the rights of indigenous peoples with no reference to the peoples themselves?5241Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Mr Downer will be conveying some key messages of Australian support for Indonesia. As we have discussed in this place before, Indonesia is going through a difficult phase of political and economic change. It has been the attitude of the Australian government that Australia should be supportive of Indonesia during this difficult process of change and that we should demonstrate that we are in it for the long haul with our near neighbour.Mr Downer will indicate that Australia will work with the Indonesian government and encourage it to implement the pressing political and economic reforms that Indonesia is now committed to implement. He will indicate that we believe that this is not only in the interests of stability within the region but also clearly consistent with the wishes of the Indonesian people themselves.I understand that Mr Downer will meet President Habibie and Foreign Minister Alatas. Although the emphasis of his visit is very much directed towards the economic side of the Indonesian challenge, I have little doubt that he will raise issues of human rights, which we believe are also important to build a confident, stable and democratic Indonesia in the future.The events of the very recent times in Irian Jaya are distressing. I am aware of reports of the shooting incidents and, sadly, of the deaths of some protesters, and I think at least one ABRI member. I am also aware of the role that the Indonesian Commission on Human Rights has been playing in investigating—this is referring to the previous demonstration and violence, but I am sure it will continue in more recent instances—allegations of violations of authorities in the region.We would argue that, modest though it might be, that is a good sign. Everything that President Habibie has said to date does appear to indicate that he is wanting to see Indonesia get through this difficult period of transition in a way that does not suppress human rights, as has perhaps occurred in the past, that does lead to a more open society, that does lead to a more democratic society. We do not under estimate the stresses that will be involved during that process of political change.Whilst obviously the incident in Irian Jaya is distressing, I suppose it would be a little too much to expect that Indonesia will be able to go through such a dramatic period of change without some incidents of violence of this kind. We would certainly urge both sides of these political disputes to restrain from violence, to seek within the spirit of a more democratic Indonesia to resolve their differences through peaceful means. I think that that is the best way in which we can, as I said, contribute to what is a very dramatic process of change occurring within our near neighbour. (Time expired)5242Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that encouraging answer, particularly his reference to the Indonesian Commission on Human Rights. Could he answer part three of my question, which was, in essence: will Australia, in our usual quiet and restrained way, be telling the Indonesian government that we would be in favour of self-determination for any of the peoples of Indonesia?5242Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—The honourable senator knows that we believe Irian Jaya to be part of Indonesia. We are certainly not going to go out and promote an independent stand. Not only is it not our business, but it will lead to internal instability and more violence of the type that Senator Bourne is seeking to avoid. If there are political differences as to the future of Indonesia and the component parts of the state of Indonesia, we want to see those resolved peacefully from within. Our emphasis should be on encouraging that peaceful dialogue and the settling of political problems in a way that is more akin to that accepted in democratic nations such as ours. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Miscellaneous52425242The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—Yesterday, during question time, Senator Brown took a point of order on the actions of an attendant in the press gallery. Seating in the press gallery of the Senate is reserved for members of the federal parliamentary press gallery. The attendant had noticed that a person in the gallery did not have an appropriate press gallery pass. On approaching the person, the attendant also advised him and his companion of the dress standards applying in the gallery. The two people readily agreed to move to the public gallery. Members of the press gallery are required to comply with a set of guidelines governing their conduct in Parliament House. Among other things, the guidelines require that members of the gallery, when in the press gallery of the Senate or the House of Representatives, should maintain the standards of dress adopted by the majority of senators and members when attending in the chambers. With the concurrence of senators, I incorporate in Hansard a copy of the guidelines relating to the press gallery, for the information of senators.The guidelines read as follows—CONDITIONS TO BE OBSERVED BY MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL PARLIAMENTARY PRESS GALLERY AND REPRESENTATIVES OF OTHER MEDIA ORGANISATIONS ADMITTED TO PARLIAMENT HOUSEThe Presiding Officers have determined that the following conditions shall be observed by members of the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery in Parliament House and representatives of other media organisations admitted to Parliament House.As a general rule members of the Gallery wishing to speak with a senator or member in Parliament House should make an appointment by telephone.Members of the Gallery may not enter the Lobbies of the Senate or the House of Representatives and should not linger in the corridors in the vicinity of the Cabinet Room or Party Rooms. During Cabinet or Party meetings, this prohibition is absolute. In these areas, members of the Gallery may not seek to engage senators or members in conversation.Members of the Gallery are not permitted to enter the Members' Dining Room or Members' Bar.In addition to studios and press conference rooms, media photographers and television crews may film on invitation in private rooms, committee rooms and at official functions elsewhere in the building. Similar conditions apply to tape recordings by radio journalists. Filming or tape recording in other circumstances throughout the building and its courtyards is prohibited without the specific approval of the President and/or the Speaker.Journalists and camera crews must not stand at the entrances to Parliament House so as to impede the access of senators, members or others to the building. They should avoid using the areas in the immediate vicinity of the entrances for the purposes of interviewing senators, members or other persons. In any event, journalists and camera crews must conform with the directions of attendants or Australian Protective Service officers at the entrances.Members of the Gallery when in the Press Gallery of the Senate or the House of Representatives, should maintain the standards of dress adopted by the majority of senators and members when attending in the Chambers.Members of the Gallery sponsoring admission of visitors into Parliament House are responsible for those visitors until they leave the building. Where those visitors are representatives of media organisations, the member is responsible for advising the visitors of these conditions.Parliamentary officers administer these conditions with understanding and flexibility but can do so only with the co-operation of members of the Gallery.Abuse of these conditions by members of the Gallery may result in the rights of access to Parliament House of an individual or organisation being restricted.(Agreed to by the Presiding Officers in 1989).15:01:005243Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—by leave—What is the position regarding people wearing slogans in the house?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is not appropriate for people to wear slogans in the house or to exhibit slogans on their desk or hold them up.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—On a point of order, Madam President: have you instituted questions to you after question time? Is that what that was about?BH4HILLSenator Hill—He asked for leave but nobody heard him.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—He was following on from the statement.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I am sorry; I did not hear him ask for leave.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam President, following your statement, I note that the dress warden has been attending to infractions in the press gallery during question time—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, are you seeking leave to make a statement?Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my right, cease chattering to the extent that I cannot hear what Senator Brown is saying. Senator Brown, are you seeking leave to make a statement?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I seek leave to make a brief statement.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted for Senator Brown to speak?UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—No.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Leave is not granted.Questions Without Notice5243524315:03:005243Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer), to questions without notice asked today, relating to the financial interests of Senator Parer.Yesterday, we discovered that Senator Parer's family trust holding company, IMPL, had purchased 2,600 Telstra shares. That was after the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) had expressly prohibited ministers, their staff or proxies from purchasing them. We still have not received the formal letter from the government, from Senator Hill. Hopefully, that will be forthcoming so that the situation will be indicated even more clearly. Senator Hill, after question time yesterday, at least gave some information to the Senate in relation to the instructions that ministers were given.Senator Parer ran the defence that he did not buy them. He ignored the fact that he was Chairman of IMPL at the time and he owned eight of the nine shares. If that is not tantamount to actually purchasing the shares himself, I do not know what is. Today, we discovered that Senator Parer has ignored yet another of the Prime Minister's instructions—that is, that ministers' staff members should not purchase Telstra shares within 90 days of their first trade.Mr Baudino, who purchased a certain number of shares at the time of the Telstra float, is a long-time media adviser to Senator Parer, a long-time Liberal Party hatchet man. He has a history in the Liberal Party that goes back a very long way. He was linked very closely with the former Fraser government's information unit.He is well known for excelling in media management. Earlier this year, on 20 March, he instructed a Commonwealth security guard to eject photographers from Senator Parer's press conference. He prevented press reporters from entering. He only allowed the TV cameras in. That was the press conference, of course, when Senator Parer declared he was considering the option of divesting his portfolio after being caught red-handed. Mr Baudino is well known for threatening journalists if they continue their pursuit of his boss, Senator Parer.This is the same minister who ignored the Prime Minister's code of ministerial conduct not just once, in relation to having private interests in his portfolio area, but twice, in relation to divesting those interests to family members. He received three separate instructions from the register of senators' pecuniary interests about holdings in his family trust. He ignored all of them.You have to ask the question: what does this latest revelation about Senator Parer really say about the way he runs his own office? What happens to Senator Parer's correspondence? Is it that he does not actually receive it? Is it that he receives it but he does not read it? Is it that he reads it and does nothing about it? Perhaps he just reads it and ignores it. Certainly, he indicated today that he passed these instructions on to members of his staff.This is just another flagrant breach by Senator Parer of the Prime Minister's own guidelines. We heard the defence trotted out in question time today: `Oh, well, Mr Keating the former Labor Party Prime Minister was, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, responsible for certain actions four or five years ago. It was good enough for Mr Keating, therefore'—allegedly—`it is good enough for Senator Parer.' This from the government that, up until today, has mounted the consistent defence that they were going to put in place higher ministerial and parliamentary standards, greater accountability and greater transparency. No, not any more. Now they are saying, `It was good enough for one of your number. Senator Parer does not have to conform.' Senator Parer has failed every test. He has failed every test on every occasion. The latest example of Mr Baudino on his staff proves this minister should resign. (Time expired)15:08:005244O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—It is extraordinary for the Labor Party to come in here and go through the sort of cant that we have had here today when this is the very day on which the Labor Party's standards on prime ministerial and ministerial propriety are shown to be in tatters. They are in tatters because the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald today revealed it all. It revealed the fact that the former Labor Prime Minister of this country misled the House of Representatives in his statement to the Registrar of Members' Interests.What is the misleading conduct? It is very simple: the former Prime Minister said in a letter to the Registrar of Members' Interests that he had sold his family interests in the piggery in Parkville and other associated companies to one Mr Al Constantinidis. What is the truth? Did he sell these shares to Mr Al Constantinidis or was it something more devious? It was, in fact, something more devious, because the whole sale—the whole $US6 million sale—was negotiated between Mr Keating and one Mr William Soeryadjaya from Indonesia.When was it negotiated? It was negotiated, it appears, some time around 2 March 1994. It was negotiated at a meeting at Mr Constantinidis's home between Mr Soeryadjaya and Mr Keating. As even Mr Constantinidis says, the whole deal was prepared by Mr Keating's financial advisers and presented to him as a fait accompli. In other words, the whole transaction was a sham. It was a sham to hide the fact that Mr Keating was disposing of this interest to a foreign investor from Indonesia for a US dollar sum of $6 million. If this transaction was above board, why would Mr Keating need to hide the identity of the person who was buying the asset? Why couldn't he just sell it directly to Mr Soeryadjaya? If this was a clean transaction, if there was nothing to hide, why did he have to cleanse the transaction by putting it through Mr Constantinidis, who then on-sold the assets to Mr Soeryadjaya? The reason is very simple: Mr Keating had something to hide.He was the Prime Minister of this country. He was involved in discussions between Australia and Indonesia at the very highest level. He had already been fingered in this place for being involved in secret negotiations to bring genetic material in from Denmark. Senator Ferguson recollects that very well. He had already been fingered in this place for the improper influence he had placed on those discussions. He was going to sell the asset to somebody from Indonesia at the very time he was negotiating with the Indonesian government.What did he do? He entered into this sham transaction. Not only did he enter into the sham transaction; worse still, he misled the Registrar of Members' Interests by pretending this transaction was with Mr Constantinidis when, in fact, Mr Constantinidis was the patsy. He was the fall guy for the transaction. The truth is that Mr Keating did not want anybody—and certainly not the parliament, to whom he had an obligation—to know exactly what he was doing.We get this cant from the Labor Party that somehow there is something wrong with Senator Parer because his wife may have happened to purchase some shares in a company. It was not Mr Keating's wife who did this transaction; it was Mr Keating himself, in a meeting with Mr William Mr Soeryadjaya, who just happened to step off a plane from Indonesia. How easy is it for somebody to get a meeting with the Prime Minister? How easy is it for somebody to step off a plane from Indonesia and, all of a sudden, have a meeting with the Prime Minister at the Prime Minister's accountant's house?I would have thought it would have been a fairly difficult proposition, unless there was something more nefarious going on. That is exactly what happened: there was a very nefarious transaction. Do not forget that this was a transaction in which Mr Keating was paid $US6 million for a company that was $13 million in debt. Maybe Mr Soeryadjaya needs a trip to the funny farm, but maybe this matter is more murky than anybody on the benches opposite is willing to admit.That is the condemnation that the Labor Party deserves, and that is why the motion they have proposed in this chamber today is deserving of none of the time of this Senate. (Time expired)15:13:005245Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Madam Deputy President, isn't it a remarkable defence of Senator Parer for the other side to say, `We believe there are allegations against former Prime Minister Keating, therefore no-one should ever again ask a question about Senator Parer'? It does not work that way. Senator Parer is a public official.Let me express my disappointment about the fact that Senator Hill has not tabled those relevant extracts from the Prime Minister's letter of August last year so we can judge the precise requirements. Extracts have been quoted in at least two newspapers by some of his colleagues. We would like to see them so we can measure what standards the Prime Minister put on this government and what their response is to those standards, because that is what we are examining here today.We were accused by Senator Alston today, when he was not in his own seat, of the politics of envy. Senators should note the fact that Senator Alston took great note of the questions being asked of Senator Parer. He didn't make a big statement in this chamber, but he slipped out, sold all his shares and notified the registrar 28 days later. We will not catch out the slippery Senator Alston on any of these particular issues. He knows when to get out. He knows when to hide on these particular matters.Senator Parer's performance today, apart from the normal sprint out of the chamber after question time—which I think he would win an olympic event at; he has won it every day for the last few months, but leaving that aside—was interesting. He was asked today whether he got the Prime Minister's letter. Yes, he did; he read it. That is a big improvement on his ministerial performance in the past—they did not lose it.He also noted the prohibitions. He would argue there was no prohibition on his spouse buying Telstra shares. We have never argued that. He would argue that even though he was chairman of IMPL and controlled eight of the nine shares and they purchased 2,600, it was not his decision, this was his spouse's decision—the same sort of defence he ran over the East Court matter with Gashbar when, on call, $250,000 was supposed to be paid and it was not fronted up. Senator Parer, in the newspapers at that time, said, `Oh no, I don't handle any of those matters. Talk to the spouse, she handles all those particular matters.' But he then went on to say, finally answering the question, `Yes, I did note the prohibition on staff buying shares. Yes, I did inform my staff that they were not to buy shares.'He did not answer the last part of the question, however: what did he do or did he take any steps to make sure his own staff complied with the Prime Minister's directive? What do we find? We find that his key member of staff, in fact, has gone out on 25 November and purchased 1,600 Telstra shares along with hundreds of thousands of other Australians. Why would Senator Parer's staffer defy him in that way, or was he to understand the sort of pattern of behaviour here meant that all those associated with this minister were going to get in for their chop? After all, 24 parcels went—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Twenty-seven.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Twenty-four parcels, not counting the others, went to people directly related to Senator Parer or his companies. So that culture existed that they would all get in for their chop.We have Mr Baudino, the media adviser, defying the Prime Minister's edict. And we find out today—we are surprised, but we do not doubt it—he defied the minister himself. Could it be that the greatest gutter crawler in history up in the gallery—we were accused of it the other day, but no-one could exceed this media officer's record up there of dissembling various mistruths about this building; no-one in the history of the building has this bloke's record—is in there for his chop and he has defied Senator Parer?Senator Parer, in these circumstances, only has one possible solution, and that is to give Mr Baudino the pink slip and then at least expunge that one thing off his record, because ultimately the minister is responsible for his own staff's performance. If he has instructed them not to do something and if they have defied him, then some of his responsibility is ameliorated. But he can only do that by saying to his staff member who has defied him, `I am sorry. You will not follow orders. You are out.' (Time expired)15:18:005246Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—It is interesting to note that the two participants in this debate today from the Labor Party side have been Senators Faulkner and Ray, who sat around the cabinet table with former Labor Prime Minister, Mr Keating. The revelations in today's Sydney Morning Herald must leave them feeling very betrayed or they had full knowledge about it. On either account, they must be feeling very nervous. It has been quite clear amongst journalists and amongst others in the public arena that the story on Mr Keating was about to break. So what was the Labor Party's tactic? It was to try to distract attention from the story that broke today and so they have had another pathetic attempt on Senator Parer.Let me simply say this to the people of Australia: there is a fundamental difference between Senator Parer's financial situation and Mr Keating's financial situation. Senator Parer got all his money prior to politics by working hard, honestly and diligently. Mr Keating made his money whilst he was the Prime Minister. Those of us who know the salary that pertains to the office of Prime Minister can do our sums. At the end of the day, even if he did not have to spend a cent on food, and he invested all his prime ministerial salary at the best possible interest rates, he could not have the degree of wealth that he has today. So the question has to be asked: from whence did that wealth come? That is why Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray, no doubt, are no longer in the chamber—because they feel the pressure.That is the very big difference in this debate: Senator Parer was known to be a wealthy, capable businessmen before he entered this place. Indeed, he has prejudiced his wealth by coming into this place. Mr Keating made his wealth by coming into this place, by doing the sort of deals that have now been highlighted in the Sydney Morning Herald, and the Labor Party, the so-called party of the battlers, is willing to accept and defend that sort of behaviour.I would have thought, if the Labor Party had some political smarts, that today they would have been trying to get onto some policy areas and not leading with their chin in relation to the question of ministerial standards. When one compares the ministerial standards required of Liberal and National party ministers with what the Labor Party has done, especially in relation to the man they chose to depose Mr Hawke and who they supported—when you make that juxtaposition—the absolute duplicity in the standards that the Labor Party would seek to apply clearly becomes apparent?I look forward to the time, possibly tomorrow or the next day, or even in a month or two's time, when the Labor Party might devote itself to and take up issues of policy—issues such as unemployment.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—They can't.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—They can't, Senator Ferguson, you are right. Why? Because if they were to do that, we would remind them of the one million people they left in the unemployment queues because of Mr Keating's excellent economic management. Isn't it a pity that his own personal economic management could not be translated into Australia's economic benefit? Why is it that he could not turn these dollars into millions instead of leaving Australia a $10.5 billion deficit? He was able to do it, miraculously, in relation to the piggery—he was able to get $6 million for a $13 million debt. If he could have had the same sort of return on the $10.5 billion deficit he left Australia, we would now have paid off all our federal debt. But, unfortunately, the pursuit of personal wealth was greater than his pursuit of his responsibilities of public office. I look forward to the next policy debate whenever the Labor Party want to bring it on—be it on unemployment, be it on budget deficits or whatever. (Time expired)15:23:005247Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam Deputy President, you would recall that, on 11 March this year, Senator Parer was asked to respond to a question in regard to the explanatory notes for the registrable interests that he was required to put before this parliament which require disclosure of:. . . any other interests where a conflict of interest with a Senator's public duties could foreseeably arise or could be seen to arise.Senator Parer had indicated, under that section in his declaration, that he was a person who was married, that he was a ratepayer and that he was a Christian. But he failed to indicate in that register that he, in fact, had a significant shareholding in coalmining interests to the tune of $2 million.Since that time, we have discovered that perhaps the only thing that was accurate, the only thing that was true, with regard to that declaration of pecuniary interests made before the Senate was that Senator Parer was married, a ratepayer and a Christian. No other aspect of that declaration appears to have been borne out by an examination of the facts. Since 11 March, we have discovered a network of shareholdings and arrangements with regard to various investment agencies that demonstrates that Senator Parer's share trading activities make Gordon Gekko look somewhat like a saint.We have to ask at this time whether this millionaire resource company share trader, this part-time Minister for Resources and Energy, actually does understand the difference between what is legal and what is ethical. It is quite apparent from his actions before this chamber that he has some difficulty reaching that conclusion. That may be a little harsh. There is evidence to suggest that other views could be put that Senator Parer does understand the difference. I am sure his defenders on the other side will one day get up and explain that to us, but we will wait for that event to occur.On 17 October last year, Senator Parer went to some length to big-note himself, to explain that he had written to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to indicate that he had disposed of the CSR shares that he held through the Warwick Parer family trust because CSR had an interest in the bauxite mine Nabalaco. He indicated that he thought it was appropriate for him to dispose of those shares because there might be a public perception of a conflict of interest.We do understand that noble gesture was not followed through in all other actions taken by the resources minister. We have come to understand that there were, in fact, a whole series of other share transactions undertaken by this minister through various investment agencies. For instance, there was the purchasing of shares through Argo Investments such as Energy Resources of Australia Ltd, which has a direct and specific interest in the uranium mining at Jabiluka—a mine that required the support of this minister and particular actions taken by him as the minister for resources.So we ask ourselves what is the difference between the actions taken by this minister in the public declaration of the disposal of CSR shares in regard to a bauxite mine, and his own actions with regard to the purchase of shares, through an investment vehicle, in Energy Resources of Australia and their actions in uranium mining. That is a pattern that seems to have emerged not just in the case of uranium. It is action we are now seeing in share transactions involving Ashton Mining and the diamond industry, Broken Hill, North Ltd, the coal trust of Queensland, Rio Tinto and various other diversified miners. We see it in the gold industry and in oil and gas.In fact, there is a whole range of industries in which this minister has quite obviously a substantial benefit. It may be said, as he indicated here yesterday, that he sought to use these investment agents as a vehicle to establish some sort of hands-off arrangement towards his share trading. It seems to me more likely to be the case that he understood the benefits that could be derived from the decisions to be taken by him in each of these sectors and, in due course, that he personally would secure the benefits to be derived from his decisions as the minister for resources in all of those industries. (Time expired)15:28:005248Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—It is interesting that not one of the Labor senators has chosen to defend their former leader Mr Keating against the allegations that have been made against him in the Sydney Morning Herald . In almost an unprecedented way, no-one from the Labor Party seems to be bothered to stay in this chamber to try to defend Mr Keating. I know why Senator Carr did not stay: it is because he was a factional opponent of Mr Keating. He is probably encouraging us to raise these issues. But I am surprised that neither Senator Faulkner nor Senator Ray had one word of defence in favour of the man who led their party for many years. That brings into question the motives of Senator Ray and Senator Faulkner, and perhaps I will return to that later.There was a suggestion made by one of the Labor senators that Senator Parer had increased his wealth. That is certainly correct. He has done it by his own hard work and efforts over his lifetime. One might ask about Mr Keating and his increase in wealth. I know that, under Labor, inflation rose dramatically, but not dramatically enough to explain why Mr Keating's investment of $430,000 seemed to convert, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, to an asset of $A10 million. How could that possibly occur, and why is it not being explained?I cannot believe that the ministry under Mr Keating, which included such inquisitive minds as Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray, did not inquire of the then Prime Minister as to what happened. You know, Madam Deputy President, as we all know, that Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray have trawled through everybody's statements of interest. They have gone to inordinate lengths to check out every one of us on this side. We know that that is happening. They have very inquisitive, investigative minds. But why weren't they put into play when all this furore about Mr Keating occurred? You might recall that our former colleague Senator Michael Baume consistently attacked in this chamber Mr Keating for what he alleged were shonky dealings over that piggery. Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray defended the Prime Minister at every occasion and called Senator Baume all the names under the sun.Senator Baume mentioned it outside this chamber because he is a courageous man, and Mr Keating sued him. He got him to shut up because he sued him for defamation. He said that he would make Senator Baume pay. On 12 June this year, as I am informed by the whip, former Senator Baume indicated that Mr Keating has withdrawn that defamation action. One might think that the reason for that was that the last thing Mr Keating wanted exposed in a court case were the real facts of this issue. Fortunately, the Sydney Morning Herald appears to expose those facts in any case. But Mr Keating did not want it. Perhaps an expose of those facts might also have implicated some of the people who were in cabinet with Mr Keating at that time.We on this side will have to take a leaf out of the book of the current Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and his cohorts and start looking through the statements of interest of Labor senators and work out why Labor senators who were for the last 13 years ministers in the government, which means that they were getting fairly big salaries, and who do not seem to have any commitments—and people who have been cabinet ministers on even higher salaries—do not seem to have any assets to disclose in their statements of interest. They do not seem to have dependants. One might wonder what has happened to all of them. That is something that we on this side, although we do not like doing that, might have to do. While we are at it, we will look at the allegation that John Brown, a former minister in the Labor government, received a gift of $1 million when he left this place. Someone else said that it was a payment of a commission. Why he was paying a former minister a commission one would have to wonder about. But that probably needs looking into as well. We should perhaps also look into the redundancy payment paid to David Hill, now a candidate for the Labor Party, when he was General Manager of the ABC. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous52495249524915:34:005249Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Abetz, I present additional information received by the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee in response to the 1998-99 budget estimates hearings.Bills5249s148524915:34:005249Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Ferguson, I present the report of the Economic Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Taxation Laws Amendment (Part-time Students) Bill 1997, together with submissions.Ordered that the report be printed.Notices5249524915:35:005249Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—At the request of the respective senators, I withdraw the following general business notices of motion:277, 309, 410, 492, 740, 745, 822, 855, 858, 859, 866, 909, 912, 914, 931, 957, 958, 961, 969, 972, 975, 976, 982, 983, 990, 991, 1002, 1011, 1014, 1023, 1031, 1032, 1034, 1040, 1044. 1051, 1055, 1056, 1058, 1062, 1068, 1071, 1075, 1080, 1083, 1084, 1087, 1088, 1090, 1091, 1093, 1094, 1095, 1097, 1104, 1117, 1120, 1127, 1138, 1148, 1150 and 1151.Committees52495249524915:35:005249Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—by leave—I present the 10th report of 1998 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I move:That the report be adopted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to have the report incorporated into Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEReport No. 10 of 19981. The Committee met on 7 July 1998.2. The committee resolved:(a) That the provisions of the following bill be referred to a committee:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateAustralian Hearing Services Reform Bill 1998 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyCommunity Affairs11 August 1998(b) That the following bill be referred to a committee:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateBroadcasting Services Amendment Bill 1998 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyEnvironment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts9 September 19983. The Committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:Corporate Law Economic Reform Bill 1998Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1998Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Bill 1998.The Committee recommends accordingly. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 30 June 1998)Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998(deferred from meeting of 7 July 1998) Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation Amendment Bill 1998 Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998 Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1998 Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 Customs Legislation (Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme) Bill 1998 Industry Research and Development Amendment Bill 1998 Life Insurance (Conduct and Disclosure) Bill 1998 National Measurement Amendment (Utility Meters) Bill 1998 Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 Statute Stocktake Bill 1998 Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1998.5. The committee considered a proposal to refer the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 (see appendix 3) , agreed that the bill should be referred, but did not reach a decision on the committee to which the bill should be referred or the reporting date.(signed)(Paul Calvert)Chair8 July 1998Appendix 1Name of bill : Australian Hearing Services Reform Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration :The failure of the Government to provide details in relation to the exact nature and level of Community Service Obligations, despite repeated requests.The level of community concern about the provision of hearing services to children and pensioners, by Australian Hearing Services.Concerns expressed by private providers and consumers regarding the new arrangements for the provision of subsidised hearing services.The need to ensure that high quality hearing services research continues to be supported by government, by contract with Australian Hearing Services.Possible submissions or evidence from:Consumers' Health Forum of Australia Australian Consumers' Association Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation Brotherhood of St Laurence Council on the Ageing (Australia) National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation National Ethnic Disability Alliance National Rural Health Alliance Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children ACT Deafness Resource Centre Deaf Society of NSW Deafness Association of the Northern Territory Queensland Deaf Society Royal South Australia Deaf Society Tasmania Deaf SocietyVictorian Deaf SocietyWestern Australian Deaf SocietyAudiological Society of AustraliaCommunity and Public Sector UnionRural Doctors' Association of AustraliaSpeech Pathology Association of AustraliaSpeech Pathology Private Practitioners AssociationAnd those agencies who made submissions to the Hearing Services Administration Bill 1997Committee to which bill is to be referred :Senate Community Affairs Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s):July 98Possible reporting date:31 July 1998(signed) C. EvansWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 2Name of bill : Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration :Significant public interest and debate.Possible submissions or evidence from :Pay TV IndustryFree-to-air BroadcastersConsumer OrganisationsRegulatorsCommittee to which bill is to be referred :ERCA LegislativePossible hearing date(s) :July/AugustPossible reporting date :9 September 1998(signed)C EvansWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 3Name of bill : Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration :Fundamental reform of Commonwealth environmental reformPossible submissions or evidence from :Committee to which bill is to be referred :Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s) :Early AugustPossible reporting date :7 October 1998 (no later)(signed)P CalvertWhip/Selection of Bills Committee member15:36:005251Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I move the following amendment to the motion:Add the words: "and, in respect of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998, the bill be referred to the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee for inquiry and report on 7 October 1998.". I will speak briefly to my amendment. This is a very important but complex bill. It is really the first major reform of Commonwealth environment law in the last 20 years. It should be considered by the Senate committee before debate in this place. It not only is a good vehicle to pick up the fine points, but I have always supported that process as an opportunity for the wider constituency to have a public opportunity to contribute to the legislative process.The appropriate committee is obviously the legislation committee, because the bill has been tabled and that is what we are considering and that is what legislative committees were set up for. I have suggested a report on 7 October 1998. That might seem to be a long time, but I have deliberately allowed a considerable time in order that all interested parties can have a full opportunity to contribute to the process. It would mean that there would still be the opportunity to debate the bill in this chamber during the spring session following its return to this place on 7 October.The government is obviously keen to get that bill debated as it is pursuant to a COAG agreement that was reached last year. It has been a long, complex process. The COAG agreement was followed by a consultation paper and now the bill, and it is time for the legislative process to take place. Nevertheless, I think that a period of consideration by the Senate committee that was set up for this purpose—that is, the environment legislation committee—can improve the bill further and, as I said, give all stakeholders a fair, public opportunity to contribute their views.15:38:005252Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I move:(1) Omit "Legislation", substitute "References".(2) Omit "7 October 1998", substitute "the last day of sitting in November 1998".The reason the Democrats wish to see this legislation sent to the environment references committee is, as Senator Hill rightly points out, that this is a very important and a very complex bill. It is some 400 pages. It is perhaps the most significant change to the federal environment legislation in the history of this parliament.We are suggesting that, since the references committee has been examining for the past 18 months or so the powers of the Commonwealth in terms of the environment, it is very well placed to take this reference. It has been gathering expertise and investing a great deal of time and effort to this purpose. I remind honourable senators that, in the past, bills of such complexity and such enormity—such as the workplace relations bill and the sale of Telstra bill—have been supported by the Senate to go to a references committee. I think this is another example of where such a referral should go to that committee. I commend this amendment to the Senate and ask that it be supported.15:41:005252Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support Senator Allison's amendment on behalf of the Democrats in regard to the environmental legislation. Of course this legislation should be going to the references committee rather than the legislation committee. It should be going to the references committee because of the enormous impact that is inherent in this legislation not only on Australian politics but on the future of the environment in this country.When in 1972 Lake Pedder was facing imminent flooding—in fact, it was inundated during the winter of 1972—with the Hydro Electric Commission in Tasmania and the Reece Labor government of the time rolling right across the top of public sentiment, the Whitlam government was voted into power in Australia—in December of that year. The Prime Minister, particularly under the influence of the very esteemed member of the House of Representatives, Mr Tom Uren, and also Dr Moss Cass, moved to see what could be done in the national interest to stop this great act of destruction of a prime piece of Australia's natural heritage, Lake Pedder being one of the most gently beautiful places on the face of this planet. They found that there was very little in terms of federal ability—5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—On a point of order, Madam Deputy President: we are debating a motion about referring this to a legislation or a references committee. My point is on the matter of relevance. I think Senator Brown is debating the subject and getting away from what we are supposed to be talking about.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, if you could make your comments relevant to the amendment to the amendment, please.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Certainly. I am, Madam Deputy President. That is twice in a couple of days that Senator Calvert, who is unlikely to make any contribution to this debate, has—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, please don't reflect upon another member of this place. Make your comments in relation to the amendment, thank you.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—That he has sought to cut across the development of my argument, and I am going to continue.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—On a point of order: Senator Brown is clearly and graphically defying the ruling you have just made, Madam Deputy President. I know you really don't need my help, but I remind you that he is clearly and aggressively ignoring your ruling.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Macdonald, I was about—before you interrupted me—to ask Senator Brown to please continue to debate the amendment that has been moved by Senator Allison or Senator Hill. Senator Brown, do not indulge in your thoughts on the behaviour of other senators in regard to what you perceive that they are doing with your speaking time. Please continue.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I will, Madam Deputy President. As I said, I will continue to develop my argument from where I left off before I was interrupted. The Prime Minister of the time, Gough Whitlam, then sought to intervene but found that there was very little Commonwealth power to do so. Out of that tragedy came the development of Commonwealth law for the protection of places of high conservation value which were of importance to the whole of the nation. These included the establishment of the Australian Heritage Commission, a number of environment acts and the signing of the world heritage convention in 1975.Because of this development of national law which had the ability to protect environmental assets of national significance, the Daintree rainforests, which would otherwise have been vulnerable, have been protected.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, we are debating two amendments to a Selection of Bills Committee report which relate to what will happen to a bill, which committee it should be investigated by and what the length of time for that investigation should be. I would appreciate it if you could tie your contribution to the variations in relation to the amendments that have been moved, please.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—To continue my argument, because of the development of those laws, the Australian environment has been much better protected. But here we have comprehensive legislation to unravel those environment powers, to divest the national government of the day of powers to protect the Australian environment and put them back to several maverick state governments which these days, at the end of the 1990s, show little more sympathy to the environment than Eric Reece and his destructive band of ministers did in Tasmania in the early 1970s.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Once again it relates to relevance. We are not debating the bill. We are supposed to be debating the reference of this bill to the references committee or the legislation committee and the amount of time involved—nothing else.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, I would ask you to tailor your comments to the amendments that have been moved, please.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, I will continue as I was—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—If you continue, would you please continue tailoring your comments to the amendments that have been moved.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—As they were tailored before I will. The point of this is that the dismantling of these laws has massive ramifications outside the strict legal determination that the legislation committee can handle. Of course, as Senator Allison has moved, it should go to the references committee. As she has pointed out, this is complex legislation like that for the sale of Telstra and like that for industrial relations in this country. It is no less important, so it should go to the same sort of committee. That is the point I have been trying to make. That is the point I have illustrated. I have given the reasons why, and I support this amendment from Senator Allison 100 per cent.15:47:005254Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—In support of the argument that this bill should be sent to the references committee, I would like to remind the Senate that the first announcement that was made publicly in relation to the changing of these laws, or at least the first that I knew, was actually made by Senator Parer. It would appear that the announcement and the push for the changes of these policies that are exemplified by the legislation we are being asked to look at were not made strictly in terms of environmental legislation. It was made in terms of economic policy and promises to investors that the environment movement could be got off the hose of development; that is, that it could be made cheaper for investors if we could remove some of those nasty impediments to people making more money.The implications are much wider than a particular piece of legislation, although the legislation probably epitomises a number of these elements. We have got the issue of whether or not we are actually unable to better assist and protect world heritage areas and areas of national significance. We are going to need to bring those issues in and debate them within a committee structure, and I think that would be quite difficult under the strict terms of a legislation committee. I would argue strongly that it is an issue of major concern. Any polling in Australia would indicate that it is a major concern, and the protection of environment and environmental qualities and future implications of the environment are considered to be highly relevant and highly important by the community and—this is something which should make a difference to both the government and the opposition—by the electorate as well.The issues are such that they must be looked at in the context of the changes that are occurring. Of course, we have got to look at it in the context of all the promises that have been made in relation to other issues that we have dealt with. On the RFA process, we are continually told that we have got to look to the state side of things. Every time we have asked questions about environment issues which have a federal connection, the answer is generally, `Well, it is the role of the states.' If it is land use, it is the role of the states. We have seen an entire policy shift. What we are talking about is the legislative changes in the context of the entire policy shift pushed by the corporate profit making dollar.I would argue that that is the exact reason that those reference committees have been set up: to be able to look at complex, important legislation in the wider context and not be restricted to simply the wording within the particular legislation we are looking at. Quite frankly, in an issue as major as the one we are looking at here, you have to look at what has gone before, what is attached and what is happening in other policy areas. We are also looking at whether or not there are going to be jobs in the future. We are going to be looking at whether or not we are simply going down a very narrow path for a very narrow end, that is, increasing profitability for a very small number of people.I would like to support the extension of time to acknowledge the important role that many people in the community—I would have to say the majority of the community—feel that environmental standards play. I would like to argue strongly that the legislation committee would not be the appropriate body to look at this. It is not a small, distinct reference; it is a reference about this legislation in the context of the wider policy changes. They are not just environmental changes, they are economic changes as well. They will have an impact for a long time in the future. I believe we need to cross-reference, I believe we need to put them in context, and I believe the references committee is the most appropriate body to handle such an inquiry.15:51:005255Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—There is no doubt that the bill on which we are debating reference to a committee represents very substantial and sweeping changes to the Commonwealth's environmental laws, perhaps the most significant for the past 20 years. I think that as a result of that the bill does deserve some detailed consideration. I notice that this view was supported by the minister, Senator Hill. He said on 26 March:`The proposed reform represents a truly historic initiative. In fact, the proposals represent the only comprehensive attempt in the history of our federation to define the environmental responsibilities of the Commonwealth government.Perhaps those words are a little overblown, but I think this does indicate the significance which at least the government is attaching to this particular bill.At the heart of the debate lies the argument about the extent to which the Commonwealth should exercise powers over the environment. Some would say that this is not so much an issue about legislation as much as it is an issue about federation and the nature of our constitutional arrangements. The bill would define the role of the Commonwealth with regard to environmental protection and management, affecting the level and extent of participation by the Commonwealth. It is difficult to say, from the information that is provided in the consultation paper, the extent to which the national environmental significance trigger would adequately protect the environment.The bill ties in with a recent inquiry by the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee on Commonwealth environmental powers. The period for public consultation and for input from the public on the consultation paper was very limited. Of course, the government said that that was because, after the bill was introduced, there would be an opportunity for full public consultation.We have a technical issue here about whether the bill should be referred to a references committee or to a legislation committee. In relation to legislative and general purpose standing committees, let me quote Odgers. I do not often quote Odgers, but Odgers claims that references to legislative and general purpose standing committees should relate to subjects which can be dealt with expeditiously. The bill does not really fall into the category of matters which can be dealt with expeditiously. This has national significance and far-reaching effects. References committees are in a better position to be able to conduct that sort of inquiry. That is the fact of the matter. I think it is more suitable in relation to this legislation for it to go to a references committee. It is important to consult as widely as possible because these are dramatic and far-reaching changes to Commonwealth environmental law.This has not been a view often expressed by the opposition since we lost government in 1996, but on this occasion the arguments are strong enough for us to support a references committee inquiry as opposed to this matter being dealt with by the legislation committee. It is for that reason, on this occasion, that the opposition sees merit in Senator Allison's amendment, and we will be supporting it.15:57:005255Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I would indicate to the Senate that I have had a good look at this particular matter and I have listened to what has been said in this debate. One concern that I had was that the legislation committee may not be able to travel to hear what the states have to say or what, for example, the environmental groups have to say in the various states. I am assured by the officers of the Senate that that is not the case and that, in a matter like this, it is quite likely that, after advance notice being given of the reference of this matter to the legislation committee, there is nothing to stop that legislation committee from going around the states and collecting evidence from people within the states. They do not have to come here.Normally speaking, when we have a legislation committee, they are pretty concertinaed jobs and people have to come to Canberra for that purpose. But, in respect of this matter, I have ascertained that the likelihood, depend ing upon the committee itself of course, would be that the committee would go to the various states to examine witnesses and submitters. I have spoken to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill) about that and he has indicated to me that that would be the likely result. If the matter was referred to the legislation committee then not only would that committee not be prevented from taking evidence from around the states on this very important matter but he indicated that that would be done.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—We did that with the Natural Heritage Trust Bill, and we went right around Australia.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Senator Ian Campbell mentions that that was what occurred with another very important piece of legislation which was somewhat contentious. It is my intention to vote for the legislation to be referred to the legislative committee.Amendment (by Senator Allison) not agreed to.Amendment (by Senator Hill) agreed to.Motion, as amended, agreed to.Documents52565256525610000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, on behalf of the President I present the following audit of the Auditor-General: Report No. 1 of 1998-99—Performance Audit—Corporate governance framework—Australian Electoral Commission .Bills5256r4185256Message received from the House of Representatives forwarding the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 for concurrence.Ordered that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Committees5256525610000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of committees.Motion (by Senator Troeth)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be appointed to committees as follows:Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy—Select Committee— Appointed: Senators Crane, Heffernan, Margetts, McGauran, Murray, Quirke and SherryEnvironment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee— Participating member: Senator PayneLegal and Constitutional Legislation Committee— Participating member: Senator Payne.Miscellaneous5256Debate resumed.16:02:005256Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I obviously support the government motion for the bill to be brought on for consideration during the current sitting. There are several remarks that were made by opposition and Independent senators during the debate this morning. To say that this is a rush to get legislation on in a hurry is a complete and utter fabrication. As those honourable senators who have been interested in the debate will know, the government of the day some 10 years ago gave effective notice to the grains industry that the Australian Wheat Board will become self-reliant by the year 1999, a year which is now rapidly approaching.During that 10-year period the grains industry has undertaken a comprehensive strategic planning process which has involved direct grower involvement. For instance, since 1996 an industry based working party has been developing the proposed corporate structure of the AWB involving representatives of each wheat producing state who have consulted extensively with growers, and they have employed the services of commercial and legal consultants, Bankers Trust Australia and Mallesons Stephen Jaques. Industry agreement on the dual share class, the grower controlled structure, known as the grower corporate model, was reached early in 1997—that is, some 18 months ago.Since that time, extensive work has been done by the industry to finalise the details of the model, and the final model was unanimously supported by each wheat growing state in early 1998. Some Western Australian producers, as mentioned by some of the earlier speakers, have proposed a cooperative or a composite model as an alternative. That model was studied closely by the Grains Council of Australia, made up of all wheat growing states, and it was rejected. For Senator Margetts to say that there is considerable movement within the industry for that model to be rejected is a total fabrication. Industry agreement for the grower corporate model has been reached and maintained. In addition, industry has reached agreement on the preferred model for the AWB. Because the AWB will be grower controlled and funded by a capital base of $600 million of growers' funds, it is unreasonable to interfere with their wishes. What the government is doing is providing an industry forum which will be controlled by the industry.There are several ways in which the earlier speakers this morning provided a totally false picture of the case. What the government is doing is providing a strong industry with a means to go forward. We obviously wanted to get the legislation on last week but, as Senator Forshaw will recall, some 1½ days last week were spent in totally useless debate which did not advance one piece of legislation. That is why we were unable to bring on the wheat legislation earlier.The coalition does have a concern for the industry, and for the opposition to drag in spurious issues such as the native title debate as a reason for not bringing on this legislation is totally wrong. We want to provide the legislation to underpin one of Australia's strongest primary industries. Therefore, it is the wish of the coalition to bring on the legislation as of now. For that reason, I support the motion which I moved previously. Question put: That the motion (Senator Troeth's ) be agreed to.16:11:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)40Abetz, E. Allison, L.Bartlett, A. J. J. Boswell, R. L. D.Bourne, V. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Murray, A. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. *Parer, W. R.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Woodley, J.24Bishop, M. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. *Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.Alston, R. K. R. Bolkus, N.Kemp, R. Conroy, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McKiernan, J. P.Patterson, K. C. L. Neal, B. J.Stott Despoja, N. Evans, C. V.Watson, J. O. W. Cook, P. F. S.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bills52585258Debate resumed from 22 June, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.16:15:005258Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—It is unfortunate that, in her concluding remarks when we were debating the cut-off motion, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Senator Troeth) decided to embark upon a rather derogatory attack on the opposition. On all counts, the parliamentary secretary got it wrong, badly wrong.Let us have a look at a couple of things the parliamentary secretary said. She said that the opposition's arguments were a fabrication. The parliamentary secretary is saying that the considered arguments put most forcefully by the grower representatives from Western Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and, indeed, the Grains Council of Australia were a fabrication. Unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary did not have the opportunity to attend the Senate committee hearing. It was so glaringly obvious at the Senate committee hearing that—whilst there is a split within the grower ranks between, effectively, the eastern state organisations and the Western Australian Farmers Federation in terms of process as to whether or not this bill should go through the parliament at this stage—when put to the test, each of the organisations had serious reservations about the future successful operation of this proposed restructuring.So it is not a fabrication at all. It is not a fabrication, for instance, if you go to the Hansard and find that each of the organisations expressed serious concern about the future of the single desk. We note that, in recent times, since the consideration by the committee—and fortunately this government has come to its senses and accepted the committee's recommendations—the government has had to back up its commitment to a single desk by amending this legislation.As every senator knows—as I am sure Senator Boswell, who is in the chamber, knows and as senators and members from Western Australia know—there has been consistent concern expressed until as recently as a couple of days ago that, if the legislation stayed as it was introduced into the parliament by the government, grave fears were held for the future of the single desk beyond the year 2004. In fact, the legislation made it almost inevitable that the single desk would disappear.Given the performance of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in some of its deliberations, the likelihood was that the single desk would go once the competition review took place. That is something that has not just been raised with regard to the wheat industry but has been a major concern in other industries such as sugar.That is not a fabrication. I would not doubt that there are still grave concerns that, notwithstanding the strong commitments made by both the government and, indeed, us in opposition—which we made when in government and continue to make in opposition—to support the continuation of the single desk for wheat export marketing, there are grave concerns out there in the industry as to what the future holds on that issue.The parliamentary secretary also suggested that there is unanimous agreement among all the state grain growing organisations to support this package. That is not the case at all. The position is this: the Grains Council—the peak body, if you like—supports the legislation going through, but it still recognises that there are some problems that need to be resolved. It believes that, once the legislation goes through, that will provide an impetus, if you like, to bringing about a resolution of the other issues. It has also made it clear that it was seeking amendments to this legislation from the government before its complete adherence to the package would be forthcoming. The council told us that in the committee's inquiry—and, of course, the government, as it has now circulated amendments, has acted upon that.So I resent quite strongly the suggestion that the position adopted and the arguments put forward by the opposition were a fabrication. We were reflecting in this chamber, quite accurately, the arguments and the concerns that were put forward to the committee and had been put forward virtually since the first part of this legislation was introduced into the parliament, as I said, late last year.I will just continue for the moment with where the industry groups stand as of today. There is always the chance that another letter might come through the post tomorrow. It seems to have been the case over the last few weeks that, on the day there appeared to be a chance that the wheat marketing legislation was going to be debated in the Senate, the phones rang, the letters arrived and the lobbying went on. I am sure my colleague Senator O'Brien and, indeed, Senator Woodley agree with me. That sort of activity does not demonstrate unanimous agreement.Indeed, we had visits and phone calls from the various grain growing organisations almost one after the other over the course of the last couple of weeks. I have to tell you that they were not all coming in to tell me the same story. Each of them had a different attitude, ranging from complete opposition from the Western Australian farmers to urging us to hurry up and pass this legislation from the Grains Council, notwithstanding, as I said, some of the concerns that they had.In New South Wales and Queensland, grain grower organisations are asking this parliament to pass legislation. They are committed to it. But they are not committed to this legislation—the bill that is currently before this parliament. They have sought amendments to it. For instance, they have sought amendments in regard to the single desk issue that I have already referred to. They have sought amendments from the government and indeed from the other parties with respect to issues such as proxy voting rights. They have sought amendments with respect to ensuring that the wheat board would be exempt from any unintended consequences of the common law review legislation—separate legislation that is to come before the parliament. They are seriously concerned about what impact that might have.They have concerns about the final format of the memorandum and articles of association. Senator Woodley in his earlier remarks referred to this and acknowledged, quite correctly, that ultimately it is not a matter for the parliament. The parliament is not in a position to draw up the memorandum and articles of association of the companies. That authority ultimately rests with the minister.Whilst the organisations are supporting the passage of this legislation, they said to the Senate committee, `We are hoping that the memorandum and articles of association, when they finally get to us and when they are finally approved by the minister, will be in a form that we are happy with.' This is why we took the approach, in the debate on the cut-off motion, that those issues could be resolved hopefully over the next few weeks. As I said, those issues are not fabricated at all; they are real issues. There is also the issue of taxation.At the other end of the spectrum, as I said, we have the Western Australian Farmers Federation. Whilst we acknowledge that they are but one organisation that appears to be more strongly opposed to the whole of the legislation in its current form, particularly the corporate structure, they have tried to develop and promote an alternative proposal based upon a cooperative model. We accept that they have not been successful in that. They felt that with a bit more time they might have been able to persuade other grower organisations in other states and the Grains Council to their position. I have to say that I doubt that. I think the position in terms of the ultimate corporate structure is firmly entrenched.To suggest, as the parliamentary secretary did, that all states signed up to this is not correct at all. As Senator O'Brien quite rightly pointed out—and it was put in evidence to the Senate committee—Western Australia had never really accepted that position. You only have to go back and read the evidence that we heard in Western Australia last year to understand. They have had a consistent position of not being supportive of the corporate structure as put up by the Grains Council in the other states. Senator O'Brien explained the circumstances in which, apparently, an officer of the Western Australian Farmers Federation indicated acceptance without any authority. The Western Australian Farmers Federation have certainly made it clear since that occurred that they do not support the corporate structure as it is proposed.So where does that leave us? As I understand it, the government is going to propose certain amendments. I can indicate, in principle, that we certainly will be looking favourably at the amendments that go to the single desk issue. However, we will no doubt debate the amendments in more detail in the committee stage.As I said in the earlier debate, we would have preferred—and I think it would have been ultimately in the industry's interest and in the parliament's interest—to have not applied the exemption. That would have, in turn, allowed the parties some few more weeks to reach a position. The Senate would then have a clear indication from the industry as to what their total position was. I do not believe that we have that at the moment. Be that as it may, the government with the support of the Democrats have seen fit not to adopt that course, so we now have to deal with the legislation as it is before us.It should not be taken from the remarks that I have made, many of which have been critical of the government because of the process they have adopted here, that we do not support ultimately the restructuring of the industry. In fact, we started the process. It is the one thing that the parliamentary secretary did get right. We started this process 10 years ago. When we did so at the time, the then minister made it clear that this process of restructuring of the wheat industry—particularly marketing and exports—would have to be grower driven. The change would have to come about, we believed, ultimately, with the consent of and with impetus from the growers so that they were committed to that change.Whilst there has been a lot of grower organisation involvement in the negotiations over the last year or two, as I said, our concern is that we do not yet have uniformity. The last thing we would want to see would be for legislation to be passed by this parliament and then, in a few months time, we were to find that the industry was still split and the promise of improvements that the restructuring holds was no longer forthcoming.I cannot help but think of the approach adopted by the government in respect of aged care which Senator Woodley would remember quite well. One of the great problems which the government faced in that regard was that it did not have the industry on side with its proposed reforms. Ultimately, the government was required to back off and to walk away from its proposed radical changes.On this occasion, part of the industry is supportive and one section of the industry is implacably or strongly opposed. That is not a good recipe for uniformity. But, as I said, because of the decision that has been made by the Senate, we are required to deal with this legislation as best we can. It is our hope that the legislation in its final form—I have no doubt it will be passed, but with amendments—will lead to some agreement in the weeks following the vote which is taken today.In conclusion, as the Native Title Amendment Bill has been foremost in our minds for a week or two and was raised in the earlier debate, it is interesting to note that, at least in respect of this legislation, there has been a substantial amount of consultation with the key stakeholders—that is, the grains industry and the growers. In contrast, there was no discussion at all with the indigenous people and the recognised body, the National Indigenous Working Group, when we dealt with that legislation yesterday.I ask senators, particularly those on the government side, to consider this: what do you think would have been the reaction of the grain growers, the pastoralists, the wheat growers, the farmers, the rural lobby, the NFF, if you had tried to pass legislation which radically altered the situation in their industry without even bothering to talk to them?16:34:005260Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I think it is worth starting where Senator Forshaw ended. I did say, in my speech in support of the motion to exempt the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill from the cut-off period, a number of things that I had intended to say in my contribution to the second reading debate. I will try not to repeat myself but I may do so, and I ask for the Senate's indulgence if I do that.Senator Forshaw is right, but I do not think that this government has any monopoly on finding it difficult to find the models which would enable us to consult, to a point where those consultations would lead to ownership of the decisions made. That is a problem at the moment for governments of any complexion. Certainly in Australia that is true—be they state governments, local governments or the federal government.I underline the fact that until a majority of people are able to own decisions made it undermines the ability of those decisions to have a smooth passage and the support of those who ought to be supporting them. So Senator Forshaw is right. The consultation process has not been perfect in regard to this piece of legislation either, but was certainly far more extensive than the process which did not happen in terms of the Wik bill. We have to do better.I do agree that there has been consultation. I say again: if I thought that another month, two months or six months would produce any different result, certainly the Australian Democrats are always committed to that. I am convinced that at the end of that six months we would still have the same groups disagreeing, and I am not convinced that we would be any further advanced.At this stage the government needs to make a decision. They need to get on with this model that they have set up. It is not necessarily one that the Democrats think is the best, but it is one that the industry has debated at great length. So I guess it is up to the government to make it work. We will be moving amendments which I think will improve the legislation significantly, and we look for support for those.I think that the Grains Council and the Western Australian Farmers Federation have got to talk together. It really is not a suitable process that, when those talks break down, politicians in this place in some way become a substitute for negotiations between peak industry bodies. I would like to signal now that, really, this is not on. It is becoming too frequent in this place that, somehow or other, we become the referees in fights between different groups within primary industry.It is not only governments but also peak bodies which have to find better ways of resolving these issues amongst their members. I do not think that we can be effective referees in these sorts of disputes because we are too far removed from the issues. We are criticised often enough by people for being out of touch, and yet when people do not get the result they want within their own industry bodies, they come to us and want us to resolve it. That is a very difficult task. But having said that, and having repeated what I said in the previous debate, I do believe that we are getting to a point where the legislation is the best legislation we can get.I really fear the fragmentation of the industry into two camps. There are all sorts of threats flying around. I do not know how real or valid they are, but people are threatening to pull out of the Grains Council, pull out of the Wheat Board, and all the rest of it. It seems to me that it would be a tragedy if that were to happen. I do not know how real the threats are or whether it is possible for people to do that, but that would be a bad outcome. I think the government would certainly agree with that—I think all of us would.I turn to the amendments. The Democrats' first amendment to the bill negates Treasurer Costello's advice to the government that B class shares in the Australian Wheat Board cannot be treated as active assets. Our amendment ensures that B class shares can be treated as active assets. This whole issue and all its ins and outs have been batted backwards and forwards. I do not pretend that I understand all that the tax department said to us. I do not know whether anyone else does.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—You're not supposed to.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—If you do, then I would be happy to listen to an explanation. But I am convinced that what the Grains Council put to me about the need for this amendment is fair; that it is fair to treat B class shares in the Australian Wheat Board as active assets. That is why we will be moving that amendment. I know about their problem in trying to come to terms with it.I say to the Labor Party opposition that, if you are listening to the Western Australian Farmers Federation, the Grains Council and the New South Wales Farmers Federation, et cetera, they all want the amendment that I will be moving. We are all being a bit selective in this debate, I think. We take advice when it is the sort of advice we need to hear or want to hear when we perhaps would not take that advice on other occasions. Perhaps, Senator Forshaw and Senator O'Brien, you might reconsider and support the Democrats' amendment, because it does have the support of all the groups. Our amendment on the tax issue is probably, from what I can find out, the only point in this debate on which there is support from all the peak bodies and all the farmers. It is the one point in the debate on which we have unanimous support. I know we have not got the support of the government. I look to the government to perhaps think about it. I am right: this is one point on which all the groups agree with us. We will be moving that amendment.The Democrats' second amendment ensures that, whenever a quorum of the Wheat Export Authority is convened, three members, one of whom is a Grains Council nominee, shall constitute a quorum. That is a slight amendment, but it is one that we think is important. It is one which has the support of the Grains Council.The single desk issue is a very significant issue. Again, in debate on this issue it has been kicked from one end of the football field to the other. In consultation with the Grains Council and other bodies I projected an amendment. I then discovered that that amendment had itself become a football in some party rooms. I found that to be interesting.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—It wasn't ours?HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—No, it wasn't yours. I am glad that the government has come up with an amendment. I think that it is a sensible amendment; it is one that the Democrats will certainly support. I do not know if it satisfies everybody—my phone does not stop ringing. We keep having this football match over it. But it looks to me as though the government amendment does cover the issues that we are concerned about.I want to raise another issue. This does not go to the legislation, it simply raises a concern I have, and that is that, where we have corporatisation of public assets, the Democrats are always concerned to ensure that any new structure will not leave the Australian Wheat Board open to predatory takeover. That is certainly a concern which has been raised. I believe that the legislation does protect against that, but it is certainly something that has been raised. In the global grain market this is the experience of many countries. It is the single desk which, I believe, protects Australian wheat growers from this predatory activity.I have named them here before. One of the big international operators, Cargill, has a reputation for this kind of activity. I might have mentioned before that if you want a good book which analyses its worldwide activity, there is one called Invisible Giant by Brewster Kneen. It is scary to read it—a very careful analysis of the activity of that particular transnational corporation.Nor do we wish to see a concentration of ownership in the hands of even a few grain growers, even Australian grain growers, and we trust that the support of the industry will ensure that the ownership has a wide coverage. In supporting the passage of the legislation with our amendments, the Democrats do urge the Grains Council and other industry bodies representing farmers to find ways of actively communicating with grassroots members so that those bodies become a point at which members can feel they are being represented—that is a complaint that we often hear—and so that their grower members feel they have ownership of the process as well as the end product. That is a very important issue.To keep faith with some people who have spoken to us at great length, even though I do not necessarily accept all the arguments, I seek leave to table a letter from Vern Dempster, who is the Western Australian Farmers Federation's grains vice-president. I have not had a chance to copy this; if that is required I can do that and get it around to members. The letter contains his arguments as to why he believes the grower corporate model will not protect growers. I am not necessarily accepting his arguments, but it is useful for the government and all of us to have a document tabled in this debate which sets out those arguments in a very clear way. I seek leave to table that, Mr Acting Deputy President.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator Woodley, we will not give leave now, but if you could give that to the other parties, by the end of the next speech you can seek leave and we will then do the tabling.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Thank you very much. I failed to do that and I accept your rebuke, sir. I will fulfil the requirements. If the other senators feel so inclined, they can give me leave to table that document.16:48:005263Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens are appalled at the lack of time the Senate has been given to properly consider this bill. It is one of a series of bills that the government has tried to rush through the Senate during the last fortnight. Senator Woodley mentioned the potential, or the threatened potential, for fragmentation, and of course some of that call has come from the Western Australian Farmers Federation. The responsibility for that kind of fragmentation will clearly lie with the minister.Senator Woodley also is concerned or expresses doubt as to whether or not the extra 33 days will give an opportunity for some of the other models to be considered and for that potentially to be a problem. I ask whether or not the problem is the minister and whether or not he has shut his mind off, or has indicated that he has shut his mind off, to other models? If that is the problem, then it is a political issue we are dealing with in terms of rushing the bill through and trying to protect the minister from having to change his mind. That seems to me to be a concern, because it would be an extraordinary situation if the farmers of Western Australia were busy campaigning against the National Party in the Western Australia electorate.I would also remind the Senate of situations that have occurred in the past in relation to industry groups like the Western Australian Fruit Growers Association, where they had a quite different view on where their funds should be put from the view of the national body. I am Western Australian. I understand the parochialism, but I also understand the importance of participatory democracy, and that is an important basis upon which the Greens stand. If we have a situation where people are forced into a situation by dint of numbers or by someone stamping their feet, including the minister, then that is not going to work. Industry bodies are not going to work or stick together under those circumstances.The timetabling of this bill has been absolutely outrageous and it undermines the proper scrutiny of bills in the Senate. It has been mentioned that the minister only issued initial drafting instructions for the bill in early April. The first draft of the legislation was only available on 28 April. The bill was not even introduced to the House until 14 May this year and, of course, was passed by the House only on the first day of the last month.The bill was referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 24 June, and that was just a measly two weeks ago. The process with the committee left a lot to be desired. The committee did not have the time to advertise the inquiry. Interested parties had a whopping three days to write and present written submissions. The written submissions were not even available to the committee members until after the hearings had started on 29 June. The single—one—committee hearing was held on 29 June, a day during a sitting week of the Senate, so it was really difficult for many senators, including me, who were interested, to participate.The government gave the committee a reporting time to the Senate of just over a day and a half. That is a ridiculously short amount of time to properly consider all the written and oral evidence submitted. Indeed, the Hansard of the oral evidence was not officially available until a few hours before the report was due. How are the committee members supposed to be able to consider even a fraction of the evidence in a rigorous fashion under those conditions? This was a joke of a process—an insult to the concept of proper parliamentary process.There is a reason that standing order 111 or the cut-off is in place. It is to try to circumvent this exact situation occurring. It is an express recognition by the Senate that this kind of fast-tracking is unacceptable. Indeed, the current government is on record as supporting that standing order, yet they are now pushing—GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Mr Acting Deputy President, we have debated the cut-off motion, and I would ask Senator Margetts to confine her remarks to the actual legislation under consideration.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—On Senator Troeth's point of order, the first part of my presentation is on the process leading up to this legislation. It is quite in order for me to talk about the lack of process in considering this bill.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator Margetts, I think that is fair, but I just remind you not to reflect on a vote of the Senate.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I was not intending to do that. I believe it is demonstrably clear that this situation provides insufficient time for the Senate to properly assess this bill. As a result—and this is what I am getting to, and perhaps Senator Troeth might listen to why I was leading up to this—I will move a second reading amendment that postpones the consideration of this bill. That is what I have been trying to talk about for the last few minutes, but Senator Troeth might not understand that.I will be seeking to postpone the committee stage of the bill until the first sitting day in November 1998. It will be the only sensible way to proceed with this bill. Far from reflecting on the Senate, I am asking that we consider what we have not considered properly so far. After the range of arguments presented in the debate on the exemption, I had hoped that that might happen, but I now hope that the amendment is supported.I want to talk about the government's ideological push behind that. Some senators may have seen Monday's 7.30 Report, which put to Graeme Samuels from the National Competition Council that many people leaving the Queensland election polling booths expressed the view that competition policy was behind a lot of their concerns in the electorate. Graeme Samuels's reply was that that was ridiculous because competition policy had not yet affected rural and regional Australia, which probably just goes to prove how out of touch Graeme Samuels is with his own—GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I point out to Senator Margetts that Mr Samuel's proper name is without the `s', and that perhaps she should check her authorities first. For the Hansard record, it is `Samuel'.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is not a point of order, and I am not sure of the person's correct name myself.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I thank the parliamentary secretary for that very helpful interjection. This bill exemplifies the ideological zealotry of the government and the farce that is their national competition policy. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary will jump up and say, `This is not a bill about national competition policy,' but let me explain a little further so it might become clear. The government announced that a review of the wheat industry under national competition policy will be conducted in 1999-2000. The NCC have criticised this timing and have expressly cited this decision as `an example of failure to schedule an early review of important legislation'.With the commencement of the review still over a year away—honourable senators will know I am not a great fan of the National Competition Council—the government has clearly laid its expectations for the outcome of the review on the table. Would the government be prepared to admit that the National Competition Council's legislative reviews are such a foregone conclusion that they can, or should, alter legislation before the review even happens? If so, I wonder if the government sees any problems with this kind of process. Is Graeme Samuel saying that national competition policy is not happening because he is not pulling the strings, or is he saying that if state governments or federal governments are using national competition policy as a reason for making major changes in the bush, without reviewing it, then that is not national competition policy?The emphasis seems to be on deregulation and the disciplines of the market, regardless of the reality of the outcomes on the ground. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) claims that all mums and dads in Australia will benefit from being shareholders—that is, being involved with the private market and, largely, the private speculative market. He has a vision of a nation of shareholders, and the emphasis of that is on the profit maximising aspect of a corporate structure. There do not seem to be any other values considered important except profit maximisation. A very clear example of that can been seen in the conflict and tension we had between the public interest and the bottom line considerations of the shareholders with the Telstra sale bill—and we know how concerned many people in Australia are about that tension between profit maximisation and public interest.But here we have the same problem presented again in this bill—the strong conflict between the bottom line emphasis on profit maximisation of the shareholders and the needs of the growers in the industry who would potentially like to have some say in what happens to their own money in their own corporation. This is the same kind of focus we see in competition policy and in the outcomes of the Uruguay Round of GATT—that is, the emphasis on narrow goals at the expense of real evidence and concerns on the ground. The impact is on pursuing a narrow line, the bottom line, without looking at the wider impacts on real people.This bill is of considerable significance. It will determine the future structure of one of Australia's major export industries with sales worth billions of dollars each year. This bill provides for the establishment of the Wheat Export Authority, WEA, on 1 July 1999, which replaces the Australian Wheat Board and will have the function of controlling the export of wheat from Australia and monitoring nominated country B's performance in relation to the export of wheat. It has already been mentioned how large a player Western Australia is; it is bizarre to suggest that you can cut those growers out and suggest that you are going to have a board or an entity that will function harmoniously.The bill also provides for B class shares in nominated company A to be issued to Wheat Industry Fund equity holders, and for such shares to be issued at the rate of one B class share for each WIF unit. It also provides nominated company B with the power to export wheat under the Wheat Export Authority until 1 July 2004. The support by the industry and the Australian Wheat Board for this bill was significantly qualified. The time frame that the Senate has to work with does not provide time to adequately attempt to address or reconcile these concerns.It has been mentioned that Western Australia is the largest wheat export state in Australia. The Western Australian Farmers Federation has 5,550 members. With 5,000 of them growing grain, it is the most representative body in Australia. The Western Australian Farmers Federation has major concerns with many tenets of this bill, especially the huge conflict between the growers' and the shareholders' concerns.The entire industry, as we have heard, has major concerns about the sunset clause of 1 July 2004 on the single desk export monopoly of wheat. The industry wants this to be deleted from the bill. This issue is seen as of the utmost importance by a range of organisations around Australia, including the New South Wales Farmers Association, which argues that if this issue is not resolved it will not support the passage of this bill. I understand that the government and Democrats may be coming up with an amendment to potentially address this issue. I will assess that during the debate.On top of the major concerns by the industry, there is a significant number of legal uncertainties associated with the bill. The Grains Council has expressed concern about the possible consequences of the new company law review legislation passed by the Senate this sitting period. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, John Anderson, has expressly stated that he is unsure of the potential impacts of the recent Company Law Review Bill 1997 that may impact on the use of the AWB of proxy voting. He has stated:The new Company Law Review Legislation requires very close examination and detailed legal opinion before legislative amendments can be introduced.Have we seen those opinions? Going back to some of the major concerns expressed by the Western Australian Farmers Federation and many other growers at grassroots level, the grower corporate model as facilitated by this bill has been criticised significantly. There is immense uncertainty as to whether this model will adequately address the concerns of growers and the wheat industry as a whole. The WA Farmers Federation has suggested an alternative grower cooperative model to address its concerns. Its concerns have had no sounding board. There is a strong conflict between maximising returns to pool deliverers and providing a commercial rate of return to financial shareholders. This clear conflict of interest has been recognised and there has been an attempt to address concerns by a number of measures: firstly, the majority of directors elected by growers; secondly, the pooling subsidiary; and, thirdly, the directors' obligations.Let us look at how these measures are still inadequate. First of all, the majority of directors are elected by growers. Is this in the best interests of the company as a whole? The growers corporate model has seven A-class directors, four B-class directors—this may change to two B-class directors and two appointed for special expertise—plus the CEO. Growers elect seven of the 12. To change this requires a 75 per cent majority of A-class shareholders to vote in favour. The implication is that, because the company is grower controlled, the directors will always act in growers' best interests. However, the articles and Corporations Law clearly state that the obligations of all directors are to promote the best interests of the company as a whole and not to the people who elect them. Thus, the grower elected directors must always act in the best interest of the company as a whole. If they act in a partisan manner, they are acting illegally and are potentially liable to the shareholders. The reality is that the `best interests of the company' is equated to high profits and high share prices. This emphasis, however, will not necessarily result in outcomes that are in the growers' interests.Let us look at comparisons with similar companies. How do other publicly listed grower controlled companies behave? Wesfarmers is still grower controlled. The cooperative has the governing shares in Wesfarmers Ltd. Only growers can vote for cooperative directors. However, Wesfarmers undoubtedly is totally investor driven. The grower elected directors always make decisions in the shareholders' best interests—at least that is what they appear to do. The consequences of doing otherwise for the company in terms of market capitalisation would be seen as disastrous.What about GrainCorp, the privatised New South Wales grain handling authority? Growers have the governing share in this company as well as many of the ASX listed shares. Last year, they returned over 140 per cent on their capital. When faced with the best interests of the grain industry or the best interests of the shareholders, it is patently obvious who came first. Without a grain of doubt—sorry about that—AWB Ltd will face the same conflicts of interest. Is it reasonable to expect the grower elected directors of AWB Ltd to act any differently from the grower elected directors in Wesfarmers or GrainCorp? I do not think so. In time, I believe that they will act in exactly the same way and the next generation of wheat growers will pay the price.In relation to the pooling subsidiary, the theory is that, by separating the function of the pooling into a separate pooling subsidiary, the profit driven parent company is kept at arms length from the grower focused pooling section. However, it is a wholly owned subsidiary. A quorum for a general meeting is only for the parent company to be present. Providing its actions do not conflict with the requirement of its own M and As, it can change the subsidiary M and As at will. For instance, the pooling subsidiary has a requirement to obtain permission in writing from the parent before it is allowed to borrow. It is conceivable that all major functions could have similar requirements if the parent so wanted.The parent company appoints four of the seven directors. These include the chair of the parent board, the managing director of the parent, one A-class director and one other director. Is it really very likely that these four would go against the parent company directions? I hardly think so. We have to conclude that the pooling subsidiary will only be as independent as it is allowed to be by the parent. In any case, the major services of marketing the wheat as well as underwriting the first advance payment to growers are to be done by the parent. Therefore, the parent company will choose how much profit to include when it sends the bill to the pool subsidiary for services rendered.What are the directors' obligations? The memorandum and articles of association are supposed to ameliorate the conflict in directors' obligations between shareholders and growers. The memorandum and articles of association contain the following requirements:The business of the pool subsidiary is managed with the objective of maximising the net return for growers who sell wheat into the pools run by the Pool Subsidiary by securing, developing and maintaining markets for wheat and minimising costs as far as practicable.And:. . . the directors may have regard to the desirability of providing B class shareholders with a reasonable rate of return over time and the possibility that further capital may need to be raised but nothing in this clause removes the obligations of the directors to manage the business with an objective of providing services to the Pools Subsidiary efficiently and at competitive prices.These are clearly motherhood, or parenthood, statements that we can make as little of or as much of as we like. Who is to define what `minimising costs as far as practicable' is? What is `a reasonable rate of return'? These are clearly expressions that are very nebulous and difficult to put your finger on. Basically, it would be possible to justify any position that the directors are likely to take as being within these parameters. Within the context of a publicly listed company whose success is measured by its profit, it is unlikely these obligations will be interpreted by the directors in the same manner as the wheat growers would always like.The Australian Wheat Board management has share option schemes available under the memorandum and articles. Where is the incentive to act? It is effectively saying to management that, if you adopt as loose as possible an interpretation of these obligations, you will be rewarded by a lot of money in your pockets. Ultimately, the power of the dollar will emerge triumphant. It is patently clear that all the concerns surrounding the passage of this legislation have not been addressed in a satisfactory manner—that is hardly surprising considering the ridiculous fast tracking of this legislation.The legislation should not have come up this quickly. I will certainly be attempting to ameliorate the legislation in the committee stage, but I do not think it can be fixed properly in the time frame that we have been given. I move:Omit all words after "That", substitute "further consideration of the bill be postponed and be an order of the day for the first day of sitting in November 1998".17:10:005267Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I seek leave to table a memo from the junior grains vice president, Vernon Dempster. I believe it sets out clearly his objections and the WAFF objections to the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . I do not necessarily agree with it but I think it is useful to have it tabled as a succinct statement.Leave granted.17:11:005267O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—This is the second tranche of legislation relevant to the corporatisation, an effective privatisation, of the export marketing arrangements for Australian wheat. The legislation for the first part of this process was introduced into the Senate last year and was the subject of a legislation committee inquiry in which the committee took evidence in Perth and in Canberra. This led to a debate in this chamber about the passage of that particular bill.During that debate the opposition's position was that it was more appropriate to deal with both aspects of the legislation together—that is, not to deal with this legislation in two parts, or tranches as it has been described, but to await the full proposal from the government and to deal with that full proposal in one hit. At that time I did raise the question of being pressured to pass the second tranche of legislation were we to pass the first—in other words, to be faced with the proposition that the situation created by the passage of the first part of the legislation and not the second part would be held out to be a worse evil than not passing the legislation at all.The evidence from the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee inquiry of Mr Mortimer, contained in the Hansard of Friday, 26 September 1997 on page 203, was drawn to my attention by Senator Crane and Senator Troeth. I asked Mr Mortimer this question:If the second tranche of legislation did not pass, would we automatically revert to the situation as it is now, or would we have a hybrid?Mr Mortimer responded:We would have a hybrid. We would have a Wheat Board that would still be an exporter with a monopoly and it would still be operating with a government guarantee until 1999. But, instead of operating as a statutory board with trading divisions, it would operate as a statutory board with a holding company to subsidiaries underneath it that would be able to do the job just as well as the Wheat Board does now and possibly, in some regards, better. You will just simply reallocate some of the responsibilities within that broad structure.That was the passage which was relied upon by the government—by Senator Crane, the chair of the committee—in relation to the opposition's argument at that time that this matter ought to be dealt with in one part rather than in two.The reason I am raising that is that response—the basis for the government's argument—was contradicted by the depart ment's representative at the Senate inquiry held on Monday of last week. Mr Thompson said that he was not aware of the basis for that statement but was not able to support it—in other words, he was telling the committee that, if we did not pass the second tranche of legislation, we would be in an untenable situation.That is a matter of concern, because the committee either was misled in September 1997 or it was misled last week. Given the importance of this legislation, I wonder whether the government now has a position on that matter that we will deal with when we deal with this legislation, given that it may have inadvertently misled the Senate, through Senator Troeth, as to the potential consequences of the passage of the first tranche of legislation in the absence of the passage of this piece of legislation.What has emerged since that time is that the committee was given a proposed timetable for the passage of the two tranches of legislation. On that same page of Hansard, Mr Mortimer said of this second tranche of legislation that it would be drafted, finalised and introduced into the House early next year. He said that in 1997, meaning early in 1998. We now know that it was introduced into the House of Representatives on about 15 May and passed on 1 June, so the timetable was blown out considerably. Whether there were reasons or not, that left this chamber with five days to consider the committee stage of this bill and 12 to 13 days, depending on whether this bill passes today or tomorrow—if it does pass—for the bill to be before this chamber. It was introduced on 26 June and, assuming its passage either today or tomorrow, if that is the will of the government, its passage would take 12 or 13 days. They are concerns which the opposition has about the process, about the way in which we get to the point of dealing with this legislation.I am concerned also that we appear to be processing this legislation, because of the numbers in this place, on the basis of the view of the Democrats. Be that a good or bad thing, in most circumstances it is certainly not what the government would wish. On the last occasion the Democrats supported the passage of the first tranche of legislation, the justification ultimately was that it was supported by the Queensland grain growers. We have had significant evidence that the bulk of export wheat is produced in Western Australia and New South Wales. It is unfortunate, therefore, if that is the motivation for the Democrats to make their decision—that is, the decision of the Queensland grain growers—that the interests of the predominant growing states are not being properly reflected in the decision.Whatever position we take in the consideration of this legislation, it is inevitable that we have to hear the views of one or other vested interest in the debate. Whether they be the representatives of grain grower organisations or grain growers themselves, and in many cases the representatives are also grain growers, it is inevitable that questions arise as to which particular vested interest that organisation or that particular individual is representing. It has been suggested on one side of the debate that those who do not support the grower corporate model take that position because they see themselves as disadvantaged, perhaps because they no longer have as significant a Wheat Industry Fund holding as they might have done in the past. It is suggested on the other hand that those growers who have a high level of Wheat Industry Fund holdings now have more of an interest in the grower corporate model than in the cooperative model that has been supported by the West Australian growers.I am not suggesting that we should be looking for base motives in this matter but rather that we should understand that all growers look at this debate in terms of what they perceive to be their best interests. In the case of organisations, the organisations look at it on the basis of what the best interests of the members of the organisation are. That is the only proper way that we can look at these matters.But we do have to recognise, as Senator Woodley said, that this has become a fragile process. We have seen in February this year a unanimous position taken by the Grains Council of Australia to support the grower corporate model. Subsequently we have seen the Western Australian Farmers Federation effectively disown their representative's role in that unanimous decision. They pointed out to the legislation committee that inquired into this bill that that person was specifically instructed not to make a commitment without authority from the Western Australian Farmers Federation, which is a stepping back by that organisation from the position taken by its representative in the Grains Council consideration in February. If it is true that grain growers' representatives are proposing to withdraw support from the Grains Council, that would be a rather negative and unfortunate consequence of this proposal.I understand that there are officers of various organisations, and I do not want to name any, who have been involved in this process for a considerable period of time. I can understand their view that they would rather this matter finished sooner than later; they would rather the matter be resolved so that they can get on with implementing a new model for the industry. If the consequences of that desire to resolve the matter are that we end up with a model which is less than satisfactory or which has the consequence of creating greater disunity than otherwise would have occurred, I would suggest that the haste with which we are proceeding will have consequences which no-one desires and that it ultimately will be to the detriment of the industry in this country.The opposition's position is that we can hardly be seen to be assisting the unity of the industry if we crunch this bill through, if we pass the legislation in the face of significant opposition by what appears in this case to be a state which represents something like 40 per cent of grain exports in terms of production capacity, on the information that I understand was presented to the committee initially in 1997 through Senator Crane. That is a matter which is of concern to the opposition. We hope that, whatever happens, that is not a consequence. It would be of concern if that did eventuate because we are in the position of crunching through this legislation.In terms of some of the amendments, in the previous debate I intimated what the opposition's position was on the Democrat amendment on the tax issue—that is, the treatment of the WIF funds as active assets for the purpose of rollover relief. As was presented to the committee by officers of the Australian Taxation Office, when the Australian Wheat Board Ltd is corporatised and its value expressed as shares, the WIF funds will be transferred to that organisation, together with the moneys which have been earned or accumulated to those initial contributions. We have been given to understand that approximately $400 million of WIF contributions are in the pool and that an additional $221 million of earnings have accumulated to those funds. That $621 million will be part of the initial capital of the Australian Wheat Board Ltd.In addition to that, the value of the Australian Wheat Board—its assets, its goodwill and, potentially, the value of the single desk export monopoly—will be reflected in the value of the shares. What Senator Woodley's amendment is asking of the Senate, and indeed the Australian people, is that the situation continue where the first $400 million of that value, not having been taxed when it was deducted, be paid by growers, as with contributions. The opposition supports that and, as I understand it, the government supports it. That is the advice from the Australian Taxation Office and that is the basis of our support for that position. Senator Woodley's amendment seeks that the $221 million, which are the earnings of the WIF, be treated as active assets even though they have been converted to share value for the purpose of rollover relief under capital gains tax legislation.The opposition is not prepared to support that. We have taken the view that the WIF contributions being tax free—and recoverable tax free—together with an amount to reflect the depreciated value of those contributions, is a fair result for wheat growers. We would therefore not support the proposition which has been put by the Democrats and which, I understand, has some support within government circles but not the support of the Treasurer (Mr Costello) or the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) in this case. In relation to Senator Margetts's proposal that the committee stage of this bill be deferred until 1 November, we do not think it is necessary to delay the matter until 1 November, although we would have some sympathy with a delay. However, we can see that the numerical position of the Senate, as we understand it, would be to not support that position. We would support some delay because we believe this matter has not been given sufficient time, but we would not be supporting a delay until the beginning of November because we think this matter can be adequately resolved in a shorter period. Were some compromise position to emerge, we would support it.We do support Senator Margetts's view on the difficulties faced by the grower corporate model in relation to the responsibilities of directors and the accountability that might arise in future. Indeed, we raised this matter in considering the first tranche of this legislation. Our views have not changed. We have received some assurances that there is a contrary legal view; however, we believe that there will potentially be problems in this area.As to the amendment that is proposed to be moved in the committee stage by Senator Margetts to change the grower corporate model, the opposition's position is that whether it be a grower corporate model or a cooperative model is more a matter for the industry. The opposition would not be keen to impose one model over another. It appears that, whatever the wish of the Western Australian Farmers Federation, the majority of industry support is for the grower corporate model. In those circumstances, whatever sympathy we might have with the Western Australian position, we would not seek to impose that on the majority of the industry. If they cannot win the argument within the industry, they have to raise it on their own behalf in whatever way they can. Ultimately, we will support the views of the majority of the industry.The matter that remains to be considered is what the opposition would do if, following the committee stage of this bill, a significant sector of the industry were to advise that they no longer supported the bill because the amendments which they wished to be carried were not carried. The opposition reserves its position in relation to that eventuality. We heard, during the committee stage, that the Queensland and New South Wales farmers representatives required certain amendments on tax and indicated they would withdraw their support for the bill if they were not carried. The Grains Council were non-committal on that matter. The opposition is not in a position to make a definitive statement on its position on the third reading of this bill given that we cannot be sure whether, at that stage, this bill will have the support of the industry.17:30:005271Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—In rising to speak to the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , I begin by declaring that I do have an interest in this particular piece of legislation, being a member of a family partnership that both grows wheat and has WIF funds. Having said that, I would like to put a few things on the public record with regard to the process. I get rather intrigued when I hear senators from the other side saying that we have not had enough time, we should have had more time, we should delay it, we should do all these things. This started back in 1989. It started when the then minister for primary industries, John Kerin, introduced legislation to put in place the WIF to fund the domestic trading arm of the Wheat Board with the advent of deregulation on the domestic market.In 1992 the then minister for primary industries, Mr Simon Crean, took the process one step further—at that particular time it was not very well received by growers—when he announced that the government guarantee would end in 1999 and that the WIF would be expanded to cover and raise the capital base for the new privatised Australian Wheat Board, which was to occur by then. There have been a number of attempts to get to the position where there was a privatised wheat board, the most notable being Newco, which was an abject failure and was totally rejected at the end of the day right across Australia by growers.I think it is very important when we deal with these issues and the history behind it that we put on the record that this has been a process going on over a long period of time. That said, there is no doubt that the last couple of years have been very difficult. There is a fundamental reason for that which people need to understand: that is—and I put these figures down before, as Senator O'Brien said—almost all the domestic trading is done on the eastern seaboard, and in terms of importing 50 per cent on average since the WIF has been in place has come out of Western Australia. If you add South Australia's contribution to that, which I believe runs at around 18 per cent—I do not have the exact figures before me—almost 70 per cent since the WIF or since 1989 has come from Western Australia and South Australia.You almost have two forces against one another and you have competing interests in terms of that. In saying that, I am not saying that South Australia have adopted a difficult position or have been quite as concerned about some of the issues that concerned Western Australian growers and their organisations. But I do need to put on the public record that, when you have a divide so stark as that in terms of trying to satisfy two different propositions, it creates a lot of pressures in terms of getting it there.I turn now to 1996, when this process began. In doing so, it is important to put on the record why there are pressures. The estimation is that, when the WIF winds up and finally gets transferred to shares in 1999, something like $300 million—maybe not quite that much but close to it—will be held by Western Australian growers. The other $350 million from the $650 million will be held by other growers throughout Australia. When you consider that that the $300 million is in the hands of about 8,000 Western Australian growers and the other $350 million is in the hands of 60,000 growers, you understand that there is obviously a lot of pressure. All of a sudden the WIF becomes a very important component of the total picture when you are dealing with growers and their rights in terms of their cash investment—which has been compulsorily acquired since 1989 through legislation passed at that time and then compulsorily transferred into shares in 1999, albeit that a small amount has been withdrawn by WIF holders.There is pressure when 8,000 growers with big investments are holding $300 million as against 60,000 growers holding $350 million or thereabouts. I am rounding the figures off. When we get to 1999 we will know exactly what they are, but that is the ballpark that they are in and that is where it sits in terms of production across Australia. In terms of exports, WA was 50 per cent. In terms of total production during the WIF period, WA has been almost 40 per cent. So there are different pressures, huge pressures.Two things have been raised with me consistently by growers in Western Australia. First of all, they want the single desk to continue and to continue in the hands of the Wheat Board. The second issue is that, bearing in mind that this fund has been going for 10 years, another 10 years down the track the estimation is that something like 30 to 35 per cent of growers will want their money because they are getting to retirement age and they want to hand the farm on to their children. They have said, `We want to make sure we get full value for our money. We can take our money, get the hell out of the way of our children and let them get on with the business and build our home to retire in or have in our superannuation fund or what have you.' To me, that is a perfectly reasonable proposition.I listened to Senator Margetts and her contribution on behalf of the Greens, and it made me wonder. They would gladly close every acre of wheatlands in Western Australia and replant it with flowers. That is their fundamental position. Their fundamental position is also to put tariffs back on farm inputs in this country. That is their position, as it is the position of One Nation. I will deal with that at a later time in a later debate. It makes you wonder when you hear this bleeding heart across the road trying to put to us that she is concerned about Western Australian wheat growers. It is the biggest load of rubbish that I have heard in a long time, and you do hear a lot of rubbish in this place from time to time.I would like to run through a number of the issues that have been dealt with since 1996. There was no question that at that particular time Western Australia was about as far away as you could get from the model that was presented then. The proposed model was an ordinary share model. The Grains Council at that particular time was also about as far away as you could get from it, or it certainly appeared that way.Now there has been a change to a dual class model. When it started, A class directors—that is, the grower component—could be elected from anywhere. Today in this process we find that, of the directors, two will be from WA, two from New South Wales, one from Queensland, one from Victoria and one from South Australia. Not so long ago Poolco had no external directors; today it has three. That is a fundamental movement which has been taken in the direction of the Western Australian position.Let us now look at the Wheat Export Authority. That authority was to have three members: one independent, one grower and one representing the department. In recent months there has been a change. There are now five members: one from the department, the head of the department—that is the best way for me to put it so that I do not get it wrong; two independents, one to be the chair; two growers, one from the west and one from the east. As I understand it, up to the time which followed our hearings the other day, there was to be a quorum of only three. After this legislation goes through, that quorum must now include a grower. That amendment will be moved by Senator Woodley.Initially the AWB trading arm had unlimited access to finance. As a result of representations not only from Western Australia but principally from Western Australia, that finance will now be capped at $150 million. However, I must say that the Western Australian position is that of preferring it to have remained at $100 million.Let us look at B class investor-directors, particularly with regard to the corporate model and the composite model. At the hearings the other day, we were told by representatives from the Western Australian Farmers Federation, led by its president, Mr Iffla, that now with the changes that have occurred the further change could be accommodated within the terms of the memorandum and articles of association. That is on the public record. I believe I see Senator O'Brien nodding; he was present at all the hearings.The Western Australian Farmers Federation wanted no B class directors. We looked at that position, weighed it up and recommended that they be limited to two. Before that number can be increased, there first has to be a recommendation by the board, which will now contain seven and two, to an AGM. That has to be carried by 50 per cent of the A class shareholders apart from being carried by 50 per cent of the B class shareholders, who cast separate votes. So the only way that B class shareholders can increase their directors is by having the growers themselves support that proposition.This means that we will now end up with a board comprised of seven directors from the A class shareholders. The original proposal involved having a total board of 12. It will now have 10, comprised of seven growers, two investor directors and the executive director. That in itself gives greater grower control.One point about the cooperative model that came out of these hearings must be made here. As I said, Mr Iffla has assured me that it can be dealt with in the M&As. I want to make a point about grower control and grower ownership. The advisers to the Western Australian farmers at our hearings last Monday, when questioned by me, spelt out quite clearly that there was no protection against outside people coming in and buying the new shares or securities or whatever they are called. As such, the share structures for that model were exactly the same as those for the dual purpose model that is in front of us. Once again, the evidence of the experts is on the public record.We now see that there will be a loyalty program. That did not exist a short time ago. It means that there will be an incentive scheme for new wheat growers. The government made a commitment last week that it would allow the carrying of proxies under the same conditions after 1999.I cannot go through all the issues today, but I have looked at a number of them. We now have a model that will service the wheat industry into the future. It will allow it to become one of the great grain traders in the world. It is based very much on the Saskatchewan wheat pool, which is one of the most well-known grain marketing organisations in the world.I will quickly pick up a couple of other points before I wind up my comments on this legislation. The first one concerns what became known as the sunset clause, which we dealt with in our recommendations in the report. Committee members made recommendations after discussion amongst themselves. In particular, I had lengthy discussions with Senator Woodley and we proposed an amendment, which the government has accepted in this arena.I had no problem with the original position. It would have been reasonable—I am talking personally now—for the Wheat Board to have known that unless it performed and got the big tick it would have lost the single desk. Nonetheless, we listened to what the various organisations had to say. Their intent became crystal clear just as the position of the various committee members became crystal clear. In addition, we recommended that there be a full-scale inquiry by the Wheat Export Authority and that a report be given to the minister prior to 2004. I think that is incredibly crucial.One could raise many other additional matters. However, I want to wind up my comments by saying that the wheat industry has been examining this for a long time. I received today a short letter addressed to me from Minister Anderson. I will read it into the record:Yesterday you raised with my office the concern expressed to you by the Western Australian Farmers' Federation Grains Section president that their Memorandum and Articles of Association for AWB Limited and its subsidiaries could be approved by me without adequate time for consultation through Grains Council of Australia.You asked whether I would agree not to approve the M&As prior to 30 November 1998.I assure you there was never any intention on my behalf to rush development of the M&As and therefore I am happy to provide you with the undertaking you have sought.I would be pleased if you could convey this to the Western Australian Farmers' Federation on my behalf.Madam Deputy President, I have done that today. I faxed the letter to the President of the Western Australian Farmers Federation, Mr Iffla. His comment to me was, `While we would prefer you to wait until August'—and I will be quite honest about that—`we are now satisfied that we can get up what we require through the M&As by 30 November.' It is worth putting that on the public record. The Western Australian Farmers Federation is not the only grower organisation in WA, although it is the principal grower organisation. The Pastoralists and Graziers Association is in WA as well. The PGA said this in their submission:The Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill of 1998 should be allowed to pass immediately in its current form. It has been formulated after a two year industry consultation process which has been at great expense to the industry.I will not read any further, because that submission is there on the record for everybody to see. Even though the PGA has a much smaller membership than the Western Australian Farmers Federation, when its representatives appeared before the committee at our previous hearings back in September of last year they made this point: `We might be small in Western Australia but our members still produce more wheat than the whole of Queensland.' The point I make is that, while they are small in the context of WA, they are a relatively significant producer in the overall Australian grain industry.I wind up my comments with a commitment regarding the M&As that I passed to the Western Australian Farmers Federation today. I will continue to work with them to try to develop them to a point where it is satisfactory not only to Western Australia but also to all grain growers across Australia. I believe we have a first-class piece of legislation that is based on the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and that is controlled by growers—albeit with some expertise in terms of the investor directors—with the capacity of the growers to decide that they want more directors if re quired. I commend this legislation to the Senate. I think that it has been well and truly belted around Australia with the assessments that have been done.In my final comments, I wish to recognise the significant contribution that our former colleague Senator John Panizza made in this particular debate going back from not only 1989 but far and beyond that. I guess one of the sad things for me today is that he is not here to see the fruition of something that he sought and pursued at length for such a long time.17:47:005274Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—In this speech on the second reading of the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , I would like to cover the restructuring of marketing arrangements for the export marketing of Australian wheat based on the objectives of grower ownership and controls, self-reliance and a fully commercial approach to marketing. Industry and government, in spite of the comments that have been made, have both agreed that a structure based on these objectives would best meet the needs of industry into the next century. From Senator Margetts's comments, one might have thought that this was indeed a decision made by the different ministers over time. This has not been a decision made by ministers or governments; it has been a decision made by the industry on the model that would suit them best. In April 1997, the government agreed to industry's recommendation for the establishment of a grower owned and grower controlled company to assume responsibility for wheat marketing from 1 July 1999, when the government guarantee of the Australian Wheat Board borrowings ends. The new grower company will operate under Corporations Law in accordance with its memorandum and articles of association. It will have two classes of shares: A class shares will be issued only to growers and will give control of the company; and B class shares, issued on the basis of wheat industry fund equity, will form the capital base of the company.As a transitional step towards these arrangements, the government agreed that the Australian Wheat Board establish a wholly owned company to carry out all the commercial activities of the board. The new company, AWB Ltd, with separate subsidiaries to undertake pooling and domestic trading, became operational on 1 June 1998.In March 1998, industry put to government, and government endorsed, the final details for the new arrangements to commence on 1 July 1999. This bill before the House completes the legislation necessary for the restructure of the Australian Wheat Board. It addresses the following key areas: the conversion of the wheat industry fund to shares and thereby providing the capital base of the new company structure; provision for managing the continuation of the wheat export monopoly—and I foreshadow the government amendment that I will move in the committee stage to remove the sunset clause on the single desk and to provide for a review of the pooling subsidiary company—and, lastly, other transitional matters to finalise the new arrangements. Firstly, the conversion of the wheat industry fund to shares: almost a decade ago, the wheat industry commenced building up funds for a capital base for a future grower owned Australian Wheat Board via a levy on wheat sales. These funds were paid into the wheat industry fund. Under this bill, from 1 July 1999 the wheat industry fund will be returned to growers in the form of B class shares. B class shares will be issued to fund equity holders on the basis of one share for every fund unit and will provide the new company's capital base.The issue of shares to growers to replace wheat industry fund equity is a significant financial transaction. Growers have been rightly concerned as to the taxation implications. The taxation treatment to apply to the conversion of the wheat industry fund to shares is covered by tax legislation. So that there can be no doubt, I would like to reiterate the taxation arrangements agreed to by government.As announced in November 1997, shares in the new grower company are to be treated as capital for taxation purposes. Automatic rollover relief from capital gains tax on conversion of the wheat industry fund units to shares means that capital gains tax on the shares will apply only when they are disposed of. For capital gains tax purposes, the cost base of the share is to include levy contributions made by growers prior to 13 May 1997, indexed for inflation. However, levy contributions made after 13 May 1997 will remain immediately income tax deductible and will receive the benefit of capital gains tax indexation until disposal of the asset. On disposal of the asset, the cost base is to be reduced by levy contributions made after 13 May 1997.In addition, the government has decided that the capital gains tax small business rollover provisions, as announced in the 1996-97 budget, will be available to growers where a wheat industry fund is disposed of and the proceeds applied to the purchase of another small business `active asset'. However, this rollover relief will cease to be available after the wheat industry fund units are converted to shares.The bill also provides for the retention of the wheat export monopoly from 1 July 1999. The bill provides for an independent statutory authority, to be known as the Wheat Export Authority, to manage the export monopoly on wheat. To give growers the certainty that they have been asking for, the bill also provides that the new grower company pool subsidiary, called `company B', has an automatic right to export wheat for five years. I have already indicated that there will be a government amendment to that.Requests to export wheat from other than the grower company pool subsidiary, as currently happens, will be managed by the Wheat Export Authority in consultation with the grower company pool subsidiary. The Wheat Export Authority will oversight the pool subsidiary's use of the export monopoly to ensure it is being used in accordance with the intentions of parliament. It will also examine and report on the benefit to growers.The rest of the speech would, I imagine, be well known to those people who are interested in the subject of the bill. I will just comment on Senator Margetts's second reading amend ment to say that the government will not be accepting that amendment to delay the passage of the legislation until at least November. It is very disappointing, to say the least, that amendments such as this are presented at the last minute. I would be very interested to know whether the Labor Party was consulted, the Democrats were consulted, or indeed the Grains Council of Australia—which is, after all, the peak body representing the wheat industry—was consulted. I believe that none of those people have been consulted. This restructure has been going on solidly for two years with the involvement of industry. Given Senator Margetts's comments about legislation being rushed through with no consultation, it is an indictment on her that she has chosen to present this amendment in that way. Not only do we have the substantial agreement of the industry, but also we have the recommendation of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, which recommended that the legislation proceed as a matter of urgency.There is very good reason to move forward. This is a very important piece of legislation. The consequences of this legislation being delayed would hit hard every one of Australia's 60,000 wheat growers and therefore that amendment must be strongly rejected. I think what is being forgotten very much in this debate and the arguments that have been put forward by the opposition is that this is not an academic treatise on the way to run a primary industry company; this is about real people earning their living from the proceeds of the wheat industry. We should have their interests at heart. That is why we need to proceed with this legislation now. I commend the bill to honourable senators and present the explanatory memorandum.Amendment not agreed to.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.5276The bill.17:57:005276Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. This memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 3 July 1998.17:57:005276Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Before I move Greens (WA) amendments 1 and 2, I would just like to comment on some of the statements that were made during that second reading debate which were very relevant to the amendments that I will be moving. First of all, Senator Crane tried to discredit the arguments from me on the basis that they were the arguments and views simply of the Greens (WA). For all he intended or attempted to marginalise and discredit my arguments, I suggest that he was in fact marginalising and trying to discredit the arguments that have been put to me forcefully by the Western Australian Farmers Federation.If he is saying that what we are arguing here is of no value whatsoever, he is in fact saying that his own industry in his own state, which represents the growers that he is talking about—the majority of growers in the state producing the majority of wheat and by far the majority of export wheat in Australia—is of no worth. That is something that Senator Crane will have to live with, that he holds no value for the views that are being put by the Western Australian Farmers Federation on the issue of wheat.I thought that Senator Troeth had an absolute cheek talking about the timing of the amendments by the Greens (WA). The Western Australian Farmers Federation were virtually camped in my office for two weeks. Why were they camped in my office? Are we the natural constituents of the Western Australian Farmers Federation? In many cases a number of our members are farmers, and they do not just grow flowers; they are interested in the level of removal of natural vegetation from farmland so we do not have to keep shovelling money into funds to try to fix up the salinity problem in Western Australia. We have a lot of farmers who are members and supporters of the Greens in Western Australia.However, the Farmers Federation were in our office for two weeks because nobody else would listen to them to the extent of taking them seriously—not the Nationals, not the Liberal Party, not the Labor Party, except to the extent that we have seen, and not the Democrats, either. So they came to talk to us because they were getting nowhere. It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Senator Troeth) to talk about the industry. What is the industry defined as if the growers in the major grain growing state have not been heard? Who is the industry when the growers themselves have a great deal of concern—and not just growers in Western Australia, but growers in other states as well.Who is this industry that is calling the shots with the Liberal Party? Who are these major people who are calling the shots so that the minister pays attention to them and not to the growers? Who is `industry' in this case? How do you stick those people together? How do you staple them together so that they are not going to blow apart at the end of this fake process? You can refer to `industry' all you like, but if the industry people, the growers, are not with you, nothing you or I say will make them stay together after you have shoved this process through. And that is on your head, not mine.The Greens (WA) amendments 1 and 2 reflect the basic facet of the grower composite model proposed by the Western Australian Farmers Federation. The Western Australian Farmers Federation model, despite clear advantages, has received a cold shoulder from the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) at all levels. If he is having his tune called by the Grains Council, maybe he should listen to other people as well as to the Grains Council. Their comments have been ignored, despite the fact that WA growers, as has been mentioned, produce approximately 40 per cent of the nation's wheat crop and over 60 per cent of the export wheat crop.These amendments give a framework in which the minister must act when amending the constitution of the nominated companies pursuant to section 5. The Greens (WA) do not like the idea of having to pursue this by way of amendment. I agree with the ALP when they say that this is not ideal, that they want to see what the industry has to say. We would prefer that, too. I say for the benefit of Senator Troeth that the reason we are forced to do this in such a hurry and put it by way of amendment is that this is the only way in which this model can be put on the public record at this stage and taken seriously.We do not think that the parliament should be prescriptive regarding the constitution of a company. But the government, with the fast-tracking of the legislation, has not left us with any choice but to try to put forward these proposals in this form. By putting them on the public record, maybe they will bubble along in the meantime and maybe they will come back to bite you. If they do, you deserve all that you get.Ideally, the government should have given enough time for the industry to properly debate and discuss the outcome and come to a compromise position. The Senate should not have had to intervene, as Senator Woodley mentioned earlier. The Senate should not have to be the umpire. I should not have to put forward a single proposition. The legislative basis should be informed strongly by industry—that is, real industry, not just some big players within industry.But, when you have a government that does not provide for proper consultation, a government that tries to push through legislation so quickly when there are no clear compromises between various participants, what do you expect? Do not dare come to me and say, `Why have you only got this today?' We have worked as fast as we could under the circumstances, and perhaps you should have been putting forward these amendments.I disagree with Senator Woodley's comments that no compromise could have been reached even if there had been more time. Now, in the committee stage, this chamber has to resort to a last ditch attempt to put forward a position that has been ignored in the past and is likely to attract the same lack of attention in the future.These amendments effectively promote a structure in which the growers maintain control and ownership of their industry marketing arm. Why is it—and I believe, as I mentioned before, that it is ideology—that somehow or other private ownership is better than cooperative ownership?This model promotes a concept through a variety of means. First of all, there is a separation of A and B class shares so that it is only active growers who may hold A class shares. On the one hand, A class shares will attract dividends and bonuses and have voting rights; B class shares, on the other hand, will attract a fixed rate of dividend and may be redeemable preference shares.There are very good reasons why. There is a clear separation of who can own A and B class shares and there are clear distinctions as to the benefits paid on the different classes of shares. This provides an unambiguous grower focus on the marketing board and helps to deal with that issue of conflict of interest. Other non-grower investors will be able to participate in listings as desired. However, their access will be limited to non-voting, fixed rate and preferential shares. This kind of structure allows the board to maximise returns for growers and at the same time generates returns for non-grower investor shareholders.This kind of structure is advantageous, as along with grower ownership and involvement come strong grower loyalty and patronage. The effect is that the grain growers, those with the biggest stake in this board, those who funded the board through their compulsory contributions for many years, will have their interests considered first. And so they should. These amendments focus on the involvement of grain growers now and in the future. They will allow grain growers in the future to be involved directly through ownership and control in all aspects of their industry, as grain growers before them have been.Why are the Greens interested in it? No, we are not flower growers. In fact, the Greens have got very positive proposals as to how industry in rural and regional areas can start getting together. People within rural and regional areas can solve a lot of their problems on a cooperative basis, by working out solutions which work for their areas—often with government being not the least bit interested in any solutions other than the massive export of bulk commodities. I believe there are very creative solutions within rural and regional Australia. People must have the chance to work them out. Here we have growers trying to work out the solutions so that they have control of the outcomes. That is not a very odd thing for them to do; it is a very sensible thing for them to do. The government is trying to interfere with that basic desire.These principles are in fact congruent with one of the primary Green principles—that is, participatory democracy. We believe that people should have the right to participate in decisions at every level which affect them in their daily lives. The Greens believe that the emphasis should be on the community being able to develop practical solutions to their own problems.Some people might think it odd that, on the very day we dealt with native title, I should be here in the chamber arguing on behalf of the Western Australian Farmers Federation, because the farmers federations, especially the National Farmers Federation, have a very different view on native title. It is not odd, because it is the manner in which the Greens (WA) operate when we deal with legislation. We deal, where possible, with our state. We also deal with those bodies which are most affected by the legislation and the way it operates. We also want to see cooperative, workable solutions for rural and regional Australia. We are on the record on many occasions as trying to talk sense into governments which have very odd ideas about the real needs of rural and regional Australia.We have amongst our members in the south-west of Western Australia farmers; people who have very practical and often very profitable ways of dealing with ecological sustainability in their own farming practices. They have very practical ideas which create rather than destroy employment. We want rural and regional Australia to be able to work out their problems, their situation, so that they can survive in a way that is ecologically sustainable. If we centralise too much, if we take the decision making roles away from those people who are most affected, we will not get outcomes that work. This is consistent with Greens policies. I do think it odd that nobody else in this political system has thought to listen to those people on the ground.If Senator Crane believes that the ideas I presented in my speech have been discredited, then he is discrediting the farmers represented by the Western Australian Farmers Federation. That will be on his head.UW4CRANESenator Crane—Absolute rubbish!DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I recommend the words, the ideas, that have come from the Western Australian Farmers Federation. If you believe that they are rubbish, deal with them, Senator Crane, and deal with the consequences of your actions. I seek leave to move Greens (WA) amendments 1 and 2 together.Leave granted.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I move:(1) Clause 5, page 3 (line 4), at the end of subclause (1), add "in accordance with the requirements set out in subsection (1A)".(2) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 4), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) A determination under subsection (1) must comply with the following rules in relation to ownership and control of the nominated company: (a) control means voting control; (b) A class shares may be held only by growers; (c) B class shares may be held by growers or investors; (d) surpluses of the nominated company are to be distributed as dividends on A and B class shares and as loyalty incentives to growers who market their wheat through the company; (e) ownership of B class shares does not entitle the owner to any voting rights; (f) B class shares attract a fixed rate of dividend; (g) B class shares can be redeemable preference shares; (h) ownership of A class shares entitles the owner to voting rights; (i) A class shares attract dividends and bonuses; (j) an owner of A class shares who ceases to be a grower must either sell the shares or convert them to B class shares; (k) the maximum number of A class shares that may be held by a person is restricted.I commend the amendments to the Senate.18:09:005279Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I indicate at the outset that the opposition will not be supporting these amendments. I will make a few comments shortly as to why. My colleague Senator O'Brien will be dealing in a bit more detail with the specific issues relating to this proposal and the general issue of the structure of the companies.I listened to Senator Crane's contribution and, whilst I do not want to rehash the debate about who has agreed with what, I think it is pretty clear from his contribution that he recognises that there is not perfect unanimity—if I may use that phrase—across the industry. We believe that the level of disagreement between the key grower organisations in the states is still of sufficient magnitude that it is a matter of concern. But we nevertheless accept that there is a model on the table that has been negotiated over a period of time, that is, the current proposal to abolish the WIF and restructure the Wheat Board into two separate companies with different share regimes and so on—the `grower corporate model', as I think it is referred to.We recognise that this is the case, albeit we are concerned that, as we indicated in the earlier debates, a major organisation within the industry is not happy with that proposal. They have been looking at either putting up an alternative model, such as the cooperative model that they briefly discussed before the committee when they gave evidence, or possibly reworking the grower corporate model that was adopted by the Grains Council. I am not aware, nor am I privy to any information as of today's date, that the Western Australian Farmers Federation are in any different position from the position where they were when they talked to me last Friday.UW4CRANESenator Crane—Except I quoted from the letter.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—That is why I referred to your remarks, Senator Crane, and wanted to come back to them. One of the concerns that I have about the process and where we are at is that, as Senator Woodley stated earlier, it is as if, having required of the industry that they reach consensus on the model that they want, responsibility has nevertheless been thrown on the Senate to make certain determinations on issues that the industry itself cannot get full agreement on, such as this one. That is a task we now have to deal with because of the earlier decision of the Senate.Senator Crane—unfortunately, he has just left the chamber, but I hope he is listening or maybe someone can let him know what I am saying—stated in his contribution that, in the evidence presented to the committee, there was an acceptance by Mr Iffla, who is the President of the Grains Section of the Western Australian Farmers Federation, of propositions put forward by the Grains Council on the issues that are still in dispute.I have just done a quick check of the Hansard and I cannot see where Mr Iffla has indicated acceptance on the part of his organisation of these critical questions. He did say quite clearly that he was looking for more time because he felt there was potential either to develop the grower cooperative model or to find a way to work within and amend the structure. Perhaps when Senator Crane comes back in he can enlighten me of what he says is `on the record' in respect of Mr Iffla's evidence. I am at a loss to find it.As I understand it, Senator Margetts, in her contribution, also referred to representatives of the West Australian farmers having been camped in her office for a couple of weeks. I do not dispute that. It is only a minor point. It is just that I am not too sure who the people were in my office and in Senator O'Brien's office for a fair bit of the time. And, when they were not there, they were in Senator Woodley's office or in my colleague Mr O'Keefe's office. The only office apparently that they were not in was that of the minister, John Anderson, and that is unfortunate. He is the person they should have been able to see about resolving this issue. But apparently they were not having much luck there. I am digressing and getting into hypotheticals.I understand that the amendments put forward by Senator Margetts may seek to accommodate some of the concerns of representatives of WAFF. Working within the model upon which the legislation is based, we cannot agree to that proposal for some of the reasons that she has advanced herself, that is, the legislation has been put on the table at the last minute. I do not in any way criticise the Greens for that. I agree with the comments that Senator Margetts has made. I believe her criticism of the government is well founded, that is, it has only been in the last week or so that any party other than the government would have had any opportunity to try to put amendments together.As I said, when I walked out of this building last Friday I ran into representatives of the Western Australian Farmers Federation. They were asking me, `Is this matter coming back on next week? Where is it at? What is happening with the legislation? We are still trying to reach an accommodation on their proposals.' We do not see any value in jumping out of the frying pan into the fire by simply adopting the proposal that is put forward in these amendments. In other words, whilst we recognise the problems are still there with the Western Australian Farmers Federation, faced with no other option, we have to support the proposals that have been put forward in the bill in respect of the share issues and the company structure. Other than that, I will leave any further remarks to my colleague Senator O'Brien.06:NaN:005280Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I compliment Senator Margetts for representing her own state. I may not agree with what she says, but I think it is appropriate that she does that—and she has done it very well. In some ways that is what the Senate was originally intended to do. Senator Margetts, you should be complimented for the fact that the Western Australian Farmers Federation were camped in your office for some of the time. They obviously felt that, as a senator from Western Australia, you were representing their points of view. And you have done that well.They did spend some time in my office. But I admit that I did not give them the joy that they were seeking. In some ways I have been consulting with the Queensland Grain Growers Association and have sought to represent my state for some weeks on this issue. It was some weeks ago that I first had conversations with them in my Brisbane office. We are trying to get a national perspective and it is pretty difficult. I am fearful that we could develop an eastern states versus Western Australia mentality. I sometimes hear that when I am in Western Australia. That is a dangerous feeling if it continues to grow. It is something the government will have to do something about. I do not think I can do anything about it. I know Senator Murray, as the Democrat senator from Western Australia, has also been representing his own state—and I acknowledge that.The problem is that what Senator Margetts is presenting in amendment form is really the Western Australian Farmers Federation proposal. The Democrats do not feel that it is possible to support it at this time. The point is that it would radically alter the legislation. It would not be an amendment; it would be starting all over again. The problem with it is that it is an entirely different proposition.This amendment, which supports the letter that I tabled from Vern Dempster some time ago, puts on the table—this will be recorded in the Hansard—the proposition that the West Australian farmers have been putting. What I believe should happen now is that that be taken seriously by the minister.At one point in the conversations I had with the Western Australian Farmers Federation, they indicated that they felt that their proposal could be accommodated within the memorandum and articles of association. I do not know if it can be, but I do believe that, at this point, I should ask the parliamentary secretary to take that back to the minister, to look again very seriously at the proposal which is contained in this amendment and also in the letter that I tabled. I cannot do any more than that, but I do believe that it is a serious proposition from this group of farmers and it ought to be taken seriously.Along with Senator Forshaw, I was a little puzzled by Senator Crane's comments about the Western Australian Farmers Federation. This whole issue keeps moving. I have a letter, dated today, from Mr Kevin McMenemy of WAFF to the Prime Minister, which concludes:. Stop the Bill in the Senate.. Instruct your Minister to conduct further meaningful negotiations with this State.So I am not sure where—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I think that is about match point.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—This has been the problem all through this debate—the positions keep changing. But I am not doing that to have a shot at Senator Crane at all; I am just saying that we are constantly getting these communications and it has been very hard to respond to them and to juggle them.In conclusion, while I compliment Senator Margetts for representing the people from the Western Australian Farmers Federation who have been to see her and I think it is appropriate for her to have done that, it is not possible for the Democrats to support her amendment at this time. But my comments are on the record, and I trust that the government will take them into account when they consider the writing of the memorandum and articles.18:24:005281Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I want to deal, first of all, with one point that I forgot to mention in relation to the contribution of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Senator Troeth) about the lateness of putting these amendments up. Quite frankly, this is the proposal that has been put up by the Western Australian Farmers Federation. They tried very hard to put this very proposal to the minister. If this is new to the minister, or if it is new to the parliamentary secretary, it is not for want of trying. This might be the first time it has been worked up in amendment form, but that is because it was forced to be worked up in amendment form.I think the Western Australian Farmers Federation would be the very last to suggest that this is the appropriate way for this to happen. They would suggest that, before the whole process is set in legislative concrete, these other options could or should have been looked at. If the people on the ground from the other states are saying the same thing—and that is what I believe a lot of them are saying—then the very structure that you have set in concrete will potentially fall apart. It will not have the membership binding it together. It is going to be a waste of everybody's time.I agree with Senator Forshaw that the reality is that this is one of those things that is very difficult to decide on short notice. The reality is that this is the first time it has had a chance to be worked up and it is the first time that those ideas have been put forward for this kind of discussion. What do these ideas look like on the table? What does the model look like? What are the potentials? I think the first question you have got to ask is: what were we planning to do as a result of this model? I am assured, from the statements that the parliamentary secretary has made, that the concept was to set free the Grains Council so that it is no longer dependent on government and public funding.That is fair enough, but what is wrong with achieving that in a way that allows the growers to maintain control and ownership of that model—or at least control—so that they get the outcomes or feel confident in the outcomes? Haven't you achieved what you set out to achieve? Can't the government admit that there might be more than one way from A to B, that there might be one way that people can feel that they are part of the organisation? Perhaps the other farmers federations have not come behind this model so far because it has not had a chance to be worked up. There might actually be other options than the ones the Grains Council is putting forward.It is true that this is the wrong place and the wrong way to be dealing with the fine details of an alternative model. It should be done before putting forward the minister's preferred model—whichever way he has reached that decision, his idea of what industry wants—and asking him to stick by it. I do not know how they have done that. I do not know whether the minister makes up his own mind. The parliamentary secretary said it is not the minister's idea; it is the industry's idea. If that is the case, that means that it is not Minister Anderson's model, it is someone else's model. If it is someone else's model, how widely supported is it? How widely supported is that concept of `the industry'? As I have mentioned before, how will anybody make that stick together if, in fact, it is not actually coming from the majority of people who are going to be required to live with it? At least this model has been put. We do have a plan B. I can read the numbers in the Senate; I will be putting plan B to the Senate should this not gain support.18:28:005282Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—My contribution will be very short and to the point. I just wanted to put on the public record that a representative of the Western Australian Farmers Federation before the committee last Monday said that, in terms of their proposition at this particular point in time, as far as the cooperative principle was concerned, they could be accommodated in the M&As. As I said in my speech and read out from a letter, he further asked that I get that commitment from the minister that the extension of the M&As not be signed off before 30 November. I think it is very important that Senator Woodley, Senator Margetts and the other people in this understand that particular point that was made under privilege before our committee last Monday.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—Thank you, that is helpful.18:29:005282O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—In relation to the model which is proposed in Democrat amendments Nos 1 and 2, which are before the chair at the moment—HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—Greens (WA).8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I apologise; Greens (WA).HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—I do not want to take any credit.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I was not seeking to visit any credit unfairly and I apologise for that. They are in fact Greens (WA) amendments Nos 1 and 2. It is clear that these amendments, as has already been stated, are the Western Australian Farmers Federation alternative position. Senator Crane is correct to the extent that he is suggesting that what the Western Australian Farmers Federation is saying is that it is not necessary to amend the legislation to give effect to their grower corporate model but that, rather, it could be done in the memorandum and articles of association of the company.I am not going to say that we could achieve that and dot all the i's and cross all the t's in this process without amendment. It might be that, if the minister were minded to do that at some stage, because ultimately it is the minister who determines what the memorandum and articles of association will say, particularly in the absence of an agreement from the industry, it is possible that the Western Australians might win their arguments, but I suspect that this bill could be back to the Senate for some consequential amendments at the very least.However, the amendments that the Greens (WA) propose mean that, on the advice of BT, which has been advising the working party, as I understand it, on the grower corporate model, the value of the B class shares would reduce and thereby reduce the return to growers on their WIF investments, and it was that factor which mitigated against the recommendation of the Grains Council to accept the model which is proposed.So it is possible that this can be, as someone said, taken seriously by the minister. But I suspect that it is not a model that will be attractive to the minister as it is apparent that it is not attractive to grain grower representatives in any state but Western Australia. If we are to do anything sensible in relation to this legislation in the minimal time we have to deal with it, one of the last things that the opposition would suggest we do is to impose a model on the industry which has, at best, minority support. Clearly, that is the reason that the opposition will not be supporting this amendment. In saying that, it also has to be said that the shadow minister has expressed to the Western Australian Farmers Federation a view that he can see merit in this proposal—and, indeed, there is merit in the proposal—but the opposition is not going to impose its view on what is apparently the view of the majority of the industry on this matter. Even if we accept that the Western Australian Farmers Federation represents up to 40 per cent of the export industry, that is still not a majority of the industry. So we would not be prepared to support that.In saying all that, it is important to understand that we are accepting that the destiny of the industry—I think the government takes the same position—is in the hands of the industry. In this period of effectively taking control of its destiny as regards the export marketing rights that are being created in this bill, the industry is required to make decisions on its own behalf.The opposition does not support this amendment. I would be interested to hear whether the parliamentary secretary has views different from those which have already been expressed as to the meaning of this clause, but I do not think you can take a different meaning from this clause than the one that has already been described.18:35:005283Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to answer a couple of questions that have been brought up. Senator Crane mentioned the memorandum and articles of association issue. The Western Australian Farmers Federation have indicated to me that it might have been at least better had the issue been dealt with in the memorandum and articles of association. Because the minister has not actually listened or been prepared to consider a cooperative model, they are not feeling particularly confident that the minister will actually write a cooperative model into the memorandum and articles of association. They have had no written determination on that issue yet, so why should they believe that in the future the minister will act in a way that is totally different from his behaviour to them and his response to them so far? It is all very well Senator Crane saying that the Western Australian Farmers Federation were prepared to accept this model being incorporated in the memorandum and articles of association, but they have no confidence that the minister is even prepared to look at it in any real sense.Senator Hogg has suggested that one of the reasons mentioned in the committee for being wary of the cooperative model was that the market was saying that the value of shares would be reduced. That is exactly the point we have been making all along. With the initial sale of Telstra, right from the beginning we had people from Treasury telling us what had to be, in the public interest or not in the public interest, included within the model for the sale of Telstra because it would reduce or was likely to reduce the sale price for Telstra. We had issues there of public interest, and here we have issues of community and farming interest which are already, right from square one, being relegated because of the potential share price of this corporate structure rather than a cooperative structure.What kind of confidence do the farmers have that on an ongoing basis their interests will be actually considered to be a priority when right from the beginning they are told that the whole reason you have to go for a corporate structure is the initial share price? We have seen what has happened in these other privatisations. The farmers are not confident that people are listening to them and that their interests cannot be looked after under the current structure.As I say, I can read the numbers in this chamber, but at least now we have had the opportunity to put this model on the public record. I am absolutely certain that it will seethe and simmer within the rural community and may come up again at a later stage.18:38:005284Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The government opposes these amendments. They would potentially cost growers many thousands of dollars. They have been proposed without any consultation and they would dramatically devalue the B class shares held by wheat growers and greatly diminish the borrowing capacity of the Australian Wheat Board, which is Australia's greatest short-term borrower, seeking between $3 billion and $4 billion each year. We oppose them.Amendments not agreed to.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—As the mover of those amendments, I would ask that the Senate take note of the Greens (WA) support for my amendments.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—That will be recorded in the Journals . The question now is that Greens (WA) amendments (3) and (4) be agreed to.18:39:005284Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move:(3) Clause 2, page 1 (after line 19), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) Section 5 commences on a date to be fixed by Proclamation. (1B) A Proclamation under subsection (1A) must not be made before the Minister has received and considered a report from an independent body, acceptable to all state affiliates of the Grains Council of Australia, about different models for the constitutions of nominated companies. (1C) The Minister must cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister has received the report. (1D) A Proclamation under subsection (1A) must not be made except in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given not less than 15 sitting days of that House before the motion is moved. (1E) A Proclamation under subsection (1A) must not be made before the last occasion on which a copy of a report under subsection (1B) is laid before a House of the Parliament in accordance with subsection (1C).(4) Clause 5, page 3 (line 2), omit "Not later than 31 March 1999, the", substitute "The".This is option B. We have two amendments effectively making the commencement of section 5, which requires the minister to make a written determination to amend the constitution, subject to a number of things: firstly, a report by an independent body; secondly, the tabling of the report in both houses of parliament; and, thirdly, a proclamation to fix a commencement date.We think this is a valuable option for a number of reasons. It gives time for review. With these amendments, we believe we need time to review the situation. That is clearly not resolved within the industry. Everybody has mentioned that it is not resolved within the industry, even though the minister and the parliamentary secretary may have a different concept and idea of the industry. It will give an independent body time to assess the variety of options available. That may save us all time in the long run. It will give all parties time to put their opinions to the body.The committee process, as I have canvassed previously, was such a rush job that there was not even time to advertise the review and it did not provide time for the protagonists to be thoroughly prepared. The time necessary to consider this, which has been argued by the minister as the reason for not supporting my proposed amendments, is the very argument that I have been making all along.It also gives time to defuse the level of emotion. This is important. Obviously, emotions in many cases are useful things, but this option gives the various interested parties time to defuse their problems. Senator O'Brien has mentioned the current state of play within the Grains Council of Australia. I quote the Western Australian Farmers Federation: `If the commonsense of our growers is not accepted, then Western Australia will get on with developing their own state single-desk marketing arrangement.' That is what they have said to me. That is what they have said that they want to put on the record. Don't be surprised—shock, horror—if that happens. What is the minister going to say then about the level of consensus if that actually happens?These amendments would provide a cooling-off period when these major bodies can sort out their own differences and come to an agreement. There must be a way if you are trying to get a best outcome for growers. Let us assume that is what you are trying to do. It is their money; they are the ones who have put in the money all this time. It is not for government to say whether or not that money should be maximised and anything about its profitability necessarily. Those are the people who should have a say over what has happened to the money that they have put in for years and years.It would defuse, I believe, the angst and division that this legislation is causing across the major participants in the industry. If the Western Australian Farmers Federation believe that they have had the opportunity to talk on the ground to growers, that those ideas have been heard, that model has been distributed and that those ideas have been considered properly, and then if all of those people, by vote or by talking to their own representative bodies, say, `No, this model isn't of interest to us, it isn't relevant,' and decide against it, I imagine that the Western Australian Farmers Federation would feel a lot better. At the moment they have not got that feeling. They have not got the feeling that the model or any alternative model has been put out to the members in other states; they have not got that feeling that for anyone to have an option has been properly considered.Basically, what has been given to growers in other states has so far been an all or nothing approach. That is not good enough. In the meantime, they are saying there should be the opportunity for these models to be looked at and, if it is necessary in the future, for those concerns to be put to change the model. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing. If it is a matter of changing the memorandum, that is something to be looked at as well. I think everybody would be happy if that, in the end, was put in writing instead of having some sort of vague promise that it might or might not happen in the future.I would suggest that this is a good, timely alternative that would give the breathing space that is necessary. I would hope that the Labor Party are prepared to accept this. It does not require that they sign up to any particular model now and it does not require that we make decisions on behalf of the industry; it is giving them that breathing space to have those other models reviewed. I commend the amendments to the chamber.18:44:005285O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—We would concede that this proposition is a genuine attempt to give the Senate, and indeed all parties, an opportunity to review the process that is taking place through the working party of the Grains Council of Australia and involving the representative bodies of grain growers in Australia, and also involving the input of Minister Anderson, who, as has already been stated, will ultimately have the power to determine what the actual memorandum and articles of association of the grower corporate bodies are.The most productive thing that can be said about this proposition is that it needs consideration. I think in its current form it would be difficult to support. If I can address some of those matters, that might promote some comments from other senators as to what they think about the matter. Firstly, in subsection (1B), the proposition is that the proclamation under section (1A)—that is, the proclamation of section 5—must not be made before the minister has received and considered a report from an independent body, acceptable to all state affiliates of the Grains Council of Australia, about different models for the constitutions of nominated companies.The first problem is what time would be taken and how the affiliates of the Grains Council would go about determining which particular independent body, person or whatever was acceptable. That process in itself could be a barrier to any agreement at all. In other words, were any organisation, for example, the Western Australian Farmers Federation, desirous of using this provision as leverage, they could potentially simply withhold agreement as to which independent body would be acceptable to report to the minister. Given that the minister receives some such report at some indeterminate time in the future, the question is what happens then. Subsection (1C) says that the minister has the report laid on the table before each house of parliament, and (1D) says that a proclamation under subsection (1A) must not be made except in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given not less than 15 days sitting days of that house before that motion is moved. I presume that means that a motion has to be moved in both houses. Perhaps Senator Margetts can clarify that. It seems a very cumbersome step indeed. Then a prohibition on making the proclamation is contained in (1E).Getting back to (1B), you actually have a provision in the amendment which could act as a barrier to the implementation of the clause on the one hand, and on the other hand it could be a bargaining chip for any of the affiliates of the Grains Council to seek to impose on the body agreement to accept, as the independent body to make a report, one which potentially each of those affiliates might see as making a report which is favourable to their interest. Senator Margetts is looking in this direction quizzically, so I hope I am being clear on that.What might be able to be considered, were this matter to be somehow deferred and redrafted, is a provision for this matter to be reviewed. A simple review provision in the legislation might require that the minister report to the parliament and that powers which he was exercising were exercised as regulations which might then be disallowable. I am only speaking off the top of my head, because, as I say, we have not had time to give any great consideration to the proposition which you now put. The situation might then be that somehow the model which comes into being, if it does not receive total industry support, could be further reviewed by the parliament. That could simply be a mechanism to refer the matter to a committee for report to the Senate or it could be some other mechanism. I am really in your hands, as it were, Senator Margetts, as to what alternatives might be put forward in relation to this proposition. But to simply say that this provision not be given effect without this complicated procedure that you propose would pose more problems than it would solve.As I intimated earlier, it seems to me that what can occur in relation to the Western Australian Farmers Federation position, which I accept you are pursuing as strongly as you can, is that that matter can continue to be pursued within the Grains Council as a first step. If there is an acceptance within the Grains Council, as I would hope there is, that it is desirable for there to be a united position of the grower organisations around Australia rather than, effectively, a split position on the appropriate model for the Australian Wheat Board, the Grains Council would use all of its powers to achieve that end and would make recommendations to Minister Anderson in relation to achieving a position which had the united support of growers around this country as their interests are reflected in the organisa tions which are affiliates of the Grains Council.I would suggest that it ought to go without saying that Minister Anderson ought not take any actions in relation to the setting of provisions in the memorandum and articles of association which do not have the united support of growers through the Grains Council. The first thing that ought to be said is that, if there are any questions as to adequate representation or reflection of the views of the Grains Council, those questions ought to be resolved and, secondly, the minister ought to refrain from taking initiatives in relation to the memorandum and articles to resolve matters in the absence of agreement. That might prolong matters somewhat but, after all, it is in the interests of growers as well as the government that this process be resolved amicably. The minister should be able to use his good offices to persuade the grower organisations that it is possible, indeed desirable, for their position to be a united one and that he would be in a very difficult position trying to implement something which had the united opposition of grower organisations around this country.Senator Margetts, I am not sure what your views are on how we should approach your proposition and achieve an outcome which might find acceptance. I do think it is fair to say that, in its current form, the amendments will not be supported by the opposition. I do not rule out support for an alternative position, but perhaps you might like to consider, if the Senate is prepared to, deferring consideration of this matter. It seems to me that it is unlikely that we will conclude the committee stage of this bill this evening. Perhaps we could revisit this tomorrow in some amended form if that is your wish rather than your amendments, I suspect, going down on the basis of the words of the legislation, unless the government is intent on supporting this proposition. I think not, but that may be the case. It would be interesting to get the views of Senator Margetts on that proposition before we proceed further.18:55:005287Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I will address some of the issues briefly before I specifically address the propo sition that has been put forward by Senator O'Brien. Obviously, as the Western Australian Farmers Federation are the ones who are keen to put forward a consideration of their model, it is unlikely that they would be deliberately blocking consideration of the model. They might be choosy about what is an independent body, but I do not think that is unreasonable. They are still talking enough between them to work out that there is a body that they would be able to utilise. If this is in legislation, I think it is everybody's interests. It is probably less likely to be the Western Australian Farmers Federation than anybody else that would not be able to come to an agreement about what might be a good entity to be able to put forward this model.They do not get power of veto over the report. They do not have to keep doing the report until they get something that everybody is happy with, because that is not likely to happen. I think, for this level of frustration, they are saying that they want somebody—not just themselves—to look into this proposal. They would like to make sure that the person or group or entity that is looking into that proposal could be agreed on as an entity that is acceptable to the members of the Grains Council of Australia. I do not think that is an odd thing for them to ask.If it is a matter of some wording changes that would satisfy everybody, I am absolutely certain that the Western Australian Farmers Federation would be very happy for me to move that consideration of Greens (WA) amendments (3) and (4) be deferred until later on in the debate. If there is a chance that a change of wording will satisfy the concerns of the ALP and, hopefully, gain support from the Senate, I would be happy to do so. Therefore, I move:That further consideration of the amendments be postponed.Question resolved in the negative.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Are we not going to have a chance to talk about the situation? Do you not want a chance for people to talk about it further? This is ridiculous.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—Order! I put the motion, Senator Margetts, and I called the noes. The question now is that amendments (3) and (4) moved by Senator Margetts be agreed to.18:58:005288Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Senator O'Brien has outlined the position of the opposition. I am not in any way being critical of Senator Margetts. She and the Greens were placed in the same position that all of us were—that is, having to address these issues in a very short space of time—but we do not see that the solution here is to just drop the model that is in the legislation which has been given substantial support by the industry and move what would be a number of steps backward.As I said in my earlier remarks both in the debate on the cut-off motion and in the debate on the second reading, the problem that the Senate has is that the industry is split. The majority of the peak bodies—the state grower organisations and the Grains Council—have over a long time developed a particular model, and they support that model, with reservations and with anticipated warts.The Western Australian Farmers Federation does not support that model. We have a great deal of sympathy for the position of the Western Australian Farmers Federation. We have said that all the way through the debate. Our sympathy with their position is that they are representative of a substantial number of grain growers, particularly from the export side of the industry. Our concern all along has been to try to find a way in which they were not, in the end, bludgeoned into submission, into accepting or having the industry model forced on them, without giving them ample opportunity to try to either convince the other states of their changes, develop a proposal or in the end come to agree with it.Unfortunately, the option that is now being put up by Senator Margetts, whilst it is intended to try to find some more breathing space, some more time for the industry parties to go away and work out a solution, does not really take it any further. If anything, what it seems to me to do is to ensure that this matter will still be hanging around this parliament come next year. The proposal is not, for instance, one that would be dealt with in a couple of weeks. It seeks to establish an independent body. It would take some time for the minister to get agreement from all of the state associations as to who the independent body would be.I said flippantly across the chamber a moment ago to Senator Ferguson and Senator Crane that Paul Houlihan and Jamie Ferguson have probably got nothing to do at the moment and maybe they could get the consultancy to investigate this matter, having failed so dismally in their efforts on the waterfront. I am not sure that even they would be acceptable to all the various bodies within the industry, but it is a real problem. If the industry organisations in Western Australia and in the eastern states are still having trouble reaching unanimity on what is on the table and what has been developed over a period of time within the framework of the Grains Council, how are you going to get them to agree on an independent body that is acceptable to all the state affiliates?I turn to the different models for the constitutions of nominated companies. It has been said in the other place and in here that the opposition has some attraction to the cooperative model. But at the end of the day it is not the Labor Party's model, it is not the Liberal Party's model or the National Party's model. This has to be a corporate structure or a cooperative structure to which the growers themselves are committed, not one that is simply based upon partisan politics. That has been our position ever since we started the process of restructuring and reform over 10 years ago. The danger is that, in agreeing to this process, we will end up, if anything, maybe driving the organisations further apart.At the moment we have the Grains Council, the New South Wales Farmers Association, the Queensland cane growers and the Victorians and the South Australians in the cart supporting one industry model, albeit with different degrees of enthusiasm, but that is what they are supporting. They have their reservations; they have all put their caveats on it if it does not work, but that is where they are at. As I said earlier, the Western Australian Farmers Federation are in a different position. They are not in the cart. The danger is that, if you adopt this proposal put up by the Greens, the wheels will fall off the cart and they will all go back to square one. The New South Wales Farmers Association might decide to develop their own model. The Queensland grain growers might like to put together some other model.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—That's a good idea.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—The problem with that is that you are building in delay and delay and delay that will not be in the interests of the industry. There are time lines that have to be considered. That, to me, is a recipe for more chaos. At the moment, notwithstanding the difficulties that exist with the groups reaching agreement, the last thing we want to be doing as a Senate is—GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Is wasting time.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—No, is creating the potential for everybody to say, `Let's go back to square one and start again.' That is why we cannot support the proposal. It does not mean that this proposal may not have some merit and may not be dealt with in another way. For instance, as has been said, the minister can have a look at the proposal, and I urge him to do so because it seems that, unfortunately, the minister has put up the shutters on this issue some time ago, and maybe that is why we are in the position we are in today.Secondly, it is something that may well be able to be looked at within the structure of the memorandum and articles of association of the companies. We are not charged with the responsibility for drafting that. The minister is ultimately in the position to approve that. It has been indicated, as I understand it, by the Western Australian Farmers Federation representatives that that was another option for them—to look at accepting the current corporate grower model, notwithstanding that they do not like it, and then to try to deal with their particular concerns, such as ensuring continuity of grower control and so on within the company structures as that would be outlined in the constitution and in the memorandum and articles of association.I think it is important to put that on the record so it is clearly understood. I know that people from the various organisations have been listening to this debate because the phone calls are continually coming in—and I am not sure what the poll is at the moment. But that is the position of the opposition on these amendments.19:08:005289Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Actually, two separate positions have been given by the opposition. I clearly responded earlier by giving a motion in response to Senator O'Brien suggesting that there might be a problem with the form of wording. That, of course, is the reason why I suggested and put a motion that these particular amendments be deferred. I cannot remember the last time when I have been present in the committee stage where that motion has been denied.I just wonder whether there really is agreement among opposition senators. If what we potentially have is the chance of there being a form of wording that the Senate might accept, then I can talk on this amendment for as long as possible. I can speak in relation to Senator Woodley's amendments, Senator Murray's amendments and, once again, Senator Woodley's amendment. That gives us a chance to talk through some of the issues.Basic democracy would suggest that, if there is the potential to work through a form of wording that would be acceptable, it would be smarter for us to do that now than to vote in or out elements of the legislation and later on have to argue about it. If there is the potential for dealing with that, it is unlikely that before 7.30 p.m. we are going to be able to deal with the five amendments we are dealing with or, altogether, the six. Therefore, to be able to deal with that, it would make sense simply to defer the vote.I am not sure whether is was inexperience or not from the parliamentary secretary or the advisers as to why that course would not be considered acceptable. But I just want to point out that, if we are to get through this debate reasonably, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Senate have the opportunity to look at those issues where there might be the potential for an agreement that is acceptable to the majority of the Senate.To deny the ability of the Senate to look at those issues and perhaps work out acceptable forms of wording does not make sense. We are not going to solve anything for the indus try—or for anyone, for that matter. Therefore I ask that the minister reconsider the leave that I sought, and perhaps I would ask it again: I again seek leave to defer consideration of Greens (WA) amendments 3 and 4. They can then be put again after we have considered Democrats 1, Democrats 1 and 2, Democrats 2 and government 1 to 3. I think it would be a miracle if we were to do all of this before 7.30 p.m. I do not think what I am suggesting is unreasonable. So I do seek again leave to defer Greens (WA) amendments 3 and 4.19:11:005290Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I would just indicate that, while I am not sure that a form of words will solve the problems that they have, I think it is a fairly reasonable request that Senator Margetts is putting. But I do not know what the Labor Party is doing, as I received two signals, I thought. There would not be much point in pressing this if the Labor Party does not agree to defer it as well.But it is only a deferral that I would support, because I think that is a reasonable suggestion. It does not seem to me that we are going to destroy the Australian wheat industry or send people off the planet by simply deferring for, I suppose, 20 minutes—because I am sure that we will not get to the end of this debate tonight—and giving Senator Margetts a chance at least to talk to those of the Labor Party, because they seem to be the ones who were raising the possibility of a new form of words. We need to know what they are saying; otherwise what I am saying does not have any relevance.19:12:005290Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I am persuaded by the subsequent contributions of Senator Margetts and Senator Woodley. The position is that really we are not attracted to the amendments. At the time I was speaking, I actually had consideration of the fact that we might be able to finish the entire debate by 7.30 p.m. But that looks unlikely now.I am very sceptical of a form of words being able to be created, but I take the point that it is worth a try. It will not ultimately alter the outcome if we do not reach an agreement. So I am happy on that basis to indicate that we would support a deferral.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—Senator Margetts, would you put the motion that those two amendments be deferred?19:13:005290Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:That further consideration of the amendments be postponed.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—We move on to Democrat amendment No. 1 on sheet 1077.19:13:005290Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I move:(1) Clause 7, page 4 (after line 8), at the end of the clause, add:(5) Notwithstanding any other provision in any other act, a B Class share which is taken to be issued to a person under subsection (1) is, for the purpose of establishing that person's liability for taxation, deemed to be an active asset for the purposes of Division 17A and 17B of Part IIIA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 .Note: For the meaning of active asset , see subsections 160ZZPL(3), (4), (5) and (6) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 .Again let me point out that with this amendment we are seeking something that, as far as I understand, all the peak bodies—and this is the one point of agreement—actually agree to, including the Western Australian Farmers Federation, and that I imagine most wheat farmers themselves would also agree to.Certainly this is one of the issues that was raised in many of the faxes and communications that I have had. The reason for their doing this is that there is a question of equity and fairness here. I have tried to read the submission from the tax department and I have read the evidence from different sides of this debate, and I hear what is being said. Nevertheless, as I understand it, in converting WIF equity into shares of the new instrument, a compulsion is involved.It seems to me that if there was an arrangement for tax relief under the old Wheat Industry Fund, then a similar arrangement ought to accrue to the new compulsory transfer. I cannot see why the government, the Taxation Office and everyone cannot understand the fairness in that. But I am prepared to listen again to the debate on this.We are proposing something that is equitable and fair and that is supported by all of the industry bodies—and, I would imagine, by all of the individual wheat farmers, although I cannot give you a guarantee on that. The only group that I am not sure of is the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia. But, as I understood it, they wanted to retain the sunset clause. Perhaps they would also agree with the proposition on the taxation issue. I wait with interest to hear other contributions.19:16:005291Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—When I am considering this amendment, it strikes me as a basic issue of equity that if a person changes their structure in such a way as to enrich themselves, then their taxation status could be altered because the Taxation Office could take a particular view and take their cut. However, this is an instance where the taxation regime under which these farmers operate is being affected by the parliament. It is being affected by the legislature. It is not as a result of the personal action of the farmers. The legislature is determining how the farmers' shares will be rearranged and adjusted.It seems to me entirely inappropriate therefore to put those farmers at any taxation risk for an event which does not alter the essential nature of the asset that they hold. It is not something they have sold, transferred or moved; it is something that remains in their hands. Yet it seems to me that they will be potentially at risk of being penalised by the tax office for a change that results as a consequence of the bill. That is one of the essential issues of equity concerning me. I would be very interested to hear the response of those with responsibility for carriage of this bill in that regard.19:18:005291O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I indicated in my contribution on the second reading of this bill that the opposition will not be supporting this amendment, and I detailed the breakdown of the value of the WIF funds and earnings once they are con verted into B class shares. Contained within that we have the WIF contributions and a value to reflect the depreciated value of those contributions, which have not been taxed and will be available tax free. This amendment is proposing that a component, which in total terms is worth $221 million, be treated in some cases as an active asset even though it has been converted to a shareholding.The first proposition that the opposition looked at in approaching this matter was: has there been unfair treatment of the growers in relation to their WIF funds? If it could be said that somehow they had lost the value of that money and they had already paid tax on that money, we might take a different view of this amendment. However, it is clear from the evidence which has been given to the committee by the Australian Taxation Office—I do not think there is any evidence to contradict this—that the WIF funds have not been taxed. That is, the contributions made by growers to the WIF have not been taxed. Tax has not been paid on the contributions. It has been either a deduction or not declared as income. Secondly—and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Senator Troeth) made this clear in her speech on the second reading—a value to reflect a depreciation of those funds will be given upon conversion to shareholding, and that value will also not be taxable. So we have the real value of the WIF funds, arguably, being reflected as the cost of the shares and being tax free at the point where the shares are redeemed. In other words, there has been no loss by virtue of a compulsory contribution. The full value of the contributions together with the notional cost of living earnings of those contributions are tax free—no loss because of the compulsory contribution. If the growers decide to take their WIF funds before conversion to shares—and that is available—then they will be treated as active assets. It would then be a matter of chance, frankly. The reality is that I think most growers would take advantage of the conversion of those WIF funds into shares because, if they do that, they also get the potential value in the shares of the assets, the goodwill and the single desk which would reside in the company. They are able to recover that value upon sale of the B class shares. Now that proportion, which exceeds the indexed value of their contribution, will be taxable. We do not think that is an unfair proposition.In terms of the question of whether we ought to support this because the majority of organisations who have lobbied us are seeking this, I am reminded of a saying from a good friend of mine—that is, in the race of life always back self-interest; it is always trying. In this case there is no question that the grower organisations are doing what their constituent members would expect them to do in seeking to get the best possible deal. However, in acceding to the proposition as far as we have, we do not think they have an unfair deal now, and we think it would be unfair to the community to give them what they ask for.19:23:005292Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The government will not be accepting this amendment. Effectively, wheat growers would receive a double deduction for their contributions. They have not paid any tax since 1989. They will not pay tax when the units are converted to shares, and they will not pay any tax until the shares are sold at some time in the future. To put through an amendment like this would not be fair to every other person in the Australian community who has to abide by the rules of taxation and make a fair contribution. The taxation arrangements are already generous, fair and equitable, and we do not see any reason to extend any further concessions.Progress reported.Notices529252925292Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I seek leave to give a notice of motion to vary the days and hours of meeting of the Senate.Leave not granted.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—I table the notice and indicate to the Senate that the government will move a motion tomorrow in the terms of the notice.Adjournment5292Motion (by Senator Troeth) proposed:That the Senate do now adjourn.529219:25:005292Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—Serious allegations raised in the Sydney Morning Herald today, and aired in the Senate today, concerning business transactions of the former Labor leader, Mr Keating, whilst Prime Minister need to be answered. It was therefore devastatingly disappointing for the Australian people to learn on the news bulletins this evening that the former Labor leader had no comment to make about these serious allegations. It must also be disappointing for Mr Beazley and other Labor luminaries who sat around Mr Keating's Labor cabinet table.The allegations that surfaced today are not completely new. Honourable senators would recall that these issues were raised and pursued by former distinguished Senator Michael Baume. He raised them quite properly and quite relentlessly. Given those allegations, one must ask the question: did Mr Beazley ask his then Labor leader whether there was any substance to the allegations? If he did ask the question, it raises the further question: was Mr Beazley the recipient of another Keating lie? Or was Mr Beazley told, and did Mr Beazley do nothing about it, making him, as the then Labor finance minister, potentially complicit in the cover-up?The further alternative is that Mr Beazley may well have been too weak to ask the question. Mr Beazley has form for being unable to ask himself and Labor the tough questions in the area of policy, so we may need to give Mr Beazley the benefit of the doubt on this. But failure to ask the question would just add further to the mounting perception in the community that Mr Beazley is a weak leader. He will not confront the tough issues. The reason that this issue has continually been on the public agenda is that Labor has this reputation of putting trade union officials, such as Mr Keating, into parliament and turning out millionaires—a metamorphosis that cannot have been achieved no matter how far and wide the parliamentary salary was spun. The thread used to spin this financial cocoon to turn this poor trade union official into a multimillionaire during his parliamentary life was not the thread made of parliamentary salaries. The thread clearly has an origin from elsewhere. We now know it hailed from Indonesia. The threads are coming together and are now weaving a tapestry revealing deception and potential abuse of office.Why does a business figure, especially from overseas, not having had any major dealings in Australia before, seek to relieve a Labor Prime Minister of a $13 million debt and pay not only for the debt but also an extra $6 million for the privilege of so relieving him of that debt? It stretches credulity beyond even Labor's low standards to expect the Australian people to believe that this was an arms-length, above the board deal. It raises, indeed demands, the question: what else was involved in the deal? What was the true consideration that passed between Mr Keating and the foreigner? Labor seems to have this fatal attraction for funny money deals. Remember the Khemlani loan scandal of the 1970s? The big difference in this case is that Mr Keating's funny money deal was solely for his own personal benefit.If it was all above board, why would the former Labor leader declare only 10 per cent of the gain if there was nothing to hide? It really is a pity the Labor leader could not use his now legendary economic wizardry of turning a $13 million debt into a $6 million profit for the benefit of the Australian people. If making money is that easy, why couldn't he have turned the legacy of Labor's $80 billion federal government debt that he left the Australian people into a $36 billion government surplus? Indeed, One Nation could well be interested in the Labor leader's expertise, because it seems he made money quicker than it could be printed.These revelations today demand an answer from Labor's dynamo of the 1980s and 1990s. To say, as he was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald today, that, `My private business affairs are private to me,' is acceptable if this happened before or after his political life. But it is totally unacceptable to say, `They are my private business affairs and they are private to me,' when they occurred during his occupation of the Lodge.Issues raised are plentiful. This morning, Mr Alan Jones spoke with one of the investigative journalists. I will read from part of the transcript of that interview. Mr Jones asked:How does someone with an investment, as I understand Mr Keating's was, of $430,000 return, when it's $13 million in debt, at least $600,000 and the argument that he got some millions over and above that in separate payments?Answer: It's the question we asked many people throughout our inquiries and I guess I'm still waiting for an answer on them.That, of course, all happened while Mr Keating was the Labor Prime Minister. Another question asked was:Do you have evidence that $6 million or a figure of that amount was transferred from Mr Soeryadjaya's company trust to a trust account that had held Mr Keating's and Mr Constantinidis' piggery's interests?Answer: Yes, yes, we did.Question: What amount?Answer: Well, the amount that Mr Soeryadjaya's company initially put in was definitely over $6 million, there's no question about that.Question: And you have evidence that that was transferred from Mr Soeryadjaya's company trust to a trust account that held the piggery interests of Mr Keating and Mr Constantinidis?Answer: That's right, that's right, and we have that document and I spoke to, you know, because you can never fully trust documents, but I did speak to people that confirm that over $6 mil lion had gone into the trust account of the piggeries.Of course, it is now on the public record that Mr Keating's business partner, Mr Constantinidis, and Mr Keating are no longer on speaking terms. Their only communication is now through solicitors' letters.The issues that I have raised this evening are issues of great moment for Australia. It is the first time that I can recall in Australia's history that such a terrible shadow has been cast over the person who has held the very top office of this country. Therefore, my submission to the Senate tonight is that the allegations posed, the questions raised, need to be answered by the former Labor leader. Further, Mr Beazley, Senator Faulkner, Senator Ray and the others who have so unsuccessfully sought to pursue current ministers need to come clean and tell the Australian people what they know about these sordid dealings. Their failure to respond will speak volumes, especially in the weeks to come.529419:34:005294Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The so-called unsuccessful pursuit of ministers in the Howard government has already led to the scalps of seven frontbenchers since the election in March 1996. A number of senior staff have also resigned.It is the staff issue that I want to speak about tonight. It took three hours for the Senator Parer/Mr Baudino camp to cobble together a pathetically weak explanation as to why one of Senator Parer's staff purchased Telstra shares in defiance of the prohibition by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). Senator Alston's media spinners were immediately in the press gallery, claiming that we in the Labor Party had done great wrong to Mr Baudino. Since then, they have retired hurt.However, we do now know what Senator Parer's media spin is, and it is as I am about to outline. Senator Parer says that he told his staff of the Prime Minister's prohibition; that is possibly true. Senator Parer apparently demands from his staff an annual declaration of pecuniary interests. That happened in the previous government; that is possibly true also. Mr Baudino's broker claims that Mr Baudino did not purchase shares in his own name. So what? Finally come the admissions from the media spinners. The shares were bought in Mr Baudino's name but he did not know about it. It is claimed that Mr Baudino had some sort of blind trust arrangements with his wife.The facts are these: the shares were listed on the Coopers and Lybrand Telstra Corporation share register in the name of Robert Laurence Baudino on 25 November 1997, not in the name of a trust. Two days later, on 27 November 1997, they were transferred to the joint names of Robert Laurence Baudino and Olive Merle Baudino. There is no mention of a trust on the Telstra share register. The shares are still listed in the joint names of Robert Laurence Baudino and Olive Merle Baudino as of today, 8 July 1998. On 27 November 1997, Olive Merle Baudino acquired an additional 5,600 units in her own name and separate from the parcel referred to above. As of today, 8 July 1998, she still holds these shares.We are asked to accept that Mr Baudino never knew he owned these Telstra shares. How is that possible? The opposition could perhaps be provided with some supportive evidence. Perhaps we could have a copy of the applications for Telstra shares in the initial float and any applications in his name or her name, joint names or trust names. Perhaps we could have copies of the cheques that formed part of those applications in order to ascertain whose signatures are on the cheques or cheque, the name of the account upon which the cheque was drawn and who the signatories are to that account or those accounts.If Mr Baudino does have an arrangement with his accountant in the form of a blind trust, we ask: is it done under a power of attorney? If so, does a copy of the power of attorney exist? Can the Senate be provided with a copy of the power of attorney? If not, how is it possible for his accountant to apply in somebody else's name for shares in Telstra—or in any other company, for that matter—without a power of attorney? Isn't an application in somebody else's name, without their knowledge, tantamount to fraud in the absence of a power of attorney to authorise that signature on the application?We want to know if, since the time of the Telstra share purchase, Mr Baudino has received an issuer-sponsored statement advising him of the number of instalment receipts issued; in other words, his shareholding. We would like to know the reference number, if it exists. Perhaps we could be informed whether Mr Baudino received advice from time to time of any movement in his shareholding account. Perhaps we can be informed whether he received his dividend advice statement for the Telstra dividend of 7c per share paid on 31 March this year. That advice was, as I understand it, received by all shareholders in early April this year. We want to know if Mr Baudino received it.Mr Baudino has not been available to the press this afternoon. In Mr Baudino we have a person who is well known for trawling the galleries; he is a particularly voluble and dissembling individual. But he has suddenly pulled down the cone of silence. Mr Baudino is absolutely nowhere to be seen. Today he left the media-spinning job, for the first time ever, to Senator Parer's very unenthusiastic senior adviser. When that senior adviser is challenged for details about this particular issue, that senior adviser has a stock standard response which is, we believe, very noteworthy for its lack of conviction. The stock standard response in relation to these issues is: `That's what Bob Baudino has told us.' Bob Baudino seems to have learned an awful lot from Senator Parer about how to deal with these sorts of issues.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—He did a bundle on Rundle shares last time.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—He certainly did, Senator Ray. As you would know, a search of Hansard for Mr Baudino's name would show this particular individual has quite a chequered history, going back to the time of the old Government Information Unit during the life of the Fraser government.I want to raise one other important issue again, and that is this: do not forget that Senator Hill came into this chamber after question time yesterday and made a brief statement in response to a question asked by Senator Ray on Monday this week. I will quote part of his statement. He said:Other ministers and parliamentary secretaries and their staff were advised not to buy shares for 90 days after the first trade.It sounds pretty straightforward, doesn't it? But what we did not get from Senator Hill were the details for both cabinet and non-cabinet ministers, staff, family members, trustees and anyone else mentioned in the actual letter that was sent by the Prime Minister, Mr Howard. Sure, we got some information, in a qualified way, but the government still has not had the guts to table the letter, the advice, that was given to cabinet and non-cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries. You have got to ask why. I suspect the government knows that Senator Parer—with his purchase of shares through IMPL—and now Mr Baudino have been caught red-handed in yet another breach of the Prime Minister's guidelines. This is yet another clear indication that in both cases they are guilty of seriously failing to live up to any level of proper accountability to parliamentary standards or proper public standards. They stand exposed and condemned. (Time expired)529519:44:005295Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I rise tonight to speak once again about the issues of immigration, multiculturalism and population policy in Australia. I do so having noted the efforts of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, today in finally looking to promote and reinforce some of the positives of the immigration program in Australia and some of the benefits of multiculturalism. I congratulate him on that. I hope that a defence of multiculturalism by the government is forthcoming in an even more effusive way in the future. I think that, as part of that, it is good to highlight in public debate the benefits of multiculturalism and the economic benefits of immigration. As part of that, it is, of course, crucial to ensure that adequate assistance and support is provided to migrants—people who have legitimately been accepted into this country—to ensure that they are fully able to participate in the economy and in the society that they have chosen to live in and that we have agreed to allow them to live in.In those circumstances it is important to look at the adequacy of funding—and the operation and ties that are attached to migrant settlement services—to organisations that work with people who are newly arrived to ensure that they can fully participate in Australian society. I call on the government to re-examine the adequacy of their funding and the nature of its assistance in those areas.I would like, once again, to look at the issue of population policy in particular. There has been a lot of talk in recent times about population levels, immigration numbers, et cetera, and the environmental carrying capacity of the continent. Certainly, one of the justifications used by the One Nation Party in the zero net migration component of its immigration policy was the environmental aspect of having a sustainable population. That is an issue that the Democrats have long spoken about and for a long time have called for greater attention to be paid to it. Inasmuch as that issue is being acknowledged by others, that is something to welcome.Of course, the many discriminatory aspects of the One Nation policy are not to be welcomed. The attacks on multiculturalism and the almost inevitable loss in employment that would arise from the negative approach of One Nation's policy are something that, naturally, the Democrats are totally opposed to. While people such as Robyn Spencer, in her previous guise with Australians Against Further Immigration and their promotion of a similarly discriminatory policy, have many times in the past talked about the ethnic mix of immigration and the need to avoid Asianisation of Australia, et cetera, organisations such as the Democrats, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable Population have all looked simply at the issue of total numbers, irrespective of whether they are native born or have their ethnic origin somewhere else.One Nation—and others, unfortunately—has linked immigration numbers with unemploy ment and tried to perpetuate the myth that migrants cost jobs rather than acknowledging the vast body of evidence that shows that migration broadly speaking provides a net economic and employment benefit to Australia. Indeed, One Nation has said that once unemployment is fixed it is okay to increase immigration again, once again reinforcing this false link and showing that the issue of an environmentally sustainable population policy is just a cloak for the discrimination that hides behind their approach. It is a very marked difference from the approach of the Democrats, environment groups and the other organisations that I have mentioned.The fact remains that many Australians have called for a population policy and, until such a thing is established, a smaller immigration intake until we work out the best overall population level of Australia in the long term.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Are you recommending anything?DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—Despite many calls from many committees and inquiries for the establishment of a population policy, which is something that I would recommend, both the coalition and the ALP have refused to go very far down the track of developing such a policy. By contrast, the Democrats have had a population policy for many years. It is a pity that this has not been taken up by other parties, because perhaps there would have been less space available for parties such as One Nation to exploit in the misleading way that they currently are.Whether or not Pauline Hanson and the One Nation Party disappear, the concerns and questions will remain—whether we are talking about a population policy or whether we are talking about reversing the loss of control over our own economy to transnational corporations and to international money markets. The Democrats put forward what we believe to be valid and workable and positive solutions and contribute those to the public debate. We may not get it precisely right all the time; indeed, I have reservations about the workability and the appropriateness of a zero net migration policy. Even though that is the Democrats official policy, it is one that I am not fully comfortable with because I am not convinced that it is workable. That is something that I have not made any secret of within the party and I do not have any problem with stating that publicly.I am nonetheless happy to pronounce it as Democrat policy because it does aim to address a legitimate concern in a positive way, and I am happy to be up-front, definitive, conclusive and specific about what the Democrats' policy is. It is much more definitive, I would suggest, than those of some other parties, in particular the ALP. I note Mr Gareth Evans's repeated hedging on this very issue of population policy and migration numbers on Meet the Press last week.It is important, when we talk about immigration policy and we talk about multiculturalism, that we do not get hung up simply on numbers because it is not about numbers at the end of the day, it is about people. If migration stopped tomorrow, Australia would still be a multicultural society and it would still be crucial that we defended and supported the cohesive and dynamic nature of that multicultural society and the economic as well as social benefits that it brings. If our migration program is 100 people a year or 100,000 people a year, the vital, fundamental principle of treating all of those people equally and ensuring that all of them have the same rights as all other Australian citizens has still to be emphasised.Ensuring adequate access to legal aid and ensuring that people have the same legal and human rights as everyone else whether they are newly arrived or whether they are fifth generation are things the Democrats believe need strong and constant reinforcement and support. One of the issues where unfortunately this is not demonstrated is in the current situation that applies in Australia. It is One Nation policy, but it was also the policy of the existing government, of requiring virtually all migrants to wait two years before they can access social security payments—income assistance—if they are in need.I briefly refer to the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, very ably chaired by Senator Abetz, which looked into this issue of special benefit provisions relating to the newly arrived residents' waiting period. The report has been provided to the Senate and, unfortunately, there has not been an opportunity to speak to it to date. If and when that opportunity does arise, I will speak to it further, but I would like to emphasise that that issue is a perfect example of where we are sending a message out to people who are coming to Australia that they have fewer rights than existing Australians, that they are not able to access income support in times of need in the same way that other Australians can. This report, including the majority report of the government, actually illustrates that. It points to many situations where people are disadvantaged, where people are potentially being exploited and are not able to get redress.Whilst I do not support the recommendation of the majority report for the current situation to continue, I commend it for actually acknowledging and pointing out the many disadvantages that people face. Certainly the Democrats believe that the two-year waiting period, particularly in relation to the special benefit, should be removed. People who are in absolute need should be able to access income support if they are here as legitimate members of the Australian community and have gone through all the hurdles and hoops to become Australian residents. We should extend that hand of assistance. As Senator Cooney said in his comments, this existing law implies that migrants are mendicants by nature. Where a genuine Australian resident is suffering genuine hardship, good principle suggests they should be given help. (Time expired)529719:54:005297Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—I rise tonight to express my complete and unqualified support for the platform and philosophies of the Liberal Party of Australia. Tonight, I am also calling publicly for all Liberal supporters to stay involved in the Victorian division of the Liberal Party of Australia and to continue to work tirelessly for the re-election of the coalition government.Most senators would be aware that on Friday I was relegated from the third to the fourth spot of the coalition Senate ticket for the coming election. In the ALP, such a decision would be accompanied by bitterness, recriminations and factional brawling. Such brawling would spill over into future preselections and hurt the ALP electorally. I love my party. I do not want this to happen to it.Those of you who have experienced an unexpected defeat in a preselection will know how personally hurtful it can be. At first, you are a little shocked, numbed to the reality. You search for the reason. All too often, you find that people you trusted let you down; that you misjudged people you had given loyalty; sometimes you find that the rules may not have been followed.I would like to place on record my appreciation to those party members who supported me on the night and to the even greater number who have rung me since to express their disappointment: you have cheered me immensely. Thank you. Your kindness has made a difficult period in my life a lot easier.To those party members who have threatened to resign, I say: stay involved. The Liberal Party needs people of principle to work in the organisational wing to ensure democracy. A vibrant political party encourages debate and channels disagreements constructively into improving policy. Please stay. Work for positive change. Do not be discouraged.To the young professional women of the Liberal Party who feel betrayed that I was moved down the ticket, I say: do not allow this aberration to cause you to lose faith. The Liberal philosophy of equality of opportunity without quotas is vastly superior to the others. I will fight with you to ensure our party organisation acts on our principles. To the people of Victoria, whom I am honoured to represent, let me assure you that I will continue to represent you to the best of my ability. I have a year of my term still to go and I welcome your input and inquiries.To the Premier of Victoria, whose government I praised in my maiden speech, I say: we do not have the luxury of a majority in the Senate; restrain your impatience and work to build a cooperative relationship with your federal colleagues. We are Victoria's repre sentatives in Canberra, not Canberra's representatives in Victoria. We are all on the same side.Finally, at the risk of giving my valedictory a little earlier than usual, I would like to use this opportunity to thank my supporters. To the rank and file party members, mainly from federal electorate, I express my admiration for your fortitude and your persistence. I am sorry we did not quite make it.To my staff—Di, Catherine, Sandra, Leanne and Conor—you have been great, and I look forward to seeing your careers blossom. I have already had a few ministers ask whether it is too soon to offer my excellent staff a job. I have told them it is.To my political mentors and close friends Michael Kroger and Peter Costello and their staff, especially Anthony Smith: thanks, guys. We have been a team for 20 years. Your loyalty and your support is legendary. I am sorry I could not pull it off for you. And, of course, to my best friend and husband, Giuseppe: I love you more than anyone else. I hope to see more of you soon.529819:59:005298Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I wanted to put on the public record tonight a parliamentary appeal that was coordinated by Parliamentarians for Global Action. It is an appeal on defusing nuclear threats in South Asia. A number of members of this chamber signed the appeal and therefore I would like to read it into the Hansard :We, the members of Parliamentarians for Global Action, a network of 1,300 parliamentarians from 99 legislatures around the world,HavingApplauded the signing of the landmark Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) by 149 countries on September 24, 1996, banning nuclear explosions for which PGA had worked for two decades,Demanded that the test ban be just the first of many resolute steps towards a nuclear weapons-free world,Welcomed therefore the recommendations put forward by the Canberra Commission to achieve a nuclear free world, Congratulated the major bilateral nuclear disarmament agreements reached between Russia and the United States including the START I and II,Strongly Condemned the under-water nuclear testing by France in the South Pacific in September 1995;- Are NowExtremely Dismayed by the testing of three nuclear devices by India on 11 May 1998 and the two subsequent testings on 13 May 1998 including a thermonuclear device,Further Dismayed by Pakistan's response to India's testing of nuclear devices by conducting its own test of five nuclear devices on 28 May 1998,Strongly Condemn the testing of these nuclear devices as it severely diminishes confidence and security in the South Asia region and beyond as well as undermines the spirit of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,Distressed that this will start a new and dangerous nuclear arms race in the region and beyond,Extraordinarily Dismayed that India, and then Pakistan, tested nuclear weapons in the name of an outmoded conception of national security and Reiterate that the concept of security must include human security beyond a narrow military definition,Alarmed that the effects of the escalation of nuclear armament in the Indian Subcontinent will have an environmental impact far beyond this region,Drawing Upon our authority as elected representatives of citizens around the world;A.1. Call upon India and Pakistan to immediately and unconditionally sign the CTBT and disavow the deployment of nuclear weapons;2. Call upon. our governments and multilateral agencies to suspend loan/assistance programs to India and Pakistan; and. our constituencies to send a clear message to States that test nuclear devices through a boycott of the products and commodities produced by these Statesuntil India and Pakistan sign the CTBT and disavow the deployment of nuclear weapons;3. Demand environmental impact assessments by an international body be carried out in the test sites and their surroundings;B.4. Urge India and Pakistan to come to the negotiation table in good faith to reach solutions to all outstanding problems between the two countries; 5. Strongly Appeal to the International Community to support India and Pakistan's negotiations by:. creating incentives for peaceful policies;. offering non-nuclear avenues for assuring their national security; and. creating a Nuclear-Free Zone in the region.6. Offer our network of legislators and international powers to facilitate such dialogue for peace-making in South Asia.C.7. Strongly Appeal. to the United States Senate to immediately ratify the CTBT to set an example, as a leading Superpower, by paving the way for reducing the dangers of nuclear peril;. to Russia and China to ratify the CTBT without delay;I seek leave to table this statement.Leave granted.XI4Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDS—I note that Australian parliamentarians represented about 12 per cent of all signatories.20:04:005299Senate adjourned at 8.04 p.m.Documents52995299The following government documents were tabled:Employment, Education and Training Act—National Board of Employment, Education and Training—Higher Education Council—Report for 1997 on the operation of section 14 of the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 and the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, June 1998.Estimates of proposed expenditure for the year 1998-99—Portfolio budget statements—Portfolio and executive departments—Corrigendum— Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Department of Defence.5299The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Customs Act—Instruments of Approval Nos 6-19, 21 and 22 of 1998.Defence Act—Determinations under section 58B—Defence Determinations 1998/24 and 1998/25. Higher Education Funding Act—Guidelines under section— 26—Guidelines No. T16 of 1998. 27—Guidelines No. T17 of 1998.Proclamations5300A proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was tabled, notifying that he had proclaimed the following provisions of an Act to come into operation on the date specified:Trade Practices Amendment (Fair Trading) Act 1998—Schedule 2—1 July 1998 (Gazette No. S301, 25 June 1998).