1998-11-243911SENATE48101998-11-24The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice481481481Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My question is to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. Can the minister confirm, without traversing any operational matters, whether investigations by the Australian Federal Police into leaked finance department documents regarding the millennium bug have yet been completed? The minister may be aware that these documents expose the Howard cabinet short-changing 37 departments and agencies by more than 50 per cent or $110 million in their attempts to solve internal Y2K problems. Have the Federal Police spoken to agencies such as Tax, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Foreign Affairs about the matter?481Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Lundy for the question. I would not have thought it would come as a surprise to Senator Lundy to be told that on a day-to-day basis I am not kept informed on operational matters—nor should I be, nor should any minister be. There will be occasions when operational matters in relation to certain operations will be relevant for a minister to know. This is not one such matter. I will ask the AFP to provide me with such material as they believe is appropriate. If there is any material, you will get it quickly.481Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. What does it say about the government's priorities, Minister, when resources are so quickly put towards police investigations into leaked documents, when those documents state that CASA received only 37 per cent of the $7 million it needs to fix Y2K problems in their computer systems?481Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator Lundy, I do not immediately attribute to you the characteristic of quoting things that are not correct. I simply say that I do not accept at face value what you say. I have not had the opportunity to check what you put forward, but I will take that opportunity. The government has a wide-ranging law enforcement priority. It is always a difficulty deciding where to spend the limited amounts of money that are available. You will be aware of the very good work we are doing with our Tough on Drugs strategy, but make no bones about it, Senator Lundy: public servants who leak documents are breaking the law. If you want to come into this place and suggest that it should be a free-for-all for public servants to release whatever information they like, that they can somehow have access to material of government that the rest of the public do not have, and that when they feel like it they can release it with complete freedom, then you do so. But you will not have anyone on this side of the chamber or anyone interested in proper government agreeing with you.481481Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin. It relates to the government's tax reform plan and the enormous benefits for Australian industry and jobs. Will the minister outline how the costs of doing business will be reduced, real jobs will be created and economic growth strengthened as a result of the government's plan? Also, will the minister explain how the practical needs of Australian industry will be reflected in the process?481Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The new tax system which we propose to introduce is a vital part of ensuring that Australian business can compete, can create wealth, can create jobs. It is true that the Labor government in 13 years did a few good things. They did actually start the process of opening the Australian economy up—with our support, and I am sure they appreciate the support they received. But they only half did the job. The problem was that they exposed Australian industry to international competition but they left Australian industry with its legs tied together: they did nothing to ensure that Australian businesses could compete in the new world which Labor exposed them to. The two critical areas where they did nothing to ensure Australian industry could compete were labour market reform and tax reform. Those two issues have to be addressed if you are going to expose Australian industry to international competition. Without any help from Labor we have moved on those two fronts—most importantly now on tax reform.The current wholesale sales tax system which this Labor opposition is standing here to defend to the last drop is without doubt the most hopeless indirect tax system in the world. It is a huge burden on manufacturing, which you say you support and defend. The worst effect is on the car industry—again, an industry you say you support and will defend. It may not be known to many—probably not to the opposition—that the car industry is actually responsible for paying one quarter of all of the wholesale sales tax revenue. One industry, the car industry, pays one quarter of all the wholesale sales tax collected in this country.There are a lot of reasons why the Labor Party in South Australia is very unpopular: one of them is the Bolkus Left and its machinations; another is the excellent representation from the Liberal Party. But the burden that this Labor opposition wants to keep on the car industry—your tax, Labor's 22 per cent tax that they want to keep on the industry—is critical to Labor's unpopularity and the reason that Labor's worst state is South Australia. Of course, Labor's idea of reforming the wholesale sales tax system is to add caviar and Lear jets and take the tax off orange juice. That is brilliant. What a great approach to reforming the wholesale sales tax system. Among the anomalies, I referred to the frozen yoghurt problem with wholesale sales tax. There are a number of others. Paper cups used on commercial premises are taxed at 12 per cent but those used in takeaway stores are taxed at 22 per cent. Chairs used at home are taxed at 12 per cent; chairs used by businesses are taxed at 22 per cent. Filing cabinets are taxed at 22 per cent, but one- or two-drawer timber filing cabinets using materials of less than 17 millimetres are taxed at 12 per cent. You expect Australian industry to keep complying with this sort of nonsense, and you are going to try to vote down a new tax system that will benefit Australian industry in order to defend this absolute nonsense.I remind the Senate that under our new tax system Australian industry is going to save $10,000 million a year in costs. Savings to the car manufacturing industry will be $1,150 million every year; savings for the mining industry will be $2,970 million a year; savings for the construction industry will be $3,740 million a year; savings for our exporters will be $4,500 million a year; and changes to the fuel regime will save businesses $3,500 million a year. You lot—the ALP opposition—will stand there to oppose all of these savings, which will be all about creating jobs. You are a policy free zone. You do not believe in creating jobs. You do not believe in helping Australian industry.482482Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Vanstone. Is the minister aware that Senator Knowles's recent claims that she had been subjected to death threats by former Senator Noel Crichton-Browne have been proven, by her own admission, to be false? Were any Australian Federal Police resources used either to investigate these false claims or to provide protection for Senator Knowles?Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my right will cease interjecting. Senator Vanstone needs to hear the question.RF4Senator COOK—Thank you, Madam President. Is it a fact that Senator Knowles made her public retraction of these claims conditional upon agreement that no public statements about this matter were to be made prior to 3 October? Will the minister now counsel Senator Knowles that—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!RF4Senator COOK—it is poor parliamentary practice to provide—(Time expired)10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The time has concluded for asking the question, Senator. The clock is stopped when I intervene.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, with respect, I paused—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease shouting.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Can I be permitted to complete the sentence?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The clock is stopped when there is intervention all the way through. Senator Vanstone, to the extent that there are matters within your portfolio, you may comment on them. On matters outside, you should not.483Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator Cook, I am unaware if, in the past, AFP resources have been allocated for the protection of one senator or another. I will make some inquiries. If there is any useful information I can bring back to you, I will. I am of course aware, as most other people are, that there was some private litigation between former Senator Crichton-Browne and Senator Knowles. I am not privy to the settlement of that and, frankly, nor do I care to be. I fail to see what relevance it has in this place. Frankly, with the problems facing Australia and the opportunities presented by this government, if that is the best you can do as your second question then some of you need to go and bring in some fresh blood.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—The only blood on the floor is the blood on the floor over there.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—She's a source of very good information for us.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—She's our mate.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my left should be aware that Senator Cook wishes to ask a further question. The behaviour in the chamber is absolutely unacceptable. Senator Cook is attempting to ask a supplementary question.483Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, will you now counsel Senator Knowles that it is poor parliamentary practice to provide false information to your political enemies in order to have questions asked in state parliament?BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. He has not asked about anything in Senator Vanstone's portfolio, and it should not be accepted.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I suggest that you listen to Senator Cook's complete supplementary question before you make a ruling on the matter raised by Senator Hill.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question should be put succinctly.Government senators interjecting—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Wait till he finishes the question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, when you take a point of order you should not then sit down and start shouting at somebody else. The question should be put succinctly as a supplementary question, and if there is anything in it that is not within the minister's portfolio, she will not answer it.RF4Senator COOK—Did the Prime Minister seek advice from the Attorney-General or his department before sending his letter about the Knowles case to the State Council of the Western Australian Liberal Party? Will the minister table a copy of that letter?483Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator Cook, your question contains some assumptions that I personally do not agree with, but they do not relate to my portfolio. That is typical of your side—put assertions in questions as fact. That is for you to answer for, not for me. None of what you have asked relates to my portfolio. What a waste of a supplementary question on the second question of the day. How pressing a problem is this? I will have another look at it, and if there is anything in there that I can help you with, I will do so. I will get the information and get it quickly, but do try harder next time.483483Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—My question is directed to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. The Howard coalition government was re-elected on a mandate to implement a 30 per cent rebate for people who took out private health insurance. This is equivalent to the saving, on average, of $750 per person. Can the minister outline the benefits this initiative will have for the nation's health system, and is there widespread community support for that?484Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Lightfoot for the question. It is a very substantial question that has much more relevance than the question that was asked by the opposition prior to Senator Lightfoot asking his question.The $750 relates to the family that the rebate will bring in. As Senator Lightfoot said, a central plank to the government's tax package was the introduction of the 30 per cent tax rebate for people who take out private health insurance. This initiative will have the added benefit of creating a stronger Australian health care system by alleviating some of the pressure on the public health system. This government is committed to maintaining a strong balance between public and private health sectors so that Australians have a choice when it comes to health care. Our promise includes a stronger public system, retaining Medicare with a record $31.3 billion of funding for public hospitals in the next five years. Part of this commitment includes ensuring the public health sector is complemented by a private sector that is fair, affordable, customer friendly and good value for money.We introduced legislation for the 30 per cent rebate in the last sittings. It will restore balance to the health system by slowing the drop-out rate that Labor left to run wild like a bushfire. This is about continuing to help low income earners who scrimp and save to give themselves the security of private health insurance.RF4COOKSenator Cook—What?VW4Senator HERRON—Madam President, Senator Cook says `Rubbish!' In the time that the Labor Party was in power, Senator Cook may be interested to know, the proportion of the population covered by private health insurance dropped from 70 per cent to 35 per cent. Senator Cook may also be interested to know that the premiums trebled under Labor. So it was a double whammy under Labor. For Senator Cook to call out `rubbish', it is obvious to me that he has not got a clue what he is talking about—which is consistent with his general approach overall.This is about continuing to help low income earners who scrimp and save to give themselves the security of private health insurance. I am advised that at least 700,000 Australians earning less than $20,000 a year have private health insurance. A family or an older couple paying $2,500 a year in private health premiums will get back about $750 from the government every year. This is effectively a tax cut, and the Labor Party wants to block it.In Queensland, my home state, there are almost one million people covered by private health insurance. In the Queensland electorate of Groom, for example, 20,000 people will benefit if the Senate passes this legislation. It will put $10 million a year directly into the pockets of the people of Groom. This rebate has substantial support in the community. The latest research by Quantum Harris shows 67 per cent of those polled believe the government should do more to encourage people to take out or retain private health insurance. Seventy-three per cent would prefer to choose their own doctor if they go to hospital; an option only available as a private patient. The research also found that 59 per cent believe the best way to support people with private health insurance is to make premiums tax deductible.We are giving people what they want. It is about fairness and freedom of choice. Labor does not know about these concepts, and you can understand Senator Cook's interjection in that context. They are ideologically opposed to private health care. They cannot open their minds to what Australians want, and it is a demonstration of why they did not win the last election. It is because they are locked in the politics, rhetoric and ideology of the past. Their own former health minister Graham Richardson knew this when he was minister, and he is still saying it today. This is what he said this week about the Labor Party:They simply don't want to acknowledge that private health care matters. There is an ideological bent here that says Medicare is perfect, which is ridiculous, and therefore can't be changed, which is also ridiculous, and therefore nothing should be done to private health, which is also ridiculous.(Time expired)485485Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Justice. Minister, can you confirm that the Australian Federal Police is currently losing agents at the rate of some 13 per month and that it has lost some 185 agents in the past 12 months? Can you also confirm that not all of the promised resources for mobile strike teams have yet come on stream and that, as a consequence, the AFP has been forced to pay for operations by selling major assets? Minister, will you make representations, as you should, to your cabinet colleagues in order to quickly redress the funding crisis afflicting the Australian Federal Police?485Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator Bolkus is, sadly, a slow learner, but we will go through this again. Sooner or later he will cotton on, or perhaps finally Mr Beazley will cotton on and give him the flick. The situation is this: the AFP did start losing personnel under the Labor government, and that continued for a period under this government. Labor increased the savings that were to be had from the AFP. This government has put more money in the first three years of its term into the AFP than in the last three years under Labor. That is perhaps the simplest explanation. We have specially targeted some of that money, and it is well known that a large amount of that money is targeted to the Tough on Drugs strategy.I attended, earlier this year, what I think was the largest intake of recruits as federal agents in the past 10 years. So, Senator Bolkus, the bottom line is this: you left the AFP in a shocking mess. Our Prime Minister committed to making it a police force second to none in the world. We are putting the money and resources into doing that. We promised an additional four mobile strike teams during the election, and not all of that money has come on stream yet. I just make the point that, under Labor, there was the capacity for only one major drug investigation by the AFP—not one investigation; one major one. We have now committed funds for 10 mobile strike teams to target drugs around Australia, and we have seen in the last couple of months the rewards that that brings. Sena tor Bolkus, you could do better for the third question.485Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, isn't it a fact that over these four years you have provided funding to the AFP at some $159 million dollars less than the 1996-97 level? Isn't it also a fact that people are leaving the AFP in record numbers? Given the persistent nature of the criticism of the funding of the AFP, will you immediately authorise the public release of the Ayers report so that public confidence can be restored in the AFP? If not, why not?485Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The only persistent questioning on funding for the AFP comes from Senator Bolkus. He appears to have nothing else to do. No, I am not going to do something because Senator Bolkus is bored.Opposition senators interjecting—7E4Senator VANSTONE—Of course I am not. We appointed an appropriate, independent inquiry into the AFP because the Prime Minister wanted to ensure that it was properly funded to face the challenges of the year 2000. We have committed to implementing the Ayers report, and we will do that. They may miss being in government. They may want to have all the documents government has; the sad fact is that they got a chance at it at the last election, and they lost. I am sorry—the answer is no.485485Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Is it the case, Minister, that in 1994 the Prices Surveillance Authority concluded that bank fees should not, in aggregate, be increased? Does the minister know that in 1996 the Treasurer told parliament that red-hot competition was needed to regulate fees and that the government would take action, if necessary, if competition was inadequate. Do you acknowledge that the Treasurer found, in September 1997, the government was not assured that fees were adequately competitive to ensure fair pricing? A year later, the situation is worse. Minister, what is your government going to do to keep banking affordable for ordinary Australians?486Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Let me make a number of comments on that question. The first thing, of course, is that people borrowing from banks are receiving mortgage rates at a level that the Labor Party could only dream of. One of the many achievements of this government has been to deliver very low interest rates to Australians. Another achievement of this government is that we are removing a range of taxes on financial activities—the FIDs and the BADs—and that is also a very big plus. You asked what we are doing about those things. Well, Senator, look at the taxes we are removing as part of our tax reform package. I think that will be widely welcomed by the community.The government does not determine the policies or guidelines that the banks adopt in levying fees and charges—any more than we determine the price of food in a supermarket. These are a response to increased competition which was necessitated by the removal of past subsidies. Bank customers can maximise the benefits of competition by actively shopping around for the best products, services and prices to satisfy their needs. Many deposit taking institutions continue to offer basic transaction accounts with lower fees and charges. For example, all the four major banks offer basic transaction accounts without monthly account keeping fees, although they do have over-the-counter fees. Building societies and credit unions offer competitive everyday accounts.Senator, there is an issue here, and let me assure you the government is not ignoring this matter. A new framework for the Commonwealth regulation of the financial sector commenced on 1 July 1998. The government considers that this package of measures will enhance competition and lead to better services and lower prices than would otherwise have been the case. We are also investigating what can be done to address the difficulties that fees and charges impose on those receiving government transfer payments, which are generally provided by direct credit to a nominated account with a bank, building society or credit union.Increased competition has reduced interest rate margins, particularly for housing loans. This has required banks to price services more directly to the cost of their provision and, as I said, previous cross-subsidies have either been reduced or removed. We believe that the overall cost of banking, particularly when you take into account the very substantial falls in interest rates which have occurred, are providing better service to the public—Senator Conroy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy—cease interjecting.WW4Senator KEMP—I think that is very important. As I have said, because of the increased competitive arrangements, banks have got to price their products more directly.486Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Assistant Treasurer: is your position different from that of the Treasurer? The minister failed to acknowledge whether or not the Treasurer believes that action is necessary if competition is inadequate. If competition is inadequate when it comes to price fixing and fees, are you prepared to take action, like the Treasurer said you should? Is your position different from the Treasurer's? Are you aware that, following the announcement by the Commonwealth Bank that fees would increase, the price of shares rose 66c? Does the government think that what is good for shareholders is also good for customers? If the answer is yes, what do you say to those whose spending money—which is all they have—will be significantly eaten into by increased fees? Minister, is your position the same as that of the Treasurer?486Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Let me assure you that I am in blazing agreement with the Treasurer. In fact, so many of the actions that we have taken in relation to financial markets have been to increase competition.Senator Stott Despoja interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—Precisely. That is what we have done. I have mentioned to you that one of the reasons that interest rates—Senator Stott Despoja interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—Senator, you have had a chance to ask your question; I am now seeking to reply to it. Madam President, it is very difficult to respond to a question when the questioner keeps on talking. The government will maintain its policy of informal monitoring of bank fees and charges and opposing unfair and anti-competitive practices. The major banks voluntarily inform the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission of their movements in fees and charges.487487Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—My question is to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. Can the minister confirm claims made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants that Australia is losing up to $3.5 billion per year to fraud and is in danger of a fraud epidemic? Can the minister also confirm that the growth areas for fraud have been identified as credit cards, business fraud and money laundering, especially over the Internet? Further, can the minister confirm that the investigation of fraud is one of the principal areas that has been affected by the government's budget cuts? Will the government be taking this report seriously? What steps does the government propose to take to remedy the problem?487Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank the senator for her question. No, Senator, the report of the Institute of Chartered Accountants does not immediately come to mind. An assessment of $3.5 billion of the cost of fraud would seem to me to be very light on; but that is an anecdotal assessment. I will have a look at what the report has to say about its assessment of $3.5 billion.Fraud is an enormous cost to the Australian community and to federal, state and local governments. It is a very serious matter. It is part of the AFP's charter to look at fraud, as it is the charter of each of the state and territory police forces. It is not solely a Commonwealth matter, although it is a very important matter for the Commonwealth. Of course it would be true that as technology develops so do opportunities for crooks to undertake fraudulent activities. Credit cards, banking fraud and money laundering, especially using the net, are of course problems. If you want a copy of a book which has been recently released by the Institute of Criminology, Crime in the Digital Age, if you are interested in the new directions for law enforcement, then I can certainly provide you with a copy of that book and some other material in relation to this matter.I assure you it is a matter of concern to the government. No, I do not accept that cuts to the AFP have occasioned a reduction in their effort in this respect. As I have indicated, in our first three years in government we have put more money into the Federal Police than your government put in in your last three years in government. So I find it difficult to say, `Yes, we've had these dramatic cuts.' As you know, we have put significant amounts of money in and we have targeted drugs, but that is the additional moneys. The AFP's commitment to combating fraud remains.487Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister reassure the Senate that the Commonwealth government will continue to have strict guidelines for the use of credit cards by its employees, unlike the Rafferty's rules which apply to the Victorian government where credit cards have become a licence to steal?487Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator Denman invites me to make a comparison with another government. It is not my place to make that comparison. I do not know about other ministers but I know that I do not use a credit card. I think ministers in the previous government used them. My understanding is that this government has a practice where, if ministers need to purchase something as a consequence of their duties, they put in a claim, certify what it is for and are paid back. You invite me, Senator Denman, to make some inquiries about the practice of credit card charging under the previous government so that I can give you a good comparison.487487Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. It relates to allegations that drugs and money were found to be missing as a consequence of audits of exhibits and drugs in the Australian Federal Police and that large quantities of counterfeit banknotes were not destroyed as quickly as they should have been in the circumstances. Will the minister inform the Senate about the accuracy of such claims?488Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Coonan for her question. The stories in relation to drugs and money and other matters from the AFP show that, if you are prepared to selectively quote, if you are prepared to ignore available facts, you can get yourself a very good by-line as a journalist and be in the spotlight if you are in opposition and suffering from relevance deprivation syndrome—identified by Gareth Evans. Sadly, when the facts are not checked or when they are ignored and stories are run and picked up by other media, the reputation of people and organisations can be unfairly and unjustly smeared.The stories centre on some internal audits done by the AFP, on their own instigation, to keep their practices up to date. The catalyst for these series of audits was an incident in the late 1980s and early 1990s—when Labor was in power—when a relatively small amount of money went missing. So the AFP said, `We'd better keep a constant watch on these practices.' As a consequence of these stories running, some people have been led to believe—and you would, if you read the articles—that these audits discovered that drugs, money and other exhibits had been stolen from the AFP by the AFP. This is simply untrue. It is a gross slur on the Australian Federal Police.The stories put into question the ethics of the Australian Federal Police, but I think they question the ethics of the writer, and of Mr Kerr who has been so willing to fuel the flames in this matter. It is hard enough for our law enforcement agencies to fight the crooks, let alone to put up with fighting this kind of rubbish in the media. The facts are these. The auditors did not discover any loss of money or drugs and they found no evidence of corruption. The relevant journalist was invited to attend my office with the auditors to indicate the basis on which his conclusions were drawn, because this is a very serious matter. He declined to do so but provided some quotes from the reports on which he had relied. It is fair to say that he has selectively quoted in order either to create a misunderstanding or an impression which is simply untrue. As an example, he constantly referred in articles to money having been stolen. That is the money that was seized in the 1980s and found not to be there in the 1990s—under Labor—which started the audit process off. In other words, the catalyst for the good practice of regularly auditing your work practices has in fact become the conclusion.The journalist today raises problems allegedly faced by the AFP in getting approval to destroy counterfeit notes, and if you read these articles you would think Peter Costello was to blame for a security risk in the Federal Police. One of the articles starts:Treasurer Peter Costello increased the chances of counterfeit currency disappearing, audit reports reveal.Somewhere else it refers to `the inability of the AFP to obtain authorisation'. And on it goes, associating the matter with the Treasurer.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—That's a direct quote from the Audit report.7E4Senator VANSTONE—That is a direct quote out of context. The reports assert that counterfeit notes—and plenty of them; we are talking about tens of millions of dollars of counterfeit notes—were not destroyed because the AFP was unable to get approval from Mr Costello. The truth of the matter is that the first request was made to Treasurer Keating in 1992 and it was ignored. The second request was made to Treasurer Willis in 1995 and no approval was given. Within six weeks of this government being asked for approval to destroy the notes, the approval was given. That is the end of the story. If you want to question the journalist's reason for writing the article, you need look no further than today's articles that seek to blame Treasurer Costello. The truth is it was Labor's delay. (Time expired)488488Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—My question is to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. Has the minister or anyone else in the government referred any matters in the Auditor-General's report No. 10 on the sale of one-third of Telstra to the Federal Police or to any other investigative agency? If not, why not?489Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Crowley for the question. Perhaps the election delight of having won a second time has blurred my memory, but I do not have an immediate memory of such a reference. If there was one, it would not have gone direct to the Federal Police; it should have come through me. That is not to say that someone does not occasionally send off references directly. I do not believe one has come through me, but I will check that and if it has I will get back to you.489Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that the Auditor-General identified the following serious concerns amongst many flaws in the way the Howard government sold off this public asset? Firstly, at least $5 million worth of fees were paid for underwriting services which were not actually provided and, secondly, there were serious anomalies in the accounting for the international marketing roadshow, which cost over $3 million, or a $139,000 a day. In particular, there was an absence of comprehensive reconciliation of roadshow expenditure with supporting documentation. Some expenditure did not seem to relate to the Telstra roadshow at all. Travel expenses significantly exceeded entitlements and some expenditure did not reconcile with the roadshow itinerary. Given these concerns at least raise the issue of possible fraud against the Commonwealth, will the minister undertake appropriate action to have these matters fully investigated?489Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator Crowley, you might not appreciate the nature of references to the Federal Police. The appropriate process followed under the past government and under this one is that where there is a matter a minister believes requires investigation, it is referred to the AFP, but through the justice minister. It is not the justice minister who actually makes the reference. As to this audit report, I will speak to the Minister for Finance and Administration and have a look at it. If there is anything I have to say about it, I will come back to you. For the fifth or sixth question of the day—Opposition senators interjecting—7E4Senator VANSTONE—You found a report and you think there is a slight glimmer of hope that you will find something negative in there and you ask whether I will therefore take it up and follow it through for you. The answer is yes, if you think there is something in there I will ask the minister for finance about it and come back to you with a proper answer.489489Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—My question is directed to Senator Hill representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It relates to recent reports of increased violence and murders in East Timor. Is the minister aware that the United States government is concerned that 44 people were killed during a recent military sweep in East Timor? Is he also aware that Portugal suspended the United Nations brokered talks with Indonesia last Friday after the reported killings near the town of Alas, and that Portugal has called for an international investigation into the allegations of military involvement in these killings? Will the Australian government join with the Portuguese government in calling for an international investigation?489Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Yes, we are aware and are obviously disturbed by reports of new violence and killings of villagers, in particular in the area of Alas in south-central East Timor. Our embassy in Jakarta is endeavouring to establish the veracity of the reports. To date the embassy has obtained information from several sources, although reports are conflicting. The ICRC has indicated that although the situation in the village of Alas has become very tense and some houses have been burnt, there is no evidence of troops having opened fire on the local population. This information however is by no means conclusive and does not rule out the possibility that non-combatants might have been killed in the course of military operations. The embassy will continue its efforts to establish precisely what did occur. Yes, we are aware that these allegations have led to delay of the official level tripartite talks in New York until clarification is obtained. This, of course, underlines the need for all sides of the conflict to exercise restraint and refrain from the use of violence so that negotiations for a just and lasting settlement might proceed. In summary, we are anxious for progress to be made on a long-term, peaceful and just settlement of the East Timor problems and therefore, apart from the fact that we regret any violence, particularly violence that is destabilising or decreases the chances of achieving that goal, the Australian government will continue to do what it can to support positively the continuation of that process to a fair and just conclusion.490Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I thank the minister for his answer and I note that. I also note that the foreign minister said in today's Australian that business confidence cannot be separated from the achievement of a successful transition to a more open and democratic political system in Indonesia—and I have to agree with him. Based on that and the minister's own comments, I ask him to address the last part of my question: will the Australian government join with the Portuguese government in calling for an international investigation into the killings if nothing can be found out by our ambassador?490Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I do not have a note that tells me the foreign minister's opinion, so I will seek advice on that. Personally, I am not sure that that is going to progress the matter further. I think we need to maintain pressure on the Indonesian government to behave responsibly towards all its citizens, to decrease troop levels within East Timor—although there have been signs that that has occurred; on the other hand, troop numbers are still at a very high level—and to find other ways to decrease tension and hopefully move positively towards this fair and just solution.490490McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Vanstone, representing the Attorney-General. I refer the minister to reports of comments of the President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that the government's proposed changes to the tribunal would create a bureaucratic nightmare that could be barely be imagined. Is the minister aware of the comments of Justice Mathews, who stated that there were so many problems with the proposals that, if they were implemented, there would be very limited benefit to the community and very great cost in terms of both the quality and the independence of the external merit review of decisions by the public service. Does the minister agree with Justice Mathews, who stated that the proposal was developed behind closed doors by people with no personal involvement at all in the operation of the administration of tribunals and that it displays a worrying lack of understanding of the practical operation of the tribunal system?490Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator McKiernan for his question. Justice Mathews may have an unshakeable belief in her omnipotent knowledge about everything but it is not a view shared by everybody else. I do not believe that to say it was done behind closed doors by people who clearly know little about this is at all a fair assessment by Justice Mathews.Coming to the earlier part of your question: it is not uncommon for people associated with institutions which are the subject of reform to resist that reform in one way or another. In fact, it is very common for people or the institutions they are associated with to complain when the reform process is under way. The Attorney has announced a reform process. We have confidence in it and I am sure it will deliver better outcomes to the Australian people. I accept, however, that there are people with different views. Justice Mathews is clearly one of them. One might think more of her view if she was not so closely involved as part of the reform process; in other words, if her institution was not one of the ones to be reformed.490McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, Justice Mathews was not the only one to criticise. Although her criticism was stinging of the government's proposal there was also opposition to proposed changes from the Law Council and from leading administrative lawyers. Will you, Minister, act to review the planned changes or is this just another example of a government blinded by arrogance, unwilling to heed the advice of senior figures in the justice system?491Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—This is a matter for the Attorney, so it would not be me that redid it, in any event. The critical point, Senator McKiernan, is that you say there are other people who disagree. I have no doubt there are other people who disagree. Something your government always had an incapacity to accept is that some people will disagree. Your government was so ego driven that it required 99 per cent approval. That is why you always engaged in the pursuit of people who disagreed with you, to try to wipe them out of future career opportunities. That is what your government did. This government is much more accepting of people who have a different view. On this occasion, there may be people who have different views. Guess what? That is a part of the democratic system. We can express a view. We are in government. Other people are entitled to express a view. There is nothing wrong with that. The voice of dissent is the bell of freedom; and we welcome it.491491Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Minister, you will remember that despite the procrastination by the Victorian Department of Human Services we were ultimately able to get for the first time an Australia-China intercountry adoption agreement. Could the minister advise the Senate when the agreement between Australia and the PRC in respect of adoption will come into action.491Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I recognise, again, Senator Harradine's interest in this very important matter and that it has been a struggle to progress. Nevertheless, real progress does seem to be being made at present and I think Senator Harradine in his question was recognising the amendments we made at the Commonwealth level to facilitate a bilateral agreement between China and the appropriate state which will set the standard for Austral ian adoptions from China. That bilateral agreement is being negotiated, as Senator Harradine knows, by the State of Victoria. That was pursuant to a resolution of the Community Services Ministerial Council. I understand the negotiation is progressing and is expected to be finalised in the first half of next year.Recent changes to China's adoption law, as reported in some Australian newspapers—I noticed it in the Age—will not affect the need for a formal agreement between China and Australia before Australians can adopt children from China. When the agreement is in place, the adoption, which will always take place in China, will be recognised in Australia. On entry to Australia these children will not come under the I(GOC) Act and there will be no need for the parents to seek further recognition of the adoption through an Australian court. Migration regulations have been amended to facilitate adoptions under the proposed bilateral agreement with China, as I said. They will come into force from the date the agreement comes into force. It has been a long time coming but it looks now as if the matter should be concluded within the next six months.491Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. There are thousands of children desperately needing adoptive parents and there are many people in Australia wanting to adopt. Is the minister aware the Department of Human Services in Victoria is quoting a cost of $17,000 for each adoption, including $8,000 charged by the federal government for immigration fees and court costs? Aren't these costs rather prohibitive?491Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I am not aware of that. They do sound to me to be somewhat prohibitive and I will speak to Mr Ruddock about it, in particular about the $8,000 fee which Senator Harradine has referred to as a Commonwealth charge.491491Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Justice and Customs, both in her own capacity and that of representing the Attorney-General. Are the Attorney-General and the minister able to acknowledge that there are judges in the federal judicial system—for example, judges on the Family Court—who have publicly expressed deep concern about the availability of Commonwealth legal aid? Do the Attorney-General and the minister give any—and what—weight to those concerns? Would the minister acknowledge that the Family Court has said that lack of Commonwealth legal aid has denied people, including children, access to justice and has produced `human misery'? Does the minister see the relations between the Attorney-General and some judges in the federal system as being strained? Can the minister do anything towards making more legal aid available?492Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Cooney for the question. I can certainly say that I have seen remarks by judges—a judge at least—in the Family Court indicating that they think it needs more money, so I feel reasonably confident that the Attorney has seen them himself. No doubt, since the judiciary and courts are his responsibility, he has had personal discussions. I say, `no doubt'—I assume. As to the question of legal aid, the Attorney does not accept the claim that more people have had to represent themselves due to these cuts. The funding provided by the Commonwealth for legal aid this year is based on the level of Commonwealth matters for 1995-96. In other words, funding for Commonwealth matters has been preserved. If the Attorney has any more to add in relation to that, Senator Cooney, I will come back to you.In a sense, one part of my answer would be the same as it was to Senator McKiernan when I said to him that it was not unusual for people whose institutions are undergoing some sort of reform to be seen to be resisting that reform. It is equally not unusual, I can assure you, for anybody in receipt of funds from the Commonwealth or a state government to indicate that they would like to have more.492Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Are the minister and the Attorney-General prepared to look at the question of legal aid on the basis of need rather than in terms of budgetary measures or precedent? In other words, are you prepared to look at it in terms of what is actually needed?492Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator Cooney, you know as well as I do that you are effectively asking how long is a piece of string—just open up the coffers. There has never been in the eyes of most lawyers enough money for legal aid—under your government or under this government—especially if they happen to be legal aid practitioners, whose businesses are built on legal aid. I do not say that to diminish the role of people who do that work, because people who do legal aid work are often looking after those who would otherwise not have legal representation. The big end of town does a lot of pro bono work. You know that from the work that you and I did on the costs of justice inquiry. It is a mistake to say that every lawyer who is very wealthy, who is pulling in a big income, does not do work for people on low incomes. That is a mistake, and you and I know that.I will take your representations to the Attorney and see what he has to say. The bottom line is that there are a number of very good causes. I would like to see more money for legal aid, and I would like more money for health and for education—more money for everything. (Time expired)492492Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—Madam President, my question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Senator Alston. No other government in the Western world has been successful in promoting an entirely new tax system during an election campaign. Will the minister inform the Senate of how the government's new tax plan will benefit small business? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies for the small business sector, and what would be the impact if these policies were implemented?492Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Senator Chapman is quite right—many people have said to me that we are the only country in the Western world to have gone down that path, but I always ask, `Who else has?' I suspect that there really is not any other country in the entire world that has had the courage to take on a new taxation system as the centrepiece of its election campaign. I have not checked Cuba and Albania, but I would be pretty confident that we have—AW5CARRSenator Carr—You can retire now; you can retire and go there.LD4Senator ALSTON—Well, I am sure there will be a retirement village there for you in due course. The fact is that our election policy delivered in spades for small business because what it effectively did was to remove enormous taxation burdens that have been handicapping it for many years. To cut $10 billion off business costs, to ensure that all business inputs from the GST are rebated and to do away with a raft of taxes such as provisional tax, the provisional tax uplift factor, the prescribed payments system, the reportable payments system, stamp duties and the wholesale sales tax regime as well as a number of other state stamp duties and taxes is obviously of enormous benefit for small business.I am asked whether there are any alternative approaches. The Labor Party's approach was basically to throw in a capital gains tax to try to ruin the nest egg of many small business people who were expecting that it would serve as their retirement package and to drop in that wonderful Toorak tractor initiative, which of course they thought applied only in a few metropolitan areas and which they rapidly discovered, to their dismay, affected vast numbers of people in the rural areas. If you want to get a classic example of where the ALP is locked into a time warp, it is this: they recently appointed someone by the name of Joel Fitzgibbon as their small business spokesman.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—I have not heard of him.LD4Senator ALSTON—I have hardly heard of him either, but I met him recently so he does exist. Joel Fitzgibbon was on the Small Business Show a matter of only 10 days ago and he said that someone, a small business operator, had spoken to him and said that she could afford to put on one more person, and would like to put on one more person, but she was fearful of unfair dismissals and she was fearful of going through the barrier to another level of red tape and regulation. Who do you think that person was? That was his wife. You would have thought that they would at least listen, wouldn't you? If it is coming as close to home as that, you ought to take it seriously, but of course they do not. They simply are not prepared to take any notice of what is happening in the real world, because the Labor Party is actually dominated by the trade union movement. So if the union says, `We don't like unfair dismissals,' the ALP says, `Well, certainly not; we don't either.'If you go back a decade, and if you look over there, you find that of the nine longest serving ALP senators, only two were trade unionists. At that time 41 per cent of the work force were in trade unions. If you come forward a decade, the proportion of the work force in trade unions is down to 30 per cent. But what do we on this side find out about membership of the Labor Party? We find that eight out of the last 10 have been trade union officials, and 17 out of the last 20—65 per cent. In other words, while there has been a rapid decline in the community in terms of trade union membership, this has become the ultimate retirement village. Two-thirds of them have trade union ties; two-thirds of them have to take their instructions from trade union conferences. Madam President, it is an absolute disgrace. Plenty of good PhDs could be written about the sociological demise of the ALP, but you do not have to look much further than that to understand why it is they are not interested in policies any more. (Time expired)493Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I appreciate the minister's answer and the information he has provided in terms of the reforms the government has made of benefit to small business, particularly in relation to tax reform, our initiatives with regard to the provisional tax uplift factor and the changes we have made in industrial relations, most notably with regard to unfair dismissals. Can the minister enlarge on the benefits of the reforms which this government has initiated as far as small business is concerned?493Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am sorry if I had not got around to that, Senator Chapman. I was endeavouring to make it clear that there is a fundamental difference of approach between the two major parties. We actually want to take the burden off them; they want to rope them into the trade union movement so they can sign them all up so they can run the show and tell them how to run their businesses. What flows from this extraordinary proportion of trade union membership on the other side is that none of them have ever had real jobs. They have no idea how the real world operates. All they know is that if you join a union when you are young and you go to a few conferences you have a pretty good chance of getting in here.Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—I thought bad light had stopped play for a moment, but obviously they are back in business. That is the real problem: they are not interested in getting out to the real world and finding out how to solve these problems. They are simply interested in ensuring that they have somewhere to go in their early retirement. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous49449415:02:00494Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Madam President, I have some further information for Senator Crowley, who asked about the Telstra sale. If there is any more in addition to this I will get back to her, as well. The report does note, and we should be pleased with this, that the sale was completed `in accordance with the government's sale timetable in a period of significant equity market volatility and this represents a significant achievement given the unprecedented scale of the offer'. I understand that the revised cost of $3 million was agreed in advance and came within the government's approved sale cost budget, which was, in total, among the world's lowest for comparable offers. I am referring here to the international roadshow costs. However, in light of queries raised in the report, the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing has commissioned a further review of international roadshow expenditures by independent internal auditors. Some reimbursement has already been agreed in respect of some other matters that were raised.The short answer is that the matter is being attended to. It is an ongoing process of finalising a response to the report. Should any further information come to hand, I will pass it on.49415:03:00494Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Yesterday Senator Evans asked me a total of five questions on the GST and public housing. I seek leave to incorporate into Hansard additional responses to those questions.Leave granted.The answers read as follows—RESPONSE TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR CHRIS EVANS ON GST & PUBLIC HOUSING RENTSSenator Evans asked me a total of five questions yesterday on GST and public housing. I seek leave to incorporate into Hansard additional responses to those questions.Will public housing rents be input taxed in the same manner that private residential rents will be taxed?Yes.Will State Governments receive a GST exemption from building inputs that are used to provide public housing?No.If not, how will state governments recover the extra capital costs of public housing due to the GST?State public housing authorities will no longer have to pay imbedded wholesale sales taxes on a' range of current inputs. Also, public housing tenants will have significantly greater disposable income as a result of the Government's tax reform policies. It could also be noted that state governments' finances as a whole will benefit substantially from taxation reform.Will they be required to increase public housing rents and increase public housing subsidies, or will they have to cut services?There will be no requirement on state governments to do any of these things. Given that many states automatically increase public housing rents in conjunction with CPI increases in social security payments, how will the Federal Government ensure that public housing rents will not increase as a result of the Government's inflationary GST?The Government's tax reform proposals are designed to ensure that all Australians, including social security recipients, enjoy the benefits that only comprehensive taxation reform can offer. In particular, the Government's package provides a range of benefits to social security recipients to more than compensate them for the price impact of the GST.49515:03:00495Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—On 12 November last, Senator Jacinta Collins asked me a question about the Commonwealth government's response to the Victorian gas crisis. I seek leave to incorporate some supplementary information into the Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Response to Senator Jacinta Collins,.12 November 1998As announced by the Prime Minister on 2 October 1998, the Commonwealth Government is providing financial assistance, of up to $100 million, to assist eligible individuals as well as small businesses and community organisations in Victoria and New South Wales that incurred additional costs as a result of the Victorian gas emergency.Following agreements with the Victorian and New South Wales Premiers, these States are administering the major components of the financial assistance package.An advance of $50 million has been transferred by the Commonwealth to a trust account, which has been established for the purpose, and is administered by the Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance.Advertisements have been placed in newspapers, including foreign language newspapers, outlining eligibility for this assistance and providing `hotlines' for assistance and application forms for the Small Business Component of the package.The assistance package consists of three components:Newstart Component—Australia wide.Cash grants equivalent to Newstart allowance to workers who were stood down or had to close their small businesses and were unable to access Newstart assistance through Centrelink because they did not satisfy the normal conditions such as the waiting periods.Small Business Component—Victoria/New South Wales.Assistance for small businesses, including primary producers, for additional costs which were incurred as a direct result of the interruption of gas supplies for operational purposes.Community Component—Victoria/New South Wales Emergency relief funding for community organisations dealing with the frail, the aged, the disabled and other disadvantaged groups in the community—for example in respect of food vouchers and assistance for repair or replacement of pensioners' gas appliances which failed when reconnected.This assistance is not in the form of compensation for losses which may have been incurred it is financial assistance to defined small businesses, needy individuals and community organisations which meet the eligibility criteria.Those people that may have made `private arrangements' in relation to the Victorian gascrisis are able to claim under any or all of the three components to the rescue packageprovided that they come under the eligibility criteria established for each component.49515:04:00495Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have a response to a question asked by Senator Brown yesterday. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Senate QuestionReported killings at Biak, Irian JavaSenator Brown asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on 23 November 19981. What information does the Government have about the massacre at Biak and the subsequent murder of up to 137 people aboard an Indonesian ship where they were taken offshore from Biak following the raising of the West Papuan flag on the morning of 1 July in Biak?2. What form of protest has the Government made to the Indonesian authorities and what moves is the Government making to ensure a full, open and independent international inquiry into this shocking set of events? 3. When did the Government approach two Australians, Mr Paul Meixner and Ms Rebecca Casey, who were in a house adjacent to the wharf when the original massacre took place?4. Will the Minister be able to report back to me or to the Senate about the safety of up to 20 political prisoners, including Dr Philip Karma, who were dragged from their homes and have been charged with rebellion following the massacres by the Indonesian troops?Senator Hill—The answer to the Senator's question is as follows:1. An officer from the Australian Embassy in Jakarta visited Biak 11-14 July this year and looked into initial reports of the incident. Based on this visit the Australian Embassy has few doubts that human rights abuses did occur and that the security authorities used excessive force against members of the local community. The Australian Embassy has received differing reports from NGO and Church sources (indeed, between Church sources), from the Indonesian Military, from an Indonesian Parliamentary fact-finding team, and from the Indonesian Human Rights Commission (Komnas Ham). The Embassy also spoke to Australian Volunteers Abroad members, Mr Paul Meixner and Ms Rebecca Casey during a visit to Biak on 11-14 July. The range of estimated deaths from these various sources went from one to over 100. The source who provided Mr Meixner and Ms Casey with information, reported that he knew of 20 people who had died, and made mention of some people who had been dropped off a boat at sea. Allegations of bodies being dumped at sea—while if true are obviously of grave concern—have been the most difficult to confirm. Indonesian National Human Rights Commission told the Embassy that they could not establish a positive link between bodies that had washed up on the shore and the Biak incident.2. Mr Downer raised his concerns personally about the Biak incident, and human rights in Irian Jaya in general, with President Habibie and Indonesian Ministers Wiranto and Alatas during his visit to Jakarta, 8-10 July this year. He called for the authorities to exercise restraint in its relations the community. Mr Downer also discussed the issue with Komnas Ham, which subsequently sent a fact-finding mission to Irian Jaya. On 14 November Mr Downer again raised the Biak incident with Mr Alatas when they met at the APEC meeting in Kuala Lumpur. The Embassy has followed up on the Minister's July representations, including during visits to Irian Jaya between 31 July and 5 August. The Australian Embassy raised the issue with the military authorities and the vice-Governor of Irian Jaya, and has consistently urged the Indonesian military to exercise restraint in dealing with civil protests, where-ever these occur in Indonesia.3. An officer of the Australian Embassy spoke to Mr Paul Meixner and Ms Rebecca Casey during a visit to Biak on 11-14 July.4. The Embassy is following up with the ICRC on the question of the Dr Karma and others arrested at the time of the Biak incident.49615:05:00496Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston) to a question without notice asked by Senator Chapman today, relating to taxation reform.Senator Chapman appears to have given up for a brief moment his private investigation activities and made the time to come down to the chamber today to ask Senator Alston a question as the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. You get the usual answer from Senator Alston. Do you know what Senator Alston is trying to do? He is trying to undermine Senator Hill at every opportunity. He tries to argue his case as the putative Leader of the Government in the Senate. How does he do it? He tries to mount a case that Labor senators on this side of the chamber have trade union and labour movement backgrounds. Many of us do and all of us are proud of it. This is a form of abuse for Senator Alston to talk about Labor senators and their trade union backgrounds.Today let us look at how representative the front bench of the coalition is. Let us have a look at how representative the front bench of this government is in this chamber. Senator Hill is a lawyer. We say that no front bench should be without a lawyer. We have an outstanding lawyer on our front bench in Senator Bolkus. He is an absolutely outstanding lawyer. We accept that a lawyer of standing is a necessity for all governments and alternative governments. Then we have the man trying to become the Leader of the Government in the Senate—not Senator Hill but the man who is trying to take his job and undermine him at every opportunity, Senator Alston. How representative is he? He is a lawyer too. That is his background.Move down the front bench and go to Senator Newman—she is a lawyer too. It is all right for these characters to attack the Labor Party for their trade union and labour movement credentials but here we have a lawyer as leader, a lawyer as deputy leader and Senator Newman is a lawyer.Then, of course, you move to the only other member of the coalition frontbench in this chamber who is in the cabinet, Senator Minchin. Senator Minchin is also a lawyer—in the Robespierre mould, as you all know. Then you move to the demoted minister beside Senator Minchin, the minister who used to be a member of the cabinet but has now been shoved aside into the outer ministry. The humiliation that Senator Vanstone suffered for being demoted for, of all people, Dr Kemp in the House of Representatives! Imagine being demoted for him!UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—But he's a lawyer too.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—But he's a lawyer—that's the point. Senator Vanstone—she is a lawyer. So we have four cabinet ministers in the Senate—four out of four lawyers—and one former cabinet minister of the coalition government in the Senate, Senator Vanstone, who is also a lawyer. So it is five out of five. Then you move to Senator Ellison. He is a lawyer too. How representative is this? This is the truth of the matter. There is Senator Macdonald. He is also a lawyer. We on this side of the parliament prefer to call him an ambulance chaser. He specialises in pursuing motor vehicles that have sirens and flashing lights.They have seven lawyers out of nine ministers on their frontbench, and Senator Alston has the hide to attack—hypocritically—the Labor Party for not being representative of the community. Senator Alston, for once you ought to have a look in the mirror. Perhaps one of my colleagues might take up a couple of the exceptions, such as Senator Herron and Minister Kemp over there, the brother of the lawyer in the House of Representatives. They stand condemned. (Time expired)15:10:00497Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—Something that we have come to experience in this Senate is that when Senator Faulkner does not have an argument he gets louder and louder to try to obviate the fact that he does not have any substance to his argument. I would have thought that the people of Australia listening in to this debate would have been wondering whether the people on the other side had just engaged in frolics of their own or were genuinely concerned about the issues confronting this nation.Where were their policy questions today about tax reform, health reform and balancing the budget? What about industrial relations reform? What about getting the unemployment rate down? They are not interested in the issues of the day. They want to go on frolics of their own, to talk about the background of ministers. Might I add that many of the ministers have had very distinguished careers in the law. Others have law degrees but, in fact, have not practised law. So what?But there is one important difference: if the Labor Party felt so precious about the numbers on the other side who are, in fact, trade union officials, why didn't they defend that fact? No, they did not defend it; all that Senator Faulkner tried to do was turn the tables and say, `Sure, we have got a lot of trade unionists, but so what? You guys have got a lot of lawyers.' I know that lawyers do not necessarily have the highest rating in the community acceptance polls. But I reckon they might fare a fair bit better than trade union officials of the sort of Senator George Campbell, who—as you would be aware, Madam Deputy President—was credited by the former Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, as costing this nation 100,000 jobs. I can tell you that all the lawyers on this side, put together, are responsible for creating jobs in this country, not for costing jobs.Senator Carr interjecting—N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator Carr, you are so right: we did create jobs for ourselves by winning the last election. We did create jobs for ourselves in that regard—and I am sorry that you're still sitting on that side, but not all that sorry, I must admit. The Labor Party know that, each time we point out the fact that there is such a disproportionate number of failed trade union officials on their side of the chamber, it hits a chord with the people. They feel embarrassed about it. They are unable to defend it. They are unable to say that it adds something to the parliament. So what do they do? They seek to attack Senator Alston but, in doing so, they point out the fact that they are unable to deal with the real issues confronting this nation.I would have thought the people of Australia would have expected a bit better from somebody who parades as the alternative leader of the government in the Senate, namely Senator Faulkner. Where are their policies on employment? Where are their policies on tax reform? We know where their policies on tax reform are. Within two weeks of the federal election the shadow Treasurer was dumped, as was half the policy. We still do not exactly know where they stand on the Toorak tractor tax. If Senator Robert Ray follows in this debate, he might be good enough and kind enough to advise the people of Australia whether those on that side of the house still abide with the Toorak tractor tax, and whether it was really Ms Macklin who designed that tax policy, or Gareth Evans, who got the chop for it. These are some of the important issues that the people of Australia would like to know about.The people would also like to know, in relation to the budget, whether those opposite would be committed to a balanced budget. Would they still want to run up those huge deficits, the results of which we have seen in Asia with the terrible social dislocation that that has occasioned? Where are their policies? There are no policies, Senator Faulkner, so all you can do is launch this absolutely pathetic attack. It has been one of your more dismal performances today, but the good thing is that the people of Australia do not need to rely on you and your side to govern this country.15:15:00498Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Senator Abetz appears to refer to a policy free zone. The great policy free zone in this chamber is when Senator Alston gives answers to questions asked and arranged by his own side that do not actually promote public policy but merely represent his skill in abusing members on this side of the chamber. We all know he is not a detail man and he is not a person that can carry a policy argument; he is a rough and tumble lawyer who specialises in abuse. Again today all we got out of him was that this side of the chamber is not representative of politics. So I think it is quite appropriate for us to put the analysis over to the other side and see just how representative is the coalition.We cannot talk about any National Party members on the front bench: all of them can hardly read and write and none of them can be promoted to that position. You have the Leader of the National Party in this chamber not even on the front bench because he is not trusted. But we do now have Senator Abetz on the front bench. How did he get there, you might wonder. He is a bit like that cartoon character Bristow, 23rd in line for chief buyer. He made it because of his pathetic showing in Tasmania. Because he helped sell down the drain five House of Representatives seats, there were no competitors left. You have got to have two from Tasmania in the ministry and among the parliamentary secretaries. There are none in the House of Representatives and there are only five potential candidates in the Senate. Senator Newman is already there; Senator Gibson has already been axed; Senator Watson is too principled; and Senator Calvert is too comfortable in the whip's job. Who is left? Poor old Eric. You have got to promote Eric. If in the process you can buttress the Prime Minister's numbers, because he is nothing more than Tony Abbott's Tasmanian stooge, then you actually put him in. That is how he got promoted to being 11th in seniority as a parliamentary secretary in the Senate. Congratulations to another lawyer!My colleague suggested that we do have two people on the front bench who are not lawyers. Maybe they got swapped at birth in the hospital and something went wrong; I do not know. But we do have Senator Herron, who is quite a brilliant surgeon, although I don't think I have ever bumped into anyone who is so proud of his own humility as Senator Herron is and exhibits it in this chamber. Then we have Senator Kemp, who has got a PhD from the Pancake Parlour specialising in 20th century waffle. That is his qualification.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ray, be careful not to reflect upon honourable members opposite, please.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I thought they did a pretty good job in reflecting on us, and Senator Alston's answer to a question was not interrupted when he tried to smear everyone on this side of the chamber. They do not like getting a bit of it back.There are two out of nine ministers who are not lawyers, yet they claim they are representative. Do we want to do an add-up of the rest of the lawyers on that side? There are at least another six or seven I would have guessed at. Senator Ferguson can correct me if I am wrong. He was doing the add-up before. There are probably 15 or 16 lawyers on their side. There is nothing wrong with lawyers, but do not come into this chamber with double standards and hypocrisy and talk about representation, because it just won't wash.Deep behind these comments by Senator Alston is reflected a degree of arrogance and elitism in that people are denigrated for the job they did prior to getting into this chamber. When you rubbish people in this chamber, you have always got to remember that, no matter what side they sit on, they beat someone to get here, usually hot competition. No-one gets into this chamber on a free ride either within their own party or within the electorate as a whole—they have to earn it. They all should be judged and respected on their performance and their contribution in this parliament and not denigrated for their background.15:19:00499Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—I am quite sure that anybody listening to the broadcast of the Senate today would wonder what exactly are the most important things that are confronting this nation today. We had a supposed concerted attack on Senator Vanstone today. Nearly every question was directed to Senator Vanstone on a variety of issues, which Senator Vanstone answered quite well. The tactic was to be to take note of Senator Vanstone's answers, but all of a sudden there was a last-minute change in tactics because Senator Vanstone answered the questions so completely that in fact they had nothing to take note of. So Senator Ray and Senator Faulkner between them thought, `Well, what can we do today to deflect the attack and take all of the concentration away from any questions that were asked of Senator Vanstone? Perhaps we will take Senator Alston's answer when he refers to the trade unionists who sit on the other side of the chamber.'I am quite sure that those listening to this broadcast and those in the gallery today would be quite dismayed to think that the most important thing that the Labor Party could raise in taking note of answers to questions today is the composition of the Senate because Senator Alston happened to make some remarks about the composition of the opposition. Senator Ray says that Senator Alston smeared the opposition. If being referred to as a trade unionist is a smear, I would have thought that some of the people on the other side ought to change their attitude, because I would have thought that senators opposite would have been proud to be trade union members. In fact, many of them probably should have stayed in the jobs they were in before they came here because they come in here representing only the unions' point of view without looking at what is for the benefit of the bulk of the Australian people when we are considering legislation.One of the differences is that when Senator Faulkner refers to the number of people on this side of the chamber with law degrees it is because many of those people have chosen to seek tertiary education in order to further their careers—careers that they know can only be enhanced by their own hard work and their own effort. In the chances that they take in either small business or some enterprise of their own, they need to make sure they have a level of education which gives them a chance to succeed in their chosen professions. Senator Faulkner chooses to denigrate those senators when many of the people that he referred to who have a law degree used that law degree to further their careers in many other fields, because their tertiary qualifications and their knowledge of the law helped them to be able to further their careers in whatever their chosen field is.The difference is that there is a wide variety of occupations on this side of the chamber. Many of your trade union members have law degrees. I have worked with Senator Bishop for a considerable time and I understand that he has a law degree. In many of the conversations I have had on committees with Senator Bishop, he has talked about studying for a law degree. I know that other members on that side have them as well.On this side of the chamber some people have got law degrees to try to get themselves through their professional careers, to further themselves, to be self-employed, to work for themselves, not to latch on to a trade union so that at some later stage in their career they may find their way into this chamber via the trade union movement. Very few people on this side of the chamber have actually achieved their positions in the Senate because they happen to have a law degree, but many people on that side of the chamber are in the position they are in because they were trade unionists and because they had the support of their trade unions to get here.Most of the people on this side of the chamber have had to work their way through the organisation and be selected by their peers, or be selected by their electoral colleges, to make sure that they represent a wide variety of professions and a cross-section of the community in order that they can more widely represent the people in their home states. That is quite different from the people sitting on that side of the chamber.15:24:00500Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I wish to take note of Senator Alston's answer today. As he has done on a number of other occasions in an attempt to deflect from his own inadequacy to answer any particular question—like Senator Kemp—Senator Alston chose to criticise the Labor opposition for what he regards as unrepresentativeness in terms of the number of former union officials on this side of the chamber. I am a former union official and I am proud of it. I represented the Liquor and Allied Industries Union.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—I hope you haven't got a law degree, Nick.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I am very proud of that representation, Senator Ferguson—and I will get to you in a moment, as I will get to Senator Abetz. Former trade union officials—and, indeed, all of my colleagues on this side—spent a great deal of time and effort in their previous occupations defending the interests of Australian workers who needed that defence.I can recall numerous cases of people being abused, wrongfully dismissed or harassed in their occupations who were defended by my trade union. If that happens to contribute to the development of senators on this side in terms of advocacy and research skills and a general philosophical belief in defending men and women in this country who are abused or maltreated in the workplace, so be it. But I am proud of that background.My father was in politics, and he gave me a piece of advice which I have always regarded as very good advice when dealing with political opponents. He said that there are three things that you do not touch on in politics: the background of your political opponent; their personal lives; and their physical appearance. The problem is that when you open up any of those three areas, it can bounce back at you.I am reminded of this in respect of Senator Abetz's contribution. In Tasmania, the Labor Party loves Senator Abetz.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Well, he has delivered for us, hasn't he?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—He has delivered for us, exactly, Senator Faulkner. Every time Senator Abetz comes on TV advocating a Liberal cause, the Liberal vote goes down. In the last federal election, when I was doorknocking in Burnie for my colleague Sid Sidebottom—who got a 10 per cent swing in Braddon—I was struck by the fact that the person whose name was raised time and time again when we were doorknocking was Senator Abetz.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—But negatively.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Yes, negatively. The question was, `What can we do to get rid of Senator Abetz?'5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Vote Labor.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—And they did—they voted Labor in droves in Tasmania. Senator Abetz controls the Liberal Party machine in Tasmania—and we love it. Senator Calvert knows that is the truth. We love it, Senator Calvert. We want to keep Senator Abetz in charge of the Liberal Party machine in Tasmania. We have a two-party preferred Labor vote in Tasmania of 57 per cent. We got three quotas.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—What did you get in South Australia?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—We are talking about Senator Abetz. Senator Ferguson, who entered into this debate, would do well to reflect on the issue of touching on the personal lives of senators like Senator Abetz. Those three principles of my father's are ones which personally I have always held in this chamber. I think it is important to hold them. We all have, with respect, on both sides of the chamber particular attributes of our background, personal lives or our physical appearance which should not be the subject of debate in public life.I do not come into this chamber drawing attention to the fact about lawyers. But it is not just lawyers—look at the National Party with all its farmers.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Sandy's a farmer.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—You're a farmer, Senator. I do not come into this chamber abusing the members of the National Party because many of them have farming backgrounds. They have a particular set of skills and attributes. They work hard. I do not criticise them for that background. They may be unrepresentative. There may be more farmers in here than there should be. There may be more lawyers than there should be. It does not particularly worry me.What we should be doing in this chamber is looking at our approach to legislation, policy and issues, and not carrying on like Senator Alston does, trying to hide his inadequacies by abusing members of the opposition—although it is water off a duck's back. Senator Alston comes in here trying to hide his inadequacies—like Senator Kemp, the minister for waffle—and change the subject to try to divert attention from his manifest inadequacy in his contribution and from the number of times that he has been rolled in cabinet on critical issues.A number of members of the opposition have union backgrounds, and we are proud of it—just as members of the government who are farmers or lawyers or whatever other occupation should be proud of their occupations. But do not bring that sort of tripe into this chamber because it cuts both ways—as you well know. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.50110001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:50147TW4Bourne 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; and(5) stop all military cooperation and commercial military activity with Indonesia.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 47 citizens)50132TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo 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 BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 32 citizens)50244TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned recognises the vital role of a strong and comprehensive Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and asks that:(1) Coalition Senators honour their 1996 election promise, namely that `The Coalition will maintain existing levels of Commonwealth funding to the ABC'.(2) The Senate votes to maintain the existing role of the ABC as a fully independent, publicly funded and publicly owned organisation.(3) The Senate oppose any weakening of the Charter of the ABC.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 44 citizens)50220DT6Bartlett 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 20 citizens)50215GX5Troeth Sen JudithTo 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 the fact that members of the Royal Australian Navy who served in Malaya between 1955 and 1960 are still the only Australians, sent overseas on active service, whose service has not been recognised in three important areas:1. R.A.N. casualties are not yet included on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial alongside Army and R.A.A.F. casualties; 2. R.A.N. service has not yet been recognised with the visible signs of service to Australia; the Returned from Active Service Badge and the Naval campaign medal; and3. R.A.N. service is still not acknowledged as eligible service for the Australian Service Pension, while service by Commonwealth and allied veterans from 55 other countries is.Members of the Army and R.A.A.F. who served during the same period in Malaya had their service fully recognised 24 hours after arriving in Malaya.In the 1997 Budget the Government partly recognised that R.A.N. service was `operational' and accepted responsibility for disabilities resulting from that service. Those affected appreciate the belated, partial recognition. However, government departments are still resorting to old, and inventing new excuses, to deny the above 3 points.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate acts to help remove the injustice of 40 years and fully recognise R.A.N. service by providing the same recognition and benefits for that service. The cost will be minuscule, being mainly a transfer of pensions from `age' as paid by the Department of Social Security, to `service' pensions, paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.Senator TroethGX5Senator Troeth(from 15 citizens)Petitions received.Miscellaneous502502Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act relating to the sale of the National Transmission Network. National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1998 .That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to make consequential amendments relating to the sale of the National Transmission Network, and for related purposes. National Transmission Network Sale (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 .That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to Customs, and for related purposes. Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 (No. 2) .That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to provide for the implementation of national environment protection measures in respect of certain activities carried on by or on behalf of the Commonwealth and Commonwealth authorities, and for related purposes. National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill 1998 . 503503Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—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:National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1998National Transmission Network Sale (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998.I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered within the 14-day period and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Statement of reasons for introduction and passage in the 1998 Spring SittingsNational Transmission Network Sale Bill 1998National Transmission Network Sale (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998Purpose:The bills will facilitate the sale of the National Transmission Network (NTN), set in place a regulatory framework for the provision of national broadcasting and other transmission services after the sale and make consequential amendments to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 and Radiocommunications Act 1992.Reasons for urgency:Passage of the legislation in the Spring sittings is essential to enable the sale of the national transmission network to be finalised in the first half of 1999. Sale early in 1999 is critical to enable the new owner to be closely involved in the planning and implementation of digital television broadcasting, given the statutory deadlines for the introduction of digital television in Australia.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts)503Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) Telstra proposes to close down its Bendigo Fault Centre on 1 January 1999 and relocate the operation to Tasmania, (ii) the centre staff have won awards from Telstra for excellence, (iii) the relocation of the centre will result in a net loss of at least 27 jobs to the Bendigo area, (iv) the City of Greater Bendigo was assured by Telstra that these jobs would remain in the Bendigo area, (v) the unemployment rate in the Bendigo region is one of the highest in Victoria, (vi) considerable efforts have been made by the City of Greater Bendigo to promote Bendigo as a call centre, and (vii) the people of Bendigo, like so many regional communities, are fed up with the job cutting efforts of governments and government business enterprises; and(b) urges the Commonwealth Government to direct Telstra, as is provided for in the Telecommunications Act 1991 , to reverse this decision until such time as it can be demonstrated that: (i) the move is cost-effective, and (ii) there is a compensatory gain in jobs for the Bendigo region.Senator Margetts to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bills be referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 December 1998:Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Bill 1998Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998.Senator Margetts to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) a motion expressing concern about the implementation of national competition policy was agreed to by all parties in the Queensland Parliament on 11 November 1998, (ii) the motion supports: (a) a commitment to applying a rigorous public benefit test in any application of national competition policy in Australia and considers that the public benefit test must give full weight to issues including jobs and job security, social welfare and equity considerations, health and safety, and regional development, as well as the interests of consumers, and (b) the use of community service payments to ensure the maintenance of quality services to people in regional areas and the crucial importance of community service obligations, and (iii) the motion calls on both federal and state governments to negotiate changes to the administration of the national competition policy to take into greater account the adverse social implications of these policies and that, furthermore, it calls for responsibility for the administration of the national competition policy to be transferred from the National Competition Council to the Council of Australian Governments as originally envisaged in 1995; and(b) supports the concerns expressed by the Queensland Parliament and its call for action by the federal and state governments.Senator Murray to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes the claim made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill) that certain documents considered to be commercial-in-confidence, in the nature of policy advice to the minister or prejudicial to the effective implementation of a decision were withheld from tabling as part of a return to order `in accordance with Senate practice';(b) states that the claim is incorrect and refers to government practice rather than Senate practice; and(c) recalls the 49th Report of the Committee of Privileges which reiterated that it is for the House concerned to determine claims of public interest immunity and to take appropriate action under its contempt powers.Business504504Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That government business order of the day No. 1, Child Support Amendment Bill 1998, be postponed until after consideration of the following government business orders of the day: No. 2, Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1998; and No. 3, the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Assistance) Amendment Bill 1998.504Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, be postponed till 30 November 1998.Committees504504504Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the reports of legislation committees on the provisions of the following bills be extended to November 30 1998:Community Affairs Legislation Committee— Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Payment Processing) Bill 1998.Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 and Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed Investment Company) Bill 1998 .Business504504Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Lundy) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 20 standing in the name of Senator Lundy for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration (Senator Ellison), be postponed till the next day of sitting.504Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell, at the request of Senator Kemp) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Kemp for today, relating to the reference of matters to certain committees, be postponed till a later hour. 505Motion (by Senator O'Brien) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 standing in his name for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.505Motion (by Senator Calvert) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 16 standing in his name for today, relating to Online Australia Day, be postponed till the next day of sitting.505Motion (by Senator Bartlett) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 10 standing in his name for today, relating to sexuality discrimination, be postponed till 30 November 1998.505Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 21 standing in her name for today, relating to superannuation, be postponed till the next day of sitting.505Motion (by Senator Bartlett ) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 4 standing in his name for today, relating to the disallowance of regulation 7.6 of the Migration Regulations (Amendment) contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 210, be postponed till 4 sitting days after today.Bills505s167505Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to alter the Constitution with respect to the qualification of members of Parliament and Parliamentary candidates, and for related purposes.Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time.50515:39:00505Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—As every election approaches, 1.4 million teachers, posties and other public servants who might like to stand for parliament have to decide whether it is worth resigning their jobs in order to do so. Australian citizens who also are citizens of another country have to go to great lengths to repudiate their dual citizenship if they want to nominate for election.Section 44 of the Constitution is the problem. It stops anyone who holds an `office of profit under the Crown' or who is a citizen of another country (as well as Australia) from nominating for parliament.This situation is discriminatory. It deprives the federal parliament of a huge pool of talented potential politicians. And at every recent election it has caused trouble and expense as someone unwittingly falls foul of the constitution.Everyone agrees that s.44 of the constitution should be changed.All parties supported a Greens motion in the Senate to that effect in October 1996, and called on the government to bring forward a proposal for constitutional amendment.The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters reporting on the 1996 election recommended—that at an appropriate time, such- as in conjunction with the next Federal election, a referendum be held on a) applying the "office of profit" disqualification in Section 44(iv) from the start of an MP `s term, rather than from the time of nomination, and b) deleting section 44(i) on "foreign allegiance" and otherwise amending theConstitution to make Australian citizenship a necessary qualification for membershipof the Parliament. (Rec. 39)The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs examined subsections 44(i) and 44(iv) of the Constitution in detail and recommended that a referendum be held to amend them.The Government's response to these recommendations has been supportive Subject to the qualifications outlined below, the government would support amendments of subsections 44(i) and 44(iv) of the Constitution to overcome the shortcomings identified by the Committee. . . it accepts that constitutional and legislative action is the only realistic way in which to overcome these shortcomings. (Government response to the Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, "Aspects of Section 44 of the Constitution".But no bill for a referendum has been forthcoming.The Greens' `Right to Stand for Parliament' Bill is the simplest possible way of amending the Constitution to fix the problem. No-one disputes the need for change. Let's get on with it.Debate (on motion by Senator Calvert) adjourned.Miscellaneous506Motion (by Senator Allison) not agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Government committed Australia to stabilising its greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 by signing the convention for climate change, (ii) the Coalition Government's subsequent negotiation at Kyoto meant Australia would be able to increase its emissions by 8 per cent, (iii) the latest greenhouse gas inventory shows that Australia has, 2 years before the deadline, already increased its emissions by 9 per cent, (iv) federal and state governments are proceeding with new power generation from fossil fuel sources, cutting the diesel fuel excise and providing subsidies of hundreds of millions of dollars to shale oil mines, all of which will dramatically increase greenhouse gas emissions, and (v) the outcome of increased emissions includes more untimely deaths from the greater spread of diseases, floods, more unpredictable and devastating weather events, deforestation and sea level rises; and(b) condemns the decision made by governments which will increase Australia's contributions and worsen the world's position with regard to climate change.Miscellaneous506Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Fitzroy Dam proposal in northern Western Australia has been put on hold, (ii) the use of the waters of the Fitzroy River to irrigate large areas of arid and fragile land for growing cotton and other crops would have been ecologically and culturally devastating, and (iii) the Australian Democrats expressed their opposition to this dam proposal in the Senate two and a half years ago;(b) congratulates the traditional owners of the region and conservation groups who have fought this ill-conceived proposal; and(c) urges the Commonwealth Government to call on the Western Australian State Government to remove all references to the dam and cotton growing proposal from its memorandum of understanding with Western Agricultural Industries, to safeguard the area from the alternative of irrigation from ground water.Miscellaneous506Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to: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.Business507507Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) 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 Space Activities Bill 1998.Documents50750750710000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General's Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 15 of 1998-99—Performance audit—postal operations: Australian Customs Service.Business507507Motion (by Senator Lees) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 be postponed till a later hour this day.Bills507r595507Debate resumed from 23 November, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.15:44:00507Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1998 sets the maximum operating grants for universities in 1999 and 2000, thereby confirming in legislation for the first time the government's massive cuts to university operating grants which were announced in 1996. It establishes and provides limited funding for the new Australian Education International to promote Australia's education exports. It updates funding estimates for special capital projects, various grant programs, superannuation and teaching hospitals in line with government estimates of relevant inflation rates, and adds Notre Dame University to the list of institutions eligible for funding for operating purposes, including teaching, research and capital.It is noted that this bill has been redrafted to combine two pieces of legislation into a new consolidated bill. Part of the legislation was deal with in the previous parliament, but not passed by the Senate, and the other part was only introduced into the House of Representatives.The opposition is especially critical of the haste in which this new bill has been introduced and the lack of time that has been given for scrutiny of the bill. We believe this to be characteristic of the way in which this government has handled its legislative program, and specifically its approach to higher education.The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, who clawed his way into cabinet over the body of Senator Vanstone, is only too happy to use education as a scapegoat for every national problem that he can think of. But he is now most anxious to avoid public debate on his administration. We saw a clear indication of the lack of will of this government to discuss education during the election campaign when, in a most shabby way, they released the Liberal's education policy at 5 o'clock one evening in such a manner as to ensure that there was no examination of the details of that platform. One can understand why Dr Kemp is anxious to avoid public scrutiny of his policies, because under this government the very nature of tertiary education, the very nature of the creative features of our education system, has been fundamentally changed.Australia has seen a contraction in the efforts of its education sector and a greater emphasis within the universities on commercialisation at the expense of the traditional role of providing high quality, broad based education of Australian people. We have seen an underlying position of greater emphasis on vocational education within the university sector which this government believes will create more jobs—an assumption which has yet to be demonstrated in fact. Sadly, the narrowing of the focus of our university sector has impacted on every aspect of university life and has resulted in less choice and an inferior quality of education in our universities across this country.The very nature and role of academics has been supplanted by the more market driven approach adopted by the government itself. In the past, academics were proud of the role they played in essential and healthy debate within this country. In the past, academics were proud to be associated with public controversy to stimulate debate and questioning of society and the directions that society was taking. However, our academics are no longer encouraged to espouse views and positions which in the past were essentially the mainstream discourse of public life.Under this government there has been a shift whereby there is an overriding atmosphere of fear and intimidation where academics are stifled, morale has plummeted and controversy is feared. Likewise, universities have been bludgeoned into accepting a narrower, market driven criteria for their very operations. What we have seen was recently demonstrated by Barry Jones—I think quite adequately—at the inaugural RMIT student union lecture series in Melbourne in August this year. He pointed out that the failure of Australia's universities to fight for the traditional values of scholarship or to contribute to debates on controversial issues has meant that governments can attack them with impunity. He pointed out that, in his experience as Minister for Science, he saw the precedent for this set, whereby the Liberal Party, which is essentially made up of philistines and various forms of ignoramuses—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, would you please not reflect like that.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—What? That the Liberal Party is full of philistines?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No, Senator Carr. Will you just withdraw, thank you?AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Sorry, Madam President?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You know full well what you said is unparliamentary.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Whatever is unparliamentary, Madam Deputy President, I withdraw.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Come on.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—What we have seen—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Would you please be more specific? Withdraw unreservedly.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I unreservedly withdraw whatever was unparliamentary. Philistine elements within the media have taken up the questions that once were raised by Liberal Party spokespeople in their various waste watch committees and the like, suggesting that government grants singling out humanities and other groups were somehow or another wasteful. According to Barry Jones, the various vice-chancellors, rather than defend the actions of the researchers in their universities at the time, were only too happy, with a few notable exceptions, to maintain an eerie silence in regard to the onslaught by these philistine elements within the conservative political parties and the media of this country.What followed was that various elements of the bureaucracy itself understood that university administrations were not capable of showing the strength and resolution to defend academic freedom that they so often asserted was their due. In practice, they maintained an eerie silence and were thought to be acquiescing to government attacks, thinking that those attacks would lessen in their brutality. A campus review article of 12-18 August 1998 reveals this and demonstrates that this is the same view being expressed by this government. The article says:The Federal Education Minister, Dr David Kemp, appears to share this view. His media adviser told journalists last week that everything in higher education was fine because `universities are no longer on the front page of newspapers.'We see another example with Melbourne University Press, which in September of this year was involved in the quite, I think, notorious scandal of the suppression of a book by Professor Tony Coady, professor of philoso phy at Melbourne University. The book was about the idea of university, about the central values that a university should embody and about the various notions which the author thought were integral to the concept of the principles of university life. The book was suppressed by Melbourne University Press on the advice of senior members of the university administration, including the Vice-Chancellor, Mr Alan Gilbert, the Director of Melbourne University Press, who was associated with the deputy vice-chancellor, and the Chairman of Melbourne University Press—who had direct links to the privatised university unit, known as Melbourne University Private—being pursued by the university. It was demonstrated by the statements made by the senior management of Melbourne University that this book was being suppressed because, in their eyes, it represented a traditional view of the university which did not give sufficient weight to opposing views.According to an article by Peter Craven in the Melbourne Age on 24 August, the book, which had been edited by an eminent member of the university community, was not being published because in powerful opinions there was not sufficient weight given to the managerial and corporate approach of the university's management itself. So where there are complaints about the directions the universities are taking at the behest of this government, we find that academics are being forced to accept the directions and accept a more narrowly based approach.For Australia's 600,000 students, the decline in quality has been most evident in the declining courses and subject options, and we have seen the rapid escalation of fees under this government. Who would have thought a few years ago that there would be some 21,000 fewer fully funded Commonwealth places? This government has sought to force upon universities a proposition which involved charging of fees of up to $100,000 for some courses.We have seen a decline in the quality in the choices evident in the arts and the humanities with students being forced to absorb some $840 million worth of budget cuts. Staff-student ratios have risen in the 1990s from 16.5 to 18.5 students in the humanities, and from 18 to 20 in the social sciences. Faculties have closed and various language programs are disappearing. Seven arts faculties across the country have ceased to exist.For students in my state of Victoria, this has meant the closure of the classics department at Monash, the Greek department at Deakin, the music department at La Trobe and the corresponding sackings of large numbers of arts and humanities staff—120 in the arts faculty at Monash University alone. Under this new regime, unless a university faculty and course can make direct commercial return, it is perceived to be of lesser value and as a consequence must suffer staff cuts and reduced resource allocations within the university itself.The grand traditions of Australian universities are now directly under attack by this government. The decline in the emphasis and the quality of provision impacts most strongly throughout university administrations, which have suffered the constant burden of finding new ways to get funds and developing new strategies to get around guidelines, shifting their focus from education to the more narrow commercial focuses that the government is seeking to pursue.In the election period, the government claimed that it was about breadth of provision, but in reality we have seen a whole series of bills—now seven bills—dealing with higher education. We are now dealing with the funding base for the next three years, with bills being introduced with very little public debate and in such a manner and with such time pressures as to prevent proper scrutiny of what is being proposed.We have also seen various surveys and various empirical research emerging from the universities, indicating that there is a growing problem in the way universities are seeking to get around government regulations and government guidelines in the provisions of the HEFA Act.A survey undertaken by the National Union of Students and released last week showed that there were 36 universities sent surveys of which 25 responded. There was a rapid escalation in the use of ancillary fees to counter Commonwealth funding cuts. The survey identified 300 fees charged at a departmental or faculty level for items relating to individual course units or subjects. Many of these fees are in clear breach of the ministerial guidelines and, in my judgment, in clear breach of the HEFA Act. Students were charged for such things as email access from home, access to assignment questions exclusively available from the email, requirement for internal students to purchase course materials designed for external students to substitute for cuts in staffing resources that were no longer available, the charging of students for reading lists, and the requirement for students to attend field trips and then forcing them to pay an associated entry fee. These are quite clearly in breach of the provisions of the act, which said that there should be no charging of fees for the essential components of the courses.I put a simple proposition to the minister, and I trust he will be able to respond. Minister, what actions has the government taken to investigate the allegations that are being launched by the universities, which are clearly in breach of the HEFA Act? Is the government prepared to review the guidelines covering ancillary fees? Has the government evaluated the adequacies of the levels of funding which universities are currently expected to cope with?These measures that we see operating now demonstrate that for the universities the law means very little, because they are able, as we have seen in the case of Melbourne University, to get around those without any great difficulty. The accountability provisions of the profile processes, in my judgment, are now being abused to the point where the New South Wales Auditor-General, Mr Tony Harris, was able to demonstrate that the published accounts of universities do not record all the financial transactions reported in their financial statements, yet this government relies upon the advice from its department as to the appropriateness of the performance indicators based on advice tendered to the department from the universities themselves. What we are seeing are opaque accountability practices being used to drive the new performance indicators that DETYA is currently developing. They are meant to examine university finances, deployment of staff, diversity of courses and the various student outcomes, but they all seem to be totally inadequate because, on the government's own admission, interpretation of these indicators is difficult as accounting conventions vary from university to university. Specifically, universities are making internal decisions regarding the centralisation or devolution of administrative functions to hide the true nature of their cost structures.This is an attempt by the universities to cope with the growing crisis that is emerging in our higher education sector, a crisis of confidence that goes to the very issues of the provision of quality education in this country. You cannot possibly have the cuts introduced in this bill imposed on universities and not expect them to have an effect on the quality of services provided. These cuts are being demonstrated in staff morale and in students having to cope with larger class sizes and overcrowding in lectures. Also, capital works programs have fallen way behind what one could reasonably expect from a high quality education system. Fewer and fewer staff are being asked to cope with these changes without the necessary support to provide high quality education.Last night at the national teaching university awards in the Great Hall we saw the government placing great emphasis on what it is doing to promote quality education and teaching in this country; that is, the provision of $750,000 for various awards for high quality teachers at university. This is meant to somehow or other compensate for the fact that this government has taken the better part of $2 billion away from this sector and has asked the universities to provide services to the Australian people with considerably less resources. This government thinks that, if there is little debate and public scrutiny about it, then they will be able to get away with their actions in such a way as to fundamentally change the culture of Australian education.I do not believe that this measure will ultimately be successful. I concede that the vice-chancellors have not fulfilled their obligations in defending the university sector in the way in which I am sure many Australians would have hoped. They have felt over time that, if they go quietly, things would be easier for them. Quite clearly, that strategy will not work because, as the crisis emerges within universities where they are required to do more and more with less and less, more and more people are going to come forward and say, `Frankly, it's just not good enough to expect us to run our universities as if they are mere businesses.' They are much more than mere businesses; they have a social and cultural function to perform which clearly this government has failed to acknowledge.I wish to move a second reading amendment which expresses the concerns of the opposition about the way in which this government is administering the higher education budget of this country. We will, of course, be supporting the bill because the money has to flow through to the universities within 30-odd days. I move:At the end of the motion, add:"But the Senate condemns the government for damaging Australia's vitally important higher education system by:(1) slashing funding to universities, resulting in 21,000 fewer, fully-funded Commonwealth places; and(2) increasing HECS charges and lowering the repayment threshold, thereby driving down university application rates by 3.3 per cent in 1997 and 3.1 per cent in 1998".16:04:00511Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Australian Democrats will be supporting the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1998 for many of the reasons mentioned by Senator Carr. Funding has to be made available to these institutions and we would not seek to frustrate that process in any way. We acknowledge that universities have faced great periods of funding uncertainty over the last few years, particularly under this government. Therefore, we seek to assure them that their funding, or as much as is being allowed by this government, is going to be safely passed by this parliament.The Democrats support the second reading amendment moved by the opposition. We also condemn the government for eroding the vitally important higher education system through slashing funding for universities and through additional fees and charges. But I cannot let that go without acknowledging the role of the Australian Labor Party—the opposition and former government—in deregulating the postgraduate market and beginning the process of reintroducing tertiary fees in the form of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme and before that the higher education administration charge and also for playing a role in tightening the eligibility criteria for income support for students in the form of Austudy.We cannot support the ALP's second reading amendment without at least acknowledging the role of the Australian Labor Party certainly in expanding the sector but not necessarily in matching that great expansion with the appropriate infrastructure funding for teaching, capital works and funding per full time student unit.I also refer, as did Senator Carr, to last night's excellence in teaching awards. It was certainly a lovely occasion, simply because we were able to acknowledge and celebrate in one room excellence in academia. It was wonderful to see people in Parliament House from a range of tertiary education institutions and representing those institutions with enormous pride. There were student representatives at that function as well as the President of the National Union of Students, members of staff, vice-chancellors and deputy chancellors.It was a wonderful occasion. I must say it was quite nice to see a minister celebrating academic efforts and excellence and I hope that this is something that is set to continue. I understand that the excellence in teaching awards is a bit of a replacement for an idea that was mooted by the former Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Senator Vanstone, when she came up with the dob-in-a-don idea, the notion that instead of using carrots we should use sticks, so that we could punish or expose those members of academia who were not doing their best in academic circles. I think it is much more appropriate to actually reward those who are achieving excellence, setting a higher standard, as opposed to simply seeking to punish those who were not considered to be meeting the appropriate standard.Seeing Dr David Kemp up on stage last night presenting awards for innovation and for compassion, and for visionary ideas, whether in science and technology, humanities, arts or health, was quite a nice sight. But I do not forget that this government, and certainly Minister Kemp, are responsible for overseeing massive change—radical, regressive change—to a sector that has lost a lot of its funding over the last couple of years of this government.The Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998, as it was called, varies the maximum amounts of grants that can be made to higher education institutions under a range of grant categories. The major implication of this funding bill is the implementation of this government's cuts to the higher education sector for the current three-year period announced in the 1996-97 budget. Last year that funding was reduced by one per cent. This year the amount was reduced by a further three per cent, and there will be a further one per cent cut to university operating grants in 1999 and the year 2000. The funding levels are determined in this bill for superannuation, teaching hospitals and open learning.The bill also provides for expenditure on the international marketing and promotion of education and training services provided by Australian institutions, and allows the minister to determine the maximum amount payable by the Commonwealth for the international promotion of Australian education and training services. In 1998, this amount is to be $1.016 million, increasing to $2.468 million in 1999 and to $3.883 million in 2000. A further amendment recognises the recent name change of the James Cook University.This bill is particularly timely, coming within a month of the UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education. That conference was attended by more than 3,000 delegates, including 115 education ministers and legislators, scholars, students and officials from around 180 countries. The UNESCO Director-General called for a major increase in the availability of higher education and lifelong learning. He called for a `radical transformation of the higher education landscape', and the conference backed a world declaration on higher education for the 21st Century which endorsed the right of access to higher education based exclusively on personal merit, in keeping with Article 26.1 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights—not entry to university based on bank balance, but on brains.In Australia, the commitment of the Commonwealth to public funding of higher education has never been so weak. This bill reflects the total abrogation of this government of its responsibility to ensure a quality, accessible and accountable public higher education system. In his second reading speech addressing this bill, the Minister, David Kemp, said that this government was proud of the number of overenrolments in our universities. While I support increased access and the opportunity for many more students, regardless of age or background, to enter and participate in higher education, I was stunned to hear this reference by the minister. But the minister was actually referring not to increased access but to the increased number of students who are funded only at a level of over $2,500 each. Even this paltry amount is only paid to universities at the end of the year. This is not an achievement; this is a travesty. And the government is boasting about overenrolments—I guess they are cheaper for the government.Our universities in many cases are at a breaking point, faced with overcrowding, as well as continual underfunding. I note that Dr Kemp states in his second reading speech that funding per EFTSU is an increase on 1996 levels. But what Dr Kemp fails to register is that the 1996 EFTSU levels were shamefully low. In 1996 the EFTSU funding, expressed in 1994 terms, was $12,379. However if you compare this with the EFTSU of $12,580 in 1982, you begin to see that the sector has suffered chronic underfunding under the current and the previous governments.Not only has this government managed to cram the most students into the system with the least amount of funding, they have also charged HECS liable and upfront fee paying students the highest tuition fees in our history. Of course, they have decided, as the previous speaker noted, to ignore the proliferation of illegal fees—more politely referred to as `ancillary fees'. I congratulate the National Union of Students for their work in conjunction with the National Tertiary Education Union on this issue. It is certainly recommended reading for anyone who cares about real access to higher education. It can be viewed in the NUS ancillary fee survey that was released last week.Ancillary fees were a problem identified, yet largely ignored, under a previous government, the Labor Hawke-Keating government. When free accessible tertiary education was effectively repealed by the Hawke government, with the introduction of the administration charge and HECS, these payments were meant to cover the tuition costs of university students. The current government promised to look at this issue prior to the 1996 election, but this was another broken promise—like so many of their promises to the higher education sector. I presume Senator Robert Hill at that time made that promise to investigate the matter of ancillary fees. These ancillary, or illegal, fees are still spreading because neither the Hawke-Keating government nor the Howard government has met the increased demand for education and the expansion of our higher education system with a commensurate or adequate level of funding.Students have always been expected to pay the costs of some photocopying, stationery and textbooks, things that they individually benefit from or keep for their professional development and their careers. As the frequency of ancillary or illegal fees increases, more students are finding it increasingly difficult to meet these additional costs. Ancillary or illegal fees must be paid up-front and often without much notice. The NUS survey found that the most disturbing findings were that institutions were charging for services that should reasonably be considered part and parcel of that student's tuition fee.While gone are the days where a faculty could afford to provide from within its own budget photocopies of texts for students—we have to acknowledge the funding constraints on faculties and departments—it now appears that a student is financially disadvantaged if they do not have access to their own computer and printer and their own private Internet access. Fifty-nine per cent of institutions charge students for access to the Internet via the university from home, four per cent already charge for email access on campus—and I understand that this figure is likely to increase dramatically—and 65 per cent reported charging students for the use of computer printers on campus.Noting that many lecturers demand that students submit their work in a typed or word processed form, this clearly constitutes a barrier for those students who are less wealthy and who do not have access to a computer or a printer at home. Add to this the scarcity of computer pools on campus, particularly as funding cuts begin to bite harder, and you are applying enormous financial pressure, as well as pressure time-wise, on these students. This can only adversely affect the academic performance of those students without access to money.Appealing an assessment on a piece of work is already fraught with emotional and professional stresses. A lack of funding to institutions has added a financial penalty to this process. It is an unacceptable situation when a student has to consider the financial implications of a simple request for a reassessment. Reassessment should reasonably be expected to be a standard practice and not an added extra with extra fees attached. Yet the NUS report documents instances where students are charged $23 to get a piece of work reassessed.One of the most disturbing aspects of this survey was the finding that students were actually being charged for access to assignment questions. This is clearly a breach of the policy, in spirit as well as in letter. It is disingenuous for the minister to claim, as he did last week, that the issue of ancillary fees is not worthy of address, while he and his Senate colleagues are pursuing an agenda of voluntary student unionism.Funding cuts are hurting institutions around the country. We have only to look at departmental cuts and closures, the removal of subjects and curriculum, general and academic staffing cuts, and other changes to know that. At Monash the Peninsula campus has escaped the threat of closure but has been substantially depleted. The downsizing of this campus puts it in grave danger. The arts faculty has been cut and there is talk of bussing the students from that campus to other campuses. This is not a measure of a healthy higher education sector and it is not an isolated example. The University of Tasmania has been hit by cuts to its arts faculty, as has the Northern Territory University. I suspect that Senator Crossin, with her considerable experience in the tertiary education sector, when she speaks will probably enlarge on some of the funding cuts to that institution. Well she may.Staff numbers have also been slashed and the government still refuses to honour its pledge to address the ongoing staff wage claim. I also acknowledge that this staff wage claim was not appropriately addressed under the former Labor government. According to Don DeBats' and Alan Ward's book, Degrees of Difference:Security of tenure in Australian universities is no longer a meaningful notion in Australia.Yet this government continues to peddle the myth that our universities are prospering. The Australian Democrats reject this myth, as do students and staff coping with the funding cuts.Again, I refer to the rewards for innovation and expertise at last night's function. I put on record congratulations to all those winners. There were students and staff who went home with awards last night. If that is the vision that we have for higher education in this country, that we continue to reward innovation and excellence, it is going to be increasingly hard, almost impossible, to do with a government that continues to slash and burn when it comes to this sector.Senator Carr mentioned the idea of tampering with the Higher Education Funding Act. I note that a press release was circulated in the last few weeks by Chris Pyne, the Liberal member for Sturt in South Australia. He effectively said he was putting student organisations on notice that he was prepared to support a government agenda of tampering with the Higher Education Funding Act that currently sees institutions compensated for loss of income as a consequence of state interference. If states are looking into voluntary student unionism, they will find it is a misnomer. Under voluntary student unionism, currently they are able to receive some degree of compensation to ensure that those vital services that we associate with campus life can continue. That may mean subsidised food, catering, sporting facilities or access to the student newspaper. It may involve student representation as one of the many arms of student services provided through student organisations and their fees.I give very clear notice that the Australian Democrats, who helped initiate the reintroduction of those amendments to the Higher Education Funding Act in 1992 and 1993 when Karen Sowado was a member of this chamber, are still very much strong supporters of universal membership of student organisations. We see campus life as a holistic experience that encompasses not only the opportunity to take home a degree and pursue academic studies but also to enjoy all the other aspects of campus life—not just research and analysis and taking home a degree but also ensuring that there is a campus environment that stimulates lifelong learning as well as other opportunities for participation and involvement.The Democrats continue to believe—unlike this government and I believe to a degree the former government—that education is an investment in our society and its future. It is not a cost. We do not support the increasing fees and charges for education, be they ancillary or legal fees, the changes to a three-tier system for HECS, the introduction of up-front full cost undergraduate fees or continued deregulation of the postgraduate sector. We continue to oppose those fees and charges.We have said many times in this place—unlike the Labor, Liberal or National parties—that fees are a psychological and financial disincentive to enter into and pursue higher education. For that reason, we will continue to oppose not only HECS and the premise behind it, but any additional fees and charges that this, or any other government seeks to impose on students. Not only that, we believe in a livable income for students. We believe in financial support, in the form of Austudy and Abstudy as well as a common youth allowance. This is another lost opportunity by this government to ensure that students—especially those from lower income households and disadvantaged backgrounds—had an opportunity to pursue education and training in a way that did not add to the financial and other pressures on their family members.We believe that education is a vital part of achieving an enlightened and democratic society, not only in providing economic benefits to this nation—as it inevitably does—but also in ensuring that people have better employment opportunities and prospects, whether it is through the attainment of a degree or a diploma or through other apprenticeships and traineeships. We believe very strongly that the abolition of fees opened up our tertiary institutions to those groups who had previously been locked out or disadvantaged. That is why we condemn both the old parties for imposing fees and charges.We will be supporting the second reading amendment, but with the qualification of our acknowledgment that the former government was also responsible for beginning the process of fee charging and running down our higher education sector when it came to inadequate funding per full-time student unit. We will be supporting this legislation, but we condemn the government for continually starving this sector in a way that will not lead to a more enlightened, democratic and educated society.16:24:00515Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—The second reading debate on the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill gives me an opportunity to speak about an area in which I have had quite a number of years experience. Let me begin by saying that this is, unfortunately, one of those bills to which we are forced to agree because our hands are tied. It is a bit like throwing crumbs to seagulls—probably dried old crusts, at that—because the bill reflects a continuing slide in and lack of recognition by this government of higher education and, in particular, universities.Gone are the days when we believed that we would finish our secondary education and go to a university, and that would be it. Education now is not a once-only process: it is a lifelong learning process. People around this country undertake additional study either to improve their careers or because they want a completely different career, a career change. But under the Howard government, we have seen the nature of higher education in this country significantly change. This change has caused untold damage. The slashing of funding has raised the barrier to access that education, as has the doubling of the HECS fees. Overall we have seen a decrease in the number of applications for university places.The saddest thing about this bill is that, for the first time, we are seeing the massive cuts which were first announced in 1996 being made by the Howard government to university operating grants. This is the first time that the government has sought to bring such cuts before the chamber by way of legislation. This bill sets out the maximum operating grants for universities in 1999 and the year 2000. As I said, the government has introduced legislation to implement the massive cuts which were announced in 1996.Let us go back to 1996. In an election environment, we had a commitment from the Prime Minister that he would maintain levels of funding to universities in terms of operating grants. In 1999 operating grants will fall by $590 million. In the year 2000 they will be slashed by a further $140 million to $730 million less than they were in 1996. So much for the commitment to maintain a level of funding to universities!Under the provisions of the Higher Education Funding Act the higher education system is funded on a calendar basis and funding is provided on a rolling triennial basis, which means that the level of funding is known for at least three years. This does, to some extent, provide the universities with some certainty about the level of funding they can expect. It should enable them to look forward to some better planning. This bill appropriates funds for 1999 and the year 2000 and provides supplementation for price movements and additional superannuation expenses incurred by institutions in 1998.I want to refer to the funding of institutions by the Commonwealth for a maximum number of student places. The level of Commonwealth funding is negotiated between universities and the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. The framework for this funding was criticised and reviewed in the final report of the West committee's Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy, which was published in April of this year. Although we should note that the government has yet to make its formal response to the West committee report, I would like to put it on the record that David Kemp has said, and we welcome his statement, that the federal government has no intention of introducing a voucher system for universities. One would hope that it is a commitment that the minister will uphold, unlike the commitment of the Prime Minister in the 1996 election.The major funding decisions for higher education for the current three-year period were announced in the 1996-97 budget. The forward estimates for higher education operating grants were reduced by one per cent in 1997, a further three per cent this year and a further one per cent in each of 1999 and the year 2000. That takes the maximum reduction, over that period, to as high as five per cent.This bill gives us an opportunity to highlight the tragic downward trend that the government has failed to recognise. The government has failed to recognise the importance of higher education to individuals and to this nation. In his second reading speech the minister said that this government has a substantial investment in education. But, as I have just outlined, that investment is slowly decreasing by one and two per cent each year.He goes on to say:Australia already has a good higher education system, but there is always scope for improvement.How is that improvement meant to occur when learning institutions and not businesses are subject to the reductions in funds and operating grants to the extent that they are in this day and age?The minister goes on to say that the bill:. . . aims to continue to increase access to post secondary education, including higher education, so that all who can benefit will have access.It is really all those who can afford it these days who will benefit from it and have access to it.Mr Kemp goes on to say in his speech:The government has created an extra 10,000 Commonwealth funded places for undergraduate students in the past two years.But the figures contained in the Higher Education Funding Report compiled by the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs tell a very different story. The total number of fully subsidised Commonwealth university places in 1998 under the federal coalition government is 412,555. The total number of fully subsidised Commonwealth places there would have been in 1998 if we had continued to have had a Labor government for the last two or so years would have been 428,725. That is 16,180 fewer university places than would have existed had Labor won the 1996 election.These figures are drawn from the Higher Education Funding Reports for the 1996-98 and the 1998-2000 trienniums. Whose name appears on the front of the Higher Education Funding Report for the 1998-2000 triennium? Dr David Kemp. So is the minister disputing his own figures or has he purposely misled the parliament and the people of Australia? Are these the actions of a government committed to improving and increasing educational opportunities for Australians?Tertiary education is the key to future economic growth in this country. All modern economies require a highly skilled and adaptable work force and universities offer this opportunity. The changing economy requires all people to constantly upgrade their skills or even gain skills in new fields. This requires a system which allows people to move in and out of training throughout their lives, described by the OECD as a shift from mass to universal tertiary education. We should recognise that further education is the key to future prosperity.But the Howard government has singled out our education system for exceptionally harsh treatment. Universities accounted for over 25 per cent of the total cuts in the 1996 budget and this has resulted in a loss of over 3,000 staff positions. This undermines the ability of university staff to deliver high quality education, research and community services, with staff working harder and longer to support students through their education. Tuition fees charged under the Higher Education Contributions Scheme, or HECS, have increased between 35 and 125 per cent and ex-students are now forced to begin repaying their HECS fees when they are earning as little as $21,000.In 1998 we witnessed the enrolment of approximately 600 students across seven universities paying up to $120,000 for a university degree, while students with similar scores but no money missed out.The most accurate measure of the educational hopes of the community is the number of applications for admission to higher education. According to DETYA, university applications in 1997 dropped by 3.3 per cent. Applications for university study in 1998 dropped by a further 3.1 per cent. As a result of the funding cuts inflicted by the Howard government there are 5,000 fewer fully publicly subsidised places in our university system. There are also approximately 17,000 fewer HECS liable postgraduate places.Senator Stott Despoja was correct in saying that I would stand before this parliament and put on record the effect that this has had on the one and only university in the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory University. The Northern Territory University employs about 650 Territorians and provides educational opportunities for over 11,000 people in remote parts of the Northern Territory and the Top End. The tertiary education system in the Darwin region brings in more than $30 million to the local economy. Territorians have fought long and hard to ensure that they have their own education system and are not forced to go interstate to get an education.But the value which universities add to our community is being jeopardised. Due to the Howard budget cuts, government funding to our university has dropped by 5.5 per cent between 1996 and 1998. This has resulted in the loss of hope amongst those who want to study—new university enrolments in the territory dropped by 14 per cent in 1997, by far the largest decrease in the country—and a loss of choice for those who want to study without having to move interstate.In this parliament we have heard many times about the loss of the English Department and three dimensional studies in fine arts in the Faculty of Arts at the Northern Territory University. The university is currently undergoing a further restructuring program to reduce its faculties from nine to five. One of those at risk is the Faculty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.Last week the Northern Territory University was the first university to be recognised by the Australian Quality Council. It was recognised in the Australian Quality Awards for Business Excellence. I guess I should be saying that this is a wonderful achievement and that the university should be proud of its endeavours—and so it should. But let us ask this: why isn't this university gaining awards for its excellence in education outcomes and for its ability to produce world's best practice research? Why is it that the university, in order to survive, to put its name on the map and to continue to excel in rural and regional Australia, needs to be recognised as if it were a business operation, as if it were operating in a world league such as banks or mining companies? It was recognised at the business improvement level.The NTU achieved the awards against seven criteria: leadership, information and analysis strategy, planning, processes, products and services, customer focus, and organisational performance. But there is very little amongst those seven categories that actually relates to academic achievement, curriculum development, provision of open learning or access for students who need it in rural and remote Australia.The NT University began the quality venture in 1993, at the same time as the federal government's contentious quality assurance exercise was being implemented across the higher education sector. It commenced the process in those days to build upon the funding levels it was getting and to further put its name on the map in relation to northern Australia. After that had finished, the university switched to a framework similar to that of the Quality Council, a move that the Vice-Chancellor, Ron McKay, said dramatically improved its performance. The quality report shows significant growth, particularly in research activity, income and capital infrastructure.As well as receiving a number of awards, the NT University has increased efficiency flowing from the use of technologies such as online admissions and enrolments. So, yes, it is an achievement for the NT University, and it is something that we should congratulate the university on. But it is a sad indictment that it has had to look to the Australian Quality Awards for Business Excellence in order to put its name on the map. It is a sad indictment that the Howard government has failed to recognise how much a regional university such as the NT University struggles to maintain student enrolments—and we have seen where that did not happen in 1997, with a 14 per cent reduction—and struggles to sell its courses overseas and look for an expanding market. In order to improve its name the university can longer rely on what support it can get from the federal government but has to turn to quality awards through business excellence. So I would like to put on the record my congratulations to the Northern Territory University. It has done an amazing job in a climate where its funds are in a downward spiral and are being disregarded by the federal parliament.As I have said before, this bill legislates for the first time the massive cuts that the government announced for the university sector in 1996. It highlights a government that has failed to realise the importance of higher education to individuals and the nation. It certainly fails to recognise the unique struggle that regional universities such as the Northern Territory University have to go through, and it demonstrates, I think quite remarkably, that the government is treating education simply as a cost measurement to the budget—as a way of balancing the books instead of a way of improving educational outcomes in this country.16:40:00518Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I thank honourable senators on the other side for their contributions. I say at the outset that the government will be opposing strenuously Senator Carr's amendment to the second reading motion. It does so on the basis that the amendment is completely erroneous in what it says. The proposed amendment alleges that there has been a huge cut in funding to universities which has resulted in some 21,000 fewer fully funded student places. I bring to the Senate's attention the fact that the number of fully funded undergraduate places will increase to just over 650,000 in the year 2000. In fact, fully funded Commonwealth undergraduate places increased by over 10,000 between 1996—Labor's last year in power—and 1998. So what we have is an increase in fully funded Commonwealth undergraduate places. When one looks at all students, including fee-paying students, the total number is projected to increase by over 27,000 between 1996 and the year 2000.This is hardly a picture of doom and gloom, as the opposition and the Democrats would have the Australian public believe. What we have, and what we went to the people of Australia with recently in the federal election, is a very positive platform in relation to higher education. The coalition stated during the election campaign that it would be increasing the number of fully publicly funded undergraduate places in universities by another 4,000 by the year 2000. The coalition pledged that it would continue to protect the rights of Australian students to enter universities on the same terms as overseas students when all fully publicly funded places had been taken up. As well as that, the coalition pledged that it would increase funding above previously announced levels for research infrastructure by over $90 million over the next three years—again, another measure which is a very positive step in relation to higher education in this country.The coalition announced that it would increase funding above previously announced levels for strategic partnerships—that is, the essential partnerships between industry and universities in relation to training and research. Funding for that is to be just over $58 million over three years. In fact research training opportunities will expand, with more than 26,000 research degree student places projected for the year 2000 compared with fewer than 22,000 in 1996. What we have here are very positive steps indeed in relation to higher education in Australia.I say to the Australian public that when you have this sort of political stunt, where you have a second reading amendment alleging that this government has slashed funding to universities, resulting in fewer funded places, you need to look at the record of this government over the last two or three years and look at what we have pledged to provide. More importantly, look at the bill that we have here in the Senate today. This is a bill that provides not only for the appropriations for universities next year but also for some important aspects such as extra funding for James Cook University in Queensland, funding for the strategic partnerships—I have mentioned that that involved over $58 million over three years and that it will involve research and research training partnerships between universities and industry—and further funding for Australian Education International, which is involved in the marketing and promoting of Australian education overseas.It is perhaps worth while to remind the Senate that the export of education in this country entails some $3.4 billion, which makes it one of our biggest export markets. I do not think many Australians appreciate that. That is hardly likely to occur in a situation where, as the opposition and Democrats say, there is such a terrible state of affairs in relation to higher education. What we have is an increase in intake of overseas students. What we have is Australia enjoying a very high reputation in relation to its tertiary education sector. That can occur only if the environment for that sector is a good one. It can occur only if the government of the day is taking the right steps in relation to that sector, and indeed we are.In this bill is another matter which is somewhat close to my heart as a West Australian, and that is funding in relation to the Notre Dame University. For some time now we have provided funding on a discretionary basis, and that will now be set on a recurrent basis. The Notre Dame University in Western Australia has an exceptional history in relation to indigenous education. I have visited the campus in Broome on more than one occasion, and I can recommend to senators, if ever they have the chance, a visit to the campus, and also the one in Fremantle. This is an institution that has not been entirely reliant on taxpayer funding but has been the result of the initiative of individuals who have got together on a voluntary basis to set up what I believe to be one of the finest universities in this country. We as a government believe that there should be flexibility in the tertiary education sector. The point that I have just made in relation to Notre Dame is such a case in point, where there is flexibility and where the efforts of private individuals can result in great value to the community.What we have also provided for is the option for fee paying places. Of course, this provides more opportunity for Australians to engage in tertiary education. Senator Stott Despoja attacked the government in relation to the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, and I note also attacked the opposition, which also supported the scheme when it was in government. HECS, as it is commonly known, is not an impediment to access to higher education; in fact, the enrolment data suggests the contrary. When one looks at the Higher Education Council report on HECS between 1996 and 1997, the largest rise in the number of commencing students occurred in law. That rise was 18 per cent, and that was in a discipline which has the highest HECS category. That would suggest that HECS does not act as any impediment to access to higher education.Last night we had the Australian awards for university teaching. That was indeed a great innovation, brought in by this government, which celebrates the teaching which occurs in our universities. It recognises the excellent work that is going on in the tertiary sector. I congratulate the University of Queensland and the University of Tasmania, which were joint winners of the institutional award for services to Australian students. That award recognises the focus that those universities place on quality teaching and learning outcomes. I also congratulate the University of Canberra and the University of Melbourne, which were joint winners of the award for services to support the special needs of international students. Again, as a senator for Western Australia I have pleasure in congratulating Murdoch University, which was presented with a special one-off award for educational services to students in the community. These awards recognise the importance of the good work that is taking place in the tertiary education sector. It also demonstrates this government's commitment to this sector, as does this bill. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Carr's ) be agreed to.16:54:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P.Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K.* Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.33Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Herron, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G.* Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Cook, P. F. S. Macdonald, I.Bolkus, N. Alston, R. K. R.Faulkner, J. P. Heffernan, W.Bishop, M. Hill, R. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.520The bill.16:57:00520Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Minister, given your response to the amendments that the opposition has moved, I will try to put a contrary view. In speaking to the opposition amendment, you argued that there were now more students in Australian universities and that, if I understood you correctly, more money was now being spent on higher education than had been spent in the past.This strikes me as an interesting argument. It appears quite contrary to the known facts that are apparent in this matter. The government has cut $2 billion from the forward estimates of the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, has it not? A great bulk of that has come out of the higher education sector. Minister, in the words of the former assistant secretary of the department, David Phillips, has not the government reduced the number of fully funded Commonwealth places in the forward estimates by 21,000?Has it not, even in this particular measure, imposed upon this sector further reductions in terms of those forward estimates to give effect to the policy announcements made in 1996? I ask you to answer those questions, Minister, because it seems to me that there can be no fudging on this question. There can be no amount of sophistry and no attempt to confuse the public about these questions. Either there has been a reduction on the forward estimates by those sums or there has not.You speak of a total number of students. You conveniently combine in your estimates the number of Commonwealth funded places and the number of privately funded places. You seek to suggest that research infrastructure funding has increased and that the strategic partnership and various other initiatives taken by this government can compensate for the fact that close on $2 billion has been removed from this department. In terms of individual students, this has in itself had serious consequences for the level of quality services provided by Australia's universities.In this bill you talk of the measures taken, for instance, in regard to educational exports. You made a commitment some months ago that there should be some $21 million promised for new international marketing. Is it the case that that is new money or old money? Minister, I will return to these themes, but I would be interested to know if you could answer those particular questions to begin with.17:00:00521Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—As I stated at the outset, part of the sector I was addressing concerned the question of places. I stated that the number of fully funded undergraduate places will increase to just over 650,000 by the year 2000. I mentioned that the fully funded Commonwealth undergraduate places have increased by over 10,000 between 1996 and 1998. And the government stands by those figures. That is a statement of the position. If the opposition does not like that, too bad. But that is an indication of the state of good health of the tertiary education sector.If the opposition is saying that expenditure of money alone is the yardstick, I would venture that such things as research and the number of places available are also aspects which are to be measured in gauging how well a sector such as the tertiary education sector is going. As I said earlier, the total revenue available to higher education institutions from all sources in 1998 will be $8.5 million—the highest level of funding available to that sector so far.Of course, I did include the question of fee paying students in the assessment of the increase in places of 27,000 students between 1996 and the year 2000. There was no subterfuge about that, because that is an aspect of flexibility which this government has introduced to the tertiary education sector—an aspect which many Australian students are taking up and something which can only provide opportunities for Australian students. This question of fee paying positions has no mystery about it. It has been something which the government has been up-front about and it is something which I have included in forward estimates of increasing places. So there is no great mystery in that, Senator Carr.The department's publication Selected Higher Education Student Statistics—1998 Preliminary states that overall domestic student places have increased by 3,897 from the 1997 levels to a total of 464,619 in 1998. That indicates that between this year and last year there has been an increase. So that would answer your question, Senator Carr, as to where this sector is trending in relation to access to higher education, which is after all the very point that you and the Democrats are making.17:03:00521Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Minister, you have once again managed to combine the question of publicly funded places with privately funded places. You seem to believe that by some sleight of hand this will not be noticed by the education community. I trust that you would appreciate the view that it is not satisfactory, that there has been in fact a reduction of some 21,000 places on the forward estimates, as indicated by former senior officials of the department when these cuts were announced. No matter how much the government tries to duck this issue, there are in fact 21,000 fewer fully funded places available under this government than otherwise would have been the case. Minister, is it not a fact that university operating grants will fall by $590 million from the 1998 level? Is it not a fact, Minister, that in the year 2000 under this bill they will decline by a further $140 million to $730 million—below the funding levels in 1998? Are those not facts?17:05:00522Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In relation to the actual funding, the department is in the process of advising me, but the undergraduate fully funded places increase has been 351,735 in 1996 to 361,925 in 1998. In relation to the question of the amounts of money that you mention, I will take instructions on that, Senator Carr, and get back to you.17:05:00522Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Thank you, Minister. While you are there, perhaps you could provide information to the Senate on the position within this bill concerning James Cook University. You have indicated that this bill restores funding of some 450 places to the university. While the opposition clearly welcomes the restoration of these places, I think we are entitled to ask: on what basis was that calculation made? On what basis did the government choose to restore those places, which had been cut from the provision made by the government? On what basis did it conclude that other universities were not to have their places restored?17:07:00522Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The funding in relation to James Cook University, which is governed I think by clause 17 of the bill, allows for just over $4.2 million in 1999 and just over $5.1 million in the year 2000. In relation to the basis of the calculation for those places, I am instructed that that is correct, but I will get back to you on the basis of that calculation.17:08:00522Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—While you are getting back to us, there was another question I asked earlier. In fact, there are now four sets of questions that I am requiring answers to. One question relates to ancillary fees, to which I drew your attention in the discussion following the second reading of this bill. The second relates to the particular cuts that are being imposed through these legislative measures. I am arguing $590 million will be cut for 1999 and $140 million further cut in the year 2000. I am asking for confirmation or otherwise of those amounts. Thirdly, I asked about James Cook University. The fourth issue relates to the question of whether or not the allocation of $21 million for new international marketing for Australian education is in fact new moneys.17:09:00522Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Can I just clarify that? When you say Australian education, are you talking about the AEI? Is that right?AW5CARRSenator Carr—Yes.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—In relation to that fourth question, I can advise the Senate that is not new money, that it comes out of existing funding.17:09:00522Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question to the minister relates specifically to Notre Dame University. Minister, in your second reading speech you mentioned the changed arrangements for Notre Dame University. In fact, putting that into table A guarantees—although not obviously—triennial funding, not simply annual funding, and thus, presumably, a degree of certainty and stability for that institution—and I welcome stability and certainty for any institution.You can probably anticipate some of my questions. Firstly, I would like to know what other implications may arise from placing this private university in table A. I am wondering why it is not in table B along with Avondale College and Marcus Oldham College. I am wondering whether there is any reason why they should anticipate that their funding is less stable or less certain. So my first question to the minister, through the chair, is why do we have table A for Notre Dame University and not table B? Also, has consideration been given to the significance of placing a private university in this table?17:11:00522Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—There is some limit to the funding in relation to table B, and I think that deals with the ques tion of research. Table B is dealt with under section 16 of the Higher Education Funding Act. Section 15 outlines the fact that table A opens up the ability for funding to be for other purposes, so that is the significance of the change. It was thought appropriate in the circumstances to provide that to Notre Dame University.That was something which enjoyed the support of Mr Beazley, the member for Brand and Leader of the Opposition. Dr Kemp, or the government, received a letter from Mr Beazley on that very point. I cannot comment on the situation in relation to the other colleges. I am not aware whether they are under consideration or otherwise.17:12:00523Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank the minister for that answer. I would like some further information relating to the correspondence between the minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I am wondering whether the table in which Notre Dame University was to be placed was mentioned in the letter from the Leader of the Opposition, and whether this was an issue for discussion at any time. If it was, I am wondering what the nature of that discussion was.You have certainly confirmed today that the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the minister, I believe in June of this year, but I am wondering whether there was mention in that correspondence of the table in which Notre Dame was to be placed.17:13:00523Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I do not have the letter before me, nor have I seen it, although I am aware it is in existence. I am endeavouring to see whether there is a copy available here to which we can refer you. Perhaps you could raise any other issue you have while we search for that letter.17:13:00523Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Certainly. The minister will be aware that the Sunshine Coast University College is to become Australia's newest public university on 1 January. I am wondering when the government will add that particular institution to table A. Is there any particular reason why the Sunshine Coast University has not been included when the government is obviously rushing to include Notre Dame in that particular table? Will we be seeing, for example, a new bill tabled to ensure the inclusion of Sunshine Coast University in table A? Is that likely to happen? I am wondering whether the government anticipates that being included in table A.17:14:00523Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I am advised that the Sunshine Coast University is to be included in table A, and that that will require an amendment, it is envisaged, some time in the autumn sittings.I have to hand a letter dated 30 June 1998 from Mr Kim Beazley, Leader of the Opposition, to Dr David Kemp. Perhaps I can provide a copy to you, Senator Stott Despoja. It states:I understand that you are proposing to meet requests from Notre Dame by including it in the schedule of the Higher Education Funding Act. I am writing to confirm that the opposition will support the amendment to the act which is needed to achieve this on the following basis . . . The letter then outlines the special contribution which Notre Dame is making to the people of the Kimberley region and the Catholic school system throughout Western Australia. It says that the university is the sole authority for training teachers in the Catholic school system in the state. Also, it outlines the excellent contribution that the university has made in training indigenous teachers. The letter goes on to say:Such a decision would acknowledge and support the Commonwealth's responsibilities for both teacher training and indigenous education.I would endorse those comments.I do not think, Senator Stott Despoja, that there was such a rush as you outline. I think it is something that the university has been raising for some time. Certainly, this letter is dated 30 June and we now have the legislation before the Senate in late November.17:16:00523Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank the minister for that answer. I am just clarifying: there was no mention in that letter of the particular table in which Notre Dame would be placed. That is a question. I am just making sure that I did not miss that. I thank the minister for his answer in relation to the Sunshine Coast University that that would require an amendment to the act. I am just wondering why it is not being done today. Is there a particular reason?17:17:00524Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—There is firstly a matter I would raise. The letter by Mr Beazley that I referred to referred to the appropriate schedule. I think it is a fair inference, without mentioning a particular table, to say that the letter could be taken to support the transfer to table A from table B because, when one looks at the letter, it does refer to the schedule. But I think that in that respect the Leader of the Opposition is acknowledging that there would be a change in schedule in order for this funding to be afforded. I just raise that for the record.In relation to the Sunshine Coast University, there is a question of its status. The issue of independence for the Sunshine Coast University ultimately is a matter for the Queensland government. I understand that has to be sorted out before the Commonwealth goes on to consider the question of table A in legislation.17:18:00524Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Perhaps I should be asking Senator Carr if that was the intention of the Leader of the Opposition, but I thank the minister. I can understand how he would discern from that letter that that is probably its intention.I would like the minister to take on notice and provide at a later stage to the chamber, if not now, an answer to the question I asked earlier in relation to Avondale College and Marcus Oldham College remaining in table B: is there a particular reason that their funding, research or other requirements are fundamentally different from Notre Dame University or that they have any less reason to have stable and certain funding, as the minister outlined is the advantage for Notre Dame under this changed table?Minister, in your second reading speech you referred to enrolment data. I think it was in an attempt to support an argument that fees or new fee arrangements have not resulted in a decline in demand. I am just wondering, Minister, if you were talking about final enrolments or enrolment applications to support your case? You claimed that enrolments had, at one stage, increased. I hope I am not taking you out of context, but I would like to clarify whether you are suggesting that enrolment applications increased after the passage in 1996 of certain changes by this government to legislation.17:20:00524Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The reference I made was to enrolment data from the Higher Education Council report on HECS between 1996 and 1997. It clearly related to enrolment data, and it stated that the largest rise in the number of commencing students occurred in law; there was an 18 per cent increase. If that is the part that Senator Stott Despoja is referring to, then it is clearly enrolments. Before that, the question was the places that I referred to. I was referring to the number of fully funded Commonwealth undergraduate places.17:21:00524Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I will conclude my questions there. I just wanted to get a sense from the minister as to whether final enrolment numbers or enrolment applications were a better indicator of demand. I think perhaps the government should examine the number of people who have applied for various places in higher education institutions in Australia since the changed arrangements to the HECS system, that is, the introduction of the three-tiered system.I think the minister will find that, after the introduction of the three-tiered HECS system, there certainly were some changes to enrolment applications, but that there were not necessarily greater numbers. There was certainly a decrease in many places when it came to enrolment applications, even if final enrolments remained steady or even increased in some places. I would suggest to the minister that perhaps a better indicator of demand and ability or willingness to partici pate is the number of people applying for enrolments.I do not necessarily wish to engage in the same debate that I had on this matter with Senator Vanstone, but I suggest that this minister will be able to respond without making personal comments.17:22:00525Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Section 17 of the act refers to operating and other grants and the maximum amounts payable in relation to grants. Minister, if, as you said, this government has a commitment to providing a higher education system for this country that is second to none, could you explain why paragraph 17(j) in the bill has three additional amounts for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000, which will take the amount of operating grants from around $3.8 billion in the year 2000 down to $3.1 billion? If that is the case, how do you propose that universities will be able to exist at current levels, given that reduction in funding?17:23:00525Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Can I just clarify, Madam Temporary Chairman, whether Senator Crossin is referring to the act or the bill. I think Senator Crossin said section 17 of the bill.17:23:00525Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I am referring to the bill at paragraph 17(j), which is marked as item 3. It refers to paragraph 17 in chapter 2 of the act.17:24:00525Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I have found it. Thank you for that. In relation to that I can advise the Senate that the reason for that, on the face of it, reduction is that during the years 1999 and 2000 you have an allowance for funding coming from the Higher Education Contribution Scheme trust fund so that you will have supplementation of moneys going to universities.This is money direct from the Commonwealth, the government, but that does not necessarily mean that universities are down by that amount because it is taking into account the funds that the universities will be receiving from that Higher Education Contribution Scheme trust fund. That is the fund that receives HECS, and then the universities receive that funding accordingly. That is why that was adjusted. In fact, when you compare it with the act, you will see that the figures in the act have been amended. They had to be amended because the government has changed the HECS scheme. That allowed for a difference in supplementation of funds to universities, which in turn impacted on the Commonwealth's direct funding.17:26:00525Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Similarly, Minister, you might be able to clarify for me the reduction in figures. Turn the page to No. 7 of the bill, where it refers to paragraphs 23C(2)(e) and (f), paragraph 23C being the paragraph in the act. That cross-references to grants no doubt for special research assistance for teaching and research postgraduate awards, research fellowships and so on. You might like to explain to the Senate why there is a reduction in that funding over the next three years.17:27:00525Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I am getting instructions on how that works. It does involve a transfer of funding, as I understand, and that detail is being provided to me. If we have another matter, perhaps we can go on with that and I will get further detail for you on it.17:27:00525Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Minister, in relation to your previous answer on paragraph 17, you talked about adjusted amounts and money coming from the way in which the Commonwealth is utilising HECS differently now. Is this from an amount that will be guaranteed over the next three years or is it HECS that is projected to be obtained from students that are yet to enrol or complete courses?17:28:00525Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Those figures are based on projections.17:28:00525Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—So what guarantees can you give us that, if those projections are not correct forthwith, universities may well be operating in the next three years with amounts of money significantly less than they have now?17:28:00526Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—That is something that the government will have to review on the day, but we do not envisage that those projections will be incorrect. We envisage that there will be, by virtue of that funding, sufficient security for the tertiary education sector.17:29:00526Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Minister, is it the case that this bill seeks to provide funding for Open Learning organisations in 1999 and 2000 and that you are deregulating fees for Open Learning in that process?17:30:00526Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I am at a loss to see the provision in relation to open learning. I am advised there has been no change in the policy in relation to that. Perhaps you could point to the provision in the bill which deals with that.17:30:00526Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Is it the case that you are not allowing students to defer repayments of those fees?17:30:00526Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—That is perhaps a different question. I need to take that on notice and get back to you.17:31:00526Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I would seek the advice of the department on this matter on what assessments have been made of the implications of such a policy and whether it is the case, in the view of the department, that the failure to allow the deferment would raise substantial financial barriers to prospective students who wish to undertake facilities made available by the open learning arrangements.17:31:00526Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Concerning the question of the deferment and any assessment made of that, I think it is best that that be taken on notice. The department will provide that information.17:31:00526Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Minister, you gave me an answer before about the basis on which projections will be made in relation to the future payment of HECS. Can you clarify for me on what basis those projections are based?17:32:00526Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—They have been based on the changes to the Higher Education Contribution Scheme which this government brought about I think in 1996.17:31:00526Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—But surely you cannot actually project future or possible enrolments or payment of HECS fees just based on a change of your policy. There must be something more accurate than that on which you base your projections.17:32:00526Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The question I answered was in relation to what I had said previously and that related to the change in policy. As to the general projection on the question of HECS payments, that is one of general application. The department will have to provide me with the detail of that and I will give it to you. I will take that on notice.17:32:00526Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—There are a number of questions being taken on notice, Minister. When do you anticipate we will be able to get responses to these issues?17:32:00526Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I envisage they will shortly be to hand. I will endeavour to have them to you as soon as possible. In relation to the question of the transfer of funds from Senator Crossin, I can give you the answer now. That related to the question of research funding mentioned in paragraph 23C(2)(e) and (f) on page 4. Is that right?7Y6CROSSINSenator Crossin—Special resources?9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—No. We will have to get back to you on that, Senator Crossin. If that is the one you are referring to, this does not relate to that.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Minister, that relates to one of the questions asked by Senator Crossin on page 4, paragraphs 23C(2)(e) and (f). If that is what you are addressing, that was certainly the area of one of the questions.7Y6CROSSINSenator Crossin—It cross-references back to section 23 of chapter 2 of the act which talks about special research assistance. There are actually six key areas which define that.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—In that case, that will have to be taken on notice.17:34:00527Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Minister, you have mentioned research in your survey of the government's achievements. Recently, there was press speculation concerning what is presented as a secret plan by the government, presumably through the department, to abolish the system of peer review for research grants. Can you advise the Senate what actions are being proposed in regard to the changes to the Australian Research Council? Professor Max Brennan, past chair of the ARC, said that these measures, as outlined in the press, `would set the clock back 30 years to a time before the enlightened Liberal governments established the ARCC, the main forerunner to the ARC'. What actions is the government taking in regard to so-called reform of the research grants allocations?17:36:00527Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I am not aware of any changes that are planned to the ARC. I am aware of a discussion paper which is anticipated by the government, but that is all that it is—a discussion paper.17:36:00527Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—It may well be just a discussion paper, Minister, but it has not seen the light of day. Is it the intention of the government to release this discussion paper and, if so, when?17:36:00527Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—That will be a decision for the minister concerned, Dr Kemp. That decision no doubt will be taken once that paper has been prepared. I cannot pre-empt his decision.17:36:00527Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—From your answer, I understand that the paper is not yet complete, that it is only in draft format.Progress reported.Committees527527Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be appointed to committees as follows:Community Affairs Legislation CommitteeSenators Bartlett, Denman, Eggleston, Evans, Knowles and Lightfoot.Participating members: Senators Brown, Colston, Harradine, Lees, Margetts and Woodley.Community Affairs References CommitteeSenators Bartlett, Crowley, Evans, Forshaw, Gibbs, Knowles, Patterson and Payne.Participating members: Senators Brown, Colston, Harradine, Margetts, O'Brien and West.Economics Legislation CommitteeSenators Chapman, Cook, Ferguson, Murphy, Murray and Watson.Participating members: Senators Brown, Colston, Harradine, Margetts and Quirke.Economics References CommitteeSenators Chapman, Conroy, Cook, Ferguson, Heffernan, Murphy, Murray and Sherry.Participating members: Senators Brown, Colston, Harradine, Margetts and Quirke.Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation CommitteeSenators Carr, Collins, Ferris, Stott Despoja, Synon and Tierney.Substitute members: Senator Crane to substitute for Senator Synon and Senator Murray to substitute for Senator Stott Despoja for matters relating to Workplace Relations and Small Business.Participating members: Senators Allison, Brown, George Campbell, Colston, Harradine, Margetts and O'Brien.Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References CommitteeSenators Carr, Collins, Crossin, Ferris, Hutchins, Stott Despoja, Synon and Tierney.Substitute members: Senator Murray to substitute for Senator Stott Despoja for matters relating to Workplace Relations and Small Business.Participating members: Senators Allison, Brown, George Campbell, Colston, Harradine, Margetts and O'Brien.Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation CommitteeSenators Allison, Bishop, Bolkus, Eggleston, Lightfoot and Payne.Senator Tierney to substitute for Senator Lightfoot for matters relating to Communications and the Arts.Senator Stott Despoja to substitute for Senator Allison for matters relating to Information Technology. Participating members: Senators Bartlett, Bourne, Brown, George Campbell, Carr, Colston, Harradine, Lees, Margetts and Stott Despoja.Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References CommitteeSenators Allison, Bishop, Bolkus, Eggleston, Lundy, O'Chee, Reynolds and Tierney.Substitute members: Senator Stott Despoja to substitute for Senator Allison for matters relating to Information Technology.Participating members: Senators Bartlett, Brown, George Campbell, Carr, Colston, Harradine, Lees, Margetts and Stott Despoja.Finance and Public Administration Legislation CommitteeSenators Brownhill, Conroy, Gibson, Murray, Ray and Watson.Participating members: Senators Brown, Colston, Harradine and Margetts.Finance and Public Administration References CommitteeSenators George Campbell, Conroy, Faulkner, Lightfoot, Lundy, Murray, Synon and Watson.Participating members: Senators Allison, Brown, Colston, Harradine and Margetts.Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation CommitteeSenators Bourne, Ferris, Hogg, Sandy Macdonald, Payne and Schacht.Participating members: Senators Brown, Colston, Harradine and Margetts.Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References CommitteeSenators Eggleston, Gibbs, Hogg, Lightfoot, Sandy Macdonald, Quirke, West and Woodley.Participating members: Senators Brown, Colston, Harradine and Margetts.Legal and Constitutional Legislation CommitteeSenators Coonan, Cooney, McKiernan, O'Chee, Payne and Stott Despoja.Participating members: Senators Bartlett, Brown, Colston, Harradine and Margetts.Legal and Constitutional References CommitteeSenators Coonan, Cooney, Hutchins, McKiernan, O'Chee, Payne, Quirke and Stott Despoja.Participating members: Senators Brown, Colston, Harradine and Margetts.Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation CommitteeSenators Calvert, Crane, Forshaw, McGauran, Mackay and Woodley. Participating members: Senators Bartlett, Brown, Colston, Harradine, Margetts and O'Brien.Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References CommitteeSenators Calvert, Crane, Forshaw, Heffernan, Mackay, Murphy, O'Brien and Woodley.Participating members: Senators Bartlett, Brown, Colston, Harradine, Margetts and West.Appropriations and Staffing—Standing CommitteeSenators Boswell, Bourne, Ian Macdonald, Parer, Ray and Schacht.House—Standing CommitteeSenators Brownhill, Calvert, Carr, Collins, Gibbs and Knowles.Library—Standing CommitteeSenators Boswell, Crowley, Denman, Gibson, Sherry and Tambling.Privileges—Standing CommitteeSenators Coonan, Eggleston, Evans, Knowles, Payne, Ray and Sherry.Procedure—Standing CommitteeSenators Bourne, Carr, Eggleston, Ferguson, Heffernan and Ray.Publications—Standing CommitteeSenators Bishop, Calvert, Chapman Crossin, Sandy Macdonald, McKiernan, and Sherry.Regulations and Ordinances—Legislative Scrutiny Standing CommitteeSenators Gibbs, Hutchins, McGauran, O'Chee and Payne.Scrutiny of Bills—Legislative Scrutiny Standing CommitteeSenators Coonan, Cooney, Crane, Crossin, Ferris and Murray.Selection of Bills—Standing CommitteeSenators Ian Campbell, Coonan, Denman and Quirke.Senators' Interests—Standing CommitteeSenators Abetz, Allison, Brownhill, Collins, Denman, Hutchins, Ian Macdonald and Mackay.Committees528528Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator Lees:(1) That the economic theories, assumptions, calculations, projections, estimates and modelling which underpinned the Government's proposals for taxation reform, contained in Tax Reform: not a new tax, a new tax system , be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in February 1999.(2) That, in conducting its inquiry, the committee examine the following matters:(a) the estimated levels of revenue to be generated or foregone due to the proposed changes, including the estimated level of revenue to be generated by imposing a goods and services tax (GST) on the basic necessities of life (such as food, clothing, shelter and essential services) and books;(b) the effects of the proposed changes on: (i) national Gross Domestic Product, (ii) national export performance and national debt, (iii) the national Consumer Price Index, and (iv) the distribution of wealth in the Australian community;(c) the effects of the package on future federal budget revenues, expenditures and surpluses, including a critical assessment of the economic assumptions underpinning the Treasury's projections in this regard;(d) the effects of the taxation and compensation package on disposable income and household spending power for a range of `cameo profiles', including but not limited to those presented in the proposals, under the following scenarios: (i) a GST extended to the necessities of life (such as food, clothing, shelters and essential services), and (ii) a GST not extended to the necessities of life (such as food, clothing, shelters and essential services); with the aim of identifying families and groups who may be disadvantaged by the Government's proposals, focusing on lower and fixed income individuals, families with dependent children or adult members, groups and organisations, and those with special needs, such as people with disabilities;(e) the assumptions made as to consumption and saving patterns and the cost of living for the various `cameo profiles';(f) whether the stated objectives of the package can be met by using an alternative and fairer approach; and(g) such other matters as the committee considers fall within the scope of this inquiry.(3) That the following matters be referred to references committees in accordance with the schedule below, and that in undertaking these inquiries the committees have regard to the report of the Economics References Committee referred to in paragraph (1) and consult widely, holding hearings in all states and territories. The committees will report by the last Thursday of April 1999, with the exception of the Economics References Committee, which will report by the last Thursday of May, which will have regard to the reports of the other references committees, and will integrate the findings of all committees wherever relevant in its final report. The Economics References Committee may also issue other interim reports on completion of discrete areas of its reference: CommitteeMatters for InquiryEconomicsThe broad economic effects of the Governments' taxation reform legislation proposals with regard to the fairness of the tax system, the living standards of Australian households (especially those on low incomes), the efficiency of the economy, and future public revenues, including:(a)the effects on equity, efficiency and compliance costs of including, or not including, food or other necessities of life in the GST, together with any related adjustments to the package if food or other necessities of life were GST zero-rated;(b)the effectiveness of the package in easing the poverty traps facing people on low incomes, and reforming and streamlining tax and income support for families with children, taking into account the static and life-cycle impacts on families with children;(c)options for amending the income tax schedule to make it more equitable;(d)the findings of the Tax Consultative Committee chaired by David Vos;(e)options for improving the effectiveness and fairness of the tax system and reducing inequitable or unreasonable tax avoidance and minimisation, including consideration of the following areas: (i)taxation of foreign companies operating in Australia, including the relative merits of resource rent taxes, royalties or land taxes as compared to company tax in securing a fair compensation to Australia for use of its resources; (ii)the use of trusts; (iii)negative gearing; (iv)the use of private company structures by individuals to minimise personal income tax on labour or investment income; (v)artificial income splitting and whether spouses should be able to elect for partnership taxation; (vi)work related income tax deductions; and (vii)reducing the concessional treatment under the Fringe Benefits Tax on company cars;(f)the potential for tax avoidance and evasion, including an examination of the effects on the cash economy, and the potential impact of electronic commerce on the future viability of a GST;(g)the effects on compliance costs(h)the potential for reducing payroll tax, including by providing incentives to create long-term employment and by replacing payroll tax with a carbon tax;(i)restoration of the 150% tax concession for research and development;(j)whether there are other means available for rebating or reducing the indirect taxes or excessive user charges embedded in exporters costs;(k)Capital Gains Tax, including the implications of the suggested 30% cap on the CGT rate;(l)excises, including those on fuel, tobacco and alcohol—identifying the industries which benefit, and to what extent, from the proposed changes to taxes on fuels;(m)the effects on interest rates;(n)the effects on investment, in both physical and human capital formation;(o)the effects on small business;(p)the effects on the non-profit sector, including the total amounts of money contributed by the sector, administrative costs, impacts on the viability of the organisations, and the consequent effects on the wellbeing of the community;(q)the effects of the GST on particular industries, including: (i)key service industries such as tourism; (ii)the Australian automobile and related industries, having particular regard to the effects of changes to fuel excises; (iii)other `invisible' export industries, such as education and financial services; and (iv)the international competitiveness generally of Australian industries;(r)the implications of not requiring that the GST component of goods and services be itemised on receipts; and(s)options for amending the proposed legislation to improve its fairness of efficiency.Community AffairsThe impacts of the Government's taxation reform legislation proposals on the living standards of Australian households (especially those on low incomes), including:(a)the scope and effectiveness of the proposed arrangements on charities, child care services, aged care services, welfare services, local government human services and all not-for-profit organisations in maintaining the quality and affordability of essential community services, including the implications for the public funding of these services and the implications for the commercial activities of these organisations, and whether unconditional GST-free status should apply to bona fide charities;(b)a detailed examination of the zero-rating of health services, including an examination of which services should be zero-rated;(c)the effects on community sector organisations and local government of changes to their tax exempt status, and compliance costs of the proposed tax arrangements;(d)the effects of the proposed private health insurance rebate;(e)the effects on people with disabilities;(f)the effects on public and community housing, including the levels of public rents; and(g)options for amendments to improve the fairness or efficiency of the proposed legislation.Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and EducationThe employment incentive and education impacts of the Governments' taxation reform legislation proposals, including:(a)the scope and effectiveness of the proposed zero-rating arrangements for education in maintaining its quality, accessibility and affordability;(b)the effects on employment;(c)the effects of the proposed GST treatment on the quality, accessibility and affordability of employment services;(d)the effects on education of imposing a GST on, or zero-rating or exempting books and associated education resources;(e)the effects on education of imposing a GST on ancillary resources, services and commercial activities, including the effects on overseas students;(f)the effects of the proposed changes to the tax system on employment;(g) the effects on wage costs, particularly if the basic necessities of life are taxed;(h)the scope and effectiveness of changing the unemployment benefits, pensions and Newstart Allowance `tapers';(i)the effects of the proposed changes to the tax system on training and adult education; and(j)options for amendments to improve the fairness or efficiency of the proposed legislation. Environment, Communications and the ArtsThe broad environmental effects of the Governments' taxation reform legislation proposals, including:(a)the environmental effects, and likely impacts of changes to fuel excises, particularly but not only diesel, and the replacement of WST with GST on vehicles and other transport services including: (i)possible increases in greenhouse gas emissions; (ii)increases by amount and type of air pollution; (iii)the effect on public and rail transport; (iv)the effect on alternative energy use in transport including, but not limited to, compressed natural gas; (v)the effects on native forest logging or woodchipping; and (vi)the effects on mining in environmentally sensitive areas due to the taxation proposals;(b)the environmental effects of the replacement of Wholesale Sales Tax by the GST and associated changes in fuel excises on electricity and natural gas;(c)the impacts of the proposal tax changes on the prices and existing and potential use of renewable energy particulary but not only solar energy technology and energy efficiency equipment(d)the environmental effects of any changes to taxes on exports;(e)the consistency or otherwise of the proposed changes in taxation and excise arrangements with Australia's international treaty obligations, including its obligations under the Framework Convention on Climate Change;(f)options for a tax system which better achieve environmental objectives, including incentives for fuel efficiency and alternative energy sources, such as measures which promote both environmental protection and employment generation;(g)the extent to which environmental impacts such as these were considered in the drafting and final copy of the Government's tax package;(h)the scope of any consultation on environmental matters with experts in Environment Australia or any other Government departments other than the Treasury and Finance departments;(i)the impact of a GST on ticket sales for the performing arts;(j)the effect of a GST on the transfer of grant monies for arts projects;(k)the effects of the tax proposals on sponsorship provided by the private sector to individual artists and arts organisations;(l)the extent to which the package will block consideration and introduction of `ecotaxes';(m)the effect of a GST on not-for-profit conservation and arts organisations; and (n)options for improving the environmental effects of the package. Finance and Public AdministrationThe effects of the Government's taxation reform legislation proposals on state and local government administration, including: (a)the effects of the package on future federal-state financial relations and the capacities of state and local governments to adequately finance their respective responsibilities in both the short-term and the long-term, including the effects of the proposed transfer of responsibility for local government financial assistance to the states, and whether it discriminates between states; (b)the implications for specific purpose programs; (c)mechanisms required to lock in commitments made by federal and state governments with regard to the new arrangements; (d)the implications for future federal-state financial relations of not extending the GST to the necessities of life (such as food, clothing, shelter and essential services) and books, and any adjustments to the proposed arrangements which would be required to federal-state financial relations; (e)the implications of the package for the quality and affordability of public utility services and for the public utility concessions for social security recipients; (f)the effect of application of the GST to local government activities, particularly commercial activities; (g)the implications for the delivery of Commonwealth Government services, including employment services, welfare and other social and cultural services; (h)the extent to which the proposed compensation arrangements are secure from change to below adequate levels (i)adequacy of measures to ensure that consumers fully benefit from the abolition of existing taxes; and (j)options for improving the effects of the package.Rural and Regional Affairs and TransportThe effects of the taxation reform legislation proposals on rural and regional stakeholders, including: (a)the effects on particular regions; (b)the effects of rural and regional communities of different tax regimes on fuel—especially the cost of transport of goods to rural communities; (c)the effects on primary industry of replacing the current sales tax exemption on agricultural machinery with a GST; (d)the effects of imposing a GST on food and other necessities of life on remote communities, including Aboriginal and Islander communities; and (e)options for improving the effects of the package, including mitigating any adverse effects of the proposed tax reforms on rural and remote communities. Legal and ConstitutionalThe effects of the taxation reform legislation proposals on legal and constitutional matters, including: (a)the constitutionality of the proposed mechanism for future changes to the GST, including whether such changes would present a significant hurdle to future increases, or reductions if deemed necessary to stimulate the economy; (b)the constitutionality of the proposed reorganisation of federal-state tax arrangements and whether the powers and functions of states and territories are materially affected by this reorganisation; (c)the effects of the proposals on the cost of access to justice; and (d)options for improving the effects of the package in these areas.(4) That consideration of any legislation implementing the Government's proposals for taxation reform be postponed until after presentation of all reports required by this resolution, and until after presentation of the Government's responses to these reports.17:38:00534Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I seek leave to amend the motion that is before the chamber to the revised version, No. 1156.Leave granted.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—The amended motion reads:(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on a New Tax System, be established to inquire into and report, on or before 18 February 1999, on the economic theories, assumptions, calculations, projections, estimates and modelling which underpinned the Government's proposals for taxation reform, contained in Tax Reform: not a new tax, a new tax system .(2) That, in conducting its inquiry, the Committee examine the following matters:(a) the estimated levels of revenue to be generated or foregone due to the proposed changes, including the estimated level of revenue to be generated by imposing a GST on the basic necessities of life (such as food, clothing, shelter and essential services) and books;(b) the effects of the proposed changes on: (i) national Gross Domestic Product (ii) national export performance and national debt (iii) the national Consumer Price Index (iv) the distribution of wealth in the Australian community; (c) the effects of the package on future federal budget revenues, expenditures and surpluses, including a critical assessment of the economic assumptions underpinning the Treasury's projections in this regard;(d) the effects of the taxation and compensation package on disposable income and household spending power for a range of `cameo profiles', including but not limited to those presented in the proposals, under the following scenarios: (i) a GST extended to the necessities of life (such as food, clothing, shelter and essential services); and (ii) a GST not extended to the necessities of life (such as food, clothing, shelter and essential services);(e) with the aim of identifying families and groups who may be disadvantaged by the Government's proposals, focusing on lower and fixed income individuals, families with dependent children or adult members, groups and organisations, and those with special needs, such as people with disabilities;(f) the assumptions made as to consumption and saving patterns and the cost of living for the various "cameo profiles";(g) whether the stated objectives of the package can be met by using an alternative and fairer approach; and(h) such other matters as the committee considers fall within the scope of this inquiry.(3) That the Committee also inquire into and report, on or before 19 April 1999, on the broad economic effects of the Government's taxation reform legislation proposals with regard to the fairness of the tax system, the living standards of Australian households (especially those on low incomes), the effi ciency of the economy, and future public revenues, including:(a) the effects on equity, efficiency and compliance costs of including, or not including, food or other necessities of life in the GST, together with any related adjustments to the package if food or other necessities of life were GST zero-rated;(b) the effectiveness of the package in easing the poverty traps facing people on low incomes, and reforming and streamlining tax and income support for families with children, taking into account the static and life-cycle impacts on families with children;(c) options for amending the income tax schedule to make it more equitable;(d) the findings of the Tax Consultative Committee chaired by David Vos;(e) options for improving the effectiveness and fairness of the tax system and reducing inequitable or unreasonable tax avoidance and minimisation, including consideration of alternative areas for tax generation, either where there are current tax concessions or where Australia's taxation system does not address major tax potential, and without limiting the foregoing, the consideration of taxation of foreign companies operating in Australia, including the relative merits of resource rent taxes, royalties or land taxes as compared to company tax in securing a fair compensation to Australia for use of its resources, whether the 150% tax concession for research and development should be restored and whether small companies should be allowed to be taxed as partnerships.(f) the potential for tax avoidance and evasion, including an examination of the effects on the cash economy, and the potential impact of electronic commerce on the future viability of a GST;(g) the effects on compliance costs;(h) the potential for reducing payroll tax, including by providing incentives to create long-term employment and by replacing payroll tax with a carbon tax;(i) whether there are other means available for rebating or reducing the indirect taxes or excessive user charges embedded in exporters costs;(j) excises, including those on fuel, tobacco and alcohol—identifying the industries which benefit, and to what extent, from the proposed changes to taxes on fuels;(k) the effects on interest rates; (l) the effects on investment, in both physical and human capital formation;(m) the effects on small business;(n) the effects on the non-profit sector, including the total amounts of money contributed by the sector, administrative costs, impacts on the viability of the organisations, and the consequent effects on the wellbeing of the community;(o) the effects of the GST on particular industries, including: (i) key service industries such as tourism; (ii) the Australian automobile and related industries, having particular regard to the effects of changes to fuel excises; (iii) other `invisible' export industries, such as education and financial services; and (iv) the international competitiveness generally of Australian industries;(p) the implications of not requiring that the GST component of goods and services be itemised on receipts;(q) the effects of the taxation reform legislation proposals on rural and regional stakeholders, including: (i) the effects on particular regions; (ii) the effects on rural and regional communities of different tax regimes on fuel—especially the cost of transport of goods to rural communities; (iii) the effects on primary industry of replacing the current sales tax exemption on agricultural machinery with a GST; (iv) the effects of imposing a GST on food and other necessities of life on remote communities, including Aboriginal and Islander communities;(r) the effects of the Government's taxation reform legislation proposals on state and local government administration, including: (i) the effects of the package on future federal-state financial relations and the capacities of state and local governments to adequately finance their respective responsibilities in both the short-term and the long-term, including the effects of the proposed transfer of responsibility for local government financial assistance to the states, and whether it discriminates between states; (ii) the implications for specific purpose programs; (iii) mechanisms required to lock in commitments made by federal and state governments with regard to the new arrangements; (iv) the implications for future federal-state financial relations of not extending the GST to the necessities of life (such as food, clothing, shelter and essential services) and books, and any adjustments to the proposed arrangements which would be required to federal-state financial relations; (v) the implications of the package for the quality and affordability of public utility services and for the public utility concessions for social security recipients; (vi) the effect of application of the GST, and of changes to tax status, on local government and its activities, particularly commercial activities; (vii) the implications for the delivery of Commonwealth Government services, including employment services, welfare and other social and cultural services; (viii) the extent to which the proposed compensation arrangements are secure from change to below adequate levels;(s) the adequacy of measures to ensure that consumers fully benefit from the abolition of existing taxes;(t) the effects of the taxation reform legislation proposals on legal and constitutional matters, including: (i) the constitutionality of the proposed mechanism for future changes to the GST, including whether such changes would present a significant hurdle to future increases, or reductions if deemed necessary to stimulate the economy; (ii) the constitutionality of the proposed reorganisation of federal-state tax arrangements and whether the powers and functions of states and territories are materially affected by this reorganisation; (iii) the effects of the proposals on the cost of access to justice; and(u) options for amending the proposed legislation to improve its fairness or efficiency.(4) That, in reporting on the matters referred to in paragraph (3), the committee have regard to the reports of the references committees referred to in paragraph (17) and integrate the findings of those committees into its final report where relevant.(5) That the Committee consist of 7 senators, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and 1 nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats.(6) That the Committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.(7) That:(a) senators may be appointed to the committee as substitutes for members of the committee in respect of particular matters before the committee.(b) on the nominations of the Greens or independent senators, participating members may be appointed to the committee.(c) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee.(8) That the committee shall elect as its chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.(9) That the committee shall elect as its deputy chair, immediately after the election of the chair, a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.(10) That the deputy chair act as chair when there is no chair or the chair is not present at a meeting.(11) That the committee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.(12) That the quorum of the committee shall be a majority of the members of the committee.(13) That the committee set 29 January 1999 as the date for receipt of submissions.(14) That the committee hold hearings in each state and territory as required.(15) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.(16) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (17) That the following matters be referred to references committees in accordance with the schedule below for inquiry and report by 31 March 1999, and that in undertaking these inquiries the committees have regard to the report of the Select Committee referred to in paragraph (1) and consult widely, holding hearings in each state and territory, as required. Submissions to these inquiries are to be made by 29 January 1999.CommitteeMatters for InquiryCommunity AffairsThe impacts of the Government's taxation reform legislation proposals on the living standards of Australian households (especially those on low incomes), including:(a)the scope and effectiveness of the proposed arrangements on charities, child care services, aged care services, welfare services, local government human services and all not-for-profit organisations in maintaining the quality and affordability of essential community services, including the implications for the public funding of these services and the implications for the commercial activities of these organisations, and whether unconditional GST-free status should apply to bona fide charities;(b)a detailed examination of the zero-rating of health services, including an examination of which services should be zero-rated;(c)the effects on community sector organisations of changes to their tax exempt status, and of the compliance costs of the proposed tax arrangements;(d)the effects of the proposed private health insurance rebate;(e)the effects on people with disabilities;(f)the effects on public, community and private housing, including the levels of rents; and(g)options for amendments to improve the fairness or efficiency of the proposed legislation.Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and EducationThe employment incentive and education impacts of the Government's taxation reform legislation proposals, including:(a)the scope and effectiveness of the proposed zero-rating arrangements for education in maintaining its quality, accessibility and affordability;(b)the effects on employment;(c)the effects of the proposed GST treatment on the quality, accessibility and affordability of employment services;(d)the effects on education of imposing a GST on, or zero-rating or exempting books and associated education resources;(e)the effects on education of imposing a GST on ancillary resources, services and commercial activities, including the effects on overseas students;(f)the effects of the proposed changes to the tax system on employment;(g)the effects on wage costs, particularly if the basic necessities of life are taxed;(h)the scope and effectiveness of changing the unemployment benefits, pensions and Newstart Allowance `tapers';(i)the effects of the proposed changes to the tax system on training and adult education; and(j)options for amendments to improve the fairness or efficiency of the proposed legislation.Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the ArtsThe broad effects of the Government's taxation reform legislation proposals on the environment, the arts and information technology, including:(a)the environmental effects, and likely impacts of changes to fuel excises, particularly but not only diesel, and the replacement of WST with GST on vehicles and other transport services including:(i)possible increases in greenhouse gas emissions;(ii)increases by amount and type of air pollution;(iii)the effect on public and rail transport;(iv)the effect on alternative energy use in transport including, but not limited to, compressed natural gas;(v)the changed effects on native forests of logging or woodchipping due to the tax package; and(vi)the changed effects of mining in environmentally sensitive areas due to the tax package;(b)the environmental effects of the replacement of Wholesale Sales Tax by the GST and associated changes in fuel excises on electricity and natural gas;(c)the impacts of the proposed tax changes on the prices and existing and potential use of renewable energy particularly but not only solar energy technology and energy efficiency equipment;(d)the environmental effects of any changes to taxes on exports;(e)the consistency or otherwise of the proposed changes in taxation and excise arrangements with Australia's international treaty obligations, including its obligations under the Framework Convention on Climate Change;(f)options for a tax system which better achieve environmental objectives, including incentives for fuel efficiency and alternative energy sources, such as measures which promote both environmental protection and employment generation;(g)the extent to which environmental impacts were considered in the drafting and final copy of the Government's tax package;(h)the scope of any consultation on environmental matters with experts in Environment Australia or any other Government departments other than the Treasury and Finance departments;(i)the impact of a GST on ticket sales for the performing arts;(j)the effect of a GST on the transfer of grant monies for arts projects;(k)the effects of the tax proposals on sponsorship provided by the private sector to individual artists and arts organisations;(l)the extent to which the package will block consideration and introduction of `ecotaxes';(m)the effect of a GST on not-for-profit conservation and arts organisations; and (n)options for improving the environmental effects of the package. (18) That the provisions of the bills implementing the proposed new tax system stand referred to the previously mentioned committees for inquiry and report in conjunction with the terms of reference authorised by this resolution, as soon as the bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives.(19) That when the bills referred to in paragraph (18) are first introduced in the Senate and a motion is moved for the second reading of the bills, debate on that motion shall be adjourned at the conclusion of the speech of the senator moving the motion and resumption of the debate shall be made an order of the day for 19 April 1999 without any question being put.I will only speak briefly to this amendment. It has taken quite some time to get an agreement that is eventually very similar to where we started, with a select committee looking at the overarching issues. This committee will be known as the Select Committee on a New Tax System. It is being established to inquire into the government's tax package and to report on or before 18 February on the modelling and the economic theories that underpin that package.As well, there will be three references committees, as has been the proposal over the last couple of weeks. I will look briefly at the select committee—which I think, Senator Faulkner, is very similar to the Labor Party's initial proposal for a select committee—and I will run through some of the details of the structure of that committee. It is proposed that there be three Labor Party members—with the Labor Party having the chair—three Liberal Party members and one Democrat member. The difference between this and other select committees is that we will also have participating members, where any of the four other senators in this place—the Greens, Senator Harradine or Senator Colston—may come and participate at any time in the hearings and, of course, in the report writing as far as that committee is concerned.Looking at the workload that will be involved with this overarching committee to which the other three references committees report, we have included the ability of parties to substitute. For example, if the committee is travelling to Western Australia and you have members there who may prefer to do that hearing, then it will be possible to substitute members off and on that select committee.We can look at some of the other changes to the original motion that was before this chamber today. One of the other changes is to the final reporting date. That is now 19 April. We have come forward some five or six weeks, and the government has dropped to what is middle ground, shall we say. If we can get this up and running tomorrow and we can get advertisements in the weekend papers, I believe we will still have sufficient time for submissions which are due in by the end of January. Of course, the Labor Party, the government and the Democrats will now have to go away and look at who they want on this committee. The Labor Party will have to look at who they wish to chair this committee. Once that is done, hopefully we will be able to start fairly quickly.As part of this motion we have the sitting patterns for next year to make sure that the committee has time to work and that the government has time to deal with its legislation. In particular, I refer to the time before Easter where, while we have allowed for four weeks of sitting, we have allowed four weeks for these committees to meet as well as a week for estimates. The compromise there is that, yes, the government has time for its legislation, but we have time for the committees to travel and to do the work that they have to do.The report is due on the first sitting day after Easter, on 19 April. As you will see at the very back of this motion—I will just take senators through it, as I know some are picking it up for the first time—the tax bills will be made an order of the day for 19 April so that we can do everything we can to facilitate the six weeks of sittings to deal with this legislation. The sitting pattern will be moved as an amendment in a moment by Senator Kemp. I will just explain why the two Fridays are in there. This is part of the agreement to give the government the full six weeks. The Fridays make up for the Anzac Day holiday and also the fact that we actually run out of time at the end of June and lose another day. In fact, the two Fridays are in there to give us the full six weeks of sitting. Senator Kemp, I presume you are going to circulate the actual calendar.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It has been circulated.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—As it has been circulated, I will take senators through it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—Senator Lees, I do not want to interrupt you, but it does seem that a lot of colleagues are not clear about exactly what copy you are addressing.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—It is No. 1156 revised.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Acting Deputy President, can I make this point of order. I appreciate the advice from Senator Lees as to what she is moving. As I understand it, Madam Acting Deputy President—and I seek your guidance on this—Senator Lees's proposed amendment has not been circulated in the chamber. I think that is the weakness that we have. If it could be, it would assist us all.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It is not our job.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—No, I am just saying that. Madam Acting Deputy President, I think that is the difficulty we have at the moment. We do not have a copy of the amended motion to which Senator Lees is addressing her remarks. If I could urge that Senator Lees facilitate those of us in the Senate who do not have the advantage of being on the inside of any of the arrangements that have been made, we would love to have a look at what is coming up before us. So that is my point of order.5K4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—I am sorry if we have proceeded. We were looking at the time limit we have in which to do this tonight. I think the copies have been circulated now. Could I speak for a few minutes, Madam Chair, once you have dealt with the point of order, until people have had a chance to look at the amended motion?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam Acting Deputy President, I am suggesting that Senator Vanstone needs to make a short personal explanation. In the time Senator Vanstone does that, which I think will be three minutes or less, people will have time to look at the amendment—we have 10 copies of this document being circulated now—and we can proceed with the debate. I recommend that Senator Vanstone seek leave to make a personal explanation under standing order 190.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Just for the record, Senator Faulkner raised a point that may not strictly be a point of order, but a very important point: senators cannot really proceed to discuss an issue if it is not circulated. I believe the first copies are now circulating and there is an agreement to interrupt this process to allow further copies to arrive and for Senator Vanstone to make a statement.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Personal Explanations54117:47:00541Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Under standing order 190, I seek leave to make a brief statement.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I just want to be clear whether Senator Vanstone is claiming to be misrepresented. I am not going to be ungenerous about this, but she did not seek leave to make a personal explanation.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Vanstone, will you seek leave to make a personal explanation?7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—I understand that, by referring to standing order 190, that is what I am indicating to you that I am doing.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—In question time today, I referred to a journalist—unnamed—who had been invited to a brief in my office in relation to certain matters covering the Australian Federal Police and indicated the journalist had declined to attend. That is still my view of events but, nonetheless—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You mean you have misled the Senate.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—I can do this in three minutes but I can take longer if it is required—but I would rather not. I will just try to ignore the interjections. The Acting Bureau Chief of News Ltd has written to me indicating that his view is that the journalist agreed. I have spoken to my chief of staff about this matter and I want to set the record straight as best I can. My chief of staff rang the journalist and asked whether he could come down and show us where he believed he was justified in making the statements he had. My chief of staff said the journalist declined and said he might be able to come later, but appeared very disinterested in the whole process and indicated he would send down some quotes. The journalist's version of events, as best I can ascertain it from News Ltd, is that he was invited to come down, that he declined to come at the time but indicated he would come at a later time.I can see a difference between `might be able to come at another time' and `Yes, I will be able to come at another time'. The bottom line is that the journalist was invited to come down and did not do so at that time. There are other matters in the letter that I have received from Mr McPhedran that I could go into but, as a courtesy to him, I will not do that until I have had the opportunity to raise it with him, because I believe he has written to me under a misunderstanding. Suffice to say, there is a simple misunderstanding. The journalist believes he said, `Oh, no, I can't come now but I would love to come at later date.' My chief of staff indicates an entirely different story, which is, `No, I can't come now and I might be able to come later.'I conclude with this simple remark: it is very easy when you have a job as a journalist and you can write anything you like, and you can sledge the reputations of other people as much you want. You can twist and turn and misrepresent and not get the facts right and you expect the Federal Police and anybody else to just wear it because it made a good story. You think that if you refuse to come to a function but say you might be able to come later that you should have been reported as saying you could come later, and that you are entitled to create a huge fuss. Therein lies the difference. That is the ends of my personal explanation. It is a personal explanation about a misunderstanding.17:50:00541Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—I think what we have heard from Senator Vanstone is an attempt to correct the record in the chamber because of misinformation that was given by her in an answer to a dorothy dix question in question time today. It was done in a most ungenerous spirit by Senator Vanstone. She did not actually use the words, `I misled the Senate.' She did not actually say, `It was a fabrication,' as she was eventually forced to over the Wright family incident. But I do think what we have is the minister in a most grudging way admitting that she misled the Senate during question time today.I do admit that when the Prime Minister's much vaunted code of conduct was originally brought down—and we do not know whether that code of conduct is still in force—that code of conduct did contain an obligation on the part of ministers to come into this chamber and, at the earliest opportunity, correct the record if they had either deliberately or inadvertly misled the parliament. It is in that spirit, I assume, that Senator Vanstone speaks under standing order 190.I received a copy of a letter that went to Senator Vanstone. This letter came from the Acting Bureau Chief of the News Ltd National Bureau. Copies of that letter, going through a number of very serious concerns in relation to an answer to a dorothy dixer that Senator Vanstone gave today, went to the Prime Minister and to me as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Madam Acting Deputy President, it is appropriate, if Senator Vanstone has misled the Senate, that she correct the record. Next time she does it—it is a very regular occurrence with this particular minister, as all senators on this side of the chamber and, I am sure, the press gallery would know—she should come in and do it a little more graciously.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—I don't believe I have!5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—If you do, why don't you come in and admit that you misled the Senate a little more graciously than you have managed on this occasion.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—If I thought I had, I would.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—After all, you have set a very bad example with the Wright family. The job for Senator Vanstone is simply to lift her game. One way she can do it is that, when she tries to correct the record, having misled the Senate, she should do it in a slightly more humble way than the way she has managed in the last few minutes.Committees542542Debate resumed.17:54:00542Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I shall be brief. I understand that all those senators intending to speak on this matter now have copies. RF4COOKSenator Cook—I rise on a point of order. I want a copy of the document before the chamber. Thank you very much!10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—There is no point of order. Senator Cook, your point is well taken. Some copies have been distributed in the chamber, and we are waiting for more to come. You have made the point and I think people appreciate it, so thank you for the important point you have made.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—I hope that once others have had the opportunity to read through this they will see that all of the concerns of the Labor Party in its original motion have been taken into this composite motion. The concerns of Senator Harradine and also of Senator Brown, as I mentioned when we discussed the original motion, had already been included. Concerns that Senator Cook had, in his motion that he moved separately and which was defeated when we discussed this under the Labor Party's motion last sitting week, have been included. I understand that the way we have covered those is now satisfactory to all other senators, including Senator Harradine and us. Hopefully everyone is in agreement with the wording. Hopefully the Labor Party will find it is in agreement with going back to an overarching selection committee, as it is so similar to its original proposal.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Plus the three committees.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—Plus the three committees. I realise that you are never going to be happy about that, Senator Ray, but that is the agreement. It is similar—there are some similarities.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Like the English cricket side is similar to the Australian side.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—The sitting pattern has given us time at the beginning of next year to have four weeks to deal with committee matters, a week of estimates as well as four weeks of sitting before Easter. Then we will come back on 19 April to deal with this legislation for six weeks—giving us no more than two weeks at a time in the chamber and a week on other activities and other business—plus the two weeks of estimates in May and June as well as the one week of estimates at the beginning of May. Hopefully all parties will find that this agreement has elements of what they originally wanted and is acceptable.17:57:00543Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Senator Lees commences her contribution by saying that many of the opposition's concerns have been taken on board. It is very difficult for the opposition to make that assessment because we have only just been provided with a copy of the amendment, which represents, I think it is fair to say, an arrangement that has been agreed between the government and the Australian Democrats. That is fair enough; that is the political process. It may also have involved other senators—I am not aware of that—but I think it is proper to put on the public record that those negotiations did not involve the opposition, though I do appreciate that at times Senator Lees and her colleagues have attempted to keep the opposition apprised of what their negotiations have brought about. I do acknowledge that, but I think it is also very fair to say that we are not in a position to be able to make an assessment as to how many of the concerns of the opposition have been taken account of until we look at the documentation.The opposition, in its earlier proposal, put forward the concept of a single and comprehensive inquiry into the government's proposals. We suggested originally that that should be conducted by a Senate select committee, which was totally unacceptable to the minor parties and the government. But now there has been a massive switch of position and the opposition's original idea of a select committee is now found to be acceptable, so there has been obviously quite a significant conversion here on the road to Damascus.We have maintained that the original reporting date of the last sitting day in May next year was the best possible time frame for a serious committee of inquiry. I am certainly not satisfied with the time frames that are contained in the motion before the chair, but I also indicated a very clear willingness to work through with other parties that particular issue so we could look at trying to achieve majority support for an acceptable reporting date.We continue to believe that what the opposition has put forward is the most sensible and logical way to approach this particular issue. We cannot imagine why the government chose to reject our original proposal for a select committee, or the proposal we then moved for an inquiry to be undertaken by one references committee, in favour of an extremely complex, multi-pronged investigation that will obviously take the same amount of time to conduct. I have indicated all the way along the line that the opposition is willing to compromise on this issue. That has been the spirit with which the opposition has approached this debate. We will continue to support a compromise position but we strongly favour a single inquiry by a single committee. I accept that that is unlikely to gain majority support, but the Senate seems to move inexorably closer to some of the views the opposition has expressed from day one in relation to this matter. I move:Omit all words after "That", substitute:(1) "the following matters be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report on or before the last sitting day in May 1999 and that in undertaking this inquiry the Committee consult widely, holding hearings in all states and territories:(a) the measures announced in the document Tax Reform not a new tax a new tax system and the provisions of any bills implementing the measures;(b) the assumptions, calculations, estimates, projections and modelling concerning the various proposals either separately or jointly including, but not limited to: (i) the distribution of wealth in the Australian community, including the distributional impact on differing household types; (ii) the adequacy of the so-called compensation measures proposed and the possible erosion or withdrawal of compensation; (iii) the impact on services provided by non-government organisations such as charities; (iv) the effects on low and middle income families of taxing the necessities of life; (v) the effect of the GST and other items of the Coalition tax package on wage costs; (vi) the estimated levels of revenue to be generated or foregone due to the proposed changes, including the estimated level of revenue to be generated by imposing a GST on food and books(c) the effect that the proposals would, if implemented, have on the Australian economy, including but not limited to the effects on: (i) employment; (ii) inflation; (iii) interest rates; (iv) economic growth; (v) exports, imports, trade and foreign debt; (vi) investment; (vii) specific regions, including remote communities; (viii) particular industries, including key service industries and small business; and (ix) the cash economy;(d) the adequacy of measures designed to ensure that the proposed goods and services tax (GST) will never rise above 10 per cent;(e) the adequacy of measures to ensure that consumers fully benefit from the abolition of existing taxes;(f) the detail of items under consideration to be listed as "GST free", including medical items, education and exports (including service exports such as tourism);(g) the findings of the Tax Consultative Committee chaired by Mr David Vos;(h) the implications for the delivery of Commonwealth Government services, including employment services, welfare and other social and cultural services;(i) the implications for the various State and Territory governments of the proposals, including federal-state financial relations and the potential impact on the provision of services by those governments;(j) the implications for local government;(k) the effect that the proposals would, if implemented, have on the environment;(l) the implications of not requiring that the GST component of goods and services be itemised on receipts;(m) alternative taxation measures available to the Government, including options for reducing tax avoidance and evasion; and(n) all matters relevant or incidental to consideration of the above issues.(2) That in the event that matters related to these terms of reference are referred to other Refer ences Committees, the Economics References Committee shall take into account the reports of any such committees in completing its own report on this reference".I move this motion because we want to give this Senate one last opportunity to embrace what we believe is still the best and the most practical way of dealing with this particular issue.The shape of the proposed Senate inquiry into the GST has gone through all sorts of possible permutations over the last couple of weeks. Despite those negotiations, nearly all of which the Labor Party has not been involved in, we have always had a bottom line. I want to remind the Senate what the Labor Party's bottom line is. We want a thorough inquiry. We want a properly resourced inquiry. We want an inquiry that has enough time to explore the many issues that are contained in the government's tax proposals, including the important question of the veracity of Treasury's assumptions and modelling and issues such as the impacts on employment, interest rates, inflation and investment. We want an opportunity to address those issues. We want an inquiry that allows organisations, interest groups and the public a capacity to make serious submissions to the inquiry and participate in the processes of the inquiry. Most importantly, we want an inquiry that explores how this makeover of the tax system will affect people on low and average incomes, who are struggling to feed, cloth and educate their families.It is almost the end of November. We still await the details of the government's Vos report. Nothing about the Vos report has been made public or tabled. We still await the details of the government's legislative package. The rumblings of the charity sector alone are important enough for us to demand the release of the Vos report and the deliberations of the Vos committee's investigations on the GST.Our original proposal was for a single Senate select committee to examine the government's tax proposals. We thought that would be the best and simplest vehicle to examine these important issues. A select committee would have had explicit powers to call for and examine persons and documents. A single select committee would have been a more holistic, efficient and effective approach. Now we have this massive change of view by the government and the minor parties. Having previously canned and bagged the idea of a select committee, they are now willing to embrace at least part of the opposition's original proposal.When our proposal for a select committee was voted down by all the non-Labor senators in this chamber, we accepted that that was not the Senate's preferred position. That is why we put forward an approach that made the Economics References Committee the key investigative committee in this particular inquiry. And we did that in a spirit of trying to reach consensus.Mr Costello, the federal Treasurer, along with his liegeman here in the Senate, Senator Alston, has made a complete hash of the negotiations that have taken place with the minor parties and Senator Harradine. You would hope by this time that Mr Costello would have woken up to the fact that if you actually want your legislation to go through you have to have a proper inquiry. If there is no inquiry, Mr Costello's beloved GST will not see the light of day. That always seemed to me to be the overriding political priority for the government. The only people who could not see it were the government members themselves. They failed to understand that that was the bottom line politics here.But we say that the overriding objective of a parliamentary inquiry should be that it provides proper and thorough parliamentary scrutiny. That is why, at the end of the day, while we know our proposal is better and we will vote for it, in the final analysis we will, if required, support some form of compromise. We do not think that the proposal that Senator Lees moved is the best possible scenario. I hope that it will be adequate to do the task that is so important in this inquiry.I want to ensure that this Senate committee does exert maximum scrutiny on Mr Howard's and Mr Costello's proposals. I think that the Economics References Committee can adequately conduct the initial spadework on the Treasury assumptions and modelling of the effect of the tax system, and I think that the three other references committees will be able to explore the effect of these tax changes on issues such as job levels and our health system.We are proposing that the Economics References Committee investigates other matters, such as savings and investment, and that, at the end of the day, the Economics References Committee will pull everything together and produce the final report. That was our proposal. Originally, we had a select committee; now, the Democrats and the government are embracing a select committee.But I come back to what the Prime Minister said in relation to this issue—what his own words were. He described this as a `most historic and significant reform'. It is surely reasonable that the complexities and effects of this legislation—this massive change to the tax system—need to be teased out. After all, the government seems to be in denial mode about the role of the Senate in relation to legislation before the parliament. I think there is a great expectation—certainly by those who voted for Labor senators—that we ensure that this is a very thorough inquiry, with the capacity for proper scrutiny of the government's proposals.I have to say—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to Senator Lees—that, from the point of view of the opposition, some of the elements contained in the motion that she has moved are not adequate or acceptable. As I said earlier, the reporting date of 18 February 1999 for the select committee is, in our view, inadequate. It is really just another repeat of the Vos committee, which had a 17-day reporting time frame. So many people were critical of the Vos committee, as having an unrealistic time frame and deadline; and I think the same goes for the proposed Senate select committee.Submissions from the public have to be in by the end of January—that is going to be a little restrictive and unfair on the numerous community groups who are rightly concerned about the goods and services tax. I think at least another week or so would be reasonable and ought to be granted or, at least, the committee ought to have some discretion in relation to the acceptance of any late submissions.I gather there is an understanding between the minor parties, Senator Harradine and the government about membership of the Senate select committee. As you would recall, Senator Brown, Labor's original proposal for a Senate select committee was broader and, in my view, more representative. Membership here has been restricted to the opposition, the government and the Australian Democrats. I assume there is an agreement amongst the minor parties. It is difficult for me to be able to judge these things, because I am speaking, literally, with a minute's notice of the motion before the chair. I have not even had an opportunity to have a private discussion with any of the other players, as you would appreciate.I think Labor's proposal was more sensible. It was fairer. It would have enabled others to participate in this important task as full committee members. As I understand it, and briefly reading the proposition before the chair, you will have a situation where a number of minor party and independent senators can participate, but not vote. So there is obviously a fundamental difference between ourselves and Senator Lees and others in relation to this matter.We accept that the Democrats and Senator Harradine prefer to make fuller use of the existing committee resources of the Senate. Labor will fully participate in those processes, of course, once the various committees get under way. But we believe the proposal that I have put before the chamber is a far superior model than the one the government has been arguing for, which, of course, is the lowest common denominator—a half-baked, toothless Senate committee. The government's motivation has always been to hide what it can about the critical aspects of the introduction of a GST.I have got to say there is an awful lot of hypocrisy from the government in relation to the approach on Senate committees. In the remaining couple of minutes available to me—and perhaps one my colleagues might care to address this issue later in the debate—let me say that there is a very long history of government senators, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill, the minister at the table, Senator Kemp, and other ministers, now ministers in the coalition government, who spent so much time arguing for a role for the then opposition, the coalition when they were in opposition, to chair a range of Senate committees. Many senators on this side of the chamber would recall that, and I hope that other senators might care to canvass it.When you hear Senator Alston puffing himself up, getting himself involved in the debate, trying to undermine Senator Hill and trying to do Mr Costello's dirty work for him over here in the Senate, you realise that he does not really understand the history of how the Senate standing legislation and reference committees evolved and developed. Senator Alston does not know any of that history and does not realise what Senator Kemp, Senator Hill and others said on the public record over the years.It really beggars belief that the government and the minor parties did not sign on to Labor's original proposition before the Senate, which was a single, purpose-built committee which would have conducted and presented a coherent, thorough and comprehensive examination and report into all of the government's proposals. There is a last chance to do it, and I urge that the Senate support the amendment that stands in my name and get an inquiry that can do the job.18:17:00546Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I rise to speak on the amendment proposed by Senator Lees. As many senators will be aware, negotiations have taken place probably for the best part of two weeks, and I think it is probably fair to say, Senator Lees, that we have had our good days and our less good days in terms of the negotiations. But the negotiations have continued through, and I think that in the end we were able to successfully work through a number of rather difficult and complex issues. I think it was important that we tried to meet, as far as we could, the various demands that were being made by senators.The government's position has always been that we went to the election on tax reform. The Labor Party said that this was a referendum on tax reform, and this government won that referendum, to pick up the Labor Party's terms. As I have said, we have not seen a need for an inquiry, because the truth of the matter is that we went to the election with a very comprehensive and detailed tax reform package. But we understand that there is a disposition in the Senate, a majority in the Senate, that wants a comprehensive inquiry, and the government will cooperate in the achievement of that goal. We expect, with the program that has been worked out, that we could look for a vote in the Senate on the tax package bills prior to 30 June.The government's position has always been that we need sufficient time to ensure a proper debate on these bills. Equally, I think the Democrats position, as expressed by Senator Lees and supported by minor parties, is that they were very anxious to have sufficient time for these committees to sit and consider what I might say are the very extensive terms of reference which have been put before those committees, which I think in many ways go far outside the tax package which has been proposed by the government. Nonetheless, we understand that senators wish to inquire far and wide, and we accept that. We were able in the end to reach a compromise where we believe, as a result of some very effective work by the Manager of Government Business on sitting times, that we can achieve those twin goals of providing sufficient time for what must be really one of the most comprehensive inquiries the Senate has ever undertaken and at the same time provide some six weeks for these bills to be properly debated in this chamber.I foreshadow that I will be moving a motion to set out the proposed sitting times for the first half of 1999 in the terms which have been circulated in this chamber. As Senator Lees mentioned in her motion, this will allow the Senate to have some six weeks to sit and consider these bills. I was surprised at Senator Faulkner's comment that the 19 April date was not sufficient time for the Senate to consider the matters which have been referred to it. It is a very long time by any stretch of the imagination. Of course, we are not talking about only one committee here, the Senate select committee. There are three other committees which will also be sitting and reporting at the end of March. If you add up the times at which senators will be working on these bills, this is a very comprehensive inquiry by any standard.The government will assist the inquiry in any way we can and we will cooperate in any reasonable way. The government's bottom line is that we want passage of those bills. A compromise has been reached which meets the demands of the non-government senators for a comprehensive inquiry and, equally, it meets our requirement for sufficient time to properly and fairly debate these bills.Senator Faulkner, we have no illusions about the attitude of the Labor Party and the approach it has taken to tax reform. The Labor Party is still smarting because it was defeated at the last election. It is essentially refusing to accept the results of that election and the endorsement that the government received for its tax package. It is unfortunate that the Labor Party has come to this debate in that spirit but, as I said, we have no illusions about the attitude of the Labor Party. We hope that, as this inquiry proceeds, the Labor Party will adopt a more sensible and cooperative attitude, but I do not hold out any particular hopes for that.Senator Lees, it has been a rather prolonged process of negotiation. As I said, we have had our good days and our bad days, and I think this is a good day in the sense that we have reached an appropriate compromise. I hope that the other senators in this chamber will recognise the effort which has gone into reaching this stage, and accept that account has been taken of the various proposals put to the Senate.I think the government has behaved most appropriately in these circumstances. The government has recognised that the majority of the Senate seeks an inquiry, and we believe that no-one could argue that the inquiry set out in Senator Lees's motion is not a comprehensive and detailed inquiry about a very wide range of matters, some of which are not directly related to the tax package.Opposition senators interjecting—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It is the longest inquiry in Australian Senate history.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—As my colleague Senator Campbell said, this is probably the longest inquiry in Senate history. That would certainly be the case if you added in all four committees.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Do you want to bet?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—You have had your say. You have had your usual gripe. You have, yet again, effectively demonstrated to the public how sour you are about the defeat the Labor Party received in the last election. The truth of the matter is that we won the election, and we won it on a comprehensive tax package. We are anxious to ensure that those bills are properly debated in this chamber and are passed.The government comes to this inquiry in a spirit of ensuring that we can achieve the goal set by the Democrats, acting on behalf of the minor parties and some of the Independents, to have a comprehensive inquiry. I think we have achieved that. I think we have also achieved the very important goal that we now have six weeks in which to properly debate these bills to ensure the passage of these bills by 30 June. I foreshadow that I shall move:At the end of the motion, add the following paragraph:That days of meeting of the Senate for the first half of 1999 be as follows: Monday, 15 February to Thursday, 18 February Monday, 8 March to Thursday, 11 March Monday, 22 March to Thursday, 25 March Monday, 29 March to Wednesday, 31 March Monday, 19 April to Friday, 23 April Tuesday, 27 April to Friday, 30 April Tuesday, 11 May to Thursday, 13 May Monday, 24 May to Thursday, 27 May Monday, 21 June to Thursday, 24 June Monday, 28 June to Wednesday, 30 June.18:26:00548Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—This debate reminds me of the Sherlock Holmes story about the case of the dog that did not bark: one wonders where master negotiator Alston is at the moment after his brave comments this morning. He was dig ging in. He was saying how intransigent the Democrats were and that they would never give in. It is a long day in politics that does not end. As we see, the government has capitulated—and I think fairly substantially—to the demands of the Democrats.Comments have been made on how long these negotiations have taken and how complex they were. I wonder why the government did not at some stage look at the original Labor Party proposal for a select committee, on which the Labor Party had only three of the nine members, and probably not the chair. The only thing I think they would have found exceptional was the reporting date, which we indicated a degree of flexibility on. Basically, that was the purist position that any sensible government would want, but this government cannot accept that because the Labor Party put it up.Why have a select committee? Why not a reference committee or a legislation committee? We are dealing with an issue that has elements of both principle and legislative scrutiny. Neither a legislation committee nor a reference committee could thoroughly do the job. Therefore, a select committee is the obvious alternative. We have select committees to range across a whole range of areas without artificial barriers.Two weeks ago I might have sat down and thought, `How can we turn the GST into a grand farce? Why don't we have a select committee doing two different references, with massively tight reporting dates, and have three reference committees going at the same time? That sounds like the full Moscow Circus to me.' But we did not come up with these propositions. We did not try to turn this whole thing into a grand farce. I do not know where the proposition came from or what the arguments are for having three references—originally seven. I do not know. It has never been explained to me.The only explanation I can think of is that there were seven reference committees and there are seven Democrats, so each one of them would have had some input on them. But that would mean that I would have to presume that the internal dynamics of the Democrats were ones of divisiveness driven by personality differences and not ones of people who evacuate strawberry ice-cream every night! That would have to be the explanation.So I will give the government credit here. If you negotiated them down from seven to three committees, well done. But, for heaven's sake, what is the environment committee doing there?Senator Brown interjecting—UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I see. Well done, Bob. You got that put in. That was part of your negotiating ploy, no doubt. But basically, in terms of the relevance of the GST, any fair-minded person would probably have ranked that committee fifth or sixth, unless they had a particular interest in the area. So what we are seeing emerge from all this is some sort of gigantic compromise which has very little utilitarian value. As I say, if you could have gone back to the very simple Labor Party proposal—one committee, the Labor Party with only three out of nine members, and comprehensive terms of reference—we could have negotiated the same sort of reporting date of mid-April and you would have had a coherent and sensible report. But, of course, because we put it up, it was dead. Maybe we should have been more subtle. Maybe we should have put up everything but the one select committee, which would have led the government into the killing fields, the killing zone, and they would have automatically accepted it.So the Labor Party can at least say, `I think we put up a sensible proposal.' This proposal is more sensible than the first one. Having three reference committees going away and working on this rather than seven is more manageable. Having an overarching select committee is as sensible as having the reference committee as the overarching one—I think we can see that.But let us have a look at the first problem that I perceive—and that is the reporting date. I can only go from experience of Senate committees. If we are lucky, we will set this committee up tonight or, by the latest, tomorrow, which is about 25 November. In the normal course of events we are expecting submissions—if I read this motion correctly— to conclude on 29 January, which gives the committee a grand 19 or 20 days to hear the submissions and write their report.8U4LEESSenator Lees—That's just the modelling.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—That's just the modelling, but it is a very large task.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Well, you haven't read it.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Senator Ian Campbell says across the chamber, trying to be helpful, `Well, you haven't read it.' Do you know what, Senator Campbell? When this was first moved, none of us had read it, and we had to wait minutes and minutes. We were then expected to debate it on the run, not having been given a copy. Normally, you think you would have a copy an hour in advance. That certainly did not occur.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—That is unfair. We exposed all the drafts to John Faulkner and Simon Crean.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Andrew, you know that's not true. I have not seen them at all.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Even if that was true, Senator Murray, and even though I am a disciple of Senator Faulkner, I am occasionally able to have independent thoughts and even occasionally slightly different emphasis to Senator Faulkner—heaven forbid, occasionally slightly different emphasis.Nevertheless, a quick read of this suggests that at least this document has been put together reasonably well. I have not been able to give it a full analysis, but it occurs to me that that first time line will be too short and it will be a pity if the committee then had to come back and ask for more time. Everything else is contingent on it completing its work by 18 February, because then this committee goes on and takes an even bigger terms of reference to get its report in—by 19 April, if I read correctly. At the same time, we are to have three other references committees beavering away on extensive terms of reference. So what the government basically has to do is feed material into the select committee twice and into three references committees. Wouldn't it have been a lot easier just to put it into one select committee?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On one occasion.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—On one occasion. Nevertheless, we suggested it. They knocked it back. They got into the internal dynamics of negotiation that they could not get themselves out of and came up with this.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—And they have shocking negotiators.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Well, they never have the same ones. Where is Senator Alston? He has disappeared from the scene.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—He is up in the gallery.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—He has been dropped to the twos. I would not mind that if I were Senator Alston, but who do they put up? Senator Kemp is the star negotiator to sell this message.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—What about Mr Costello?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—That again proves—and I have to make a bipartisan point here, Senator Faulkner—that all Mr Costello has done is follow the grand tradition of Liberal and Labor members of the House of Representatives in making assumptions about the Senate without the slightest understanding of it. My advice to Mr Costello, as it was to other people in the House of Representatives—I never had to give it to Mr Keating because, let's face it, he never would have thought of negotiating with the Senate—is to leave it to the Senate professionals, leave it to their front bench to negotiate these things and then it is likely to proceed much more apace. Even though he has limited ability, Senator Kemp could have moved these negotiations forward a lot more quickly than Mr Costello ever could have done.I move on to a couple of other points. Looking at the sitting dates, I worry about the procedural matter that we actually set sitting dates as an amendment to a massive amendment to business of the Senate. In other words, you have a motion that you virtually delete. You replace it with another motion and it becomes business of the Senate. Then you amend on that the future sitting weeks. I think that is an extremely poor process—AW5CARRSenator Carr—It will turn around and bite them.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Well, I do not know about it turning around and biting anyone, but it is a very poor technical process for this chamber to involve itself in. And one wonders really whether it qualifies as business of the Senate without notice being given. Nevertheless, we want a sensible result here so I will take that objection no further. Essentially the government has dropped out a couple of sitting weeks in what we might call the autumn session to allow these committees to work more strenuously and without the impediment of the Senate sitting and it has added those two sitting weeks to April.There is no longer the traditional five- or six-week break there, so basically the Senate will be sitting through from 15 February to 30 June. One thing I can guarantee all senators is that we are not going to be sitting past 30 June. You can give up any thoughts of that because the new Senate is due in at one minute after midnight that night. In essence the government has borrowed two weeks from the normal break and occupied them with Senate time to allow the committee more time—so basically it will be through here. I do not think they have added to the potential sitting weeks overall. I think this would have been the number of sitting weeks—Senator Campbell can nod—had we started on 1 February and followed a normal pattern and, as such, it cannot be said that the government has added to the program.The next question that comes up, because we have not been consulted on most of these things, is what happens to estimates committees. Most people would be aware that the supplementary estimates due for August this year were cancelled because of the election. We did not insist that they be brought on again in the spring session because of the tightness of time—basically it would have made it very difficult in this current sitting pattern—nevertheless, we have remaining questions coming out of that, and we obviously have additional questions for the additional estimates process.I understand there has been no final decision made yet as to when we will do those estimates, but I think the Manager of Government Business has given me an indication of what he thinks is the proper course, and there has been some discussion about one or two necessary spill-over days. I think that can all be resolved to our satisfaction without impacting on any of this. We were of course worried that, in this new series of arrangements, somehow the additional estimates may disappear out of the system. But our concerns in that regard have been assuaged by Senator Campbell's having those matters in hand. I hope Senator Campbell will be able to establish those actual dates in the next week or so before people leave here, so that they will know their timetable for these committees next year.In summary, we now have a select committee that has to do an enormous amount of work. I do not know how many other select committees are going to be set up in this parliament. At the moment this will be the only select committee we have because each one of them, I understand, ceases to exist after the prorogation of parliament. I think there should be some discussion over the next week or two about how many of the past select committees will be re-established. I think the ideal number of select committees operating at any one time in this chamber is two. Given the fact that we have about 43 committees around the place, prioritising which ones get re-established will not be an easy task—again, I think that should be addressed in the next two weeks. This just makes it a little harder because, obviously, we think this select committee will get up. Once this one gets up we have a situation of whether we can afford to re-establish the other three.From the funding point of view it is going to get more difficult the more committees we have—coming out of, I think, a fair arrangement made with the Department of Finance about 18 months to two years ago. That is another challenge ahead. We have to resolve that, we have to resolve the estimates timetable and we have to resolve who is going to go on this committee. I warn the Senate that I think it is a very ambitious program, and it is going to be extremely difficult to meet the timetables and scope of the inquiries. I think in some ways having one extremely well-resourced committee would have been better than the scattergun approach of having four committees. Nevertheless, four committees are better than no committee, I suspect, not only from our point of view but also from the government's point of view. It is a pity that they took so long to come to the negotiating table. As Senator Kemp said, you have good days and bad days; I suspect today was a pretty bad day for the government. It basically had to run up the white flag to the Democrats and give them everything they wanted.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—And Senator Harradine.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—In the end this proposal hinges on every senator in the Senate, not just the Democrats—I understand that—but they did most of the negotiating. I want to repeat the point that the next time an amendment of this complexity comes into the Senate, all senators should have a half-hour or an hour to go through the details of it rather than try to do it on the run. We were ably assisted by a rather pathetic explanation by Senator Vanstone that did enable us to read these particular motions.18:41:00551Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Senator Ray commenced by saying how important it would have been to have a select committee, and he gave his reasons for that. I wonder whether Senator Ray would have a look at his desk. He may not have had the document from Senator Lees, but he surely would have had the document standing in the name of Senator Faulkner, his leader in this place. If you have a look at that document, you will see that it is not proposing the establishment of a select committee.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—We know that, because you voted against a select committee, for God's sake! You voted against it!6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—It is proposing an economic references committee.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You voted against it!6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—You were also talking about the drop from seven to four. The reason you dropped from seven to four is that you would not accept seven.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—That's right; we wanted one.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Senator Faulkner is talking about wanting to have a thoroughgoing examination of this matter. That has been my position from day one. There had to be a thoroughgoing examination of the government's tax package, including the GST.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—How is this thorough?6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Senator Murphy, read the document. You tell me where it is deficient in its terms of reference. Tell me now!FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—It's not the terms of reference. It's time—that's where it's deficient.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I invite anybody in this chamber to say where this document is deficient in its terms of reference. That has been the underlying suggestion coming from the Labor Party. There has been a considerable amount of work done, principally by the Australian Democrats, in respect of this matter. I of course had a certain input into the matter, and I believe that the Democrats showed very good faith by not just limiting the terms of reference to the question of food but also by having them go to the necessities of life, including clothing, shelter and essential services. I again invite any member of the opposition to say where this document is deficient in its terms of reference. That is a very important starting point.The reason I wanted the seven committees to look at it was the suggestion that we need well resourced examination of this matter. If you have a select committee, as you proposed previously, or this economics reference committee, you are going to involve only eight senators. This document is going to involve and require the examination of the matters by 31 senators. So, instead of having eight by your proposal, this is going to have 31 senators. Furthermore, it is going to involve the expert secretariats of those particular committees. Those secretariats have the expertise, the experience to examine the matters, and many of them know the most desirable place to go to get evidence.I am sorry that the Labor Party has knocked off three committees. I believe it would have been more efficient for us to have had all of the committees of the Senate, all of the resources of those committees, focused on this.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—The Labor Party hasn't knocked anything off. The Labor Party has not got the numbers. You were the one in the negotiations.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—It was taken into account by the Australian Democrats. They asked me whether I would agree.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You didn't want a select committee and now you do. We can't keep up with you!6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—That certainly was not my proposal.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Well, why are you voting for it?6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I thought it was your proposal and I thought—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It was originally, and we changed our mind because you objected to it. We can't keep up with you.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! Senator Faulkner.10000Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Senator Faulkner, I am sorry to have to respond to those things. We ought to be quite united about them. I think the big thing now is that the government has graciously accepted this proposition. I congratulate the Democrats, particularly Senator Lees and Senator Murray, and I also acknowledge that there has been input by other senators. I must say that, in the conversations that I have had with Mr Crean and Senator Faulkner, I have taken on board a number of matters. Senator Lees, in particular, has done the same.If you have a look again at the terms of reference—really have a look at them—I believe there should be no expression of concern about them. They are very, very broad; they are also very, very specific. Senator Faulkner mentioned the absolute need to see how the GST is going to affect low and middle income earners. Section (e) of the document that is before you says that, in conducting its inquiry, the committee examine matters with the aim of identifying families and groups that may be disadvantaged by the government's proposal, focusing on lower and fixed income individuals; families with dependent children or adult members; groups and organisations; and those with special needs, such as people with disabilities.There has been a lot of similarity. I am sorry if I got a bit worked up. I think that what we ought to be doing now is getting on with the job and hopefully getting the select committee established tonight, or as somebody—I think Senator Ray—said, by tomorrow. The other references committees were appointed today, so we are all set—let's get on with it.Debate interrupted.Documents55310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! The time being 6.50 p.m., it is time to move to the consideration of government documents. We have 25 documents and I suggest that we call them in groups of five.55318:53:00553Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.APEC provides our region and particularly Australia with a trade cooperation forum which remains very important. It is not a trade bloc as such, but it does provide a platform which facilitates trade reform and more. It also provides for the transfer of technology and economic cooperation and, importantly, a commitment to educate people about the benefits of trade liberalisation. One of the great challenges that remain for all of us in politics is to take people with us as we seek to achieve the overall benefits that trade reform brings while always acknowledging that any structural change to an economy, whether it is a national economy or a global one, causes some people and some industries to be hurt.A number of key outcomes were achieved in Kuala Lumpur last week. There was a slowing of the reform process, but I think Australia played a good role. In fact, it ensured that APEC focused closely on the regional crisis, having prepared the ground on a number of fronts since October last year.Australia's economic governance initiative was acknowledged by APEC ministers and leaders as a key contribution to the region. Leaders agreed to the proposals by the Prime Minister to reaffirm the commitment to APEC's free trade investment goals; to adopt national policies promoting growth; to endorse international best practice codes in transparency in financial sector management; to endorse a future role for the G22 in pursuing initiatives to strengthen the international financial system; and to establish a working group on private sector involvement in crisis management, which Australia has offered to chair. In line with a key trade policy objective for Australia, APEC leaders also stressed the importance of early progress on broad based multilateral negotiations in the World Trade Organisation. Other outcomes were not as high profile but were valuable in groundbreaking. There was further significant liberalisation through APEC economies for individual action plans and China, Indonesia and Korea, in particular, made important new liberalisation commitments.The APEC blueprint for action on electronic commerce is a dynamic response to an important regional and global opportunity. Australia also co-chaired the task force which promoted that blueprint. We accelerated regional cooperation on the critical year 2000 computer bug program and will hold a regional crisis planning conference early next year. We secured APEC-wide endorsement for an Australian initiative to improve community understanding of the benefits of open markets, critical to raising understanding of the benefits of open markets and that trade equals jobs. We look forward to working closely with our New Zealand colleagues to achieve a strong outcome under their chairmanship in 1999.APEC is a very important regional trade cooperation bloc to Australia. APEC commenced with very strong support from Aus tralia. We were very much part of the Bogor declarations in 1994 which set in place the 2010 and 2020 trade liberalisation timetable. That is important to us. We pushed it hard. It is a forum in which Australia will continue to play a very strong role. It did so last week, and we look forward to the next meeting in New Zealand in 1999.18:57:00554Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I too wish to speak on this document. As has been described by Senator Sandy Macdonald, it relates to APEC and Australia's role in it. What is true is that the performance by Australia at APEC last week was nothing short of a national disgrace. The outcome of the forum last week was disastrous not just for Australia but for the economies in this region.It is important that the Senate remind itself of what the significance of APEC might be. Should there be success in meeting the goals of APEC, the GDP of member countries will increase by 6.9 per cent. Overall that is an increase of $745 billion going to member countries. For Australia, success with APEC will boost our GDP by 4.4 per cent or—using 1996 dollars—by $22.8 billion flowing into the Australian economy, which will lift Australia's trade performance by 14.6 per cent. They are the goals that Australia is striving for in APEC—genuine goals that create jobs in this economy.When you put the figures out there plainly, you can see that, if it is a choice between APEC or the GST, APEC wins every time. APEC creates jobs and wealth for this country; the GST creates a job destroying tax for Australia. What has beset national debate in this country over the last 18 months has been a GST—not the objectives of APEC, which could yield these results for the nation and increase jobs for Australians in almost every industry sector.In terms of priority, what does this government do? It puts its priority into a GST. It puts no effort into APEC and it stands back, shocked and horrified, when APEC collapses around its ears. One of the so-called trumpeted successes of APEC last week was that the proposals advanced by the United States in Vancouver last year—the ones under the rubric the Early Voluntary Sectoral Liberalisation Scheme proposals—were referred at Kuala Lumpur to the World Trade Organisation. This is hailed as a way of continuing to try and negotiate progress across a head of areas in trade that are vitally important to Australia. What has happened to them is that, rather than the difficulties being confronted and the problems solved in Kuala Lumpur, they have been pigeonholed in Geneva for dust to collect on them and no progress to be made. If this government were serious about jobs, it would have made a bigger effort.The other salutary point that needs to be borne in mind is that, of the 21 APEC nations, China, Russia, Vietnam and Peru are not even members of the World Trade Organisation. So presumably, if these matters referred to the WTO—without a timetable to be addressed and without any commitment to pursue them, but just sent there—miraculously are negotiated and come back to APEC, at least those nations will have no commitment at all to the outcome. This is a disaster for Australian trade negotiations. This government has let this nation down because it regarded APEC as a Labor plot. It besmirched the reputation of APEC in the 1996 election. It has not had the courage to confront the gains that it can produce for this economy and try to put a decent effort into pushing forward the agenda.So what did we have? When Vice-President Gore read a homily to some Asian leaders about democracy in their nations, we had a cringing Prime Minister, dressed up in a batik shirt, pulling his forelock to the Prime Minister of Malaysia and saying, `We don't stand with the Americans on those points. We will make those points privately to you, behind closed doors, in an Australian way.' That is not the Australian way. The Australian way is to tell the truth straight from the shoulder, honestly, openly and directly, not behind closed doors, and to let everyone know what you believe and where you stand, and to negotiate a constructive outcome from that position. We cringed. This is a national disgrace. (Time expired)19:02:00554Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Initially I did not have the report in my possession but, having reached for it, I find that the first thing that hits one's eye is the heading `Australia's Individual Action Plan: Trade Equals Jobs'. As one starts to flick through it, one sees a rudimentary report which outlines specifically the actions that Australia has taken in this area with APEC. There is one thing it does not do: in no way does the report reflect the outcome of trade equalling jobs. The last thing that is mentioned in the report is jobs.Senator Cook before me mentioned the matter of the early voluntary sectoral liberalisation, which was so eagerly looked forward to. But as he rightly pointed out, that has been put on the backburner. It has been put off the agenda completely to lie in a cupboard somewhere at the WTO. Our hope for success in job creation in Australia is to see the tariff barriers, obstacles to our exporters, being broken down. And at a time when we had great hope and faith that the government would push the early voluntary sectoral liberalisation, which had been agreed at the previous APEC meeting, we find that this now has been withdrawn. So the individual action plan, as I said, gives in a rudimentary style the basic detail of Australia's individual action plan, but it in no way goes to say how that is going to equate to jobs for Australians.One of the things that the Australian community is sceptical about in this area is the whole issue of trade liberalisation. Of course, they keep asking themselves: where are the jobs being created? All that mention of trade liberalisation does is create fear in the minds of people, and one can understand that. Here was an opportunity for the government to translate the successes of APEC and to try to push the successes of the trade liberalisation that has taken place in the Australian economy, along with our Asian neighbours, so that in turn we can reap the benefit with greater employment in Australia. But no, that has not happened. Early voluntary sectoral liberalisation has been shelved and that is one of the worst aspects of the most recent meeting of the APEC economies in Kuala Lumpur.It gets back to this report whose title says `Trade Equals Jobs'. Unless that can be explained to the Australian people, then scepticism will remain. The claim is that we are basically a low tariff nation, yet our neighbours invariably have a high tariff regime. Whilst they have been through an economic crisis, their reaction to that economic crisis has been to put up the barriers again, not only the tariff barriers, but the non-tariff barriers. So the need for the Australian government to play a proactive role to drive forward the agenda on the early voluntary sectoral liberalisation was terribly important indeed. But, of course, it was too little too late, as always with this government, and we are undoubtedly going to suffer the consequences of that into the future.If the government were in any way serious, when they got into government they would not have dropped schemes such as the Development Import Finance Facility. Even when one talks to small business today about APEC and Australia's role in APEC, we still have put to us the collapse of the Development Import Finance Facility. (Time expired)19:07:00555Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The document in relation to Australia's individual action plan is obviously very important for Australia. It is one of the few discussion documents that we get in this chamber on policy issues of trade, about what Australia is going to do and what the rest of the world is saying. We can compare this with what is being achieved within the community.Senator Hogg has rightly recognised that there is a great deal of cynicism—and I have to say mistrust—about global free trade. This mistrust did not start in the last couple of years. The elements of this mistrust actually occurred and, I believe, manifested themselves partly in the results of the 1996 elections. At that stage Paul Keating was the Prime Minister and was bouncing ahead with the prospect of APEC. Many people in the community wondered what the impacts would be.We were still trying to work out what the impacts were of signing the Uruguay Round of GATT. There has been a great deal of concern within the community that the promises proposed by free trade simply have not manifested themselves. It is not just about what tariffs we have and have not reduced or the tariffs that other countries have reduced. Australia is trading more than it ever has before. It is quite clear that we are importing. Our growth in imports generally increases considerably more than our growth in exports. So we and a lot of other countries can be trading, but not necessarily getting net benefit for our countries. If we were to add in, and we do not, environmental and other social costs involved with certain sorts of industries and certain subsidies which we continue to pay to major industries—and I think there is a story to be told in many parts of Australia on that—we might wonder whether or not we are simply trading ourselves either into a standstill or trading ourselves backwards in relation to the benefits within Australian society.Senator Hogg has rightly named employment as an issue which is continuing to worry people. Even though we are trading more, we are not necessarily employing more people. We have noticed that in recent years our economy can be growing for several quarters in a row and yet we still are not employing more people. We are failing to recognise that it is not growth or trade per se that makes the difference, it is the way we organise the economy: what kinds of thing we produce, how we organise it, what we use, whether we concentrate on using big capital, whether we concentrate on those goods and services that do not require many people or whether we look at different ways of doing things.In recent years people have been the enemy. Employees, human beings, have been seen largely as a cost of production. When we have seen documents come in about international competitiveness, largely they have been about reducing the cost of labour, reducing the number of people employed and reducing the amount of money paid to those people who are being employed on an hourly basis or on a weekly basis, and if possible putting people onto individual contracts. They are about deregulating the labour force and deregulating other issues that are seen to be simply a cost of production for industry, such as environmental standards, social standards and even justice rights for indigenous Australians. It seems to me that a lot of issues have been brought up by this report of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Unfortunately, we have never really had this debate in Australia. We have never really done a full assessment of the social outcomes of what happened when Australia signed the Uruguay Round of GATT and then—as all this had started—what the impacts would be of Australia taking on a free trade zone based in the APEC region. Then it was largely a peripheral debate—and still is—about what happened in relation to Australia going along with the suggestion of signing the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the so-called free trade on steroids.We believe, and we are told, that this is now on ice, but there is still no great certainty as to what the outcomes are in relation to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, all of this outside any kind of concept of authority—I will not talk mandate but moral, ethical or legitimate authority—coming from the ballot box. Most people are concerned about a lot of the changes associated with globalised free trade and the impacts they are having on them. They can see that a lot of the benefits that were promised are not coming to them. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.55619:13:00556Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.Senator Hogg has sought leave to continue his remarks, but I will come back to that later and make a few remarks in the meantime on the annual report of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, which used to be the Australian Securities Commission. It changed its functions on 1 July this year by adding new tasks to those it already had. It sets out, in a very graphic form, the new people with whom ASIC has to deal. It mentions consumers, banks, insurance agents and consumer organisations. It is good to see that this commission is expanding the very good work it has done under the more than able chairmanship of Mr Alan Cameron. I think he is entitled to say, as he does in his review of operations, that he is proud of `the Australian Securities Commission's contribution to Australia'. He is confident in the Australian Securities and Investment Commission's ability to carry out its expanded role effectively and enthusiastically—and I think that he will.In the previous discussion that took place on the issue of Australia's individual action plan which centred on APEC, Senator Margetts and also Senator Hogg mentioned that issues are to be seen not only in economic terms but also in social terms. One additional thing I would have liked the annual report of Australian Securities and Investment Commission to deal with is the issue of the employees of the various companies over which it has jurisdiction—such as meat companies in Wodonga, Grafton and South Australia which have so conducted their operations that their employees have been left short of their pay and remuneration. That is an issue which I will mention to Mr Cameron at the next meeting of the Joint Corporations and Securities Standing Committee, which hopefully will be re-established shortly and with which I hope to continue my association. The parliamentary committee deals with ASIC on a very amicable basis and much useful information is exchanged.I will take the opportunity when it next arises to ask Mr Cameron about the way that ASIC intends to look at this issue of employees being denied their rightful pay and remuneration because of a company's failure to trade profitably so that money is available to it. The tragedy is that money is not paid as it becomes due and, when the company goes into liquidation or gets into financial difficulties, those workers are denied their proper reward. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.557The following orders of the day relating to government documents were considered and not debated:Taxation Reform—Community Education and Information Programme—Documents tabled by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) relating to market research conducted by the Treasury, 11 November 1998. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Ray. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Ray in continuation.Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1997-98. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Margetts. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Margetts in continuation.Nuclear Safety Bureau—Report for the period 1 January to 31 March 1998 (NSB.QRM 42). Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Margetts. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Margetts in continuation.Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council—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.Superannuation Complaints Tribunal—Report for 1997-98. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Watson. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Watson in continuation.Productivity Commission—Report for 1997-98. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Margetts. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Margetts in continuation.Adjournment55710000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 7.20 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.55719:20:00557Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—In the adjournment debate tonight, I would like to spend some time congratulating Yirrkala Business Enterprises on celebrating 30 years of operations. Early last week I had the pleasure of returning to the north-east Arnhem Land community of Yirrkala on the Gove Peninsula. It is the second time in my career in this Senate that I have had the pleasure of speaking about this community. It is a community with which I have had a long ongoing relationship since I first arrived in the Northern Territory nearly 17 years ago.Last week was the occasion of the celebration of 30 years of operations of the Yirrkala Business Enterprises. In that area it is commonly and affectionately known as YBE. Tonight I want to tell you a bit about Yirrkala Business Enterprises. It is one of those quiet achievers you seldom hear about. It is the first Aboriginal industrial company in Australia to operate without government assistance. It is solely owned, operated and controlled by Aboriginal people, and it has now clocked up 30 years of operations. It is owned and operated by 19 Aboriginal clans from the region. It has grown over the years and now employs a work pool of over 200 people, most of whom are local Yolgnu Aboriginal people. Its annual turnover is now around $9 million.Its core business activities include ore haulage at Nabalco's bauxite mining and alumina processing plant. It also has carriage of roadworks for the Northern Territory government, engineering maintenance, horticulture, landscaping, earthmoving, environmental rehabilitation activities such as seed collection and propagation, roadworks, dam construction and waste management services. The company also markets and sells high quality Aboriginal arts and crafts throughout Australia and overseas.An important feature of the company's training and working environment, and no doubt a large part of its success, is that it allows Aboriginal people to fulfil cultural obligations and to maintain traditional lifestyles. I am pleased to note that we have the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs in the chamber, so I hope he takes note of that.Yirrkala Business Enterprises began life back in 1968. Its founder was Keith Larner, a former Yirrkala missionary. As part of the approval to mine in the Gove area, Nabalco, the mining company, agreed to employ Aboriginal people provided their services were commercially competitive. Yirrkala Brickworks started up to supply building materials for the nearby township of Nhulunbuy and Nabalco's alumina refinery. I have been told that it supplied over 1 million bricks during the construction phase.Later the Yirrkala Brickworks was incorporated as Yirrkala Business Enterprises. During its 30 years of operations it has provided more than 1,000 local people with training, skills and work experience. Many former employees are now working in other Aboriginal associations or using the training acquired at YBE to work as drivers, equipment operators, gardeners and mechanics in homeland centres. YBE has provided Yolgnu people with employment and allowed them to share the economic benefits of local economic development while at the same time maintaining their traditional lifestyles and meeting the demands of Aboriginal ceremonial obligations.An important development came in 1996 when YBE was awarded a Nabalco contract to haul ore from Rocky Bay, which is an inlet on the Gove Peninsula. This boosted the company's annual turnover by some $2.5 million and provided additional work opportunities for about 20 people. Importantly, the mining of the Rocky Bay ore will last about 20 years and provide security of employment and financial stability for YBE and its employees. Following the start of work on the Rocky Bay project, the former general manager of YBE for 10 years, and now the ATSIC Commissioner, Mr Gatjil Djerrkura, said that the achievements of YBE presented a model for mining companies and Aboriginal communities throughout Australia to work together.He said:We can work together and understand each other, appreciate each other's culture and so on. If we can do it here, I am sure the rest of Australia and the rest of the world can see that nothing is impossible for us.Under Gatjil's guidance the enterprise prospered, undertaking a wide range of work for Nabalco as preferred contractor. This has allowed them to provide employment and training for local Yolgnu people in keeping with YBE's goals, which are to promote the social and economic advancement of the Yirrkala people, to provide training and employment for Aboriginal people, to encourage and implement Aboriginal self-determination and self-management according to their own pace, style and development, and to maximise Aboriginal involvement and enjoy permanent employment.YBE and all the Yolgnu people and those Balanda non-Aboriginal people who have been involved over the years should be congratulated for their successes. I know it has not been straightforward. They have had setbacks along the way as most large companies have, but they have persevered.It is important to also note that the aspirations of those involved with YBE are similar to many other Aboriginal communities throughout our country and the Territory. Often Aboriginal people are labelled as being anti-development—usually by those people pursuing their own economic agendas or by those seeking to undermine Aboriginal self-determination. However, the amount of economic development on Aboriginal owned land in the Northern Territory clearly demonstrates this sentiment is patently false. Aboriginal people are clearly on the record as wanting development agreements on their land as long as that development takes into account Aboriginal landowners and their concerns over sacred sites, the environment and their cultural practices and provides employment and training opportunities. After all, it is in their interest to develop an economic base which lessens their dependency on the political whims of governments.YBE is a long-running example of where Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal economic aspirations can coincide and where there is good will and respect on both sides.I would like to finish with the words of Gatjil Djerrkura, who said at the time of his departure to take up the position of ATSIC Commissioner:This is our country. We feel responsible to look after it so it will bear fruit. We're looking beyond the present situation to ways to develop security and stability for families. We're looking for survival.The achievement that we've made with Nabalco is far too costly to be tokenism or anything that is of detriment to Aboriginal causes, and I think it's an achievement that we all should be proud of.I think he is right. The motto for Yirrkala Business Enterprises is, `We stand firm to develop our future.' And the last 30 years have proved that by standing firm together they can achieve this. They have achieved 30 years as a business and an annual turnover of $9 million without any government assistance. Once again, congratulations to all those at YBE for what they have achieved, and congratulations to all those who have been involved in that achievement.55919:28:00559Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Tonight I wish to speak on a peculiarly Australian condition—the tall poppy syndrome. Thomas Spalding Jnr holds an Ambassadorial Scholarship from the United States. As part of his scholarship, Thomas elected to study his MBA at Bond University on the Gold Coast during 1997. The Ambassadorial Scholarship is supported by Rotary International and Thomas addressed Rotary clubs throughout Australia on the differences he perceived between the business attitudes of North Americans and the business attitudes of Australians.One point that Thomas Spalding Jnr dwelt on and was astonished about was Australia's tall poppy syndrome. He could not understand the Australian pastime of lopping the tall poppies—in North America they are put on pedestals and adored and emulated wherever possible. There is a lot of emphasis on individualism and achievement. In bewilderment, Thomas could only paint a picture of how great this country could be if it followed America's example and supported its high achievers—if it valued competence, individualistic enterprise and accomplishment.This problem is so significant that Norman Feather, Professor of Psychology at Flinders University in South Australia, has conducted a series of studies where students respond to hypothetical scenarios in order to research attitudes towards tall poppies. The studies were concerned with value systems, envy, social comparison and other psychological processes.Results indicated that negative attitudes were more likely to occur amongst subjects who were low in self-esteem, who assigned less importance to values concerned with achievement and social power, and who were more to the left in their political preference. The Leader of the Opposition, Labor's Mr Kim Beazley, is a testament to this result with the idea, during the last election, that a combined income of $45,000 to $50,000 a year is `rich'. This is absolutely unbelievable.So too is Labor's attempt to deny 700,000 Australians with an income of less than $20,000 a year, a 30 per cent rebate on their private health insurance. Mr Beazley thinks the rebate only benefits the high income earners; perhaps he believes that individuals on $20,000 a year are rich.Professor Feather tells us that the expression `tall poppy' is unique to Australia. It does, however, have a long history. In ancient Roman history, the elder Tarquinius cut off the heads of poppies as a message to his son on how to deal with his enemies. The term was used in the nineteenth century in the British parliament. In the 1930s, New South Wales Premier Jack Lang referred to `tall poppies' in public office who needed to be cut down to size.The historian Hancock notes that a crucial assumption of the Australian society in the 1930s was a `fair and reasonable' standard of living for everyone, accompanied by a distrust of special excellence, a dislike of authority and a dislike of status seekers—perhaps something to do with our convict past.Tall poppies may be conspicuously successful in business, the entertainment industry, sport and, of course, politics. Professor Feather believes that, generally, politicians are more likely to be criticised because they are making decisions on people's livelihood. Hard economic times can have disastrous effects on those in the political arena.Because of the public attention they attract, tall poppies usually receive a lot of media attention. The media, indeed, has a lot of sway. Reversing people's negative attitudes to tall poppies is an important ingredient in influencing the advancement of society and the achievement of progress.My office therefore sought to establish the views of some constituents on the counterpro ductive pastime of lopping tall poppies. Constituents felt that children idolise their sporting heroes and look for leadership; but, as they get older, they become more querying and more susceptible to the comments of their peers, who are influenced by the older generation and negative press. The lack of national pride, or even state pride, and a preoccupation with the press's word as gospel was thought to be unhealthy. One constituent told of her embarrassment about buying a Kylie Minogue record. You do not have to tell Kylie about that—she had to leave Australia in order to get the recognition she so justly deserved. The same constituent would buy a John Farnham record and not feel embarrassed, because he is `a nice guy'. It appears John relates to the young and to the old. On the other hand, it seems Kylie does not.It was felt that jealousy, suspicion, innuendo and a tendency to bag people, rather than focus on positive attitudes, contributed largely to the problem. Jealousy plays a significant part in the tall poppy syndrome. The bagging starts when people do not have the same intellect or the same ability to get the same sorts of skills. But somehow this is justified in order to bring the tall poppy down a peg or two. People cannot bring themselves to actually say, `Congratulations on being successful.' Instead they say, `I suppose you'll increase your prices now.'Constituents believe the political system does not help and that public slanging matches actually decrease confidence. As politicians, we must be aware of these sorts of attitudes. We must aim to develop positive outlooks. We must encourage and reward achievement. Energy, enthusiasm, self-confidence and self-motivation must be actively promoted and enjoyed. No Australians must ever feel uncomfortable about standing out in a crowd.We must turn the negative attitude—the tall poppy syndrome—around, otherwise it will hurt our country. At this time, Australians really need a very positive approach. I believe that the Olympic Games will be good for Australia. It is only the beginning. We must ensure tall poppies are watered and blossom to their full potential.56119:34:00561Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—It is a pleasure to follow on from that contribution by Senator Watson. I say for the record that some of us are not embarrassed to purchase Kylie Minogue records. We like supporting young blonde women in public life—trust me.On the weekend I was honoured to give the opening address at the First International Conference on Drugs and Young People, which concluded today. I would like to take the opportunity tonight to congratulate the organisers, the Australian Drug Foundation. I want particularly to congratulate them for incorporating into this conference a substream which looked at presentations from young people. Even in the area of youth affairs, it is often not that easy to incorporate young people's participation—even though it is, of course, quite essential.When it comes to drugs and young people, the issue is always discussed as a problem. It is not often we hear young people's views on illicit and illegal drugs. Rarely are they going to speak candidly to adults, let alone professionals, their parents or, say, politicians. It is not just young people who are secretive. Recent media reports make it clear that governments seem to be having a lot of trouble in releasing research that has demonstrated high levels of drug abuse amongst young people.It is hard to collect information on drug use and why young people would take drugs. Obviously, there are a variety of reasons—whether it is depression, or risk taking or experimentation, to name a few. For some, illegal drug taking will be a stage and they will pass through it, fortunately, without harm. One of the scariest statements I have read on the topic is this:As young people move out and into the work force and take on more responsibilities they gradually leave drugs behind.We have a teenage unemployment rate of around 27 per cent. Perhaps if we are very serious about tackling illegal drug use then governments, in particular, must consider job creation strategies.If politicians, bureaucrats, health workers, teachers, parents and the media head off to the moral high ground, if they blindfold themselves with zero tolerance and ignore the reality, then we do not always get the real picture. I wonder if young people will believe us when we talk about such issues.I commend the health department on its harm minimisation resources, such as `Rethinking Drinking' and `Candidly Cannabis' which recognise that some young people do take drugs and that they should be informed as to how to minimise health risks to themselves. There are also some excellent Internet sites such as `Stop Drugs'; some others are not so accurate or helpful. The Prime Minister, of course, is able to see the same research and information as I do, yet we hold different philosophies and advocate different positions on drug law reform.The Democrats support harm minimisation over zero tolerance in relation to drugs. We believe that drug abuse is a social and a health problem that should be addressed primarily through medical and social services, not through the law and justice systems.I do not doubt that the Prime Minister is committed to reducing drug related deaths and drug related harm in our community. He created the Australian National Council on Drugs and is spending almost $200 million over four years on the Tough on Drugs campaign. First launched in November last year, the Prime Minister described this strategy as a balance between law enforcement and education, treatment and research. I still think that the balance is too far in favour of law enforcement and ignores the real patterns of drug use. A recent Western Australian study reported that marijuana accounts for almost 75 per cent of drug charges and most people charged with drug offences under the Western Australian law are under the age of 25.In fact, the biggest drug problems for young people are actually legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco. It is for people over the age of 18, of course, that they are legal drugs. In terms of informed consent about what people are doing when they are using those particular drugs, there is a system in place with tobacco and alcohol. As legal drugs, they are sold in marked containers specifying the associated health risks, content and purity. That system applied to currently illegal drugs will be a step forward towards reducing death by overdose. I guess it is one of the paradoxes in the way that we treat different drugs according to who takes them.Alcohol abuse is a serious problem in our community. It is estimated to cost Australians $5 billion a year. An estimated 13 per cent of Australians over the age of 13 years have been physically abused at least once by someone affected by alcohol. We do not want to criminalise alcohol addiction, perhaps better addressed with appropriate community services. However, I do note that particular crimes, drink driving and violent crimes, must attract serious penalties if we are to offset the prevailing mythology that alcohol is an appropriate legal drug.In terms of smoking, Australian governments raise about $4.6 billion in tobacco taxes a year but spend less than a third of one per cent on smoking prevention programs. I guess in some respects, while our Prime Minister arms the borders to catch drug smugglers, quite appropriately, he might consider too the customs gates where large numbers of people openly display their drug of choice as they enter the country.Between 1988 and 1996, heroin overdose deaths among 15- to 24-year-olds grew by about a third. In 1996, around 200 15- to 24-year-olds died due to heroin overdoses, which is approximately 6.5 per cent of all deaths among young people that year. There are a number of reasons to believe that there has been an increase in the number of heroin users in Australia; there has certainly been an increase in the demand for treatment. Yet the public debate around this issue seems to be stuck in the tiresome legal hoary chestnut of state-Commonwealth relations. Last year the Prime Minister scuttled a heroin trial in the ACT. This year, as you may be aware, Madam President, in your territory overdose deaths overtook road deaths.The South Australian parliament in this past week has been debating a motion which could eventually lead to heroin trials in South Australia, my home state. Certainly that is the motion moved by the South Australian Democrat leader, Mike Elliott. As Jaap van der Haar, the Dutch expert who has been in town for the conference on drugs and young people, has said, it is clear that we should not speak of a heroin problem but of an addiction problem. However, in response to Mike Elliott's proposal, on Thursday the Minister for Health and Aged Care reaffirmed the government's firm opposition to heroin trials in Australia. I do note that there is perhaps in-principle support from at least one Premier, Jeff Kennett in Victoria, but he has added a caveat that no state or territory should have trials unless every state and territory is willing, which still seems to be a prime example of Commonwealth-state buck-passing.I should note, in light of what was said by the previous speaker, that I find incredibly offensive Jeff Kennett's statement today that he believes the Democrats are the political whores. I state for the record that not only is that an offensive suggestion to all members of the Democrats but also it is perhaps particularly questionable given that we are a party with a majority female representation in this particular chamber and that we have a female leadership team. I urge that premier to reconsider such blatantly sexist and offensive remarks. Referring to Senator Watson's speech, when we use such terminology and abuse in public debate, no wonder we lower the esteem in which politicians are held in the eyes of the community.I think heroin is a poison and a pain-killer. By and large, people have always been able to get their hands on drugs, so I do not think we can necessarily prevent supply. Especially in a country like ours, an island, it is very hard to arm all the borders, if you like. But I do believe that we have to try and work hard to reduce demand.Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in almost every advanced industrial society, but it is a drug particularly favoured by the youth population. More than a quarter of 14- to 19-year-olds have used marijuana in the last year, one-third of 20-somethings but only 4 per cent—that is, one in 25—of 40- to 50-year-olds. I have seen marijuana cause apathy, paranoia, giggling and stony silence—and that is only among politicians when we talk about decriminalisation.I do commend to the parliament the work being done by the Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform. The Democrats support the decriminalisation of marijuana. There are a number of groups on record who support our policy, including the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform. Even the AMA are on record supporting drug reform. In my home state of South Australia in 1986, and in the ACT in 1992, we saw the relaxation of laws in relation to marijuana—in effect, decriminalisation for small amounts. It does not appear to have led to an increase in use compared with other states. So we really do need to examine other strategies.We do not pretend that marijuana is a harmless substance. Anecdotal evidence suggests that marijuana being used today is a great deal more potent than that used 20 years ago, so one of the reasons we support decriminalisation is because we believe there are potential dangers with marijuana use. In a climate of fear and deception, where the issue of marijuana is swept under the table and where drug debate is taboo, the serious health issues are not been properly addressed. We can help young people avoid drug abuse. Criminalising them is not the way. Marijuana and other drugs can do great harm, but prohibition and punishment are not preventing drug abuse.19:44:00563Senate adjourned at 7.44 p.m.Documents563563The following government documents were tabled:Advance to the Minister for Finance—Statements and supporting applications of issues—July 1998.August 1998.September 1998.October 1998. APEC—Australia's individual action plan: Trade equals jobs—Ministerial statement by the Minister for Trade (Mr Fischer), November 1998.Report, November 1998.Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act—Nuclear Safety Bureau—Report for the period 1 January to 31 March 1998 (NSB.QRM 42).Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Reports for 1997-98—Australian Securities Commission.Bundanon Trust.Export Finance and Insurance Corporation.Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation.National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals.Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority.Crimes Act—Report on controlled operations for 1997-98.Public Service Act—Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business—Report for 1997-98—Erratum.Governor-General Act—Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General—Report for 1997-98, including a report pursuant to the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act 1987 .National Procurement Board—Report for period 1 July 1997 to 31 March 1998 (Final report).Productivity Commission Act—Productivity Commission—Report for 1997-98.Rural Adjustment Act—Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council—Report for 1997-98, including a report for 1997-98 on the Rural Adjustment Scheme.Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—Seafarers Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Authority—Report for 1997-98.Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act—Superannuation Complaints Tribunal—Report for 1997-98.Taxation Reform—Community Education and Information Programme—Documents tabled by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) relating to market research conducted by the Treasury, 11 November 1998.563The following documents were tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996: Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for the period 1 January to 30 June 1998, Centrelink.Department of Social Security.National Capital Authority.564The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Directive—Part— 105, dated 27 [2] and 31 October 1998; and 6, 9, 10 [5] and 13 [9] November 1998. 107, dated 13 [4] November 1998.Public Service Act—Public Service Determinations 1998/19-1998/23.