1998-11-113911SENATE5701998-11-11The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous5757Motion (by Senator Kemp, at the request of Senator Alston) agreed to:That standing order 3(4) be suspended to enable the Senate to consider business other than that of a formal character before the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's opening speech has been adopted.Miscellaneous57Motion (by Senator Kemp, at the request of Senator Alston) agreed to:That:(1) Any senator appointed a parliamentary secretary under the Parliamentary Secretaries Act 1980 may exercise the powers and perform the functions conferred upon ministers by the procedures of the Senate, but may not be asked or answer questions which may be put to ministers under standing order 72(1) or represent a minister before a legislation committee considering estimates.(2) This order is of continuing effect.Miscellaneous57Motion (by Senator Kemp, at the request of Senator Alston) agreed to:That the days of meeting of the Senate for the remainder of 1998 be as follows: Thursday, 12 November Monday, 23 November to Thursday, 26 November Monday, 30 November to Thursday, 3 December.Miscellaneous5757Motion (by Senator Kemp, at the request of Senator Alston) agreed to:That consideration of the first report of 1996 of the Procedure Committee concerning the application and interpretation of the third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution be an order of the day under government business for the next day of sitting. Miscellaneous5757Motion (by Senator Kemp, at the request of Senator Alston)—as amended by leave—agreed to:(1) That standing order 25(1) be amended as follows: Omit: `Employment, Education and Training' Substitute: `Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education' Omit: `Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts' Substitute: `Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts'.(2) That continuing order no. 1, relating to the allocation of departments and agencies to standing committees be amended to read as follows: Departments and agencies are allocated to the legislative and general purpose standing committees as follows:Community Affairs Family and Community Services Health and Aged CareEconomics Treasury Industry, Science and ResourcesEmployment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business Education, Training and Youth AffairsEnvironment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Environment and Heritage Communications, Information Technology and the ArtsFinance and Public Administration Parliament Prime Minister and Cabinet Finance and AdministrationForeign Affairs, Defence and Trade Foreign Affairs and Trade Defence (including Veterans' Affairs)Legal and Constitutional Attorney-General Immigration and Multicultural AffairsRural and Regional Affairs and Transport Transport and Regional Services Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Bills58r52458Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Kemp) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.5809:34:0058Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I table the explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Madam President, the Data-matching Program is an important aspect of the continued efforts of this Government to ensure the integrity of Australia's social welfare system.Over the past seven years, the Data-matching Program has been conducted under the Privacy Commissioner's scrutiny with careful regard for individual privacy and is an important control on personal financial assistance schemes, helping to keep them free of abuse and fraud. It has been proven over the past two years that it can achieve substantial savings in public expenditure.The Data-matching Program is also valuable in encouraging voluntary compliance with the rules in place to ensure payments are targeted to those in need. It reminds the community that it is not a case of if fraud will be detected, but when. It has now become an important feature of the review mechanisms that are helping to build the integrity of the system and the confidence of the public that the system is, in fact, secure from fraud.There are on-going review and reporting arrangements in place to allow the Parliament to maintain its scrutiny of the Program. The present Government, when in Opposition, argued successfully for continuation of this scrutiny. The Privacy Commissioner continues to play an important role in ensuring that the Government agencies participating in the Data-matching Program abide by the strict conditions already set down in the legislation to protect the privacy of individuals. In addition to the Privacy Commissioner being able to seek information and scrutinise the activities of the Agencies involved in the Data-matching Program, there is a requirement that those Agencies report annually to the Privacy Commissioner. The act also requires that these reports are laid before the Parliament. There is also a triennial report to the Parliament covering the three previous financial years. The first triennial report is due in the second half of this year.Madam President, in 1996 the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) conducted a follow-up of its 1993 Audit of Data-matching within the Department of Social Security. This review was in keeping with this Government's 1996 election commitment to review the Data-matching Program.Madam President it can be noted that the ANAO's Audit opinion given in its 1996 report was as follows:Overall the Department has made substantial achievements through implementing legislative changes, improved reporting procedures, savings collection, better targeting and project evaluation processes. These changes have resulted in both substantial increases in savings generated by the Program and in efficiency improvements.When the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act 1990 was first enacted it incorporated a sunset clause to take effect in January 1993. That sunset clause has, however, been extended by the Parliament on three separate occasions. The latest occasion was in 1995 when the sunset clause was extended until 23 January 1999. In part the sunset clause was kept in place because of concerns in the Parliament that the Data-matching Program would not achieve the expected savings and in part as an attempt to allow the Parliament to maintain scrutiny of the Program.Madam President, the Data-matching Program has now proven that very substantial savings can be achieved, and the Parliament has been regularly informed of the operation of the Program in addition to its deliberation of bills previously introduced to deal with the sunset clause. The Program has become an important feature of the overall social welfare system and one that needs to be given a permanent place in the continuing efforts to maintain and improve that system. In the event that the sunset clause is allowed to come into effect, the loss of savings that could be achieved would be in the order of $560 million over the four years from 1998-99. Accordingly, this bill seeks to remove the sunset clause.Madam President, I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading speech of this bill be adjourned till 14 days after today, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills59s18059Motion (by Senator Kemp) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to amend the Migration Act 1958, and for other purposes.Motion (by Senator Kemp) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.5909:35:0059Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I table the explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The purpose of this bill is to ensure that the Government can effectively discharge its fundamental responsibility to prevent the entry and stay in Australia of non-citizens who have a criminal background or have criminal associations.This bill is largely the same as one which was before the Senate in the last Parliament.The Government has, however, made two changes from that bill. The first of these extends the time limit for lodging review applications with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the second doubles the time in which that Tribunal will have to review such applications.In considering this bill, we must remember that the vast majority of non-citizens who come to Australia are in fact law-abiding people.In a world of rapidly increasing people movements, our immigration arrangements must be designed to streamline the entry and stay of all genuine visitors, students, business people and permanent residents. However, a small proportion of non-citizens seeking to enter Australia do have substantial criminal backgrounds or criminal associations. Others commit crimes while they are in Australia.Steps to improve the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs' ability to detect visa applicants with substantial criminal backgrounds or associations are being taken including consultation with law enforcement bodies overseas. For these steps to be effective, however, they must be complemented by legislative provisions to ensure that non-citizens with criminal backgrounds or criminal associations can be refused a visa. The provisions must also enable the Government to remove those non-citizens who are detained following convictions for crimes committed in Australia.Experience over recent years has shown that the existing legislative provisions are inadequate for this task. This is despite the fact that they were amended as recently as 1992 with the express purpose of improving the Government's ability to deal with visa applicants and visa holders with a substantial criminal background. In broad terms, the bill seeks to enhance the Government's ability to deal with non-citizens who are not of good character in three ways:. First, decision-making in routine cases will be improved by:- requiring applicants to show that they are of good character;- deeming that certain levels of criminal sentences will lead to an automatic finding that the non-citizen concerned is not of good character; and- allowing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to give binding directions to decision-makers.. Secondly, in exceptional or emergency circumstances, the Minister, acting personally, will be given powers to act decisively on matters of visa refusal, cancellation and the removal of non-citizens.. Thirdly, information provided by Australian and international law enforcement agencies will be afforded more effective protection so that such agencies can be confident about passing information to immigration decision-makers.I will now describe the major provisions of the bill in more detail.The character testThe amendments proposed in this bill introduce the concept of a character test. Under this test, the onus will be on visa applicants and visa holders to satisfy decision-makers that they can pass the test. This will redress a significant deficiency in the legislation arising from the changes made in 1992. Since that time, decision-makers have been required to establish that a person is not of good character before they could refuse a visa to an applicant or cancel a visa. This has meant that, whenever there has been doubt about the criminal background or criminal associations of a non-citizen, the doubt has been resolved in the non-citizen's favour. I understand that this was not the intention of the 1992 amendments. This bill then takes us back to the situation that existed before 1992 by placing the onus of proof on the visa applicant to demonstrate that he or she is of good character. This means that where there are real doubts about the criminal background or criminal associations of a visa applicant or visa holder, the objective of protecting the Australian community will take precedence in immigration decision-making.Deeming provisionsThis bill also seeks to establish clear benchmarks for criminal behaviour that would automatically lead to a non-citizen failing the character test. Non-citizens who have been convicted to a single sentence of detention of 12 months or more, or where the length of several sentences aggregates to two years or more, will fail the character test. This will truncate the character assessment process and cover most non-citizens of character concern who come to notice. This will provide more certainty as to who is able to pass the character test.Binding directions on exercise of the discretionOnce it is established that a visa applicant or visa holder does not pass the character test, decision-makers will have to decide whether to refuse the application or to cancel the visa. Exercise of this discretion will need to take into account a wide range of factors including: the non-citizen's links to Australia; the nature of crimes committed; and any international law obligations.This bill will enable the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to give precise written directions on what weight is to be given to each of these factors. These directions must be binding on all decision makers, including merits review tribunals, to ensure a consistency of approach. The written directions will be tabled in Parliament.Protection of criminal intelligence Criminal intelligence and related information is critical to assessing the criminal background or associations of non-citizen visa applicants and visa holders. At present, it is difficult for the Department to use such information in making character decisions because its disclosure might be threatened. Australian and international law enforcement agencies are reluctant to provide sensitive information unless they are sure that both the information and its sources can be protected. Greater protection for such material would complement broader national and international strategies to counter transnational crime and the activities of those associated with it.This bill increases the level of protection for such information. I cannot overstate the importance of this protection to the job of preventing the entry of foreign criminals to Australia. This was highlighted in the Minister's recent discussions with officials of international law enforcement agencies. Merits review The opportunity to appeal character decisions to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) will be retained. However, there is a critical need to reform these arrangements in two main respects: first, in terms of speeding up merits review processes; and, secondly, in terms of ensuring that merits review decisions reflect community standards and expectations.Merits review streamlining and time limitsWhere a non-citizen who is already in Australia is refused a further visa or has their visa cancelled on character grounds, it is essential that merits review cannot be used to prolong stay in Australia at taxpayers' expense. The average time currently taken for such cases at merits review is 227 days from the initial notification to a final decision. Many cases take even longer.During this time, the non-citizens involved, many of whom have committed serious crimes, either will be in detention at great cost to the taxpayer or will be at liberty in the community. Quite frankly, this must stop. This bill introduces more streamlined procedures for dealing with such cases. It also introduces a strict 84 day time limit for the conduct of merits review cases involving character where the non-citizen is in Australia.We will ensure that all relevant documentation necessary for the AAT to determine the matter will be provided quickly, at the outset of the process. The amendments will establish a new process where the Department will be required to provide two copies of the relevant documentation to the applicant at the time of the decision. Then, at the time the appeal is made, the applicant only has to lodge one copy of the documentation with the AAT. The need for strict time limits is consistent with other review processes in the immigration area where delay can prejudice both the applicant and the community.The provision will result in a more streamlined process, with the applicant, the Department and the AAT using less time and resources to obtain the necessary documentation. Currently much effort is devoted to, and delay arises in, pursuing papers and documentation from non-citizens and the Department.The strict time limit will prevent non-citizens from further attempts to delay the resolution of their case.Minister's power to intervene or set aside Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisionsOver the past 12 months or so, the AAT has made a number of character decisions that are clearly at odds with community standards and expectations. The AAT has found a number of non-citizens, who have been convicted of very serious crimes, to be of good character, and has ruled that they should be granted a visa. This has alarmed the community and I might say the community, when they are aware of these decisions, hold the Government and not the AAT responsible.It is essential that the Minister, acting personally, have the power to intervene or set aside such decisions in the national interest. The Minister should, however, continue to be required to table the making of any such decisions in the Parliament.Emergency cases From time to time, there will be emergency cases involving non-citizens who may be a significant threat to the community. These people may be threatening violence or some other act of destruction or have a prior history of serious crime. In these emergency circumstances, the Minister, again acting personally, should have the power to act without notice and have them taken into detention.Once the visa is cancelled, the non-citizen will have a right to make a submission to the Minister as to why the cancellation should be revoked. Natural justice will apply in such cases. However, if they cannot satisfy the Minister that they pass the character test, they should be removed immediately. Parliament should be notified of the making of such decisions but the decisions should not be subject to merits review because of their national significance. The Minister is very accountable for his actions—to the Parliament, his colleagues, and to the people of Australia.The provision is similar in nature to other provisions already present in the Migration Act—Subdivision F of the Migration Act (section 128) provides for cancellation offshore without notice and the right of the non-citizen to make a subsequent submission as to why the cancellation or refusal should be revoked. This Subdivision was inserted in 1992 by the previous Government.ConclusionIn summary, this bill sends a clear and unequivocal message on behalf of the Australian community. The Australian community expects that non-citizens coming to Australia should be of good character. To discharge this expectation, the Government must have the ability to act quickly and decisively, wherever necessary, to remove non-citizens who are not of good character.During debate in the House of Representatives before the election, the Opposition indicated that they supported the objective that the Government provides for in this bill. This bill now incorporates some amendments reflecting discussions between the Minister and the then Opposition spokesman.I commend the bill to the Chamber.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading speech of this bill be ad journed till 14 days after today, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills61s17861Motion (by Senator Kemp) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to extend the operation of the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Act 1991, and for related purposes.Motion (by Senator Kemp) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.6109:36:0061Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I table the explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Bill 1998 proposes to amend section 20 of the principal act, the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Act 1991 (ESOS Act). Section 20 of the ESOS Act is a sunset clause which will deactivate the act on 1 January 1999.The government requests an amendment to the sunset clause by extending the date the sunset clause takes effect from 1 January 1999 to 1 January 2002. This amendment recognises that the ESOS Act:. has universal and strong support of stakeholders in the industry; and. has achieved its objectives of ensuring the quality of providers and courses and a stable domestic environment for the industry.A stable domestic environment is particularly important to maintain confidence in Australia's international education industry during the current volatile period in many of Australia's major source markets. The ESOS Act was introduced to provide both financial protection and quality assurance for international students who choose to study in Australia. In 1993 the ESOS Act was amended to enhance the quality and integrity of our educational products and to strengthen the protection the act offers to international students' prepaid funds. Assurances are provided by registering providers of international education and training, based on State or Territory approval and accreditation, and by imposing financial conditions on private education providers.The principal act was introduced in 1991 to meet three main objectives, namely:. to ensure that international students in Australia are treated with equity and fairness;. to provide a positive basis for promoting Australia's international reputation as a provider of reliable high quality education and training; and. to ensure that tax payers' funds are not required to recompense international students who may have been let down by individual education and training providers.These objectives remain relevant today. This is the universal view of industry representatives expressed to independent consultants in national consultations in 1996 and in further consultations with stakeholders in April and May 1998.In 1996 the ESOS Act was amended to extend the sunset clause from 1 January 1997 to 1 January 1999. This followed a review of the ESOS Act by an independent consultant which indicated universal support for the continuation of the current cooperative approach to industry regulation. The reviewers found strong support for the Commonwealth maintaining a regulatory role in relation to the education exports industry. The relevant arguments relate to international trade, immigration and foreign affairs matters which could not readily be coordinated by the States or Territories or by industry bodies.International trade in education and training services will earn an estimated $3.4 billion for Australia in export revenue in 1998. Stakeholders argue that the existing regulation of the industry adds value in the market place and they have indicated strong support for retaining the ESOS Act as part of a cooperative Commonwealth, State/Territory and industry approach to regulation. In particular, they want to maintain the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (the register).There are costs to the Commonwealth in maintaining the regulatory framework, including the register. The costs are shared by the Commonwealth and industry through the collection of annual and initial registration charges, introduced in 1997. The cooperative regulatory model, with the Commonwealth's ESOS Act as the key national element, has successfully maintained a stable domestic environment for the education and training services export industry over the past five years. This is evidenced by Australia's highly successful engagement in education exports and the continued strong support which stakeholders have for the ESOS Act.Stakeholders' support for the ESOS Act recognises that the growth of Australia's international education industry depends on the confidence that students overseas have in the quality of the courses they undertake and the protection of the moneys they invest in receiving an Australian education.The international education and training industry is an important and valuable one for Australia. It is a major part of Australia's growth in the export of services, bringing many intangible benefits, including the development of contacts for future trade, and ideas and international perspectives. The confidence of students is fundamental to the credibility and viability of the industry which accounts for over $3 billion in export earnings annually. This industry deserves the support of the existing Commonwealth, State/Territory and industry cooperative framework and this bill enables the framework to continue until 1 January 2002 during a volatile and uncertain period for export services industries.A three year extension to the ESOS Act's sunset clause will allow a stable domestic environment to be maintained during a time of economic volatility in major source markets. The extension will also allow time for the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments and industry to focus on possible future regulatory models with a view to progress a greater degree of self regulation.I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading speech of this bill be adjourned till 14 days after today, in accordance with standing order 111.Miscellaneous62Motion (by Senator Kemp, at the request of Senator Alston) agreed to:That the provision of standing order 111(6) which prevents the continuation or resumption of second reading debate on a bill within 14 days of its first introduction in either House not apply to the following bills:Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Amendment Bill 1998 (No. 2)Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1998 (No. 2) Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Amendment Bill 1998 (No. 2).Miscellaneous63Motion (by Senator Kemp, at the request of Senator Alston) agreed to:That, in accordance with the section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the proposal by the National Capital Authority to erect identification signs in front of Old Parliament House.Address in Reply636309:37:0063MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—I move:That the following Address-in-Reply be agreed to:To His Excellency the Governor-GeneralMAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY—We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign and to thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.It may well be that, in formally moving this motion for the address-in-reply, I will be the last senator to do so with the address-in-reply in its present format. Those honourable senators who take part in the debate on the motion may also be partaking in a process which may change or even be abandoned in the next parliament. The Governor-General's speech outlined, as is customary, the legislative program to be pursued in this parliament—the 39th—by the newly elected government. The first and principal objective of the government will be to legislate for taxation reform. There is overwhelming agreement in the community that our present system of taxation has many disadvantages. It is unfair and therefore inequitable in some of its aspects; conceptually, it is a product of many generations past and therefore reflects the needs of a past society; it places heavy imposts on export industries, imposts which competitor nations do not bear. Above all, its complexity is such that only specialised professionals understand the act and then only sections of the act. If the players—that is, the taxpayers of Australia—do not understand the rules, they can be forgiven if they do not play the game properly. No-one at this stage can predict in what legislative form the government's proposals will emerge from this parliament. The only certainty is that the amendments to those proposals, if there are any, will have their origins in the Senate and be the subject of strongly contested debate. There is an argument that can be advanced that, if the government does not achieve its tax reform objectives in legislative form in this parliament, then it can move progressively in later parliaments to achieve its goals; that since there is no such thing as a perfect tax system, because society is constantly changing, there is no final end point to reform in taxation legislation. As an experienced legislator, I have a marked preference for incremental and logical change to society rather than radical and precipitate change. But the nature of the change proposed by the government to our taxation laws is such that partial implementation of those proposals will achieve nothing and may well be contrary to the community's interests.The government will conduct a referendum through 1999 into whether Australia becomes a republic or not as a consequence of the Constitutional Convention held earlier this year. Like the tax reform legislation, the wording of the legislation setting up the referendum will occasion intense debate in this chamber. The difference will be that no party lines will be enforced—at least on the government side—for this debate. It is quite conceivable that no one position will attain majority support in this chamber. The referendum will, however, proceed because the Australian constitution provides that a referendum proposal needs the support of one chamber only to be put to the people, if after three months the other chamber fails to agree.Apart from legislative matters, two major issues will demand a high priority in the 39th Parliament. The state of the economies of the nations of the world will be an ever present concern through the life of this parliament. Of particular concern to Australia is the state of the Asian economies both with respect to international trade and the impact depressed economies have on political stability. Our two nearest neighbours, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia, are nations which are enduring very grievous economic circumstances, which is a matter of great importance to Australia.The other great area of interest through this parliament will be the preparations for the Olympic Games and the celebration of the foundation of the Commonwealth of Australia in 2001. Both these events, the games and the centenary celebrations, provide enormous opportunities for Australia's growth and development as a society and as a nation.While reconciliation with our indigenous members of our Australian community stands distinct as an issue in its own right, and it is a matter that the government says will be addressed in this parliament, it also has a central role in relation to Australia as a cohesive society. As this society grows and changes, there is a fundamental requirement not to form a grey, characterless uniform society but a vibrant society of diverse interests, but having agreement on common social goals and values. The games and the centenary celebrations are very important to us as a nation in this context because they provide opportunities for us to reaffirm the beliefs that we share as a community.Let me in the final passage of this address-in-reply return to my comment at the beginning about the future. Clearly, if we have a republic, there will be no pledge of loyalty to a monarch. If there is a republic, I am sure though that some form of support for the administrative system of Australia will replace the current address-in-reply. While such exercises are not devoid of elements of symbolism, they do serve to remind us that we are here as custodians for the time being of the principles under which democratic government takes place.Whether or not Australia becomes a republic is a matter for the Australian community to decide, and I will not use this opportunity to enter the debate which is properly a matter for another time. The one point that should be made is that the present system has worked very well. Our system of parliamentary democracy has been tested and not found wanting. It has been tested in peace, in economic and constitutional crises; it has been tested in war; it has been tested originally by a homogenous society and, more recently, by a multicultural society. It has not failed us. As someone with a very deep interest in parliamentary procedures and great respect for the institution of the parliament, I believe we have the best system of any democratic process in the world. Most of the faults we have in our parliamentary process arise from human failings not from the organisational structure. To me as a legislator, the virtue of our present system which transcends all others is the existence of a neutral umpire in the form of a governor-general. As a senator, I have had the privilege of serving under four governors-general—Sir Zelman Cowan, Sir Ninian Stephen, Bill Hayden and Sir William Deane—all eminently distinguished Australians, all deeply and unambiguously Australian in character.To me it is a pedantic point of no moment that they are the Queen's representatives. They were and are the de facto head of state of Australia and they are Australian to their bootstraps. Whatever my personal views on a republic, I cannot share the view that I am somehow diminished and the nation is diminished because we have a Governor-General rather than a president. Nor, on the same theme, though I have lived out of Australia for a considerable part of my adult life and travel internationally frequently, have I ever experienced any lack of respect for Australia by citizens of any other country because we have a Governor-General.But I want to return to the concept of the neutral umpire. Government is difficult. It is an unrelenting duty, irrespective of what political persuasion the government of the day is. The longer a government is in power, the heavier the load becomes. There is a constant and great temptation on a ministry and on a prime minister to take an expedient route to ease the load, particularly in emergencies. The fact that these steps have not been taken by an Australian government is due in no small part to the presence of a Governor-General divorced from the mainstream political process.While claiming that our system of government and a democratic parliament is a superior one, I do not discount the desirability of change in detail of some of our procedures. Since the Australian constitution was framed by practising politicians who were all members of political parties of the day, it has always seemed strange to me that debate in the chamber has always been vested with the pretence of an air of objectivity. Sadly, it is not true to say that a senator can make a cogent and well-reasoned speech and convince his or her political opponents of the logic of their case and enlist their support. Then, as now, political outcomes in relation to legislation are determined outside the chamber, not on its floor. That is not to say that there should be no debate permitted in second reading speeches or in the committee stage. Of course there must, so that various senators can explain their position. But surely we can find a procedure when there is no opposition to a piece of legislation so that it can pass through the chamber without senators speaking to the bill and thereby taking up the time of the chamber. Such a move would cumulatively save quite a deal of chamber time in a year, time which could be more profitably used for other purposes.My basic point is that the parliament should represent the interests of the community. Legislative procedures take up most of the time of this chamber, but parliaments should have wider horizons than passing bills compelling citizens to do this or that. General business on a Thursday afternoon provides a useful window and an opportunity for those not in the government to debate an issue not of the government's choosing. General business does, however, suffer from a degree of inflexibility. The chamber has little opportunity to discuss issues of community interest or concern. True, another opportunity exists under matters of public importance and urgency motions, but they invariably involve an adversarial and partisan approach and seldom are creative.The Senate does need time, and should make time, to discuss and acquaint itself with community issues of interest other than those covered by bills before the parliament. For example, we invest a great deal of time and resource in our committee system. The committee system is one of the great assets of the parliament. I have often said that I would have left the parliament many years ago but for the committee system. I find that committees serve both as an intellectual outlet and in an educative role. They also have an important role in educating and informing the public and to some degree in influencing government policy.In an age where the parliament is increasingly seen as divorced from the community, the committee system through public inquiries serves as a very valuable bridge for the populace at large to have direct contact with their elected representatives. They can make written submissions to inquiries. They can be called as witnesses to appear face to face with their legislators and put their views without any intermediaries.As I said a few moments ago, we put a great deal of effort and a great deal of money into our committee system, yet we never have time to have a meaningful or effective discussion of the reports of the committees when they are presented in the Senate. The opportunities should be provided for the Senate to discuss at length committee reports when it so chooses. At the same time, other issues of community interest not subject to current legislation should be discussed within this chamber and in a non-partisan way. That takes time and the inevitable consequence of that is an extension of our sitting weeks. I see nothing wrong with that because I see my primary role as a senator as being involved in the workings of the Senate.While on the subject of committees, we ought to review objectively where we are at. In my judgment we are not performing optimally. We have far too many committees in the Senate. We have to recognise that we cannot have committees for everything. There are only 76 of us in this chamber and, more importantly, the major parties only muster around 30 senators plus or minus three or four, and from those there have to be deleted office bearers, ministers and other personnel. Our human resources are very finite. We cannot continue with our present number of committees.Another matter which I would like to see addressed is the bipartisan atmosphere in the committees. The regular or standing committees of the Senate should try to avoid references that are controversial in a partisan political way. That is not always possible but with good chairmanship it can be attained in most cases. Committees should operate objectively and in the national interest. The competition of ideas and, therefore, dissenting views are the very lifeblood of politics and are inseparable from it. Partisan political issues should be the subject of select or ad hoc committees, not the topic of inquiries of standing committees.The Australian Senate has a very proud and creative role in the development of its committee system, as instanced by the formation of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee in 1932. The Senate estimates committees have made a significant contribution in making the executive government accountable to the parliament. However, it has now become increasingly difficult to accommodate the time for estimates committees in one major and one minor hearing each year. Is it not time to consider a continuous role for the estimates committees where, in a controlled manner, they monitor the expenditure of departments through the year as and when they see fit? There is no reason why this cannot be done.In relation to committees, one final aspect merits consideration and that is the presence of ministers in the Senate. This is not an original idea but a very hoary old chestnut, but it has not been discussed for many years. It is now pertinent to reconsider this issue, now that the Senate has apparently permanently changed as a consequence of the amendments to the Electoral Act in 1983. Those amendments resulted in a situation where no party can gain a majority in the Senate. Like it or not, the consequence of this change is that the review function of the Senate has greatly increased. The argument to be considered is whether the abolition of ministers from the Senate and their replace ment by an enhanced committee system would improve this review function. There is no constitutional requirement that there must be ministers in the Senate.I am not suggesting for a moment that if ministers disappeared the Senate would become apolitical and party politics would disappear. The party system would remain and be as strong as at present. But the absence of a ministry could arguably lead to a less adversarial relationship in the chamber and a more productive legislature.The Governor-General yesterday outlined a program for the 39th Parliament that is imaginative, creative and, above all, courageous and which will address not only the problems which beset us at present but will position us as a nation to face the challenges of the next century. One of the top priorities of the last parliament was the need to address and rectify the dire economic circumstances that the then new government faced. That has now been corrected and this parliament can now turn its mind to building a stronger Australia—strong not only in an economic sense but in a social sense. We can and must devote the required attention to the broader social issues within our community through the 39th Parliament.09:54:0066O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—I second the motion. In so doing, it is appropriate to note that already the battle lines have been drawn for the start of this parliament—between the opposition and the crossbenches and the government—and the battle lines are over taxation reform. This is an interesting development because there were many in the government party room who in the life of the previous parliament urged that taxation reform should be brought on immediately as a direct consequence of the decision of the High Court to strike down various state indirect taxes.There was at that time, and there remains, a need to have taxation reform and to repair the indirect tax mechanism. But it was decided in the government party room at the time that it would be inappropriate to do so without first going to an election to put the issue before the people. The reason for that was that it was felt that if the government were to put forward taxation reform before an elec tion—to bring it before the parliament before an election—the Senate and the crossbenches of the Senate would argue that the government had no right to so legislate. And that was the decision.That is not a great revelation; it is I think probably a matter of record. But having had the election, the government having been returned and the people having had a chance to decide whether to return a government which they knew would make taxation reform and the introduction of a broadly based goods and services tax a central part of its economic policy, we now find the opposition and the crossbenches of the Senate compelling themselves to frustrate, delay and block at all cost. There we see the Opposition Whip smiling at the prospect of delay and obfuscation, but it is a delay and obfuscation not just of the government but of the business of this nation. This nation decided at the last election to elect a government which would implement taxation reform.YH4MacGIBBONSenator MacGibbon—We don't want uncertainty.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—We don't want uncertainty, as Senator MacGibbon quite correctly says. This was not a second, third or fourth order priority issue. This was the central issue of the last election. The Labor Party cannot say that they did not campaign against taxation reform. They did campaign against taxation reform, and they lost. They cannot say that the government did not campaign for taxation reform—we did, and we won. And the Democrats cannot say that they were not warned that we would seek to legislate in this fashion, nor can anybody else who sits on the crossbenches. Yet I was surprised to hear yesterday the proposals from the Leader of the Democrats for reference of matters relating to taxation reform to up to eight different Senate committees.This can be nothing but a facade—a sham attempt by the Democrats to reopen an issue which has already been decided at a general election. When you look at the proposals—the sorts of the things that the Democrats want these various committees to examine—it is quite laughable. We see the suggestion that the Economics Committee should be required to look into the restoration of a 150 per cent tax concession for research and development and the suggestion that we should have a capital gains tax rate of other than 30 per cent. Then they want the Employment, Education and Training Committee to look at the scope and effectiveness of proposed zero rating arrangements for education in maintaining its quality and affordability. This is a traverse of every irrelevancy that the Democrats could come up with in the time that it has taken to move from the election to now.This is an insult to the decision of the people of Australia who chose to have a government which they knew would implement taxation reform. But of course for the Democrats, who went into the election saying that they would probably support taxation reform, this is all an irrelevancy—the view of the people is an irrelevancy. And the great irony is this: the Democrats have hitherto always campaigned on the basis that they would keep various people honest—one assumed the government. Here is a government that wants to be honest to its election promises. We went to the people saying, `We want to have taxation reform.' We advocated taxation reform, we argued for taxation reform, we won on a platform of taxation reform, and we want to be honest to our promises. And yet here is a crossbench and an opposition—the Democrats and Labor—who want somehow to make us walk away from political honesty. And this government is not for walking away from political honesty. This government is not for abandoning the solemn pledge it made to the voters of Australia at the last election.The reason why we made that solemn pledge was we knew that, without taxation reform, the ability of this country to grow, to expand, the ability of Australia's population to enjoy higher wealth and greater prosperity, would be limited—limited not by a lack of resources, limited not so much by a lack of national will, but limited by a ramshackle and outdated taxation system. As my friend and colleague Senator MacGibbon said, it takes a very specialised mind to now understand the vagaries and intricacies of our taxation system. That is this nation's shame. It is this nation's shame that our taxation system, the legislation of this parliament, is in fact a brake on the opportunity of ordinary Australians to enjoy a better standard of living.It follows from that that those people on the other side of the chamber, those people who inhabit the nether regions of the crossbenches, in opposing taxation reform conversely must support the existing taxation system. Senator Collins shakes her head. They support a continuation of the existing illogical taxation system. They support, for example, a 12 per cent sales tax on various items of food—for example, soft drinks or fruit juices—yet they oppose a 10 per cent goods and services tax on food. How illogical it is to say you oppose a 10 per cent goods and services tax on food but you support a 12 per cent sales tax on certain items of food like fruit juice and biscuits.This is the logical limit of the ability of the opposition and the crossbenchers to think this issue through. They have failed to think this issue through. Every day they come into the Senate and they seek to delay the legislative program of the government, every day they do so, by consequence they also vote, yet again, for a continuation of this absurd taxation system. Every day they come in here and seek to frustrate the government's legislative agenda for taxation reform, they continue to vote for higher personal income taxes because the only way in which the personal income tax cuts can be delivered is by delivering a broadly based goods and services tax which will help ensure that the government can stay in surplus.These issues may not be of great consequence to members of the Labor Party because, after all, through most of their years in government, the Labor Party never bothered to have a government surplus. They were happy to run this country into debt. From the safety and comfort of the opposition benches, they maintain the pretence, of course, that budget surpluses are not important, but ask the people of Indonesia, ask the people of Korea, ask the people of Thailand, if budget surpluses are important or unimportant.One of the reasons why this country's economy is in such good shape, one of the reasons which is quoted by every economist who reviews Australia's economy for why it has not gone down the road of Thailand, Korea or Indonesia, is that this government has got the budget to balance. The only way in which we can maintain a balanced budget and at the same time give the income tax cuts that ordinary Australians so desperately need is if we have indirect taxation reform. But, of course, in opposing indirect taxation reform, the opposition and the crossbenchers also oppose the opportunity for cuts to the income taxes for ordinary Australians. The opposition, therefore, oppose the attempts of this government to give incentive, real incentive, to Australians who need it.In opposing the taxation reform package which we have brought before this chamber, the opposition and the crossbenchers also oppose our attempts to give real and meaningful benefits to families, our attempts to give real and meaningful tax breaks to families, because none of this is possible without reform of the indirect taxation system. But all this has been lost on the opposition. All this has been lost on the Democrats. Why? Because, instead of coming to this parliament with a constructive purpose, they have come here to indulge in the politics of negativity, and that is tragic.It is tragic that, in the last parliament of this century, the opposition and Democrats should be seized by the politics of negativity, seized by the fascinating attraction of saying no. Why should saying no be so appealing to Senator Mackay and her colleagues on the other side of the chamber?9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—You're a joke!EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—It is so appealing, Senator Mackay, because you do not have anything positive to contribute. They had nothing positive to contribute in the election campaign. Did they have a positive policy? They could not find a positive policy in the election campaign.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—And they threw them out afterwards.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—And they threw them out afterwards. That is why they want to come in here and say no. But what we are saying is yes to opportunity. What we are saying is yes to a new future. What we are saying is yes to giving people the opportunity to keep more of the money they earn.Every day the opposition oppose taxation reform, by consequence they ensure that it makes it more difficult for people to keep the fruits of their labour, and is that not ironic for a party that claims to represent the labourers. They ensure that many ordinary Australians bear a top marginal rate of 48½c in the dollar. That is a consequence of the Labor Party's policies. That is a consequence of the policy of negativity. That is a consequence of their delay and obfuscation. That is why they are sitting on the opposition benches.This government intends to ensure that the promises it made to the people at the last election are delivered. The opposition forget that this was a platform which was critical to Australia and critical to our election. The people of Australia chose, in a majority of electorates, to deliver a coalition government. The opposition may not like it, but if they respect the will of the voters in those electorates they have to understand that the government has a right, a duty and an obligation to legislate, and that is what we will do. We will legislate to ensure that we deliver to the people of Australia real opportunity and real tax cuts and ensure that the government's good economic record is maintained. Of course good economic credentials have never been a strong point of the Labor Party, and that is why these issues go right over the tops of their heads.Maybe if they do not want to consider economic reform, they should consider some of the other elements of the agenda set out in the Governor-General's speech yesterday. One of the elements of the agenda I wish to concentrate on briefly is that of reconciliation. This government has signified its intention to push on with real reconciliation. There are varying views as to how this should be done, but, in my belief, one of the great flaws of Australia—and I say this in a constructive fashion—is that it has few unifying, cohesive social documents. In part that is because our history has never been one which has been racked by conflict. It always seems that when a country is almost destroyed by conflict and then forced to bring itself back together people create great social compacts. In the United States, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence are all great unifying social documents. It strikes me that Australia has missed the opportunity to turn certain events in its past into great unifying events for the future.What we should do in this parliament, and what the government intends to do during the life of this parliament, is bring about reconciliation. If you have reconciliation, then obviously there has to be an end point in the process. Unless you set an end point in the process, then reconciliation is never achieved. My belief is that what Australia needs is a unifying social document which achieves reconciliation. I am not proposing a treaty, nor am I proposing some sort of legislated Bill of Rights like the Americans have. A Bill of Rights of that fashion imposed into this constitution in the Westminster system would be an abhorrent legislative intrusion into the everyday life of the public.A legislative Bill of Rights which gives constitutional rights for people to sue other people or sue governments and so on would be a precursor of a fractious and litigious society rather than a cohesive one. But we have the opportunity in the life of this parliament to draw up a document, be it a charter of common citizenship or some such similar term, which sets out to identify the things which unite us as a nation and the aspirations to which we can all move together. That at the ending of the first century of our history as a nation would be a worthwhile objective for each and every member of the Senate and the House of Representatives.It is my fervent hope that, in the two years remaining before the end of this century, certainly before the life of this parliament, we could conclude a common charter of Australian citizenship—a common charter that sets out what it is to be Australian and sets out what objectives we hope for future generations of Australians. I do not mean in the American context of some sort of means of suing other people and going to court and dividing ourselves further, but rather the sort of document that young Australians a century from now will learn in school, the sort of document which a century from now young Australians will be proud to know and recite, the sort of document which will carry us into a new century with the same spirit of optimism and opportunity with which we began this one. A lot of things have happened in a century, many of them very great. Very shortly we will remember some of the more terrible aspects of this century. But I defy anybody to say that Australia is not a great country. I defy anybody to say that this is not still a land of opportunity. In dealing with the issues with which this parliament will have to grapple—for example, the issue of constitutional change—(and, like Senator MacGibbon, I wholeheartedly hope that we will maintain our existing, effective and functional system) this parliament and this nation must be optimistic. I believe that, in responding to the Governor-General's speech, each of us should look to how we can improve Australia—not how we can be negative but how we can be positive. I believe the parliament, in going about the business of reconciliation, should look to create a great social charter of all Australians which will survive not just this parliament and not just this century but centuries to come.10:14:0070Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Yesterday we heard the government's articulation of its framework for the next term of office. I would like to thank Senator MacGibbon and Senator O'Chee for their contributions in speaking to the motion that the address-in-reply be agreed to. I would also like to thank the Governor-General for his speech and note that the one pleasant element was the lack of the coalition's usual senseless attacks on the Senate, although I note that Senator O'Chee has not restrained himself in that respect. The Senate is, of course, the house of review.Before I refer to the issue of the GST, let me say one thing about Senator O'Chee: he was the last person who I thought would deliver a lesson on logic to me. There is nothing inconsistent with the Labor Party's position of support for tax reform and its opposition of a regressive GST. I will get to those points later.Firstly, I think it is useful to reflect on the Governor-General's address by looking at the framework that was presented by the government for its first term of office and by assessing whether the rhetoric was matched by reality. In April 1996 the government spoke of its desire to improve productivity and to deliver higher growth and living standards to the Australian people—a laudable objective. But what the government delivered was a crushing blow to the Australian economy, which resulted in a one per cent reduction in the growth of an economy that the Prime Minister had described as `better than good in parts'.The government hacked $27 billion from government services in the 1996 budget and $14 billion in the 1997 budget. Some examples of the targeted service cuts are: $500 million was removed from aged care funding and $800 million was removed from public hospitals. Those and other punitive cuts affected services that battling families relied upon in their day-to-day lives—services such as child care, schools, bulkbilling, dental services, Austudy and the purchase of medicines.The Public Service was clearly not a concern of this government, and the rhetoric continued in the Governor-General's address yesterday. It has been estimated that the Howard government's cuts to the public sector have seen a reduction of close to 90,000 Commonwealth employees over its first term of office. This figure does not take into account the impact of the latest round of Centrelink job cuts.As a consequence of this assault by the government on living standards and working standards, many Australians now do not feel secure, relaxed or comfortable in their jobs. Australians have seen that this government has been not only a tremendous job killer but also an ineffective job creator. The Howard government has effectively halved the rate of growth in jobs in its term in office. Six hundred and fifty thousand jobs were created in Labor's last 30 months of government compared with 300,000 for the same period under the Howard government.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—How about in the last 60 months? You missed the recession, Jacinta.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—In the 1996 address, the Governor-General spoke of the government's desire to promote genuine cooperation between employers and employees. Senator Kemp knows a lot about cooperation! The government embarked on a program to take industrial relations back to the 1890s. The government promoted award stripping, paring back wages and working conditions and putting individuals on secret contracts, and then it actively and sordidly colluded with employers who wished to push for industrial relations confrontation, not cooperation.This was a government which sought to remove protections for those who in many cases struggle to defend themselves. It removed the concept of an independent umpire—something that I note Senator MacGibbon was referring to earlier. In the industrial relations field, the government removed this concept which had effectively functioned in Australia for nearly a century. The symbol we now have of industrial relations in this country is a large man in a balaclava holding a vicious dog on a leash. Let us not forget that.Again, in the 1996 address, the Governor-General spoke of the government's desire to overcome our current account deficit—again emphasising that Labor acknowledges the importance of the economy. Our foreign debt has increased by over $30 billion whilst the community waits for the government to implement a decent industry policy. In fact our manufacturing industry has effectively sat in recession whilst the Howard government sat on its commissioned industry reports. I was disappointed to note that industry policy was barely mentioned in the Governor-General's speech yesterday. It rated only two full lines.On the last occasion, the Governor-General spoke of the government's employment programs, which would be more effectively linked with the mainstream training system. He also spoke of apprenticeships and other work based training opportunities for young people, which would be strengthened. But what did the government do? It slashed funding for employment programs. It gutted the CES. It presided over the Job Network scheme, which is clearly failing, and it created a body, Centrelink, as the referral agent to the Job Network, which is about to be butchered and privatised.Over the past days we have read of the government's commitment to unemployment, but it will axe 5,300 Centrelink staff in a move that will cripple its capacity to deliver services for the unemployed, the elderly and low income earners. There is something Orwellian about a government which cuts jobs to a service that is so overloaded already that many clients' calls are not answered and then claims that it will deliver more services with fewer staff. Senator O'Chee, perhaps that is a lesson in logic.Whilst the government congratulated itself on its brave initiatives, hundreds of thousands of job seekers the CES formerly helped were no longer eligible for assistance. Also, in most states and territories many job seekers have to pay to get a job. I know of no greater disincentive to job growth than that. As well as that, many small business operators are being slugged hefty fees for services that the CES formerly provided for free. Again, where is the logic, because that is not an incentive to employment either? Whilst the government fiddled, 50,000 additional Australians joined the ranks of the long-term unemployed and 194,000 Australians simply gave up looking for work.The Governor-General's speech yesterday made mention of the government's desire to pursue a better system of delivering job services for all Australians, and it praised the Job Network as an important and successful initiative. If there is one credibility test of this address and of this framework, it has to be that claim. It is simply laughable.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Absolutely.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—It is absolutely laughable. On top of that, it actually makes a mockery of the unemployed, who are being abused within this current system. I could refer to the health issue, but I will be limited in time, so I will move on to the particular mention that was made in the 1996 address to the government's desire to facilitate a cohesive society. We have talked about industrial relations and what has happened there. Let me also address the promise that the government made to govern in the national interest and not for vested interests.Over the term of this government we observed, with increasing concern, the rise of One Nation and the Prime Minister's seeming inability or unwillingness to confront the Hanson phenomenon. The effect of the Prime Minister's apathy was profound. Many Australians from a multicultural background were seriously affected by the change in attitudes of tolerance and respect for difference which had previously characterised the Australian community. But it was not only these individuals who were affected; it was the community as a whole; it was the business community; it was our international standing. Anyone who visited Asia during that period knows that the reputation of Australia—whether it be a republic or otherwise—suffered seriously through the Prime Minister's lack of action in this area.In the industrial relations area the government's active discrimination against employees and their interests looks set to continue under the current framework. Meanwhile, the coalition boast that their tax package has $10 billion worth of tax breaks for business. A tax cut for Australian business will mean a tax hike for Australian families, and that is what the GST about is about.Finally in the 1996 address, the government mourned the increasing numbers in the community who had lost respect for the parliament and its members, and it undertook to improve the standing of the national parliament. We all know that that has not occurred. As we know, Mr Howard's document A Guide on Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibility was tabled in April 1996, but it has been consistently ignored, forgotten or watered down. The Howard government has lost eight frontbenchers in less than three years and would have lost another five under reasonable interpretations and consistent application of these guidelines.The Prime Minister's vacillation on this issue has registered deeply within the community—so much so that the editorial in yesterday's issue of the Australian commented:Standards of conduct especially by ministers were amongst the greatest disappointments of the first term of the Howard Government.Let me conclude my comments on the Governor-General's address back in 1996. Upon reflection of the government's lofty words, we now know that the Australian people were cruelly deceived by a prime minister and a government whose actions during its last term in government were the antithesis of its articulated aims. The problem was that they were worse than the aims articulated, and God help us if that is the case now. We also know that we had core and non-core promises. Will that trend continue? That would be my question to Senator O'Chee.We can theorise why the government concentrated on a GST—that is, the tax that we would never, ever have—in the election. If the GST had not dominated the election campaign, perhaps the Australian public may have been able to focus on the debacle of the government's nursing homes policy, or on its destruction in the area of education policy, or on the absence of a cohesive industry policy, or on the sacked ministers and the collective amnesia surrounding the much vaunted ministerial code of conduct.The Australian people know that this government cannot be trusted on the GST. That is why nearly 52 per cent of people voted against them in the lower house and, more importantly, 60 per cent in the Senate. The government have no capacity to claim a mandate on the GST. Headlines in the Australian such as `Why Upper House annihilation means a mandate no more' are indicative of the spuriousness of that claim.This government has been revealed for what it is. People will not be fooled by the empty rhetoric of its grand frameworks and new grand adventures. Mr Howard promised a grand adventure in the tax reform process. He promised a system of tax reform by reintroducing a tax that had been rejected by the people twice before. He released details of this complex package just two weeks before the election campaign. He refused to allow parliamentary scrutiny of the GST prior to the election. He applied the snake oil of $17 million of taxpayer funded propaganda, and he now wants to force the package through the Senate before 30 June next year. He established a committee that has only 17 days to make crucial decisions as to how vital services, medicines and charities will be taxed. He steadfastly refused to release the Treasury analysis of the real impact of the GST on household expenditure and particularly on the poor.This parliament has now finally been given the opportunity to scrutinise the government's tax plans, some 18 months after the announcement of the great tax adventure. Just after the election Mr Howard indicated that he wished to be different this time around. I think that being different now probably just means being a bit more obvious. I would like to quote from a recent article in the Bulletin by Laurie Oakes in which he says where he thinks the government is currently coming from. He says:In fact, Howard thinks that, in some respects at least, he was too soft in his first two-and-a-half years.Tell that one to the waterfront workers, to the Centrelink staff and representatives and to the members of our indigenous community. Oakes continues:Hence the abandonment of any real pretence at consultation over GST exemptions in the areas of health, education, religious activities and charitable services—even though such consultation was promised before the election.That must not have been a core promise, Senator O'Chee. Oakes continues:Hence also the backflip over accepting the vote of Independent Senator Mal Colston—regarded before the election as tainted.Perhaps that was another non-core promise.The point the government needs to understand is that we do not need it to break its promise; we need the Senate to have a full, comprehensive inquiry into the GST. Then, if the force of logic applies, the GST will not be delivered—regardless of how those opposite vote.Mr Howard's more recent comments about business philanthropy to charities bear all the hallmarks of a return to the 19th century and the Ebenezer Scrooge approach to the community. Mr Howard seems to be moving back to the notions or concepts of `the needy', `charity' and `the deserving poor'—God help us.Mr Howard should concentrate on making high wealth individuals and large businesses pay their fair share of tax, not contributions to charity. Contributions to charity in themselves are good. But we need to ensure that high wealth individuals and large businesses are making their contribution to the public purse rather than to charity; that is the role of government. The GST is not going to make these people pay their fair share in tax—and a scrutiny of the proposals will prove that.The public is also rightfully cynical about Mr Howard's $6.6 billion annual tax cut to the richest 20 per cent of Australians in his proposed GST package—and that will not bear public scrutiny. The questions that can be asked under an inquiry are: what would the money do in terms of public hospitals, schools, child care and nursing homes; what could the money do in those areas?It is now becoming apparent to the community that the government is actively discriminating against those on low incomes. Mr Reith, one of the pretenders to Mr Howard's crown, has blithely drawn the comparison between the number of people living in poverty or under the poverty line in Australia and those living under similar circumstances in the United States. But the Prime Minister rightly notes that he would not like to be an ordinary worker in the United States who becomes ill. Do we want to repeat this trend? Mr Howard and Mr Reith should both note the recently produced ACOSS report which talks about the growing number of poor or people in poverty in Australia because of this government's agenda.I could talk further about the GST, particularly about its implications for employment—which are vast—and its implications for Commonwealth-state financial arrangements. But I am short on time, so I will conclude by stating that Labor's position has always been clear with respect to the GST. We oppose it, period. It is regressive. But we support an inquiry into the GST because we believe that a genuine inquiry will ensure that all senators are fully informed of the full implications of supporting any form of GST. (Time expired)10:34:0074Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—On election night the Prime Minister said this—and I quote him:I say to all of my fellow Australians that the government that you have elected tonight will lead this country into the 21st century. The government you have elected tonight will be a government for all Australians. The government you have elected tonight will dedicate itself to the welfare of all the Australian people.This government never has governed and never will govern for all Australians. In the last two and a half years John Howard has done more to erode the welfare of the Australian people than anyone thought imaginable. For example, the government's most recent decision to slash 5,000 jobs from Centrelink comes just weeks after Mr Howard's statement about dedicating himself to the welfare of all the Australian people. We probably will be stuck with this government into the next century, but I can say this: John Howard definitely will not lead us there.Commencing the 39th parliament, we return to a government presiding over an unemployment rate stuck above eight per cent. John Howard cannot and will not say whether that rate will come down. Mr Howard's government is back, but public hospitals are still underfunded—and we now have no prospect of that situation improving. The government might have ditched Warwick Smith, but older Australians are still stuck with upfront fees of over $4,000 to get into a nursing home and extra daily fees on top of that. Spending on education will continue to slide for our schools, our TAFE colleges and our universities. As Kim Beazley said during the election campaign, the very best Australians can hope for from this government is that it will be the same for the next three years as it has been for the last two and a half—and what an indictment! When Mr Howard announced his front bench, he said that his front bench team represented—and I quote him—`a significant renewal of the government as we take on the challenges of a new term and a new century'. But John Howard lacked the ticker to make the necessary changes to reinvigorate his ministry and to choose a front bench that was truly up to the challenges of a new term and a new century. He has either kept or promoted his failures of the previous government. Of course, his so-called new front bench is set to be just as incompetent and muddling as the one we saw during the life of the first Howard government.One of the biggest backward steps, in my view, was the appointment of that dinosaur, Mr Wilson Tuckey, to the ministry. I was pleased to see that Mitchell Grattan commented upon this in the Australian Financial Review. This is what she said:And Wilson Tuckey. The PM's camp will tell that you Tuckey, that old Peacock man who intrigued against Howard, is Minister for Forestry and Conservation because he is a good political performer in WA. I prefer to think it's because of John Howard's sense of humour.We all do. Perhaps that same sense of humour was behind the reappointment of Senator Herron as Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. The only defence of Senator Herron's appointment we have seen in the public arena, besides, of course, by the Prime Minister himself, who always seems to come to Senator Herron's defence, has come from the Prime Minister's own biographer, David Barnett, who called upon the Prime Minister, in a recent article he wrote for the Australian Financial Review , to leave Senator Herron where he was. Even Mr Barnett's best defence of Senator Herron was pretty weak. It was a pretty weak endorsement. All he could say was `Herron's task has not been easy, but he's trying.'I am not sure how much easier Senator Herron's task can get. Every major challenge in Senator Herron's portfolio is given to someone else to manage. We had stolen children given to Mr Howard. We had native title given to Senator Minchin. We now have reconciliation with Mr Ruddock. Senator Herron brings nothing but incompetence and paternalism to this important portfolio. Without responsibility for the fundamental issues of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs and without a department, what has Senator Herron done? He has set about basically dismantling the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. At least Senator Parer fell on his sword. Senator Herron really should have had the guts and the honour to do the same.In my view, even taking into account some of these characters, such as Mr Tuckey and Senator Herron, there is no greater disappointment on John Howard's renewed front bench than the prematurely resurrected Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, Mr Peter McGauran. Mr McGauran's reappointment to the ministry has destroyed any hope that there may eventually be some substance—just a skerrick—to Mr Howard's professed commitments to higher ministerial and parliamentary standards and to higher ministerial accountability. We all know about Mr McGauran's history. But Peter McGauran is not the only dark cloud over Mr Howard's second term of government, and he is certainly not the biggest dark cloud. There is a much bigger storm looming with the goods and services tax, as we know.It is fair to say that John Howard's campaign for his GST has been underhanded and deceptive right from the beginning. Do not forget that Mr Howard was first elected in 1996 on a platform that included the promise that he would never ever introduce a GST. It did not take him long to dump that commitment. In fact, I do not think anyone believes—I certainly do not—that the GST was ever off John Howard's agenda. But his announcement of the details of his GST plan was preceded by a hefty endorsement from the Business Council of Australia, which kindly ran a promotion campaign for him to pave the way for his GST launch. We look forward to seeing the details of the contribution to that campaign in returns to the Australian Electoral Commission.But he finally launched the details of his GST plan weeks before the election. He refused to release the critical Treasury figures that would demonstrate the impact of the GST on ordinary Australians. Of course now that the election is behind him, he is apparently prepared to release a limited amount of that material. At the same time, he launched a $17.8 million advertising campaign to promote his election policy, which was not an operating program of government, sponsored by the Commonwealth government and paid for by Commonwealth taxpayers.As the Prime Minister said at the 1 November state convention of the Queensland Liberals, this effectively gave him a seven-week election campaign. The biggest chunk of advertising dollars that was spent by the Liberal Party in what Mr Howard described as his seven-week election campaign was paid for by the Commonwealth taxpayer, not the Liberal Party. It was paid for by ordinary Australians. The Liberals have been skiting about it since the election. All through the election campaign, John Howard and Peter Costello maintained that there would be a proper examination of the parameters of the GST or, in their words, `the finetuning'.With the election now over, not only do they want to deny the Senate the right to investigate the GST but they have given their own committee, the Vos committee, a completely unrealistic and ludicrous set of terms of reference and reporting timetable. It is a 17-day reporting time frame, which of course has been widely condemned by business and by community and interest groups. Even the committee chairman, Mr Vos, admitted that two weeks was inadequate and that he would have liked to have had, in his words, `a couple of months'.Mr Howard and Mr Costello have got the nerve to argue that the Labor opposition have no right to push for an inquiry if we intend to oppose the GST regardless, conveniently forgetting their own arguments in opposition. Let me remind the Senate of Mr Costello's proposal in November 1994 for Labor's employee share ownership legislation. This is what he said:We are going to vote against the Government's proposal to extend fringe benefits tax to employee ownership schemes. We will defeat it in the Senate and we will initiate a Senate inquiry to have a look at the whole matter and make sure bona fide legitimate employee ownership schemes are not rubbed out in the way that Mr Keating wants to do with his fringe benefits tax.So, instead of coming clean, signing on to an adequate Senate inquiry into the implications of a GST, to reassure Australians that what he proposes is what he claims it to be—a painless conversion to a consumption tax—Mr Howard and his accomplice in this, Mr Costello, have fought tooth and nail to avoid scrutiny. They have fought tooth and nail against an effective and meaningful parliamentary inquiry, parliamentary scrutiny and public scrutiny, as they always do, because we know and they know that a GST is a job destroying tax that will hurt ordinary Australians.John Howard and Peter Costello want to have their GST rammed through the parliament with minimum scrutiny before the new Senate takes its place in July next year. John Howard of course claims to have an electoral mandate to push ahead with his GST legislation unhindered. But remember the fact that 51 per cent of Australians voted in the House of Representatives for parties with an anti-GST platform and 60 per cent of Australians voted for a Senate that would oppose a GST.What about Mr Costello? The Treasurer is in today's Daily Telegraph putting forward a ludicrous proposition that Labor senators who were elected in 1993 should vote for the GST because that was Paul Keating's promise at the time. I am a bit surprised, frankly, that the Daily Telegraph would publish this sort of tripe. This really is an illogical and ill-considered position of Mr Costello's. Whether his analysis is just a particularly shallow one or in fact is just a direct challenge to Mr Howard's leadership, time will tell—that is not clear to us—but what the article does reveal is how bankrupt the government's GST mandate argument actually is.If you take Mr Costello's position, his argument, his analysis of mandate to its logical extreme, then the Liberal senators elected in 1993 and still waiting for their new terms in mid-1999—17 of them—should vote for a GST exempting food. That is Mr Costello's argument. After all, that was Dr Hewson's final version of Fightback that he took to the people in 1993.And the Liberal senators elected in 1996 are all `never, ever' senators—those who should enforce the 1995 John Howard pledge and promise that a GST should never, ever be implemented in Australia. In fact, the 18 Liberal senators who were elected on Mr Howard's `never, ever' promise—that famous Tweed Heads declaration of May 1995—include Senator Hill, Senator Herron, Senator Kemp, who is over there, Senator Alston, Senator Newman, and of course the scrupulously honest Senator Watson who was muzzled by the leadership of the Liberal Party just last Monday. But, according to Mr Costello's logic, every Liberal and National Party senator, every Labor senator, and every Democrat and Green senator who was elected in 1996 was elected on a platform which was specifically opposed to a GST.The truth is—and that dopey article from Mr Costello is really going to highlight this—that until July next year, only two senators in this whole chamber out of 76 senators can claim a personal mandate to support the government's current GST proposal—Senator Reid, the President of the Senate and ACT senator; and Senator Tambling from the Northern Territory. They are the only two who can claim a personal mandate to support the current GST proposal. But I think that Mr Costello's outburst was more likely an attempt to really get in there—just like he always likes to do—and humiliate Mr Howard as much as he can, to remind people of Mr Howard's commitment of May 1995—the Tweed Heads declaration; the `never, ever' declaration. It is just another subterranean attack by Mr Costello on Mr Howard.You read in the media about Mr Costello. One of Mr Costello's close friends was recently quoted in the media as saying about Mr Costello—it sort of rang true to me—that `Every cell in Mr Costello's body is carnivorous.' This is just another example. Mr Costello knows that by putting forward that ludicrous proposition, that false analysis, that spurious nonsense in the Daily Telegraph people will point out Mr Howard's duplicity and what this really means in terms of personal mandates and party mandates of senators in this chamber.I suppose Mr Howard is getting used to humiliation. Take, for example, his most recent humiliating backflip, his grovelling for the tainted vote of someone who was elected as a Labor senator and whose vote should be unambiguously anti-GST. In April last year, Mr Howard was forced to finally cut Senator Colston loose. It is worth remembering what he said:Now what we have done has been measured, responsible, correct. What I am announcing this morning is a very, very clear message to the people of Australia: that until this matter is cleared up, we are not going to accept Senator Colston's vote.John Howard said he would not accept the tainted vote of Senator Colston until the charges that Senator Colston was facing were resolved. Those charges have not been resolved. Nothing has changed since April last year except John Howard's desperate need for Senator Colston's vote in this chamber in order to deliver a policy that most Australians would prefer Mr Howard and the government to shelve.It was an unprincipled and opportunistic move, a move which he deliberately concealed from Australians both before and during the last election campaign. The electorate was not put in the loop by Mr Howard on this matter. Not only has the Prime Minister said he will accept Senator Colston's vote but we know that he has actively solicited it.The Prime Minister said previously it was a matter of standards. John Howard's standards speak for themselves. He has revived the disgraced Peter McGauran and he has embraced the tainted vote of Senator Colston. I think this next parliament will be more of the shabby, shameful, sleazy operation from John Howard. That is what augurs in the 39th Parliament and Labor will continue to expose his deceit.10:54:0077Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—In speaking in the address-in-reply debate I want to remind honourable senators that the opening of a parliament is a very splendid occasion. Everybody—the families, the foreign affairs officials, the diplomats and the media—comes to this place for the opening of the new parliament. There is a great deal of pomp and there is a great deal of ceremony. The opening of the parliament is the culmination of the election campaign. Regardless of our differences of views in that campaign, we have all worked very hard and we set aside the differences to come into this place for the opening.The speech prepared by the government did not match the splendour of the occasion. Where was the vision for the next century? Where was the commitment to better job opportunities for all Australians? Where was the grand plan for improved living standards? Where was the outline for upgraded community services? Where was the newly invigorated, different John Howard? Where was the fresh style of government to capture the imagination of the nation? Sadly for Australia there were none of these ideas woven into the Governor-General's speech prepared by this new government. It was merely a catalogue of cliches, a repetitious listing of tired old policies which have failed in the past and will fail in the future.A number of editorials indicated that yesterday was the day for the Prime Minister to outline his vision. In fact, an editorial in the Age on 10 November, entitled `A fresh start for John Howard', claimed:The Government must map out a broader vision for Australia in this parliamentary session.Was it a fresh start? Was there a broader vision? No, it was not a broader vision. The 40-minute speech was dominated by economic and tax issues. Of course those issues are vital to the future of this nation. But where were the ideas? Where was the creativity? Mr Howard's strategy is to encourage private enterprise and individual effort to limit the role of government and to further remove regulation and obstacles to growth and industry development.I could not help noticing during the Governor-General's speech that many on the other side, like those of us on this side, looked disappointed. I suppose you looked more disappointed than we did because we did not have high expectations of a newly invigorated Prime Minister. We were expecting more of the same, but I think some of you did not expect more of the same. You believed your leader when he said after his narrow victory that things would be different, that it would be a more compassionate government. Quite clearly from the expressions on your faces you were disappointed. Having very few expectations, we also could not believe that there was such a lack of vision in what was outlined in the Governor-General's speech.I want to take this opportunity to remind the chamber and the community that the coalition government holds 23 seats with a margin of less than three per cent—10 of them are held by less than one per cent. The government has 35 seats that would be lost with a uniform swing of less than five per cent. If another 2,793 people had voted differently—that is not many people for us on this side to change in the coming years—YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Winners are grinners and losers can please themselves.XI4Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDS—The winners may be grinners, but you were not grinners yesterday; you were looking disappointed in your leader's so-called vision for the future.Debate interrupted.Miscellaneous7810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It being 11 a.m., I invite honourable senators to observe a minute's silence in memory of those who have fallen in defence of their country.Honourable senators having stood in silence—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I thank honourable senators.Governor-General's Speech7878Debate resumed.11:01:0078Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—Madam Deputy President, I want to speak about issues that were, in one way or another, highlighted or mentioned in the Governor-General's speech yesterday. I want to speak about job opportunities, particularly job opportunities in the public sector. I want to focus on the massive cutbacks in public sector jobs in this country over the last 2½ years. I want to speak on the goods and services tax. I want to speak on Telstra and its community service provision. I want to speak on health, particularly women's reproductive rights and their health services. I want to speak on the environment, and I want to speak on reconciliation.Many of us would have assumed that the massive cutbacks in public sector jobs over the last 2½ years would have seen the end of the government's slash and burn approach to the public sector. But, no, just this week, on top of the 90,000 Public Service jobs that have already disappeared, 5,000 more jobs at Centrelink are to go. This is going to mean more hardship for those seeking information and entitlements through Centrelink and more hardship for those who are being retrenched.Today's announcement of 5,000 jobs lost at Centrelink will mean less service, fewer jobs and more hardship. The government has said that between July 1997 and 2002 at least 5,000 jobs will be cut. That is about 20 per cent of Centrelink's total staff. Twenty-one hundred jobs have already been cut this year, with the total for the financial year expected to be 2,700. The government's estimates for the next three to four years is for 2,300 further jobs to be cut.Notwithstanding the commitment given in the Governor-General's speech yesterday, I ask: how many regional offices will be affected? How will people who have been trying to get through the telephone services get through? At the height of the youth allowance debacle, of the million calls attempted on a single day, only 90,000 got through; 900,000 got an engaged signal. What is going to happen with this further reduction in staff? Looking at Queensland, I note that in 1998-99 there will be a reduction of 40 jobs from North Queensland and 80 jobs from Brisbane. The total reduction required in the next two years will be 105 jobs from North Queensland and 180 jobs from Brisbane. That is in addition to the previous numbers that I quoted.I can only agree with the Canberra Times editorial of today entitled `Centrelink plan is hard to justify'. The editorial states:The news that up to 5000 jobs (800 of them in the ACT) will be cut from the Commonwealth service delivery agency Centrelink over the next three years should concern every one of the six million Australians who are in receipt of some kind of government assistance.I would add `entitlement'. It continues:How ironic that the announcement of the planned cuts should come in the same week as the Commonwealth Ombudsman tabled his annual report, in which he listed Centrelink as far and away the most complained-about government agency in the country.The second issue I would like to raise is that of the concern that we on this side of the chamber have about the impact of the goods and services tax as proposed in the Governor-General's speech and which was the focus of the recent election campaign. The St Vincent de Paul Society agrees with the concerns that have been addressed by so many on this side of the house. A press release by Mr John Moore—not the government's John Moore but the National President of the St Vincent de Paul Society—states:"Where is the compassion and concern for the welfare of low income earners in this country?" . . . "Not only has the promised six month consultation period on the impact of a GST been replaced by a 17 day examination of existing papers but the committee has a limited agenda".The Society of St Vincent de Paul does not oppose a GST or a value added tax system because that decision is properly one for elected politicians. "But it is simply unjust and un-Australian if a new regime is introduced which leads to a deterioration in the well being of the 30% of Australians who are on low incomes".I seek leave to table the letter that was written to all parliamentarians by St Vincent de Paul which details their concerns for the people they provide assistance to: 35 per cent of whom are single parent families; 20 per cent of whom are families with children; 40 per cent of whom are unemployed, including migrants, refugees, people with disabilities, young and old; and five per cent of whom are age pensioners. I understand from a discussion with the whips that this has been approved.Leave granted.XI4Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDS—The third area of concern I want to raise in this speech today is the community service provision that has been guaranteed by Senator Alston in relation to the further sale of Telstra. Just last week we had a classic example of how neither the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts nor this government—no-one in this place—can guarantee community service provision by Telstra. Telstra has gone ahead to cut back the number of service centres which provide 000 services. The 000 service is the most important service that Telstra provides.Instead of having a service centre based in all capital cities, we will have just two—one in Sydney and one in Melbourne—and, surprise, surprise, a backup service in Hobart, which I am sure Tasmanians will welcome. But I am not convinced that the people of north Queensland, the people of Darwin, the people of Broome, the people of Western Australia and the people of Alice Springs will be particularly impressed with the fact that, for whatever reasons, Telstra has decided to give a backup service to Hobart but is not prepared to give backup services in northern and other more remote areas of Australia. I asked a Telstra employee why this was the case and I was told, `Hobart is more vulnerable; Tasmania is more vulnerable.' `Vulnerable from what?' I asked. `Vulnerable geographically because it is an island.' Hobart is closer to Melbourne than north Queensland and Hobart is closer to Melbourne than Western Australia, yet the backup service is being provided in Hobart and not in other centres. I have a special concern because of the approaching cyclone season in north Queensland. I have asked a number of questions of Telstra about the cost of the existing service and the cost of the new service. What are the savings? How many people will be employed in the new service and how many in the old? What will be the staffing cutbacks? Will Telstra guarantee appropriate numbers of staff to ensure there is no occasion when there are services that are not adequately staffed? Has Telstra calculated the numbers of staff required for an average time and during a national disaster—again, with my special focus on what will happen to 000 services at the time of a cyclone—and how was this differential calculated? What special provisions will be made to accommodate 000 calls from north Queensland during the cyclone season? Why does Hobart need a backup facility? Will Telstra be conducting education awareness campaigns throughout regional Australia? How will Telstra staff be able to recognise the extent of geographic locations throughout Australia? I am sure that Telstra staff are extremely competent and that they have a certain amount of training but to recognise in an emergency situation the immediate location of any centre anywhere in Australia is a very tall order indeed. I would like to have some answers on those questions from Telstra.The fourth area that I wanted to speak on today is health because the government does refer to health services in the Governor-General's speech but it does not refer to health services in relation to women's particular needs. In the election campaign we had an excellent example of how this government is not prepared to identify the special needs of women. We had the approval, proudly announced, of the drug Viagra. I am not going to argue about whether or not Viagra should have been approved. It seemed a perfectly natural thing that that particular drug would be approved for men. Let me detail the reproductive drugs that are still awaiting approval through the Therapeutic Goods Administration of the Department of Health and Aged Care. There has not been speedy passage of these reproductive health drugs for which Australian women have particular need. They include new fourth generation contraceptive pills; the vaginal ring laced with progesterone which acts like a diaphragm; the Norplant implant, which is effective for three to five years; injectable contraceptives, other than Depo-Provera; new, safer IUDs; the contraceptive sponge and female condoms; the purpose packed emergency kits of the morning-after pill; and RU486. As we know from previous debates in this chamber, we had to have special legislation and special approval by the minister for RU486. There is a double standard in relation to how this government is considering reproductive sexual health for men and women. Viagra has been approved for men—and that is fine—but all these drugs are still waiting for approval by the Therapeu tic Goods Administration. These drugs do not have the ministerial fast-tracking process because they are only reproductive drugs for women—that must be the government's view.The next issue that I wanted to raise is my concern about how this government is treating the environment. Yesterday we heard that the government gives a high priority to the environment. Why is it then that on Monday top marine scientists called on world heritage authorities to send a field mission to the Great Barrier Reef to help avert the `slow death' of a priceless ecosystem? Their confidential letter to the World Heritage Bureau in Paris is highly critical of the Commonwealth and Queensland governments and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and is asking for urgent action.Finally, I want to speak very briefly on reconciliation. I would like to put on the public record that David Buckingham, Executive Director of the Business Council of Australia, has a much more appropriate and progressive view to reconciliation than does this government. In a recent speech he gave on 25 October at a meeting of community leaders, he said it was vital to understand what reconciliation was about, that it was not just a matter of granting Aborigines full citizenship rights such as adequate health services. That is taken for granted because as citizens they are entitled to those services. Ultimately, he said that reconciliation was about indigenous rights, issues of indigenous law and custom, that reconciliation involved a willingness to seek understanding of what obligations might be associated with such law and customs and might eventually lead to having to consider the possibilities of sovereignty and, in the final analysis, indigenous self-government. He said that for some the real issue will be whether there is scope for a nation within a nation.As I have said on a number of other occasions, I urge this government to send Senator Herron and a team of representatives of indigenous Australians to Canada where sovereignty, indigenous rights, indigenous law and custom and the question of nationhood of the first peoples are taken for granted; they are incorporated into Canadian law and practice. That is the basis of what true reconciliation should be about into the new century.11:16:0081Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I begin by adding a word of special thanks—the words are too short of the mark—and ongoing remembrance, not only to those Australians who in their tens of thousands have given their lives for this country but also to the many more who have had their lives damaged, ruined and saddened by the ravages of the horrendous wars of this century. It is remarkable enough that out of that we have in this lucky country of ours one of the freest, and still the most egalitarian and beautiful places to live anywhere on the face of the planet.In February of this year I was on the Thalys high speed train rocketing through the lowlands of Belgium and France between Brussels and Paris. The trip now takes 1½ hours, at an average 300 kilometres an hour. I could not but help think of how rapidly horrendous events can disappear into history. My mind was riveted by the horrendous circumstances of so many hundreds of thousands of Australians, and the equally wonderful and beautiful people from both sides of the great wars in that vicinity undergoing horrendous circumstances in which no human being should ever be put in the struggle for power and supremacy over others which has so degraded human history and which will continue to do so until we come to a recognition that we are one species, that we are one humanity.As we move towards a population of six billion next year, at the end of this century, which at its start saw one and a half billion people on the face of the planet, it is even more compelling for us to come together as one humanity, united in service in our need to protect this planet as a place for all life and, in particular, our need to take into account all coming generations of people in everything we do.One way we Greens differ from all other political parties is in putting forward that imperative in all we do. In every question we consider, in every answer we seek, in every policy we devise, in every approach we take to policy, in this place or elsewhere, this question should first be asked: will people 100 years from now thank us for doing this? If we cannot answer that question in the affirmative, if we cannot say yes to it, or if we do not know the answer, then we should not be proceeding. That is commonsense which every Australian, I am sure, would agree with. Yet it is a rejected point of view as far as the rapid process of politics in general is concerned, not just in this country but around the world. The imperative is much more the short term, the immediate, the instant need, and particularly the view that the next elections can be no more than three or four years away and that is what must mark the way we behave. But it is a short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating way to behave. We must elevate our view of what we do to include the disenfranchised future generations who are the big losers from the modern materialist way the world is being driven.In responding to the Prime Minister's words, as delivered in the Governor-General's speech yesterday, I will read from the current edition of the New Internationalist, from a keynote article by David Ransom, which sums up the point of view that we Greens take in applying ourselves not only to the problems but also to the opportunities of this great country of ours. Mr Ransom, having talked about the destruction of the Amazon rainforest and the apparent helplessness of the indigenous people of the Amazon as the big corporations move in to make a quick profit, amongst other things through building dams to provide electricity for aluminium factories to produce coke cans for people who will never get to the Amazon and so who do not know the damage that that process creates in the lives of those people in their forests, goes on to say:Without any doubt, the two overarching political issues of our time are human inequality and environmental destruction, the consequences of which may be starkly visible in places like the Amazon, but apply almost everywhere. But while passionate advocates of equality or ecology have sometimes ventured beyond their territory, the bridge between radical Red and Green politics has lacked the strength to carry much political weight and bring about lasting change.It is, nonetheless, increasingly clear that inequality and destruction are directly linked. Indeed, it would be very much harder to demonstrate that they are not linked, given that they are both happening at the same time. They are also interacting in complex ways that accelerate their growth alarmingly. This is because global consumer capitalism, unless it is restrained, grows faster and faster. Anything not devoted exclusively to the service of its immediate interests it seeks to destroy. The destruction is compounded because it must either grow or blow: it cannot contain itself. It is self-destructive, too, shot through with contradictions which make it blow precisely because it grows, like some force-fed hothouse vegetable. One such contradiction is that it feeds by inflating profits, deflating wages and thus increasing inequality.Mr Acting Deputy President, there are two issues which to me seem to be the top issues for us to be addressing in this country. One is the growing gap between rich and poor—inequality—in a country where, as I mentioned earlier, so many people lost their lives fighting for the ethos of a fair go. The other is environmental destruction, which has not only enormous aesthetic losses for we human beings but also huge economic and job ramifications for this and consequent generations.I cannot let the opportunity go by to talk for a moment about the GST, which is part of the package that this government is bringing before this Senate shortly. There will be a lot said and done about the manoeuvrings and the numbers and who will set up the inquiry and what the parameters will be, but ultimately the matter of interest is what the outcome will be for this country and for the people living in it and their environment. Let me point to a couple of those things. The Greens, seeing the GST coming, did our homework 12 months before the last election. Our consultant, Dr Louise Crossley, consulted widely with people who are experts in the field because they have lived under GST regimes in other countries. We know what the impact of the GST has been there and, without exception, it has been one which widens the gap between the rich and the poor.You cannot shape a GST in a way which is going to close that gap, which is going to benefit those who are disbenefited. You can add artificial contrivances which make it appear that you are going to try to offset the damage that the GST does to the concept of a fair community. The government, of course, has come up with claims that it is going to compensate people through tax breaks of the sort much publicised in the election campaign. But, remarkably, this government even then loaded that compensation package so that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Let us make no mistake: this GST package is going to accelerate the already growing gap between the haves and the have-nots in Australia. The package is designed to do that.I have this to say to our Democrat friends: you have now said that you will open the possibility of rejecting the GST package in toto if it is found not to be fair, if it is found to disbenefit those people in the Australian community who need help, if it is socially unjust. No inquiry into the GST, no matter how complex or simple, will find otherwise. This GST package is underscored by its unfairness. It is socially unjust, and it cannot be fixed so that it becomes socially just, so that it advantages the poor as against the interests of the rich. That cannot be done.At the end of this process, the Democrats are going to have a very big decision to make. They went to the election saying, `We will shepherd the GST provided food, books and a few other items are exempted.' But, at the end of this process, it is going to be found that, even if that is done, the GST is socially unjust. I believe that the Democrats are then going to be left with a decision as to whether or not they stand by their words and reject this package. I believe they will be left with no alternative. We are not going to have a government that is going to accept a package that makes it just. The philosophy of the government is oriented towards the rich and those who already have the best go in this society. They are not going to change that package to alter that philosophy. So it will come down to a very hard question for the Democrats to tackle. I believe there will be a very stark responsibility on their shoulders to change their election policy because that policy in itself is socially unjust.I predict that at the end of this long inquiry period there will be negotiations between Senator Harradine and the government to ameliorate somewhat the government's pack age but nevertheless to put it through before 1 July, and no amount of inquiries is going to change that political reality. Community groups will be given an opportunity to express their concern about the disadvantage they are going to have and about the millions of dollars which are going to be raked out of charities and non-government organisations in this country by the government through the GST package at a time when the government is giving less than ever before for charitable purposes and to welfare in this country. The GST is going to take money off them and make their job harder and that much more impossible. This is an anguishing outcome, I would think, for those organisations and, not least, those millions of volunteers who put so much time into working for social justice in this country. They will suddenly find that, as a rule of thumb, one-tenth of their efforts will be diverted into the government coffers, not for the charitable purposes to which they are devoted.The other item, of course, is the environment. During the election campaign, I, with other Tasmanian citizens, slowed the progress of the Prime Minister's car as he was heading to a fundraising breakfast on the Hobart wharves. I got some criticism for that. A number of letters came in, and I have responded where I can. But what happened on the streets of Hobart was quite different. Young people came up all over the place and said, `Good on you for making a stand,' because they are aware of the enormous damage being wreaked on the wild forests and the wildlife of Tasmania by Mr Howard's policies.In August 1996, I had a cup of tea with the Prime Minister and invited him to come and see the Tasmanian forests because I knew it would be a major issue of contention for us Tasmanians and, indeed, all Australians in the years ahead. He never came. He turned down consequent invitations, but last year he flew to Forestry Tasmania's premises at Perth and signed a regional forest agreement, which is the death warrant for some of the most magnificent forests on the face of the planet.Last Friday, with other members of my staff, I visited the Styx River valley north- west of Hobart. In this valley is a small stand of trees which are the tallest hardwoods on the face of the planet. One of them reaches to 95 metres above the valley floor, second only in size, stature and height to the giant redwoods of California. Across the way we stood on a ridge watching a cable logger destroying such forests, dragging them off to a convoy of trucks to take them to the woodchip mills of Tasmania—the job shedding woodchip mills of Tasmania—on their way to the rubbish dumps of Japan through its paper making process which, by the way, is undercutting recycling in that country, creating enormous environmental problems and job losses for the Japanese.How can we look future generations in the eye as a nation? How can this government be praised for its responsibility when its leader refuses to go and see the very thing he is destroying, when its leader refuses, because he is frightened of the reality of the destruction of world heritage value forests in Tasmania, to go to see what his death warrant is causing?In 1991, as part of the Green-ALP accord in Tasmania, we stood firm and the government lost office because it wanted to breach its commitment to restrict woodchipping to a little under three million tonnes per annum. Currently the rate of woodchipping in Tasmania is 4.6 million tonnes per annum. The convoys of trucks taking the destroyed forests and the lost wildlife inherent in that through Hobart, Launceston and Burnie are at record levels when fewer of these wild forests exist than ever before.This national tragedy may have been taken off the agenda because both of the major parties agree that it should be allowed to happen under their authority, but we Greens will continue to oppose it in every peaceable way we can while ever we draw breath, just as we endorse the sentiments of Senator Reynolds, who spoke just before me, and the call of scientists to come and look at the barrier reef and the degradation of this world attribute appealing to world authorities because of the lack of action of the Australian government. Further north-west again in Kakadu, we have just had a visit from world authorities to see whether Kakadu should not be put on the world endangered list.Within a short decade, instead of Australia leading the world in adding places to the World Heritage List because of their sheer magnificence, we have three of those world heritage listed attributes in the aim of international authorities because of the threat and damage through government action or inactivity. What a terrible way to be ending this century.We are an optimistic lot despite that. We Greens stand for closing the gap between rich and poor. We stand for defending the environment. As I said to those wonderful disabled people protesting outside Parliament House yesterday because of their concern about the GST, if we do not have social justice, we will not ultimately end up saving the environment either. Our commitment to both of these things remains strong and you will see it repeated in the coming three years of this Senate. (Time expired)11:36:0084Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I rise today also to make my contribution to the address-in-reply debate, the speech having been delivered by the Governor-General in this place yesterday. I would like to raise a number of issues and to move through the points raised in the speech presented on behalf of the government by the Governor-General.Indeed it is a time in Australia where what we need most are ideas and a vision for the future. Over the past 2½ years, however, we have seen a government that is prepared to put the future aside and prefers to look at the short term—the myopic vision of where Australia is both economically and socially.For young people particularly, this represents a very sad period in our political history. It represents a period where more than ever young people carry with them a feeling of disillusionment in the political institutions and a feeling of disappointment that, in fact, our leader does not carry with him an eye to the future and hope for employment, prosperity and, indeed, a decent life but is preoccupied with some of the drier aspects of managing certainly the fiscal affairs in the economy of this country and puts people last.This approach to running Australia contributes significantly to the disillusionment that young people have. It contributes in such a way that I do not believe this government will be able to show themselves over this next term to be any more suited to the role of running this country than they have shown themselves over the last 2½ years. The last 2½ years have seen a record of broken promises, of commitments made and then forgotten and, in many cases, the expression of a certain view or an agenda that was just let lapse when other priorities emerged. Indeed, none was more blatant than the issue of the GST.It was politically expedient for the coalition to dispel with the GST following an earlier election defeat, and they saw the same expediency arise again when they desperately needed an election issue to deflect the attention of the community away from what was a very poor performance during the time of the last government. The `never, ever' tax, the GST, re-emerged not just to take a place in the campaign platform of the coalition but to become the central feature, the central focus.I would like to spend a few minutes speculating on what would have occurred had the GST not been the central focus for the coalition in this election campaign. The community would have been forced to focus on the deconstruction of the social welfare safety net in this country. The community would have been forced to focus on the massive cuts to higher education and the changes to the funding in public education that have left our public school system at risk in the future of not providing the quality service and quality education that our young people need. The community would have been focused on issues like the changes to the youth allowance, to Centrelink and all those other changes and elements that were put in place over the last 2½ years that represented a specific downgrading of service to the citizens of Australia.Had the GST not been there, we would have been forced to focus on what has happened with the delivery of telecommunications services in this country with the privatisation of Telstra and how that has directly related to a lowering and diminution of services particularly to regional Australia. At a time when industry most needed active support from government to grow and for jobs to come for the future, we would have been forced to focus on this government's cuts to research and development support. We would have been forced to focus on its cuts to the various mechanisms within industry policy designed to support, foster and grow our local businesses. All of these issues present a very pitiful picture of what this government has achieved over the last 2½ years. I could go on. What we had instead was a sharply focused debate around the GST. I have to say that the evidence is there that this is not a fair tax and yet we find ourselves with a government that is insisting upon pursuing this.I am concerned that the inequities of the GST will be something that Australia forever has to bear with in terms of our economic future. We know, because international evidence shows us, that this tax does not provide the solutions the government claims it does. We know that the GST provides a far greater benefit to those on the higher income end of things than those earning less. Surely the role of government is one of redistributing wealth amongst those in a community who need help—the disadvantaged. I often wonder why representatives of the coalition support the mainstream and not the interest groups. When they stand up and talk about the interest groups, the loud voices in the community, why don't they understand why people gather together and advocate certain causes? Why? Because inequities exist. Because disadvantage exists in the community, and that requires a political response.Representing and supporting those who are at a disadvantage in the community is a role of government. It is a legitimate role of government to ensure that all in our community share the same level of hope and opportunity as everybody else. But it is this role of government that puts the coalition in such stark relief compared to previous governments. They do not believe there is a specific role of government in society. Every single policy decision has demonstrated their willingness to extract government from the community. The result of this is that many in the community are left isolated. It is a program of privatisation. It is a program of contracting out and outsourcing government services, never mind the quality outcomes. The consistent justification for this is cost savings which they thereby somehow argue deliver some sort of cost saving to the taxpayer. I do not know anybody in Australia, outside of the coalition, who does not believe that there is a specific role of government in delivering those social services.We have shown, and it has been shown over time, that the government sector, the public servants of this country, is very often best placed to deliver tangible, practical and meaningful support to the community. Extracting government from the community, as this coalition government has attempted to do, does two things. First, it pays no mind to the quality of the service. Whilst contract law is forever imperfect, establishing the appropriate service level of agreements with outsourced services is always going to be an imperfect process. We have seen a number of Commonwealth Ombudsman reports articulate this point precisely. When there is a transfer of service from public to private, the liabilities, the responsibilities—where the buck stops—become very unclear and can only be resolved in the courts. Is this an efficient way of delivering services? I think not.The second impact that extraction of government from the community has is one of severely disenfranchising individuals. Imagine this: the worse the service becomes, for whatever reason—the inability of the government to maintain a quality level of service—the worse it reflects directly on the government from the individual's perspective. Take the Austudy debacle, for example. Thousands upon thousands of queries came through my electorate office and the offices of my colleagues in the lower house here in Canberra alone about the administrative problems that that was causing. That was not as a result of outsourcing, but it was a direct result of a policy decision of this government.The upshot is that the lower the quality of service delivered by government the more frustrated citizens and individuals become with the ability of the government to deliver that service. It reflects badly on the government of the day, the coalition, but it also reflects badly on government. So the self-serving rhetoric of extracting government out of people's lives becomes exactly that—self-serving. A vicious spiral emerges where the worse that that government service becomes the more people feel that government is unable to provide the quality of service that they require, and maybe there has to be another solution.That is one of the main challenges and main features, I think, of the insidious nature of this government's policies with respect to the Public Service and the role it has in our society in delivering support, in delivering a tangible outcome in a whole range of policy areas—social security, social welfare, education and industry development. There are many other challenges that we are confronted with at this time.At the beginning of my speech I spoke about what the future holds. We are fast approaching the new millennium. Never before in the minds of Australians has there been such a desperate need, a desperate craving, for leadership. I believe this is in response to having 2½ years of very poor leadership in this country. People are now looking towards the new millennium perhaps with not as much hope as they otherwise could have. When a government is in place that insists upon focusing on short-term outcomes, be it in the education area, social policy or industry development, it is very difficult for citizens to have faith in promises and what the future holds.Employment is one of the most critical areas and certainly one of the major platforms that Labor put on the table during the election campaign. Where are the jobs going to come from? Jobs are the key to so many other outcomes in terms of health, social security, education and housing. To have a job means economic independence for families, for people. So an analysis of the last 2½ years of employment policies, industry development policies and education policies shows that, despite the endless rhetoric about jobs, there has been no tangible expression in a policy format before or after the election from this government that puts in place a plan to create jobs for the future.There are some very specific examples where this government has actively undermined the prospect of creating new jobs and new industries. There is none more glaring than one of the industries of the future. The information technology and telecommunications sector does more than just provide jobs. This sector is an enabling sector. Whilst John Howard may not acknowledge and accept the role that these new technologies play in our lives now and will continue to play to a greater extent in the future, there is a burning need to address not only industry development in this area but also how we skill our nation's young people and, indeed, those already in the work force or looking for work in a way that they will be able to participate actively in not just the information society but the knowledge society.Telstra, as our major carrier—formerly a monopoly holder of telecommunications—has a critical role to play with respect to this sector. Therefore, Telstra's privatisation sits firmly in the heart of what could have been an exciting and comprehensive plan to bring Australia into the 21st century, not just dragging ourselves over the line but being in a position of great strength. Connectivity—the ability to get as many people, as many businesses, as many community groups, as many government agencies connected on-line and able to communicate—promotes growth, promotes new ideas and innovation, and we lead the world, as we do in many areas already, with these new technologies.Regional Australia has a particular voice—unfortunately, a particularly ignored voice—in this specific area of policy. We have an unemployment crisis in the region. In my travels prior to and during the election campaign, I found that no area was seen as providing more hope for the future than information technology and telecommunications. That is not because there is going to be a chip plant in every country town but because, for those businesses and for those individuals, to be connected is the key to their ability to communicate, to gather information, to share, to participate in the society of the future.Yet what we have seen under this government is the partial privatisation of Telstra, which has resulted in the delivery of substandard services to the bush. Since the election we have seen the political response to this outcry from people living in the bush who seek better services. We have seen promises of programs to deliver greater connectivity, of internet access, of higher bandwidth. We have even seen Telstra buy into the fray, with promises of new networks, higher bandwidth, greater services.Surely this is an area where, more than anywhere else, vision is required. Australia distinguishes itself in so many areas but none more so than in the area of innovation in new technologies. If there were a vision, would we have seen the cuts to research and development? Would we have seen the extraction of government from taking an active role in industry development? Would we have seen the bizarre case of so many very important and meaningful reports about industry growth and where the future lies being so consistently ignored? They have been picked up in an ad hoc manner through a plethora of policies; we are seeing special little programs all over the place, but no vision.If this government did have a vision, many of these issues would not have been confronted in the last election campaign; they would have been resolved. I am gravely concerned, not just for my own home town—for Canberra and the public servants who lost their jobs and continue to lose their jobs under this government that has actively broken commitment after commitment—but for all Australians who are looking to their leader for some vision and who, sadly, continually find it to be completely lacking.11:56:0087Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—In his address to this chamber yesterday, the Governor-General outlined a number of key issues which will form the legislative agenda of the government over the next two- to three-year period. The central issue of that agenda is taxation reform and, more directly, the introduction of a goods and services tax.In the time that is available to me today I do not want to spend much time addressing that issue, other than to say that we have seen that presented over the past 12 to 18 months by this government, and again yesterday in the Governor-General's address, as a panacea that will cure all our ills. It is not. It is nothing more than another way in which you can collect revenue from the Australian public. It will be introduced in such a way—as is usually the case—that those at the bottom end of the income heap will finish up paying a greater share of the taxation burden.There are a number of other issues which I think are probably more important for this parliament to address in terms of what will shape the nature of this nation into the new millennium. They are issues that are being written about and discussed in the community but that are not necessarily receiving the attention that they deserve by this parliament or by the government of the day.In my view, the first of those issues is the question of population policy. We have seen over the past two- to three- year period a very weak position adopted in relation to immigration policy, a position that has essentially been driven by responding to the racist activities of One Nation, rather than a policy agenda being driven by what are seen to be the needs of our community into the future.I think it is spurious in the least to suggest that, somehow or other, by cutting back on immigration we will generate more jobs for those Australians who currently live here. There is no empirical evidence or data to suggest that that is true or that it has been true in the past or, indeed, that it will be true in the future. The issue of population is critical in terms of determining the rate at which this nation will grow and the capacity of this nation to grow in such a way that we can sustain job growth and wealth growth within the community.These issues were discussed at a recent enVision conference in Melbourne where a couple of key players in Australian industry had something to say. Tony Berg, the Chief Executive of Boral, made the comment that more people create more investment, more jobs and, as a consequence, more wealth. I agree with that statement. There is not too much that I agree on with Tony Berg, but I do agree with that. He also went on to say that the housing and construction sector would remain stagnant for the next 15 years unless immigration levels were increased.We all know—anyone who has come out of industry knows—that the housing sector is a key generator of growth within the economy. If your housing sector is growing, your manufacturing sector is employed, and a range of other activities are generated out of it. If Tony Berg is predicting that there will be stagnation in the housing sector over the next 15-year period, then at the end of the day that will translate into higher levels of unemployment. He goes on to argue the case for increasing the intake of skilled and entrepreneurial migrants as well as look at—along with John White, the Chief Executive ofVisy Board—setting growth targets for our population into the future. In fact, John White argues that in 50 years time we could support up to 50 million people in this country.But, in terms of population policy, population growth in itself is not the only issue; the other issue that is critical is population distribution. In this country we are witnessing a continual drift towards the coastline. We now see, for example, that Sydney has a population of four million people; 21 per cent of the total Australian population now live in the Sydney region, and this figure is predicted to increase to six million within 20 years.A number of significant statistics in relation to our population I think are particularly important. For example, something like 12 million of our 18 million inhabitants now live on the coastline between Brisbane and Melbourne. We are crowding out that part of our landmass while at the same time we are doing nothing about generating and encouraging growth in our regional and rural communities. In fact, the opposite is the case. We have neither a vision nor a strategy for growing regional and rural Australia, for encouraging development in those regional and rural communities.I spent a fair bit of this year travelling around the country with the Senate education committee looking at regional unemployment, and two things struck me about each of the regions or rural communities we visited—and we visited regions and rural communities in every state of the nation. One of those two things was that there were people working in those communities who had creative ideas about what should be done to stimulate growth in their community; people who had developed through community forums specific projects that, with proper resourcing, could be implemented which would lead to growth in employment opportunities in those regions, those communities, and, in addition, would assist in keeping young people in the regions where they were born and grew up, allowing them to make a contribution to the future development of that region. They had a lot of ideas, but it was also apparent that they were disconnected—disconnected from the national economy, the national economic framework of our nation. They did not know how to access the finance markets. They did not know where to take their projects to seek financing. They did not know who were the leading providers of finance for projects within our community. They were disconnected—disconnected in a number of ways.The other thing that was significant about those communities was that they were really dying on their feet—and the people in those communities recognised it. A significant lesson out of those visits we paid to those communities around the nation was that the market will not resolve their problems. They cannot rely on market forces to provide jobs in Whyalla, in Nowra, in Rockhampton, in Burnie or in Ballarat. They could only seek and would only achieve solutions to their problems through direct government intervention.It is encouraging to note that the current government has allocated responsibility to a number of ministers for regional development; whether or not the current government will be as enthusiastic about committing resources to regional development that will make the difference to whether those communities are able to turn around the problems they confront is another matter. We will watch with interest to see the type of policy formulation that comes out of the current government in addressing some of the problems of those regional communities.But, if those communities are to have a positive role in the development of the nation, it is critical that they be linked into the national economic framework. That means that we have to generate policies related to developing our industrial base. It has been argued at various forums right across this nation for the past decade or so that there has been a glaring need to expand the base of the Australian economy—to reduce our dependence upon primary production and commodity based activities—into manufacturing and service related activities; to expand that sector of the economy by implementing a positive agenda for growth in our industry policy. That means looking at developing new industries—the type of industries that Senator Lundy has just referred to in the information technology area.We have great potential to grow a significant industrial base out of the convergence of our communications and media and entertainment industries. That convergence is under way in a significant way today even as we debate these issues in this parliament. But we also need to look at our traditional industry. There is no easy transfer from the industries of the past to the industries of the future. It is a matter of progression across one to the other. Significant activity can be achieved out of our traditional industries in terms of their ability to export if the right incentives are given to them to do a number of things, particularly in the research and development of new products. But you cannot be optimistic that this government will address those policies in a positive way.I recently participated in the Senate Economics References Committee. It released a report entitled Promoting Australian Industry in July this year. It made a series of recommendations not dissimilar to the type of recommendations that came out of the Goldsworthy report and the Mortimer report. We have not seen a lot of activity by this government in implementing the types of recommendations that come out of those reports. But that committee, which was a joint committee, adopted a set of recommendations unanimous ly. It recognised that the key to solving the problems of unemployment in our community lies in our developing and promoting Australian industries by growing those industries.It also recognised that a key to the growth of those industries is investment in research and development. Yet we have seen through this government in the last financial year R&D expenditure cut by something like 50 per cent. They have made it so difficult for companies to access resources that companies are just not even bothering to make the applications. As a consequence, there is a very significant decline in the amount of R&D activity occurring right across industries in this country at present. It is an area that needs addressing urgently. I will be interested to see the type of policy formulations that the new Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin, brings before this chamber.Another key issue that was addressed in that report which is critical to the development of our industries is capital gains tax. There is the question of using the capital gains tax regime to encourage patient capital investment in our industry. It is about actually rewarding those investors who are prepared to leave their money in our industries and enterprises around the nation in the longer term. Patient capital investment is investment in real jobs.What we are witnessing in this country at present are investment decisions driven by short-term profit taking. We are witnessing traditional manufacturing companies in this country being forced to make decisions about closing enterprises and getting rid of assets. They are decisions not based on whether those assets are sustainable in the longer term or create jobs or a reasonable rate of return on the investment. They are decisions driven by the demand of institutional investors for a fixed rate of return over the shortest time. It is an investment strategy that is working contrary to the interests of this nation and its inhabitants. It is an issue that needs to be addressed with some urgency.Another issue that I believe needs to be addressed if we are to grow as a nation into a dynamic community over the next decade or so is telecommunications. It is a question of how Telstra operates into the future. It is not about privatisation. The privatisation of Telstra will be an absolute disaster in terms of our ability to influence the direction of communications over the longer term. But there is an argument that ought to be had in this place about the nature and the way in which Telstra is currently structured and whether that structure—the way in which that business is run—allows it to operate in the best interests of the community it is supposed to be servicing.A range of arguments have been put forward about the different ways that Telstra can be restructured. There are arguments that it ought to be set up into separate business units covering the various service areas that it provides. I have heard arguments from experts in the field that we would be better served by separating the services provided by Telstra from the delivery of the communications infrastructure.I have heard arguments—they have some merit—that we ought to consider breaking up Telstra into a number of separate identities servicing specific regions within Australia. It would be set up in such a way that it would be much more responsive to the needs of the community it represents. There are a number of examples around the world where small telcos have been very successful in generating industry development activities associated with the information technology area despite the fact that they are providing services to, in one instance, only 500,000 subscribers.So big does not necessarily mean effective in the communications industry, but we certainly ought to apply some creative thinking to the way in which our communications companies are structured and whether or not they can be restructured to provide more effective communications services to regional and rural Australia and, through that process, link regional and rural Australia into the national economic network. Unless we do that, no matter what else we do at the ground level—at ground zero, so to speak—it will be irrelevant if they are not part of that national network. There is a range of other areas which I think also would have been worthy of address by this government in the Governor-General's speech yesterday but received very scant attention. Senator Brown, in his comments, referred to the linking of social justice with saving the environment. (Time expired)12:16:0090Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—The address-in-reply debate is traditionally a time in which senators can range fairly considerably in the topics they cover. There are two areas I want to focus on today. In the address yesterday from the Governor-General there was considerable comment about the need for, in the government's words, tax reform—that is, a goods and services tax: the tax that we were never ever to have, according to the declaration of the Prime Minister.What also concerned me was the lack of vision in the retirement incomes area, and I will come to some issues relating to that shortly. Labor made it very clear in the lead-up to the last election and the election in 1993 that it would not support a goods and services tax, and it has no intention of changing that position given the election result. There are a number of fundamental arguments that Labor holds and believes in very strongly as to why it will not be supporting a goods and services tax, and I just want to run through those issues very quickly.The goods and services tax does not create jobs. It is a tax on all goods and services, and a GST is, by its nature, a tax on jobs. If a GST did create jobs, European countries with a GST—and most have it—would have lower unemployment than the United States. Interestingly, the United States is one of the few advanced economies in the world that does not have a goods and services tax, and the unemployment rates of European countries are frequently double that of the United States. The only new jobs likely to be significantly created by a goods and services tax are the extra staff that will be needed to administer it in the tax office. In fact, a GST will cost jobs in many sectors of the Australian economy, particularly in the service sector. The service sector—the hospitality industry, for example—has been Australia's greatest job creator in the last 20 years.Most importantly, I think a GST is fundamentally unfair to low- and middle-income earners. Everyone pays the same tax on goods and services regardless of ability to pay. People on low or middle incomes or social security pay proportionally more tax. After all, an extra $10 at the checkout counter means a lot more to a bus driver's family than it does to a lawyer's. Any shift from the taxation of income to the taxation of consumption is felt most by low- and middle-income earners. What is interesting is that big business is all in favour of a GST, because the shift in the burden of tax moves away from large business to the consumer more generally—particularly low- and middle-income earners and small business. It is no wonder that the Business Council of Australia—which is dominated in its membership by the banks, major retailers and Australia's biggest companies—wants a GST.I would have to say that, from the point of view of hypocrisy, it is the banks' position which ranks as the most amazing position of all. The banks were in there at the Business Council arguing furiously for a GST—`but not on us' they said. They said, `Not only do we not want a GST to apply to banks, we want the states' financial institutions taxes abolished as well.' So the position of the banks is the most hypocritical of all.The GST almost always rises. In 21 out of 23 OECD countries which have a GST, the rate has risen since the introduction of that tax. The rate rises are inevitable. In New Zealand the GST was introduced at a rate of 10 per cent; it is now 12.5 per cent. In Britain it has risen from 10 per cent to 17.5 per cent. In Denmark it has risen from 10 per cent to 25 per cent. Interestingly, Japan started off with a GST of three per cent and of course there was the usual pledge—like Prime Minister Howard's—that it would never, ever go up.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Is this the same bloke who said it was never going to come in?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—That is right. It was never, ever going to come in, and it is never, ever going to go up. What is interesting about Japan is that they increased the GST to five per cent in April last year. I would not sweepingly argue that the current economic problems of Japan have been caused by the introduction of a GST or the increase in the GST from three per cent to five per cent. Some might argue that, but I would not. But it certainly has not helped the Japanese economy one bit to have introduced a GST and then to have increased it. It certainly harmed it in some respects.The issue of compensation is widely discussed, but compensation does not work. There is no way to adequately compensate low- and middle-income earners and those on fixed incomes, and what is more important is that there is no way to guarantee that compensation package stays in place. Future government can take away elements of the compensation package. In fact, that is what has happened in most countries that have introduced a goods and services tax. It is inevitably weighted further and further in favour of higher income earners. The compensation package is stripped back, the GST is increased and the biggest beneficiaries of the cuts to income tax are higher income earners.Another great myth about a GST is that it boosts national savings. The argument is: you tax consumption, therefore the price of goods goes up, people are forced to save money, they spend less on consumption because it costs more to live and that is a boost to national savings. There is no better authority than Ted Evans, the head of the Australian Treasury, who said, `Every economic text that you read or that I know of will tell you in principle that shifting the tax burden towards further reliance on indirect taxes will significantly aid national savings.' But he then said, `You won't find that argument convincingly demonstrated in studies of international tax reform experience.'What is interesting about countries that have introduced a GST—and this is true of Europe, the United States, which does not have a GST, and Japan—is that their savings rates are going down. At the same time as the GST is ratcheted up and up, the savings rates have been going down. That issue of national savings is fundamental to the performance of the Australian economy, but I will not go into that issue today.A GST does not get rid of the cash or the black economy. Tax avoiders find new ways around the black economy. There was an interesting study of Canada, which introduced a GST in 1992, I think it was. It is estimated that the cash economy doubled in the seven years since the GST was brought in. It is relatively easy to develop strategies to avoid the GST net. Of course a GST will create inflation. Costs will go up. There will be an increase in inflation depending on the size of the GST.One of the arguments I find fascinating is that, when we get rid of all these other 10 taxes, including the wholesale sales tax, and replace them with a 10 per cent GST, all of the businesses that currently pay these taxes will drop their prices. Maybe I am just a touch cynical, but I would be surprised if there are not at least some businesses that try to maintain their profit margin by trying to maintain at least some element of the current wholesale sales tax and not pass on the reductions in the wholesale sales tax to the consumer. There is no legal power in this country to force them to do that. So we may end up with an inflationary rate that is greater than is anticipated as a result of a GST because there will be many businesses that will not reduce prices as a result of the abolition of these taxes, particularly the wholesale sales tax.This final point relates to a GST and small business. There are 1.3 million small business operators in Australia and they are all turned into tax collectors. People can have arguments about the wholesale sales tax, but it is a very efficient tax to collect because the number of tax collectors is quite small. For small businesses this means an increase in compliance costs and small business operators will need to devote hundreds of hours to the necessary paperwork. I do not think they will be particularly thrilled when the army of new tax inspectors—the VAT man as he is known in the UK, the GST man or woman in Australia—fronts up and wants to check all their paperwork to make sure they are paying their tax. So that is a very brief overview of why Labor has continued to oppose a GST. Despite the election result, we will be maintaining our opposition to a GST. There is nothing contradictory in arguing and maintaining that position. There is nothing contradictory in the approach we put forward that there should be a thorough Senate committee investigation into a whole range of aspects of a GST. There is nothing contradictory in that position whatsoever. We will be endeavouring to obtain much of the information that the current Treasurer, Mr Costello, and the government refused to release before the election campaign.One interesting aspect of yesterday's speech was the words and themes that emerged. We continually heard words such as `choice', `incentive' and `saving'. We hear this rhetoric time and time again from the government. What is disappointing if we reflect on some of the government's legislation over the past 2½ years and reflect on some of the legislation we can anticipate in the next presumably three years is the very lacklustre performance in the area of retirement incomes, not just in respect of superannuation but in respect of retirement incomes generally, of which superannuation is a major part.Why is this issue so critical to the future of Australia? The current proportion of the Australian population who are 65 and over is about 12.2 per cent. That will increase to 19 per cent by the year 2026. In looking around the chamber, I think it is within the reach of most of us to be living at that time. By the year 2046—I expect that is not within the reach of most us in the chamber—23 per cent of Australians will be over the age of 65. Sorry, Mr Acting Deputy President McKiernan, you are more optimistic than I if you think you will make it to 2046.What is very fundamental about this shift in the ageing population is the cost to government. The current cost of aged pensions and allowances is $14.1 billion, which will increase in the year 2001-02 to $16.5 billion. It is an increase of 23 per cent over a five-year period. That is not because the current government has been any more generous to pensioners—far from it—it is because of the ageing population, the increasing number of people who are retiring. Many are retiring, unfortunately, before 65 for a whole range of other economic and social reasons. Every year the cost of pensions on the budget goes up by between half a billion dollars and one billion dollars.Let us look at residential care subsidies. They totalled $694 million in 1997-98 and will increase to $845 million in the year 2001-02; an increase of 22 per cent. Home and community care and aged care cost $456 million in 1997-98 and will rise to $706 million in the year 2001-02; an increase of 54 per cent. Again, this is not because this government is any more generous—in fact, far from it. It is continually trying to cut back expenditure on the aged as a total in our community. It is because of the ageing population. This is going to lead to very, very serious economic and social consequences.One of the most perverse arguments I find this government advancing in favour of a GST is that we need a GST to broaden the tax base in order to pay for the increasing cost of social security. Yet the record of this government in its 2½ years in office has been to cut assistance in the area of social security. We all remember the debacle over aged care homes. One of the disappointing things to me is that, unfortunately, a body like ACOSS has been at least partially convinced by this line that you need a GST to broaden the tax base and to secure social security expenditure, particularly assistance to the aged. But this government has no intention of increasing expenditure on the aged in our community. It is the most rapidly growing cost of government, and it is a cost that needs to be met. We cannot say to Australians who are turning 65 in ever increasing numbers, `You can't have an age pension and associated allowances. You can't have residential care, and you can't have home and community care.' This cost needs to be met.If we look briefly at the area of retirement incomes, we had the introduction of a new tax—it was called a surcharge by this government—on superannuation for higher income earners. I am not going to go into all of the difficulties that this new tax has caused. There have been great difficulties collecting the money and great inefficiencies in the collection or undercollection of the money. It was a poorly targeted tax. There are a whole range of reasons. This new so-called superannuation surcharge was the largest new revenue measure of the current government during its last term. It was clearly a tax. The government called it a surcharge because it could not call it a tax, even though it was a tax. It did not want to be seen to be breaking its promise. If the outcome of this super tax and all the difficulties that have occurred in its collection are anything to go by, woe betide the Australian community the problems that will result from the implementation of a goods and services tax.What was also interesting about the government's tax package—the central element of which was the GST—was that last year in May or June the government put up an omnibus tax bill which included a number of very important provisions, one being a provision for a savings rebate. The savings rebate was that of the reworked, rebadged superannuation co-contributions that the Labor government had committed itself to. The Treasurer, Mr Costello, and the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, were triumphantly proclaiming the savings rebate as a great incentive for savings. We need to have incentives to encourage saving and we need to have choice—we heard this rhetoric in the speech yesterday. We were told that this savings rebate, which we passed in May or June last year, was urgent and that it would encourage saving. The Assistant Treasurer urged people to go out and save. What happened? Three months later it was scrapped. It took three months to scrap what was hailed by the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer and the Prime Minister as one of the Australia's greatest saving initiatives. This government has a very poor record and has taken a mixed approach to encouraging savings in this country.There were a number of other initiatives, some of which have been announced and some of which have not been enacted yet but which I am sure we will see come before the Senate over the next three years. There was a proposal by this government—it is not one I agreed with, frankly—to allow people to draw down on their superannuation for a housing deposit. It must have been a non-core promise, because the Treasurer has quietly dropped that proposal. We do have the proposal for choice of superannuation—so-called choice. It is effectively deregulation of the superannuation market. There are some horrendous implications for Australians in that. I suspect that will come before us in the next few months. We have the removal of superannuation as an industrial matter. Again, there are some very serious implications for that. What concerns me is that this government's approach is to undermine saving, to decrease saving, and to undermine the confidence in the retirement income system that we had in this country—a system which is so necessary to ensure that, when people reach the age of 65, they are receiving a decent level of income and a decent level of community support.12:36:0094Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I would firstly like to make the remark that I thought His Excellency's speech yesterday was an interesting speech. I want to congratulate His Excellency: he is one of our finest governor-generals and I think he has done a great job. The remarks that I am going to make about his speech are not directed at all at Sir William whom I have the utmost of respect for but at the government that wrote it for him.Sir William has occupied an interesting place in Australian history. He is carrying out his role with great distinction and integrity. He has an empathy for the Australian community that has been well and truly picked up by the community out there who have a very high regard for him personally and for the office he represents. He represents a very important office in our democracy. I, like many other people, will no doubt vote for a republic when the referendum is held next year. I will be voting for a minimalist option in that future republic. The sort of role that I want to see a future president of Australia play is very similar to the role played by the current Governor-General of this country who is a very decent, honest and sincere man.I have listened to many governors give speeches about what his or her government was going to do. They are usually just lists of legislative atrocities of one form or another that are about to be committed against my constituents. Yesterday's speech was a little more subtle than that—although not much more. The government has clearly put down the broad parameters of what it is intending to do. No doubt it will not be very much longer before we get the fine details here in the Senate.I want to have a look at the word `mandate'. I have generally been a mandate man. I think governments are elected to govern. I well remember what happened on this day some 23 years ago to a government that was elected to govern in this country. I was in my office at the time. Somebody came running down and told me that, despite that mandate, the Whitlam government had been turfed out, tossed out, by the activities of the then Governor-General and the then Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser, whom I have less respect for than the gentleman I mentioned a moment ago. However, I later came to regard Malcolm Fraser as not being too bad a prime minister because there were a few things he did which I thought were much better than what we are currently being blessed with.At the end of the day, I think the activities of the then Governor-General and those people who gave him advice did serious damage to the political fabric of this country and, some 23 years later, are still worthy of being reflected upon by people in this place and in the broader community. The Whitlam government had a mandate—there was no argument about that. They faced the people in 1974 and they were elected to govern. The term of their commission was some three years. It was cut short—dramatically by about 18 months—by the Senate at that time. It decided, despite all of the conventions—conventions which had been rigorously kept to in Westminster systems around the globe—to starve the Australian government of supply.Much has been written of this particular period. There are a couple of salient points that I want to bring out in my address here today. The first one is the concept that a government has a commission. That commission, that mandate to govern, which should not be interfered with by the Senate, was, I believe, seriously undermined in 1975. I was enraged in 1975, as were a number of other people, because that very important principle not only was called into question but also, in many respects, was slaughtered on that particular day. We all know what happened. The election was held some five weeks later; the Labor Party did not win that election. That became the other point of 1975, that the end justifies the means. I remember seeing some of the characters involved in that 1975 assassination of the Whitlam government cheering—and, if I remember rightly, I think the now Prime Minister was one of those who had a glass of champagne in his hand and was cheering when he heard that the Whitlam government had been sacked and dismissed.I now find myself in a position where the same people are lecturing us here on mandates. It is a bit rich to have people like the Prime Minister suddenly say that he has a mandate and Whitlam never had a mandate. For that matter, when we had a whole pile of other reforms that we wanted to get through here in the 13 years under Labor, we did not have a mandate for them either for whatever reason. The people back in 1974 and 1975 who brought down the Whitlam government did not believe in mandates then but, suddenly, when the role is reversed they believe in them now.Let us have a look at this concept of a mandate. What does it really involve? One of the most important things about a mandate is if you offer a plan to the public of Australia and give them a chance to vote on that particular proposal—if you are up-front about it and say, `This is what we are proposing. We are not going to do it at midnight and enact it at 9 o'clock the next morning. We want you to vote on it; we want you to deliberate on it; we want you to make your mind up on it. When you go into the polling box, we want to make sure that you are clear about the implications of what you are voting for.' Before my colleagues on this side think I am making out a case for the enemy on this, I hasten to add that I will come back to that point in just a moment.On 3 October this year the government clearly had a large number of people go and vote under no illusion whatsoever that they would be voting for what was supposedly called tax reform—what we all know is really a cover for the goods and services tax, the GST. There is no doubt that a large number of people went in there and voted for this particular tax. But, sadly, a much larger number went into the polling box and did not vote for the GST at all. They were under no illusion either. As I understand it, 52 per cent of people went in and voted against this government's GST.Back in 1989 in South Australia, we had a government that was elected with 48 per cent of the vote. We never heard the end of it from the Liberal Party: we had no authority to govern, no right to govern and should not sit in the Treasury benches; and the mugs in my show agreed with them. But what happened then was that the Liberal Party said, `You have no mandate for anything.' The same people who said that then are now saying, `No, we've got a mandate. We only got 48 per cent of the vote. We just managed to trick a few key electorates and we did a pretty good job of that.' When you have $50 million worth of taxpayers' funds and a few smart alecs that know how to run manipulative campaigns in a number of marginal seats, it is not hard at all to exercise those sorts of things. That is no mandate whatsoever, and I will elaborate further on that. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Matters of Public Interest959512:45:0095Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I would like to take this opportunity to describe yet another Northern Territory Country-Liberal Party government initiative that has been a resounding success story. On Sunday 22 March the Alice Springs Desert Park celebrated its first year of operation. The 1,300 hectare Alice Springs Desert Park is a world-class tourist attraction that also plays a vital role in research into and conservation of Australia's desert flora and fauna. During its first year, almost 86,000 visitors enjoyed the park's attractions, and this number is sure to grow significantly in a very short time. One of those 86,000 visitors was a man who is synonymous with nature and conservation throughout the world, Sir David Attenborough. His description of the park as `unsurpassable' in the visitors' book and subsequent comment in the local newspaper the Centralian Advocate that `there is no museum or wildlife park in the world that can match it' is high praise indeed and well deserved. Sir David's comments are a ringing endorsement of the efforts that the Northern Territory government and the Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory have put into ensuring that the park is a unique and very significant facility.The $20 million park is located just out of Alice Springs and is nestled at the base of the spectacular MacDonell Ranges. This location, amidst such beautiful scenery, adds to the experience of the park and reflects the careful and long-term planning that has gone into all aspects of the park. Ken Johnson, Regional Director South of the Parks and Wildlife Commission, had a vision for the park. He foresaw that `the park will be the premier facility in the nation for displaying and interpreting plants and animals and landscapes of the vast arid zone as well as their traditional use by Aboriginal people'. To see that vision achieved so spectacularly must be very satisfying and gratifying, and I congratulate him and his staff on this achievement.The 40 staff of the Alice Springs Desert Park look after over 350 plant species and more than 120 animal species in three major Australian desert habitats—the desert rivers, sand country and woodlands. Of the animal species represented, 22 are mammals, 11 of which are threatened or endangered. They include species such as the Greater Bilby, the Mala and the Central Rock-rat, which are several of the more endangered species involved in successful captive breeding programs. These animals represent part of the park's role as a vital research centre, actively involved in the conservation of rare and threatened desert species.The Alice Springs Desert Park is an excellent tourist facility and plays an important educational, research and conservation role that makes it a model for and sets a very high benchmark for similar facilities worldwide to aspire to. It is particularly remarkable that the park has achieved all that it has in the short time that it has been operating. The park celebrated its first birthday in March this year and only last month won a major national tourism award. But before I move on to this most recent tourism award, let me list some of the other awards that this marvellous attraction has received, such as the Territory and National categories for a Case Earth Award. The master plan of the park received awards before the park was even open, winning an occasional special award from the Royal Australian Institute's National Awards for Planning Excellence in 1995 and 1996. The master plan also received a Judges Special Acknowledgment Award from the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects Queensland group in 1997.The park has received national recognition from the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, winning a National Project Award of Merit. At the recent Tourism Council of Australia 1998 Australian Tourism Awards, the Alice Springs Desert Park won the National Award for Tourism Development Projects. This prestigious award is well deserved and was only one of several that Northern Territory tourist operators received. I congratulate them on this excellent result, which is a good indication of the strength and competitive nature of the tourist industry in the territory.Northern Territory Adventure Tours won in the category of Tour and Transport Operations—Major, and two operations located at what is arguably the most recognisable tourist attraction in Australia, Uluru, or Ayers Rock, also received recognition. In the category of Tourism Restaurants, the Sounds of Silence restaurant had its uniqueness and popularity acknowledged and Ayers Rock Resort Management Pty Ltd won the highly competitive Meetings Industry category.In the year 2000 Uluru will be the focus of world attention when it is the starting point for the Olympic flames journey around Australia, with territory athlete Nova Peris- Kneebone having the honour of carrying the torch first. Nova will no doubt visit the Sails in the Sunset restaurant, dining under the stars in the desert overlooking the rock. She may also visit the Alice Springs Desert Park, which will also undoubtedly be a focus of world attention in 2000, when the spotlight is on Central Australia and the beginning of the torch relay.The park has great plans for the future, with three new core habitat displays: Mulga, Range and Gorge, costing $7 million and already well advanced. The Gorge habitat display should be especially interesting and spectacular, replicating the environment and habitat areas such as Stanley Chasm, with its water, rock wallabies and sheer walls. A free picnic area will also be a feature of the park. The new exhibits and picnic area will enhance what is already a world class facility and provide yet another world-class attraction in Alice Springs to add to the many attractions and natural wonders that already draw so many interstate and international visitors to Central Australia.I would also like to make mention of something else that is unique to Alice Springs. This is not an actual attraction but an event—the Honda Masters Games, which is held in Alice every two years. Over 4,500 people participated in the most recent games, from 17 to 24 October. As in past years, the event was a spectacular success, enjoyed by all involved.The inaugural masters games were held in Alice Springs in 1986 and were the first multi-sport event for mature aged athletes in Australia. The games have gone from strength to strength since that first event, and their phenomenal growth is evidence of the continuing popularity and support for the event.The Honda Masters Games are known as `the friendly games' and it is very refreshing to see the event live up to its title. The games are played in the true spirit of sport with all participants competing fiercely and to the highest possible level, but not to the detriment of fair play and sportsmanship. Each year, records are broken in the 30 sports that make up the games but it is the emphasis on participating, having a go and attempting to beat a personal best that I admire most.The games attract competitors from all over Australia and an increasing contingent from overseas. Ages vary greatly, but it is not uncommon to see sprightly 80-year-old competitors showing their stuff. A recent star of the games was 75-year-old Stan Stankovic, who won 15 gold medals in the 75 to 79 age group and broke the previous track and field record of 13 gold medals.This most recent Honda Masters Games had the added attraction of a couple of other Australian legends of the sporting arena. Ian Chappell, the former great Australian Test cricket captain, proved he is as fiercely competitive as ever by competing in the baseball with the extremely successful Interport baseball team. Evonne Goolagong-Cawley, the tennis legend, also visited Alice Springs for the games, attended a wide variety of events and was reported as being moved by the famous masters' spirit and willingness to have a go. Another great who has previously attended the games is Dawn Fraser.The games bring many benefits to the town apart from the opportunity to mix with legends such as Stan Stankovic, Ian Chappell, Evonne Goolagong-Cawley and Dawn Fraser. It is estimated that the Alice Springs economy receives an injection of $8 million from the influx of competitors and others related to the games. This is a huge boost for the town.But the games also provide many other benefits that may not be measured in dollars and cents. The visitors to the games invariably leave with many happy memories and pass on their experiences to friends and relatives in other states and countries. This word of mouth advertising is the best possible form of endorsement and results in the games' growing popularity and in them becoming a fixture on many masters calendars.The local residents of Alice Springs love the event and support it strongly. The best example of this support is the fact that almost 1,000 residents act as volunteers and assist with all facets of the games' operations. It is an incredible show of community spirit with approximately one in 25 locals being involved in the games as a volunteer. If the Sydney Olympics manage to generate such enthusiasm and drive, then they will be without doubt the most successful Olympics ever.The masters games are organised by the Northern Territory Department of Sport and Recreation. I applaud the hard work and dedication that are shown by all those involved, particularly that of the games General Manager, Shane O'Leary. An event of this kind is a huge logistical exercise and organisation for the next masters games must begin the day the event finishes. There is no rest for the workers involved.The eighth Honda Masters Games will be held in Alice Springs from 21 to 28 October in the year 2000. I urge all Territorians and those eligible in the rest of Australia to attend this event as it will be the experience of a lifetime that everyone will absolutely love. It provides the chance for some high-level masters competition, a chance to sample the Territory hospitality and the ideal opportunity to take in the wonders of Central Australia such as Uluru and the Alice Springs Desert Wildlife Park.It is important on this day, the 11th day of the 11th month, to make mention of the 80th anniversary since the World War I armistice was signed and the guns fell silent in that terrible war. The bravery, suffering and dedication of all Australian troops who fought is well remembered, and should be remembered for generations to come. The armistice has been marked by ceremonies throughout the Northern Territory.9812:58:0098O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I want to talk about an article which was published in the Launceston Examiner shortly after the recently held federal election entitled `Senators, Liberals: Wake up!' The author was Mr Rod Scott of that newspaper. He gave the impression that he was disappointed with the election result that saw a Liberal cabinet minister and the Liberal parliamentary secretary lose their seats in Tasmania. I think everyone now knows that Labor holds all five House of Representatives seats in the state of Tasmania.In the article, Mr Scott was particularly harsh on the worth of Tasmania's 12 senators, suggesting that they did not contribute much to the state. He described this chamber as a chamber of privilege and he implied that senators were basically a waste of time. He said that they were `highly paid' and `remote from the electorate'. I must say: as I understand it, all Labor senators in Tasmania have shopfront offices and receive a great deal of contact from the public, as is the case with many of the other senators in Tasmania.I must say that Mr Scott's comments do Tasmanian voters a disservice. Firstly, you should be aware that a significant number of voters in Tasmania did not simply vote above the line—that is, the nominated party distribution of preferences ticket—but chose to vote for individual Senate candidates whom they wanted to represent them; that is, they voted below the line. Over 67,000 voters, or 22 per cent of total votes cast, chose to vote in this way in Tasmania. That is in sharp contrast to most of the other states. In New South Wales, only four per cent of voters voted below the line; in Queensland, four per cent; in Victoria, three per cent; South Australia, seven per cent; Western Australia, six per cent; Northern Territory, 14 per cent; and in the ACT, 22 per cent.In fact, the national average for below-the-line voting at the 1998 federal election in the Senate was five per cent. So Tasmanian voters made, one would argue, an even more deliberate choice in their selection of the members of this chamber who would take their place from 1 July 1999. In that sense I think Mr Scott does a disservice to Tasmanian voters who did make a very deliberate choice and who, I think, well understand the role of this place in relation to representing the interests of Tasmania.I would have to say this also: the Senate is not a chamber of privilege, as Mr Scott would have us believe. It is the watchdog of the Australian federal system; it is a house of review. It is a source of considered second opinion on a variety of contentious legislation. The fact of the matter is that normally the Senate considers every piece of legislation clause by clause. This is the forum—in which an extensive and efficient committee system operates—through which members of the Australian public can have direct input into the form of legislation, the detail of specific government programs and matters of public policy. Importantly for Tasmania and for the other smaller states, it is the Senate that scrutinises in great detail every Commonwealth budget. So I really think that it is more than, as Mr Scott describes it, `a chamber of privilege'. He also says this in relation to Tasmania and the Senate:Tasmania is in deep political trouble and the Government Senators are the ones who are going to have to get us out of it.Tasmania is represented in this parliament by 17 politicians—five members and 12 senators. Of those, there are five senators who are members of the Liberal Party, and there are no senators or members from the National Party.So I would suggest that it is not simply the five government senators upon whom Tasmania relies in relation to its future and representation in this place. The future prosperity of the state depends upon the hard work and the effective representation by all senators and all members, not only federal parliamentarians but also members of the state parliament and representatives at a local government level. Representation must start at a local community level. Obviously, in terms of the established parties, it finds its way through the party system and it needs to carry through to the floor of this parliament—the House of Representatives and the Senate—as well as the state parliament.In the end, the voters must consider the merits of the respective policies presented to them by the parties and vote accordingly as they feel at election time. That happened in Tasmania twice in the last few months— firstly, at the state election on 29 August. In that election the then government, the Liberal government, the government of Mr Rundle, was soundly defeated. If you look at the federal election result in Tasmania, this government was defeated in the state of Tasmania; that is, it lost its only two House of Representatives seats and it performed poorly in the Senate.Both of the major parties took special Tasmanian policies into the federal election. Labor included, amongst other things, a proposal to write off, with no strings attached, $150 million in Commonwealth debt which was held against the state. The coalition had previously said that that would occur if the Tasmanian people would support a proposal to privatise the Hydro-Electric Commission. That was rejected at the state election.Another important issue that Labor took to the people was the institution of a single untimed local call zone for the state of Tasmania, which would be one of the more important initiatives for both domestic and business users to have been put to the people of Tasmania for some time. Labor also gave a commitment, if elected, to secure the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme and the Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme in legislation. I found it curious that Liberal senators opposed these proposals on what appeared to me to be spurious grounds, stating that somehow that would cause some constitutional problem. The inquiries that I undertook revealed that no such problem really did exist. The government's package was put to the people on the basis of the goods and services tax being introduced and at least another 16 per cent of Telstra being privatised and, subject to an inquiry, the balance of Telstra. So, in essence, the government's position was to introduce a GST and to privatise Telstra.In terms of the two-party preferred vote at a federal level, in Tasmania the outcome was that Labor received somewhere between 55 and 56 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. In Bass, the voters threw out a cabinet minister and elected Michelle O'Byrne, with a swing of just over 4½ per cent. In Lyons, Dick Adams was returned with a swing of over nine per cent. In Braddon, Sid Sidebottom was elected with a swing of a little over 10 per cent—and that was to replace a member of the Liberal Party who was a parliamentary secretary. Harry Quick was returned with an increased majority, as was Duncan Kerr.Labor attracted 41.6 per cent of the formal primary vote, compared with the Liberal Party's 33.8 per cent. On a two-party preferred basis, Labor achieved somewhere between 55 and 54 per cent of the vote in Tasmania.Going back to Mr Scott's article, he would also have all 12 senators from Tasmania band together to vote as a block. He argues that on the basis that this is a states house. It is a states house because it guarantees that we have equal representation with other states and, importantly, without the Senate, the smaller states would clearly be swamped by the larger states. For example, the House of Representatives has 50 members representing New South Wales and five from Tasmania. But with increasing integration of economic power, communications systems and transport networks, the work of the Senate is now far more national than state oriented.Further, given the election results, Mr Scott's block voting proposal would require Tasmanian government senators to vote against the plans to introduce a goods and services tax and to vote against the further sale of Telstra. They would also be required to pressure Senator Alston to implement the Labor plan to have Tasmania operate as a single untimed local call zone.Tasmania would be a much better place if government senators supported Labor's platform which was put to the people of Tasmania at the last election, but we all know that they will not do that. If one wants to know why, one only has to look at the treatment Senator Watson received earlier in the week.Senator Watson is an astute politician with considerable expertise in tax matters. He continues to make an important contribution to debate on matters of tax and superannuation in this place. Last Sunday he expressed a view that there were problems with the government's tax plan. He was quoted in the Launceston Examiner as saying:On the GST, it may be necessary to have the concessions lifting the compensation for those most affected by it, because a large percentage of low income earners' costs go on the cost of living.On Telstra he was quoted as saying:Telstra is regarded as an icon, and the bush is concerned about the ability of Telstra in private hands to deliver its service obligations.He said there was sufficient support in the Liberal Party to change the policy from full privatisation to the sale of only 49 per cent. He said on the ABC AM program on Monday:A wide spectrum of people, low income earners, have expressed concerns about their ability to cope and I have taken note of that.He said the government must be seen to have a heart and a social conscience and make some adjustments. He had heard the view of Tasmanian voters about how badly the GST would affect them. In my view, he was responding to that view.However, by lunchtime on that day he was forced to contradict his earlier remarks. He released a statement—which I suggest might have been released for him—stating that he had changed his mind. His revised position stated that the compensation offered by the Howard government to offset the impact of the GST was `adequate'—note that, `adequate'; not `fair'.Senator's Watson's AM position was the correct one. The GST is not fair—in fact, it is not adequate—for low and middle income families in Australia. It is certainly not fair for families living in Tasmania. And in the interests of Tasmanian families, Labor's five representatives in the other place and five senators here plan to oppose it all the way.Despite Mr Scott's apparent disappointment with the results in the last federal election in Tasmania, I can assure Tasmanian voters that their overwhelming endorsement of the Australian Labor Party has not been misplaced. 10113:11:00101Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—One year ago today I rose in this place to give my first speech and now one year later I am rising to give my first speech in the new parliament. It is good to hear a Labor senator in particular highlighting the value and importance of the upper house and the crucial role it does play in ensuring that the parliament can act as some balance against the executive and the government. I hope Senator O'Brien can convince a few more of his colleagues at state level as well as federal level of the importance of upper houses in playing that important role.I start by offering my congratulations to everyone involved in the recent election, particularly my own party and its leadership team, Senator Meg Lees and Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, for their efforts. The result was that we succeeded in obtaining the highest ever number of Democrat senators in this place, whom we will all gladly welcome on 1 July next year.Congratulations are also due to all successful candidates from all parties, as well as the Independent member in the other place, and those who have subsequently gained promotion to the ministry or shadow spokesperson roles. Commiserations go to those who were unsuccessful, especially those who suffered the extra blow of losing their seats.The main purpose of my speech today is to pay a brief tribute to a member of the Democrats who was tragically killed in July this year. It is the first opportunity I have had since that time to pay a tribute to him in this place because this is the first time we have met since that time.I speak of the death of one of the more promising members of the Democrats in Queensland, a person called Mark Ault who was only 24 years of age. He was actually in Canberra at the conclusion of the sittings of the last parliament in early July. He was down here with many other young Democrats from around Australia attending a conference and seminar. He was among a number of young people who were creating a disturbance in the gallery by applauding when the Telstra bill was surprisingly voted down at the end of that sittings.He had participated in the conference down here and was heading back to Brisbane to take up the position of president of the Queensland Young Democrats when he was tragically killed in a car accident on the highway. Twenty-four years of age is a very young age at which to die with so many aims and hopes yet to fulfil. As with the death of any young person, losing Mark means losing the great potential he had to further enrich our lives and make the world a better place.However, Mark's 24 years of life highlight to all of us that we do not need to be around for a very long time to make a very positive impact, because he certainly managed to do it. This is emphasised by the fact that he was around the Democrats and a part of our party for only a relatively short time, yet he had such a positive impact on all of us who had dealings with him.As well as his involvement in the Young Australian Democrats and the position that he was about to take up as the president of that body in Queensland, he was also a candidate for us in the June state election and was employed on my staff in a relief capacity a number of times. He has left a legacy to be proud of and one which I and many others who knew him, both from inside and outside the party, will strive to remember. We will try to give extra value and purpose to his life by taking on board the example he has set.In closing I would like to pay tribute—given the date is the 11th day of the 11th month—to all those people who served this country in combat, particularly overseas, and those who made the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives or those who suffered injury, trauma and hardship as a result. I recognise the value of the role they played and hope that all of us here continue to do what we can to ensure a fairer deal particularly for the veterans in our community.10113:16:00101Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I wish to comment today on an article which was drawn to my attention last week. The article appeared in the Bulletin and is the opinion column written by Andrew Robb. For those who are not aware, Andrew Robb regularly writes for the Bulletin . It is an opinion column. He is obviously entitled to express a view and Mr Robb was the former director of the Liberal Party.The basic theme of the article, which appeared in the Bulletin on 6 October 1998, was a commentary on what he regarded as the significant amount of the money that the Labor Party was spending at that time on the election campaign and the allegation he makes about where that money was coming from.Mr Robb claims that the amount of money being spent by the Labor Party could well hit $11 million above-the-line expenditure. He states:Add in $3 million for research and administration costs and the Labor Party is running an unprecedented $25 million campaign, outspending the Liberal Party two-to-one.I am sure that is not correct. I do not know the actual figures, but I am sure it is not correct. He asks the question, `Where is the money coming from?' He goes on to say:It will be interesting to see the level of union contribution this time around. Union superannuation funds, which cornered a big part of the fledging super market under the previous Labor government, are still smarting from Coalition legislation which guaranteed a fund-of-choice option, under which employees are offered a choice of three or four funds. This competition has severely curtailed the union super funds' business prospects.If this Coalition legislation was rolled back by a Beazley Labor government, the union funds would stand to have monopoly control over hundreds of millions more dollars of members' funds, with the union receiving, by law, a very healthy management fee.Mr Robb was alleging that the Labor Party's campaign to a significant extent was underwritten by what he refers to as `union' superannuation funds.Unfortunately, like a great number of members of the Liberal Party, Mr Robb has very little knowledge of superannuation and particularly the way in which superannuation law operates in this country. Mr Robb is either ill-informed, totally ignorant or deliber ately misleading in this article. He cannot get the facts straight. He refers to `union' superannuation funds; there is no such thing as a union superannuation fund, despite the persistent tag put on what are called industry superannuation funds by Mr Robb and some others from the Liberal Party.Industry superannuation funds are set up under trustee law in this country and they are required by law to have what is known as joint trustees—an equal number of trustees from employee representatives and an equal number of trustees from employer representatives. Sometimes the employee trustees are union officials; sometimes the employer representatives are nominees of employer organisations. Quite often they are elected by the employee and employer members of the funds. We do not have union superannuation funds; we have industry superannuation funds where there are an equal number of trustees from employers and employees.The other important aspect of superannuation that is relevant is that there has to be a majority vote. If the trustees of a superannuation fund decide to spend money, because of the equal number of trustees from employees and employers, there has to be a majority to authorise any expenditure. Mr Robb is either totally ignorant or deliberately misleading in his claim about these superannuation funds. If, in fact, any money is given from an industry superannuation fund to the Labor Party, it would require at least one employer trustee to vote with the employee trustees to authorise such expenditure.Of course, Mr Robb's ignorance is further exemplified by his comment that I referred to earlier where he said:Union superannuation funds . . . are still smarting from Coalition legislation which guaranteed a fund-of-choice option . . . I will not go into the arguments for and against so-called fund-of-choice, which is effectively deregulation with a number of horrific consequences. But the fact is that the legislation he is referring to has not passed into law yet. Mr Robb is claiming that these so-called `union' funds were upset at this legislation and it has not passed into law. He goes on to say:If this Coalition legislation was rolled back by a Beazley Labor government . . . It is not even law yet, so he obviously did not know what he was talking about.Mr Robb goes on to say that the union funds would stand to have monopoly control over hundreds of millions more dollars of members' funds, with the union receiving, by law, a very healthy management fee. That is just totally untrue. We cannot use the word `lie' in this chamber. Under superannuation law in this country, the joint trustees—the employer and union—are required by law to tender out the contracts for the management and investment of the funds. To my knowledge there are very few complaints, if any, about this process—its probity, its correctness. You do not have monies passing from members' superannuation accounts back to the union, yet here he is alleging that that is the system that exists in this country.So the three central issues that I have dealt with in my contribution today were untrue claims by Mr Robb. As I said when I began, he is entitled to editorialise—it is an opinion column—but he should at least get his facts correct. He is like a significant number of members and senators of this government who simply do not know a great deal about superannuation. What little they do know is based on some sort of ideological objection to superannuation and Australians having decent retirement incomes.This article is grossly misleading. I will be interested to have a look at the election expenditure returns for respective political parties. I would be surprised if any money came from industry superannuation funds to the Labor Party. There may be some, but I would be surprised if there was any. Certainly I would be very confident that it would not add up to anywhere near $25 million or even one per cent of that.The irony of this article is that Mr Robb alleges—with no facts to support his claim—that monies were going from superannuation funds to the Labor Party to finance the election campaign. In fact, the Liberal Party had just received $15.7 million, I think—and it is going to go higher—of taxpayers' money to fund the advertising campaign associated with its tax reform program. We had a debate about that in the Senate yesterday. That was the most blatant misuse of an advertising campaign that Australia has ever seen, with funds coming from the taxpayer. That would have been a more appropriate issue for Mr Robb to deal with in his column. Of course, I suppose he has got such a tinge of bias: he was the national director of the Liberal Party.Mr Robb may have an excuse about his claims in respect of superannuation. I can only assume that Mr Robb was somewhat confused, taken aback, bemused and worried. He probably had just received his superannuation tax assessment or superannuation surcharge. I think that is probably Mr Robb's only excuse for such an appalling lack of knowledge of superannuation. Certainly those who have received the superannuation tax assessment notices have been struck by this new 15 per cent superannuation tax.The new 15 per cent superannuation tax—much has been said about it in the last few years and much more will be said about it over the next few years—that Mr Costello introduced was in direct contravention of the guarantee not to increase existing taxes that Mr Costello or Mr Howard gave to the Australian people in 1996. What did they do? They introduced an increase in the superannuation tax. As I have said, much has been said about this superannuation tax and much more will be said about it over the coming months and years. I think that can be Mr Robb's only excuse for why he has such a befuddled, ignorant attitude towards superannuation and the way it operates in this country. He must have been shocked and horrified by that superannuation tax assessment notice he would have received. It has somewhat thrown him off the track.In conclusion, Mr Robb's three central arguments do not have basis in fact. They are grossly incorrect, untrue and misleading. I noticed that in his last paragraph he said he spent a few days on business in London. I understand that Mr Robb does some consultancy work. I have to urge the financial sector of this country to never consider Mr Robb as a consultant to your industry. Given his abysmal lack of knowledge of the operation of superannuation in this country, you could never have any confidence that Mr Robb, as a consultant, would have any idea what he is talking about in representing financial institutions in regard to superannuation issues in this country.It was very disappointing to see this article from Mr Robb. He really does owe an apology to the industry superannuation funds which were very unfairly besmirched in this way. It will be interesting to see the financial returns for contributions to political parties and how much, if any, was contributed by industry superannuation funds to the Labor Party's election campaign.Industry superannuation funds in this country are cost effective and have given a very good return to their members. To my knowledge there is little, if any, difficulty with those funds, and I think they serve the interests of Australian's future retirement incomes very well indeed.10410413:30:00104Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Today is 11 November—Armistice Day—and some 2½ hours ago in here we recognised that fact, as indeed we should. I think it is appropriate to make a few remarks with respect to this very important occasion.I note with a great deal of interest that Premier Carr and other leaders in Australia have all welcomed the fact that today we are starting to recognise the past and the part played by our armed forces, particularly in the 1914-18 war. I find that somewhat of a contradiction, however, because state education authorities around Australia have just about wiped out the teaching of history as a discipline. Indeed, most of the state high schools and a large number of private high schools now teach hybrid subjects. I can clearly explain the reasons for that. They were put to me by my deputy in a high school some 25 years ago. He told me it was easier to get hold of X number of teachers and X number of classes and tell them to teach whatever they want. So the idea that history as a discipline in particular would be taught with some cognitive levels at every stage from primary school through to senior high school was a casualty of that particular concept of bureaucratic organisation.I never took that threat all that seriously because I never thought anyone would seriously do that. But, sadly, I stand here today and say that that in fact is now the norm. That unfortunately is what has happened in almost every state. As a consequence, although events such as the one today that we are recognising—the importance of Armistice Day—are now much more in the community's eye and much more in the eye of the leaders in our community, sadly the most important building block of that is now missing—in our schools.I want to speak about this matter because it seems to me that a country such as Australia, that has only a handful of very significant dates in its past, needs to come to grips with these issues in its education system. These events are at least as important as many of the other things that we put in our curriculum. They are important for the future citizens of this country. They are events that need to be recorded. They are events that need to be retold to the students in our schools. They are events that, unless we take up the challenge, will disappear into obscurity.This will be particularly so when the last of the diggers from the 1914-18 war are gone. From media reports today, I note that there are something of the order of 66 veterans left. During the course of the estimates hearings last year I asked the Department of Veterans' Affairs what the number in Australia was at that point. That was in November—around this time—last year. The answer was 133. So 1997-98 has been a particularly unkind year to the veterans of the 1914-18 war. I also note the passing earlier this year of the last of the veterans who landed at Gallipoli on 25 April. Sadly, what will happen over the next few years is that our direct connection with these events will disappear.The purpose of my address here today is not to say that there ought to be more history taught in schools, that it ought to be consequential history or that we need to look at our school curriculums—I think that is very important and significant—but to honour Armistice Day itself. On 11 November, the armistice came very much as a surprise not only in Australia but also in all the belligerent countries. The events of the preceding five or six weeks indicated that the war would end soon. Indeed, the war in many theatres—the war in Mesopotamia, the war in the Middle East, the war against Austria—ended before 11 November.The significance of 11 November cannot, in my view, be overstated. Not all of the guns fell silent on the Western Front at 11 a.m. on 11 November. In the American sector the fighting continued for well over two hours. In fact, the last man killed was Phillip Adams, a corporal in the American Army. He was killed some two hours and 11 minutes after the armistice. There was news of other casualties coming in as the church bells in England and in other countries were ringing to announce the armistice. What came to an end on 11 November was something that for a generation, and indeed probably for several generations, would be remembered as the Great War.It would also be remembered as the foulest war that Australian soldiers had ever gone into. In fact, of the 330,000 Australian soldiers who went to this war—out of a population of only 4½ million at that time—some 58,000 would never come back. Of those who did come back, about 120,000 suffered injuries, to varying degrees. All of the soldiers who went overseas during that particular period carried other scars that we today recognise.We are, as a community, much more sympathetic now to things such as battle fatigue. We are much more sympathetic to the horrors that these people—men and women—went through. One group that is quite often forgotten in this whole exercise is the many women who served, particularly in the 1914-18 war. They served in different capacities—usually in medical capacities, but they served nonetheless. These people saw sights that none of us in our lifetime will ever see. These people worked under the most horrific of conditions—throughout the whole of the 1914-18 conflict in particular—and they carried the scars literally all the way to their graves.Now, as a community, we look back on some of the events that have taken place. In the media during this week we have had comments about VC recipients who were charged. One person was charged with desertion after a particularly horrible period of battle when he apparently snapped. He was sentenced to a period of imprisonment. I think it is appropriate for us to say, as a community, that we need to remember today the suffering of these men and women who fought in the 1914-18 war and, indeed, in other wars.We need to make a clear statement that we, as a country, owe them a great deal. We recognise what they went through. We also recognise what their families went through when these people came home. I think that quite often is forgotten. These men and, in many instances, women, came home to what was a normal life in societies in Australia, Britain, the United States and the other countries that were involved in these conflicts. When they came home their family life was resumed. Some of them resumed duties as fathers and some as mothers; some of them went on to have more children. They carried with them the scars of events they could never talk about. I think it is good that our community—and in particular my generation, which has not had to suffer this level of terrible conflict—is now recognising this.It is beyond the scope of my address here today to go to the various events in the 1914-18 war that Australian soldiers participated in. But I think it is sufficient to say that, apart from Gallipoli, which is the focal point of our 25 April celebrations every year, the Australian Army participated in all of the major onslaughts on the Western Front, and it played a pivotal role in the Middle East in the Palestine campaign.Certainly, the five Australian divisions that were present in Western Europe were used as the shock troops, and starting in the middle of July 1916 that was the role that they would play all the way up to Armistice Day. The battle of Passchendaele, the battles on the Somme and the great offensives of the Ger man Army in 1918 all saw the Australian soldiers, with their determined will, hold the enemy or advance against tremendous odds. It saw the Australian soldiers whittled down in numbers and those five divisions run down considerably.By the end of the war, the Australian Army had suffered, per head of population, enormous casualties—casualties much greater than any of the other combatants in the Commonwealth forces. They did not suffer more casualties than the British, but they did suffer more per head of population. One of the reasons for the level of casualties is that the soldiers themselves fought so well that they were used time and time again as shock troops.I think, after 80 years now, it is important for us to look back with a fresh vision on these days. I think it is important to raise some of the questions that have been raised this week. I commend the various media outlets that have given so much of their time today in the various newspapers around this country to recognise the enormous contributions that these men and women made, and to point out to the community the importance of 11 November.Sitting suspended from 1.42 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Ministerial Arrangements106106Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—by leave—I inform the Senate that Senator Robert Hill, Minister for Environment and Heritage, will be absent from the Senate chamber for question time today and tomorrow, 11 and 12 November. Senator Hill is in Buenos Aires attending the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Framework on Climate Change. In his absence, I will take questions relating to the portfolios of the Prime Minister, Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Forestry and Conservation; Senator Minchin will take questions relating to the portfolio of Environment and Heritage.Questions Without Notice106106106Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Alston, Acting Leader of the Government. Can the minister confirm reports that the head of the Prime Minister's department, Mr Max Moore-Wilton, recently berated portfolio secretaries for their failure to market the government's achievements and policies? Can the minister confirm that Mr Moore-Wilton told a meeting of portfolio secretaries that the Prime Minister was only happy with three of their number? Do Mr Moore-Wilton's comments accurately reflect the Prime Minister's view, or are they an exaggeration or, worse, an outright distortion? Will the Prime Minister rule out a repeat of the purging of departmental secretaries that occurred following the 1996 federal election?106Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—It is clear that nothing has changed. After one of the biggest drubbings in electoral history—which I would have thought would have told you that you needed to concentrate on policies—all you are doing is relying on a bit of scuttlebutt you have read in the newspaper. Mr Max Moore-Wilton has not spoken to me. No-one else has conveyed to me any private thoughts that might have—ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—Nobody talks to you!LD4Senator ALSTON—They are not supposed to tell me what goes on about any briefings that might or might not occur between the head of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and other departmental secretaries. But whether or not they choose to tell me, they did not on this occasion and I have no reason to think anything of the sort was discussed. In fact, the selling of policies was the responsibility of ministers and backbenchers; they did a magnificent job in that regard.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Like the tax package.LD4Senator ALSTON—The score is on the board. As Mr McMullan said on election night, there are no second prizes. In a two-horse race, if you come second you come last—and you know that. This is a unique opportunity for you to lift your game, but you refuse to do so.106Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. As the minister has indicated that the selling of the government's so-called achievements is the responsibility of ministers and backbenchers, can I ask whether Mr Moore-Wilton was speaking on behalf of the government in stipulating failure to adequately market the government's achievements as the criterion for assessing the government's senior managers? Isn't this measure grossly unfair for those senior executives who were responsible for trying to salvage the government's botched health insurance and nursing home policies and those who had to take the rap for the Job Network disaster? Shouldn't ministers be taking the blame for their own incompetence?107Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The logic of that is breathtaking. I have just told Senator Faulkner and the Senate that, indeed, I am not in a position to confirm anything that Mr Max Moore-Wilton might have said or not said—and Senator Faulkner then asks me whether what he said was authorised. It really beggars belief.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I asked you whether ministers should be taking the blame for their own incompetence.LD4Senator ALSTON—If we are talking about policy, might I say that I was well served by my department; I think others were as well. What this really ought to be about is focusing on who had policies and who did not. I think Laurie Oakes got it pretty right today when he said that Labor's choice to play it safe means that Kim Beazley should get a kick in the behind and someone ought to tell him that his tactics did not work.The fact is that, during that campaign period when policies had to be sold, we were out there selling them—but your leader was busy gorging on humble pie when he did not have a recipe for the future. His fundamental problem is too much tucker, not enough ticker. (Time expired)107107Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I ask a question of the Acting Leader of the Government, Senator Alston. Senator Alston, as a result of the coalition's sound economic policies, Australia has successfully withstood the severe economic downturn in the Asian region. How does the government intend to fulfil the clear mandate it has been given by the Australian people to continue its record of sensible economic management? Are you aware also of any alternative approaches to economic management that may or may not be worthy of consideration by the government?107Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I thank Senator Boswell for a very important question, because this goes to the heart of the difference between the parties. One party, the coalition, was out there selling policies that were in Australia's best interests; the Labor Party was out there selling a scare campaign, which failed monumentally. As Senator Boswell very rightly points out, not only did the approach that we took to economic management stand us in very good stead; it has shielded us from the Asian crisis. Every country in the region, outside of Australia and China, is in recession. As a result of our commitment to sensible economic management, we continue to enjoy strong economic growth, low inflation, record low interest rates and strong employment growth. Indeed, preliminary figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that the economy grew by a revised 4.4 per cent in 1997-98, up from the four per cent rate previously reported. So, in the face of global economic uncertainty, this is truly a remarkable result.This results from the fact that we had the economic fundamentals right, as was attested to by Treasury in its latest Economic roundup, where it said:The current approach to macro-economic policy and the impact of micro-economic reform have strengthened the stabilisation mechanisms in the Australian economy, making it more resilient to disturbances.The Reserve Bank says pretty much the same thing:The Australian economy has weathered the first year and a half of a very difficult international environment exceptionally well.The lesson ought to be clear to all those doomsayers who are out there trying to sell down the Australian economy. Poor old Gareth Evans said that all the evidence is that the Australian economy is on a precipice, hanging on by its fingertips. Of course he fell over the cliff, and so did Labor's economic strategy.Senator Boswell points out that we did have a clear mandate given to us by the Australian people. We will continue our record of sensible economic management. I know of no other alternatives that are worthy of consideration by the government. I say yet again, as Laurie Oakes says, that Labor's failure of leadership was Beazley's failure. The Labor leader simply grabbed tax credits as a gimmick to stack up against the coalition's tax reform package. We had the guts to tackle tax reform. We had the guts to make the changes. Your blokes simply had too much tucker and not enough ticker.108108Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the Prime Minister's announcement in September that the ministerial code of conduct, which he introduced with such righteous fanfare following the 1996 election, has now been scrapped. Has a new code of conduct been prepared now that the election is over, as promised by the Prime Minister? What changes have been made? When is the code to be made public? Given that the Prime Minister promised to lift parliamentary standards, is it the intention of the government to actually enforce any proposed new code of conduct?108Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—It is totally incorrect to say that the code of conduct has been scrapped. There is a code of conduct that ministers are expected to abide by. If there are any changes, we will let you know. In the meantime, if you are serious about raising the standards and if you truly do aspire to one day be office holders, perhaps you might look at releasing a similar code of conduct for shadow ministers. I am sure that hell will freeze over before you do.108Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Prime Minister for letting us know of any changes. Does the minister believe that the parliament and the public are entitled to know of any changes, if there are any, to the ministerial code of conduct? Is it not true that the Prime Minister has had to rewrite his code of conduct not on the basis of principle but on the basis of compliance with the venal and self-interested approach of his own ministers?108Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am not aware of any rewriting. To the extent that there are changes made and they are required to be made public, of course we will make them public. We will take the parliament into our full confidence at the appropriate time. As I said, if and when there are any changes we will let you know.108108Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—My question, which is directed to the Assistant Treasurer, relates to tax reform. Will the minister explain how the implementation of tax reform on 1 January 2000 will provide substantial benefits for the Australian people and the Australian economy?108Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Synon for that important question. The government went to the election with a proposal for a bold tax reform program that is in the interests of the Australian economy and the Australian community. It is really the biggest tax plan that has been put forward in this country certainly since the 1950s. It changes the whole structure of personal taxation, indirect taxation, business taxation and tax administration in this country.The polls showed that the Australian people agreed that tax reform was necessary, that it was good for the nation and that it was good for them individually. The Australian people embraced tax reform and gave the government a mandate to deliver a new tax system for the new century. This was achieved despite Labor's very dishonest campaign against the tax reform plan.Our plan will create much stronger incentives to work by cutting marginal tax rates and by reducing taper rates at which social security and family benefits are withdrawn. The GST will allow the abolition of the wholesale sales tax system, which we do not support but which the Labor Party apparently does, and a range of other state taxes and charges. It will allow fuel costs for business to be significantly reduced. It will recognise the costs of raising a family and provide substantial encouragement for people to take out private health cover. It will provide a sure footing for state governments, which deliver critical infrastructure to our community.The Australian community voted in favour of tax reform to be delivered by 1 July 2000. To give effect to these wishes of the Australian people, it is necessary for legislation to be passed by this parliament by 1 July next year. I believe that the Labor Party is acting in contempt of the Australian people. Mr Beazley said this:We will manoeuvre tactically in whatever way we can to try to procure the defeat of this legislation. We will also—UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!WW4Senator KEMP—`Hear, hear,' they say. After all, we went to an election. The central issue of the election, which the Labor party would agree, was tax reform. We happened to win the election, and it happened to lose the election. We therefore believe that we have a very clear mandate from the Australian people. Mr Beazley and the Labor Party refuse to recognise that mandate. What we are seeing is an attempt by the Labor Party to defeat in this chamber tax reform which it could not defeat in the election. As I said, tax reform was the central issue. Tax reform was debated extensively. The Australian people now want tax reform. It is our view that the Senate should now get behind the government and ensure that this tax reform bill is passed.109109Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Alston. Can the minister confirm that former Minister Somlyay consulted with the opposition during the federal election campaign on service delivery arrangements for the Cocos Islands in accordance with the caretaker convention? Can the minister also confirm that Minister Downer consulted with the opposition on the proposed visit of a senior Chinese official and that Minister Minchin consulted with the opposition on an amendment to a determination under the MOPS Act? Why then did the government not consult with the opposition on the substance of the government's $100 million gas crisis relief package for Victoria, announced the day before the 1998 federal election?109Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not remember the Labor Party having any objection to that policy proposal; indeed I took it that you were very supportive of it. I am not aware of whether or not there were any consultations that might have occurred. I am aware of those matters that are brought to my attention. This was not brought to my attention. I have no idea whether there was felt to be a requirement to do it, but the bottom line is that this was an announcement that was critically needed, that was very much appreciated and about which you said absolutely nothing.You no doubt squirmed because it is the very sort of thing that you probably thought you should have announced. I remember Mr Beazley making some announcement—I don't know, what was he going to do? Declare a national day of emergency or something? I do not think he consulted us about that. I do not think for a moment that he would have been inhibited in anything that he might have done to address that crisis. We made decisions that were not only in the national interest but were very much designed to address the emergency requirements of that state, and we did it in a way that I think addressed all of those needs.109Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you seem remarkably uninformed about these matters, but I ask you: has the minister's attention been drawn to the comments made by the Treasurer, Mr Costello, in relation to the gas measures when he said:. . . in caretaker mode you can actually do things by agreement with the Opposition and I can't imagine there would be any disagreement in relation to this.Given that the Treasurer clearly understood the caretaker conventions—and clearly the Treasurer also indicated that they did apply in regard to the gas measures—why was this particular proposal not discussed with the opposition before its announcement?109Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I will make some inquiries and see if there is anything more that can be added to the answer I have already given. The fact is that this was emergency relief which had to be announced as soon as possible. I have no idea whether Mr Costello was being quoted in relation to the gas crisis.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You had time to go to your advertising agency.LD4Senator ALSTON—It is your question. You did not bother to link it to that. You simply said that Mr Costello made some remarks about the caretaker mode. He may well have made some remarks about the caretaker mode, but I do not know what they related to and I will make some inquiries.110110Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Minister representing the Treasurer. My question is about the false impression, fostered by your government, that every Australian fully understood your tax package when they voted on 3 October.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my right will cease interjecting. Senator Kemp needs to hear the question that he is being required to answer.8U4Senator LEES—In fact the Treasurer said of the election a few days afterwards:You had a system where a government came clean with the Australian people and put out a new tax system, in detail.How does this false impression sit with the hundreds and hundreds of letters that we—and I am sure most senators—are now receiving from individuals, industry associations and not-for-profit organisations expressing concern with the details in the tax package? How does this shonky argument sit with comments from Mr David Vos, who said:Most of the consternation that exists within most of the sectors is because not all of the policy has been revealed by the government.Minister, what is your response?110Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In relation to the comment by Mr Vos, I do not think you actually quoted the first comment he made. Perhaps in the supplementary, when you stand up—I assume you are reading from the AAP—you might actually quote the first number of sentences that Mr Vos said. I think that will place an entirely different spin.Senator Lees interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—It is quite important, if you pick out a paragraph which is highly selective. Mr Vos also said that large numbers of people will be happier after the report because there are some issues which he is looking at.It is not surprising that people are writing to the government. I am surprised that they think they can achieve much by writing to you, Senator, but it is not surprising that they are writing and bringing particular issues to the government's attention. Of course the government looks carefully at those matters which are raised and they will be taken into account in the drafting of the legislation.On the substance of your question, Senator Lees, we put out a major policy of 200 pages. Can I point out to you that no government has ever been elected on such an extensive and detailed tax policy, and this has been extensively debated during the election. In fact I would have to say that it was the central issue in the election. Everywhere everyone went the issue was tax reform. The Labor Party wanted to make the election on tax reform, and we were happy to make the election on tax reform. That was the issue, and we won.In such an extensive tax reform program, of course people will be asking particular questions. Of course they want particular issues clarified and there are some issues which they are putting to government, and the government is reading their representations carefully.110Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, could I suggest that you may like to look through some of the mail, because people are writing to us enclosing letters they have written to the government that remain unanswered weeks and weeks after they have written them. I ask, Minister: how do you respond to the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission, who say:The Commission was given assurances by Senator Newman following the release of the Coalition's tax reform package that there would be wide consultation with the churches and the community sector before the implementation of the GST legislation. Clearly, the mandate the Treasurer has given to the Tax Consultative Committee means that now there will be limited, if any, public examination of the impact of the proposed tax reform on low income people and families.111Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Lees again raised the issue of people writing. People write all the time about the current tax system. We constantly receive letters on the current tax system and most of those are letters which complain. That is the first point. Secondly, this tax package has been out for a long time. All groups are fully aware of the issues which are raised in the tax package. A lot of those groups have made their views known to government and, where they have, those views have been passed on to the Vos committee for consideration.I am not precisely sure whether you quoted my colleague correctly, but there has been extensive consultation. The issues those groups have raised have been taken into account. I think that was one of the points Mr Vos made on the radio this morning.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I remind senators both asking questions and answering them of the provisions of standing order 186.111111Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Given that Mr Howard has indicated he will not be declining a one-on-one meeting with Dr Mahathir at the APEC forum, will the Prime Minister place the treatment of Anwar Ibrahim at the top of his agenda for this meeting? If he won't, why not?111Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—There are a number of aspects of any bilateral relationship that obviously need to be canvassed. I know it might suit your purposes to suggest that this is the pre-eminent issue, but APEC is essentially an Asia-Pacific economic commission.RF4COOKSenator Cook—We invented it; don't tell us about it.LD4Senator ALSTON—Indeed, and you should know that the `E' stands for economic. All I am pointing out is that it is principally concerned with economic issues. It does provide an opportunity for discussions on a range of other issues. The Prime Minister has already made it clear that he is not impressed with the way in which the issue has been handled internally. The extent to which the Prime Minister wishes to pursue that matter at APEC will be a matter for judgment.We understand that other countries, particularly the United States, have made public statements about what they will or will not canvass in the bilateral discussions, but as far as Australia is concerned we will look at what is in Australia's best interests. We are very conscious of the need to advocate the full and proper protection of human rights in the region and we clearly have concerns about the treatment of Anwar Ibrahim to date.111Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. This is in a bilateral meeting, not in the formal economic component of the meeting, Minister. Since you have described the process, would you mind telling us what is in the best interests of Australia? Why won't the government place this issue at the top of the agenda? All I want is an answer to that question: why won't it place it at the top of the agenda?111Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The fact that bilateral discussions occur does not mean that they have to be on subjects other than those discussed in the plenary sessions. Clearly, the economic relationship between Australia and Malaysia is the pre-eminent issue for consideration. The Prime Minister has already expressed his concerns about the direction of the political situation in Malaysia. We have also expressed our hope and expectation that Anwar will be accorded all rights to which he is entitled under Malaysian law.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Hopeful, are you?LD4Senator ALSTON—I know you would like to personally go there and do what you can to solve the problem. We recall that Senator Cook was never able to make more than about two meetings in a day. I can imagine what Senator Cook did in relation to bilateral discussions. This is the bloke who said that his final program had to be prepared for him two weeks before departure, no more than four calls should be arranged for any one day and time should always be allowed for a briefing and a cup of tea. (Time expired)112112Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the thousands of deaths and injuries caused by Hurricane Mitch in the poorest countries of Central America. What humanitarian aid has been given or promised by the Australian government and by the rest of the world? In view of the economic devastation and continuing crippling debt in these particular countries, is Australia supporting the proposals for a debt write-off?112Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—We certainly are very conscious of the devastation to which Senator Harradine refers and it is obviously a tragedy of immense proportions. The Australian government already announced on 7 November an assistance package by way of emergency relief of $1 million. Funds will be provided through aid organisations already active in the region. There will be $500,000 to Australian NGOs to supplement their own resources in providing immediate relief to victims, $250,000 to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs to support their efforts to improve urgently needed road and air transport capacity and $250,000 to the International Federation of the Red Cross to assist with basic health care.We will be announcing this week the further details of NGO programs that will be supported. This is a generous contribution from the Australian government. It is made on the basis of our capacity and our concern in the region. We are at the same time providing significant humanitarian aid to places such as Papua New Guinea, China and Bangladesh following floods in those countries. We are obviously playing a key role in addressing the financial and economic concerns in Indonesia.I am not aware of the extent to which the Australian government might be involved in any discussions about debt write-offs, but I will ascertain an answer to that question and at the same time I will find out what contributions are being made by other countries to what is clearly a disaster of devastating proportions. 112112Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—My question is directed to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Alston. Can the minister confirm the Prime Minister's commitment on page 32 of the tax reform package that `the government will consult widely after the election on the GST'? Did he also promise that `interested parties will be fully involved in the consultation and implementation phase because consultation is needed to ensure the design and draft legislation deliver the government's policy objectives'? Did the Prime Minister also reassure voters prior to the election that the government has `two years to do it or 18 months to do it'? Why then has he truncated the consultation process to 17 days, a time frame that even the chair of his own committee, Mr David Vos, has described as inadequate?112Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The monumental hypocrisy of the Labor Party knows no bounds. They have not the slightest interest in further consultation because their minds are absolutely made up. Despite the fact that, if anything, the election should have taught you that you needed sensible alternative policies, you went for the quick fix. You went for the policy free approach.If there was one issue above all else that was canvassed exhaustively during the campaign, it was tax reform, and the GST in particular. You did not miss an opportunity on a daily basis to get out there and perform stunts. You had the Leader of the Opposition humiliating himself on a daily basis to try to desperately draw attention to the GST and all its negative implications. It is not as if we are starting from scratch. It is not as if we have suddenly pulled something out of our back pocket after the election, as you did when you ripped up l-a-w, law; as you did when we found out about the Kirribilli deal; as you did on a whole range of issues. This was something that was transparently crawled over by every interest group in the country on a very detailed basis. So you have to look at consultation in a relative framework.The consultation process that has been announced will provide every opportunity—and, undoubtedly, if there is a committee established of this Senate to further examine the process—for every interest group to put forward all sorts of submissions. The legislation does not take effect, as we know, for a long time yet, and there will clearly be every opportunity for people to make their positions felt. But the consultation process that the Prime Minister announced before the election is one that we do think is important. That is why we have announced the arrangements that we have.There will be a special Premiers Conference on 13 November. The taxation consultative committee has been established to undertake a targeted consultation process. The Ralph review of business taxation has been established to consult on the business tax reforms. The taxation task force will be supported by a group of working committees, and there will be a small business consultative committee. There are a whole range of avenues by which people can make suggestions. We assume that the great bulk of those will be acting in good faith and will be wanting to sensibly explore the implications. This is completely unlike the Labor Party, which has not the slightest bit of interest in doing anything other than ensuring that our tax reform package, which was supported at the last election, never sees the light of day.113Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, are we to take from this farcical backdown on consultation by the Prime Minister that the commitment to tax food, children's clothing, textbooks and over-the-counter medicine was a core promise but the commitment to consult widely was non-core and made only for grubby political advantage?113Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not think I have anything to add, Madam President.113113Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin. Minister, how will the government's plan to build an internationally competitive tax system in Australia assist business to create more jobs? Secondly, is the minister aware of any alter native proposals for reform of Australia's business tax system?113Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator Ferguson for his question, which I want to begin answering with a quote. Someone said:The easy road in politics lies in the preservation of sacred cows. In Labor's case this now means turning a blind eye to the failings of the old economy and the old welfare state.I think any member of the coalition would be proud to have expressed a sentiment about Labor with such eloquence. But this was not a coalition member; it was actually the Labor member for Werriwa, Mark Latham. He has become I think the modern equivalent of that very brave young man who yelled out, `The Emperor's got no clothes.' As the Beazley Labor Party passes by, there's Mark Latham yelling out, `You've got no policy clothes.' Thank God for Mark Latham!We have a situation where the current tax system has become one of Labor's great sacred cows. It was not always the case, of course. When Emperor Keating was in charge of the Treasury, he did agree and understand that the tax system was a sacred cow that had to be blown away. I seem to recall that the current leader, Mr Beazley, agreed with him. But now they are in opposition, and now they retreat to defending the old economy and the old welfare state. When Labor went to the election, their idea of tax reform that they put to the Australian people was, `Let's have a retrospective tax on capital gains.' Terrific! `Let's put a new tax on four-wheel drives.' What a brilliant policy! Who was the political genius who dreamed that up? I understand the New South Wales Right has a hunting party out to find them. I wish you luck, because we were staggered when you came out with that policy.We have a Labor Party that is defending—and a coalition party that is going to overturn—a tax system that resulted in the recent completion of a court case in the Federal Court that took 2½ years to work out whether frozen yoghurt for the purposes of the tax system should be classified as yoghurt, which is tax free, or ice-cream, which has a tax on it. They took 2½ years to work out what to do with frozen yoghurt. In the end I think they said, `Well, if the frozen yoghurt tastes like ice-cream, it should be taxed as ice-cream. But, if it doesn't, then it is tax free and it will be counted as yoghurt.' That is what the Labor Party is defending. That is what we want to get rid of.The people on 3 October rejected your position on tax. They threw it out—80 to 67—and they voted for our tax reform plan. Our tax reform plan is all about reducing the tax burden on business and the compliant costs on business. What is that all about? It is about allowing business to get on with the business of employing Australians. There is only one real answer to lowering unemployment, and that is getting an internationally competitive business sector in Australia. That is how you create sustainable jobs. The way you do that is by reducing the tax burden on business, and that is what our plan does.Labor ran around during the election campaign saying, `We have a target of five per cent unemployment.' Where was the substance? They did not have one policy that would have resulted in a reduction in unemployment. We do. We have a tax plan which will take the burden off business and enable business to create jobs. Our plan will take $10 billion off the cost of doing business in this country, and that must lead to the capacity to create more jobs. It will also take $4½ billion off the cost of Australian exports.You run around saying that you are all for helping business, helping manufacturing and helping exports. But, when it comes to the crunch, you are going to come in here and vote against a tax plan that will take $10 billion off the cost of doing business in this country. We are not saying it is a panacea. But it has to mean that business will have a capacity to create more jobs, particularly in the context of our plans for further economic reform and further liberalisation of industrial relations. We are on about helping business create jobs; you want to stop them creating jobs. (Time expired)114114Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration. Is the minister aware that the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration is only for urgent purposes and is only to be available after the last day for inclusion in the appropriation bills? How can the $10 million of expenditure on the GST ad campaign, decided on by the government a full month before the budget papers were closed, be in any way unforeseen when the government foresaw the need on 7 April 1998? And how can this expenditure be seen in any way as urgent, when the first, relatively small draw-down was not requested until 14 May, after budget night, and the first substantial draw-down was not requested until 10 July 1998?114Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—There has been a complete review of this situation. As we all know the Auditor-General, through his office, has found that there has been no illegal or unethical behaviour by the government or by public servants in relation to this whole exercise. As a result of that inquiry, the ANAO suggested three areas for review: government information and advertising arrangements; legislative provisions and guidelines governing the use of the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration for contentious or sensitive matters; and guidelines which specifically address the licensing of copyright to Commonwealth developed material for party political purposes during an election period. The government has looked at that and considers that these reviews are not necessary because firstly, on the current evidence, the government information and advertising arrangements proved adequate to the task; secondly, the ANAO found that the framework and administration of the AMFA was appropriate; and, finally, the copyright guidelines mentioned are under continual review and it is not considered that specific amendments are necessary. So there has been a complete review of this matter by the ANAO, and the government has been totally cleared.114Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, I thank you for that answer. Isn't this government's blatant misuse of the AMFA highlighted by the fact that the decision on 7 April was not just that $10 million of taxpayers' money would be spent on political advertising but that it would be channelled via the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration? How can the government justify deciding to spend some money at an undefined time in the future using a mechanism specifically designed for urgent and unforeseen purposes, such as natural disasters?115Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Madam President, I covered that point in my previous answer. The AMFA was one of the aspects looked at by the ANAO, and the government was cleared on that point.115115Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. I refer to the current climate change negotiations in Buenos Aires. Is it the case that your government, having disgraced Australia at Kyoto by negotiating to actually increase greenhouse gas emissions by eight per cent by the year 2000, has broken even this promise and we are already at nine per cent this year? Is it correct that your government is doing nothing to stop the states heavily investing in more fossil fuel energy production? Is Australia now supporting special consideration for the heavily polluting magnesium plant in Iceland just so that we can get exemptions for more pollution from the likes of the shale oil mine on the coast of Queensland? Finally, is it correct that your government's aim at Buenos Aires is to look for as many escape clauses and loopholes as possible?115Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I will answer this question by saying that, as you note, we are required to limit the growth in our greenhouse gas emissions to eight per cent above 1990 levels by 2008-12, and that will be a very significant reduction compared with the expected growth in emissions if we left everything as it is. It means that Australia will be well and truly pulling its weight at an international level. It is the case that achieving an eight per cent target—getting it down to just eight per cent above 1990 levels—is a big challenge for Australia, and one that will require a commitment and action by all levels of government and the community. We are committed to meeting that target. We have recognised our responsibility to translate international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions into domestic policy. In November 1997, the government announced a four-year $180 million program to help meet Australia's obligations. Our focus over the next year will be on building upon the environmental gains made at Kyoto. The key issues confronting Australia over this period, including at the fourth conference of the parties, which is being held in Buenos Aires where we are more than capably being represented by Senator Hill, include the following: operational details of flexibility measures such as international emissions trading; joint implementation of the clean development mechanism; commitments by key developing countries to reduce their emissions—without the involvement of countries like China and India efforts by developed countries will be ineffective—and methodologies underpinning the assigned national emissions target.115Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I doubt we are convinced by your argument that the government is committed to meeting the challenge as given by the earlier example of the shale oil mine in Queensland. As the new resources minister, do you understand that thousands of the world's best scientists have concluded that climate change is real and causes deforestation, sea level rises, extreme weather events, huge increases in insurance claims and diseases like cholera, dengue fever, yellow fever and encephalitis? Are you aware that malaria is expected to spread to 60 per cent of the world's population? Is it the case that your government only talks with Australia's heaviest polluters when it comes to forming our position? Do you personally believe that this is a responsible way to conduct negotiations in the face of such dire consequences?115Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—It sounds like the end of the world is nigh, by that recitation. We do take the greenhouse challenge seriously. That is why we put so much effort into these international meetings. That is why Senator Hill has devoted so much time and energy, as has the government, to developing its policy on this. It is a policy which is tough. It is going to be tough on Australian business. We want to try to make sure that it does not cost Australians their jobs. We have a profound commitment to ensuring that Australians are able to remain in gainful employment. But this is a big challenge for Australia and for the world, and Australia will play its part.116116Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is directed to the minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration. Can the minister confirm that when costing the opposition's policy commitments before the election the Department of Finance on no fewer than 70 occasions indicated that the assumptions were based on suggestions from the minister's office? Can he confirm that, despite the department's official stating that there was `insufficient detail to cost', the government proceeded to erroneously include $2.7 billion in additional funding for HECS? Isn't it also a fact that the restoration of funding for some Working Nation programs also included in the costings was the result of ministerial interference? In the light of this, does the minister still insist that the costing assumptions were entirely the work of the department?116Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The costings of ALP policies that were released by the Treasurer and Minister for Finance and Administration on 9 September this year were prepared independently by the Department of Finance and Administration. Allegations made by the opposition that there was some political interference in the preparation of these costings are simply wrong. The DOFA executive minute dated 31 August this year in the foreword of the costings stated:The costings of the proposals have been undertaken in a similar way to any new policy proposal. All costings assumptions have been made by DOFA and in some cases have been made in conjunction with the affected portfolio.This was an independent costing. There was no political interference.116Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the department itself has made these claims, what remains of the government's much vaunted `charter of budget honesty'? Was the freedom to flagrantly misrepresent opposition policy commitments a sealed appendix to the document, or simply an afterthought?116Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—It is worth while noting that only two days before the election Labor submitted most of its policies for costing, whereas the coalition submitted all of its election commitments for costing in a timely fashion. Therein lies the story. There was no political interference in this process.116116Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Minister, how will Australian families benefit from the coalition's tax reform package?116Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Macdonald for the question. If there is one clear divide in social policy in this country it is the silence, effectively, from the ALP on good policy for Australia's families and the big focus on good social policy for Australia's families from the government, including the tax reform policy—but not only the tax reform policy. It is important that Australians are reminded, in the light of the misinformation that has been put about by the opposition, and particularly by Jenny Macklin, as I recall, that families will benefit from tax reform in a number of ways, including a reduction in marginal tax rates and an increase in the tax-free threshold from $5,400 to $6,000. Every family under $50,000 will have a top marginal tax rate of no more than 30 per cent—a huge improvement on existing rates. Eighty-one per cent of the taxpayers of Australia will have a top marginal tax of no more than 30 per cent. That is a huge improvement on existing rates.The existing $1 billion family tax initiative which the government introduced after the 1996 election is going to be expanded upon—and remember, there will be $13 billion worth of tax cuts and $2.4 billion worth of increases in family payments, all that money largely focused on people with families. The family tax initiative will be doubled, with an increase in the tax-free threshold for families with children under the age of five up to $13,000. In fact, they will not be paying tax until their income exceeds $13,000. That is at a cost of more than $2 billion in the year 2000-2001. It means that families will receive an increase in assistance of at least $140 a year, a 70 per cent increase, for each dependent child. Single income families, including sole parents, with a youngest child aged under five will receive an additional $350 a year, also a 70 per cent increase. A family with a youngest child aged between five and 16 will receive an additional $61 a year.There will be a substantial easing of the income test for family assistance, and an increase in the amount of assistance directed at families with children through an increase in the level of income at which assistance begins to be income tested from the current $24,350 a year for one child to $28,200 a year. There will be a reduction in the income test taper from 50 per cent to 30 per cent for families, and the transition for women to go from home to work will be considerably eased because of that relaxation of the taper. Anybody who understands these matters—ACOSS particularly so—recognises that that change to the family payments system and the taper rate will make that transition very much easier.In addition, there will be a 30 per cent rebate from private health insurance contributions, once again very important for Australia's families. Just the very establishment of a department of state for family and community services, with the bringing together of programs across several portfolios, demonstrates this government's serious efforts to develop good policy for Australia's families. When you think back to the debacle of Senator Crowley and her International Year of the Family, which did not get going until halfway through the year, you realise that there is a big contrast between the focus of this government and the entire forgetfulness of the previous government. We are about strengthening Australia's families, not just picking up the pieces at the bottom of the cliff.117117Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—My question is to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Alston. Minister, in its next political donations disclosure to the Electoral Commission, will the Liberal Party be accurate and truthful by disclosing the million dollar donations provided by the so-called Business Coalition for Tax Reform and by the Australian taxpayer? Will the Liberal Party disclose the value of the business coalition's tax advertisements on behalf of the Liberal Party's election agenda—said to be between $4 million and $5 million—only a month before the election was called? Will the Liberal Party disclose the full value of the Australian taxpayers generous and compulsory donation to the Liberal Party's cause through blanket advertisements in the days leading up to the Prime Minister's calling of the election? Can the minister confirm the final cost of over $15.8 million?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Most of that question related to matters that are not within the responsibility of the minister. If there is anything that Senator Alston wishes to say, I will give him the opportunity to do so, but most of it was not appropriate.117Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—All I can do is agree with you that these are matters for the Liberal Party. But can I simply say that the choice of the business coalition to run advertisements promoting need for changes to the taxation system was not something that was done on behalf of the Liberal Party.I should just remind you of a couple of statistics. Over 13 years in office, Labor spent a total of $675 million on communications; there were more than 350 advertising campaigns between 1989 and 1995; $9 million was spent on Working Nation, $7 million on the superannuation guarantee and $10 million on the superannuation community education campaign. Let us be clear about this: the campaign that was run by the government was an information campaign along the lines of the very sorts of things that Labor turned into an art form.117Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, as I understand it, the advertisements that were placed were authorised on behalf of the government. If this is the case, does this not lend itself to the fact that it was a government funded advertising campaign for the Liberal Party? 118Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—If Senator Hogg's proposition is that anything that was authorised by the government in terms of an advertising campaign is therefore something for which the political party ought to pick up the tab, then I invite you to write out a cheque for $675 million for the communications expenditure that you spent—the $315.5 million you spent on advertising—between 1991 and 1996.If we are really going to talk about advertising, I think what we want to know is: how could you have made such a monumental mistake in dumping John Singleton? What a disaster. If ever there was something that we cheered on every night, it was your advertising campaign. We are very grateful to Saatchi. We are very grateful to the geniuses like Senator Faulkner who obviously made that decision out of New South Wales. It worked tremendously well from our point of view. Thank you very much.118118Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I have a question for the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Macdonald, who I congratulate on his appointment. My question is: will the minister inform the Senate of what is being done to improve services in regional Australia? Will the minister comment on recent decisions by the banks? Will people living in the bush continue to see real improvements in the delivery of services, particularly in banking?118Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—It is a delight for me to have my first question asked of me by someone like Senator Eggleston, someone who genuinely represents rural and regional Australia. My colleagues opposite would not understand what rural and regional Australia is all about. They obviously have no interest in the bush. Someone like Senator Eggleston, who comes from regional Western Australia, well represents that area, along with my other Western Australian Senate colleagues.It is true that there have been real problems in country Australia in the last decades or so. These problems—the lack of services, the run down of services—of course became very evident in the days of the 13 years of Labor. Services really went backward. This was exacerbated in my own state of Queensland when the Goss Labor government came to power and again cut down services in rural and regional Australia. I think the same has happened in New South Wales under Mr Carr's government. Services to rural and regional New South Wales have plummeted.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many interjections and too much noise in the chamber.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—During Labor's last six years in office, the number of postal outlets fell by 277. But no action was taken by Labor to reverse this. Indeed, despite being in government for 13 years, Labor took no action to make Medicare claims more accessible to people in regional and rural Australia. So there is a real problem in rural and regional Australia caused by the Labor governments around the states.We have some proposals, some policies, to address this real problem. I guess that the proposals we took to the election are the reason why we did so well in rural and regional Australia. I again congratulate Mr Barry Haase, who for the first time, I think, ever has won the huge regional seat of Kalgoorlie for the Liberal Party. Along with Mr Barry Wakelin, Bob Katter, Bruce Scott and Warren Entsch, we now hold all of the seats in rural and inland Australia.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I think the new and inexperienced minister may well have misled the Senate just a moment ago in his answer, and he might consider withdrawing his statement.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is a matter to raise at another time.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—So what are we going to do about the policies we took to the election? We are going to set up some rural transaction centres, a program of $70 million to be funded out of the sale of a further 16 per cent of Telstra. Those rural transaction centres will provide rural and regional people, for perhaps the first time, with fax and phone services; postal services; personal banking and limited business banking, including automatic tellers; and Medicare easy claim—things that we accept as normal in the metropolitan and provincial city areas, but which were denied to those in the bush.So, Senator Eggleston, that is one of the major planks of our platform, one of the things that we will be doing in this term of government. Those regional transaction centres will be available to communities under 3,000 people and there will be about 500 of them, we hope, over the period. I use the example of the Boulia Shire Council, which has actually got into this sort of thing already. We can learn from them and we will work with local government and many organisations in regional Australia.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—They wouldn't know where that was.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—No-one over there would know where Boulia is and, what is more, they wouldn't care. In Boulia there was a problem because of what Labor did, but they actually got together with a credit union and put this banking facility in the local authority offices. That is just one of the examples of the policies that we have proposed and will implement. (Time expired)119Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Madam President, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the minister. Could the minister comment further on improvements in other services such as the provision of media, particularly SBS, telecommunications, distance education and so on in regional areas which have occurred under the Howard government?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on a point of order: I listened with interest to a ruling you gave earlier in question time. I wonder if part of that supposed supplementary question asked by Senator Eggleston was out of order, particularly the part relating to `and so on'.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—`And so on' does not actually add much to it, but Senator Macdonald may wish to comment upon the earlier part of the question.119Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Thank you, Madam President, and I again thank Senator Eggleston, because the things he mentioned are facilities and services that have been denied to rural and regional people because of the policies of a Labor government. As Senator Eggleston has mentioned, we will also be extending access to untimed local calls—that is a $150 million program. We will be providing Internet access for people in rural and regional Australia, something that was denied them by Labor but which we will provide through a $36 million project over three years. We will also be extending mobile phone coverage.As Senator Eggleston mentioned, SBS will be going to many places that cannot presently get it. In fact, because of our policies and what Senator Alston is doing in his field, ordinary television services will go to places where there have been holes, black spots, in previous times. So there is a range of issues which will be implemented. (Time expired)LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous119119The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—This is the first opportunity I have had to speak to the Senate of Stuart Rendell's wonderful achievement in winning gold for Australia at the Commonwealth Games in Kuala Lumpur. Stuart, who is a member of the staff of the Economics Legislation Committee, won his medal in the hammer throw with a throw of 74.88 metres.I was particularly pleased not only because he is a member of staff in the Senate but also because he is a Canberra born athlete who grew up with his athletics in the ACT. He displayed athletic talent from an early age, progressing through Little Athletics to win the hammer and be placed second in discus at the Australian Junior Championships. In his spare time he played Australian Rules for Ainslie.Stuart is now taking part in a season of domestic competition culminating in the Australian Championships in March 1999. His next international competition is the World Championships in Seville, Spain in August 1999, and his ultimate goal is to represent Australia in the 2000 Sydney Olympics.Honourable senators would be pleased to note that the Department of the Senate, a participating employer in the Olympic Job Opportunity Program, is supporting Stuart in his quest. Under this program, employers assist elite athletes by allowing them to fit working hours around their demanding training and competition schedules. I am sure all honourable senators would wish to join me in congratulating Stuart on his achievement and in wishing him well in competitions and his quest for the Sydney Olympics.Miscellaneous120120The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—I inform the Senate that, on 18 August 1998, I attended the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in Darwin to present to the Speaker of the Assembly, the Hon. Loraine Braham MLA, the original of the remonstrance presented by the Northern Territory Legislative Council to the President of the Senate in 1962. This presentation was made to mark the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Northern Territory Legislative Council.The Speaker of the Assembly, Mrs Braham, had suggested that this document be returned to the Territory to mark the occasion. The remonstrance was not formally tabled in the Senate and, therefore, technically was not a document of the Senate. It seemed to me that it was a document, though, that should still be retained and owned by the Senate and I thought it appropriate to return it to the Territory on permanent loan.I was pleased to participate in this occasion, and it now stands in their hall alongside the other remonstrances presented to this parliament in recent times. I expressed to the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly my congratulations to the people of the Territory and my best wishes for their future progress and development. I table a copy of the remonstrance.Questions Without Notice12012015:07:00120Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Alston) to a question without notice asked by Senator Faulkner today, relating to ministerial responsibility.If John Howard was serious about his ministerial standards and parliamentary and ministerial accountability, what he would have done today before the parliament commenced its usual business was to have tabled a revised code of ministerial conduct, something he announced he would do in the election campaign. He also would have delivered bipartisan support to a review of the rules surrounding the use of government advertising, and that is something that the Auditor-General has called for. He also would have rejected the tainted vote of Senator Colston. Why? Because Mr Howard and his government desperately need to reassert some standards in the conduct of this soiled and sorry government he leads.Think of the breach of standards, Madam Deputy President. In 1995 Mr Howard as then opposition leader promised to review the rules surrounding government advertising as soon as he got into government. Of course political amnesia set in for Mr Howard. He and Senator Minchin proceeded to bend the rules so massively with their $17 million advertising rort just before the last election that the Auditor-General is now calling for new rules in this area. That was an unprecedented abuse by Mr Howard and his government and an unprecedented misuse of public money to promote an election policy, not an operating program of government, in that way.In 1996 Mr Howard tabled a code of conduct allegedly to keep his ministers honest. From that time onwards it was flagrantly disregarded to the point that Senator Parer had to be retrospectively scalped in the beginning of this parliament. The rules, according to Mr Howard, became guidelines, not a death sentence. It was a code that was never enforced. So much for his standards.Another breach of standards was the decision that Mr Howard made in 1997 to reject the vote of Senator Colston. That was not because of the fraud investigation, according to Mr Howard, but because `he had to assert standards'—standards of government, standards of parliament. But when he saw the GST looking endangered because of the proper decision he was forced to take back in 1997, he ditched that decision, he ditched that approach, in the interests of political expediency. There was no mention of it before or during the election campaign we have just had. That in itself was a most underhand and deceitful way for Mr Howard to deal with this issue.In the recent election campaign, the Howard government showed the same disregard for principle and convention, this time with regard to caretaker conventions. It was okay to observe them, as we know from question time today, in relation to somewhat more trivial issues, but as soon as the government decided to milk the Victorian gas crisis for political advantage the caretaker conventions were thrown out the window—another very serious breach of standards by this government and this Prime Minister. That is the pattern of John Howard. He is forever espousing standards to all who will listen, always espousing principle and the high moral ground but yielding to political expediency whenever he can, whenever the pressure mounts—rort the system, throw the rule book out the window, breach the conventions standards.But what does he do it for? His own cheap political gain. This government is a moral vacuum and it is because of Mr Howard and his approach to parliamentary and ministerial standards. The centre of that moral and political vacuum is the Prime Minister himself, Mr Howard. He stands condemned for his continued breach of parliamentary and ministerial standards. (Time expired)15:12:00121Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I rise, too, to speak on this issue. If ever I have heard a case of the pot calling the kettle black, that was it. I want to look at one or two aspects. We have seen the highest standards ever applied by a Prime Minister to ministerial conduct and the conduct in this parliament in this country's history—the highest standards ever applied. You only have to look at those and compare what went on before. In terms of the Labor Party, we only have to go to a report on 10 November this year. It says:`The state government had broken the law by spending more than $3 billion of taxpayers' funds without permission,' New South Wales Auditor-General Tony Harris said today. In an unprecedented move, Mr Harris appeared before the bar of the Upper House to detail his concerns about budget funds being reallocated without parliamentary approval. `It is actually a crime, as I understand the matter,' . . . Yet we have Senator Faulkner, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, coming in here today laying charges when, in fact, in contrast, what did the Auditor-General do here in dealing with these particular issues? In relation to the Auditor-General's report, the opposition claimed that the government had breached the guidelines. The report makes it clear that the opposition's claims are absolutely false. The government notes that the guidelines were in place under the former Labor government, which had ample opportunity to change them if they considered them inadequate. Why didn't you change them if you now come in here bleating that they are inadequate and not doing the job?You have to look very closely at yourselves, your own particular performances and how you have conducted yourselves. The Department of Finance and Administration considers that the current arrangements are adequate and appropriate. The government will carefully consider the ANAO report and respond if necessary. How different to the Labor Party's position and approach in New South Wales. If we talk about expenditure in terms of promoting good policy—and I do not believe that a lot of the policy of the previous government was good policy; in fact, it failed, it collapsed—we find that the Keating government spent $315.5 million on advertising and market research over a five-year period from 1991 to 1996.Contrast that figure with the small amount of money that this government spent on informing the Australian public about the importance of tax reform—tax reform that will deliver enormous benefits to the Australian economy, tax reform that will give us an internationally competitive tax system, tax reform that will take the shackles off export industries in this country.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Liberal Party policy.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—I note the interjection from Senator Cook, a West Australian. Two billion dollars of the $4.5 billion savings to export industries will be in our state. You should take note of the savings that will occur there, whether it be through the reductions in excises on fuel or the removal of the wholesale sales tax and all the inherent costs involved.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Understand economics.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—I understand economics far better than you do, Senator Cook. At least I have been able to run a successful business.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Crane, would you please address the chair?UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—Through you, Madam Chair.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—To me, not through me.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—I think Senator Cook is the last person who ought to talk about understanding economics. Look at the deficit, the black hole, Labor left—$10.3 billion. Senator Cook was a key player in that. He is the last person who should talk about economics.Let us go on to talk a little more about what Labor did in response to the criticisms that Senator Faulkner tried, but failed miserably, to aim at the government today. Labor spent $6.2 million between 1985 and 1987 on its tax reform advertising campaign, which did very little, if anything, to improve our international competitiveness in a taxation sense. The ALP conducted continuous market research with its then official pollster, ANOP. It engaged public relations consultants.You can run through the list, which is absolutely endless, of the way Labor behaved and the way it spent money. They were Labor's guidelines. We did not change them. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, if ever I have heard a case of the pot calling the kettle black that is just what we have heard. I think it is time that you have a look at yourself and that you speak to your New South Wales colleagues and tell them to get their house in order. (Time expired)15:17:00122Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Australia is proudly one of the democracies in the world that has adopted the Westminster system. One of the pillars of the Westminster system is the caretaker provisions—that is, when a government calls an election the government of the country is put in caretaker mode. From then on, the government makes no more decisions to govern the country, and the Public Service manages the show until the people decide who the incoming government will be. If issues arise during a caretaker period that require government decision making, then the government consults with the alternative government and makes a joint decision about what will be done. That is a fundamental pillar of the Westminster system in order to ensure that things are done fairly and properly. It is a tradition of our democracy. It is guaranteed by the Public Service, which is neutral and oversees the operations of the Westminster system.During the last election period, the caretaker provisions were given real purpose. The foreign minister consulted with the opposition about a visitor from the People's Republic of China, who wanted a state visit to Australia. Minister Somlyay conferred with the opposition about a Cocos Islands matter that required government decision. A government decision was required on the MOPS Act. Minister Minchin conferred with the opposition and a position was reached on that.There was practice during the last election by several ministers to show that they recognise the importance of the caretaker provisions and observe them. But who did not observe them? Which pre-eminent Liberal flouted the Westminster provisions? None other than the Prime Minister. So-called Honest John Howard flouted the Westminster provisions.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, would you please refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title?RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Mr John Howard is often referred to popularly as Honest John Howard.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No, Senator Cook.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—If that is not appropriate speak in this chamber, then I withdraw the word `Honest' and call him plain John Howard. He broke explicitly the Westminster traditions of the caretaker provisions during the election period. It cannot be said that he did not know what he was doing. He is an experienced parliamentarian. He is a lawyer. He is familiar with the constitution. He knows what the arrangements are. What did he do? He took specific government action in the case of the Victorian gas crisis on the eve of the election in order to buy votes.Why do the caretaker provisions exist? To prevent governments using the exchequer to buy votes during an election campaign. That is what Mr Howard did. All he needed to do was pick up the telephone, confer with the Leader of the Opposition and the deal would have been done. Why didn't he want to do that? Because it would have meant that both he and the Leader of the Opposition would have announced relief to Victorians in the gas crisis. He wanted to best the opposition, make a shallow political point, and nothing would stand between him and trying to win a few extra votes—certainly not the traditions of democracy in the Westminster system, certainly not the traditions of democracy in this country.This underscores a profound point. When it comes to traditions and conventions that make our democracy effective, the Liberals will break them every time. If they see narrow political electoral advantage, they will set aside the tradition that makes our democracies work and go for the votes every time. Look at the performance of the head of the Prime Minister's own department, Mr Max Moore- Wilton. He says that only three heads of department are good enough to retain because other heads of departments do not sell government policies.Under the Westminster system, public servants are not salesmen for government policies. Now the head of the Prime Minister's department says that a criteria to be a head of a government department is that you have to be able to sell government policies. That is for ministers. That is for politicians. That is not for public servants. This is an effort to politicise the Public Service of Australia and to give public servants the added job of selling government policies, whether they agree with them or not, under pain of dismissal if they do not.Another tradition that is fundamental to the role of the Public Service—an independent Public Service, a fearless Public Service being swept away by a government determined to politicise the processes of this country to suit its narrow economic gain—(Time expired)15:22:00123Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—We see Senator Cook come into the chamber and talk about a caretaker role of government.RF4COOKSenator Cook—And I am right.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—I can assure Senator Cook that the only type of government that he is ever likely to be involved with again is in his role as part of a caretaker government before we win the next election. I am quite sure that Senator Cook will never be in the position of being in government again.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—This man is from Brian Burke's Labor Party.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Brian Burke's Labor Party. We first see Senator Faulkner come in here—Honourable senators interjecting—10000Ferguson, Sen AlanThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Cook and Senator Campbell, please let Senator Ferguson have the floor.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—We see Senator Faulkner come in here and shed crocodile tears, having finally realised that he will be spending another three years sitting in exactly the same chair that he has been sitting in for the past 2½ years. The chances are that that will not be the last stretch of time that he spends in that chair, unless his party decides that he is not up to it and replaces him with somebody who is. We saw Senator Faulkner's attempts during the election campaign to raise the issue of propriety as to what the government was doing in relation to spending by government and government departments.The Auditor-General gave this government a clean bill of health on every count. The Auditor-General has found that you had no basis at all for raising any of the issues that you raised during the election campaign or since in relation to spending by this government and spending by this department. He gives this government a clean bill of health. That is quite unlike the situation with your Labor colleagues in New South Wales. I note that, apart from you, Madam Deputy President, there are no New South Wales senators in the chamber. That is presumably because the last thing they want to hear in this chamber is a debate about Auditor-General's reports.As my colleague Senator Crane said only a few minutes ago, the Auditor-General has found that the state government in New South Wales has actually broken the law—not just done something that is without propriety—by spending more than $3 billion of taxpayers' funds without permission. Yet we see opposition senators come into this chamber and suggest that this government has done something that is improper; yet in this case the Auditor-General says that that is simply not so. Look to your Labor colleagues in New South Wales. I can only reiterate what the Auditor-General said: the New South Wales government has actually committed a crime, as he understands the matter, for spending moneys that have not been appropriated by the parliament.We see Senator Faulkner coming into this chamber shedding crocodile tears. As I said, he will probably do so from that same position for a long time to come, because that is where he is likely to stay—I see Senator Faulkner now entering the chamber—unless his colleagues see fit to replace him.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I thought it was Khemlani coming back in.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—I think the less said about Mr Khemlani, the better. Senator Faulkner comes in here and talks about standards but let me say that, having seen what has happened in New South Wales, the only standards that Senator Faulkner knows are double standards.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—What a lie! How long did you practise that for?EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—About two minutes, Senator Faulkner. I wrote it down a couple of minutes ago. There it is. Senator Faulkner talks about the standards that should be attributed to this government, when in fact the Auditor-General says that the government has done its job with propriety. Yet the Auditor-General says that what has been done by the New South Wales government—Senator Faulkner's colleagues in the state that he comes from—is actually a crime.The opposition are coming in here and venting their spleen because they tried very hard during the election campaign—both in their public statements and in their advertising—to misrepresent what this government was presenting to the Australian people. And in fact the Australian people have found them out. They have returned this government. They want sound economic managers to run this country. They want sound economic management. An overwhelming majority of people in the community know that there is a crying need for taxation reform, and that is what this government has promised it will deliver to the Australian electorate.(Time expired)15:27:00124Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The questions that are before us today relate to the performance of this government throughout the election period, which stems from a pattern of behaviour that was developed over the past 2½ years. Throughout this country there is increasing public debate about the role of political ethics in the operation of governments, the role of political morality in the way in which governments function and the uses by incumbent governments of resources to promote their narrow interests, particularly for short-term political advantage. I am afraid that the performance of this government in recent times has once again demonstrated to those that see there is reason for disillusion in the Australian political process that there is good cause for deep concern.In April 1996 the Prime Minister announced that he was going to pledge his government to new sets of standards. He said that there was going to be a higher level of political morality, integrity and accountability. He said that this was the purpose of his so-called key elements of ministerial responsibility.Over the period of the last government, however, it became blindingly clear to all of us that those high standards, those great claims to moral superiority, meant very little at all. We saw the removal of three chiefs of staff from his own office, largely I think as a measure of their failure to administer effectively the operations of those guidelines. We saw the removal of some seven frontbenchers. We saw a reinterpretation of those guidelines to the point where the Prime Minister said that a conflict of interest was that which could be defined by observation, by actually seeing that a minister was performing his public duties in favour of a particular private interest. That was understood to mean that the Prime Minister had discovered a new theory of government entitled the `hand in the till theory' of government.What we have seen after this election is that the Prime Minister once again has sought to reinvent himself. He has sought to present himself as a person of greater moral integrity, a man of great compassion; a man who, once again, would provide this country with a higher level of ethical standards.What we have noticed, however, is that all of those claims were made against a backdrop of an election campaign which highlighted the very opposite in this government's behaviour. We saw the calling of that election in an attempt to prevent proper parliamentary scrutiny of one of the most major changes to the taxation system that a government has ever proposed. We saw the calling of that election after the government had committed $17 million of public funding to an advertising campaign which was clearly partisan in its intent and aimed at supporting the government's claims in that election campaign itself.We saw the announcement of the blatant bribes to Tasmania: $150 million in support of the Tasmanian branch of the Liberal Party in its election campaign. We saw the commitment of $48 million—a total of $48 million—in public advertising in a whole range of departments, from employment to the environment, across the government. We saw a massive breach of privacy as a result of the government's use of agencies such as Centrelink to send out what was clearly government propaganda in support of its tax measures and in seeking to use the pensioners of this country in such a way as to garner political support for this government.We saw clear breaches of the conventions of the caretaker period that has been in operation in this country since the Second World War—and, with the exception of 1975, those conventions have been very largely uncontroversial. These are measures that, of course, under Menzies would have been seen as established political practice—and we have seen them go without comment. Although they had no legal standing, they had been accepted by all sides. But under this government, questions on these measures have been raised in such a way as to bring them into political dispute.We do not see the same sorts of standards as were exercised by Menzies being exercised by this government. Just as we have seen this government turn its back on the great ideological traditions of Deakin and of liberalism in this country, we see now the moral standards of Menzies being abandoned by this Prime Minister. I can understand, therefore, that while there would be many Australians who do feel that this government has abused its political authority, has brought into question its political integrity, has used Public Servants for narrow political purposes—(Time expired)15:32:00125Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Sitting here listening to the opposition speakers this afternoon, I am struck by the total hypocrisy of the opposition in the Senate, and particularly of its leader, Senator Faulkner, talking about standards of political conduct. Senator Faulkner would be the most hypocritical person possible to ever make such claims—which I will precede to demonstrate in what I will say.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Eggleston, would you like to withdraw calling another member an unparliamentary name?4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—I withdraw it, if it is unparliamentary—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—but people listening to this broadcast can make their own judgment. Let us first of all deal with the issue of Senator Colston. Senator Colston, like all Australians, is entitled to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Well, why did Howard do it?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner, interjections are unruly and outside of your chair they are illegal.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—That is a basic principle of natural law—and I assure you, Senator Faulkner, you will have your answer on this question of the use of Colston's vote in a minute. What Senator Faulkner raised earlier, and has now raised again, is the question of the government using Senator Colston's vote.I would like to just cast the minds of senators back to the last day of the last sitting when the sale of Telstra was under discussion. Many members of the ALP on the opposite side—especially Senator Quirke, as I recall—spent the afternoon in vicious and vindictive attacks on Senator Colston. But then, when it came to the vote and Senator Colston voted with them, they did not reject his vote; they quite happily accepted it and saw the legislation defeated.Then we go to the Parer affair, so-called, which has been referred to by Senator Faulkner this afternoon. For week upon week the ALP, under Senator Faulkner's leadership, muckraked and sought to find something wrong with what Senator Parer had done with his family financial affairs. They had abso lutely no luck in finding anything at all there. But the ALP mercilessly attacked Senator Parer and his family, even though, as I have said, there was no substance at all found in any allegations of impropriety about Senator Parer and his family. But was there an apology? No, there was not. If that is not a matter which concerns standards, I wonder what is.Lastly, we have the question of the Baillieu family of Melbourne. Senator Faulkner will remember this, I am sure. When the Natural Heritage Trust Fund issue was raised, Senator Faulkner spent a lot of time viciously attacking the Baillieu family of Melbourne—and one of its members in particular. But, when it was pointed out to Senator Faulkner that the individual concerned had been deceased for 20 or 30 years and could not possibly have held an interest in the company that he was going on about, there was never an apology—never an apology to the Baillieu family of Melbourne, in spite of one of the most disgusting episodes, I am sure, that this Senate has ever witnessed of an attack on an individual. So how Senator Faulkner can possibly talk about standards, I do not know. He certainly is not an example that I would want to quote or follow, having mentioned these three cases.I would like to turn to the comments of Senators Cook and Carr who talked about the use of government advertising by the Howard government in relation to the taxation package before the election was called. I think the use of government advertising to explain government policy is quite legitimate; and it would seem that the Keating government thought so too, because the Keating government spent $315.5 million on advertising and market research over a five-year period, from 1991 to 1996—and that was government money.Altogether over their 13-year period the Hawke and Keating governments spent more than $675 million of government money on so-called political advertising for the government, if that is what explaining government policy is. I will give some details of it. There was $9 million spent to promote Working Nation. The campaign ran until the 1996 election was called. There was $7 million spent between 1992 and 1993 on the superan nuation guarantee campaign. There was $10 million spent in 1995 on the superannuation community education campaign. If that does not demonstrate hypocrisy, what does? (Time expired)10000Eggleston, Sen AlanThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Personal Explanations12715:38:00127Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Madam Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented.10000Quirke, Sen JohnThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Proceed.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—During his address to the Senate here this afternoon, I was accused by Senator Eggleston of abusing Senator Colston on the last sitting day of the last parliament. I want to make it crystal clear, even though it might put me down in the eyes of my colleagues on this side, that I did not abuse Senator Colston or mention his name or anything to do with him not only on that last day but on any other day I have been in here since September last year. I ask Senator Eggleston to apologise for that. I also ask him to do his homework properly in the future. I apologise to my colleagues on this side here for taking time on this issue, but the record needs to be set absolutely straight. Plenty of other people may have done it, but I am not yet one of them.15:39:00127Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—If what Senator Quirke says is true, I withdraw and apologise. But I do note that he said plenty of other people may have done it. What I heard on that day was vicious, vindictive criticism of Senator Colston.12710001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:127343TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate Indonesia's continued denial of human rights to the people of East Timor.Your Petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to: 1. actively support all United Nations resolutions and initiatives on East Timor;2. actively support the right to self-determination of the people of East Timor;3. work for the immediate release of all Timorese political prisoners;4. repeal the Timor Gap Treaty; and5. stop all military cooperation and commercial military activity with Indonesia.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 343 citizens)12716210000The PRESIDENTTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned shows that we citizens of Australia support a world-wide ban on the production, stockpiling and use of all forms of anti-personnel land mines.Your petitioners request that the Senate support our call for a world-wide ban on the production, stockpiling and use of all forms of anti-personnel land mines, give high priority to support for efforts to clear land mines in affected countries and use its influence to encourage other countries to financially support the clearance of land mines in poor countries.the PresidentUNKNOWNthe President(from 162 citizens)1271622DT6 8U4Bartlett Sen Andrew; Lees Sen MegTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned strongly opposes any attempts by the Australian Government to mine uranium at the Jabiluka and Koongara sites in the World Heritage Listed Area of the Kakadu National Park or any other proposed or current operating site.Your petitioners ask that the Senate oppose any intentions by the Australian Government to support the nuclear industry via any mining, enrichment and sale of uranium.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 1,112 citizens)Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 510 citizens)1271028U4 HX5Lees Sen Meg; Woodley Sen JohnTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows:Australia's old growth forest and wilderness areas are being diminished as a result of continued logging. The Federal Government has granted new woodchip export licenses despite its agreement for a moratorium on logging in high conservation areas. Your petitioners ask that the Senate should: apply conditions retrospectively to woodchip licenses in order to meet Commonwealth obligations, and exclude from licenses, woodchip derived from old growth forests and wilderness areas.Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 39 citizens)Senator WoodleyHX5Senator Woodley(from 63 citizens)128738U4Lees Sen MegTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.We the undersigned humbly request that the Senate honours the obligations of the Commonwealth of Australia to protect its territory that has received World Heritage status according to the World Heritage Convention of which Australia is a signatory.Significant areas of marine and mangrove ecosystems of Australia's World Heritage Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are directly threatened with destruction by the adjacent construction of Australia's largest tourist resort and marina complex at Oyster Point near Cardwell North Queensland (opposite Hinchinbrook Island).We implore the Senate to use its powers immediately to permanently halt the construction of the marina and access channel in the World Heritage "Buffer Zone" as recommended by the Valentine Report made to his Department in October 1994.Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 73 citizens)128447AW5Carr Sen KimTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens draws the attention of the Senate to the damaging impact of the Government's changes to post-secondary education. Upfront undergraduate fees; increased HECS fees and charges; cuts to student places; cuts to Austudy and Abstudy and decreased Commonwealth funding for universities are denying students fair access to university education. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to return post-secondary education to a system which is fair and accessible for all Australians.Senator CarrAW5Senator Carr(from 447 citizens)128937DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows: That Australian citizens oppose social, legal and economic discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality or transgender identity and that such discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society.Your petitioners request that the Senate should: pass the Australian Democrats Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate or vilify on the basis of sexuality or transgender identity so that such discrimination or vilification be open to redress at a national level.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 937 citizens)12817HX5Woodley Sen JohnTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned recognises the importance to Australia's retirement income policy of a stable and secure superannuation system in which people are encouraged, not penalised, for taking steps to provide for their retirement and asks that:1. Coalition Senators honour their 1996 election promise, namely that `The Coalition is fully committed to engendering stability, security, simplicity and flexibility into the superannuation system'.2. The Liberal/National Government acknowledge that the inclusion of superannuation assets and roll-over funds in the social security means test is inequitable, erodes public confidence in the superannuation system and penalises those who have attempted to provide for their own retirement.3. The Government repeal legislation including superannuation assets and roll-over funds in the social security means test.Senator WoodleyHX5Senator Woodley(from 17 citizens)12842HX5Woodley Sen JohnTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.This petition from the undersigned shows that: there is an increasing and urgent demand from the people to protect all remaining high conservation value forests which support flora and fauna unique to Australia. We have a responsibility to future and present generations to act now on the following achievable solutions.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate legislate to:(1) immediately stop all logging and woodchipping activities in high conservation value native forests;(2) ensure intergenerational equity by planning for the rights of future generations, and protecting in perpetuity all biologically diverse old-growth forests, rainforests and habitats of endangered species; (3) facilitate rapid transition of the timber industry from harvesting high conservation value native forests, to establishing mixed-species farm forestry on existing cleared and degraded lands;(4) maximise use of readily-available plantation timber for industry needs, using progressive minimal-waste processing methods, and where possible, reuse and recycle wood and paper products;(5) support incentives for nationwide composting and soil remineralisation;(6) encourage environmental education tourism, with respect for natural ecosystems and Aboriginal cultural heritage; and(7) utilise expertise and resources from the military sector to help implement these tree planting solutions.Senator WoodleyHX5Senator Woodley(from 42 citizens)129146FX5Murphy Sen ShayneTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate the regressive decision by the Howard Government to allow small businesses to be charged for timed local calls on data services such as electronic mail, facsimile, the internet and other on-line services. This measure, if implemented, will have an adverse effect on the profitability, development and growth of small businesses across Australia.Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate recognise that timed local calls on data services is an untenable proposition for small business. We call on the Howard Government to live up to its election promise to guarantee untimed local calls for small business in both voice and data services.Senator MurphyFX5Senator Murphy(from 146 citizens)1291019TW4 8U4Bourne Sen Vicki; Lees Sen MegTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate, the deleterious effects of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. Make available the draft text of the Agreement2. Make a public statement about its intentions with regard to the signing of the MAI, detailing the beneficiaries of the Agreement, and accountability measures for all corporations 3. Not sign the MAI unless substantial amendment is made, including the observance of international agreements including environment, labour, health and safety and human rights standards4. Extend the deadline for signing the MAI to enable full and proper public consultations to be heldSenator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 974 citizens)Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 45 citizens)129511X4West Sen SueTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament;This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate, decisions by the Howard Government affecting the price and availability of medicines.The decision to remove (delist) a number of drugs from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and also the decision to pressure people to switch to cheaper, older and less effective drugs, will disadvantage the less well off in our community who will not be able to afford the best most suitable drugs, the drugs their doctors have prescribed for them.Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate recognises that these changes are unfair. We call on the Government to reverse these decisions immediately.Senator West1X4Senator West(from 51 citizens)129301DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned strongly opposes any attempts by the Australian Government to allow genetically altered plant foods into supermarket and food system here.Your petitioners ask that the Senate oppose any intentions by the Australian Government to support this importation.My right to know what I am eating is being denied.I don't want to be forced to participate in an uncontrolled experiment on the effects of genetic engineering on human health and the eco-system.Please introduce mandatory long-term testing of genetically-engineered foods before more genetically altered foods are sold in food stores in which I shop.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 301 citizens)130941I4McKiernan Sen JamesTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that we, the citizens of regional Australia, call on the Senate to do everything possible to ensure that all Australian citizens have an equitable opportunity to be able to view the 1998 FIFA World Cup from France which is to be broadcast via the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) Network.Regional Australians proudly belong to a multicultural nation and enjoy a widespread interest in international sport. We call on the Australian Senate to end the current discrimination that ensures that only metropolitan centres have access to the direct telecasting of one of the great sporting events of the world.And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.Senator McKiernan1I4Senator McKiernan(from 94 citizens)130531I4McKiernan Sen JamesTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled.The petition of the undersigned members of the Western Australian Afghan community requests the Senate to urge the Government to assist in keeping our culture and religion alive. In our culture, parents are responsible for the arrangement of their children's marriages. This arrangement, considered an engagement until such time as formal marriage occurs, involves families living in Australia, Pakistan or Afghanistan.We ask the Senate to note that the immigration law affects us deeply.For example:(1) A prospective marriage visa can take up to 5 years to be approved, and it is not until approval is granted that a prospective spouse can come to Australia to be married.(2) A prospective spouse is not eligible to receive social security benefits until two years after arrival in Australia.(3) Further, if a person travels to Afghanistan or Pakistan in order to marry, Afghani culture requires one parent to accompany them. The purchase of an airline ticket is an added expense on top of the visa application charge of $1060, plus the requirement of an Assurance of Support of $5500.We in the Afghan community wish the Government of Australia to help us by easing the burden and changing the immigration law.In Afghan culture, our first wish for our youth and adolescents is marriage. Planning for a family is a necessity of life, and we in the Afghan Community are opposed to divorce, and are supportive of Australia's efforts to discourage marriages of convenience.We in the Afghan community of Western Australia therefore implore you to take the above matter into consideration. And your petitioners and in duty bound will ever pray.Senator McKiernan1I4Senator McKiernan(from 53 citizens)130141O15Tierney Sen JohnTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.The petition undersigned shows(1) Unless registered as an introduction agency, no business should be able to provide services, which are designed to introduce people to one another.(2) The police should investigate an introduction agency (or any other business operating for profit to introduce people to each other) harbouring criminal activity as soon as it is known. If proven in a court of law they should automatically lose their registration and any license given to the owners for a period as deemed by legislation and handed down by a court of law.The petitioners ask and seek the Federal government that it(1) Draw up legislation and introduce this legislation for all introduction services and agencies.(2) Investigate all people or co-corporations who apply for licenses to do with introduction services.(3) Inspect all agencies regularly for compliance with legislation.(4) Ensure that all advertisements placed by individuals is entirely personal and individual advertisers show proof of identity for adverts, which adhere to looking for a partner and which must not in any way promote an introduction agency.Senator TierneyO15Senator Tierney(from 141 citizens)1309861X4West Sen SueTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate their concern at the Government's failure to adequately address the crisis facing the Australian Pork Industry.The increase of pork imports from Canada without adequate consultation with Australian pig farmers and associated industries is causing them undeniable strain. Furthermore the Government has failed to provide pork producers with an adequate restructuring and funding support package, without which the local industry is stranded. The Government further compounds the problem by failing to replace the `truth in labelling' campaign that it scrapped in 1996, thereby removing the ability of local consumers to choose to buy Australian.Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate recognise that these changes are unfair. We call on the Government to take immediate action by suspending Canadian imports at their current level and to cap imports at the mean average 1992-1996 levels (4,400T) to allow the industry to adjust and pending in depth consultations with Australian pork producers.Senator West1X4Senator West(from 986 citizens)131287G6Lundy Sen KateTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in the Parliament:This petition of the undersigned residents of the A.C.T. and surrounding N.S.W. being citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate the human rights infringements to Australian citizens caused by Migration Regulation 115A(2)(d), the 12-month cohabitation requirement for certain classes of spouse migration.This regulation removes the right of Australian citizens to `marry and found a family' as stated in Article 16 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Schedule 2 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act of Australia 1986.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate:immediately disallow or otherwise repeal Migration Regulation 115A(2)(d), orimmediately amend Migration Regulation 115A(2)(d) to allow couples applying for migration under a de-facto basis, that subsequently legally marry, to be exempted from this regulation.call upon the Australian Government, as a matter of urgency, to reverse any decision made by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs under Migration Regulation 115A(2)(d) that adversely affects Australian citizens.Senator Lundy7G6Senator Lundy(from 28 citizens)131540ZW4Sherry Sen NickTo the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned show that we are concerned that the Home and Community Care Program—Fees Policy, initiated by the Government, discriminates against the Frail Aged, Elderly and Handicapped in our community, many of whom are foregoing their Care Services simply because they cannot afford the fee.Your petitioners request that the Senate initiate an inquiry into this inequitable Fees For Service Policy.Senator SherryZW4Senator Sherry(from 540 citizens)131225YH4MacGibbon Sen DavidTo the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows that we are opposed to the National Competition Council Report proposals to deregulate Australia's postal service as they will drastically reduce the revenue of Australia Post resulting in adverse impacts for most Australians including increased postal charges, reduced frequency of services, a reduction in counter and other services currently provided and a loss of thousands of jobs.Your petitioners request that the Senate reject the NCC Report proposals and support the retention of Australia Post's current reserved service and the uniform postage rate, the existing cross-subsidy funding arrangement for the uniform standard letter service and require a government assurance that no post office (corporate or licensed) will close due to these proposals.Further we call on the Senate to support the expansion of the existing community service obligation of Australia Post to encompass a minimum level of service with respect to financial and bill paying services, delivery frequency, a parcels services and access to counter services, whether through corporate or licensed post offices.Senator MacGibbonYH4Senator MacGibbon(from 225 citizens)13111371I4McKiernan Sen JamesTo the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned citizens of Alexander Heights, Western Australia, respectfully request that the Senate as a matter of urgency, ask the government to immediately take steps to ensure that a postal agency be established at the Alexander Heights Newsagency in Alexander Heights in Western Australia.And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.Senator McKiernan1I4Senator McKiernan(from 1,137 citizens)Petitions received.Notices132132132Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Kemp), no later than the last sitting day in May 1999, an interim report by the Business Income Tax Review which is due to present a final report to the Treasurer by 30 June 1999.132132Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act relating to the protection of the environment and the conservation of biodiversity, and for related purposes. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 (No. 2) .132132Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Migration Act 1958 , and for other purposes. Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 .132132Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act about space activities, and for related purposes.Space Activities Bill 1998 .132132Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:(1) That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.(2) That the following bills be restored to the Notice Paper and that consideration of each of the bills be resumed at the stage reached in the last session of the Parliament: Air Navigation Amendment (Extension of Curfew and Limitation of Aircraft Movements) Bill 1995 [1996] Captioning for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired Bill 1998 D'Entrecasteaux National Park Protection Bill 1996 Defence Cooperation Control Amendment Bill 1997 Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998 Koongarra Project Area Repeal Bill 1996 Native Forest Protection Bill 1996 Parliamentary Approval of Treaties Bill 1995 [1996] Patents Amendment Bill 1996 Plebiscite for an Australian Republic Bill 1997 Prohibition of Exportation of Uranium (Customs Act Amendment) Bill 1996 Restitution of Property to King Island Dairy Products Pty Ltd Bill 1996 Sexuality Discrimination Bill 1995 [1996] Taxation Laws Amendment (Part-Time Students) Bill 1997 Telecommunications Amendment (Prohibition of B-Party Charging of Internet Service Providers) Bill 1997 Uranium Mining in or near Australian World Heritage Properties (Prohibition) Bill 1998 World Heritage Properties Conservation Amendment (Protection of Wet Tropics of Tully) Bill 1996.132132Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:(contingent on the Senate agreeing to the first reading of any bill whose purpose is to implement the Government's proposals for taxation reform, including, but not limited to any of the following bills: GST Assessment Bill 1998 GST Imposition (Excise) Bill 1998 GST Imposition (Customs) Bill 1998 GST Imposition (General) Bill 1998 GST Transition Bill 1998 Tax Administration Amendment (GST) Bill 1998 Australian Business Number Bill 1998 Australian Business Number (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 Trade Practices/Prices Surveillance Amendment Bill 1998 Fringe Benefits Reporting Bill 1998 Medicare Levy Surcharge (Fringe Benefits) Bill 1998 Income Tax Rates (Family Assistance and Personal Income Tax Cuts) Bill 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment (Tax Reform) Bill (No. 1) 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment (Tax Reform) Bill (No. 2) 1998)That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Brown moving a motion to provide that further consideration of the bills be postponed till the first day of sitting after 1 July 1999.133133Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That—(1) The provisions of the following bills, introduced in the previous Parliament, be referred to committees as set out, and that each committee report by the date indicated: BillLegislation committeeReporting dateBroadcasting Services Amendment Bill 1998Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts1 December 1998Film Licensed Investment Company 1998, and Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed Investment Company) Bill 1998Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts24 November 1998Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Payment Processing) Bill 1998Community Affairs24 November 1998Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998Legal and Constitutional1 December 1998Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Artssecond sitting day in 1999(2) Each committee have power to consider and use the records of the relevant committee appointed in the previous Parliament.133133Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provision of standing order 111(6) which prevents the continuation or resumption of second reading debate on a bill within 14 days of its first introduction in either House not apply to the following bills:Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Bill 1998 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1998States Grants (Primary and Secondary School Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1998.6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING—I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered within the 14-day period. I seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statements read as follows—CHILD SUPPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLPurpose of the BillThe purpose of the Bill is to bring about reform of the Child Support Scheme through a series of amendments to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. The major provisions in the Bill will be to:. include a wider range of income when assessing how much child support should be paid and also using, wherever possible, more up to date income information in assessments;. allow parents to move from the Child Support Agency collection to private collection by agreement at any time and also require parents to undertake private collection where there is a consistent payment record, but providing a safety net if the private payment arrangements subsequently fail;. allow carers in receipt of social security payments to end a child support assessment where there is a threat of family violence;. change the assessment process to improve client perceptions of flexibility and equity, by modifying the exempted income and disregarded income figures used in the child support formula, allowing liable parents to apply for a child support assessment, providing for internal review of decisions by the Registrar, allowing parents to verbally notify changes which affect assessments and enhancing the procedures in relation to applications for departure from administrative assessment;. protect client's right to privacy, by limiting information about dependent children in assessment notices;. enhance collection arrangements by allowing more flexibility in payments, offsetting debts between parents, and allowing deductions to be made from a payer's social security pension or benefit;. provide greater certainty in payments of child support by giving effect to a change in circumstances only from the date notified, allowing payments to be held temporarily in trust if court action is pending over acceptance of application, and providing that the start date of liability for child support is the date of application;. make arrangements for direct payments in lieu of child support more flexible, allowing payers more choice in the form in which child support is paid by them while protecting payees and meeting the basic needs for children;. ensure all parents contribute to the financial support of their children by introducing a minimum annual payment of $260 and recognise the cost of second families by changing the family payment income test for payers with subsequent families;. change the effect of care arrangements or assessments by extending the major substantial care provisions in assessments where parents agree, basing assessments on both factual and lawful care of the child, treating a step child as a relevant dependent child if a court has ordered a duty to maintain, extending child support to the end of the school year for a child who turns 18; and. allow the Registrar to reject an income estimate which he considers inaccurate and extend the latest date an income estimate can be lodged from 30 June to 31 July.Reasons for the urgency requiring introduction and passage of the BillThe Bill will give effect to major reforms which the Government announced on 30 September 1997 to improve the Child Support Scheme's flexibility, to provide greater equity and to ensure more regular financial support for children.Delays in introduction of the proposed amendments may mean the loss of some of the benefits to be gained from the reforms. All but three of the amendments were initially to have a commencement day of 1 July 1998. The remaining amendments were to commence from 1 January 1999 or 1 July 1999. The Child Support Agency will begin issuing assessments for the 1999-2000 child support year from March-April 1999. Many of the reforms impact significantly on the assessments that will issue. It is essential, therefore, that the Bill receives early passage to ensure that, if Parliament amends any of its provisions, the Child Support Agency is able to give adequate notice to all affected clients of possible changes to amounts payable prior to the commencement date of the legislation.Result if the proposed Bills are not dealt with in the Autumn Sittings:Delay in introduction of the Bill is likely to attract criticism of the Government. Delays in issuing assessments to clients cause anxiety and uncertainty for clients and will mean that different legislative requirements apply to different parts of the child support year. This will mean considerable confusion to clients every time there is a change in their circumstances causing a variation to their assessment.STATES GRANTS (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILLThe purpose of the proposed bill is to seek changes to the State Grants (Primary and Secondary Educa tion Assistance) Act 1996 (the Act) to provide funding for the introduction of Full Service Schools and the extension of funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) strategy, both of which were announced in the Budget.It is also necessary to include funding amounts for the Capital Grants Programme for 2001 to 2003. Capital funding is approved up to 2 years ahead of the current programme year. The Act contains a footnote stating that the amounts for the years after 2000 will be inserted by later amending Acts as these figures become available. The figures for the Capital Grants Programme for 2001 to 2003 are now available. Insertion of these figures into the Act is essential to finalise schools' planning of capital projects in 2001.There are also a number of non-controversial amendments to the Act which have been consolidated in this Bill. The first is an amendment which will allow the Minister to vary funding allocations provided to State and Territory government and non-government education authorities under the Commonwealth's Literacy and Country Areas programmes so that 1996 Census data can be taken into account when allocating 1999 funding on a needs basis. Education authorities are expecting this change to occur.A further amendment will allow for the updating of all funding amounts shown in the Act from 1997 initial prices to 1998 final prices. Unless this is done, funding amounts for Full Service Schools, NALSAS, and the Capital Grants Programme for 2001 will be on a different cost basis. It will also incorporate the effect of 1997 and 1998 supplementation and will mean that all funding amounts in the Act have been calculated on a consistent basis and are comparable.Finally, there is a technical amendment to section 72(1)(a) of the Act to add the words "or in connection with" in regard to special education funding of non-government centres to allow the full range of special education services to be provided under the legislation. These words were inadvertently omitted in the drafting of the Act.If the Bill is not dealt with in the Spring sitting the implementation of Full Service Schools will be seriously delayed, expenditure on the NALSAS strategy will be disrupted and the Capital Grants Programme will be unable to commit funding to approved projects with building stages in 2001.The Full Service Schools initiative will provide additional support to schools to develop innovative programmes and services which address the specific needs of young people returning to school following changes to the Youth Allowance and of current students who are at risk of not completing Year 12 or not making a successful transition from school to work. Delay in passage of the amendment could have an adverse impact on eligible young people.It is highly desirable that the NALSAS strategy continue with minimal disruption. The delay in the passing of the Bill has meant that additional funding included for 1998 in the original Bill will instead be allocated to 1999 in the current Bill. Hence 1998 funding has decreased by 40 per cent rather than being maintained at 1997 levels. Currently legislated funding ceases at the end of 1998.HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 1)Purpose of the proposed billThe proposed bill will amend the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 (HEFA) to:. legislate the funding levels in respect of sections 17, 20(3), 22A(5), 23C(2), 24(3) and 27A(6) or the HEFA for the 1998, 1999 and 2000 funding years;. vary the aggregate funding levels for the 1999 and 2000 funding years to take account of price movements and to facilitate the transfer of funds from the 1997 to the 1998 financial year;. reduce funding limits for 1998, 1999 and 2000 to allow the use of those funds for international marketing and promotion of Australian education and training services by Australian Education International;. allow for the provision of funding for the University of Notre Dame Australia while ensuring that full fee paying students may still enrol and are not liable for HECS;. allow for the provision of additional funding for the James Cook University of North Queensland;. facilitate the transfer of funding from the 1998 and 2000 funding years to the 1999 funding year to meet the needs of the Rationalisation and Restructuring ProgrammeReasons for urgencyCurrently there are no legislated funding levels for 1999 in respect of sections 17, 20(3), 22A(5), 24(3) and 27A(6) of HEFA. The Bill provides this base funding and needs to be enacted before the start of the academic year to allow payments to be made to institutions at the usual times.Effect if the Bill is not dealt with in the SittingsAustralian higher education institutions will not receive 1999 funding on time.AUSTRALIAN RADIATION PROTECTION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY BILLAUSTRALIAN RADIATION PROTECTION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY (LICENCE CHARGES) BILLAUSTRALIAN RADIATION PROTECTION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILLPurpose of the proposed Bills:The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill (the ARPANS Bill) introduces, for the first time, regulatory controls in respect of all Commonwealth radiation and nuclear activities by prohibiting Commonwealth entities from dealing with radioactive materials or apparatus, or any aspect of a nuclear or other prescribed facility, unless licensed to do so.The ARPANS Bill establishes a system of licensing and exemptions and provides for enforcement of the legislation through the appointment of inspectors with enforcement powers. A statutory officer, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is responsible for overseeing the regulation of Commonwealth entities including the assessment and granting of licences, monitoring compliance and enforcement of the legislation.The CEO is also responsible for:. promoting national uniformity of radiation protection and nuclear safety across all jurisdictions;. providing advice on radiation protection and nuclear safety issues; and. undertaking research and services in relation to radiation protection and nuclear safetyThe ARPANS Bill also provides for the establishment of the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council (RHSAC) to provide expert advice to the CEO on a range of issues including emerging radiation protection and nuclear safety issues, matters of concern to the community, and the adoption of codes of practice and standards. The Council will be appointed by the Minister for Health and Family Services and will comprise State-Territory radiation control officers, a community representative and other experts in radiation and nuclear safety and related fields.The ARPANS Bill is accompanied by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Bill (the Licence Charges Bill) and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Consequential Amendments) Bill (Consequential Amendments Bill).The Licence Charges Bill provides for the levying of an annual charge on the holders of a source or facility licence, as described in the ARPANS Bill. The Consequential Amendments Bill:. repeals the provisions of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987 which create the Nuclear Safety Bureau. The Bureau will become part of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) which is referenced in the ARPANS Bill;. transfers the assets and liabilities of the Nuclear Safety Bureau to ARPANSA;. repeals the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1998. That Act provides for the development and endorsement of Codes of Practice which will be undertaken under the auspices of ARPANSA;. provides that Commonwealth entities have a transition period of 6 months after the ARPANS legislation commences to apply for a licence to authorise specified activities under the legislation.The reasons for the urgency requiring introduction and passage in the same sittings:This legislation was seen as time critical when the Government introduced it in May this year. The Government intended that the legislation take effect from 1 July 1998 to enable appropriate regulation of significant radiation and nuclear activity. The Bills were passed by the House of Representatives.There continues to be an urgent need for this legislation to be passed as soon as possible for the following reasons:. Preliminary work on the new Lucas Heights nuclear reactor is proceeding in the absence of comprehensive regulatory control. This may generate significant community concern (ministers will have to take decisions about aspects of the reactor in the absence of the new regulatory framework) and the tendering process to build the reactor will not reflect the health and safety requirements of the new regime.. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has made recommendations about the regulatory processes for a new reactor and stressed the importance of ARPANSA providing comprehensive oversight and having the capacity and sanctions to enforce its decisions.. The Government decision concerning the siting of Australia's low level radioactive waste repository is scheduled to be made by end 1998, by which time the community and the construction contractors must be assured of independent regulatory oversight.. Australia is due to sign the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management in November 1998, by which time we need a regulatory process in place which would deliver on our commitments under this convention.The effect if the Bills are not dealt with in one sitting:. Signing the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management will be delayed.. If passage and implementation of the Bills are effectively delayed until mid 1999: decisions about proceeding with the replacement reactor and the waste repository will have to be taken in the absence of a legislatively established safety framework.(Circulated with the authority of the Minister for Health and Family Services)STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 1998 SPRING SITTINGSSTATES GRANTS (GENERAL PURPOSES) AMENDMENT BILLThe States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill will give effect to arrangements for the payment of general revenue assistance in 1998-99, in accordance with the Commonwealth's Offer at the 1998 Premiers' Conference, and revenue replacement payments to the States and Territories in 1998-99.Commonwealth payments of general revenue assistance and revenue replacement payments are expected to total around $23.5 billion in 1998-99. States and Territories are dependent on these payments to fund essential services so early passage of the Bill will provide greater funding certainty for the States and Territories. If passage is delayed and the Bill is not in operation before December 1998, around $450 million per week would not be paid to the States and Territories.(Circulated by authority of the Treasurer)137137Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) opposes any further sell-down of Telstra because of the grave risks such a sell-down would have on: (i) access to advanced communications services, (ii) service availability, quality and price, (iii) public finances, (iv) foreign ownership, (v) employment, and (iv) local manufacturing;(b) notes the refusal of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston) to back down from a commitment to the full sale of Telstra despite strident opposition from his own backbench; and(c) condemns the Minister for seriously undermining the reputation and standing of Telstra with his public comment on 8 September 1998 that Telstra's `best years may lie behind it'.137137Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that a resolution numbered L48 and titled `Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda', will be voted on in the United Nations General Assembly in the week beginning 8 November 1998, (ii) that the resolution recalls the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice in its 1996 advisory opinion that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control, (iii) that the resolution calls on the nuclear weapons states to demonstrate an unequivocal commitment to the speedy and total elimination of their respective nuclear weapons and without delay to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to the elimination of these weapons, thereby fulfilling their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), (iv) that the resolution also calls on the three states that are nuclear weapons capable and that have not yet acceded to the NPT to clearly and urgently reverse the pursuit of all nuclear weapons development or deployment and to refrain from any actions which could undermine regional and international peace and security and the efforts of the international community towards nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation, (v) that the resolution contains a large number of other measures designed to bring about the goal of nuclear disarmament, including a call for the Russian Federation and the United States of America to bring START-II into force without further delay and immediately proceed thereafter with negotiations on START-III with a view to its early conclusion, (vi) that the resolution incorporates a call for an international conference on nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, which would effectively complement efforts being undertaken in other settings and which could facilitate the consolidation of a new agenda for a nuclear-weapon-free world, (vii) that the resolution is sponsored by Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Ireland, Lesotho, Liberia, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Peru, Samoa, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Uruguay and Venezuala, (viii) that the resolution is broadly consistent with the recommendations of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, and (ix) with concern that there are indications that Australia may not vote in favour of resolution L48; and(b) urges the Australian Government to support this resolution at the United Nations General Assembly.138138Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I give contingent notice of motion which has been circulated in the chamber, the terms of which I now hand to the Clerk.138138Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I give notice that, two sitting days after today, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the murder in the United States of America of Mr Matthew Shepherd, a 21-year-old gay man, who was tortured and murdered because of his sexuality on 14 October 1998, (ii) the bashing of two gay men in Western Australia on 4 November 1998 during the course of a robbery and the fact that anti-gay sentiments were used by the assailant to inflict pain and humiliation, (iii) that hostility, violence and vilification is a continuing experience in the lives of many gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Australians, and (iv) that Tasmania, Western Australia and the Commonwealth remain the only jurisdictions which do not prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexuality; and(b) condemns discrimination, vilification and violence against all persons.138138Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the report in the Age, of 11 November 1998, on the latest revelations in the ongoing saga of abuse and neglect of people with disabilities in our institutions and particularly the annual report of the Community Visitors Program, which found that conditions at Kew Cottages, Victoria, were appalling and `represent a step back into the dark days of institutionalisation', (ii) that staff were poorly trained and that the low staff to resident ratios exacerbated the neglect of residents, which included the failure to detect a breast tumour in an intellectually disabled woman who subsequently died, and (iii) the accounts in the Age on the same day that a Victorian Auditor-General's report showed that the State Government has spent $14 million in wage rises and bonuses for the state's top public servants in the 1997-98 financial year and that the Victorian State Government has increased its cash and investment holdings by $2.9 billion to $16.2 billion;(b) urges the Commonwealth Government to call the Victorian State Government to account for its failure to address the grossly inadequate and substandard conditions endured by the residents of Kew Cottages in spite of its obvious capacity to do so; and(c) calls on the Commonwealth Government to insist that the Victorian State Government moves immediately to provide appropriate places to care for the 160 Kew Cottages residents currently on alternative accommodation waiting lists.Business139139Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Bolkus) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Bolkus for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill), be postponed till the next day of sitting.139Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request of Senator Lees) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in the name of Senator Lees for today, relating to the reference of matters to seven Senate committees, be postponed till the next day of sitting.139Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That business of the Senate notices of motion No. 1 (relating to reference of matters to the Economics References Committee) and No. 4 (the reference of matters to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee) standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, be postponed until the next day of sitting.139Motion (by Senator Tambling, at the request of Senator Kemp) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3 standing in the name of Senator Kemp for today, relating to the reference of matters to certain committees, be postponed till the next day of sitting.139Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 2 standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Kemp, be postponed till the next day of sitting.139Motion (by Senator O'Brien) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 5 standing in the name of Senator O'Brien for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Employment, Education and Training References Committee, be postponed till 23 November 1998.Matters of Urgency13913910000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 11 November 1998, from Senator Chris Evans:Dear Madam President,Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move:`That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The Government's decision to slash 5,000 jobs from Centrelink and the impact of this decision on Centrelink's levels of service to families, pensioners and the unemployed.'Yours sincerely,CHRIS EVANS(Senator for the State of Western Australia)Is the proposal supported?More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times for each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.15:54:00139Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move:`That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The Government's decision to slash 5,000 jobs from Centrelink and the impact of this decision on Centrelink's levels of service to families, pensioners and the unemployed.'It is important that today the Senate debates the issue of the government's moves to slash 5,000 jobs from Centrelink for a number of reasons. This decision impacts on a number of levels. First of all there is the sheer loss of 5,000 jobs from the public sector and what that means for those persons who are leaving and those remaining and, more importantly and more the centre of our focus today, what it means for the service provided by Centrelink to the over six million clients of Centrelink in Australia. We feel that this decision ought to be reversed by the government because it will downgrade further the services provided by Centrelink, the essential services that are required by Australian citizens.There is nothing more indicative of the government's approach than that the first major announcement since they came back into power is that another 5,000 jobs are to be lost—5,000 more jobs lost as a direct result of government policy. This is a decision that means fewer services to those in need in our community—fewer services for people with disabilities, fewer services for the aged, fewer services for the unemployed and fewer services for families with young children. John Howard said that this would be a new government, but quite clearly it is the same old government with the same old policies.At the core of the Centrelink announcement is the government cutting funding for essential services. This is just another budget cut. During the announcement the other day, the government tried to dress it up as part of Centrelink's revamping of its servicing operation. It is absolutely nothing of the sort. There are parallel developments going on in Centrelink about the way they do business and I am happy to debate those on another day. The government has attempted to use Centrelink's announcement of its plans in that regard to hide the fact that the budget cuts introduced in 1997-98 are flowing through to Centrelink now.Centrelink has been forced to make decisions about its operation based on the government taking 10 per cent off its revenue. Centrelink has had 10 per cent slashed off its revenue. The announced cutting of about 5,000 jobs in Centrelink is a direct result of those budget cuts. It has nothing to do with new servicing requirements or the new customer service delivery model. That is a parallel development. This is about the 1997-98 budget cuts flowing through.Centrelink had agreed with the Department of Finance and Administration that:. . . in addition to the 1 percent efficiency dividend applied to all Government agencies, it will improve efficiency by 10 per cent by 1999-2,000. Centrelink will undertake a range of initiatives to enable these efficiencies to be realised.It is great Public Service speak. `Efficiency' means job cuts. It means Centrelink gets 10 per cent less to fund its services. It means $149 million less per year to fund services.What does Centrelink do? Centrelink provides services to people who receive social security payments in Australia. It is a people organisation. So if you cut its budget by $149 million a year, if you cut its budget by 10 per cent, what is its only alternative? What is the only thing it can do to meet that reduced funding? Cut staff numbers. Sixty-seven per cent of Centrelink's budget is taken up by staff costs. So if you cut its budget by 10 per cent, if you reduce its revenue by $149 million a year, what is Centrelink to do? It is not a question of looking at options. It has only one option and that is to cut staff.This announcement is about the realisation of government budget cuts flowing through to Centrelink; it has nothing to do with the new customer service delivery model. It is the government saying they will not pay as much for the delivery of social security services in this country. The Minister for Community Services was in here earlier holding forth about the new Department of Family and Community Services and what a wonderful initiative it is. The first announcement of an initiative within her new portfolio was to reduce the services provided to the clients of that portfolio. Centrelink provides the services to the clients of that portfolio—the unemployed, the pensioners, the aged and all the other groups that rely on Centrelink for its services and the payment of their benefits. The government slashed the staff because they have reduced Centrelink's funding.As I say, this is the heart of the politics of the matter. It is a very serious matter for this parliament and it is one the parliament must take to the government. We must try to apply pressure to the government to reverse this decision. This is not a decision made by the independent board that runs Centrelink; it is a decision made by the government to provide less funding. There is no other alternative for Centrelink but to cut staff and, as we have seen from the announcement, over the next couple of years they will cut in total 5,000 staff from this government agency.The government would have us believe that all these job cuts are going to come from head office and that they will be backroom bureaucrats who go. It is a nonsense. Centrelink is a service delivery agency. They are the people who answer the phones or answer your queries when you call at a Centrelink office. At least 10 per cent of the staff reductions will come from the coalface. They will come from the service delivery officers. There is no way that these massive staff cuts cannot affect the service delivery at the coalface, and that is revealed by the government's own figures.I would have thought the government's most likely response would be to say, `Centrelink can afford these efficiency cuts. It runs an overblown bureaucracy.' That would also be nonsense. There is no defence in that. We have seen in the last year the chaos and massive problems that have occurred in Centrelink as it has tried to deal with the jobs that the government has given it. In June 1998 there were 1,200,000 unanswered calls. You cannot get through to Centrelink in the busy periods if you want to, let alone get service from Centrelink to deal with your particular inquiries. It is massively overstretched currently. As an exercise, I tried to call Centrelink this morning. I spent an hour and a quarter trying to get through on the family payments line. I was unable to get through between 11 and 12.15 this morning on the family payments line. I did get through on the Newstart line, and I did get through on the pensions line. It took me four goes on the Newstart line, and it took me three goes on the pension line.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Did you dial the wrong numbers? AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I dialled the right numbers, Senator, and I got through on two of them. If you ask the minister, I am sure she will tell you that there are enormous problems in getting through to Centrelink. If you did any constituency work, Senator, you would know of complaints from constituents about the failure to get through.As I say, there were 1,200,000 unanswered calls. At one stage 97 per cent of the calls made by people to Centrelink numbers got the busy signal. You cannot even get through to get in the queue or hear the musak or the messages about how they will have someone listening to your call, vetting the customer delivery—not to mention then asking you to wait an average of five minutes before you get put through to someone who will actually speak to you. You are dealing with a machine until then.There are enormous problems already. I am not trying to attack Centrelink staff, but what is clear is that they are underresourced and overstretched. The problems encountered in June-July this year caused chaos. We have seen that in the Ombudsman's report. There were over 10,000 complaints investigated last year by the Ombudsman in Centrelink alone. That is just the tip of the iceberg. These are the complaints that actually get to the Ombudsman. How many people take their complaints to the Ombudsman? What percentage of those who are concerned or upset about the treatment received or the failure to get through actually go to the Ombudsman? Clearly, the numbers that go through are the tip of the iceberg. A lot of them see their local members of parliament. A lot of them just go away defeated. A lot of them basically give up on being able to get satisfactory service.What we are faced with today is cuts which will directly hurt people most in need in our community: the old aged pensioners and the disability pensioners. We have seen what has happened to job seekers with the new Job Network scheme. What an absolute success the Job Network scheme has been! Together with parents with child-care inquiries, young people with inquiries about youth allowance and students inquiring about Austudy, there are six million Australians seeking services from Centrelink every year. They are entitled, in my view, to courteous personal assistance, to be able to talk to somebody about accessing their entitlements. If they are lucky enough to get through on the phone now, they might get some assistance. There are going to be 5,000 fewer people to answer the phones at the end of the government's cutbacks—5,000 fewer people to service the six million people who are making contact.I will be interested to see what the minister has to say about the regional impacts of these decisions. The government ran in the last election expressing concern about the impact on regional Australia of the loss of banks and other services from regional areas. You cannot tell me that 5,000 jobs are going to go from Centrelink and there are not going to be any jobs lost in regional Australia. Not only will there be jobs lost; the standard of service will invariably drop. Centrelink has been forced to survive on less money. I do not know whether the government is going to ask the banks to be the local Centrelink offices, but they have already closed in most regional towns. It is a major problem for regional Australia. It is a major problem in terms of employment, and it is a major problem in terms of the services provided to Australians.It is interesting that there was no mention of these cuts prior to the election, but another 5,000 jobs are to be cut. I do not know what the government's view of the future is, but Centrelink is supposed to be providing a community service. It is meant to be a people based organisation. People like to be able to speak to a person when they want to be taken through complex financial matters relating to their entitlements. I do not know whether we will have to change the name of Centrelink to `Computerlink', because all the government talks about is the Internet, computers, et cetera and nothing about personal service. There are going to be 5,000 fewer persons there to provide service.Machines are cheaper, and maybe IT can help in terms of making the organisation more efficient, but it does not replace the personal service needs that the clients of Centrelink deserve and have a right to expect. I know this is going to mean more recorded messages, more time spent hanging on the phone and more attempts to get through unsuccessfully, but the government ought to be about providing better service for the clients of Centrelink. It should not be about gutting Centrelink and making the service even more unsatisfactory than it currently is. There will be 5,000 fewer people servicing the pensioners, the unemployed and the families of this country as a result of government budget decisions. Make no mistake: this is all about a government budget decision to cut the money they will pay through what used to be the Department of Social Security to Centrelink. It is a cut in government funds resulting in job losses and loss of service.I know the Prime Minister in his ACOSS speech the other day said that business ought to rediscover the spirit of 19th century philanthropy. I am not sure whether he intends that we rediscover some of the other 19th century factors that were at play, one of which was the absence of a decent social security service run by government. I thought we had long gone past the day of having a debate in this country about the need to provide a properly serviced social security system in this country.The government's cutbacks in this area will put Centrelink under great strain and will reduce the sorts of services that they provide. I do not know whether it is intended that Centrelink ought to be having a sort of poppy day and be out there shaking the cans to raise money to finance their services because the government is clearly unwilling to provide them. It is a government's decision to cut their budget by $149 million each year because they will not provide the services. It is important that the Senate does condemn the government's funding cuts to Centrelink. It is important that we put on the record our support for humane and adequately funded income support for the needy. We must assist in building pressure on the government to meet its obligations to its citizens. Nice words are not enough. This is a direct policy initiative of the government. I encourage you to deny that $140-odd million has not been removed from Centrelink's budget. Your own budget papers prove the point that this is about budget measure cuts to Centrelink—less funding and less service. The pensioners, the unemployed and the families of Australia will get less assistance and less service as a direct result of this government decision.16:09:00143Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Chris Evans for his contribution. Unfortunately, it is a continuation of the gross exaggeration about the announcement made by Centrelink management a few days ago on the future of a very important Australian organisation. Let me make it very clear from the beginning that there is no question of Centrelink being privatised, which is one of the stories that has been put about by the Labor Party. No offices are going to be closed. Call centre staff are remaining on duty and are improving their productivity.There has been a mass of complaints from the ALP in the press but the reality is that since 1 April this year the Leader of the Opposition has made three representations to me and the minister who shadows me has made absolutely none. Over that period—from 1 April—Mr Duncan Kerr takes the prize amongst my Tasmanian colleagues. He contacted me eight times, but Mr Dick Adams, Mr Harry Quick, Senator Murphy, Senator Denman and Senator Mackay have all made no representation whatsoever about their concerns.Opposition senators interjecting—BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—We hear about your complaints. Senator O'Brien did make three representations on issues to do with Centrelink. If this is a serious issue for the opposition, they seem to have suddenly discovered it.The gross misrepresentation of the issues facing the organisation need to be addressed quickly. Centrelink is a statutory organisation that was announced and set up by the government in 1996-97. At that time the need for an efficiency dividend was spelt out because we had two very large departments of state being amalgamated—DEETYA and DSS. If the Labor Party believe there are no savings to be made when two such large organisations are put together, then it is an example of why the Australian people do not believe that they have a good track record on economic management. It was always understood, it was clearly stated and it was not hidden in budget papers that that was what would be required. There are some parts of the Labor Party that do believe in efficiency dividends. I am interested that my new Labor Premier in Tasmania is planning to take an efficiency dividend from the operating costs of the state government's agencies each year.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—How much?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—It is $12 million. That is a lot out of our very small budget of $1.9 billion in Tasmania. The reality is that we have had a lot of exaggeration. I think a lot of the debate that has ever appeared in the public arena from the ALP has been grossly unkind to the staff who work for Centrelink. Some 24,000 staff work for Centrelink.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—It is 19,000 now.Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—It is interesting that we hear this, because the ALP seems to have trouble with figures as well. The reality is that there are not 5,000 jobs yet to go.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—How many are there?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—There are only 600 jobs yet to go in this financial year, 2,000 jobs to go in the next financial year and 300 in the third financial year. The board and the management of Centrelink believe that they will be achieved—as the previous changes to the staffing levels have been achieved—through natural attrition and voluntary redundancies. Let me also deal with something else that the ALP has been putting about—that is, that there is some kind of focus on women. The managing director of Centrelink, Ms Vardon, has made it clear that there is a high proportion of women employed in Centrelink; in fact, it is 63 per cent. They are not being targeted, but many of them are in two-income families. GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—So what!BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Some two-income families choose to have babies. Often it is convenient to take a redundancy and go home and have the baby and start your career up again in two or three years time. Other older women find it convenient, if they are married to a man who is about to retire, to take a redundancy payment to pay off the family home before they go into retirement. Perhaps the ALP do not know much about the way people live. That is pretty clear in their lack of support.All the rearrangements of service delivery in Centrelink are focused on improved service delivery. That is because some offices are grossly inefficient compared with the best in the system. There is a great deal of room in the system for improved productivity. Some offices are showing the way in a marvellous way.One of the things that Centrelink management has discovered, which I would not have thought would come as a surprise to those opposite, is that very large offices are less productive than the smaller ones. Centrelink is planning not to close any offices but to increase the number of offices by 50. That is because there will be more smaller offices being able to reach out further into regional and rural Australia. There are 400 offices already. The number will be increased by about 50.In addition, we are increasing the ways that customers can do business with Centrelink. That is a direct result of the consultation process that has taken place in the last year with 8,000 customers in value creation workshops. I have attended one of those workshops. They are very valuable to the organisation to learn what the customers are thinking, what they want to be done better and what they want to be done differently.As a result of those 8,000 customers voluntarily taking part in these exercises they know that more and more people want to do business with them at arm's length through telephone calls, through the Internet, through fax, and through electronic service delivery. So 5,000 information kiosks will be estab lished over the next few years around Australia—very, very important.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—What about the office queues?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—There are very few queues.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Rubbish!BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—It is a pity that you didn't have a look at the press conference of Ms Vardon, who was asked that very question. In fact, we took queues and ropes out of most of the offices. More than 50 per cent of the offices really do not have queues now—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—More than 50 per cent? So 50 per cent do.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Ms Vardon has told the press that more than 50 per cent do not have queues; it is a question of how work is done in those offices. I told you that some are not as efficient or productive as others.We are moving services further out into the bush in that we are going into partnerships with Australia Post private agents. We are already piloting projects in Tasmania, whereby we share facilities and provide services in country areas and rural towns, sharing with local government and state government. In Georgetown in Tasmania we share a site with both levels of government, so there are three all together. These are very important ways of getting services to people who did not have adequate services in past years. We are establishing a rural telecentre network to be dedicated to rural people and the special issues that they face. We are establishing ways that, when the call centre network is overcrowded—currently it can now all be linked together and does overflow—when there is a particularly heavy load, the calls will be able to overflow to the customer service centres.I have said that there will be no office closures. I have said that it will be by natural attrition and voluntary redundancies. It is important to recognise that the changes that are to be made are minimally, in proportionate terms, going to be at the service end of the organisation. The savings are to be very much more marked in the middle to senior levels of management. I cannot imagine that anybody would quibble with that because, if we are talking about a service delivery agency, it is the overheads that make it a costly organisation. As Ms Vardon made very clear in her press conference the other day, they want to stay in business. They are a statutory authority. They have to bid for their business. They have to be cost effective. They do not want the private sector taking business away from them when they tender for new projects. So they have to be very efficient at doing the job. They have a board of management, which is a mixed board of the private and the public sector, who are enthusiastically endorsing the changes that management has recommended to them.I cannot understand why the ALP would want us to spend more money unnecessarily when we already have a budget in this portfolio of something approaching $60 billion, approximately half the national budget. That is a lot of money to look after people and provide a safety net and services for those in need in one way or another. Surely you do not waste money by being unproductive or not putting in measures that allow you to look after your customers in a more efficient and caring way. One of the most important things that Centrelink will be providing is a single officer point of contact for a group of customers so they do not have to keep repeating their story; so they do not have to keep proving who they are. That is really practical in terms of what the customers want. (Time expired)16:18:00145Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise on behalf of the Australian Democrats to support the urgency motion that is before us. We certainly condemn the job cuts to Centrelink and we have grave concerns about the impact of the cuts to this service on a range of groups, some of which have been identified in the motion—families, pensioners, the unemployed, young people, aged people, people with disabilities; the list goes on. I find it extremely ironic that the agency that has been charged with looking after, servicing the needs of and caring for unemployed people in our community is now going to see an addi tional 5,000 jobs lost from its own operations—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Didn't you listen to the minister?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Before Senator Abetz gets on his high horse, I ask the minister how she can possibly claim that job losses of 5,000—a figure that is not contested—is an exaggeration.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—It is not an exaggeration; it is just wrong.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Madam Acting Deputy President, I suggest that those on the other side of the chamber will have an opportunity to show us how 5,000 jobs are not going to be lost. It is a figure accepted by unions and many others in this community.The Democrats have long exposed the government's failed management in a number of reforms, be it Job Network or its management of the resources of Centrelink, the one-stop shop service delivery agency. The reasons that we have done this are strong and unwavering, if you like—our commitment to ensuring that the interests and the needs of the most vulnerable in our society, some of which have been outlined, are serviced and protected. In our view—and we believe it is shared by a majority of Australians—it is the responsibility of this government to ensure that the young, the sick, the unemployed, those with disabilities, those from migrant backgrounds, aged people and those from non-English speaking backgrounds are provided with appropriate support.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Who else is left in the community?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—A decision has been made by the government to cut staffing levels at Centrelink, an agency which serves seven million Australians. So when Senator Abetz asks who else is left in the community—yes, eight million people is a lot of people who expect their needs and concerns to be serviced. This has serious implications for the kind of society we live in. We will have a questionable society by the end of this government's term of office if we do not pay attention to the needs of these people. It is a stark example of the prioritisation of economic efficiency over service.The business plan of Centrelink identifies three stages of development for Centrelink. The first of these relates to the current year of Centrelink's existence, stating that in the first stage `we created a new identity with a strong emphasis on customer service'. In the past year Centrelink has experienced a number of problems, some of which Senator Evans referred to. They have affected the level of service delivery, resulting in the highest number of complaints to the Commonwealth Ombudsman of all government agencies. These problems have been directly attributed to inadequate staffing, inadequate resources and poor management, not to mention being compounded by the introduction of Job Network, the common youth allowance, Work for the Dole and other programs. Specifically Job Network, I suppose, is the faultiest program of them all. The introduction of these programs has made it impossible for Centrelink to achieve its service objectives on current staff levels. The second stage of Centrelink's existence, as detailed in the plan—and I note that it has an economic objective in this plan—is a period of consolidation from now until the year 2001. Contrary to what might be expected and what certainly would be desirable, this period of consolidation does not envisage an assessment of the problems of inadequate staffing and resourcing and poor management and a means of addressing them. Instead, it relates to a period of increasing efficiency through service rationalisation and cost cutting, in a direction which would only further compromise standards and efficiency in terms of serving the needs of those in our community who are less well off. The aim of the agency for the coming years is not primarily to improve service delivery and better service its clients, but it is expressed as:In the second stage of its development, Centrelink must keep its promise of becoming a more efficient and competitive organisation.One might ask: who has the promise been made to? Who is it competing with? Presumably it is not a promise that has been made to the eight million Australians who rely on Centrelink to service their needs.This plan also, as one of its two financial challenges, says:To stay in business we need to reduce our overheads and costs.Consider the implications of that phrase. What are the chances that Centrelink could go out of business? Does this mean that, if Centrelink does not fulfil its efficiency dividends, it will be forced to close down? This has never been canvassed by the government, and certainly it raises serious questions about letting the government's economic rationalist agenda dictate the delivery of vital services and the implementation of policy.The funding of Centrelink is not guaranteed. Centrelink relies on its client departments for its funding. It does not receive funding directly from the government. This relationship is currently under a three-year agreement, but the enabling legislation only provides for a contract term of 12 months. While it would seem unlikely that the government would allow competitive tendering for the delivery of Centrelink's current functions—due to the amount spent on the establishment of the agency—this government has never allowed good judgment to stand in the way of a cost-cutting measure. The government must make clear—and I hope that Senator Jocelyn Newman's comments today are categorical—that it will not privatise Centrelink. The delivery of welfare services to millions of Australians must remain in government control.The second financial challenge described in the document says:to deliver an ongoing efficiency dividend to Government, based on promulgating best practice, improving our efficiency and reducing our administrative overheads.You can bet that `best practice' does not refer to service levels but to the amount which can be cut from operational costs and staffing. The business plan envisages that service obligations will be met by two radical changes to the delivery of services. These comprise, of course—as Senator Evans has outlined—a move to electronic delivery of services with the establishment of public Internet kiosks accessible perhaps in the same way as ATMs. This is not acceptable. The minister can talk about smaller versus larger offices, but there is no point in having larger offices that have no staff.The organisation is currently underresourced. The staff are already expected to deal with a number of programs that have only been introduced this year—with minimal support, training and assistance from this government. (Time expired)16:25:00147Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—It is just amazing to come in here and listen to this exaggeration of what is actually taking place being put to the Senate as though it is actually real. I cannot get over the number of times that all of these programs have been structured in such a way that the opposition has taken things to committees and simply misrepresented the situation. Centrelink's elimination of costly duplication is something that I cannot believe that the opposition cannot agree with. There are no forced redundancies. That is at the bottom of all of this. There are not 5,000 jobs that are going, and that is the problem. Had Senator Stott Despoja bothered to listen to the minister, she would have heard the minister give the actual figures of the jobs that are going. But she comes in here and says that it is an exaggeration. It is not an exaggeration, because there are not 5,000 positions going. The fundamental position is that there has to be—Honourable senators interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—Order! Senator Knowles, please continue without interruptions.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—The problem is that Senator Stott Despoja said that there is an exaggeration. Senator Stott Despoja is the one who is exaggerating. The situation simply is at this stage that there are 600 still to decide to go. Once again, there are not compulsory redundancies. There are 600 to go this year. There are 2,000 to go in 1999-2000, and there are 300 to go in 2000-01. That is the second time that the Senate has been provided with those figures. They are the figures that the minister provided half an hour ago, and I just want to get the message across that there are no office closures and there are no forced redundancies. The model was developed following extensive customer feedback, involving over 8,000 customers directly, and Centrelink is moving towards case management to give customers more personal service and quicker decisions. Surely the minor parties in this place can get their heads around the fact that there is going to be a better service provided to the customers of Centrelink, and surely that is the criteria. It is not a case of having huge office just to provide a service.Isn't it better to have more offices and more facilities available so that they can go face to face with the customer and so that they can actually understand their problems? One of the biggest problems I think anyone has in dealing with bureaucracies around the world is that you can never find the same person twice. The problem is that under the Labor government you would be given a different person every day of the week.Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—Senator Collins shrieks out—she has a voice like a fingernail on a blackboard. You have a situation where the Labor Party cannot understand what is going on in trying to provide a better service to people. An extra 50 offices will actually be opened. What is wrong with that? An extra 50 offices will be opened to complement the existing Centrelink offices in over 400 centres Australia wide.This whole process has in fact been set up with a 1800 customer feedback line, drawing up a customer charter and providing comment cards for customers to complete. But I think that one of the interesting and most significant things is that Centrelink has also been trialling the personalised service initiatives, and these have taken the form of a one main contact model where customers are able to deal with the same Centrelink customer service officer for all their business. Surely that is an advantage. Why are the minor parties in the parliament deciding that that is not advantageous to the customer concerned?It has been very favourably received by both the customers and the staff alike. Surely that is what matters, not what someone wants to manufacture and just comes in here and completely and utterly distorts. A new service delivery model has been developed based on a life events approach so that people can understand the problems that that person has. An example of that might include looking for a job, needing help after someone has died or other personal matters that can relate only to that particular person such as their planning for retirement.I cannot understand why the minor parties believe that that one-to-one approach—getting to know the person, understanding their particular problems—is such a bad thing. I cannot understand why they believe that opening a further 50 offices is also a bad thing. Surely that would be something that would be applauded but, no, that too, like everything else the government puts up, is rejected by minor parties.Knowing a customer's needs clearly cuts out a lot of the red tape. The red tape has been all enveloping in terms of these people who are in a disadvantageous position, and here the Labor Party and the Democrats want to continue with that red tape that they can clearly cut out. For instance, currently customers have to prove their identity each and every time they present to a different customer service officer. Surely dealing on a one-to-one basis and removing that need for proof of identity is advantageous. Surely one would say that taking advantage of the emerging technologies is advantageous but, no, not the opposition. This whole process is designed to improve what is happening out there in the real world, and the Ombudsman's report reveals that the number of complaints about Centrelink programs fell by 11 per cent over the last year and complaints about student assistance fell by 12 per cent. This is a good start for Centrelink, in only its first year.7Y6CROSSINSenator Crossin—People give up.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—Someone has chirped up over there that people give up. Only this Monday Centrelink call centre staff assisted 97,000 customers.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—How many?TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—They assisted 97,000 customers in one day, and the average wait for service was three minutes. Once again, we have the minor parties over here exaggerating about the system to try to create a barrier. I think this is a very good start for Centrelink in only its first year of operation, and one would hope that it would be able to have some bipartisan approach to doing better things for the customers.16:34:00148Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Let us talk about not what the government thinks might occur but what is happening. In Western Australia 180 staff have already gone from Centrelink in this financial year between July and October. Voluntary redundancies for the 180 cost around $3.5 million, plus whatever it will cost for their superannuation. Amongst those were some of the most experienced staff, some with 20 or 25 years experience. That is often the way it goes with these kinds of redundancy programs. Amongst authorised review officers, at least six officers with over 100 years of service between them left, and that is about half of the authorised review officers.Ron MacLeod, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, reported 10,582 complaints about Centrelink last financial year, and that is four times the rate for the Child Support Agency. Staff are not going by natural attrition, though conditions are now so bad that many committed people will take redundancy.The computer system, as we have heard on a number of occasions, is a disgrace. The move to a common platform earlier this year caused enormous difficulties for staff, and the introduction of new systems will place additional strain on reduced numbers of staff. Note that the staff numbers are being reduced before the introduction of new technologies, so the promises about the extra accessibility do not coincide when the staff are going.The government promised a `much better standard of service delivery to community and to individuals'. Instead, we are getting long delays, especially on the phone—anecdotal evidence of waiting times of 40 minutes not being unusual and other callers not being able to get onto a line at all. It may be that some people waiting on the line hang up because all they get is another mechanical voice when there is really nobody to explain what the specific needs of that person are. It is not a matter of being a customer or client. That is nonsense. It is a matter of being an insect on the end of somebody's pin, and the government just makes it harder and harder for those insects on the end of the pin.The CPSU refers to the ACOSS report of 4 November which highlights a disturbing rise in the demand for welfare services due to high unemployment. We have to remember that this is the government which is actually taking legal action on employment service providers for speaking about what the problems are. So there is a lot of pressure that these issues do not come out by workers and by those providers. The report also highlights funding cuts to welfare agencies and changes in government policies. This will be exacerbated by further cuts to Centrelink. (Time expired)16:37:00149Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Well, excuse our scepticism, but we have been through the Job Network process. We know the difference between the grand plan that is originally presented and the reality face to face on the shop floor.Senator Newman interjecting—GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Senator Newman, the problem you have to grapple with is that you are actually in government and you are a minister. Your performance in today's debate was appalling. You say you have had no complaints because shadow ministers or other members of the opposition have not spoken to you. Are you in the real world? Please! It is incredible.Let us get to the crux of what this issue really is about. What the government has done is increase a one per cent efficiency dividend by an additional six per cent. This is about budget cuts. That is what this is about. This is not about better service measures, which the opposition would support. If this were about better service measures and increasing and improving technology to provide better services, those initiatives would be supported. But this is about gutting an agency. This is about reducing services to those six million to seven million Australians, and the experience of the unemployed can only highlight that.Not only is the government adding to its current problems with this initiative with respect to the unemployed, it is indicating that it has learnt absolutely nothing from the Job Network debacle. There have already been 4,000 jobs removed from the CES and that has left Centrelink understaffed. That is why around 50 per cent of the offices have long queues. The other problem is that, in this proposal, the highlight is the lack of any testbedding of the proposed service delivery model. Again, it is the same problem that occurred with the Job Network—exactly the same problem.If we look at what occurred in relation to the Job Network, we will see that the basic facilities available at Centrelink in no way adequately replace the full services previously provided by the CES. Centrelink was not given the resources to make up for the drastic cuts in the CES. Furthermore, funding has not been spent where it should be. Many of the most experienced and successful employment service providers will not be able to continue. Instead, money has been given to individuals and organisations, some of whom have no facilities or are in financial turmoil or have breached proper practices in tendering application processes—all due to a lack of testbedding. It seems like the government is going to make the same mistakes here. But $7.6 million saved has been spent on an advertising campaign telling us that the future starts in May and pretending how good it will be. Further money is also being spent on changing the colour scheme of the remaining offices. Tell that to the redundant employees.We talk about technology and making the most of new technology for better service delivery. If that is what this were about, we could applaud it, but of course it is not. Computers, phones, the Internet and one-to-one non-direct contact may generate better service delivery if that was its purpose, but the purpose here is cuts. We found with the referral process in the Job Network that technology, because it was not properly testbedded, was the problem. It was not the solution, as suggested, to reducing the staff. It was not a solution at all.I refer to an article in the Canberra Times which highlighted many points. This is today's editorial. I want to refer to the conclusion, because we are being accused of exaggerating. I should correct the record. Senator Natasha Stott Despoja actually said that we were being accused of exaggerating. She did not claim that exaggeration was occurring. Let me refer to the conclusion in the editorial, which states:From the outside it looks awfully like guesswork, supplemented with a lot of faith.This might as well be advice from a psychic. Perhaps you should just rely on tarot reading, because that is the background of these measures.5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—It did not help with your future.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—I would not know, Senator. What the government should be doing here is fixing the Job Network before making further changes in these areas. But, no, what the government is doing, as noted elsewhere in the media as well, is simply pushing an ideological agenda. There is no rationality here. You are about cutting government. There is nothing here at all about better service delivery. But the amusing component in all of this is that Ms Vardon seems to have made a complete ideological backflip. I am absolutely astounded at the comments she has made in media briefings about how redundancies can be achieved.It is interesting that Senator Knowles made the comment that there would be no forced redundancies. I look forward to the minister stating quite clearly that there will be no forced redundancies in this debacle. I look forward to the first discrimination case that a woman makes when she claims that she is being pressured into taking up a redundancy package to help this government meet its targets. The public statement made by Ms Vardon in this episode about women being a good avenue through which to make your redundancies is absolutely outrageous. The ideological backflip that this woman has made is incredible. We might as well argue that the minister should stand down because her husband has a pension. It is outrageous, but it highlights the picket fence mentality that the Prime Minister has about the role of women.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—What rubbish!GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—The minister might say that that is rubbish, but, unfortunately, when she has a very senior bureaucrat who makes statements like that in the media there is no denying it and there is no moving away from it.If the minister says that she will deal personally with any case of any woman within Centrelink who believes that she is being pressured because she is pregnant or because she has an older husband and she might like to retire by taking the redundancy, that would be a wonderful statement to hear from the minister, but she has not said that. She has not given that commitment, and I challenge her to do so. It is absolutely ridiculous for Sue Vardon to be highlighting employment practices with respect to women making a good avenue for dealing with redundancies.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—No, she did not say that.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Let me read exactly what she said. She said:Many of the people who are leaving us are women who are actually from families where there are two incomes and they are quite happy to do that.Why are they happy to do that? Are they being asked to do that, Minister? This quote is in the present tense. Is the government asking women to leave?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I rise on a point of order. This is just becoming a slur on a public servant, a senior official, who has in fact been quoted out of a newspaper. I saw her press conference. You are misrepresenting what she said. There is no discrimination whatsoever between men and women in Centrelink, and it is unfair to the organisation to say it.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—There is no point of order and you know it. Sit down!BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—You be quiet. You be quiet, cock-sparrow. Go back to Opossum Bay. 10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—Order! Minister, there is no point of order. The behaviour in the chamber is unacceptable.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Not only was there no point of order but also the issue the minister referred to in the point of order was not accurate either. I was not referring to a statement from a newspaper, and if she had given me sufficient space I would have indicated where the statement came from. The statement came from an SBS program. I do not know whether the minister herself actually saw the program. She can look at the SBS comments that were made by Ms Vardon and make some future contribution on the issue. From my position, those comments are an outrage, and we were stunned when we saw them at the time. Obviously, we immediately made sure that we had the full transcript of the statement.Let me get back to the issue of the Job Network, which the government should now be focusing on addressing, rather than making further cuts, reducing services and extending more queues in another service agency. We need to change the Job Network so that people in rural and remote regions of high unemployment do get the extra attention and the services that they so desperately need. Guarantees were made that that would occur with the Job Network, but that is obviously not happening. (Time expired)16:47:00151Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Labor just could not wait to get back into this place to take the egg-beater to another issue and whip up the facts and whip up the fiction to see who else in the community they could frighten. It is an extraordinary situation. During the election campaign there was one issue after another—we saw it in the paper every day once we got past the pages where the opposition leader was kissing fish or eating humble pie in gross amounts. There they were beating up something new to frighten somebody, some group in the community. This week their target is the six million clients of Centrelink.The contributions of opposition members this afternoon have just demonstrated very clearly to me that this is the latest scare campaign, and it truly does plunge the depths of dishonesty. I am sorry that Senator Collins is leaving the chamber because I would like to draw to her attention a couple of quite extraordinary statements that she made in her contribution this afternoon. She first talked about the government making mistakes. I ask you: how could Senator Collins talk about government mistakes when she belonged to a government that made so many mistakes that all of the taxpayers of this country are still paying the price for them, still repairing the economic damage which was caused by those mistakes. She talked about cutting services. We are about making service delivery better—something that she actually denied all together in her contribution. She overlooked the facts for the sake of frightening someone else in the community.Centrelink is the biggest government agency. It has 24,000 staff, and it very clearly was not working to the capacity that it could have been. Who said so? Who told the government that Centrelink could be improved? It was not a consultant; it was the clients of Centrelink themselves. They were asked for their views and they generously gave them. We are now implementing the results of the feedback that they so generously gave, and thank goodness for that.All of us who have spoken to our constituents over a period of years—back in 1994 and 1995 I took calls from constituents who were simply a number in the social security logjam—have heard stories about the hours they spent being a number in a government office, sitting there day after day, and about the confusing array of programs they tried to unravel. We are trying to offer a service that will enable people to work with the same person all the time. They do not have to go in there and say, `This is me. Let me tell you my life history so, once again, you can tell me what I need to know.' What we are about is making that service more efficient. We are taking a new approach to delivering government services—an approach which works more from the customer's perspective, rather than from the bureaucrat's perspective.These latest changes have been announced as part of an ongoing process which will reform the system and improve the overall quality of service. Centrelink is overcoming some of the bureaucratic red tape, which the clients themselves were able to identify. Clients will not have to face the confusion of dealing with multiple staff and multiple programs—they will see the same face. The minister was able to implement some of these innovations as a result of a visit to New Zealand where this system is working very well. It has also been successfully trialled in some of our most busy Centrelink offices.What are we going to deliver? We are going to deliver services that the clients themselves have said they want. We know these reforms will work because the extensive customer feedback has told us so. Clients will, I am sure, appreciate the elimination of duplication and the simplification of quite frustrating and cumbersome administrative procedures that previously operated as a result of the old, pre 1996 bureaucratic red tape that operated in those offices. When we talk about the number of bureaucrats in the old Department of Social Security system, let us not forget that they did not actually deliver a better service. Those of us who have dealt with our constituents over the years would be able to tell you that.Unlike the previous government, we do not consider that it is appropriate or fair or good enough to provide a mediocre service to government agency customers. We are not complacent. We recognise that Centrelink is a dynamic agency, and as improvements come forward we will implement them. We are not locked in the Dark Ages, as the previous administration was, in dealing with this very difficult service delivery agency.Labor's absolutely disgraceful scare campaign over the last week is particularly opportunistic when you look at their record in government of service delivery for job seekers and social security recipients. The former CES cumbersome administrative processes let down young people and job seekers who were at their most vulnerable. The previous administration failed to do anything about it; they sat there and twiddled their thumbs and they employed more bureaucrats. Their record in delivering social security services was marked by failure.Those of us who can recall our constituency work in 1993 can tell you about the failure of the families integration project. It was a disaster for eight long months. It produced huge numbers of incorrect and duplicate payments. In 1995, new arrangements for parenting allowances also led to a number of payment mistakes, particularly to low income families. It was a disgrace having to try to unravel that in dealing with those very stressed out and quite desperate constituents. These problems were far worse than anything that we have encountered with the teething problems of Centrelink, which we have worked very hard to try to fix up. These facts are always overlooked when these sorts of scare campaigns are run by the Labor Party.(Time expired) Question put: That the motion (Senator Chris Evans's ) be agreed to.16:49:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)34Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Colston, M. A.Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. Lees, M. H.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.32Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.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.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G. *Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.Cook, P. F. S. Tambling, G. E. J.Denman, K. J. Calvert, P. H.Lundy, K. Minchin, N. H.Schacht, C. C. Hill, R. M.Woodley, J. Vanstone, A. E.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Senator Chris Evans) agreed to:That the resolution agreed be communicated by message to the House of Representatives for its concurrence.Bills153r524153Debate resumed.17:03:00153Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition on the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Amendment Bill 1998 and indicate that we intend to support it. I must say that my staff thought it quite strange that the first social security bill that we dealt with had something to do with technology and, given my lack of expertise in the area, they do not expect much of me in terms of performance.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I do.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Thank you, Minister. You obviously have more confidence in me than my staff have. But I do wish to put a few remarks on record on behalf of the opposition.First of all, I would make the point that the data matching program was a Labor initiative. The act created a mechanism for the detection of inconsistent payments being made to a person by two or more agencies and the detection of possible tax evasion. The act defined the method of data matching and placed a limit on the number of data matching cycles. It gave force to data matching guidelines that had been issued by the Privacy Commissioner. The act permitted the use of tax file numbers to assist with the verification with the tax office of income information provided by social security recipients. It also increased data matching between a number of government departments including Social Security; Veteran Affairs; Health, Housing and Community Services; Employment, Education and Training; and the tax office.The date in the original sunset clause in the act was January 1993. The act was then amended in 1992 to extend the period of that sunset clause. It was further extended subsequently twice more. This bill before us today completely removes the sunset clause. There is, I think, a recognition now that the data matching program is a very effective part of maintaining the integrity of the social security system.I wish to make no further remarks today, other than to say that obviously social security is about a lot more than just fraud prevention. Also, there are a range of other issues in this area that we think the government ought to be tackling very seriously, but those issues are for another day. I commend the bill to the Senate.17:06:00153Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Amendment Bill 1998 amends the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act 1990 by repealing section 21. This section provides a sunset clause for the operation of the act. The effect of the repeal will be to remove the sunset clause applying to parts 1 and 2 of the act; so these provisions will continue to apply after 22 January next year.The government in its second reading speech talks about keeping personal financial assistance schemes free from abuse and fraud and points to the substantial savings that have occurred over the last two years. The govern ment also claims that data matching encourages voluntary compliance. The government also claims that this measure will continue to bring savings—and I believe those savings have been estimated at $560 million over the next four years.However, the history of this measure is significant and accounts for the Democrats' opposition to this bill on a number of occasions. There have been several debates on this bill by current Democrat colleagues. Senator John Woodley and Senator Meg Lees have been involved in this debate in the past. Former leader Senator Janine Haines was very keen in the past to participate in debates about privacy and the implications of legislation of this type.The issue has its origins in the Australia card debate and the expanding use of tax file numbers as a de facto personal identity scheme. The Labor government, as Senator Chris Evans has acknowledged, announced the introduction of this scheme. It was also responsible for the introduction of legislation relating to the Australia card in September 1985. This was ostensibly to `combat tax evasion and reduce health and welfare fraud'.The Australia card concept was referred to a joint parliamentary committee, which reported in May 1986. A five-three majority of the committee, which included Democrat senator Janine Haines, favoured an upgraded tax file number system in preference to the government's Australia card proposal. The proposed high integrity tax file number was to be used in a wide range of financial transactions and in the reporting of information to the Australian Taxation Office. Senator Haines said at the time:Social security fraud and overpayment and tax fraud, as all the evidence before the Committee indicated, come mainly from the understatement of incomes—for example, from not declaring income in the cash economy and from the non-declaration of interest. Aside from that, the only major component was outright criminal defrauding . . . Despite the committee's rejection of the Australia Card Bill, it was introduced into the Senate in November 1986 and defeated in December that year.On that occasion, former senator Janine Haines said in the second reading debate:It is important that we make it quite clear from the beginning that this is not a debate, nor should it be turned into a debate, about whether people are opposed to or are supporters of tax and social security fraud. The debate on the legislation before us today and the alternative proposals ought to be about how best we combat the tax and social security fraud that is costing this country billions of dollars annually and how we do it without excessive imposts on the rest of the community.I suggest that this is relevant to these debates about privacy and compliance and data matching devices today. I continue to use former Senator Haines's words:It seems to me, however, that from time to time there are some double standards in that some of the most frequent calls for attacks on social security cheats seem to come from those people who have turned tax minimisation into an art form and that more people in the community seem to be concerned about the $30m or whatever it is we lose each year to social security defrauders than they are about the $3 billion that we lose annually to tax defrauders. But I guess that that is a matter of their perspective and a question of double standards.They are quite appropriate words today.The Labor government's reintroduction of the Australia Card Bill in a number of forms was pretty unsuccessful. It eventually withdrew the proposal due to a lack of support. However, along the way, the Legal and Constitutional Committee, considering Australia Card Bill (No. 3), focused on tax file numbers. The significant issue in that report was that between 1985 and 1987, when the Australia card was claimed to be the only measure for reducing tax evasion and fraud worth $1 billion annually, the Labor government was able to recover $800 million annually through other means, such as amending taxation legislation. About that report former Senator Haines said:Let me say categorically that neither I nor any of my colleagues in the Australian Democrats support tax cheats or social security defrauders. However, I do question the Government's sincerity about recouping revenue when it has inserted in various pieces of tax law measures that allow some companies in this country to legally pay less than one cent in the dollar in tax year after year after year. When the Government comes to terms with that, I will accept that it is far more sincere in its attitude to raising revenue than it has demonstrated to date. I suggest that those words are still relevant today regardless of which government we are talking about.After the failure of the Australia card, the Labor government introduced tax file number legislation, Taxation Laws Amendment (Tax File Numbers) Bill 1988. The Privacy Bill 1988 was introduced at the same time to ensure that any fears about intrusion or breaches of privacy were taken into account. This legislation arguably enabled the use of tax file numbers as a de facto identity card for a number of dealings with the government, including employment and Medicare et cetera.At that time, the Australian Democrats expressed their concerns. We moved a number of amendments. We attempted to increase the strength of the Privacy Bill, including, of course, extending it to the private sector. That is another debate that is relevant today. The Democrats have argued long and hard in this place, certainly in the last parliament and before, for the extension of the Privacy Act to the private sector. Indeed, the government promised during the election campaign in 1996 that it would extend the Privacy Act to the private sector. But we have seen a reversal in that promise by no less than the Prime Minister himself. There has been an absolute contradiction in the move to extend the Privacy Act to the private sector, despite the fact that many in our community would like to see that happen.Senator Coulter, my predecessor, then expressed a concern that I believe is particularly valid today:Once one has a number with a very high integrity, which is linked to an individual and which links that individual with a number of financial transactions, the provision of that number leaves that individual open, through the great capacity which is now available in computers . . . to the possibility that that information could be abused and misused. It could be to the detriment of individuals if that high integrity number should fall into the hands of those who have no business to have it. The Democrats are proposing that that number should be known only to the individual and to the Australian Taxation Office . . .Sensitive to the electorate's attitude to the Australia card when introducing this legislation, the government gave assurances that the tax file number system would not be extended to other government departments and agencies. I quote as an example the Treasurer, who on 3 June 1988 said:We have no intention now or in the future of extending the basis of the tax file number to do anything like some of the Australia card tasks.And:No other government or non-government and agency will have access to the Tax Office file number registration system.As a backflip, the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Bill 1990 was introduced on 6 December 1990 to give effect to wide-ranging data-matching measures, using the tax file number, between the departments of social security, veterans' affairs, community services and health and employment, education and training and the Australian Taxation Office. The Labor government claimed that this measure was necessary to counter the potential abuse of the assistance and taxation systems. It was to cover the potential abuse of income support and assistance payments. The bill lapsed, and a similar bill was introduced taking into account committee findings.The Democrats at that stage were concerned that data-matching legislation should not be extended to do anything like the intention behind the Australia Card. The 1990 bill was an extension of the use of tax file numbers, and had far-reaching effects when combined with a range of subsequent bills. The scheme now extends to most tax, employment, education and training, health, immigration and ethnic affairs payments. This is a direct repudiation of the Labor government's promise to restrict the use of tax file numbers to tax related matters only.In 1990, the Democrats opposed that bill because there was not an examination—certainly not an adequate examination—of the far-reaching effects of data-matching, and of course there were inadequate privacy protections. The principal reason for this view was that individual autonomy outweighs government control in this instance, as the tax file number system becomes a de facto multipurpose identification system. It is effectively the Australia Card by another name.The 1990 bill was only passed because of the sunset clause—something that the government seeks to get rid of. Senator Alston—who was in opposition at the time—set out the reasons for this amendment. He said:. . . we are also very anxious to ensure that the Parliament retains control of the process, and that is why we will be introducing a sunset clause.The Democrats also supported the sunset clause. I quote another former leader, Senator Powell. She stated:If the Australian Democrats had had their way this legislation would have ridden off into the sunset at the end of the second reading. However, as a compromise we are prepared to support this sunset clause, although we will have to wait two years. We regret that the privacy of many Australian citizens is likely to be impinged upon in that two years. Nevertheless, the Opposition has been able to bring itself to this position, in spite of its earlier opposition to the Australia Card and so on, and so we welcome the amendment and support it.The sunset clause returned to the Senate for reconsideration in 1992 in the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Bill 1992. The Democrats again supported a sunset clause to maintain parliamentary scrutiny on the basis the Labor government promised not to extend the tax file number scheme and that as a society we are not prepared to increase intrusion into personal lives for the sort of efficiency that the government claims are possible. The sunset clause was again extended in 1995. The nub of the issue here was nicely stated by Senator Powell on 18 December 1990 when the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Bill 1990 was being considered. She said:Before turning to the specifics of the legislation before us and the history leading up to it, I want to make some brief remarks about privacy. Sometimes, regrettably, the privacy issue is lost in the general point scoring and dubious claims associated with this kind of debate, but we must not lose sight of the central point or of its overwhelming importance. The issue of privacy is necessarily one of competing principles. It is concerned with the role of governments in the private lives of its citizens. It is directly relevant to the balance between citizens' autonomy and control over them. It always emerges in the ongoing competition between efficiency and the price society is prepared to pay for that efficiency. The Democrats still oppose this bill. However, we recognise the urgency with which this matter must be dealt because of the sunset clause. We will support a sunset clause for a period of another three years. We are also concerned about privacy of information held by the Commonwealth which is outsourced and which is dealt with by the government in dealings outside the scope of the present Privacy Act. On many occasions we have talked about the inadequacy of the Privacy Act.The recent Telecommunications Act illustrates some of our concerns. This act was dealt with by the Senate with the understanding that the government would be introducing a comprehensive privacy scheme—a national, uniform, comprehensive privacy scheme. The government changed its mind, and that comprehensive privacy scheme is not in existence. We cannot now rely on the government's Privacy Amendment Bill to extend the Privacy Act to outsourced information and self-regulation in the private sector.Now, more than ever before—it is extraordinary—with technological advances, computers do have the power to match unique identifiers like tax file numbers to a range of other information, and of course there is the potential to misuse that information. This was the objection to the Australia Card. This was the objection not only from the Australian Democrats but from a broad range of people in the community, and it is our objection now. It was our objection then, and it remains today.We do not advocate tax and social security fraud. Just as Senator Janine Haines was claiming in the mid to late 1980s, there is no way that we support social security fraud. But we do think that this debate involves broader concepts and we do think that this issue of fraud must be balanced against the integrity of all those honest Australians, which should not be compromised.Finally, we have a double standard which attacks those people getting benefits as defrauders, yet we have a system that ignores the huge sums of tax and other revenue that is lost, that is forgone, from tax fraud and dodgy minimisation schemes. Penny pinching from those who are most needy in our community is not a happy balance when tax avoidance and dodgy minimisation schemes are left untouched. When the government enters into this debate and tackles this kind of minimisation and fraud sincerely, as Janine Haines would say, then we believe there will be more sincerity to this debate as a whole.17:21:00157Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I agree with much of what Senator Stott Despoja says. What is aimed at here is a very worthy objective—that is, that there be tools to enable the Commonwealth to ensure that public revenue is not misspent. I think that is an object that everybody would be dedicated to. The minister has often spoken about that in this chamber. The problem always is that in a free and democratic society there are limits that ought to be put, and in fact are put, on the investigative tools with which we equip those people whose duty it is to look after the public revenue.The question always is—and this question arises in this case—have we put enough monitors on the tools that the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act 1990allows? The answer to that might best be given in this way. There ought to be an ability for those who are being investigated to preserve their integrity as a human being. There ought to be some protection for that person's reputation or for that person's finances if he or she were to be fined for some breach of some act. Finally, we ought to be conscious of the liberty of that person if that person is likely to suffer a term of imprisonment for what he or she does against the law.So there are big issues in this legislation. It is a very short bill, but it does bring into operation a very useful and necessary tool but a tool that ought to be tempered so that it acts as it ought to in a true society in which we respect human rights and in which we respect the proper community entitlements that anybody is entitled to have.There are some quite stringent provisions in the data-matching program act to protect privacy in so far as that may be affected by people within the Public Service. The difficulty is that that same protection seems not to be brought into operation against any private agency that may be brought into the provision of services to which the data-matching program act might apply. For example, page 11 of yesterday's Financial Review says:Labor's community services spokesman, Mr Wayne Swan, last night described the Centrelink restructure as a "prelude to privatisation".The Minister for Community Services, Mr Warren Truss, while ruling out privatisation, failed to rule out future government plans to usher in greater competition in the delivery of welfare services, telling reporters "the future is a very, very long time".It seems to me that there is a significant risk that matters will be privatised and that those matters are to do with the provision of data of individuals. If that risk is there, shouldn't we as a parliament be ensuring that proper privacy provisions are in place before we take away the sunset clause that presently operates in this act?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—They are.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—The minister says they are, but I wonder how far they go. Minister, perhaps you can explain this. As I understand what you are saying, there is in every aspect of this act—that is, the data-matching programming act—provisions which ensure that anything sent out to a private supplier of whatever nature will be protected in the same way as any other service provided by the public sector.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Yes, that is right.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I was looking at that and I was wondering where that appeared in the act.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I believe it is under the Social Security Act. We have used that in other areas.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—If that is so, then that would remove a lot of the problems in this area. On 21 March last year the government said it would not implement privacy legislation for the private sector. I am counselling in this context that that intention expressed on 21 March last year by the Prime Minister that the government would not implement privacy legislation should perhaps be revisited. I notice that the government in my home state of Victoria under Mr Kennett is intent on bringing in legislation for the private sector. I note too that the Prime Minister at the time said that the Commonwealth would not be introducing privacy legislation and said he would be asking the states and territories not to bring in such legislation. I am saying now that it is perhaps time for us to reconsider that issue because privacy is under threat. I have had the assurance from the government that privacy, whether it is within the ability of the government or within the ability of private enterprise to compromise, will be protected by laws that punish people who breach that privacy.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Yes, they are subject to the Social Security Act as if they were an officer, as if they were a contractor to the department.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Thank you very much for that, Minister. I accept that. Does that therefore not indicate that it would be a good thing for privacy to be protected right across the board? By that I mean not only the matters covered by the bill before us and the act that it will amend but extending those provisions that apply to the private sector to the private sector as a whole. I understand that that is not within the minister's particular portfolio, but this does seem to be an occasion to raise that issue.In this context I would like to talk about the Freedom of Information Act, because in my view this whole issue of privacy deals with the possession of information. One of the problems in this whole field of privacy is that the privacy of some people is protected while the privacy of others is not. The Freedom of Information Act gives great exceptions within its provisions as to what can be discovered. It seems to me that, if we are going down the field of gathering more information, it should be information that is first of all protected. But, if the information is to be gained from some people, then it should be gained from others as well so that there is some parity of power in the possession of information. Because information is power. With some people being able to preserve the secrecy of things and being able to preserve privacy—for example, with commercial in confidence provisions—and with others not being able to preserve privacy, there is an inequality in the power that is available to many people.To return to what I was talking about earlier, when we talk about provisions that help those who have the duty to detect overpayments, to detect fraud and to ensure that the integrity of the system is preserved, when we give them powers we should ensure that those powers are used and used advisedly. I think these days there are a lot of problems with people being affected adversely by media accounts of arrests, media accounts of investigations and media accounts of what is preliminary to arrests. That is unfair on all occasions, because people are entitled to have their reputation preserved until some court, properly constituted, says that they should not. There is a difficulty these days when a lot of the information that becomes available is revealed. People's reputations are being damaged, and that is a very bad thing.I conclude by saying that the aim of this act is a good one. The removal of the sunset clause has been undertaken. I am glad to find out that privacy is protected, as it ought to be. The main concern is that still too often there is damage to reputations because of information being released at too early a stage. What I mean by `too early a stage' is a stage before proper process has been undertaken.17:34:00158Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I too rise to make a contribution to this debate in the context of the privacy implications. Senators opposite will know of my keen interest in the program of the government of outsourcing information technology services. I believe the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Amendment Bill 1998 provides an opportunity to comment on these matters in a reasonably comprehensive way, given that privacy is something that I have continually expressed concern about in the context of the IT outsourcing program.The issue of substance is this: if information about Australian citizens is in the hands of the government, it is currently protected by the Privacy Act. When that information is transferred to the private sector, it is no longer covered by that act. At this stage, despite very early and very strong statements by Minister Fahey and members of the government stating that they intended to extend the application of the Privacy Act to the private sector in this context, that position has been systematically wound back to the point where the minister has indicated that it is not the intention of the government to extend that legislation in the way I have described. Instead, the government offers the notion that privacy of citizens' information in the hands of the private sector through an outsourced contract will be dealt with within very stringent contractual clauses. That is, the substance of how they intend to protect the privacy of citizens information in an outsourcing context will be contained within the confidential clause of the contract.In terms of public accountability and public scrutiny of the privacy regime that would apply to that information, there is none. Consistently when we have approached the government through estimates and other processes to find out details of those clauses—indeed, the intention of the government with regard to this matter—we are continually greeted with the claim of commercial in confidence. Whilst I understand that on matters of competitive advantage there may be an issue, I do not accept that the protection of citizens' privacy bears any relationship to a matter that requires the claim of commercial in confidence on behalf of a given vendor who is successful in the outsourcing program.The concern with that information being in the hands of private vendors—we do not know anything about those contracts—is that, if that data is not stored in Australia and is stored physically on servers and on computer mainframes in other countries, does the Australian jurisdiction apply in terms of that privacy or does the privacy regime of the country in which that data is stored apply or is it specifically only governed by the confidential terms of the contract? Although these questions might appear quite esoteric in their nature, when it comes down to it, unless they are answered I believe there are serious gaps in the government's credibility when they state that somehow the privacy of citizens will be protected through social security or other legislation. It relates to the way in which the information technology is managed by the contractor as opposed to the way in which that data is applied through the purposes and intent of the act. There is a different structural issue at play. In the international context, these matters take on even greater complexity. For example, the European Union have recently established their own scope and guidelines with respect to the management and exchange of information. They have indicated they will not be prepared to exchange information with companies from countries without full legislative privacy protection. In the context of the current IT outsourcing program and the privatisations that were referred to by Senator Cooney, these issues can take on a trade imperative.Some companies have expressed some concern about this. An article published early last year in the Sydney Morning Herald reported the director of the Australian Privacy Foundation, Mr Tim Dixon, saying that the new move by the government would not protect citizens' privacy because most big computer-data companies did their computer processing offshore. I think the EU guidelines in this area will start to impact directly on how these IT contracts are going to be managed.Another issue is the progress in the state of Victoria. Whilst the federal government has been reticent to legislate in this area, citing issues such as not wanting to create further red tape for companies, Victoria has seen it as being appropriate to start to legislate in this area to afford the level of privacy protection that is claimed within the community to be desirable and necessary.The other issue concerns consumers' and citizens' confidence in the ability of the government to manage their information effectively. It is one thing to provide a mechanism through a contract, which in turn is subject to all sorts of variation and change over time, and not have access to the actual provisions of that contract; it is another to legislate, to put into the public domain not only the criteria but also the sanctions if those criteria are breached so that the citizens are left in an undesirable position with regard to their privacy.The last point I would like to mention in the context of this debate is the forthcoming IT outsourcing contract in the Australian Taxation Office. This particular request for tender was released five days before the election was announced and is currently in process. It would be interesting if the government could provide us with the types of provisions in the application of the data-matching process and in the requirements placed on the potential vendors within that request for tender. Indeed, it would also be interesting to backtrack over the contracts that have already been put in place with respect to the IT outsourcing program to see the relative privacy measures that have been put in place. But, as I have said, none of this information is available to the public because of the commercial-in-confidence shroud that descends across the contracts once they are in place.As I said at the beginning of this contribution, this bill provides an opportunity to raise these serious concerns about privacy. Recently, the Internet Industry Association sent a letter to the Prime Minister outlining what they believe—and I certainly support it—is a very sound case for enhancing the legislative privacy regime to cover these new arrangements with respect to information technology and its management by government not only in the context of that particular program but also in the best interests of the public in protecting their privacy and therefore having confidence in the government's program.My position is clear on the matter of IT outsourcing: in my view, privacy is one of the very good reasons why the IT outsourcing program is currently flawed. Obviously, the best case scenario in a very damaging outcome for citizens' privacy is that there be legislation. But I believe that a change in the way that program is applied and the retention of the strategic control of information technology services within government agencies is the best case scenario and that that strategic control and ownership of the data be held in the public hands.To conclude, ownership of the data is often cited by the government as being something still in public hands and not affected by the IT outsourcing contracts. I refute this position put forward by the government in that if you relinquish the strategic control of information or data held by Commonwealth departments then you also relinquish ownership and control of that data—albeit technically the ownership of that data may still reside in government hands. As far as I can see, if you lose strategic control of that data it may as well be in the technical possession of the IT outsourcing vendor; in other words, in private hands and not covered in any way, shape or form by any Australian legislation relating to privacy.17:44:00160Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank honourable senators for their contributions. I share, as I think any senator would share, the opposition's concerns to see that the privacy issues are adequately addressed across the whole of government. I cannot speak for other portfolios, of course, but I can speak for the social security portfolio. It is important that I confirm, as I said by way of interjection to Senator Cooney, that a contractor with the former Department of Social Security, now the Department of Family and Community Services, is an officer for the purposes of the Social Security Act. We have a great deal of outsourcing of one kind or another.I draw Senator Lundy's and Senator Cooney's attention to a fairly recent example where it was very important that we made sure that every `I' was dotted and every `T' was crossed on privacy matters, and that is the optical surveillance pilot. You will recall that we were trying to do better in obtaining evidence that we would be able to take to court on people who were systematically and deliberately defrauding the social security portfolio of substantial amounts of money—very clever people, if you like, who were breaking the law. The normal procedures that we used in the department made it hard to obtain the evidence. That was a case where we recognised the need to protect privacy. We needed to protect the information that was held in the department and that was going to potentially end up in courts. It was vitally important as to how it was all conducted.So if I give you that as an example, although you are not privy to the commercial-in-confidence nature of the contract, you have been assured on the public record that the Privacy Commissioner has been involved at every step of the way in devising the protection of people's privacy and the information held by the department through that process. So we effectively used the Privacy Commissioner as a consultant in trying to establish what sort of processes and what sort of contract needed to be put in place, and then requiring not just the successful tenderer but also each member of staff who would have any kind of access to the information to sign a confidentiality agreement—7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—What about redress?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I was just trying to get the information on that when it was my turn to get up to speak, so I cannot give you that, but I could give it to you later perhaps. I want you to understand that in this department we do focus vitally importantly on confidentiality and privacy matters, as you can imagine. We are very heavily dependent upon IT, which we heard people talking about earlier today. Also, the records of six million-odd Australians are in our care and we have to be focused. Perhaps more than almost any other department of state we have a very real understanding of the need. My experience in the 2½ years I have held this portfolio has been that the department and Centrelink itself have been meticulous in seeing that privacy issues are addressed.In conclusion, while we are agreeing—and I appreciate the opposition's support here—to repeal the sunset clause, that does not mean that the Privacy Commissioner's scrutiny is in any way diminished. The reporting to parliament, the reporting to the Privacy Commissioner and the scrutiny by the parliament and the Privacy commissioner all are maintained as they were before. So I thank you all for your contribution.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.161Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.161Motion (by Senator Newman) proposed:That this bill be now read a third time. Question put.17:55:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)45Bishop, T. M. Boswell, R. L. D.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crane, W.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Herron, J. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. Knowles, S. C.Lundy, K. Macdonald, S.Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.O'Chee, W. G. *Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Sherry, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.8Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bill read a third time.Address in Reply162162Debate resumed.17:57:00162Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—When I was speaking earlier in the debate I was developing the idea of what a mandate is. This seems to be an issue that a lot of people are putting a great deal of time and energy into. In essence, the case I made out this morning when I was dealing with this matter was that if anyone can claim a mandate it is the Labor Party, which received 52 per cent of the vote.I understand, particularly on 11 November, that we can look very closely at the experience of 1975. Those people who are now preaching about mandates and saying they have one on the basis of seats won were exactly the sort of people who were saying back in 1975 that it was quite legitimate to rip up the fabric of democracy in this country without any problems whatsoever and that a mandate did not mean anything at that point. Indeed, as I said before, the Liberal Party in South Australia made much of the fact that they won a majority of the votes but not a majority of the seats in 1989. They lectured my party up hill and down dale about the fact that we did not have any mandate at all because we did not have a majority.I can only say that there are obviously some people, including the Prime Minister, who are born again mandate people. What they are saying now is that because they have a majority of seats they have a mandate. I think that is fallacious. I think the argument itself is wrong. I think the argument of mandate is not on seats but on a majority of votes.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—That was because of the good looking candidates that you put up.EU4Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—The Labor Party did very well in the last election. It got 52 per cent of the vote. Senator O'Chee over there has just said that it was because of the good looking candidates that we put up, and I think he was referring to me. While I am thankful to my friend Senator O'Chee saying that, the truth of the matter is my face chased a lot of voters away and, had we had Senator O'Chee's face there, I am sure we would have chased even more away.At the end of the day, I cannot say that we got a mandate on the basis of my good looks. It was a mandate on the basis of solid, hard opposition to the goods and services tax—but I thank Senator O'Chee for the interjection. I am puzzled over this question of a mandate and my own role in here.Senator Patterson interjecting—ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I am finishing it off, Senator Patterson. It is all right. Just sit there and you will get it. I was worried about my position here. At least until 30 June next year, I suppose I am Dominic Foreman. Dominic left here back in September last year.Senator Cook interjecting—ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—No, he is not Senator Dominic Foreman anymore, but he was then. Former Senator Dominic Foreman was elected in 1993. I can tell you that he was elected quite clearly on the basis that he was never going to vote for a GST unless the Liberal Party won the 1993 election, which they did not. Former Senator Foreman came in here and sat here. He was here until September last year and I have become Senator Foreman, so to speak. I picked up the cudgels that he left here, and one of those was to oppose the GST.In the recent election, I was elected in my own right. So, until 30 June, my riding instructions for my position are quite clear: I have ex-Senator Foreman's mandate to oppose the GST. Of course, after 1 July next year, I will have my own mandate.Senator Ferguson interjecting—ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—As Senator Ferguson, who is interrupting now, knows very well, something like 135,000 people voted for me, and they knew quite clearly I was never going to vote for a GST. The only confession I have to make is that 6,000 of my surplus votes elected Senator Ferguson. I want to apologise to those 6,000 constituents out there who voted for me whose preferences saved Senator Ferguson.I want to make my case out now to Senator Ferguson, if I can. I hope sincerely that, when he comes to vote on all this stuff, he will remember those 6,000 individuals who said, `We are going to pick Senator Ferguson as No. 2. We delegate that right to the Labor Party to pick out who they figure would be the worst, I suppose, or the best further down the ticket.' Senator Ferguson is the beneficiary of that. I hope that, when those votes come in here on the GST, Senator Ferguson will give them a very clear hearing because there will be 6,000 people out there looking very closely at how he votes.If I were to come in here either in my present capacity as filling in for ex-Senator Dominic Foreman until 30 June next year or in my other hat that I will be wearing on 1 July next year as elected senator in my own right and I voted for a GST on the basis that there was some sort of mandate out there, I think 135,000 people out there could rightfully feel cheated and robbed. They had a pretty clear understanding. They had a pretty clear contract with me and with Senator Bolkus. We were elected on the basis that we were not going to vote for this thing. We made it absolutely crystal clear.This nonsense about the mandate has to be very seriously looked at. I must say that the Prime Minister, in making out his case, has a very, very weak case. In any case, when it comes up here, the proposals will be very clearly looked at. I understand there will be as many committees as there are senators in this place. I am not sure of the current provision today. I am not involved in it. I think that inflation will take over between now and the next sitting week when we have to determine those things and there will probably be two inquiries per committee.When I first came to this place, I was somewhat confused because there are references committees and legislation committees and we used to just rock up to the same room and change hats and all the rest of it. By the time this process has dealt with the GST, we will have had a very good look at it and a very clear look at it. We will see how the whole thing goes.AW5CARRSenator Carr—It will be up to 15 per cent by then.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I make no comment. I do know whether that is so or not.I do know that anyone who says that on the basis of 3 October they have an absolute mandate to shove this thing through, despite all the taxpayers' money that was spent trying to flog it off to the public of Australia, really has another thing coming. In fact, somebody was making out a case here this morning about the council of Boulia, or something like that. I must confess I have never heard of it, but I would say that this would be another load of `boulia'. With that, I think I have made my case pretty well.18:06:00163Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The Governor-General, in his speech to the 39th Parliament, highlighted that the government's intention was to pursue its partisan industrial relations agenda, and nothing more clearly demonstrates the government's insincerity than its claim that it is speaking and acting for all Australians. Mr Reith's behaviour in the last parliament and what he has said since the election demonstrate very clearly that the Liberals are intending to pursue what can only be described as a highly divisive and partisan policy with regard to the working people of this country.In a recent speech, Mr Reith spelt out the government's agenda even more clearly than was explained to us in the remarks of the Governor-General. He identified four industries—namely, coalmining, building construction, meat processing and the maritime—where he claimed there existed blockages `of a structural, attitudinal or behavioural kind that prevent optimum workplace change from being achieved'. Fresh from his defeat and his self-aggrandising war with the MUA, Mr Reith has signalled that he now wishes to turn his attention to meatworkers and their families. Some time in the future one expects that he will also be giving his attention to the CFMEU and their families.In October of this year, after the election, the Productivity Commission released a report under its Labour Market Research Division entitled Work arrangements in the Australian meat processing industry. The issue of this report fits very neatly with the government's campaign to reduce the wages and conditions of Australian meatworkers. Immediately after the federal election, Peter Reith made some statements to the meat employers' conference. He indicated the government would be supporting attempts by employers to strip awards that meatworkers had enjoyed in the first instance by participating in the AIRC hearings in support of an application by some companies, including the American ConAgra, in the meat industry to remove the tally provisions from industry awards. The minister said that he was prepared to legislate if necessary if the AIRC did not support the application of these firms.In a speech to the Country Meat Works Association of New South Wales, Mr Reith launched his assault on the meatworkers by praising the Productivity Commission report. Some firms such as Australian Meat Holdings Ltd have used the National Meat Association, which covers only 30 per cent of employers, in its bid to reduce the wages of meatworkers by as much as $150 a week. They have attempted to change the basis on which the Industrial Relations Commission is able to assess the so-called no disadvantage test in certifying enterprise agreements. The Productivity Commission's report may well be used as a propaganda weapon by this government to suggest that the incentive payments scheme, known as the tally, should be removed. Clearly, that is what Mr Reith spelt out in his speech of last month.The tally is a team based piece rate system which allows for payment based upon the production quotas for the number of head processed in a meatworks. The key recommendation of the Productivity Commission report is that the tally system be removed. This is despite the fact that, as the report itself acknowledged, the tally system as prescribed in industry awards is not widely used in the industry but rather variations of the tally have become important components of various enterprise agreements. Nor have the report's authors been deterred by the fact that tallies are one of only 20 allowable matters under this government's current legislation. The real intent of this campaign is to change the federal meat industry award so that certified agreements can be struck by reductions in the relevant base award according to the so-called no disadvantage test, thereby reducing workers' wages.I read with amazement in the overview of the report that the commission was not able to quantify precisely the benefits of changed work arrangements at the firm level. That is on page XVIII. Yet it is abundantly clear from the reading of the report that wage costs in the meat processing industry contributed only about 12 per cent to 15 per cent of the cost of production of meat to the consumer. Yet this government is attempting to support employers' claims to force down industry costs by minimising returns to workers.The industry's own figures highlight that the cost of production is made up primarily as follows: 60 per cent for the purchase of stock; 13 per cent for transport; 27 per cent for the actual processing of meat which includes a range of charges such as meat inspection, management fees, various government charges including workers compensation and payroll tax; and training and recruitment costs. The direct return to workers—that is, wages—could be estimated at between a mere 12 per cent to 15 per cent of the total cost. On this basis, and even if a worker was prepared to work for nothing—that is, if slavery was re-introduced—the cost reductions to consumers for a kilo of beef would be some 12c to 15c in the dollar. That is a assuming you do not actually feed your workers.If this government and certain meat companies are successful in achieving their proposed changes, and assuming that all the cost savings were passed onto the consumer, a kilo of beef would be some 30c cheaper. If a meatworker's pay was slashed under these proposals, one meal of steak and chips would probably be less than 5c cheaper. Add on a GST that this government is so keen on and, bingo, dinner becomes an expensive proposition certainly for you and so much more so for the suddenly impoverished meatworker.One container load of beef heading for any of our major markets under this proposal would see a minimal reduction in the cost of that beef but to the individual worker such changes would be catastrophic. Yet, if one listens to the government, one can almost be convinced that all the problems faced by the meat industry can be laid at the door of meatworkers. This government, straining under the dual ambitions of Minister Reith and Minister Costello, has allowed the Productivity Commission Labour Market Research Bureau to be used in the production of a report which is fundamentally flawed both in terms of its methodology and its conclusions.In the first instance, the report seeks to draw upon what is presented as the experiences of five companies in an industry which variously has been described as containing some 209 to 315 companies producing some $4.5 billion of red meat per annum. This is an assertion that the Productivity Commission itself acknowledged when it said on page 9 of the report:It is not claimed that these five firms are a complete or representative sample of the whole industry.Further, claims made in the report are drawn upon observations largely of a select group of employers. There has been no consultation with the industry union, the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union. The report similarly states that it is not possible to visit all plants and `no strong conclusions are drawn regarding the impact of changed work arrangements on employees'. It is stated that this was beyond the scope of the study to conduct an industry wide study of plants and workers.Further, the report identifies that the study has no obvious point of international reference and that comparative studies of the operation of meat processors in Australian competitors are beyond the scope of the study. It does not identify, for instance, that, in terms of the productivity differences between Australian meatworkers and American meatworkers, American livestock is, on average, substantially larger than Australian livestock.The report identifies a range of cost pressures on the Australian meat industry, including the costs associated with the maintenance of quality and hygiene and important questions such as industrial safety. However, it fails to address a major area of concern in the industry—that is, the issue of management practices and, in particular, the operations of a minority of dishonest and greedy employers, who have so often endangered Australian international markets by their unscrupulous and illegal behaviour.The Productivity Commission study dismisses in an offhand manner the simple but stark fact that the live export of stock has significantly increased the cost of purchasing livestock to slaughter in Australian abattoirs—that is, the strong growth in live export has reduced the amount of live animals available for slaughter in Australia, with an effect on price arguably as significant as any other individual factor in the meat production chain. Yet this is the report that the government relies on so heavily to defend its case for the reduction in workers' wages within this industry.It is so often the case that, when this government talks about the need to improve productivity and flexibility in response to international competitive pressures, it sees the problem almost entirely in terms of the demands of employers to reduce wages and conditions of workers. Modern, reputable, mainstream employers such as SBA Foods in Altona, Victoria, will attest to the fact that the meat processing industry is an industry that has undergone substantive change. I recently had the opportunity to visit the abattoir at Altona, and I can attest to this simple proposition that there have been massive changes engaged in this industry. Workers have been prepared to engage in significant reorganisation of the production process.In the fine print of the report, we see that the overwhelming number of enterprises now operate with enterprise agreements which, while using a tally system, do not rely upon a rigid interpretation of the federal Meat Industry Processing) Award 1996. That these changes have been achieved is more remarkable for the fact that they have occurred in an industry which has been characterised, in the words of the Productivity Commission itself on page 37 of the report, by `open distrust and hostility between employers and workers'. Those words clearly identify the longstanding problems in regard to the relationship between workers and employers in this industry.The report identifies the culture which was built upon `the unpleasant nature of the work environment in abattoirs; management exploitation of unfair and unsafe work arrangements; the social and geographical isolation of abattoirs; and seasonal employment'. Historically, the export industry was `notorious for its poor wages, bad conditions and strong anti-union stance by employers'. The report quotes studies which emphasise hard physical labour, brutalising and unhealthiness. For workers, this is an industry in which there are widespread occupational health and safety problems, `particularly infections from animal disease, back strain and knife wounds'. It is against this backdrop that the changes in industrial practice have been achieved, particularly where employers have been prepared to enter into genuine consultative processes with workers and their unions.All senators who take up the claims that there need to be significant changes in meatworkers' practices should spend some time in an abattoir. They might get a better view of what it is actually like to work in this industry. They might get a better understanding of why workers are only too happy to go home.The report acknowledges that the average earnings in the meat processing industry are not high by all industry standards and that, like many manufacturing workers, meatworkers' real wages have in fact declined over the 1980s and 1990s. It is employers who have retained a strong commitment to the tally system because it provides them with the flexibility to employ workers on a daily hire basis and reduces their costs when they stand down workers with little notice. This is something that happens on a regular basis, given that the reliability of quality stock remains the industry's most profound problem. It is easy then to understand why, contrary to the assertions of the Productivity Commission's report, the tally system is so widely used within the meat processing industry.As I have already noted, the meat processing industry has undergone considerable change over the last 20 years. The number of jobs in the industry has fallen by 30 per cent. Instead of attempting to reduce the wages and conditions of meatworkers, this government should acknowledge the real problems of the industry, which include the availability of stock, the quality and price of stock, and the changing nature of industry structure.In particular, the government should turn its attention to the issue of increasing concentration of foreign ownership of Australian production, with the stated industry strategy of some new investors to remove competition from domestic abattoirs. Other factors that need to be considered include the quality of management, the levels of technology, the age of equipment, the quality assurance and hygiene practices—all of which have a dramatic impact on the performance of individual enterprises and, ultimately, have a dramatic impact on the performance of Australian export markets.I see that Senator Boswell is here. I understand that he has a keen interest in meatworks. He is an owner of one himself. I am sure he will support the remarks I am making and he will support workers who work in his abattoir. I am sure he would be opposed to cutting their wages and support American companies, such as AMA, in their bid to wipe out domestic competition.In short, the Productivity Commission report is a shoddy piece of work. I have no doubt it will be greatly misused by this government—I trust not by Senator Boswell—which, as we saw during the MUA dispute last year, is not fussy about being careless with the truth. A more balanced inquiry into work arrangements in the meat processing industry would have given far greater attention to management practices. It would have identified the inappropriate actions of a government that not only advances the industrial claims of disreputable employers but also offers them financial incentives and other protections to continue the pursuit of their outrageous claims.Let me cite one example of the impact of management practices in this industry. In 1997, R.J. Gilbertson's abattoir at Grafton, New South Wales, closed, leaving 245 work ers not only without work or income but also owed $1.9 million in unpaid holiday leave, long service leave, redundancies and other entitlements. Recently, the meatworkers were forced to accept promises of partial payment to be received in the year 2000. We have seen similar circumstances in a number of meatworks from Wodonga to Mt Gambier, often with companies closing down, leaving behind massive debts, usually to the workers themselves, only to reopen under another guise. It is a pity we did not hear in the Governor-General's speech more about this and the actions this government intends to take to protect workers from this sort of abuse by unscrupulous employers. It is such management practices that those serious about reform in this industry need to confront.If this government were as serious about genuine reform as it claims it is, it would be taking steps to ensure that workers were not treated so badly. Instead of finding sneaky, pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-academic ways to implement its anti-worker agenda the government could, in one single move, do an enormous amount to improve the industrial relations climate in the meat industry, and indeed in all industries throughout Australia.Mr Reith has made for himself a reputation for attacking Australian workers. He failed dismally in the MUA dispute. He has made it perfectly clear, through use of documents such as the Productivity Commission report and other means, that he now intends to pursue the meatworkers of this country. He has also made it clear that he intends to pursue the CFMEU and its members, who are dependent upon the mining and construction industries.This is a measure which I expect this parliament will debate at length. I make it perfectly clear that I intend to present these arguments to the parliament, to at least put another view. It is all too easy for this government to attempt to demonise people, to attempt to abuse the processes of government and to attempt to reduce the wages and conditions of workers in such a manner that actually lowers living standards. These are not well paid workers, these are not privileged workers; these are people who work in a highly dangerous industry, an extremely unpleasant industry in many regards. They are proud of their work and they are highly skilled at their work. They ought to be treated with respect, they ought to be treated in a manner which recognises the important role they play in this society in making sure this country is fed. We ought to understand that this government's proposals would do little more than reduce the price of a steak by 5c a meal.Rather than attempting to reduce the wages and conditions of workers, we ought to be making sure that there is a process that allows workers to engage in effective consultative mechanisms that do see genuine reform in industry and which make sure that the rewards put into industry are returned on a fair and reasonable basis. Unfortunately, from what I have heard in the Governor-General's speech, according to this government there is not much to be said for that way of dealing with issues.Work arrangements in the Australian meat processing industry, the report by the Productivity Commission's Labour Market Research Bureau, is a disgrace. It is unfortunate that this group of public servants have been used in the way that they have been. A careful reading of this report demonstrates just how flawed it is. I trust the government does not seek to use it. Given the speech that the minister has already made, I am not confident that the government will not try to abuse the work that has been undertaken by this group of people. It is unfortunate that this is the way in which public servants are being used by this government. It is a measure that we should oppose and expose at every possible opportunity.18:25:00167Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I rise on this occasion of the debate on the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's speech to speak on several matters of importance. I will firstly put Senator Carr right: I do not own an abattoir; I have a shareholding in an abattoir. I think 57 per cent of Kilcoy are directly or indirectly employed by the abattoir. They are great bunch of workers, a number of whom we have had for many years.I would like to commend the government for implementing a Productivity Commission inquiry into the impact of competition policy reforms on rural and regional Australia. While there is a lot that can be said on the effects on rural and regional Australia flowing from competition policy, it must be acknowledged that competition policy must be considered in the context of its social effects as well as its economic effects.I would like to point out that our regional areas are supported by having viable primary industries, by having associated viable processors in country towns—such as occurs with the dairy industry and the horticultural industry—and that the job losses that flow from reform demands and lower prices are severe blows to rural towns.What has to be looked at is who benefits from the lower prices leading from the reforms. In New South Wales recently when the dairy industry was deregulated, prices went down by 3.3c to the farmers and by 2c to the processors, and the retailers did not move their prices at all. With no cost reductions to the consumers, the premise behind competition reform was thwarted.Rural Australia looks forward to the appointment on this inquiry of a commissioner from rural and regional Australia and to such a commissioner's input into the inquiry. The Treasurer, Mr Costello, put out a press release saying that there would be an assistant commissioner appointed to the Productivity Commission. Up until this time, I do not believe that that has occurred. I asked the Treasurer to look into that matter today, and I look forward to getting a result, to getting someone with a knowledge of rural Australia appointed to the inquiry.I wish to highlight one example of a situation that could eventuate from competition policy which has the potential to decimate remote and smaller communities; that is, the effect on road building operations run by many rural local government councils. These road contractors are the main source of outside income into these communities. In fact, the local councils are often—always in the smaller towns—the biggest providers of jobs in these communities. The local councils provide good secure work for their road work teams. This supports the stability of the local schools, services, the local hotel, local shops and businesses. The road building teams are certainly professional, with years of skill and experience.Under competition policy, once a large contract is lost, the team cannot be maintained. The highly skilled team breaks up, families leave, services decrease and we see the decline of many rural communities. The Queensland state government, under Premier Borbidge, saw fit under competition policy to have an agreed price contract system, and the Commonwealth could do the same for the federal highway system. I stress that tenders are still competitive under this scheme, but communities now feel under a real threat because of the tender on the open market system.Secondly, I take this opportunity to refer to the promised referendum on the republic proposal, which was decided at this year's Constitutional Convention. The National Party went to the convention as an united force in favour of the present system—its workability and stability for continued good government and democracy in Australia. The National Party will be taking this position to the referendum. The National Party assures its members of this position and will make this matter clear when the relevant legislation comes before this parliament.Speaking of the historic Constitutional Convention, which was held this year, leads naturally to my final point: to honour on this occasion a remarkable Australian, the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair, and his eminent parliamentary career.The Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair retires from parliament after a most valuable contribution of 35 years of parliamentary service both to the people of Australia and to his electorate of New England. In 1963, after two years in the New South Wales Legislative Council, Ian Sinclair was elected to federal parliament as the member for New England. His achievements have been immense and cover a whole range of parliamentary service.As a politician, he successfully contested 14 elections in New England. Even in the last election campaign after his announced retirement, I was very proud to have him accompany me through parts of Queensland where he received immediate recognition and respect from the most extraordinary number of Australians.As minister, Ian Sinclair encompassed a vast range of portfolios. Two years after entering federal parliament, he was appointed Minister for Social Services in the Menzies government. In the ensuing years, he served as Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Industry, Minister for Shipping and Transport, Minister for Primary Industry, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Northern Territory, Minister for Primary Industry again, Minister for Special Trade Representations, Minister for Communications and Minister for Defence. His contributions to executive government and to these portfolios were considerable, and his many contributions are no doubt still felt today.In opposition, he went on to hold shadow ministry positions for primary industry, defence, trade and resources, and special minister of state. He also led many parliamentary delegations for Australia with great dignity and has chaired many committees.Ian Sinclair, as well as being an outstanding minister, is also known for his pre-eminent capacity in the parliamentary arena. His knowledge of standing orders and his conduct in parliamentary proceedings is an inspiration to all parliamentarians.Many of us can remember the day—I think it was in the early seventies—when Speaker Cope ruled that one of the Labor government members be dismissed from the parliament. We were all listening to the wireless at that stage because it was the time of the Whitlam dismissal. That motion was not moved by the Leader of the House. Instead, it was Ian Sinclair from the opposition benches who got up and moved that the question be put that the services of that particular member be dispensed with. Even members of the Labor Party acknowledged that that was the best piece of tactics they had ever seen on the floor of parliament.As Leader of the House from 1975 to 1979 and again from 1980 to 1982, and as opposition leader in the House from 1983 to 1997, he was an example and a lesson to us all with his knowledge and his skill. Nowadays much is written, mainly critical, of parliamentary standards and behaviour. Ian Sinclair knew and practised the protocols and procedure of the parliament, and he reinforced them by his fine example. He enhanced the reputation of the parliament by his astute use of parliamentary tactics and procedure, ensuring that the parliament functioned in its rightful way so that the high standards of parliament could be maintained and observed.Ian Sinclair's wonderful capacity in this area and his control and command of parliamentary procedure came to the attention of all Australians when, with the Labor Party's elder statesman Barry Jones, he jointly chaired this year's historic Constitutional Convention; they both conducted themselves in an exemplary manner. It seemed a fitting conclusion to a distinguished parliamentary career that he should become the Speaker of the House of Representatives.With his being a member of the National Party, tribute must also be paid to the contribution he made as a grassroots rural politician—as the member for New England for over three decades—and to the genuine representation he gave to the constituents of his electorate. It has been to the National Party, the junior member of the coalition and the party that has both an important and hard role to play in representing rural and regional Australia, that Ian has made such an enormous contribution.Ian Sinclair was deputy parliamentary leader of the National Party for 13 years: from 1971 to 1984. As our parliamentary leader from 1984 to 1989, he was never able to occupy the position of Deputy Prime Minister—which is accorded to National Party leaders in government—but was responsible for steering the party with great strength through difficult periods in opposition occurring after years in government. Throughout unique and testing times, such as the `Joh for Canberra' campaign and a short period out of coalition, Ian Sinclair has been known for his great dignity, strength and immense capacity. His strength of character enabled him to continue as a valuable contributor to the National Party after being succeeded as parliamentary leader.Ian Sinclair's political career has seen its down periods, such as his intense personal scrutiny in the late 1970s and his replacement as party leader. The calibre of the man is tested in adversity. Ian Sinclair, who could have walked away after losing the leadership, chose to stay to contribute in policy areas as a shadow minister. He became in turn not only the father of our party but the father of the House of Representatives. Ian Sinclair has spanned the period from Menzies to the Howard government. That is a remarkable journey through Australian history and one he has conducted in an outstanding way.This is such a significant occasion that I would not like it to pass without acknowledgment of the outstanding contribution that Ian Sinclair has made to our party, the National Party, this parliament and our country. I also acknowledge the contribution and fine presence during his career of his wife, Rosemary, and his family.18:38:00170West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—In rising tonight to join in this debate, I will be critical of what we heard yesterday. I do not mean that as a reflection upon the Governor-General, because he was not the author of the words spoken. I want to be critical of this current new government. It won the majority of seats but not the majority of votes. It is well worth remembering that in the upper house the majority of votes were easily won by those parties—the Labor Party and others—that either totally opposed the GST or opposed significant portions of it and wanted inquiries. That is something this government needs to remember. It is very apparent from moving around the country and listening to people in rural areas that there are grave concerns about the impact of the GST on people.We were told by the Prime Minister when the tax package was announced that there would be all these opportunities for consultation. There would be a committee that would decide the finer details of the GST package. People went to the polls to vote on a GST after being told by the government that the finer details about the impact of the GST on health would be decided by this committee. That included issues such as what medication was exempted from GST payments and what was not. The catch-all phrase used in the initial government documentation was that prescriptions would be exempted from a GST. There was no mention of over-the-counter medication. So the aspirin, Panadol, cold and flu tablets and the cough mixtures are an unknown quantity. I suspect from my interpretation of the government's material that they are subject to a GST. One way of avoiding that will be for some people to go to the doctor and get a prescription. However, that just adds to the health costs in another area.I had a woman ring my office late last week because she has a hearing problem. She wants to know whether the batteries for hearing aids are going to be GST exempt. The batteries used in her hearing aid are also used in electronic toys, cameras and other types of equipment. Such equipment is not considered essential in the same way that a hearing aid is. But how do you differentiate at law to make a battery for a hearing aid GST neutral or free, or whatever term they will use, and a battery for a kid's toy subject to a GST? That is a very interesting conundrum that those drawing up this legislation will have to work out. The same battery can be used in two different items. I would contend that one is essential for enabling people's daily living to be as normal as possible while the other is for pleasure. That does not strike me as very fair.These are not minor issues. They are major issues when you consider every item that will have to be looked at for this GST. These questions should be asked in this inquiry. How long is the inquiry going to last? It will last three weeks. The government has allowed Mr Vos three weeks to come up with all the answers to all the questions arising from—I was going to say the Fightback! document, but that is history—the document the government went to the people with. People were not told how they could make a submission. Submissions were not called for. People were just told that there was going to be an inquiry and that submissions would be welcome. They were not told how they would make a submission or to whom or what contacts they should be using to make that submission. It is grossly unfair, but they are the sort of shenanigans this government is obviously going to get up.We should have known the inquiry would be short-lived because the Prime Minister promised us before we rose in late July that there would be plenty of time for people to scrutinise the tax reform package before he called an election. Given that there were about three weeks for that to happen, we should not be surprised that he considers three weeks a lengthy period for a full-blown inquiry into something that will answer all the fine details of the GST. But it is not adequate time for people to understand and comprehend. People looking at the issue are suddenly raising questions as to what is in and what is out. The general public as well as organisations need to know what is in and what is out. This government is in obscene haste to get this legislation through so that its mates at the big end of town can have huge tax cuts while the average poor worker will receive much lower tax cuts. It is in obscene haste to help its mates.I find it absolutely disgusting that someone on my income of around $100,000 a year is going to get an additional $63 a week under this government's tax cuts, while somebody on $20,000 to $25,000 a year, raising a family, is going to get $2 or $3, in that sort of range. That is an obscenity. I and people on incomes of $100,000 do not need an additional $63 a week when you compare it with the assistance that has been given to pensioners and to people with very low incomes. As I said, I think it is an obscenity that this government can say that this is tax reform and tax progress. This is reform for the rich; it is not reform for the people for whom life is hard, who have to scratch and eke and save every penny that they get. But this is what this government does.They will not allow anybody any time to scrutinise the package, to look at the finer detail and to ask questions about the finer detail. There are certainly some very good questions being asked. The St Vincent de Paul Society in a press release of Sunday of this week deplores the lack of compassion for the poor in the GST, and asks: where is the compassion and concern for the welfare of low income earners in this country? That is the sort of question that this government has got to answer.It is also interesting that the Bathurst Anglican synod held in the middle of September this year, during the election campaign, passed a resolution about churches and the GST. It said:That this synod:1. encourages Anglicans to responsibly engage in community debate,2. recognises that the churches, along with other community organisations, may have to share the cost of delivering a more just taxation system,3. while stating its aim to engage all sides of politics equally, acknowledges the extent of the change implied in the Coalition Parties' Tax Reform Package, and therefore encourages western New South Wales Anglicans to seek opportunities to ask the following questions of coalition candidates before the October Federal Election,4. requests Bishop-in-Council to arrange means of monitoring the introduction of the Government's tax reforms and authorises the Bishop-in-Council to be involved in appropriate representations to the government.The questions are:A. 1. For the purposes of the GST, is the fundamental unit of the church, the Parish or the Diocese? If the latter then,2. Is the church fete considered to be a `commercial activity' for the purposes of the GST?3. Is an on-going church `Op Shop' considered to be a commercial activity?4. Is a church bookshop considered to be a commercial activity?B. 5. If however, the parish is the fundamental unit and the parish opts NOT to register as an entity for GST purposes (i.e. so that any commercial activity will not be required to charge GST) how will it then reclaim any GST paid on inputs, for example when it purchases stock for its bookshop?6. It is quite common in parishes for people in rural areas to make produce (e.g. wheat at the silos, cattle at saleyards, fruit or vegetables) available to the parish for fund-raising purposes. Is this commercial activity? C. 7. If the parish is not subject to GST on materials purchased for worship (e.g. for communion supplies, stationary for pew sheets, etc.) and is not registered as an entity for GST, how will it reclaim the GST it pays on such inputs?8. What assistance will be given to the church to assist with its compliance costs associated with the GST?That is just one synod's questions that they want to have answered. I would suggest though that we know that if they do not register as an entity for the purposes of the GST, they pay the GST and they cop it sweet. They cannot claim any of it back. That answers that question for them. But that is not the sort of thing that they want to hear because they, with the op shops and those organisations, run a significant social assistance and charitable organisation and provide support within that framework, and this would impact very markedly upon that charitable framework and on the charitable work that they do.If they are going to be charged the GST, it is going to impact upon the poor people and the low income people of this community and the communities in Australia even more. This is a government that does not care about the battlers. Its definition of a battler is `somebody on average weekly earnings,' which means people that are at least earning 75 per cent more than the average Australian.Debate interrupted.Documents17210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Order! It being 6.50 p.m., I now move to consideration of government documents.17218:50:00172Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I rise to speak on document No. 4—Attorney-General's Department, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Article 18: freedom of religion and belief . The report points out:Discrimination and vilification on the basis on religion and belief discourage participation in the community and may infringe the right to freedom of religion and belief.At the 1996 census, 74 per cent of Australians indicated a religious belief and some 70 per cent said they were Christians. The census also highlighted the breadth of beliefs and systems of belief, with over 100 identifiable religions and beliefs. As a multicultural society, Australia welcomes this richness and diversity, respecting these religions and beliefs.This report recommends the development of a religious freedom act which would prevent discrimination on the basis of religion or belief, except in certain specified circumstances. The report also addresses a number of other matters, including indigenous heritage, indigenous burials, autopsies, medical procedures and female genital mutilation. The report also recommends the states and the territories should repeal their laws which make witchcraft, fortune telling, sorcery and enchantment a crime.I certainly believe this is a timely and welcome debate for the Senate because we need to work towards recognising this diversity and including a recognition of these rights in our laws. However, tonight I would like to commend the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission for addressing these issues and suggest the Senate should recognise this good work. I also want to provide the Senate with a concrete example of why our present laws need to be revisited.Australia is home to some 200,000 Buddhists. This is one of Australia's fastest growing religions and reflects over 70 different ethnic groups in our community. Another group of increasing importance in Australia is those who have been influenced by Buddhism. The same may be said of many other religions such as Islam. This means we have a significant group of non-Christian believers in Australia and these numbers are increasing. This group of people in Australia find our existing laws are set out to meet the needs of the historical Christian beliefs and values. We need to review our laws to make sure that these different beliefs and religions are re spected and that we all welcome this richness and diversity.Buddhists' beliefs about death and dying are different to traditional Western attitudes which form the basis of our present laws. Buddhists believe that the state of mind at the moment of death is all important. This requires the maintenance of a peaceful and calm atmosphere during and after the moment of death and leaving the body undisturbed for some time after death. In contrast, our present laws assume that a person has ceased to exist or to have any particular rights as soon as clinical death takes place. This is significant in our present dealings with people and should be taken into account when drafting, for example, our autopsy laws.This is an important issue because we seek to have freedom of religion and belief in our society. To achieve this we need to make sure that our laws are inclusive. I would welcome further debate and review of this in Australia. These are matters for the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The Democrats look forward to its consideration of these matters.18:54:00173Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—For the second time today I follow Senator Stott Despoja. Again I accept the sorts of things she has said. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report entitled Article 18: freedom of religion and belief is a good and timely report from Chris Sidoti, the Human Rights Commissioner, sent to the Attorney-General in July of this year. It is an interesting report because it touches on section 116 of the constitution, which says that no religion shall be established in Australia. That means that, in contrast with the situation in England, there will be no religion that is identified with the establishment—that is why the word `establishment' is used—with the system of government, that operates in this country and it prohibits the free exercise of any religion.In so far as there is a bill of rights in Australia, I suppose this could be an example of where we have a particular right set out in the constitution. This matter does not apply to the states and it raises the question whether or not we should have a bill of rights. This question is raised again and again—it certain ly has been on a number of occasions since I have been in parliament. I think it is worth while looking at whether or not we should have a bill of rights.I notice Mr Sidoti, the Human Rights Commissioner of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, recommends that there be an act introduced called the Religious Freedom Act which `amongst other things, recognises and gives effect to the right to freedom of religion and belief'. So he says there should be legislation. We have already got legislation against discrimination on the grounds of disability, race and sex, so there is a growing pattern of legislation which replaces, if you like, or sits in substitution for a bill of rights.The issue of a bill of rights is not a simple one. The legislature itself can be a powerful tool to make sure that legislation respects freedoms. In that regard, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is very good at identifying breaches of civil liberties, those sorts of things that are set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and bringing them to the attention of the Senate. The Senate at times does things about it. Ministers certainly do things about it. That is to be praised. So the issue of a bill of rights should be discussed again and again and should be discussed in the context of how the legislature itself and the executive too can ensure those rights which we regard as fundamental and which are set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.The issue arises: is there any sort of religious oppression or religious prejudice in Australia? When I picked up this report, the first thing that came to mind is we have not got the sort of thing here that you may have in the Middle East or in Northern Ireland and it is really not an issue. But there are matters that this report raises which should give us concern as Australians. There is, for example, a matter in relation to Muslims. The Islamic Council of Victoria had much to say about the situation there. It said that particularly during the 1990 Gulf crisis there was prejudice against people simply because they were Muslims. That is a very bad matter and it is something that we should take up and discuss further.18:59:00174Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I wish to make a couple of comments on this Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report. In an article in the Canberra Times regarding a barn contractor, under the headline `Complaints to Ombudsman down eight percent', it is reported that complaints were down to the Ombudsman. Similarly, in this report complaints are down. There is a report that complaints under the Racial Discrimination Act have fallen by more than a third over the past year.Andrew Bolt, in an article in the Herald-Sun, says that in the report the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission comments that the figures are incongruent with the anecdotal evidence and feelings on race issues, which have seemed more heated than ever. He regrets that the commission talks of anecdotal evidence, because the number of complaints are down. In some ways I would have to agree with Andrew Bolt. I think it is important that those figures are down, given the heated climate we had during the last 12 months and given the debate that we had in the community. I was very proud that One Nation's vote in Victoria was so low. One Nation was a party that really fired things up. It used racial issues and immigration issues in debates in a way that most of us here in this chamber—almost to a person—did not approve or agree with. Yet those complaints have gone down.It may be that anecdotally some people may say there was an increase in some acts of discrimination but they were not reflected in that annual report, and I think that is something which we can celebrate. Hopefully it is a reflection of the fact that, despite the issue being raised so publicly, despite what seemed to be a heated debate, people were not discriminated against and this is a true reflection of the tolerance that we in Australia take pride in towards people in our multicultural community.It is important that we look at this report. There have been two proven cases of racial discrimination, but this decrease in the number of complaints reflects that it is important for us as Australians to continue to debunk the sorts of myths that were around during the past 12 months. I am very pleased to say that I think the results of the election were a true reflection, especially in Victoria, of the very tolerant society that Australia has. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.17419:04:00174Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This report is significant because this is the last report of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. The reason it is their final report is that, under the new arrangements that were approved in the sessions of the last parliament, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation will cease to exist and will be replaced by a new industry structure—namely, three new companies. Those companies will be owned by the industry—that is, the producers, the processors and the live exporters. It represents the culmination of a process of change put in place by the previous Labor governments as far back as the early 1980s. Indeed, the report in its overview reflects upon the achievements of the industry and the major difficulties faced by the industry over the last 10 to 15 years. Those of us who have watched developments in the industry—no doubt people like Senator Macdonald in a broader capacity in terms of the commodity sector generally—can recall the difficulties that have confronted the rural sector all those years. That has been the case particularly in our beef and sheep meat industries.We have battled and we continue to battle against unfair subsidies, subsidy regimes and market lockouts that occur by some of our trading partners. It has been a constant battle over the years. The report notes that back in 1985—and my recollection is that it was under the then minister, John Kerin—the new direction for the beef and sheep meat industry commenced. That new direction sought to pursue goals of improving and protecting access to our export markets, of improving the marketing systems of the industry, of supporting the industry's meat and livestock products through promotional and advertising activity, and of improving our market intelligence.Any fair assessment of the industry would recognise—as indeed this report recognises—that some tremendous achievements were made. I have to say that all of those achievements were made under the previous Labor governments. This report notes the great work that was done leading to liberalisation of beef imports into Japan in 1988. It also notes the agreement reached—known as the Kerin-Anderson accord—which related to access into Asia and the European Union markets. These were achievements of the then Labor government under great primary industry ministers such as John Kerin and his successor, Bob Collins. This is the record. It is there in this report. But when you hear members of the government speak on the subject, you would think that nothing had ever been achieved. The reason the beef and sheepmeat industries stand in a position today that culminates in the establishment of these new bodies with industry support and with government support is because of the groundwork done under the Labor government at that time: the great work that was done in the Uruguay Round and the work that was done in pursuing actions through GATT in order to get liberalised trade arrangements with our second most important Asian market—Korea. (Time expired)19:11:00175Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I want to say a few words on the annual report of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation after being inspired by Senator Forshaw, who has been an outstanding contributor to this chamber over the years, particularly in this area.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—And will continue to be.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—And he will continue to be. In future times I shall listen to the radio and hear him as minister talking about all sorts of issues. This is a very important industry to Australia. It is important that the meat industry work well. It will do this by management and by those that trade in meat getting on well and by those people then getting on well with the union. I understand that at the moment there is a contest before the Industrial Relations Commission about the basis upon which people in the meat industry are to work. I do not want to anticipate anything that will go on there, nor do I want to interfere in any way with what may presently be being discussed before the commission. But I know there is a willingness on the union's part to be very cooperative in this field. It would be a pity if people were to attempt to create in the meat industry what was created in the Maritime Union earlier this year. There are at times signs that that might happen as people demand more and more of the workers in the meat industry and expect to pay a little less. That is a bad thing.What must happen not only in the meat industry but also through industry as a whole is the development of a culture of cooperation, and people must listen to each other. I think there is a change coming about in the workplace towards that objective. As I say, inspired by what Senator Forshaw had to say, I wanted to get up and make those few remarks. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.17519:13:00175O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.It is appropriate to make some observations about the operation of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority because there is grave concern as to the method being used by AFMA to manage our fisheries. I want to take one example, which is the Northern Prawn Fishery. The Northern Prawn Fishery spans an area from the Torres Strait to the top of Western Australia. It is a very substantial area of Australia's waters. In a given year, there is a reasonable—but not a huge—quantity of prawns taken out of those waters. The prawns that are taken out are invariably banana prawns, tiger prawns and Endeavour prawns. The Australian Fisheries Management Authority is proposing that the catch in the Northern Prawn Fishery be quite substantially reduced. Honourable senators such as Senator McKiernan who have been here for some time will well recollect that about eight years ago we went through a process of reducing the Northern Prawn Fishery, and it was done by agreement with all parties.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—A buyback.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Yes, it was a buyback. But everybody agreed to it because it was necessary at that time to reduce the effort. AFMA is now saying it is required that we reduce the effort even further, because it believes that the stock of prawn in the Northern Prawn Fishery is being fished out.Unfortunately for AFMA, in each of the last three years the catch of prawn has increased. I know that with an increase in catch it does not necessarily automatically follow that there are sufficient reserves there. But what you have to remember with prawns is that the life cycle is usually no more than 14 months. So if the stocks of prawn were being fished out, it is unlikely that you would manage to increase the catch for each year over three years. Allowing for increases in technology, it still would not be possible if, in fact, there was too much effort going into the fishery. So it stands to reason that we should query the effort that is being put into AFMA to reduce the total catch out of this fishery.It is my belief that the increase in catch in each of the last three years compels us to say that maybe AFMA is wrong in saying that the prawn fishery is being fished out. Maybe it is the case that AFMA needs to do more research. But it is certainly the case that if a government authority is going to recommend to a minister that legislation be brought forward to take away people's right to fish in a fishery, a right for which they have paid, then AFMA should have its science refined to such an extent that it is irrefutable. I do not believe that is the case. There is a very substantial portion of the prawn fishing industry which does not agree with AFMA on the simple issue of whether effort in the fishery should be reduced, let alone agreeing with AFMA on the mechanism by which that effort should be reduced. That, too, is highly contentious.This is not the first time in recent years that AFMA has been found to be wrong. It would not be the first time that AFMA has been forced to change its position because the industry or the public or other people have challenged AFMA's so-called science. It is my belief that it is appropriate that AFMA go back and re-examine their research and take additional time to look at issues such as what are the spawning and recruiting areas for these species of prawn before they come to a rash decision to buy back people's entitlements to fish. Because if people's entitlements are brought back they will never be replaced and you will invariably drive good people out of an industry which at the moment is continuing on a sustainable basis. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.17619:18:00176Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.In the brief time that seems to be left, I bring to the attention of honourable senators a very interesting section in the document called `Setting the scene' which outlines some recognition of the problems I have been trying to talk about for the last four years in relation to national competition policy. I would like to speak further about this when there is more time. It is very important that there is action on these acknowledged concerns and that those concerns in the community are not just brushed aside on the assumption that any benefit from any deceased prices in the community is necessarily a result of national competition policy and that any costs associated with national competition policy cannot possibly be associated with national competition policy implementation. There does need to be a concerted effort to take these seriously, to look into the issues and find out what changes need to take place in order to address them. I believe this requires a moratorium on the unrealistic timetable of the implementation of national competition policy. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.177The following orders of the day relating to government documents were considered and not debated:Dairy Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1997-98. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Forshaw. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Australian Dairy Corporation—Report for 1997-98. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Forshaw. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Rural Industrial Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1997-98. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Forshaw. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Report for 1997-98. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Forshaw. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Pharmaceutical Benefits pricing Authority—Report for 1997-98. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator McKiernan. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator McKiernan in continuation.Pig Research and Development Corporation and Pig Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Report for 1997-98. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Sandy Macdonald in continuation.Meat Research Corporation—Report for 1997-98 (Final report). Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Forshaw. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Australian Pork Corporation—Report for 1997-98. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Forshaw. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Forshaw in continuation.Adjournment17710000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 7.20 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn. 17719:20:00177Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—May I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as a senator for the ACT. With the coalition back in government, the opening of parliament yesterday marks a significant period of reform in Australia's history. On 3 October Australians voted for a continuation of the Howard government's sound economic management—management which has kept at bay the Asian economic crisis.During the five-week election campaign I visited 42 seats in New South Wales and the thing that struck me most there was the general recognition of the need for tax reform. Australians voted for tax reform to end the unfair tax burden on middle Australia. They rejected Labor's bandaid approach to tax reform, particularly their retrospective capital gains tax slug, which would have especially penalised Australian family farms.As a government and as individuals we know the commitments made to our electorates and we are here to honour them to ensure a bold future into the 21st century for all Australians. Despite the knowledge that tax reform is crucial for the future funding of essential social services, the opposition and the Democrats will no doubt attempt to scuttle the government's commitments for no other reason than opposition's sake. Nothing illustrates this clearer than Gareth Evans's letter to Professor Garnett of ANSTO on 11 May of this year, 1998. He wrote:I am afraid that the realities of politics in an election year, and in particular our need to win Hughes, have led us to a position of opposing a new reactor at the Lucas Heights site—as difficult as that may be to justify in objective safety-focused terms.And I have to say that he would have to be a dope to write the letter. Just as Labor were prepared to ignore sound advice for political expedience, they will put the nation's economy and the government's ability to provide essential services at risk.The Democrats will come in here and claim their own mandate. The Democrats' election campaign was arrogant. The inference in their campaign that they or One Nation should control the Senate was arrogant. The Democrats say they could now claim a mandate on the GST with only 8.46 per cent of the vote. That is a misguided conception, particularly in light of a major polling study conducted by the Liberal Party on 3 October which showed that only 13 per cent of people who voted for the Democrats cited the GST as a reason for voting Democrat. I ask the Democrats not to be deceived by their hallucination of a mandate nor use the 1.1 per cent of the voting population to hold the country and its people to ransom.It is well known that Labor will do whatever it takes to win government. But it did not quite work this time. Over coffee and soft candlelight, Labor promised Cheryl Kernot a sure bet. Too bad if the local electorate did not want her imposed upon them. The Labor Party were lucky with this one, but a fat lot of good it will do them. If her advice as leader of the Democrats to Senator Woodley is any guide—that is, to `stay out of the bush because there are no votes there'—her commitment and understanding of the bush is nil. Labor has written off the bush with the appointment of Cheryl Kernot to her portfolio.Unlike Labor and their self-confessed uninterested regional spokesperson, our commitment to rural and regional Australia is reflected in a wide range of initiatives, including rural transaction centres, a $3.5 billion initiative in our tax reform plan to slash the cost of fuel and a $70 million boost to the $250 million Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. The coalition is well aware of the difficulties of the bush and pledges itself to assist the bush through these difficult times.Labor were not so lucky in New South Wales with their big names. David Hill was doing so poorly in the seat of Hughes against our local Danna Vale that Labor even had to do a deal with One Nation. On polling day I visited the Oyster Bay Primary School to vote and found a man who claimed to represent One Nation handing out material on how to vote for One Nation. Attached to that material was a preference card for David Hill, bearing the name of the New South Wales ALP Secretary, John Della Bosca. When questioned, the One Nation person explained that the two pieces of material were delivered to the booth prepackaged together. Labor professed to take the high moral ground in relation to One Nation and then did dirty deals to get their man over the line. I seek leave to table evidence of Labor's hypocrisy—the material that was prepackaged in a deal with One Nation in strategic booths.Leave granted.C16Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNAN—On the Central Coast, former senator Belinda Neal thought she would try her hand in Robertson. There is no harm in trying, but she need not have bothered. No matter how many maritime unionists poured in there and no matter how much money and time John Della Bosca poured in there, contrary to sound political judgment and much to the distress of the Left in New South Wales, nothing worked. Residents know that Jim Lloyd had delivered many social benefits to the families on the Central Coast and would continue to represent their interests in Canberra.In a similar fashion, Maggie Deahm was a reminder to voters in Macquarie why they voted for Kerry Bartlett in 1996. She was part of the Keating crew who increased their cost of living by increasing taxes when it had promised it would not. They knew what we knew: you cannot trust Labor. Kerry has worked hard for the people of Macquarie and they wanted him to keep on doing it.The hard work of Jackie Kelly, Ross Cameron, John Fahey, Joanna Gash and Garry Nairn—in conjunction with good local campaigns and a well-managed state campaign—meant that New South Wales held the line.On behalf of my New South Wales colleagues, I wish to welcome to parliament Bruce Baird, the member for Cook and Alby Schultz, the member for Hume. Both members have an outstanding record of public service and I look forward to working with them to achieve greater things for their electorates and the people of New South Wales.Unfortunately, some of our Liberal candidates were unsuccessful at the ballot box. The most disappointing results for me personally were the defeats of Bob Baldwin and Robert Lee. Bob, a tireless electorate worker, was always in a difficult position. I wish Bob all the best in his future directions. Robert Lee's fate in Lowe was unfortunately sealed by the ultimate preference betrayal by Paul Zammit.On behalf of the New South Wales division, I wish to thank the following candidates for their extraordinary campaign efforts: Alan Akhurst, Nahid Aziz, John Coles, Peter Craig, Mathew Cross, Lorna Doona, Tio Faulkner, Alma Freame, Bruce Gatgens, Stephen Iacono, Clive Jensen, James Jordan, David Kibbey, Robert Lee, Scott MacDougall, Cherrilyn McLean, Michael Armani, Charlie Mifsud—and I have to say that Charlie has done a great job since the election down in Wollongong—Peter Monley, Bruce Morrow, David Parker, Joe Rafferty, Maureen Shelley, Gary Sloane and Andrew Thorn. Without them and their small band of loyal workers, the party would not have been able to fly the Liberal flag across the state. The job at times is very difficult and, as a senator and a Liberal, I appreciate immensely the work they put in and the sacrifices they made.As Chairman of the New South Wales Marginal Seat Committee, I wish to congratulate Michael Osborne, Remo Nogarotto, Mark Connell and their small professional team for their successful campaign. Despite the barrage of Labor campaign funds, the unconditional support of the union movement and Labor's bag of dirty backyard tricks, the division held the Liberal line in New South Wales. On behalf of my parliamentary colleagues and candidates, I wish to express my thanks for their sound strategy, support and patience. I also wish to express my thanks to Lynton Crosby and all at national campaign headquarters.The New South Wales division is a great team. Thanks must also go to the information unit for providing policy and election information to the public and to the party members who letterboxed, ran street stalls, stood on polling booths and scrutineered. A special thanks must also go to those workers who travelled great distances to support the cause and those who gave up their time in the days following the poll to scrutineer.Madam President, I look forward to the election of a Collins-led New South Wales government in March.17919:30:00179O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I wanted to also reflect on the recent election campaign. It was during that campaign that the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Fischer, wrote in response to a letter which, curiously, was sent to Senator Brownhill, the parliamentary secretary. Apparently Mr Fischer said that he was responding because he had been asked to respond on Senator Brownhill's behalf, which seems somewhat unusual. The response was to a Mr Mazzanti, a member of the South Queensland Pork Action Group. I suppose it is unusual that the Deputy Prime Minister would respond on behalf of a parliamentary secretary, but he is noted for doing unusual things.The letter ran through the usual lines about getting macro-economic settings right and the importance of a free trade regime to the overall wellbeing of the rural community. It also suggested that there are now effective anti-dumping and safeguard procedures to deal with instances where Australian producers for the domestic market are being injured by unfair competition from imports.He did claim quite inaccurately, I might say, that the opposition's call for action to protect the interests of the pork industry by limiting imports was in contravention of the World Trade Organisation rules. That is not true. He referred to the alleged transport cost savings to rural and regional Australia in the Howard tax plan, but he did not mention the imposition of a $30 billion goods and services tax.At the bottom of that letter, the Deputy Prime Minister added a postscript. He said:The pork industry's continuing advertising campaign is very carefully noted, including those elements of the industry pushing it. Despite the denial from the Deputy Prime Minister's office, this postscript is nothing less than a threat. The impact of One Nation on the Australian political scene and the failure of the Prime Minister to deal with the former member for Oxley at the appropriate time when he had the opportunity has shown up a number of forms.Firstly, the One Nation Party has brought with it increased racial tension, and there is now increased insecurity in the community. We have also seen the fact that the National Party seems to be in terminal decline. Senator O'Chee and Senator Macdonald will cease to be senators on 1 July next year, leaving the National Party without formal party status in this place.The presence of One Nation has also driven a number of simplistic policy responses from the government—the most obvious being the decision by the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, to ignore the advice of his minister for primary industries, which was Mr Anderson at the time, and the vast majority of the Australian wool industry to freeze the wool stockpile. Mr Howard has subsequently found that his decision, which was based on Mr Tuckey's and Senator Crane's intervention, was not in fact legally based. Since that decision, we can only describe the current situation as a fiasco.There is total confusion in the market, which has resulted from Mr Howard's actions, leaving the responsible minister, the industry and the Public Service to try to sort out the mess. In this case, Mr Howard has not acted in the interests of the wool industry but in the interests of a small number of members of the coalition who were terrified of One Nation. He chose not to develop a comprehensive policy response to increasingly difficult industry problems because he preferred a quick political fix. The former primary industries minister, Mr Anderson, tried to get it right, but he was pushed aside in this political exercise.The pork industry suffered a similar fate. The government did not properly consult, considering the considerable difficulties and circumstances that that industry faced and continues to face. The government did not look at all the possible policy remedies available.It appears to me that, although there had been a massive surge in imports, although the importers had targeted the peak season for product on the domestic market, although importers had focused on the premium cuts of the product and although there had been a collapse in the price received by Australian producers—a price well below the cost of production—the government dismissed any short-term assistance through the provision of exceptional circumstances. The government also, unfortunately, ignored possible trade remedies, legal remedies, available through the World Trade Organisation.It was a resolution of this Senate in April this year that pointed the government in the direction of World Trade Organisation safeguard measures—measures the government could draw on to provide some relief for an industry that was clearly under siege, measures that a number of our trading partners, I might add, regularly use. However, the government merely was content to give the industry some money to develop exports. It is my view that, again, it was the threat of One Nation that caused the government to belatedly respond to the pork industry. But, as with the wool stockpile, the government did not respond in an open and comprehensive way. It was not the way you would expect a government to operate.In a special gazette dated 25 June, the government detailed the general procedures to be followed by the Productivity Commission when investigating possible safeguard action under the World Trade Organisation. Section 16 on page 4 of the gazette states:A reference can also be made to the Commission for an accelerated report to determine whether critical circumstances exist where delay in applying measures would cause damage which might be difficult to repair.The Commission will report to the Minister on whether there is clear evidence that increased imports have caused or are threatening to cause serious injury.This provision is designed clearly to provide immediate but short-term relief to enable a more comprehensive inquiry to proceed, and the industry quite reasonably expects the government to make such an assessment. One would have expected the government to look at all policy options available to deal with the particular issue. There was clearly a crisis, and there was an independent report from the University of Queensland that did identify imports as the major cause of the industry's problem. However, it has become clear that the government has no intention of looking at that option at all.As required, the Treasurer formally advised the World Trade Organisation of the government's intention to investigate the impact of pig meat imports and the reasons for the inquiry. However, section 3(iii) of that advice stated:The current investigation is not examining the need for provisional measures.In other words, we are going to investigate, but we do not think there is a case. The World Trade Organisation's rules say we can investigate the need for short-term help, but we will not apply those rules. We will take up to 140 days to look at this and then we will have our nominee run the process. We will not have the industry nominate a commissioner to sit alongside our nominee, or we will not have an independent chair. That is what the government is saying. The government is saying that we are not prepared to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done, and, I might say, that is the view of the industry. The Australian pork industry at this time feels well and truly dudded by this government process. It feels that the government has failed to respond to genuine industry concerns in a timely manner. When the government finally did act, it acted in a way which was designed to take the pork industry's concerns off the agenda in time for the election.I am concerned that the results of the Productivity Commission report will reflect, in the end, the government's free trade at all cost bias which has been deliberately built into this process. This industry is not seeking a One Nation style response. It is looking for a comprehensive and legal response to a personal and financial crisis confronting many producers. To date, it has not got that. It quite reasonably took its case to the public during the election campaign. Clearly, the government was very upset with that response.The postscript on the bottom of Mr Fischer's letter makes it clear that this government intends to make the Australian pork industry pay a political price for its actions. The Australian pork producers are committed to the development of a sustainable, export oriented and jobs generating industry. Unlike the government generally, and the Deputy Prime Minister in particular, we on this side of the chamber are committed to work constructively with them to achieve that goal.18119:39:00181Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I rise tonight to speak to a submission I have made to the inquiry by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on LPG cylinder prices in Western Australia and LPG auto gas prices in Western Australia. At the beginning, I seek leave to table my submission to this inquiry.Leave granted.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I thank the Senate. In relation to my submission to the ACCC inquiry into LPG gas prices in Western Australia, I am concerned about the role the Western Australian government has played in the prices that Western Australian consumers pay for LPG gas and bottled gas. Under the Trade Practices Act, it is now possible to prosecute state governments if there is evidence of collusion and, in this case, if there is evidence found of collusion with Wesfarmers Kleenheat in keeping LPG prices unnecessarily high in Western Australia.I am concerned if the Western Australian government has either deliberately colluded with or tacitly approved of Wesfarmers Kleenheat's substantial monopoly market power over the supply and sale of LPG in Western Australia. There was a trust given to the West Australian government and to the people of Western Australia to look at the price of the gas as produced by Wesfarmers Kleenheat and the other market players and the ability of Wesfarmers Kleenheat to domi nate WA's LPG market at the expense of Western Australian consumers causing LPG prices for both cylinder and auto gas to be, in some cases, two to three times higher than in Victoria.I believe the West Australian government has failed to honour an agreement made in 1994 where the Prices Surveillance Authority agreed to lift the mandating of prices if the West Australian government and producers increased the supply of LPG auto gas and cylinder gas. The Prices Surveillance Authority lifted the mandate, but the government sat on its hands and now they could, under the law, be taken to court and prosecuted because of that. This inaction by the West Australian energy minister and the West Australian government has not been warranted and has been clearly against the public interest. There is no capital barrier to enter the LPG market.There have been six different partners in the North West Shelf to chose from. LPG could be shipped to Fremantle from any of these six partners or from LPG suppliers overseas. These North West Shelf partners will shortly decide to almost double the volume of LPG produced after the year 2000 to almost two million tonnes per year. Woodside Petroleum actually told me that they would be prepared to sell and ship LPG to wholesalers in Perth and into Western Australia's domestic markets.Not only has the West Australian government failed to look after consumers, but they failed to provide environmental leadership for the whole community. By increasing suppliers and keeping the prices down, the West Australian government could create an economic incentive for heavier diesel powered vehicle owners to change to gas. Heavier vehicles produce 70 per cent of the total vehicle pollution and alternative fuels like LPG and CNG could cut these emissions by over 50 per cent.There is now growing scientific evidence of increased cancer risks, asthma, respiratory ailments and an increased death rate from diesel fumes. Perth already suffers from haze alerts and temperature inversion of the atmosphere between the hills and the coast. The example that has been given from Kyoto University in Japan has found diesel has one of the most carcinogenic compounds ever detected, a substance called nitrobenzathrone. A study of diesel bus drivers in Copenhagen has found 60 per cent higher lung and 40 per cent higher bladder cancer rates amongst those drivers.I believe the West Australian energy minister has turned his back on the people of Western Australia when he could have made a real difference to the quality of the air they breathe. I believe these issues are important. I believe it is very important that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has the full information it needs for this inquiry. I will be keeping a very close eye on the outcome and making sure that we can get better outcomes for consumers, for the environment and for small business in a win-win situation in Western Australia.18219:45:00182Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—I want to make some comments tonight about the pork industry and correct some of the views expressed by Senator O'Brien earlier. The pig meat industry is very important to all of us who live in regional Australia. The government is very aware of the pain that is being felt by many producer families. The government and the pork industry are working in partnership to improve the pork industry's international competitiveness.The government Pork Industry Restructure Strategy is based on outcomes from a number of strategic studies. It includes a $19 million integrated package of grant programs to assist individual enterprises and groups to achieve a strong market focus and improve their international competitiveness in the global food market. The $19 million pork industry adjustment package comprises the $10 million National Pork Industry Development Program, which can fund projects ranging from market research to skills acquisition, the $8 million Pigmeat Processing Grants Program, which aims to stimulate investment in the processing sector, and the $1 million that has been provided under FarmBis for a national skills enhancement training initiative for pork producers. Funding approvals under the $10 million National Pork Industry Development Program commenced in July 1998 and to date some $2.8 million has been approved by the government for projects in production, processing and retailing sectors.There is much more to be done for the pork industry. Some examples of the projects that have been approved include a major domestic market development promotion for fresh pork and bacon—managed by the Australian Pork Corporation and financially supported by the retail industry—and other projects are in the areas of risk management, market development, production and training.The national pork industry development group is working in close consultation with industry on several initiatives, including driving forward the key elements of their business plan such as export development, the formation of networks alliances and managing a benchmarking study of the pork industry chain. The $8 million Pigmeat Processing Grants Program provides investment grants to eligible specialist pig meat processors to improve the competitiveness of this important sector. The program will stimulate investment in the processing sector by funding up to 10 per cent of the costs associated with new plant and equipment with a cap of half a million dollars per company per year over the three-year life of the program.In addition, Senator O'Brien referred to the referral of the problems of the importation of pig meat to the Productivity Commission. The government announced in June that it would introduce a general safeguard mechanism as part of the recent pig industry assistance program. The Productivity Commission was designated as the appropriate domestic agency to conduct inquiries and report on whether safeguard action, in accordance with the World Trade Organisation agreement on safeguards, is warranted against imports of certain frozen pig meat, predominantly that from Canada.This is the first safeguards inquiry undertaken by Australia under the new rules that came into operation in 1995. Safeguard measures provide temporary assistance and an opportunity to adjust for an industry suffering serious injury or threatened by serious injury as a result of increased imports. The Productivity Commission will also report on factors affecting the profitability and competitiveness of domestic pig farming and pork processing industries.Professor Richard Snape, the inquiry's commissioner, has implemented a transparent process with regular updates on progress being available to interested people. The reporting deadline is this Friday, 13 November 1998. That date was set by the Treasurer. The report will be published and made available in due course.The Productivity Commission will determine whether there has been serious injury and the remedy that is appropriate. The remedy also has to be in the public interest before a recommendation as to what safeguard can be applied. The inquiry process and remedy is governed, as I said, by the World Trade Organisation rules, and the Canadian pork industry has taken a keen interest in the inquiry, as well they might.Staff from the department met with Professor Snape on 4 August 1998, and the department outlined the flexibility on variables impacting on the industry's current situation—the government's $19 million integrated package of business assistance programs, RASAC's decision and the range of welfare assistance measures presently available and those also available under the AAA package. During these meetings, Professor Snape indicated an appreciation of the government's interest in releasing the inquiry's findings quickly. I look forward to the commissioner's ruling on whether safeguard action is warranted and the commissioner's finding in relation to the factors affecting the profitability of this very important Australian industry.19:51:00183Senate adjourned at 7.51 p.m.Documents183183The following government documents were tabled:Administrative Review Council—Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice—No. 42—The contracting out of government services, August 1998. Advance to the Minister for Finance—Statement and supporting applications of issues—June 1998.Australia-Korea Foundation—Report for 1996-97.Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act—Australian Security Intelligence Organization—Report for 1997-98.Coal Industry Act—Joint Coal Board—Report for 1997-98.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Reports for 1997-98— Australian Dairy Corporation. Australian Fisheries Management Authority and Australian Fisheries Management Authority Selection Committee. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation (Final report). Australian Pork Corporation. Dairy Research and Development Corporation. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee. Meat Research Corporation (Final report). Pig Research and Development Corporation and Pig Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act—Reports for 1997-98— Equal employment opportunity program—Reserve Bank of Australia. Equity and diversity program—Airservices Australia.Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act—Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—Report—Article 18: Freedom of religion and belief, July 1998.Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority—Report for 1997-98.Provision for running costs borrowings—Statement and supporting applications of issues—June 1998.Public Service Act—Department of Finance and Administration—Report for 1997-98—Corrigendum.Trade Practices Act—National Competition Council—Report for 1997-98.Treaties—Bilateral —Text, together with national interest analyses— Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia Concerning the Status of Forces, done at Kuala Lumpur on 3 February 1997. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Ukraine on Trade and Economic Cooperation, done at Kyiv on 17 March 1998. Exchange of Letters, done at Canberra on 14 July 1998, between Australia and the Republic of France, constituting an Agreement relating to the Movement of Nationals between the Two Countries. Exchange of Letters, done at London on 29 May 1998, Constituting an Agreement to Amend the Agreement on Health Services between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of 21 March 1986. General Agreement on Development Cooperation between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, done at Jakarta on 9 July 1998.List of multilateral treaty action under negotiation or consideration by the Australian Government, 11 November 1998.United Nations—International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—Australia's reports under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights— Third—March 1987-December 1995. Fourth—1996.War Crimes Act—Report for 1997-98 on the operation of the Act.184The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposal No. 15 of 1998.Broadcasting Services Act—Broadcasting Services (Events) Notice No. 1 of 1994 (Amendment No. 4 of 1998).Child Care Act—Childcare Assistance Immunisation Requirements—IMCA/12G/98/3.Currency Act—Currency Determination No. 6 of 1998.Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 —Income Tax (Farm Management Deposits—Deduction Exemption Certificates) Guidelines 1998.Therapeutic Goods Act—Therapeutic Goods Order No. 62 (Amendment to Therapeutic Goods Order No. 48).Answers to Questions on Notice185The following answers to questions were circulated:185(Question No. 1093)1093185Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja3I6SAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 11 March 1998:(1) Are the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) the major funding bodies for science research in Australia.(2) How many applications were received for the last round of awarded ARC grants.(3) How many applications were received for the last round of awarded NHMRC grants.(4) How many of the ARC applications were successful.(5) How many of the NHMRC applications were successful.(6) Are there ARC applications which are worthy of funding, but did not receive funding.(7) Are there NHMRC applications which are worthy of funding, but did not receive funding.(8) How many worthy ARC applications were unsuccessful.(9) How many worthy NHMRC applications were unsuccessful.(10) Why were worthy ARC applications not funded.(11) Why were worthy NHMRC applications not funded.(12) How much extra money would be needed to fund the worthy ARC applications.(13) How much extra money would be needed to fund the worthy NHMRC applications.(14) How much is an FA18 fighter worth.(15) How much is a Leopard tank worth.(16) What is the Commonwealth's budget for the sports.(17) What is the Commonwealth's budget for the arts.(18) What is the Commonwealth's budget for health.(19) What measures is the Government taking to increase the funding for science research. 185Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The following ministers have provided answers to the honourable senator's questions:(1) The Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism has provided the following answer:This is a matter of how "science research" is defined and what may be assessed as "major". Section 3 of the Science and Technology Budget Statement 1997-98 provides information on relevant funding provided through a number of Commonwealth programs and the senator may wish to refer to that publication.The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer:Yes, they are major funding bodies.(2) The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer:3,284 applications were received in the round for funding of 1998 Large Research Grants.(3) The Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer:In 1997 1,577 NHMRC project grant applications were received for grants to be awarded in 1998.(4) The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer:658 applications were approved for funding under the Large Grants Scheme. Funding was also provided for 8 Special Investigator Awards.(5) The Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer:Of the number at (3) above, 413 NHMRC project grant applications were successful.(6) The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer:As the premier research grants scheme in the higher education sector, the DEETYA/ARC Large Research Grants Scheme is highly competitive. Large Research Grants are awarded to applications which are most worthy of funding in that they meet the highest standards of excellence in terms of the proposal and the track record of the researcher as determined by an external peer review process. There are many applications received that are considered to merit external peer review. In the last granting round of the Large Research Grants Scheme, 658 of the 2,394 applications considered to merit external peer review were awarded grants.(7) The Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer:Funding was provided only to the most worthy applicants.(8) The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer:Funding was provided only to the most worthy applications.(9) The Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer:In 1997 RGICs made recommendation for funding of a total of 954 project grants of which 541 were unsuccessful.(10) The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer:The most worthy applicants were funded.(11) The Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer:The NHMRC allocates funding for a range of grants from the health research appropriation. In 1998 $99.7 million has been allocated for competitive project grants. Each year about 67 per cent of the project grant allocation is required for ongoing project grants (in 1998 $66.8 million) and the rest is available for allocation to new grants (1998 $32.9 million). The highest ranked applications are funded within the limits of the available funding.(12) The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer:None.(13) The Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer:None.(14) The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer:The average current asset value of a F/A-18 aircraft is $32,907,000.00(15) The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer:The average current asset value of a Leopard ASI gun tank is $800,000.00.(16) The Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism has provided the following answer:This information is available in the 1997-98 Commonwealth Budget Papers which are publicly available. (17) The Minister for Communication and the Arts has provided the following answer:The Commonwealth's budget for the arts as indicated in the "Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 1997-98", Program 1.1 Arts and Heritage Policy is $289,418,000.(18) The Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer:The latest available published figure for Commonwealth outlays on the health function for 1997-98 is $20.787 billion (source—'Mid-Year Fiscal and Economic Outlook 1997-98" statement).(19) The Minister for Industry Science and Tourism has provided the following answer:This financial year Australia will invest around $7.5 billion on science and technology through government programs and spending by Australian business. The Government alone will spend about $3.3 billion on science and technology this year.Australia ranks fifth in the OECD in terms of R&D expenditure in government agencies and universities measured as a percentage of GDP.The Government has maintained funding for public sector research while addressing the budget deficit. In 1997-98 funding for the CSIRO increased in real terms.Funding for the science authorities, the CSIRO, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and the Australian Institute of Marine Science was agreed through to the year 2000 in the 1996/97 budget. This has restored stability to the funding base of the science agencies. These organisations are now able to set priorities, properly plan their research programs and ensure that specialist skills are available.A major upgrade to Australia's nuclear science infrastructure was announced by the Government in 1997 with the decision to invest $286 million in a replacement for ANSTO's research reactor.The Government has introduced a number of measures to stimulate business R&D such as R&D Start which received an additional $556 million in funding in the 1997 Industry Statement Investing in Growth, bring total funding to $739 million over four years. These measures compliment the 125 per cent Tax concession which has been reformed to ensure that it achieves its intended objective.The Government is improving links between public sector researchers, business and other research users and between Australia and the international scientific community such as announcing the $72 million Technology Diffusion Program which will be directed towards technology diffusion activities over the next four years.The Government has established the Innovation Investment Fund which is designed to greatly assist the commercialisation of research outcomes in Australia. Together with private sector funding the $173 million provided by the Government for this Program will create an overall investment pool of $260 million.Complementing this initiative, in the recent Greenhouse Statement, the Government committed $61 million in venture capital, loans and grants for development and commercialisation of renewable energy technology. This will directly support the creation of new business, jobs and exports in high growth industries of the future.The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided input to the following answer:(19) The Government remains committed to providing support for science research undertaken in the higher education system. As a measure of this commitment, through the Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs portfolio, the Government announced additional support in the Higher Education Budget Statement 1996, totalling $132.5 million in 1997, 1998 and 1999 for targeted higher education research (in 1998 outturn prices). This increased support included an additional $92.8 million for research infrastructure, $30.1 million for industry/university collaborative research grants, though the Strategic Partnerships—Industry Research and Training Scheme (SPIRT), and $9.6 million for Australian Postgraduate Awards.The Government's Investing for Growth statement provided funding for a further 50 Australian Postgraduate Awards (Industry) (APA(I)), as part of SPIRT, in each of 1999, 2000 and 2001 at a cost of $9.2 million. These APA(I)s will enhance university-industry linkages in information technology related areas.Further measures to increase research funding through the portfolio, including for science, in subsequent years will be considered in the context of the 1999-2000 Budget and as the Government develops its response to the recent Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy (the West Review).187(Question No. 1217)1217187Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QuirkeZS6SAALP00 asked the Minister for Justice, upon notice, on 25 June 1998:(1) What type of work have Australian Federal Police officers been required to undertake whilst being part of the Truce Monitoring Group.(2) (a) Have these police officers been involved in any policing duties or police training duties; and (b) were they in uniform; if not, why not. 187Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The answer to Senator Quirke's question is as follows:(1) Initially AFP officers were deployed as truce monitors. Following the signing of the Lincoln Agreement on 30 April 1998 the AFP officers were deployed as peace monitors.Role of truce monitors:- to observe and monitor that the Burnham Truce is being maintained by all the Parties;- to report alleged breaches of the Truce;- to liaise with local truce monitoring committees;- to facilitate the peace process by setting an example, explaining the truce, and the peoples' obligation to it; and- by its presence, discourage potential breaches of the truce.Role of peace monitors:- monitor and report on compliance with all aspects of the ceasefire;- promote and instil confidence in the peace process through its presence, good offices and interaction with the people in Bougainville;- provide such assistance in implementation of the Lincoln Agreement as the parties to the Agreement and the States contributing to the Peace Monitoring Group may agree and available resources allow; and- cooperate by agreement in ways that assist in democratic resolution of the situation.(2) (a) No. Policing duties were performed by the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary. (b) No. The AFP officers wore the same clothing as other Australian monitors under the terms of engagement for the Truce Monitoring Group.187(Question No. 1218)1218187Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QuirkeZS6SAALP00 asked the Minister for Justice, upon notice, on 25 June 1998:(1) What selection processes were utilised by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to select the police officers deployed to the Truce Monitoring Group.(2) What are the lengths of their tours of duty to the island.(3) What is the intention of the Government in regards to future AFP deployment.187Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The answer to Senator Quirke's question is as follows:(1) AFP officers were selected on the basis of merit taking into consideration past United Nations involvement, availability and the impact the release of the officer would have on AFP operational requirements.(2) Two months.(3) AFP involvement on the island is constantly under review. The question of Australian commitment to the Bougainville peace process will be addressed shortly in the lead up to the election of an interim Transitional Government.188(Question No. 1219)1219188Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QuirkeZS6SAALP00 asked the Minister for Justice, upon notice, on 25 June 1998:(1) What administrative arrangement exists which covers the police officers' terms and conditions while part of the Truce Monitoring Group (TMG).(2) Is it a fact that police deployed to the TMG were nominally required to work only 38 hours per week between the hours of 7am and 6pm Monday to Friday.(3) Is it a fact that the police in reality, routinely worked outside these hour without any additional financial remuneration for those duties.188Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The answer to Senator Quirke's question is as follows:(1) AFP police officers serving as part of the Truce Monitoring Group are covered by a Commissioner of Police Determination made under section 30 of the AFP Act 1979. Such Determinations are required to be consistent with Government wages policy and a copy was provided to the officers prior to their departure for Bougainville.(2) Yes. These are the normal hours of duty for all AFP members.(3) No. The AFP members of the contingent who worked in excess of 3 8 hours per week, were compensated by the payment of a 40% composite allowance. In the case of those members in Bougainville directed to work shift work consistent with the Determination, normal shift allowances have also been paid. AFP members in Bougainville also received a range of other allowances, including a Bougainville Allowance of $10,371 per annum, and Mission Allowance of $16 per day.188(Question No. 1220)1220188Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QuirkeZS6SAALP00 asked the Minister for Justice, upon notice, on 25 June 1998:Was the Truce Monitoring Group commander made aware of the limitations placed upon police officers in regards to their hours of duty; if so, when, if not, why not. 188Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The answer to Senator Quirke's question is as follows:No. See response to question 1219. AFP officers were deployed to Bougainville on a normal 38 hour week with appropriate remuneration paid for hours worked outside these hours. Where it was necessary for AFP officers to perform duty outside of normal shifts the approval of the Truce Monitoring Commander, or his delegate, was necessary. This requirement was stipulated in the Commissioner of Police Determination promulgated specifically for service in Bougainville.188(Question No. 1221)1221188Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QuirkeZS6SAALP00 asked the Minister for Justice, upon notice, on 25 June 1998:(1) Did the Australian Federal Police receive supplementary funding for the deployment of officers as part of the Truce Monitoring Group from any other agency or private body.(2) Did any such funding cover items such as overtime and penalty payments; if so, how much funding was delivered.188Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The answer to Senator Quirke's question is as follows:(1) Yes. During 1997—98 the AFP received $31 960 from AusAid to assist with the first deployment of AFP officers. The AFP anticipates further funding will be provided during 1998-99 to assist with the costs of additional AFP officers deployed to the Truce Monitoring Group.(2) Funding provided to the AFP by AusAid was not specifically allocated by AusAid to overtime and penalty payments. The level of funding was based on a formula approved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and provided $120 per day per officer and a one-off equipment allowance of $430 per officer. The funding provided in this manner does not cover the total cost incurred by the AFP in providing officers to the Truce Monitoring Group.188(Question No. 1230)1230188Mackay, Sen SueSenator Mackay9L6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 1 July 1998:(1) Has any telephone `hot line' been established in the Minister's office or any section of the department since the inception of the work for the dole scheme which has received complaints about the scheme or any of its individual projects; if so, how many complaints have been registered about the scheme or any of its individual projects.(2) Can details be provided of the nature and extent of each and all of these complaints.189Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:An information line was established by the Department of Employment, Eduction, Training and Youth Affairs in July 1997 to provide information on the Work for the Dole scheme.(2) The main purpose of the line is to provide information to prospective sponsors of projects. No records have been maintained of issues or complaints made. Matters raised by callers were dealt with as they were raised.189(Question No. 1241)1241189Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BartlettDT6QLDAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 8 July 1998:(1) What percentage of Chinese students using student visas return to China when their visa expires.(2) What percentage of Chinese students are granted a variation to their student visas and what are the sub-categories of these.(3) What percentage of Chinese students overstay their visas.(4) What percentage of Chinese students overstay their visas for: (a) more than a month; (b) more than 6 months; and (c) more than 12 months.(5) What percentage of Chinese business visa holders overstay.(6) What percentage of Chinese business visa holders change the status of their visas.(7) What percentage of visitors from China who come to Australia as part of a delegation overstay their visas.189Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Of the 1754 students from the People's Republic of China (PRC) who arrived in program year 1995-96 (students from the Hong Kong Self Autonomous Region are excluded from any of these figures), 45% departed Australia upon expiry of their initial student visa. (2) 24% of the 1754 PRC students were granted a different class of visa. Of these:. 21.6% were granted a permanent residence visa on family relationship grounds;. 0.5% were granted a permanent residence visa on skilled grounds;. 0.3% were granted permanent residence on refugee grounds; and. 1.6% were granted a temporary entry visa other than a student visa.(3) 5% of the PRC student cohort overstayed and are unlawful, while 26% of the 1754 PRC students remain in Australia on a valid student visa.(4) The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs does not maintain statistics for the individual periods requested.(5) Of the 32,800 people from the PRC who entered Australia in program year 1996-97 holding a Subclass 456 Business (short stay) visa, (business visitors from the Hong Kong Self Autonomous Region are excluded from any of these figures), 0.2% were recorded as having departed unlawfully, while 1.9% were recorded as remaining unlawfully in Australia.(6) Of the 32,800 people from the PRC who entered Australia in program year 1996-97 holding a Subclass 456 visa, 9% changed their status onshore.(7) The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs does not keep statistics specific to over stayers who came to Australia as part of a delegation.189(Question No. 1254)1254189Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 21 July 1998:(1) What is the total expenditure on conferences both: (a) in-house, that is, held within the department or agency: and (b) external, held by the department or agencies within the portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996.(2) For conferences fully funded by the department and portfolio agencies, and costing in excess of $30 000: (a) where was the venue; (b) what was the reason for each conference; (c) how many participants registered; (d) were consultancy fees paid for the organisation of each conference: (e) to whom were the consultancy fees paid; and (f) what was the cost of each consultancy.(3) For conferences part-sponsored or part-funded by the department and portfolio agencies and costing the Commonwealth in excess of $30 000: (a) what was the cost to the department or agency; (b) what was the proportion of Commonwealth funding as against the total cost of the conference; (c) what was the rationale for the sponsorship or part-funding; (d) what was the venue; (e) how many participants registered; (f) did the Commonwealth contribute to any consultant organising the conference; if so, who was the consultant; and (g) how much was the Commonwealth's contribution.190Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Except for major events, agencies do not generally record expenditure against specific conferences. Consequently, the answer to this part of the question relates to the month expenditure is recorded rather than the month a conference took place. Extracting the information requested for minor conferences in the form requested by Senator Faulkner would be resource intensive and provide little additional information.The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has advised that the information required to reply to this part of the question is not readily available from its financial records.Information for the remaining portfolio agencies is as follows:Department of Communications and the ArtsPart 1(a)December 1997 $ 72 851Part 1(b)September 1996 $ 513,949Australia CouncilPart 1(a)NilPart 1(b)March 1996—$12,000April 1996—$3,600May 1996—$9,541June 1996—$55,906July 1996—$14,794August 1996—$8,415September 1996—$1,137January 1997—$580February 1997—$578April 1997—$1,247May 1997—$325June 1997—$71,321July 1997—$10,921August 1997—$617September 1997—$31,807October 1997—$89,680December 1997—$96,641January 1998—$2,306February 1998—$34,740 March 1998—$9,990April 1998—$94May 1998—$1,443June 1998—$29,146July 1998—$37Total—$486,866Australian Film CommissionPart 1(a)July 1997 $ 2 100Part 1(b)April 1996—$500June 1996—$52,066August 1996—$10,480September 1996—$10, 000October 1996—$5,620February 1997—$23,500June 1997—$1,190October 1997—$5,000November 1997—$42,000December 1997—$32,493Total—$182,849National Film and Sound ArchivePart 1(a)NilPart 1(b)October 1996—$4,000November 1997—$5,000Total—$9,000National Gallery of AustraliaPart 1(a)March 1996—$24,890July 1996—$2,200August 1996—$1,090September 1996—$300October 1996—$1,400November 1996—$600January 1997—$1,200March 1997—$1,500April 1997—$18,980July 1997—$1,950August 1997—$2,300October 1997—$2,200January 1998—$2,160March 1998—$9,650April 1998—$1,760May 1998—$6,770June 1998—$7,700July 1998—$2,610August 1998—$3,650Total—$92,910 This expenditure was offset by revenue totalling $120 380, resulting in net revenue of $27,470.Part 1(b)Nil National Library of AustraliaPart 1(a)March 1997—$49,000This expenditure was offset by revenue totalling $71 864, resulting in net revenue of $22,864.Part 1(b)NilNational Museum of AustraliaPart 1(a)June 1998—$18,263Part 1(b)NilAustralian Broadcasting AuthorityPart 1(a)NilPart 1(b)February 1997—$5,844February 1998—$18,600March 1998—$43,220Total—$67,664This expenditure was offset by revenue totalling $31 430, resulting in net expenditure of $36,234.National Office for the Information EconomyPart 1(b)March 1998—$2,142April 1998—$72,654Total—$74,796(2) Details for conferences held by each agency are as follows.Department of Communications and the ArtsConstruction Coordination Task Force—Content Matrix Summit(a) University House, the Australian National University, Canberra(b) The conference was organised by the Department for the National Museum of Australia, to develop major thematic building blocks on which the National Museum's specific interpretative techniques and changing programming can be based.(c) 25(d) Yes.(e) Ralph Appelbaum Associates Inc.(f)$58,650Australia CouncilBig Notes Conference(a) Carlton Crest Hotel, Melbourne(b) To coordinate a National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Music Industry Conference(c) 50(d) Yes(e) Songlines Music Aboriginal Corporation (f) $101,471National Indigenous Writers and Playwrights Conference(a) Bardon Professional Centre, Brisbane(b) To combine the needs and issues of writers and playwrights in a joint conference/workshop forum(c) 139(d) Yes(e) (i) Lesley Fogarty Consulting(ii) Kooemba Jdarra Indigenous Performing Arts(f) (i) $31,146(ii) $4,000Imagining the Market Conference(a) Sydney Town Hall, Sydney(b) A Conference for and by those marketing in arts and culture(c) 268(d) Yes(e) (i) Pino Migliorino(ii) Australian Institute of Arts Management(f) (i) $400(ii) $30,000Australian Film CommissionActors Workshop(a) The Museum of Sydney, Sydney(b) To address professional development issues for Australian film and TV actors. Workshop on issues of developing and maintaining an overseas career for Australian actors. Providing opportunity for Australian film and TV actors to be informed about the issues related to working overseas, in particular in the American market.(c) 230(d) No(e) and (f) Not applicableLanguage of Interactivity(a) ABC Ultimo Centre, Sydney(b) To inform the multimedia constituency, stimulate debate and discussion of ideas, and engender a sense of community amongst multimedia practitioners.(c) 430(d) Yes.(e) Staging Connections(f) $32 258National Library of Australia(a) The National Library of Australia, Canberra (b) An international workshop to inform the library community of the standard set of metadata elements.(c) 275(d) No(e) and (f) Not applicableAustralian Broadcasting Authority (ABA)(a) Lilianfels, Blue Mountains(b) To determine the strategic direction and organisational priorities for the ABA to the year 2000.(c) 43(d) No.(e) and (f) Not applicable(3) Details for conferences held by each agency are as follows.Department of Communications and the ArtsThe APEC Ministerial Meeting on the Telecommunications and Information Industry(a) $513 949.(b) 73%.(c) The reason for the meeting was to give political direction and purpose to the work of APEC in the telecommunications sector. This included agreement on priority tasks to achieve trade and investment liberalisation in the sector, to expand electronic commerce, and to promote policy and commercial approaches to achieving universal access to telecommunications services.(d) Sheraton Mirage Hotel, Gold Coast, Queensland.(e) 274(f) Yes. Business Meetings and Incentives Pty Ltd.(g) $30,195Australia CouncilDARE: National Community Cultural Development Conference(a) $177,097(b) 63 per cent(c) First national conference of sector in 12 years; significant professional development and sector development benefits(d) Brisbane City Hall, Brisbane(e) 320(f) Yes. Quay Connection(g) $56,100Australian Film CommissionBeing Connected(a) $92 515 (b) 82%(c) Sponsorship used as a contribution to facilitate extra conference activity, such as exhibition, conference web site, special breakfast and satchels.(d) Storey Hall, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne(e) 374(f) Yes. Charles Management(g) $12,390National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE)E-Commerce—Enabling Australia(a) $72 654(b) Not known. Telstra Corporation Ltd met the bulk of the planning and organisational expenses.(c) The Summit represented a ready made way of boosting awareness of electronic commerce and of the role of NOIE at minimal cost.(d) Old Parliament House, Canberra(e) 300 (approx)(f) No.(g) Not applicable.192(Question No. 1260)1260192Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 21 July 1998:(1) What is the total expenditure on conferences both: (a) in-house, that is, held within the department or agency; and (b) external, held by the department or agencies within the portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996.(2) For conferences fully funded by the department and portfolio agencies, and costing in excess of $30 000: (a) where was the venue; (b) what was the reason for each conference; (c) how many participants registered; (d) were consultancy fees paid for the organisation of each conference; (e) to whom were the consultancy fees paid; and (f) what was the cost of each consultancy.(3) For conferences part-sponsored or part-funded by the department and portfolio agencies and costing the Commonwealth in excess of $30 000: (a) what was the cost to the department or agency; (b) what was the proportion of Commonwealth funding as against the total cost of the conference; (c) what was the rationale for the sponsorship or part-funding; (d) what was the venue; (e) how many participants registered; (f) did the Commonwealth contribute to any consultant organising the conference; if so, who was the consultant, and (f) how much was the Commonwealth's contribution.193Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)—(3) To provide a complete response to this question would require considerable time and resources and in the interests of efficient utilisation of departmental resources, I am not prepared to ask my Department to divert staff from health priorities.193(Question No. 1262)1262193Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 21 July 1998:(1) What is the total expenditure on conferences both: (a) in-house, that is, held within the department or agency; and (b) external, held by the department or agencies within the portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996.(2) For conferences fully funded by the department and portfolio agencies, and costing in excess of $30,000: (a) where was the venue; (b) what was the reason for each conference; (c) how many participants registered; (d) were consultancy fees paid for the organisation of each conference; (e) to whom were the consultancy fees paid; and (f) what was the cost of each consultancy.(3) For conferences part-sponsored or part-funded by the department and portfolio agencies and costing the Commonwealth in excess of $30,000: (a) what was the cost to the department or agency; (b) what was the proportion of Commonwealth funding as against the total cost of the conference; (c) what was the rationale for the sponsorship or part-funding; (d) what was the venue; (e) how many participants registered; (f) did the Commonwealth contribute to any consultant organising the conference; if so, who was the consultant; and (g) how much was the Commonwealth's contribution.193Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) Nil.(b)—Analysis and Evaluation DivisionFebruary 1997$7,311.00November 1997$1,000.00February 1998$7,500.00Higher Education DivisionJuly 1997$30,000.00July 1997$3,388.00April 1998$39,160.00April-May 1998$51,500.00International, Equity & Youth DivisionApril-May 1996$50,000.00July-August 1996$91,283.00September 1996$47,603.00October 1996$595,478.00June 1997$20,354.00November 1997$3,158.00December 1997$500.00February 1998$30,000.00April 1998$500.00July 1998$10,748.00 Employment and Purchasing DivisionDecember 1996$85,908.00*September 1997$60,547.00April 1998$7,060.00**National Board of Employment, Education, and TrainingMarch 1997$5,609.00July 1997$11,593.00 August 1997$7,544.00November 1997$6,288.00Schools DivisionJuly 1996$10,000.00September 1996$100,000.00December 1996$87,000.00June 1997$15,109.00June 1997$10,000.00July 1997$30,000.00July 1997$16,606.00September 1997$150,000.00December 1997$15,998.00February 1998$8,612.00Total$1,617,357.00Note: The expenditure details shown are for the month in which the conferences were held.* Includes delegate travel, accommodation and official dinner.** Does not include the costs of delegate travel/accommodation to attend the Conference as these were met from operating grants provided by the Department to individual Area Consultative Committees (ACCs) under program 4.3. Whereas inclusion of these expenses would result in total costs associated with the Conference in excess of $30,000, it is not considered a cost effective use of Departmental resources at this stage to calculate the precise amount.2.Higher Education Division:I. TER Symposiuma) Armidale, NSWb) provide universities the opportunity to share information about alternatives to the tertiary entrance rank for selection into universityc) 47d) yese) University of New Englandf) $4,000.00OECD seminara) Sydney, NSWb) to meet Australia's commitment to follow up issues of relevance raised by the OECD Thematic Review of the First Years of Tertiary Educationc) 33d) yes e) The Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National Universityf) $2,800.00International, Equity and Youth Division:I. Member Consultationsa) Country Comfort Lennons Hotel, Brisbaneb) Member consultations on the 1996-97 AIEF Business Plansc) 46d) noe) n/af) n/aa) University of NSW Union—Sydneyb) Member consultations on the 1996-97 AIEF Business Plansc) 117d) noe) n/a f) n/aa) University of WA—Perthb) Member consultations on the 1996-97 AIEF Business Plansc) 42d) noe) n/af) n/aa) Country Comfort Inn—Adelaideb) Member consultations on the 1996-97 AIEF Business Plansc) 46d) noe) n/af) n/aa) University of Melbourne—Melbourneb) Member consultations on the 1996-97 AIEF Business Plansc) 102d) noe) n/af) n/aII. 1996 AIEF Business Meetinga) Adelaide Hilton—Adelaideb) According to the Terms of Reference the conference was for:a review of performance against the AIEF Business Plans;a report and discussion on outlook for the AIEF;presentations for Counsellors posted to Australian Diplomatic Missions and the opportunity for AIEF Members to discuss issues with the Counsellors; andreports on recent AIEF Council research projects.c) Estimated to be 200d) Yese) Simon Monk, Australian Science Network was the successful tendererf) $47,603.00III. Australia India-New Horizons—Education and Training Componentsa) Taj Palace, Delhi Indiab) To enhance the mutual understanding of each country's education and training systems and cultures, to identify and develop areas for collaboration and cooperation, raise awareness of the quality of education and training services in Australia and consolidate our position in Indiac) Estimated to be 930 d) Yese) Contracts were negotiated with:1—University of NSW2—Jessica Ramsden-Smith3—Inter-Group Conventions and Expositions Limitedf) 1—$17,000.002—$46,857.003—$18,000.00IV. Rural Youth Information Officers Conference—30 April—2 May 1996a) Rydges Hotel, Canberrab). to provide specific training for Rural Youth Information Service (RYIS) Officers identified through a needs assessment process; and. to disseminate information to RYIS Officers on Commonwealth policies and programs of relevance for their service provision to young people from rural and remote regionsc) 18 RYIS Officersd) Yese) A J Mountford & Associates, Melbournef) $9,900.00Employment and Purchasing DivisionI. Meeting of Chairs of Area Consultative Committeesa) Parliament House, Canberrab) Meeting of the Chairs of ACC with the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairsc) 62 ACC Chairs plus 20 Departmental Officersd) Noe) N/af) N/aII. Meeting of Chairs of Areas Consultative Committeesa) Parliament House, Canberrab) Meeting of the Chairs of ACC with the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairsc) 58 ACC Chairs, 53 ACC Executive Officers plus 20 Departmental Officersd) Noe) N/af) N/aSchools DivisionI. 1996 National Professional Development Program (NPDP) National Conference a) Melbourne Business School, Carlton Victoriab) Report on and assess the progress and outcomes of projects funded under the NPDP, a program funded by the previous governmentc) 125d) Yese) The National Education Forum, who also subcontracted the National Curriculum Servicesf) $100,000.00II. OECD-CERI Regional Conference on Science, Mathematics and Technology Educationa) Rydges Hotel, Canberrab) to encourage national and international exchange of ideas and practices in science, mathematics an technology educationc) 120 invited guestsd) Yese) Australian Science Teachers Associationf) $46,284.00III. Early Literacy Component Conferencea) Westside Hotel, Hobartb) An information sharing activity for all State and Territory Early Literacy Component Officersc) 75d) Noe) n/af) n/a3. Higher Education Division:Conference on Funding Higher Education: Performance and Diversitya) $30,000b) 48% of total costc) the Commonwealth contributed to the funding of the conference as it provided a forum for wide discussion of current thinking in regard to the financing structures of higher educationd) Stamford Plaza, Adelaidee) 90f) Yes, Professor Paul W Miller, Professor Jonathon J Pincus and Jan Holmesg) $5,000International, Equity and Youth DivisionI. 10th Australian International Education Conferencea) $90,000 (not including the cost of bringing overseas Counsellors to Australia for the Conference)b) about 40%c) The sale of Australian education to fee-paying overseas students is a major industry which contri buted an estimated $3.2 billion to the Australian economy in 1997. The purpose of the Conference was to share information about developments in international education and to plan and develop appropriate strategies and initiatives aimed at retaining and increasing Australia's market share.Adelaidee) about 700 Australian and international delegatesf) Nog) n/aII 2nd Australia Taiwan Vocational Education and Training Conferencea) $40,000b) less than 25 percentc) The rationale for sponsorship was to foster the bilateral relationship with Taiwan in the Vocational Education and Training sector by facilitating the exchange of information and providing a catalyst for the creation of bilateral links at the institutional and enterprise level.d) Yaun Ze University, Taiwan.e) about 220 delegates, including approximately 40 Australian representativesf) Nog) n/aEmployment and Purchasing DivisionI `PATHWAYS TO THE FUTURE'—International Indigenous Economic Development Conferencea) The total cost to the Department $60,547b) The Commonwealth contributed $ 121,094, which was 65% of the total Conference of $187,864. ATSIC contributed the balance of the Commonwealth fundsc) The Conference arose from a recommendation of a joint Australian/OECD study tour on Indigenous economic development, undertaken in October 1995. The Conference aimed to bring together representatives from government, business and indigenous peoples to explore ways to improve the economic situation of Indigenous people.d) Plaza Hotel, Darwin, NTe) 250 participants registeredf) Yes. CARILLON Conference Managementg) The Consultant was paid $28,750 and this was entirely funded from the Commonwealth's contribution. 197(Question No. 1274)1274197O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 23 July 1998:(1) (a) When did the Victorian Government first raise the matter of drought exceptional circumstances (DEC) assistance for East Gippsland with the Minister or the department; and (b) how was the matter raised.(2) (a) When did the Victorian Farmers' Federation first raise the matter with the Minister or the department; and (b) how was the matter raised.(3) (a) When did the Minister receive an application for assistance; and (b) who lodged the application.(4) Did the Minister or the department seek further information from the Victorian Government or the Victorian Farmers' Federation following the lodgement of the applications; if so, when was the request made and when was the information provided.(5) (a) When was the matter referred to the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Committee (RASAC); (b) when did RASAC report to the Minister on the matter; and (c) when did the Minister take a submission to Cabinet in support of the application.(6)How many people have so far applied for assistance through DEC.(7) (a) How many people are in receipt of benefits; (b) many people are currently being assessed; and (c) how many people have been refused assistance.(8) (a) How many people are in receipt of: (a) an interest rate subsidy; (b) an exceptional circumstances relief payment; (c) special access to health care card and family payments; and (d) Austudy.(9) What is the basis for rejection of some applications for assistance.(10) What is the average time between an application for assistance being lodged and the assistance being provided.(11) Is assistance payable for the date that DEC is approved for a region or from the date an application for assistance is lodged(12) What are the current means and asset test applied to applicants for assistance through DEC.(13) How has the Minister applied the means test to farmers who were forced to divest themselves of stock as part of the Victorian Government's compulsory Ovine Johnes disease eradication program in early 1997. 197Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLP10—The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) The Victorian Government first raised the matter of a possible DEC application with officers of the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy in late 1997. (b) The matter was raised in a telephone conversation.(2) (a) The Victorian Farmers Federation contacted the Minister on 22 December 1997.(b) The matter was raised in a letter.(3) (a) The Minister received the Victorian application for assistance on 5 January 1998.(b) The application was lodged by the Hon Patrick McNamara, MP, Deputy Premier and Minister for Agriculture and Resources in Victoria.(4) Further information was sought by the Bureau of Resource Sciences by telephone on 17 February 1998 from the Department of Natural Resources and Environment in Victoria. This additional information was provided on 24 February 1998. Further information was provided by Victoria to officers of the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy and to RASAC during the RASAC inspection of the area on 2-3 March 1998.(5) (a) The matter was referred to RASAC on 22 January 1998;(b) RASAC reported to the Minister on 24 March 1998.(c) the Minister took a submission to Cabinet on 30 March 1998 supporting the application.(6) There have been 289 applications for Rural Adjustment Scheme (RAS) DEC interest rate subsidies in East Gippsland up to 4 August 1998. There have been 558 applications for the Exceptional circumstances Relief Payment (ECRP).(7) (a) As at 4 August, there are 181 farms in East Gippsland receiving DEC interest rate subsidies and 413 families in receipt of the ECRP.A total of 844 EC certificates have been issued up to 4 August 1998.(b) There are 30 applications for DEC interest rate subsidies and 60 ECRP applications currently being assessed.(c) 78 applicants for DEC interest rate subsidies and 85 ECRP applicants have been refused assistance.(8) (a) There are 181 farm businesses currently in receipt of DEC interest rate subsidies. (b) There are 413 farm families currently in receipt of the ECRP.(c) All farm families in receipt of the ECRP automatically receive a Health Care Card. All ECRP recipients with children are eligible for Family Payments.(d) Information on the number of rural students taking advantage of the Youth Allowance (formerly Austudy) concession available in EC areas is not yet available.(9) In relation to DEC interest rate subsidy support, the reasons for rejection were:Future profitability not demonstrated given limited productive capacity & debt level67%Either not in need as trading profitably or off-farm assets exceed limit18%Either not farmers or less than 75% of labour involved in farming6%Debt level too high to demonstrate future profitability4%Either outside declared EC area or had irrigation water right5%The main reasons for rejection of ECRP claims have been:No DEC certificate providedIncome, either from farming or non farming sources, precludes entitlementAsset level (non-farming assets) precludes entitlementNot a farmer, generally where farming is not the primary source of income(10) The average time between receipt of an application and approval for DEC interest rate subsidy support is 16 days.The time between an application for ECRP assistance being lodged and the assistance being provided is usually within the set standard of 28 days. This is dependent on farmers providing all the details required at the time the application is made; in most instances this would be within 14 days. In some circumstances where the standard has not been achieved it has taken time for farmers to provide current income details.(11) When EC is declared in an area, a "grace" period of approximately 2 months is allowed for ECRP applicants to receive payments backdated to the date of declaration. In the case of East Gippsland, farmers who applied for an EC certificate on or before 31 May 1998 were issued with a certificate valid from the date of declaration (30 March 1998) allowing ECRP payments to be backdated to that date.In the case of DEC interest rate subsidies, the "anniversary date" from which support is provided is the date on which the application is lodged.(12) The current means and asset tests applied in the case of DEC interest rate subsidies is contained in the policy guidelines applying to this support. The relevant clause from the guidelines is set out below: (3) Assessment Criteria In assessing the eligibility of a farm enterprise for an interest subsidy the State RAS Authority shall be satisfied that: (a) the farm enterprise is in financial difficulty due to exceptional conditions, referred to in Clause 1(a). In considering whether a farm enterprise is in financial difficulty, the State RAS Authority shall consider the total amount of interest payable per annum, the estimated farm surplus over the medium term, and the applicant's equity in the farm business in relation to the amount of current and future indebtedness, together with both farm and off-farm assets and income (b) the provision of support under these guidelines is necessary to achieve the strategy as outlined in Clause 1 of these guidelines (c) without support under these guidelines the farm unit would not have the capacity to achieve or maintain sustainable long-term profitability (d) in assessing the likelihood of the farm enterprise being profitable in the long-term, the following factors shall be taken into account by the State RAS Authority (i) the farm is subject to a program of productivity improvement or skills enhancement under normal provisions of the 1992 RAS scheme and/or the farm is able to demonstrate that it has operated without normal RAS support in at least two of the past five years (ii) the expected future capacity of the farm to operate profitably (without Government support) as measured by its ability to meet, from estimated surpluses, its future financial commitments relating to (A) the farm operating costs (B) living costs of the farm family (C) servicing of the farm debts (D) future capital requirements for plant and improvements; and (E) investment requirements to return the farm to profitability (iii) the long-term economic trends which impact on the farm enterprise (iv) the demonstrated technical, financial and business management performance of the applicant (v) the provision of financial support for the farm enterprise by commercial lenders through the exceptional circumstance and beyond; and (e) the applicant has disposed of (i) all non-essential farm assets, and (ii) off-farm assets, such that the net value of off-farm assets is not in excess of $178,500 on commercial terms and applied the proceeds to the farm business (except where this would result in extreme hardship to the applicant). Investments in bona fide insurance and superannuation funds are exempt from the off-farm assets test (f) under normal circumstances, the applicant contributes at least 75 per cent of his/her labour to the farm enterprise, at least 50 per cent of income is derived from farming, and has been a farmer for at least two years (g) the applicant's property is now affected by exceptional circumstances as defined in Clause 1(a) of these guidelines (h) loans supplied by a commercial institution, vendor or by private arrangements, are provided on commercial terms at arms length and the interest rate charged by the lender is competitive with that which is generally applicable to the type of loan(s) being subsidised (i) support will not be available to farms in irrigation districts, other than dryland farms, except for farmers who derive more than 20 per cent of farm production from irrigated agriculture and whose water allocations are 80 per cent or less of their normal water allocations in 1996/97 and 1997/98.The current means and asset tests applied to the ECRP are:Assets TestIf a farmer has non farming assets in excess of $125,750 for a single homeowner or $178,500 for a married homeowner no payment is allowed. Where the farmer does not own the home property, the amount of assets allowed is higher but this situation is not common with farmers. Income TestIf a person earns income of less than $60 per fortnight, payment is not affected. If the person earns less than $140 per fortnight, the rate is reduced by 50 cents in the dollar for every dollar of income above the $60 free threshold. Any amount earned over $140 in a fortnight reduces the payment by 70 cents in the dollar. This income test is applied to income from all sources, including any estimated farming income that may be earned.(13) For the purpose of DEC interest rate subsidy assessment, any stock sale proceeds and/or compensation money as a result of Ovine Johnes disease eradication has not been an issue in determining eligibility—ie such funds are not included in any means test.In calculating the rate of ECRP the Farm Household Support Act 1992 at section 24A allows the proceeds from a forced disposal of livestock to be disregarded when the disposal occurs in the period during which the farmer holds a valid EC certificate and the proceeds are deposited as required by the Act. This means that where a farmer receives the proceeds from the forced disposal of livestock through a disease eradication program during the period the farmer has an EC certificate, those proceeds will not be counted as income when they are deposited as required by the Act.199(Question No. 1280)1280199O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 29 July 1998:(1) How many copies of the document `Action Plan for Australian Agriculture' were produced; and (b) what was the cost of producing the document.(2) (a) How many copies of the document were distributed; (b) to whom were they distributed; and (c) what was the cost of distributing the document.(3) (a) Which rural and other industry bodies were consulted as part of the preparation of the document; (b) on how many occasions were they consulted; and (c) where did the consultation take place.(4) (a) Which rural community groups were consulted in the preparation of the document; (b) on how many occasions were they consulted; and (c) where did the consultations take place.(5)(a) Which State government and State agencies were consulted in the preparation of the document; (b) on how many occasions were they consulted; and (c) where did the consultations take place. (6) What was the cost of the consultative process followed as part of the preparation of the document.200Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLP10—The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) 120,000 copies of the Action Plan were printed.(b) The total cost was $185,780.(2) (a and b) 114,00 copies mailed to all farmers in Australia; 500 copies at the launch; 400 copies to members of Parliament; 152 copies to peak industry groups and state officials; 130 copies to Parliamentary press gallery; 30 copies overseas posts; remaining copies distributed upon request.(c) The total estimated cost of mailing the document is $163,000.(3) (a and b) The consultative process was undertaken in two stages. Two roundtables and a SWOT workshop were held during mid 1997, at these meetings key representatives from agriculture and associated industries were invited to participate to establish the framework for the Action Plan (20 people attended each meeting). A third roundtable was held in December 1997 specifically for rural women (16 women attended). Rural and other industry bodies represented at these meetings were; National Farmers' Federation, Victorian Farmers' Federation, Queensland Farmers' Federation, United Graziers' Association of QLD, The Cattlemens' Union of Australia Inc, WA Farmers' Federation Inc, Pastoralists' & Graziers' Association of WA Inc, SA Farmers' Federation, Tasmanian Farmers' & Graziers', NT Cattlemens' Association Inc, Australian Conservation Foundation, Foundation for Australian Agricultural Women, Australian Apple and Pear Growers' Association, Horticulture 2000, Rural Training Council of Australia, Shires Association of NSW, Monaro Rural Counselling Service, Australian Women in Agriculture, Country Women's Association, Australian Cane Growers Council, ANZ Bank, Woolworths Limited, Chair of Chairs R&D Corporations, CSIRO, Effem Food Pty Ltd, Westpac Banking Corporation, Agknowledge, SBC Warburg, Horticultural Research & Development Corporation, Australian Food Council, Landcare Australia Ltd, Murray Catchment Management Committee, Kondinin Group. Consultation also occurred relating to the penultimate draft of the Action Plan in June 1998 with; National Farmers' Federation, Victorian Farmers' Federation, Queensland Farmers' Federation, United Graziers' Association of QLD, WA Farmers' Federation Inc, SA Farmers' Federation, Australian Horticultural Corporation, Winemakers Federation of Australia, Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, QLD Rural Industry Training Council, Supermarket Institute of Australia, Woolworths Limited. In addition Supermarket to Asia Council, Murray Darling Basin Commission, Dubbo City Development Corporation and the Bureau of Meteorology were also consulted on a draft of the Plan.All participants of the roundtables and SWOT workshop were invited to comment on a draft of the Plan in September 1997. Subsequent consultation was undertaken with each group who commented on the Plan in January 1998.(c) The three roundtables and the SWOT workshop were held in Canberra, individual consultations were conducted in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia, consultation was also conducted via written correspondence.(4) (a) Rural community groups were not consulted directly. The consultation process was directed at industry and agricultural bodies. The Action Plan seeks to develop a partnership between industry and government. Participants of the Rural Women's Roundtable held in December 1997 did however have strong affiliation with rural community groups.(5) (a and b) Natural Resources and Environment Victoria attended the SWOT workshop. State Ministers as members of the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) were consulted on a draft of the Plan in June 1997. The following State governments and State agencies were provided with copies of a draft of the Plan for comment in the second part of 1997; Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries Tasmania, NSW Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment Victoria, Sydney Water, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, NT Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, Agriculture Western Australia, Primary Industries South Australia.Consultation occurred relating to the penultimate draft of the Action Plan in June 1998 with; NSW Agriculture, Agriculture Western Australia, Department of Natural Resources and Environment Victoria, Primary Industries South Australia.(c) The roundtables and SWOT workshop were held in Canberra, individual consultations were conducted in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, and Western Australia, consultation was also conducted via written correspondence.(6) The total cost of the consultative process followed as part of the preparation of the document to date is $42,700. 201(Question No. 1315)1315201Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 August 1998:With reference to reports from Bougainville that a young boy was badly injured by a `landmine' which contained ball bearings and was tripped by a cord:(1) Does the Minister consider that civilian lives are still in great danger from landmines and booby traps on Bougainville which have been set by the Papua New Guinea Defence Force.(2) Are there any members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) on Bougainville who have the expertise to dismantle these booby traps and landmines; if not, has any consideration been given to sending ADF personnel with such skills to Bougainville.(3) Is it possible that these booby traps could be hand grenades manufactured by Australian Defence Industries with the trip wire option attached; if so, what action will the Government take to prevent the use of these insidious weapons that have escaped the ban under the landmines convention on a technicality.201Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) There is evidence of landmines and booby traps in several areas of Bougainville. All factions involved in the conflict have claimed responsibility for employing these weapons. Thus, a degree of threat to the civilian population remains.(2) There are presently no ADF personnel on Bougainville who are trained in Explosive Ordnance Disposal. Consideration was given by the Peace Monitoring Group (PMG) to deploy such personnel. However, it was assessed that the presence of explosives did not present a sufficiently serious threat to PMG personnel. No member of the PMG has been injured by a mine or booby trap on Bougainville. Further, the PMG's medical team has neither seen nor treated any local person injured by a mine or booby trap.(3) During the last eight years, a quantity of smoke or training (non-operational) grenades, practice grenades and practice grenade fuses have been exported to Papua New Guinea (PNG) by Australian industry. However, there is no record of operational grenades, or firing devices demolition, being exported to the PNG Defence Forces (PNGDF) by Australian industry during this time. Given the nature of these items, it is highly unlikely that Australian grenades have been used as booby traps on Bougainville. In 1992, an Australian company did demonstrate its operational grenades to the PNGDF in PNG. However, no sales resulted.201(Question No. 1318)1318201Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 19 August 1998:(1) When provided by a registered medical practitioner, does Medicare refund for (a) ozone therapy; (b) remedial massage; (c) herbal medicine; (d) naturopathy; (e) homoeopathy, (f) chiropractic/osteopathy; (g) acupuncture; and (h) iridology.(2) Given that (a) various countries set the education gold standard for manipulation via registration of chiropractors and osteopaths; (b) the Federal Government finds tertiary education at that standard; and (c) the State and Territory Governments license graduates of those courses: does the undergraduate education in medicine provide equivalent education and clinical experience in the following non-medical procedures to equip general practitioners to practice: (a) iridology; (b) ozone therapy; (c) remedial massage; (d) herbal medicine; (e) naturopathy; (f) homoeopathy; (g) chiropractic/osteopathy; and (h) acupuncture; if not, what post graduate education and clinical experience is needed to equate general practitioners with the unique competency in these areas.(3) Do medical registration boards require a distinct equivalent qualification prior to medical practitioners being permitted to hold themselves out to practice and charge for: (a) iridology; (b) ozone therapy; (c) remedial massage; (d) herbal medicine; (e) naturopathy; (f) homoeopathy; (g) chiropractic/osteopathy; and (h) acupuncture; if not, where did the medical profession acquire its educational and research background in these areas.(4) What government body sets the prerequisite educational and clinical experience requirements for Medicare reimbursements, if any) in: (a) iridology; (b) ozone therapy; (c) remedial massage; (d) herbal medicine; (e) naturopathy; (f) homoeopathy; (g) chiropractic/osteopathy; and (h) acupuncture.(5) How does Medicare differentiate between general practitioners who have no training in each of these modalities and those who have attained equivalent standards.(6) What is the minimum post-graduate education and clinical experience in spinal manipulation required by Medicare prior to reimbursing that service by a general practitioner.201Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the follow ing answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Medicare benefits are payable for professional services listed in the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) on the proviso that the service is clinically relevant and rendered by a medical practitioner. A clinically relevant service is one which is generally accepted in the medical profession as being necessary for the appropriate treatment of the patient to whom it is rendered.Ozone therapy, remedial massage, herbal medicine, naturopathy, homoeopathy, chiropractic/osteopathy, acupuncture and iridology are not specifically listed as services in the MBS. Medicare benefits would be payable for the consultation by a medical practitioner at which these services were performed, if all the requirements of the relevant consultation item descriptor were met and the services were considered to be clinically relevant.(2) The regulation of health care, including the regulation of medical practice and registration of medical practitioners, is a State matter.It is understood that States do not currently require providers of iridology, ozone therapy, remedial massage, herbal medicine, naturopathy, homoeopathy or acupuncture to be registered. In the absence of any agreed standard within these areas of practice, it is impossible to speculate what level of education or experience a medical practitioner would require to obtain an equivalent level of competency in these areas.In relation to chiropractic/osteopathy it is understood that State Chiropractors Boards are responsible for registering all practitioners, including medical practitioners who wish to call themselves chiropractors. The issue of what level of training a medical practitioner must meet in order to call themselves a chiropractor is therefore a matter for the State Chiropractors Boards.(3) The requirements of registration with State medical boards is a State matter. However, it is understood that medical boards (State Chiropractors Boards are not medical boards) do not require a medical practitioner to provide them with details of qualifications in relation to iridology, ozone therapy, remedial massage, herbal medicine, naturopathy, homoeopathy, chiropractic/osteopathy or acupuncture before the medical practitioner can provide such services.It is not possible to state how the medical profession as a whole acquired its educational and research background into the areas of iridology, ozone therapy, remedial massage, herbal medicine, naturopathy, homoeopathy, chiropractic/osteopathy or acupuncture.In the absence of any regulation or recognised training options, it is generally expected that it is the professional responsibility of individual medical practitioners to ensure that they are appropriately qualified to provide any particular service. This general principle would apply equally to services relating to iridology, ozone therapy, remedial massage, herbal medicine, naturopathy, homoeopathy, chiropractic/osteopathy and acupuncture.It is also understood that training specifically targeted at medical practitioners in some areas, such as acupuncture, is available through the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP). In the case of acupuncture there is also a body, the Australian Medical Acupuncture Society (AMAS), which represents medical acupuncturists and is working with the RACGP to develop appropriate training and standards for medical acupuncturists.(4) There is no government body that sets prerequisite educational and clinical experience requirements for Medicare reimbursements in relation to iridology, ozone therapy, remedial massage, herbal medicine, naturopathy, homoeopathy, chiropractic/osteopathy or acupuncture.(5) The Commonwealth does not discriminate between general practitioners that have n training in iridology, ozone therapy, remedial massage, herbal medicine, naturopathy, homoeopathy or acupuncture, and those who have not for the purposes of paying Medicare benefits.As mentioned above, Medicare benefits are only payable for services which are generally accepted by the medical profession as being necessary for the appropriate treatment of the patient. Where the Health Insurance Commission suspects that a doctor is involved in inappropriate medical practice, provisions exist through the Professional Services Review Scheme for the practitioner's activities to be assessed by their peers.(6) There is no minimum post graduate education of clinical experience in spina] manipulation required prior to Medicare benefits being paid to a patient for spinal manipulation performed by a medical practitioner. Medicare benefits are not payable for spinal manipulation per se, but for a clinically relevant consultation at which spinal manipulation may be performed.202(Question No. 1122)1122202O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 23 June 1998 (Hansard page No. 3888) the following question:(1) Was a report on sexual discrimination prepared for the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in 1994; if so (a) when was the report commissioned; (b) when was it completed; (c) why was it commissioned; and (d) was the report prepared by Ms Carmel Niland.(2) Can a copy of the report be provided; if not, why not.(3) (a) How many allegations of sexual harassment in the CAA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices Australia have been made in the financial years 1993-94, 1994-95,1995-96, 1996-97 and so far in 1997-98 and (b) where were the officers making the allegations based.(4) (a) How was each case dealt with; (b) who was the senior officer responsible for each case; (c) what was the outcome of each case; and (d) were any of the allegations referred to the police; if so, what action did the police take in relation to these allegations and what resulted from that action(5) Was Dr Helen James an employee of the CAA; if so: (a) when was she appointed; and (b) when did her employment cease and why did she leave the CAA.203Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Development has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question:Airservices wishes to provide a correction to the information provided for Parliamentary Question No. 1122, also at the 9 June 1 998 estimates hearing. At the hearing the four formal cases were attributed to the states of NSW and Queensland. This in fact was incorrect with one case actually occurring in Victoria. The following table provides the correct information. Airservices apologises for any inconvenience caused to Senator O'Brien due to this error.LocationTimeOutcome1. SydneyFebruary 1994Alleged harasser proceeded to Federal court. Matter settled out of court on 18 July 1996. Mediation process was undertaken and the terms are the subject of a confidentiality agreement. Nine recommendations from the internal mediation were implemented.2. MelbourneApril 1994Internal investigation. Matter resolved at local level. Alleged harasser removed from supervisory position. Education program conducted.2. SydneyMay 1995Program of education for all concerned staff implemented and normal working environment was re-established.4. RockhamptonSeptember 1996Sub-contract cleaner made allegations to Queensland Anti-Discrimination Board re inappropriate materials in the workplace. Allegation withdrawn January 1997.