1998-11-253911SENATE56501998-11-25The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills565s187Billss188565Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following bills be introduced: a bill for an act relating to the sale of the National Transmission Network and a bill for an act to make consequential amendments relating to the sale of the National Transmission Network, and for related purposes.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.56509:32:00565Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bills and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—NATIONAL TRANSMISSION NETWORK SALE BILL 1998The National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1998, together with the National Transmission Network Sale (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998, implements the Government's decision to sell the National Transmission Network.Bills to enable the sale of the network were passed by the House of Representatives in the previous term of this Government. However, the recent federal election was called before the Senate could complete its consideration of the bills. These current bills incorporate minor amendments, including those recommended by the Senate Committee which examined the previous bills. The amendments extend the access regime in the bills to include ancillary services provided by the ABC and SBS and to cover community television providers. A further amendment confirms the original policy intention of the Sale bill that the access regime applied by the bill is restricted to carriage services for the transmission of existing analog broadcasting services.These bills will give the ABC and SBS a direct commercial relationship with transmission service providers, thereby increasing the national broadcasters' responsibility for transmission of their programs. The ABC and SBS have been seeking such a commercial relationship for many years.The sale of the transmission network will provide a range of benefits. The ABC and SBS, and other network users, will finally operate in a purchaser/provider relationship with service suppliers. Transferring this operational activity to the private sector will produce the scope for greater client focus and responsiveness that flows from normal commercial practice. In addition, it sets the scene for a greater degree of competition in the transmission services market, particularly with the introduction of digital terrestrial broadcasting. Sale proceeds will be used to further reduce the public debt.In agreeing to sell the network, the Government has recognised the importance of safeguarding important broadcasting policy objectives. We have made it clear that the maintenance of existing ABC and SBS coverage and service quality, particularly for regional and remote communities, is a prerequisite.In addition, we will ensure that existing Community Service Obligations will be preserved, including those for network users such as Radio for the Print Handicapped, remote commercial satellite broadcasting services, self-help retransmission groups and emergency service operators.In the medium term, we recognise that there is likely to remain limited competition in the transmission services market, especially outside major metropolitan centres.Against this background, these bills balance the desire to maximise the benefits of establishing commercial synergies, with the need for competitive safeguards to protect the Government's broadcasting and social policy objectives.The Network will be transferred to one or more national transmission companies which will have agreed contracts with the ABC and SBS spelling out transmission requirements for existing analog broadcasting services. These companies will be sold to the network purchaser, or purchasers, with the contracts in place. A compact with the ABC and SBS will spell out the Government's transmission coverage and quality expectations—in return for full funding of the costs of the broadcasters' initial five year transmission contracts.The bills provide a regulatory framework to underpin these contractual arrangements.It is necessary to ensure the continuity of contractual arrangements in the event of on-sale of the network, and to safeguard against the transfer of assets necessary for the continuation of ABC, SBS, Radio for the Print Handicapped and emergency services.Accordingly, this bill contains provisions requiring Ministerial approval before transfer of any assets associated with these "nominated services". This requirement will enable the Minister to ensure that the proposed transferee adopts the conditions of the previous contracts with the ABC, SBS and Radio for the Print Handicapped operators in relation to their core performance obligations. The provision will also allow an assessment of the likely commercial or financial viability of the proposed transferee to further safeguard the continued provision of existing national broadcasting services.The legislation also provides for an access regime similar to that put in place for the telecommunications industry for the benefit of certain nominated customers. The access regime will guard against any imbalance in negotiating power, which could have led to essential transmission services and facilities not being available, or only being available at monopoly prices.The access regime will:. guarantee access to existing analog transmission services for the ABC, SBS, government and non-profit self-help retransmission groups and the Radio for the Print Handicapped operators, and will. guarantee access to existing Network sites and towers for groups such as community broadcasters (including community TV), remote commercial satellite broadcasters and emergency services, as well as the ABC, SBS, self-help retransmission groups and Radio for the Print Handicapped.If the parties are unable to reach agreement on the terms and conditions to apply, they will have recourse to the ACCC to arbitrate the matter.This combination of contractual and legislative provisions will balance the likely market power of new network owners to ensure continued access by national broadcasters and other nominated users on reasonable terms and conditions.Commercial users of the network will have recourse to standard fair trading legal safeguards, including those under Part 3A of the Trade Practices Act 1974.The ABC and SBS will also be able to establish their own transmission services. This power, together with the ability of the broadcasters to purchase future requirements from other providers, will provide commercial leverage and introduce contestability into the market, particularly in relation to digital broadcasting services.The access provisions in the Sale bill are subject to the operation of the provisions in Part 5 of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 which gives the national (ABC and SBS) and commercial television broadcasters a right of access to broadcasting transmission sites (including NTN sites) for the purpose of installing digital television transmitters and associated facilities.The new arrangements also require a number of technical changes to other portfolio legislation. The National Transmission Network Sale (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 amends the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to allow the broadcasters to deal directly with transmission service providers, and to enable the ABC and SBS to maintain control over the radiocommunications spectrum used to broadcast their services.The ABC and SBS will report to the Parliament, through their annual reports, on any significant changes in transmission coverage or quality of national broadcasting services.The ABC and SBS will be responsible for dealing with any complaints from the public about reception quality. In the unlikely event that a suitable and timely response is not provided by the broadcasters, and a substantial problem appears to exist in relation to changed transmission coverage of a community, the Minister will have the option of directing the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) to investigate the matter.With this contractual and legislative package, the ABC and SBS will at last have a direct commercial relationship with the provider of their transmission services, and a degree of flexibility in determining how best to meet their future transmission needs. At the same time, the Australian public can be confident that coverage and signal quality for existing national broadcasting services will be protected.In addition, self-help retransmission groups, emergency service operators, remote commercial satellite service providers and providers of Radio for the Print Handicapped services will be protected by the access regime. Capped charges in contracts or supplementary funding will ensure that they are not financially disadvantaged. The National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1998 also contains some technical requirements to facilitate the sale.These include provisions to ensure, if necessary, that ownership of fixtures can be separated from ownership of the land on which they are located. Some transmission facilities have been built on non-Commonwealth land and the power to "sever" the fixtures from the land is needed to make it clear that the Commonwealth is the owner of Network assets.This bill also ensures that the new Network owner will not be subject to State and Territory planning and environmental laws for facilities existing or under development at the time of the sale. Of course, a new owner will be subject to all planning and environmental requirements for new facilities or substantial changes to existing ones.Sale proceeds are expected to return to the Budget in 1998-99 as an offset to outlays. The Government has agreed that total outlays for transmission services after the sale will be contained within current forward estimates. No additional resources are required for the negligible financial impact of administering the regulatory arrangements contained in these bills.These bills will allow the completion of the sale of the transmission network. As promised, the Government will deliver the benefits of a more commercial transmission environment, and give the national broadcasters the direct responsibility for transmission of their programs which they have sought for so long. At the same time, the bills provide the safeguards necessary to preserve the Government's national broadcasting and other social policy objectives.NATIONAL TRANSMISSION NETWORK SALE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1998The National Transmission Network Sale (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 supplements the National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1998, in putting in place arrangements to effect the Government's decision to sell the National Transmission Network.This bill amends the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 to make it clear that both the ABC and SBS have the power to produce, transmit and arrange for the transmission of programs. Both organisations will be required to provide details in their annual reports of significant changes in transmission coverage of national broadcasting services.Where a substantial problem appears to exist in relation to changed transmission coverage of a community, the Minister will have the power to direct the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) to conduct an investigation into the matter.Minor amendments to the Radiocommunications Act 1992 will facilitate ABC and SBS control of the Radiocommunications spectrum used to broadcast their services.This bill will have no financial impact.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned until 14 days after today, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills567s189Billss190567Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following bills be introduced: a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to Customs, and for related purposes and 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.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.56709:33:00567Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table the explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—CUSTOMS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No.1) 1998 (No. 2)This bill is identical to the Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No.1) 1998, introduced into the House of Representatives on 2 July 1998 before the last Parliament was dissolved on 31 August 1998. It represents the first instalment of legislative amendments proposed by the Government implementing the "Tough on Drugs" strategy, an initiative announced by the Prime Minister on 2 November 1997.Illicit drugs damage our society, especially our young people. The Government is determined to do everything it can to reduce the menace of illicit drugs. The Prime Minister's personal leadership in announcing the `Tough on Drugs' strategy is a very clear demonstration of that commitment.Recent significant seizures of illicit drugs underline the Government's commitment.The Government's strategy is three-fold. First, it aims to reduce demand for illicit drugs by educating people, particularly our young people, about the dangers of drug use. Second, it aims to reduce the harm being done to drug users, for example through education about the risks of HIV/AIDS among injecting users. Thirdly, it aims to reduce the supply of illicit drugs by stopping them from coming into the country in the first place. Each of these parts of the strategy received a significant boost in funding in the Prime Minister's initial announcement of 2 November 1997 and were emphasised in his second announcement on 16 March this year.As well as making sure that our law enforcement agencies have the people and the tools that they need to combat this menace, we also need to make sure that they are equipped with adequate and appropriate legal powers. That is what this bill is about.The bill amends the Customs Act 1901 (the Act) with the objective of providing Customs officers with more effective powers in relation to the detection of illicit drugs at the border. The bill also amends the Customs Administration Act 1985 in relation to the use made of information obtained or held by the Australian Customs Service. A brief outline of the proposals included in the bill is as follows.Currently, passengers and crew who arrive in Australia on a ship or a plane are required to report to Customs. In respect of such people, Customs has powers to ask questions, search bags and, subject to establishing a `reasonable cause', conduct searches of people. But there is a gap in these powers. Customs does not currently have these powers in relation to a large number of people who have access to ships and planes that have arrived in Australia and which may have illicit drugs aboard. This group of people includes people such as maintenance crews, caterers and cleaners and, in relation to ships, visitors. This gap is a weakness which has been exploited as a means of importing illicit drugs. The proposed amendments seek to provide Customs officers with a power to examine the bags or other containers in the possession of such persons to ensure illicit drugs are not being landed by them.Similarly, Customs officers do not currently have any power to frisk search such persons. This inability, where the Customs officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is carrying prohibited goods on his or her body, provides a significant opportunity for such persons to walk illicit drugs off a ship or aircraft. The amendments propose to provide Customs officers with the power to undertake a frisk search of a person in such circumstances.It is proposed that these powers will also apply in circumstances where Customs officers are involved in the boarding and searching of a ship or aircraft whether it is berthed or parked at a wharf or airport respectively or whether a vessel is boarded at sea by Customs officers on an Australian Customs Vessel.In summary, the powers proposed are not new ones: as I have explained, Customs already has these powers in respect of arriving passengers. The proposal is simply to extend the powers to other people in a `Customs place' who have unrestricted access to planes and ships for quite legitimate purposes. The proposed frisk search powers will provide the same safeguards and rights to individuals as currently apply to passengers, thereby ensuring that the dignity of a person being frisk searched is maintained.In relation to Customs officers on board Australian Customs Vessels, there has, for some time, been a concern within the Australian Customs Service about the safety and welfare of Customs officers operating at sea in an isolated environment. Customs officers are not armed. They should be able to feel safe and without the fear of any threat when administering the Customs Act and protecting our borders. This is particularly the case in relation to Customs officers operating at sea when boarding a ship. Unlike the controlled environment at an airport, Customs officers do not necessarily know in advance the circumstances they will confront on boarding. For this reason a special frisk search power is being sought in these circumstances. When an officer suspects that he or she is in danger of being injured by a person on the ship, the officer will be able to frisk search the suspect person without consent and take possession, if necessary with reasonable force, of any implement such as knives, guns or other implements which could harm the officers.The bill also proposes to give Customs officers the power to copy a document in circumstances where a Customs officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the document contains information in relation to the importation of illicit drugs. Such information will be invaluable in the detection of significant drug importations.In addition the bill proposes a number of amendments which will assist in the detection of drugs by generally making Customs controls more effective at the border. These may be summarised as follows:. A Customs officer currently has the power to require a vehicle to stop in a Customs place for the purpose of checking goods leaving Customs control. There is no deterrent if the driver of the vehicle fails to stop. It is proposed to make it an offence in cases where the vehicle fails to stop.. Currently the act makes it an offence for craft or goods coming from a place outside Australia to go directly to a sea installation without Customs permission. A similar offence exists in relation to a craft or goods leaving a sea installation directly for a place outside Australia. It is proposed to extend the application of this provision to resources installation. The potential for sea installations to be used to breach border controls is equally relevant in relation to resources installations.. It is an offence under the act for an Australian based craft to transfer goods at sea to a craft on an international voyage. It is proposed to also make it an offence for the craft on the international voyage to be involved in such a transfer of goods.. A Customs officer currently has the power to board and search a foreign flagged ship in the Australian territorial sea. As a consequence of Australia becoming a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it is proposed to extend these powers to the contiguous zone in cases where the Customs officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the ship has been, is, or is to be involved in the commission of an offence against the act. It is also proposed to extend the area in which the general powers to board and search ships may be exercised to include the sea to the landward side of the base line to the coastline of Australia as well as the territorial sea.Amendments are also proposed to the Customs Administration Act 1985. These amendments will modernise the official secrecy and disclosure provisions and will recognise the necessity of arrangements for intelligence sharing in acting against illicit drug smuggling and trafficking (including performance enhancing drugs) as well as in relation to other unlawful activity. Such arrangements also assist efficient operational and regulatory activity by Customs and other bodies. Special safeguards are also included to ensure the appropriate protection of personal information.The bill also includes a proposal related to the control of weapons in accordance with the Government's gun control policy. The objective of this proposal is that a person on a craft on an international voyage visiting Australia, for example a yacht, is to be subject to the same gun controls as if such a person arrived in Australia as a passenger, similar to all Australians.To this end it is proposed that such a person be required to keep such weapons in secure storage on board their craft for the duration of their stay in Australia. If they are unable to provide secure storage on their craft for the storage of the weapon, the Customs officer is to have the power to take the weapon into custody for the duration of the person's stay in Australia. The weapon will be returned to the person upon departure from Australia.The proposals I have outlined will be of valuable assistance to the Australian Customs Service in controlling movements of people, craft and goods across the Australian border, and in particular, enhance the ability of the Australian Customs Service to detect importations of illicit drugs into Australia.NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION MEASURES (IMPLEMENTATION) BILL 1998INTRODUCTIONThe National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill represents a further significant milestone in the development of environment protection in Australia. The bill represents a commitment of the Commonwealth and the States and Territories to work cooperatively to develop and implement national environment protection measures, a commitment which was agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments in the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment in May 1992. The Government made an election commitment to introduce legislation, as necessary, to implement the Commonwealth's obligations under the COAG Agreement in relation to compliance with State environment legislation. Introduction of this bill fulfils the Government's election commitment.It bears repeating that the objectives of national environment protection measures are to ensure that people, wherever they live in Australia, enjoy the benefit of equivalent protection from air, water, soil pollution and noise and secondly, to ensure that decisions by business are not distorted and markets are not fragmented by variations between jurisdic tions in relation to the adoption or implementation of major environment protection measures.On 12 March 1998 the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee presented its report on the National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill. The Committee recommended that the passage of the bill should proceed.However, passage of the bill was delayed due to proroguing of Parliament. The bill is the second part of a package of complementary State and Commonwealth legislation. It follows the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 which established the National Environment Protection Council and allowed for the development and application of national environment protection measures. National environment protection measures, which may be a combination of goals, guidelines, standards or protocols, will apply as valid law in each participating jurisdiction.The first face-to-face meeting of the Council occurred on 21 June 1996, after the States and Territories had passed mirror legislation to put in place commitments to implement national environment protection measures.The National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 determined that measures may be made in relation to:(a) ambient air quality(b) ambient marine, estuarine and fresh water quality;(c) noise, where differences in environmental requirements relating to noise would have an adverse effect on national markets for goods and services;(d) general guidelines for the assessment of site contamination;(e) environmental impacts associated with hazardous wastes;(f) the re-use and recycling of used materials;(g) motor vehicles noise and emissions, also where differences in standards would affect national markets.OPERATION OF THE BILLThe purpose of the National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill is to provide for the implementation of national environment protection measures in respect of activities by the Commonwealth and Commonwealth authorities.The bill provides the means by which the Commonwealth and Commonwealth authorities are able to implement national environment protection measures. These means consist of:. the application of provisions of State and Territory environment laws; . the making of regulations;. the use of an existing law of the Commonwealth which can deliver appropriate environmental outcomes; and. the carrying out of an environmental audit and preparation of an environment management plan.The National Pollutant Inventory National Environment Protection Measure was made by the Council in February 1998. Council also made two further measures relating to ambient air quality and the transport of controlled wastes across State and Territory borders on 26 June 1998. In addition, measures on guidelines for the assessment of site contamination and used packaging materials are also being developed.COOPERATION WITH STATES AND TERRITORIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTThe bill is breaking new ground and will establish stronger co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories in relation to environment protection initiatives.It is envisaged that the mechanism of application of State and Territory laws will be the first option considered for the implementation of a national environment protection measure with regard to Commonwealth activities and sites.COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION MEASURESThe Commonwealth, and the States and Territories will have to comply with any national environment protection measure developed by the National Environment Protection Council. This strong commitment by all governments ensures national harmonisation of approaches which aim to protect the environment. The National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill is the mechanism through which the Commonwealth will fulfil this important commitment.An exemption from implementing a particular measure at a certain Commonwealth place or with regard to a specific Commonwealth activity will ONLY be given on the ground of a matter of national interest. A matter of `national interest' is confined to:(i) Australia's relations with another country or Australia's international obligations, national security, national defence or a national emergency; or(ii) a matter relating to telecommunications or the management of aviation airspace and airports, including aircraft emissions, aircraft noise and on-ground airport management, but not including matters specified by 1.04 (2) of the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations; or (iii) any other matter agreed to between the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories.Australia is part of an international aviation community and it is the Government's view that matters relating to aviation airspace management and airport management would benefit from being regulated under a single national regime. In providing an holistic regime for the effective environmental regulation for airspace and airports, the Commonwealth will be meeting the objectives of national environment protection measures provided by the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment.The bill provides for the implementation of national environment protection measures by another law of the Commonwealth if the Environment Minister is satisfied it will achieve appropriate environmental outcomes. One of the Objects of the Airport (Environmental Protection) Regulations, made under the Airports Act 1996, is to establish, in conjunction with national environment protection measures, a Commonwealth system of regulation for activities at airports that generate, or have the potential to generate, pollution or excessive noise. By operating in conjunction with national environment protection measures, it is my view that the Regulations will provide the appropriate environmental outcomes.To ensure these outcomes are achieved, the Regulations prescribe the development of an environment strategy for each airport and the establishment of an enforcement regime.Noise emissions from aircraft in flight or when landing, taking off or taxiing at an airport and engine emissions will continue to be regulated by the Air Navigation (Aircraft Noise) Regulations and the Air Navigation (Aircraft Engine Emissions) Regulations respectively which will continue to meet Australia's international obligations.In the case where State or Territory law is not the mechanism for implementation of a particular national environment protection measure, there is an obligation on the part of Commonwealth authorities to implement the measure either through an existing Commonwealth law which will deliver the necessary environmental outcomes, through Commonwealth regulations or through development of an environment management plan.Non-compliance with a national environment protection measure will be published in the Gazette, and the details of authorities not complying will also be publicly available through the annual report to Parliament on implementation of the measures.RIGOROUS DEVELOPMENT OF THE MEASURESIn developing a national environment protection measure, regional environmental differences must be taken into account, as must the environmental, economic and social impacts of the measure. The Council must also take into account whether the measure is the most effective means of achieving the desired environmental outcome, and whether the measure can be simply and effectively administered.National environment protection measures must also be consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development as outlined in the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment.As stated earlier, the National Environment Protection Council has finalised Measures for the National Pollutant Inventory, the movement of controlled wastes across State and Territory borders and ambient air quality. These measures aim to address issues of national significance.The Government made an election commitment to continued its support of the National Environment Protection Council and promote measures that address ambient standards for marine and estuarine water quality; packaging waste; the rehabilitation of contaminated sites; and diesel fuel emissions.A number of studies have been undertaken to ensure that the current measures being developed can stand up to rigorous scrutiny, both in relation to their scientific basis and administrative efficiency as well as their effectiveness in contributing to achieving the desired environmental outcome. For example, the Government's Air Pollution Inquiry assisted the development of the ambient air quality measure through the funding of important work on air quality standards.An impact statement is required for each national environment protection measure by the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994. These impact statements include comprehensive explanations of the measure and identify where possible economic, environmental or social costs or benefits are likely to arise.NON-GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEASURESPublic consultation is an important component of the process to develop national environment protection measures. Draft measures are published in the Commonwealth Gazette and submissions regarding the draft measures invited over a minimum of two months.Non-government advisory groups, with membership relevant to the various national environment protection measures, have been involved in the development of those measures. Membership of these groups has included representatives of groups as diverse as the Australian Institute of Petroleum, Minerals Council of Australia, ACTU, Greenpeace Australia and the Queensland Conservation Council. Non-Government representatives have also participated in the technical advisory panels for national environment protection measures.Further, the community will have an opportunity to examine each draft measure and to provide submissions during the consultation period following publication of the draft measure in the Commonwealth Gazette. It is very likely that changes will be made to the national environment protection measures after receiving important feedback from various sources during the public consultation phase.HARMONISATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES ACROSS AUSTRALIAAn outcome of the adoption of national environment protection measures will be greater certainty for business, and a greater capacity for industry to manage environmental issues which cross State borders.While implementation strategies may vary somewhat across States and Territories, it is likely that information will be shared between jurisdictions in relation to implementation of measures and that, over time, the implementation strategies themselves will have a tendency to become uniform nationally.CONCLUSIONThe passage of the National Environmental Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill is a landmark event for environmental management in Australia. The legislation will provide the implementation vehicle for the development of national environment protection measures on, as I have mentioned previously, a range of issues including ambient marine and estuarine water quality, packaging waste, the rehabilitation of contaminated sites and diesel fuel emissions.Cooperation between the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments in the development of measures represents a major benefit not only to the people of Australia and to the environment, but also to Australian industry.There will be benefits to the environment through the close attention given to the specific environment issues and to identifying an effective environmental outcome in development of national environment protection measures. The Australian people will benefit through having access to equivalent protection from pollutants wherever they live in Australia, and industry will benefit from ensuring competitive neutrality in relation to their activities throughout Australia.I commend the National Environmental Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill to you as an important achievement in environmental management for Australia and for all Australians.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned until 14 days after today, in accordance with standing order 111.Business572572Motion (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 following bills:National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1998National Transmission Network Sale (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 .Bills572r595572The bill.Consideration resumed from 24 November.09:34:00572Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Minister, you were seeking an answer to a question I put to you when we were last discussing this matter.09:35:00572Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The question related to the Australian Research Council and a discussion paper. I believe that is where we left matters yesterday. I can tell the Senate that it has been almost 10 years since the release of the last substantial policy statement on the role of higher education research in Australia.Research and research training have never been more important to the nation's economic, social and cultural wellbeing, and it is critical, in the government's view, that public expenditure on research and research training be seen as an investment in the future. We should do everything as a government to get the best possible value for the Commonwealth's investment.It is therefore appropriate, we believe, to look at this situation. A discussion paper was thought appropriate in this regard, and I am advised by the minister that he will be releasing shortly a discussion paper on research and research training. As I understand it, the government's position at this stage has not been finalised. The discussion paper will be released, and comment then will be taken on it.09:36:00573Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Minister, could you advise the Senate what consultation has occurred to this point in the preparation of this discussion paper?09:36:00573Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I am advised that the department has undertaken the task of drafting the discussion paper and has done so in consultation with various vice-chancellors.09:37:00573Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I read in the press that various vice-chancellors are saying that they have not seen the document. For instance, I note a report in the Australian on 18 November which says that representatives of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee have asked that they be provided with a copy. In fact, they have said they thought it would have been courteous for them to have been sent a copy. A number of senior vice-chancellors have been arguing that this has been put together in secret, and that the proposals contained in this measure go to some fundamental changes in the way in which research grants will be distributed.It is suggested, for instance, that there should be a movement towards internal assessments and a removal of peer review for the awarding of research moneys. It is suggested that the proposals contain a provision for portable scholarships for research higher degree students to replace existing postgraduate places funded through the operating grants of the Australian postgraduate awards and that there be a research and innovation scheme in the form of competitive block funding to institutions to replace the Australian research schemes that currently operate and the bulk, for instance, of the funding of the Australian National University Institute of Advanced Studies would be rolled into the new competitive scheme. Responsibility for allocating research moneys and the peer review process would shift to the universities. It is further suggested that the government proposes that a research training and environment scheme replace the existing research quantum, to be calculated equally in two measures—research income from all sources and higher degree research completions. A peak facility scheme is the final proposal—for large-scale infrastructure projects to replace the research infrastructure equipment and facilities program.If these propositions are contained in the paper—and I ask the minister whether these are the propositions that are being advanced by the government—I ask: what steps will the government take to protect the quality of Australian research projects and the international reputation of Australian universities? It may well be argued that, should propositions such as this be advanced, international accessors would distrust the objectivity of the processes and cease to participate in Australian research projects because, inevitably, it will lead to a narrowing of the research and funding focus. Applicants could be subject to the claim that the process has been contaminated by nepotism and by failure to examine matters on an objective international peer basis. Minister, I ask: are those concerns justified? What action does the government intend to take to protect the quality of Australian research activity?09:40:00573Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—There are a number of questions there, Senator Carr, and I will address each one in turn. Firstly, the paper is not yet in final form for release. As I said earlier, the minister will be releasing that paper for discussion when it is in that form. Those who are interested in this area of research will then be able to comment on it. The drafting of the discussion paper is one which was engaged by the department, in consultation with some vice-chancellors. Others will have adequate opportunity to comment when the paper is released.It is a tenet of this government's policy in relation to tertiary education that it will take all steps necessary to protect the integrity of the high standards that we enjoy. The process that the government has embarked on concerning this discussion paper is nothing untoward; it is a normal process. I presume that the opposition is not impugning the integrity of the department in the way it has conducted this. I think that answers the various points of your question, Senator.09:41:00574Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I appreciate the minister's attempt to address these issues. I beg to differ as to whether or not the questions have been answered. I notice in the press this morning that Dr Kemp is not committed to a particular time line for the release of this report. Given the history of this minister in terms of releasing matters for public debate at times when there will be as little public attention as possible, can the minister assure the Senate that this report—this green paper, as some have called it—will not be released over the Christmas period when the academics and other components of the industry are out of circulation?09:42:00574Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Dr Kemp has said that the release of this paper would be some time not very far in the future. I do not think the minister can be any more certain than that. Senator Carr knows how these things are done. That is as far as the minister can go in the circumstances, and it is not unreasonable for that indication to be given. I note that Dr Kemp did say that the document would contain a very positive set of proposals for university research. I think that indicates the government's commitment to the sector.09:43:00574Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Minister, you indicate that some vice-chancellors have been advised. I note in the press that a number of senior academics, including Professor O'Kane, the former chair of the ARC's large grants committee, has indicated strong support for the international peer review system. As I understand it, she is one of the vice-chancellors that have not been consulted about this measure. Has there been any consultation with anyone else in the industry, apart from the government's few hand-picked vice-chancellors?09:44:00574Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I understand that, apart from the vice-chancellors that I have referred to, there have been some others, perhaps not of the same seniority as a vice-chancellor but nonetheless with expertise in this area, who have been con sulted. I have not been privy to that process of consultation.09:44:00574Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Perhaps that is a matter that we will have to take up in the estimates, Minister. I am sure you will look forward to that discussion. I ask: what guarantee will there be under this proposal that there will not be a concentration of research funding to the so-called big eight? Has there been any consideration given for an equitable distribution of research moneys across the sector?09:45:00574Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—This is touching on what I have referred to previously, that the discussion paper will be released and will be available for comment. That is the time to address these points, I would suggest, Senator Carr. I am really unable to take it any further than that today.09:45:00574Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I appreciate that, Minister. I asked yesterday a question concerning illegal fees being charged by universities, which I would argue are in breach of the HEFA Act, or certainly that allegation has been made. I also note that the minister has announced that these breaches will now be investigated. Can you provide the Senate with any details of this investigation? What steps are being taken to immediately review these questions?09:46:00574Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Perhaps it is opportune for me to address questions which were raised yesterday on this and other matters. Firstly, in relation to the ancillary fees matter that was raised yesterday, certainly there was an article today in the Australian which was entitled `DETYA to tackle illegal fees claims'. The situation is that there are guidelines in relation to the fees that can be charged by universities, being such fees which are not essential to the course.There have been some complaints—three, I understand—which the department has been investigating. Two of those have resulted in a change of practice by the university concerned, and one is continuing. As stated in the article, the government will investigate claims that universities are charging students illegal up-front fees. This matter has been under investigation, and should further complaints arise they will be looked at.Senator Carr asked yesterday about a drop in operating grants of $590 million from 1998 to 2000. That really is a similar question to that posed by Senator Crossin in relation to clause 3 of this bill, which relates to section 17 of the act. Of course, I stated yesterday that the apparent reduction in figures which appears in the bill does not take into account supplementation which would occur from HECS contributions. The Department of Finance and Administration has provided figures which show that, in fact, the operating grants will increase from $4.879 billion in 1998 to $4.9 billion in 2000. That is when you consider the supplementation of the HECS contributions.Senator Crossin also asked me yesterday how the HECS contributions were calculated and whether there was any guarantee. I indicated yesterday that these were based on projections. These projections were arrived at via the department and, of course, the department of finance and the Commonwealth Actuary. I understand that in that there is a calculation of some 13 per cent for what could be classed as—for want of a better term—bad debts and that, in any event, the department of finance has guaranteed a top-up if there is a shortfall. Yesterday I indicated it was based on projections, but I am now advised that the department of finance will provide that top-up if it falls short of the mark. It is the government's view that it will not fall short of the mark, but if it does there is that assurance from the department of finance.The other question related to James Cook University and the restoration of 450 places. Senator Carr asked on what basis this had taken place. I can tell the Senate that there had been a reduction in growth places which came about as a result of the university failing to meet its targets. It appears that the university has improved its performance. After consultations between the university and the department, there has been a revision of the situation and those 450 growth places have been restored. I believe the other matters in relation to funding were touched on yesterday.In relation to section 23C, which is dealt with by clause 7, Senator Crossin asked a question on the apparent reduction of $481 million in 1998 down to $417 million in 2000. What is not provided for in those figures is the $36.8 million which has been provided for the year 2000 in relation to the strategic partnerships which I mentioned yesterday. There is a reduction in those figures that relates to the quality program, which was a one-off program provided for by the previous government. The discontinuance of that has resulted in the savings that we see. So, when you take that into account and then add in the $36.8 million that I have mentioned, the situation is not as it would seem in the bill as described at clause 7. On the question of open learning—and this is to Senator Carr—there has been no change in the policy and this bill, I am advised, in no way affects that policy.09:51:00575Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Yesterday I asked a number of questions in relation to the inclusion of Notre Dame University in table A. I thank you, Minister, for your answers on that occasion. I wonder if you could expand on some of the answers you gave yesterday. For example, I asked you if you and the government had given any thought to the significance of including, for the first time, a private university in that triennial funding arrangement. I understand the rationale that you have put forward for the inclusion of Notre Dame, that is, that obviously funding of a triennial nature provides more stability and certainty for the institution.I do not doubt the good work of this institution, particularly in providing educational opportunities in the Broome region. I think all members of the chamber would be willing to commend Notre Dame on its work, on its progress, but I state again for the record my concern and also my query as to why the government is embarking on what is an unprecedented move of including a private university in that triennial funding arrangement in table A and why we are not seeing comparable institutions—I mentioned Avondale College and Marcus Oldham yesterday—not being included. I also brought up the issue of the new university, Australia's newest public institution, Sunshine Coast. I acknowledge, Minister, that you have said it will be included in that table when the legislation is brought to the chamber. But I still believe that that institution has good reason to question—indeed every other public institution has reason to question—why the government would take this unprecedented step of including a private university for the first time in the triennial funding under table A.I will seek to move an amendment that returns to the status quo arrangements—that is, to maintain Notre Dame in table B. I understand that that will not be widely supported in the chamber, but I think it is an incredibly important issue, and that is why I give the minister a number of opportunities once again to explain the rationale from the government and to explain perhaps why other private institutions are not being given the same so-called stability and certainty.I also would like to know the impact and the implications of the inclusion of Notre Dame University in that table. Obviously, apart from access to triennial funding, I am just wondering what accountability and reporting mechanisms the university will be expected to comply with. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Ms Trish Worth, said in the other House:This amendment will have the effect of providing the university with triennial funding as opposed to annual funding and will provide a capital roll-in and research quantum in the university's operating grant as well as enable the university to seek funding under the capital development pool for major building works.Minister, my understanding is that it is unprecedented for a private institution to be in this funding category, but I would like to know some more of the implications of this decision. Will this mean that other public institutions miss out? I note that the National Tertiary Education Union is asking similar questions. Will Notre Dame and any subsequent private institutions added to the act be required to comply with the same conditions and public scrutiny as are existing in public institutions? So it is unclear what accountability mechanisms will be put in place as a condition of the receipt of this funding.This amendment gives a private institution access to public operating funding without increasing the available money. Minister, please feel free to clarify that statement. Does this mean that public institutions will lose funding and student places in order to provide a subsidy to private institutions? And the National Tertiary Education Union goes on to ask other questions, such as: does the inclusion of a private institution within the same category as existing public institutions pave the way for competitive tendering for student places by private providers? In the context of declining fully subsidised places, does this precedent mean that resources will be spread even more thinly?Again, Minister, while not seeking to suggest that there is any deficiency or anything wrong with the operations or the work of Notre Dame University—like other members in this place I commend its work, especially in that Broome region—I would like to know why the government is including a private university in table A. I heard the minister's answers yesterday, and I am yet to be convinced that this is an appropriate move for a private institution. I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 5), omit "Table A", substitute "Table B".09:57:00576Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—This will involve funding of $1 million per annum out of a budget which is well in excess of $4 billion. So the government rejects any assertion that this will detract from funding for other tertiary institutions of a public nature. In fact, the funding for this can be found from legislated superannuation which involved an excess amount. This small amount of funding will be found from that amount at no cost to public funding for the tertiary education sector.I indicated yesterday that this university provided for tertiary education in the form of teachers in an area which is a remote area of Australia. In fact, that was touched on by the Leader of the Opposition in his letter. It is a good point, because that places Notre Dame in such a unique position. This does not put Notre Dame's Fremantle campus in table A; it is the Broome campus that we are talking about. It was the work at that Broome campus that I referred to yesterday. So the funding of this relates to its Broome operations, which of course provide sorely needed access to tertiary education.The National Tertiary Education Union ought to have a look at what Notre Dame does in the north-west and perhaps look at the unique service it provides in tertiary education in the Kimberley—to those people living in remote areas—and also its indigenous education. It is not the only private university to be in table A. The Australian Catholic University is also in table A. So this move is by no means the first of its kind, but it does provide for recognition of the unique work that is done by Notre Dame in a remote area and in the provision of tertiary education in that area, particularly in relation to indigenous students,.So the government feels that in this instance there is no excess of exercise of any discretion. As I say, it is supported by the opposition and for good reason. I commend the amendment—not the Democrat amendment, the government's amendment as contained in this bill—to the Senate. With due respect to Senator Stott Despoja, we do not believe her fears and those of others are substantiated in any way and we believe that to not allow for this amendment would be a retrograde step in the provision of tertiary education in what is a remote part of Australia.10:00:00577Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank the minister for his response. I think it is very important to state once again, not only on behalf of the Democrats—I understand the Greens will be supporting this amendment—but also on behalf of the NTEU, that this is not a negative reflection on the work of Notre Dame as an institution. To suggest that the National Tertiary Education Union is not aware of or supporting the work that is being done at the Broome campus is not a fair allusion. This matter relates to private versus public institutions and public funding of those institutions.Minister, are you stating categorically that money made available to Notre Dame University will not be at the expense of public institutions? Is that what I can ascertain from your comments? I saw your head nod, but would you please answer the question in relation to what regulatory and accountability mechanisms will be in place for Notre Dame.10:02:00577Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—They will be the same as any university which has public funding.10:02:00577Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The opposition supports the proposed amendment to the legislation and opposes the Democrat amendment. This is because we recognise the work done by Notre Dame University at its Broome campus and its teacher training at both campuses. The large number of indigenous students at the Broome campus—close to 80 per cent—justifies the provision of access to the full range of operating grants funding, including research and capital funding. With the exception of the two instances above, however, Labor does not believe there is justification for further access to Commonwealth operating grants funding for Notre Dame University.10:03:00577Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank the opposition for clearly stating their position in relation to this amendment. I will not be dividing on this amendment because it is clear where people stand. I acknowledge once again the work being done by the Broome campus of Notre Dame University. I understand that is the rationale which the opposition are using to explain the reason they are opposing my amendment. But with due respect, when Senator Carr says `with the exception of the above, we do not support private institutions being given access to public funding', the point is—and this is the point of my amendment—where are we going to draw the line?Most people in the community would have a great deal of sympathy for the NTEU when they state that this is privatisation by stealth. I would like to see the government make a much clearer distinction as to which private institutions have access to public moneys and why. Is it simply because you have arbitrarily decided that this happens to be a particularly good institution and that we all support the work of that institution in the region, obviously, commendably, because it is doing work with indigenous communities? Are there specific guidelines in place suggesting why this private institution over any other should be given access to public moneys?With respect to the opposition, I suggest that this is being done not only by stealth but that, as other representatives of the education movement have suggested, this argument is, once again, the thin edge of the wedge. Basically, we are now paving the way for private institutions to be in table A, that is a funding pool which enables them access not only to triennial funding but also to a range of other funding. The opposition has to realise that this is quite an important step today. The government amendments which they are supporting really do blur the distinction between public and private institutions when it comes to access to public money for education in this country. That is a serious step. This is not a reflection on the particular institution, but it is very clear that the Democrats and some others in this chamber believe that public money should be available first and foremost to public institutions. I have grave concerns about the direction in which we are heading.10:05:00578Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—As Senator Stott Despoja has mentioned, the Greens (WA) are prepared to support the amendment put forward by the Australian Democrats in relation to public funding for a private university. I understand the arguments that have been put forward by the minister and I also understand what is being sought to be achieved by Notre Dame University in this particular instance. But I can also think of examples where we have stood in this chamber—and during Senate estimates committee hearings—and argued about reduction in funding on programs within the public education sector. One that springs to mind relates to universities like Curtin University where the number of home visits for indigenous students was cut because the minister at the time—it was Senator Vanstone—argued that everybody had to take a cut and she thought reasonable access was provided.We have had the arguments about where the public university system is attempting to provide better access for indigenous students and the minister saying that that was not possible because of general cuts in funding. It is difficult for us to see that specific cases can be made for redirecting funding, and I do not think there is any other way we can say it. The money has to come from somewhere. Whether it is tertiary education or some other sector, you do not create funding from thin air, and the government is always telling us that.Neither of us is having a go at Notre Dame University; neither of us is criticising the need to make universities more inclusive. However, we have had many arguments about reductions in funding for student groups representing indigenous students, and we have had many arguments about the government reducing funding for programs which specifically try to cater for the needs and cultural values of indigenous students. The government did not seem to notice or pay much attention to that. It does seem to be selective. I am very concerned about the precedent that is being set. I am prepared to support the concerns of the student bodies. I will therefore be supporting the Democrats amendment.10:08:00578Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I have a quick question for the minister. Minister, you stated that this change is restricted to only the Broome campus and will not apply to the entire University of Notre Dame. For the record, could you state how you will ensure that that is constrained? How will you ensure that it only affects that particular campus?10:08:00578Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I understand that there is an agreement with the university through the profiles process which can accommodate this, and it will be based on the places. That can be readily identified in relation to the Broome campus. I restate what I said earlier: this is only in relation to the Broome campus.10:08:00579Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I understand that process, but I suggest that there is no guarantee that this applies to only the Broome campus. By virtue of the way you put Notre Dame University in the table, there may be certain agreements, but I cannot see how that is a guarantee that it will be restricted to only the Broome campus. Do you accept that legally it could be extended, it could be broader, and it could apply to other parts of the university?10:09:00579Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In relation to its public funding, the university has to acquit the money in the way it has been provided and for the purposes for which it has been provided. For a start, I think the university is a thoroughly reputable institution. I take it that you are not suggesting that the university would in any way try to fiddle the books or fudge the figures. The department will ensure that that does not take place, as it does in relation to other matters. I can give the Senate every assurance that the funding will relate to only the Broome campus.Amendment not agreed to.10:10:00579Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The minister made some responses to questions I put to him yesterday. I thank the minister and the department for answering those questions promptly. On the question of the operating grants, it is apparent that the figures contained in the bill are correct. There has been a reduction in the Commonwealth's contribution to universities; that is, there has been a fall in operating grants of $590 million from the 1998 level, with a further fall of $140 million in the year 2000 under this bill.The supplementation referred to is drawn from students themselves and is in part a response to the government increasing HECS charges by 125 per cent. This is money drawn upon as a result of revenues raised by those increases in the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. I thank the minister for confirmation of those matters.I indicate that, in terms of the research question, I had not included all the questions I wanted to ask on the matter. Given that this bill has been before the chamber for some time, I conclude on this particular matter with this question to the minister: can you advise the Senate whether the government is looking at any form of voucher system linked to research grants allocations for postgraduate students?10:12:00579Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In relation to Senator Carr's question on the voucher system as it relates to the question of research, these matters will no doubt be discussed when the discussion paper is released. I cannot in any way pre-empt the course of that discussion, and it would be best taken up when the discussion paper is released.10:13:00579Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Obviously that will be the case, Minister. To conclude on this matter, in the second reading debate on this bill I raised the question of the adequacy of university reporting and the attention drawn by Professor Walker of the University of New South Wales to the inconsistencies in approach that are being taken by universities in that state. Specifically, he said that universities were making internal decisions regarding the centralisation or devolution of administrative functions to hide the true nature of their cost structures.Professor Walker indicated that the financial reporting was inadequate and that those measures did not reveal relevant data as a result of poorly drafted instructions from DETYA in regard to the ways in which these matters should be reported. He said that the failure of the department in this area had shielded the management of universities from appropriate performance scrutiny.Professor Walker indicated that, in the various figures tabled in the New South Wales parliament, universities had signed statements in their annual reports which indicated that the records they were presenting were a true and fair view of the results of the operations of the universities and that signatories were not aware of any circumstances which would render any particulars included in the financial statements misleading or inaccurate.Professor Walker goes on to suggest that that is in fact not the case because significant components of universities' operations were not recorded accurately in those financial reports and were not consistent with various other financial statements and because the New South Wales Auditor-General had claimed that universities' published budgets did not encompass all financial transactions reported in their financial statements. My question to the minister is: does the government believe there is a need to standardise reporting by formulating draft rules governing universities' accounting practices which do take into account these criticisms? When will DETYA be able to effectively monitor the operations of universities and the profiles process without such reforms of the accounting guidelines?10:15:00580Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Firstly, I can assure the Senate that the Commonwealth grants to universities are fully and effectively acquitted. Secondly, financial statements of New South Wales universities have been audited by the New South Wales Auditor-General and have not been qualified. Thirdly, in relation to the question of the development of financial reporting, I am advised that the Australian Accounting Research Foundation is conducting a program to achieve greater harmonisation between Australian accounting standards and those of the International Accounting Standards Committee. The intention is to complete the program by the time the International Organisation of Securities Commissions provides its endorsement of the IASC accounting standards.Advice from the Australian Accounting Research Foundation is that a new accounting standard on financial operating statements should be issued in the second quarter of 1999. It would be sensible to await the outcome of the work being undertaken by the AARF before any revision of the guidelines is undertaken. I am advised that there is work in progress in the division on financial reporting and analysis. That includes the Deloitte financial statement analysis of universities' financial health, the analysis of three-year projections of university income and expendi tures, Ernst and Young's developing of a robust costing methodology for use in Australian universities and the development of a response to the Coopers and Lybrand review of university reporting requirements.In view of the work in progress that I have mentioned and the program which is being conducted by the AARF, it is the government's view that it is sensible to await the outcome of that work. The minister has said that he believes there is scope for improvement in financial statements from the point of view of increasing transparency for stakeholders and this is something that the government is working towards.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.580Bill (on motion by Senator Ellison) read a third time.Bills580r623580Debate resumed from 23 November, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.10:19:00580Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1998 amends the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Assistance) Act 1996 to give effect to the budget measures and to make a range of other changes. It provides $40.2 million to extend the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Program to the end of 1999. The NALSAS was an initiative of the federal Labor government in 1994 to support, enhance and expand Asian language studies in all Australian schools. The languages targeted are Chinese Mandarin, Indonesian, Japanese and Korean.I note that a study by the ANU late last year showed that more languages are taught in Australian schools than anywhere else in the world, particularly Asian languages. The opposition supports this extension of NALSAS. We note, however, that the parliamentary secretary for education, during the debate on the bill in the House, refused to confirm the additional $90 million for NALSAS promised in the coalition's election policy and that this was additional money to be appropriated in this bill. So the $40 million we are dealing with here could be part of the $90 million, which is very much part of the style of the creative accounting which we have come to expect from this government, and particularly from this minister.The bill provides some $20 million for the so-called full service schools initiative to help schools cope with the influx of additional students which will occur from next year as a result of the introduction of the Youth Allowance. This $20 million is part of a $40 million package of measures to help schools cope with the impact of the Youth Allowance. The other measures in the package, $13.5 million for the Jobs Pathway Program and $6.2 million for the new Apprenticeship Access Program, simply continue programs put in place by the Labor government.The then Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs prepared what has now become a famous cabinet submission last year which recommended expenditure of $140 million to help schools cope with the influx of students as a result of the Youth Allowance. The government's package falls $100 million short. Schools will have nowhere near enough money to cope with the services needed, given that up to 27,000 16- and 17-year-olds will be returning to school next year due to the Youth Allowance.These young people will need special help to complete their studies and to ensure that they do not disrupt the learning of others. Some will need basic literacy and numeracy programs. In many cases they will need individual case management. They will need one-to-one tuition. This government has not provided sufficient resources to do that. The former coalition education minister in Queensland estimated that each additional student would cost an extra $7,000, yet the Howard government is providing only one-tenth of that amount and in so doing will exacerbate inequalities within our schools and restrict educational opportunities.The number of young people affected will be heavily concentrated in the high areas of youth unemployment. The government knows who these young people are although, despite our having raised these questions at the estimates process, it seems unable to come forward with the relevant information. The number of recipients of the youth training allowance—those 16- and 17-year-olds who will be affected by the youth allowance from 1 January next year—can be identified by postcode but, instead of providing additional funding to the schools in these areas, the government is taking submissions for funding under the so-called Full Service Schools Program.While a submission based approach may be a good way to encourage ideas, it is not the only way. I have concerns that the management of the allocation of funds by submission may lead to a situation where schools desperately in need of additional support do not receive it. I understand that some principals of schools in high unemployment areas are not preparing submissions, because they believe that the $20 million being provided is totally inadequate to meet their needs.The Labor Party believes young people should finish their education and we encourage participation at all levels of education, but we do not believe that schools can cope with an influx of young people who are largely alienated from the education system, and in many cases from society as a whole, without there being additional resources to enable them to do so. The amount provided in this bill is nowhere near what is needed, and that is a fact acknowledged by the minister's own department.The bill also provides for flexibility of funding allocations under the Literacy and Country Areas programs so that most ABS census data can be used for determining relative need. This means determining the allocations between the states and sectors. But what has happened beyond that? My information is that, in removing the so-called red tape in the 1996 changes to the targeted programs, the coalition threw out the baby with the bathwater. Along with the word `equity', mechanisms which showed how targeted money was being distributed by systems have disappeared or at least are not working as they ought to.For all the minister's huffing and puffing about literacy, the opposition is not convinced that literacy funds are going to the neediest schools and students. This is particularly the case in my state of Victoria, where substantial cuts to programs, running into millions of dollars, have occurred. This bill has inserted amounts for capital funding for non-government schools of up to $74,537,000 each year from the year 2000. This amount has declined from $84,672,000 in 1999 and is $39 million less than the $113 million that Labor provided in 1996. This extraordinary decline is causing major concern in the non-government school sector, and I call on the minister to give an explanation.The amount provided for recurrent capital expenditure for 1997 and subsequent years is adjusted by this bill in the most recent rounds of supplementation. This leads me to the important issue of the real and nominal figures on Commonwealth school funding. This is a question that I have pursued with some vigour in the estimates. I have received totally unsatisfactory answers from the officials in this regard—totally unsatisfactory answers which I expect are being directed by the minister.The amounts provided need further investigation and much closer examination. On 12 May this year the minister for schools claimed that the federal budget provided $153 million extra for schools in one year—a 3.8 per cent increase on the previous year. By 24 May the claim had become an increase to government schools of only $380 million in 1998 compared with 1996. Neither figure allows for the true year-on-year comparison because they are not in real terms. The second one includes attributed FAGS funding, which we were told in the Senate estimates hearing on 10 June had to be revised down from 24 per cent to 17.6 per cent.Subsequently, the answer to question No. 223 from the same estimates hearing provided projected figures for Commonwealth schools funding to the year 2000. The table provided included attributed amounts of financial assistance grants for each year from 1996 to 2000. I have had some work done on that table, and the results were extremely revealing. The work I had done shows that the amount of FAGS attributed to the government schools—that is, the percentage of untied grants assumed to be spent by the states and territories on government schools—was not the 17.6 per cent which, according to the minister's department, is the correct figure. My calculations show that for each of the years from 1996 to 2000, the table provided by the minister attributes 20 per cent of the FAGS to government schools. I ask: how do the government and the department explain this discrepancy?That is not all; there is a great deal more. For example, Dr Kemp's FAGS figure, which he assumes to be a percentage spent on schools and then claims as Commonwealth money, includes amounts which are clearly earmarked for purposes other than schools—amounts like $400 million annually in identified road grants incorporated into FAGS for 1997-98, and $370 million for 1998-99 which was previously separately identified as health funding.These amounts, while notionally part of the financial assistance grants pool, are clearly destined for uses other than education. It defies credibility to expect us to believe that the states will channel money away from other areas of need—like roads and hospitals—in favour of schools. So the FAGS pool used by the minister is artificially inflated. To claim, as the minister does, that one-fifth of roads and health funding goes to schools is a nonsensical argument. It is just as nonsensical as his claim that the $1.6 billion cut to FAGS imposed by the Howard government in 1996 had no impact on the states' capacity to fund schools.Dr Kemp wants to have his cake and eat it as well. He wants to maximise the size of the FAGS pie and claim a percentage of it as Commonwealth schools funding, but he also tries to argue that if you cut the size of the pie it makes no difference to the Common wealth's contribution. The people of Australia are not falling for this one any more. Minister, it is time to start dealing with the facts and not with fantasy.The work I have done factors out those amounts for road funding and health expenditure. It also seeks to turn figures into real, comparable dollars rather than nominal amounts. In the table provided in response to question No. 223, the minister claims that there is a per capita increase in Commonwealth support for government schools of 13.5 per cent—from $1,987 in 1996 to $2,255 in the year 2000. On these calculations, adjusted for an inflation figure of three per cent—which is a very conservative amount given the recent supplementation outcomes and the array of indices provided to the estimates committees on cost increases for schools—there has actually been a decline in the per capita payments to government school students of some 7.4 per cent from $2,047 in 1996 to $1,896 in the year 2000. This is further proof that the minister's figures cannot be relied upon. They are, in fact, doctored.This explains the government's flat refusal to provide official real funding figures to the Senate. It has been done in the past, but the practice changed after this government was in office for a few months. Ever since the table which the opposition obtained through the Senate estimates process in 1996 exposed the truth about what this government is doing to school funding, this practice by the government has ceased. That table showed a decline in the real funding for Commonwealth contributions to government schools of $87.5 million between 1996-97 and 1999-2000.In the second reading speech on this bill in the House the minister claimed that Commonwealth direct funding for schools will increase each year between 1997 and 2000 by an average of 2.5 per cent. But if one looks at the government schools only, even the minister's own figures, which are in nominal, not real, dollars, show a fall in direct Commonwealth funding in the year 2000—$1.684 billion as compared with $1.730 billion in 1999. In real terms the fall will be much greater.These figures do not include the impact of the enrolment benchmark adjustment. That will be a cut over and above the declining expenditure revealed in the minister's own documents. The enrolment benchmark adjustment is an unjust and unjustifiable cost-cutting measure which is decried by teachers, parents and school authorities right around Australia. The EBA is a piece of public policy so bad, so inequitable and so abhorrent that there are calls for its removal across traditional boundaries between government and non-government schools and between Labor and non-Labor state governments.Taking money away from schools whose enrolments are increasing is unfair and is totally unacceptable policy. In 1997, New South Wales government schools enrolled 2,839 more students than in 1996 but lost $4.3 million through the EBA—equal to $1,081 for every government school in the state. In Victoria there were 1,414 more students in 1997 than in the year before yet the EBA reduced funding by $1.73 million—more than $1,000 for each government school. In South Australia the EBA represented a cut of $3,557 for each school. In Queensland the cut averaged $1,986 for each school. For each of the additional 8,495 students enrolled Australia-wide in government schools last year the Commonwealth through the EBA cut funding by $1,400. This amount far outweighs the per capita payments made by the Commonwealth for government school students of $379 for each primary school student and $559 for each secondary student. So the additional students represent a net loss to the states of at least $841.There is no doubt about this. Despite the fact that this government has attempted to hedge these figures, a clear examination reveals what many have known for some time: the presentations that the government has made are inaccurate and misrepresent the real funding allocations by government to the students of this country.It is about time the minister revealed the official figures. We will give Mr Evans and his group in the parliament the opportunity to present their view of the real funding figures in terms of real allocations of dollars. But the situation cannot go on. There is an attempt to present these figures in a way which is totally inadequate and false. This attempt demonstrates to me the total lack of credibility attached to this government's statements about the level of funding for education.This is not about making sure that funding follows the students under the EBA measure, as the government has continued to try to tell us. It is about cutting funding to government schools. It is about cutting opportunities to students in this country. It is about reducing choices and limiting life chances. This government has taken these actions deliberately and in a most destructive manner for ideological purposes. It is no good having the department seek to present these measures in any way other than what they actually are or try to cover-up what is an obnoxious, totally unjust and inequitable policy.I would ask that Dr Kemp focus his attention on education and training and on providing factual information to the Australian people about the directions of policy in this government in terms of educational opportunities for all Australian students. We can only hope—and I suppose it is more hope than experience—that he will heed the call which is now coming from all sections of the education community in Australia that this government move to abolish this totally unfair and unjust policy.10:37:00584Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—The bill we are considering today, the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1998 , introduces two main changes to the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1996. These are the allocation of $21 million for the introduction of so-called full service schools over three years, and the allocation of $40.2 million for the extension of the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy. The Democrats will, of course, be supporting this bill because we understand that schools need the very small amount that is being offered, which will be available to them for programs such as these.With so many schools already facing enormous pressures in trying to operate effectively in the face of vastly inadequate resources, the Democrats certainly have no desire to hold up the passage of this legislation today. But I do want to take the opportunity to put on the record yet again the very serious concerns we have about the amount of funding the government is making available to schools, which will be faced with vastly increased demands as a result of the government's Youth Allowance eligibility guidelines. Estimates of the number of students likely to either stay at or return to school because of the Youth Allowance requirements vary considerably. Last year the government said that figure was somewhere between 25,000 and 27,000, but it has now revised that figure and indicates that it is 8,200. I might add that Victoria has said that it expects this figure to be 6,000 in that state alone.The Australian Council of State School Organisations estimates that the overall funding impact on schools will be closer to $150 million than the $21 million which is on offer. There is a problem here in terms of the differences in expectations of students who will remain in schools who would otherwise not do so, and that is because we are talking here about a fixed sum—$21 million over three years, or $7 million a year—regardless of whether it is 27,000, 25,000, 8,000 or 6,000. That is what is really inequitable about this amount of money.Many will go back to schools they have previously left, and many will no doubt think of themselves as adults already and resent having to return to school. For those students who do not want to be in school this will be something of a nightmare. I think it is useful to refer today to a document which has been prepared by the Successful Learning Project entitled Negotiating, Staying and Returning: Young People's Perspectives on Schooling and the Youth Allowance. In that publication the following factors were identified as influencing early school leaving. The first is the type of school system: the vast majority of early school leavers have a government school background. The second is gender: more young men than women leave school early. The third is ethnicity: Koori students are the most seriously disadvantaged of all school leavers. The fourth is regional difference: rural areas have higher levels of early school leaving. The fifth is socioeconomic status: low income is predominantly linked with early school leaving. The sixth is change of locality and residential insecurity, especially homelessness; the next is early and chronic truanting, a clear indicator of early school leaving; and the last is family expectations of schooling, although this has declined as a factor since the mid-1980s.The reason I point to those is that they indicate the sorts of areas in which this funding will be needed to address this problem of students being at school who would otherwise not choose to be there. As a former teacher, I can tell you that students who do not want to be at school can be a real nightmare for the schools and for the students themselves. So, when it comes to many of these returning students, the importance of specifically designed programs and carefully designed support structures cannot be overemphasised.Aside from the $21 million, the federal government will pay its usual $550 per capita on average to these students. But, as has already been mentioned by my colleague, the rest will have to be found by the state governments. As we know, it costs around $4,500 to educate a student in a government school, but here we are talking about special needs, and principals estimate that the costs of providing worthwhile programs for returning students will be closer to $7,500 per capita. So, instead of providing $435 per student if you take the higher estimate of 27,000 who will be in this category, or roughly $1,000 per student if you accept that it is only 8,000 students who will be returning, it does not measure up to what the government ought to be providing, which is around $3,000 extra per student for this measure.The ACEE Equity Network newsletter, an education publication, in its August edition reviewed the work that I have previously mentioned, Negotiating, Staying and Returning, and outlined four critical areas which will impact on the success or failure of the programs that we are talking about here with this funding. They are the ways in which young people are treated; the nature of the courses on offer; the institutional flexibility of the delivery of courses; and the support structures, especially for those with most negative experiences, in providing both initial and ongoing support. The report argues that to be successful the nature of the responses required at the system level and the school level must include arrangements which reward schools and colleges for returning students and successfully re-enrolling students. That document goes into the reasons why those enormous disincentives exist for schools. It reads:Melbourne suburban school principals are generally careful to balance the quest for overall student numbers with a focus on getting the `right sort of student'—who will present positive images of the school, and who will produce positive `educational outcomes'. Archdall argues that schools do not want to be seen as catering for the more `needy' students as they will then be termed a `welfare' school; parents who want an academically rigorous curriculum will move their students to a school which does not have such a `welfare' label. Being perceived as a school that cares for the `welfare' of students may then result in a lowered perception of it being able to provide a quality education, and thus increase the danger of forced closure because of falling numbers. The message is clear: individual schools which attempt to cater for the welfare needs of their students do so at the `risk' of being labelled.That is just an excerpt from this report, which comes from the Dandenong Regional Youth Committee response.The report also suggests that there needs to be a case management approach that aims to match individual students to existing or emerging options, to work with them in appropriate placements and to continue to offer support and guidance. The staffing formula for schools and units should undertake to accept and retain difficult students, to work with returning student needs, and to recognise the particular personnel needs of curriculum development and delivery and of providing support for students beyond the classroom. A staffing formula should acknowledge the implications of flexible timetabling and attendance requirements—in other words, extra staff. There should also be flexible development of courses and approaches at individual school and college levels.One thing that all of the principals and teachers I have spoken to have made very clear is that providing the sorts of programs that are needed with the current proposed funding levels will be virtually impossible. Even with the most optimistic reading of the numbers coming back into schools, $1,000 for each student, if one was to allocate it on a per capita basis, would barely pay half the cost of an ordinary classroom teacher. As I think I have already demonstrated, there is a far greater need for resources for schools to cope with this situation.One of the most serious consequences of the youth allowance legislation is the effect it will have on the demand for teachers and, in particular, the impact on students and schools in rural and remote areas. I have raised this matter previously. It is a very serious and immediate problem arising from teacher shortages in this country.Barbara Preston's report for the Australian Council of Deans of Education, published just two weeks ago, shows that 4,500 positions will not be able to be filled next year. I have done an extrapolation from those figures, which shows the direct impact of the youth allowance on that demand for teachers. In New South Wales 386 teachers will be required but will not be there because of the youth allowance. In Queensland the figure is 177; in Victoria it is 561; in Tasmania it is 52; in South Australia it is 94; in the Northern Territory it is one; in the ACT there will be a surplus as a result, which is unusual; and in Western Australia the shortage will be 107. That totals 1,386 teachers who will be required because of the extra numbers that the youth allowance will demand in our schools.I want to foreshadow that, during the committee stage, we explore the possibility of delaying the implementation of the effect of this legislation. That is so we can look at those figures to examine whether there are some immediate steps that need to be taken to increase the number of teachers who can be made available and to stop any very serious consequences of this legislation, which the government did not manage to raise at the time the youth allowance legislation was introduced. There was no suggestion that the shortage of teachers this would cause would be addressed by the federal government. The most serious concern for the Democrats is the shortage of teachers, along with the inadequacy of this level of funding.10:49:00586Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—by leave—I indicate that, while the opposition supports this bill because it is an allocation of moneys, we are highly critical of the way in which this government is proceeding to allocate those moneys. To demonstrate our concerns more specifically, I move:At the end of the motion, add: "but the Senate condemns the Government for damaging Australia's schools, including by failing to provide them with adequate resources to cope with the expected increase of up to 27,000 students a year as a result of the introduction of the Youth Allowance".10:50:00586Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Much of what I have to say this morning has already been covered by my colleagues Senator Carr and Senator Allison. But it is important to further put on the record that, while this bill will provide schools, states and territories with funding of $21 million for the introduction of what they say is the Full Service Schools program, that is $21 million over three years. This is by no means adequate if you look at the facts and figures in relation to the number of young people on whom the youth allowance is going to impact around this country in the next three years. As we know, the common youth allowance will affect young people aged 15 to 17 from 1 January 1999. They will have to be engaged in full-time education to qualify for payment, unless they meet special exemptions. This is going to have an enormous impact on schools across Australia.There has been an allocation set aside for states and territories to help fund what we now believe is an expected 27,000 students between the ages of 16 and 17 years returning to school. In the federal budget only $24 million was allocated over a three-year period to assist schools with the implementation of the common youth allowance. This hardly meets the former DEETYA's estimate of $140 million per annum—not $7 million per annum—that will be needed to help schools cope with the influx of students in 1999.The impact of the policy on the common youth allowance is going to severely affect many young people and their families. Firstly, it is going to force some young people who are living independently back into their family home. Secondly, it is going to force young people with family conflict to stay living in the family home. Thirdly, I believe it is going to create severe financial pressures on families. The other serious implication of the common youth allowance is that it increases the age of independence in this country, for the first time, from 18 to 21.I think it is important to note that this $21 million in funding will be provided to schools in areas with the highest numbers of young people affected by the implementation of the common youth allowance. One of the questions I will be putting to the minister will be how they are going to ascertain that. We need to look not only at the areas that have the highest number of young people but also the different environments of each of the states and territories. I will explain a little bit about that later when I come to the analysis of the Northern Territory and what happens there.The other thing I notice is that the funding will address the needs of young people who will be forced to return to school following the introduction of the youth allowance, and for current students who are at risk of not completing year 12 or of making a successful transition from school to training. That is a significant number of students across our school system. I believe $21 million does not take into account the fact that a lot of young kids leave the schooling system originally because it does not cater for their needs. As we know, there is a high incidence of youth suicide and youth drug use. I do not think the $21 million goes any way to addressing the poor self-esteem that young people sometimes suffer from in a downward spiral as they grapple with what skills they will need for their future—or what future they are going to have—and where they see themselves in later life.I want to say also that the commitment by this government of only $21 million in school funding over three years to the states and territories adversely affects the teaching profession. We already know this through the Senate inquiry into the status of the teaching profession, to which the government is yet to respond. I have my own thoughts about why that is the case: it is because the recommendations in that inquiry are too near the bone. We know there is low morale amongst the teaching profession. We know that the profession attracts people. However, the tendency is that people who get into the profession become overworked, have limited resources and get extremely stressed. More people leave than the profession can attract these days. Ultimately, the status of the teaching profession has become less highly regarded in this country. Time and time again, when people say, `My kid has left school' or `School is not catering for their needs' or `The curriculum is not appropriate', the blame is always put on teachers. The resources that are given to schools and the lack of assistance that is given to teachers to grapple with the many demands they have in this day and age are very rarely looked at.I think we need to look at the impact of the common youth allowance and the measly amount of $21 million over three years when it comes to teachers' supply and demand protection. Senator Allison has already commented on the recently released report by the Australian Council of Deans of Education. That report, titled Teacher supply and demand to 2004: 1998 updated projections has been prepared for the Australian Council of Deans by Barbara Preston. The methodology in the report is rigorous and comprehensive and the predictions cover the non-government as well as the government school systems. The conclusions in the report are clear and compelling. I will concentrate today on tables 18 and 19 and will table them when I have finished my analysis.In this report there are consistent trends across Australia towards a significant period of undersupply of appropriately qualified graduates. The most serious and extended shortages are expected in Victoria and South Australia. From 1999 to 2004, the supply of teacher education graduates in the primary sector will be only 80 or 90 per cent of demand. At the secondary level—and I will refer to the implications for the common youth allowance—the shortfall is expected to be greater in that supply will be only about 70 per cent of the demand. The $21 million over three years, according to our brief, will be for:the employment of specialist teachers or counsellors, providing professional development for teachers and other staff or delivering and developing special courses or assisting students to access government and community support services.But the $21 million will fail to attract the large increase in teacher numbers that this program will warrant.The figures on a state by state basis are quite astounding. Tables 18 and 19 provide national totals of supply and demand for primary and secondary teachers, including supply as a percentage of demand and the size of projected surpluses or shortages. Table 19 in this report adjusts secondary demand to take account of the expected impact of the common youth allowance. This table suggests that, across Australia for 1999—let alone up to the year 2004—the demand will be 8,334 teachers. The actual supply is only 5,262 teachers, which leaves us with a shortage of 3,072. When we take our projections through to the year 2004, that shortage becomes 3,192.When we have a look at the implementation of the common youth allowance, we see that it will result in an increase in secondary enrolments of about 25,000 students, which is about one-quarter the increase necessary to bring retention to year 12 to 100 per cent. The secondary shortfall will be much more serious in 1999-2000.There are a number of major factors in the projected shortfalls that are outlined in the report, but I think it is important to have a look at what effect the common youth allowance will have on all states and territories.In the ACT, retention is already very high, so the effect will probably be quite minor. I might place on the record that perhaps bureaucrats sitting in the ACT might think that $21 million will be an adequate amount if they stay within the bounds of the Australian Capital Territory. But in Tasmania and the Northern Territory where retention is low, the effect will probably be proportionally greater than in the nation as a whole.I would like to remind this chamber again that, unless you live in one of the five major centres in the Northern Territory—Gove, Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek or Alice Springs—your only access to secondary education is through a correspondence school. This is a national indictment on the delivery of education in this country. We are talking about providing programs for youth who will be affected by the common youth allowance when, in the case of the Northern Territory, if you do not live in one of the major cities, there will be no access apart from secondary correspondence courses. Those correspondence courses are predominantly targeted at kids who live on pastoral stations and who will complete year 11 or 12 either through a public exam or a school assessed system. There is no secondary education outside the major centres in the Northern Territory. It is something that this nation should be ashamed of.Getting back to the impact of the youth allowance around the country, this report suggests that in New South Wales the implementation of the common youth allowance will exacerbate the shortfall in 1999-2000, with supply in those years, as well as at the end of the period, less than three-quarters of demand. In Victoria, the impact is expected to move from a moderate to a severe shortfall, especially at the secondary level.AW5CARRSenator Carr—That is dead right.7Y6Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN—That is right, and the expected shortfalls in the next two years in Victoria will increase substantially. Again, there will be little change in the expected shortfalls in the subsequent years.In Queensland, the report concludes, the implementation of the common youth allowance is expected to severely exacerbate the shortfalls. For Western Australia there is the same comment. In South Australia, the implementation of the common youth allowance is expected to take supply well below half of teacher demand in 1999-2000. In Tasmania, the introduction of the common youth allowance is expected to ameliorate the 1999-2000 surpluses, the increased senior enrolments in part making up for the reduced year seven enrolments.But, let us turn to the Northern Territory because, of all the states and territories this report refers to, the Northern Territory not only attracts comments about the shortfall of primary and secondary teachers in greater proportions than for the nation, but the attractiveness of teaching in the Northern Territory and how difficult it is to retain teachers in the Northern Territory are talked about. It says that the Northern Territory school authorities will need to do more than increase their interstate recruitment efforts.Historically, there have been very high resignation rates in the Northern Territory. Therefore, much more effective strategies to support teachers in the positions they find difficult and generally improve the attractiveness of teaching in the Territory, thus lowering the resignation rate, may be essential for reducing the demand for replacement teachers who will become very difficult to find. This is all within a projected national commitment of only $21 million over three years.This report says that, because of the already high retention rates in the ACT, the introduction of the common youth allowance is expected to have only a minor impact. So we have one territory out of all our states and territories where this report of the Australian Council of Deans of Education suggests there will be a minor impact, but generally the evidence is there, based on supply and demand of teachers, that there will be a severe shortfall.In conclusion, this money will target specialist teachers, but not teachers who initially will be required to be there to cater for the influx of these students; professional development for teachers who are already there, and devising specialist courses. You are going to need additional teachers to actually devise the courses. You are going to need additional teachers to get out there to work with ITABS and industry groups or to set up curricula whereby these kids who are being forced to return to school—bearing in mind there were probably substantially good reasons why they left in the first place—will not have to under take public assessment exams. They will need assistance to get into an alternative learning pathway; they will need to undertake vocational education or they will need to be channelled into the new VET in schools programs—all on a shoestring of only $7 million a year.Finally, colleagues I speak with from my background in the teaching profession say to me that this adds to their low morale; it adds to the fact that teachers are being asked to do more each day with less; it adds to the fact we are still waiting for the government's response on the status of the teaching profession. If the government's response is only to provide these people with $21 million over three years to cope with the large influx of 16- and 17-year-olds they expect back in their schools over the next three years, it will fail, and it will fail because there is no commitment to provide the resources to do any better.I do not want to be standing here in the Senate chamber in three years time hearing that this new, you-beaut common youth allowance policy did not work because the teachers did not put in the commitment or because there was not enough effort on behalf of the systems to make it work. It will only work if there is a commitment to fund resources, a commitment to fund more teachers in the system so these young kids get a better go over the next couple of years.11:07:00589Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Much has been made of that aspect of the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1998 which deals with the full service schools and the provision of some $21 million over three years in relation to this program. Of course, what senators from the opposition and the Australian Democrats fail to have regard to is the total expenditure for education and the other programs that supplement the full service schools program. I thank those senators for their contribution. At the outset, let me say that total direct Commonwealth schools funding will provide in excess of $16 billion for schools over the period 1997-2000. The Commonwealth budget papers show that funding for schools is estimated to increase each year to 1999-2000 with an average increase of around of 3.6 per cent a year.Let us look at the facts. This government went to the people of Australia a few months ago in the federal election with a plan for the future education of the young people of this country. But it went to the people of Australia with a strong record on education. We had brought about, with the cooperation of the state and territory governments, uniform benchmarks, national goals, in relation to literacy and a plan to develop numeracy as we have developed literacy—in years 3 and 5, national goals for literacy.When I travelled around this country during the election campaign, it was apparent to me that literacy was one of the greatest concerns of Australian parents. This was despite the fact that the opposition and minor parties downplayed this when this government raised it as a serious issue in the last parliament. We have provided funding to meet literacy and numeracy needs. We have provided $680 million over four years for literacy and numeracy. As well as that, we promised that in this parliament we would provide an additional $72 million over three years to improve literacy and numeracy standards in schools. We also pledged to provide an additional $40 million over four years to ensure high literacy and numeracy standards in the middle years of schooling.The middle years of schooling is perhaps an area which is sometimes overlooked and is crucial, because it is from this current band of students that we are looking to increasing retention rates. The full service schools relates to addressing the fall in retention rates that this country has been experiencing in its schools. In 1992, the retention rates were at 78 per cent. In 1997, this had fallen to 72 per cent. Something had to be done about this. The parents of Australia wanted us to address it and we had to address it, because we had young students leaving school with nowhere to go. They were leaving school without adequate training, with no direction. So the full service schools, combined with the youth allowance, is designed to address this drift of students away from schools.Senator Crossin said that students have good reasons for leaving school. I can say that, in many cases, young people do have good reasons for leaving school because they are going to a job or they are going to training. But, in many instances, young people do not have what I would call sufficient reasons for leaving school. They leave school without sufficient training or backup. So that $40 million for the middle years of schooling is a supplementary, if you like, to this whole full service schools approach.We have to look at those that have just left school and we have to look at those that are at risk of leaving school. The $21 million that has been spoken about deals with the question of returnees and keeping those at risk at school. The number of students quoted by the opposition and the Democrats, we believe, is not a correct number. It will be much less than the 27,000 students estimated by the opposition and Democrats. We believe that the returnee figure is more like 8,000 students. When you combine that with the retainees of 12,000, you get a figure more like 20,000. The variation in the returnee figure comes as a result of amendments to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997.What the opposition and the Democrats fail to recognise is that in Australian schools we have in place courses which are currently addressing those students at risk. This is particularly so in the areas of vocational education. Vocational education is perhaps one of the greatest areas of growth that we see. Since 1992, the number of students engaged in vocational education training courses at school has increased by over fourfold. That recognises the growth in this area. We as a government believe that this is crucial in addressing those students at risk.Because of that we have provided $200 million over four years to assist students combine study towards a senior secondary certificate with nationally recognised and accredited vocational education and training. Therefore, whilst you are at school you can embark part-time on a traineeship or apprenticeship. When I travelled to many schools across Australia I saw some successful exam ples of young students increasing their literacy and numeracy skills, going through to year 12, but at the same time embarking on part-time training—accredited training—which meant that when they came out of school they had a clean transition from school to work. Their training whilst at school was nationally accredited and nationally recognised. That makes perfect sense.We have also committed $80 million to the Australian Student Traineeship Foundation to enable schools to develop school based industry courses with local businesses. I can advise the Senate that the number of students who are enrolled in foundation programs has grown from 18,000 at the end of 1996 to 38,000 in 1997. We have also provided $13.6 million over 1998-2000 to help schools become job placement agencies and mentors for their school leavers.So it is not just the $21 million that we are looking at for those students at risk of leaving school and returning to school. We are looking at $80 million for the Australian Student Traineeship Foundation to work with industry; $13.6 million for job placement to assist schools; $200 million over four years to assist students engage in part-time studies and training at the same time; and $40 million for literacy and numeracy programs, targeted at that crucial middle year sector of schools—that is, looking at those students who will be questioning whether they will stay on at school in the next year or so. If you add all that together with the full service schools, you have a comprehensive plan by this government to address the decline in retention rates from 78 per cent in 1992 to 72 per cent in 1997. That is a deterioration that we have to address, and we are addressing it.Much was made about the shortage of teachers. This bill deals with funding for schools and school programs such as full service schools and national Asian languages and studies. In the last parliament we provided $42 million for national Asian languages and studies to take us through to the end of 1999. We then committed in the election campaign $90 million to take that further, from the year 2000 and for the following three years. That is a pledge we have made that will come into effect in the year 2000.We have already put $42 million into this crucial area to take us through to 1999. I agree with Senator Carr when he says that there is a huge take-up of Asian languages and studies in this country. I saw it when I travelled around Australian schools—I was formerly minister for schools. I saw many successful courses. This innovation in our election platform was widely greeted wherever I went because it gives two great benefits to the Australian people: it teaches its young people Asian languages so that in future when we deal with our neighbours we can deal with them in their own language if needs be; it also brings about more harmonisation in our own society and an understanding of our Asian neighbours and those people of Asian extraction living in Australia. There is a win-win aspect to this whole program. In the future, when Australia does business in the South-East Asian region it will have a young generation who will be in control when dealing with our Asian neighbours, who will be able to speak to them in their own language.But there is more in this bill. There is the country areas program and the issue of providing flexibility for that. Senator Crossin mentioned the question of how we are looking at education in country areas. I share that concern, coming from the state of Western Australia—the greatest state in area in this country—and I have seen the difficulties that you have with remote education. That is why in our election platform we announced funding for the basic boarding allowance for isolated children. We announced an additional $23.6 million over five years to increase that basic boarding allowance so that isolated people could send their children to school.We also announced, and have in place, programs in relation to indigenous education. There is $80 million worth of practical programs that will achieve outcomes for indigenous students. As well as that, there is $6.2 million for intensive English studies for those indigenous students who do not have English as a first language. We have had the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs working with the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts in a strategy designed to maximise the increase in technology in delivering distance education to those remote parts of Australia. This government regards education in regional Australia as crucial. We recognise that there are difficulties, and we are working to address them.Teacher shortage is an aspect which the opposition and the Democrats have made much of today. As I stated earlier, this bill is designed for specific programs and the appropriation of funding for Australia's schools. Teacher supply was dealt with in the report mentioned by the Democrats, which was written by Ms Preston and which involved the Australian deans. What that report is at odds with in relation to the states is the question of teacher shortages. Let us look at what some state ministers have said. The Victorian minister in a letter published in the Age on 31 October this year said:Department of Education figures indicate that the supply of teacher graduates will meet demand well into the future.Similarly, the South Australian education minister was quoted in the Advertiser on 31 November this year. He said:The state government did not expect a teacher shortage in 1999 apart from the usual difficulty in filling about 10 positions.This bill is not about addressing teacher shortage. It is about addressing education in Australia's schools and funding specific programs, which I have mentioned. A major difference between the Australian Council of Deans of Education report and departmental work is the treatment of the pool of qualified teachers who are available to re-enter the teaching force. The Australian Council of Deans of Education report focuses on recent graduates and argues that the pool dissipates as people obtain teaching work or other employment. This does not allow for qualified teachers who have left for family reasons and are now seeking to re-enter the teaching force.Australian Bureau of Statistics data for 1996 shows that there were some 14,600 unemployed persons with education qualifications and that 75 per cent of them were female. So, obviously, there is a pool of qualified teachers out there who are not seeking employment. Of course the teaching profession is ageing and there are great demands being placed on it. During my term as minister for education I acknowledged that and the work that Australia's teachers were doing in this country. The ministerial council of education ministers commissioned the development of a teacher recruitment strategy. Individual states and territories would be able to adapt this to address local requirements, and I am happy to say that the Commonwealth is committed to 50 per cent of the funding for this research because it is important to look to the future.What I can say in relation to the work of teachers is that this government recognises the very good work that teachers are doing in Australia today. In fact, it was with a view to that that during the recent election campaign we announced some $75 million over three years to a quality teacher program to update and improve teachers' skills and promote and lift the status of teaching in government and non-government schools. The government is yet to respond to the status of teachers inquiry. It will do so—of course, in between we have had an election which has perhaps distracted us somewhat—but we did put our money where our mouth was during the election campaign by announcing this $75 million which will go to a quality teacher program. I believe that that is a very important step indeed and really does show the importance that this government places on keeping teachers up to speed with their professional development. So there is no question of the government ignoring any teacher shortage or ignoring the status of teachers.So when you look at aspects of this bill, you need to look at what this government is doing in the total area of education and in professional development of teachers. You need to look at our track record where we have addressed those big issues of literacy and numeracy, where we have addressed the question of vocational education and training in schools to the extent that it has never been recognised before, where we have allowed accredited training to occur within our schools, and where we are allowing this flexibility to give young Australians great opportunities to go on for training and subsequent employment. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Carr's ) be agreed to.11:28:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.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.Lees, M. H. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.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.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H. *Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Campbell, G. Tambling, G. E. J.Cook, P. F. S. Campbell, I. G.Faulkner, J. P. Alston, R. K. R.Lundy, K. Newman, J. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.593The bill.11:33:00593Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Minister, in the election campaign and in your second reading speech summary you indicated that the Liberal Party had promised an additional $90 million for the Asian language program. Is the $40 million which is appropriated in this bill part of that $90 million?11:33:00593Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—No, it is not. That is the separate amount, which I mentioned earlier was announced in the last parliament. We have two amounts for Asian languages and studies: $42 million which will take us through to the end of 1999 and $90 million which will take us beyond 2000.11:34:00593Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Minister, I note your comments that the state governments are saying that supply will meet demand. Are you not even mildly concerned about the report of Barbara Preston? Do you discount it altogether? How do your remarks and those of the state education ministers sit with the report of MCEETYA, as I understand it, which shows that there will, in fact, be severe shortages in mathematics and science teachers and in teacher supply for rural and remote areas? How do you reconcile the Barbara Preston report, which I would argue is a very thorough document, with the statements of the state ministers and are you looking beyond that? What sort of mechanisms will you use to see that this dire shortage of 4,500 teachers next year does not become a reality?11:35:00593Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In my previous statement, I did not necessarily discount the report by the Australian Council of Deans of Education. I pointed to areas where we would distinguish the report from what state education ministers were saying; that perhaps there were a few aspects upon which the report was built that were at variance with the way we see it. The department has said that in discrete areas there may be some shortages which are perhaps not national but are occurring on a local or regional basis. We do not discount the question of teacher supply as being of no moment. In fact, that is why the Commonwealth has contributed 50 per cent of funding to a national strategy for teacher development and recruitment. That is something which is being developed at the ministerial council of education and training which is under way at the moment.My remarks are not dismissing any concerns but are simply made on the basis of let us not overestimate the situation in the immediate term and let us not overstate any short supply and create an atmosphere of panic. We need to approach this on a rational basis at a national level with the cooperation of the states and territories, and that is what is being done through the ministerial council of education.11:37:00594Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—You will recall that in my speech in the second reading debate I made mention of an extract of the figures prepared by Barbara Preston in which the total number of teachers required to implement the youth allowance, to meet the needs of those students staying on at school who would not otherwise do so, is 1,386; that is, presumably 1,386 classrooms will not have teachers as a direct result of the youth allowance. Are you saying that that figure is also unreliable? If so, what is your estimation of the direct impact on the demand for teachers of the youth allowance? Do you have that on a state by state basis?11:37:00594Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In relation to that figure of 1,386 teachers, I fail to see how that is needed for an expected cohort of students numbering 20,000. As we say, we have some 8,000-odd returnees, plus 12,000 who would stay at school. If you add that together, you get 20,000. Why do you need 1,386 extra teachers for that cohort of 20,000? I do not think those figures jell. That is why we say that we do not think the impact of the Youth Allowance will have the result that the report says it will.We will have to take on notice the state-by-state breakdown. I do not think we have that yet. The strategic committees set up in the states and territories have been working on this. When information is to hand, we will provide it to you.11:38:00594Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Minister, you mentioned that the Commonwealth was sharing the funding for this teacher recruitment strategy—and I understand that you said it was paying 50 per cent. How much is that? What does that funding pay for? Is it to write a document or is it actually to provide teachers? How much is it? For what period of time? Has it already been spent? What is it for?11:39:00594Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I understand that an amount of $200,000 has been provided by the Commonwealth and that the report will be finalised by the end of this year. That has been done in conjunction with the individual states and territories. I would have to take on notice to provide greater detail of the work they have engaged in and with whom they have consulted. That has been developed through the ministerial council of education ministers.11:39:00594Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—As I understand it, one of the strategies to come out of that work in South Australia was to provide some sort of HECS replacement fee so that teachers would be encouraged to enter teaching courses, and so that there would also be some sort of scholarship or arrangement in place—and I do not have any of the details—which would encourage teachers who had left the work force some time ago to return and retrain.It seems to me that it is a Commonwealth responsibility and not a state government responsibility to forgive HECS or in some way to fund the up-front fees that are required for retraining or to fund the HECS fees. Has the Commonwealth considered putting in place such steps to increase teacher numbers? Even if we take the lower figure of 8,000 additional students, it seems to me that the Commonwealth has some responsibility to see that teachers are in place and that they are either retrained or are coming on in the system to meet the needs of that very low estimate.11:41:00595Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The detail of this report is yet to be finalised because, as I said, the report will be finished by the end of this year and will be put before the next ministerial council of education ministers—which would be in about March or April next year. I cannot pre-empt what that report will say. If there is any Commonwealth involvement, that will have to be looked at in conjunction with the states and territories. It would not require the Commonwealth to march off and take unilateral action.Obviously, we would want to work through this report at a ministerial level with the states and territories. I think that is as far as we can take that. What we are looking at is more in the long term. You are asking what the strategy will be for this program which will come into place in January next year. We are saying that we cannot see any problem in the near future, but we are concerned to ensure that in the interim and long term there is not a problem with teacher supply. That is why we have embarked upon this report.11:42:00595Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—With respect, Minister, it is difficult for you to say that there is not a problem. You have already indicated that this committee is looking at teacher recruitment strategies and examining the figures. You say that you would not be prepared to take unilateral action, but in a sense you are already doing that—you are already implementing a program which makes a higher demand on teachers. There is already significant evidence that the shortage is there.I think you are arguing from a position of ignorance in terms of this question. There is a lack of knowledge about how we are going to recruit teachers and there is some uncertainty—in your mind, at least—as to whether the shortages outlined by Barbara Preston are real or somehow manufactured. There is also uncertainty about how many students are actually in this category and what extra demands the Youth Allowance is making. It seems to me that there are a lot of question marks there.I put it to you that it would be wise to delay the implementation of the forced return of these students to schools for at least 12 months until we get some of this sorted out. Would you consider doing that? The Democrats would move an amendment to this effect if it were possible with this legislation but, unfortunately, it is not. Would the government consider this—given that there are so many unknowns and given that, as you say, you do not want to take unilateral action?11:44:00595Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I dispute that we are approaching this from a position of ignorance. We are saying that the question of teacher supply is very important and, as a result of that, the Commonwealth government, with the state and territory governments, has commissioned a report which will deal with a national strategy for recruiting teachers. I think that is a thoroughly responsible course of action to take. It indicates how seriously we regard this.It does not mean to say that we believe the ship is going down and we should all abandon ship and run for the lifeboats. It is a normal, prudent course of action that any responsible government would take and that is to keep an eye on the medium- to long-term supply of teachers. We do not believe that there is a short-term supply. We do not believe that the numbers of students which will be affected by this program are such that it will cause disruption to the hundreds of thousands of Australian students enjoying education in this country. We predict on the figures that we have that there will be some 8,000-odd students returning to schools across Australia and there will be perhaps another 12,000 who will stay on at school. That 20,000 will not have the impact that some people are saying that it will. It is 20,000 students compared with hundreds of thousands of students, the total population of school students in Australia.To delay that another year we believe would be irresponsible because, as I stated, in 1992 the retention rates of students at school was in the region of 78 per cent. That fell in 1997 to 72 per cent. We believe that there is a problem when you have the rate of retention of Australian school students dropping at such a rate. That is an important thing which I found when I travelled around Australia visiting schools and talking to parents. It is a problem which has to be addressed and we cannot put it off for another year. We have to deal with it now. Dealing with issues is the task of being in government, and this is one issue which has to be dealt with now. Another year will make it worse.11:46:00596Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—It would appear to me that dealing with this question by forcing young people to stay in school is not an answer. As I said in my speech on the second reading, as a former teacher I know that simply forcing young people to stay in school will not force them to learn. It will have no effect whatever on the outcome except to perhaps worsen the situation, particularly in schools that do not have adequate programs. I think we have managed to demonstrate that the needs for adequate programs in schools are extreme. Even at the best possible figures imaginable that you have put forward of 8,000 students, that is still only $1,000 a student. We also know that that is not going to all students who would be in this category, but that is another argument.Minister, I wanted to just draw attention to some figures. You said, as part of your response to the issues raised, that the government had a very comprehensive overall plan and that its total expenditure was much higher since coming to office. I just want to remind you that the projections from 1996 right through to the year 2000, as updated for the table prepared for the states grants bill, show a rather different picture. The average annual increase in funding for government schools, the total direct funding, was a mere 3.05 per cent. In the attributed FAGs you say there was an increase of 4.2 per cent. I think that Senator Carr has already pointed out that that is a claim you cannot necessarily make. In non-government schools the increase is much higher, 7.18 per cent and 3.6 per cent for attributed FAGs.I just want to put on the record the fact that those figures do not stand up to much scrutiny when you look at those updated projections. I am happy to table my extrapolation from your projections, which is simply adding up and figuring out the average increases, if that would be helpful to you.The point I really want to make, however, is that I think that the Commonwealth is not facing up to its responsibilities in respect to teachers and I think that to put your head in the sand and say, `This is not going to make much difference to schools' will be very damaging for your government. I think that the problems are going to be there in those areas which have traditional difficulty in finding teachers. They are, of course, the rural and remote areas and subjects like mathematics and science.We already have a dumbing-down, if you like, in that area. School teachers who have an arts degree and follow that with a Diploma of Education are finding themselves teaching senior mathematics and science. If those teachers are not adequately trained, if they do not have a science degree before going into teaching, then they are not going to make the subject exciting for their students and there will be a downward spiral in terms of support for science and education in particular. And they are just two areas.This is something the Democrats will be watching very carefully. If Barbara Preston's projections are accurate, then I think this will come home to roost for the government. The government has been warned: Barbara Preston's previous report was not as alarming as this one is but, nonetheless, it did send a very strong warning to the government that something would need to be done about teacher shortages. As she says, we cannot rely, as Mr Kennett in Victoria would have done, on all the teachers who were sacked—and there were 8,000 in Victoria—coming back into the teaching work force. Some will. Many will need retraining—and I do not see any money in here to assist with that—but most will be getting on with their lives. They find jobs in other occupations, occupations that are a lot easier than teaching, I have to say, and they move on. They move location- wise and they move into having families. They are no longer there as a pool of teachers ready to go.I urge you again to look at this report, to question the advice you are getting from the states and from your department and to seriously address this question, because the Commonwealth is responsible for part of that shortfall. If Barbara Preston's figures are at all accurate, 1,300 more teachers are required as a result of the Youth Allowance. Again, I urge you to examine this question and not simply leave it up to who knows what and just wait for the outcome which is really only a couple of months away.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—Senator Allison, are you seeking leave to table the document?9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—I would be happy to see that.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I seek leave to table the document.Leave granted.11:52:00597Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I might just point out that the figures mentioned by Senator Allison do not include all the programs. In fact, I have alluded to some of them—indigenous education, Australian National Training Authority funds for VET in schools, school to work funding and the state government funding. They are not included in the amounts which have been mentioned. When I say that there is $16 billion of funding, you have to look at the total funding which is from government sources.May I just say on the teaching aspect that we do take seriously the question of teacher development. That is why we announced $75 million during the election campaign for the professional development of teachers. Part of that is also to increase and improve the status of teachers which, we believe, will go towards enhancing teacher recruitment.11:53:00597Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Minister, you provoke me to respond to that—I was not going to. Seventy-five million dollars for professional development will be welcomed by teachers, but I must remind you that professional development was cut by your government in the last budget. I need to remind you, as well, that it is all very well to talk about $40 million in literacy and numeracy but, likewise, the funding for those special projects was cut by your department. So you have really dressed up extra money as being additional when it is not. It is simply rejigging something that was previously taken away.I think it is disingenuous of you to suggest that all of those areas of funding are new money. They are not. It is money that has been cut or has been broadbanded, I think was the phrase. You cannot claim that that money is all new and is all extra. I come back to the figures that are there: even if we were to add the amounts that you have indicated, it would not show anything like the sort of increase that you suggested earlier on in this debate. That 3.05 average annual increase percentage over 1997 through to the year 2000 might be bumped up to 3.1 per cent, but it really does not make a great deal of difference. Saying that $16 billion is going into education really does not mean anything unless we look at the relativity of that figure and see what your government has done to public education.11:55:00597Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Minister, Dr Kemp made this statement in his second reading speech:Funds for Full Service Schools projects will be directed to schools in areas with the highest numbers of young people affected by the implementation of the Youth Allowance.Can you provide for me information on what body, or who, will be determining the areas affected? How will the funds be allocated? What consideration will be given to the allocation of those funds other than to perhaps areas in which there are high numbers of young people affected? By when will that be done?11:56:00597Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—When the Commonwealth set out upon this course, it caused to be set up in each state and territory strategic committees which would then assess where the needs lay in relation to these young people. What was looked at—because we did not have the youth allowance then to rely on, but we had the youth training allowance—was the number of recipients of the youth training allowance.These committees stem from the various education departments in the states and territories and are working in cooperation with the Commonwealth. That work is being conducted at this point. Some of the things that are being looked at include, for instance, clusters. One example I saw in Queensland involved three schools where one could act as a source, or a centre, for students who could possibly be going to all three, and it would draw upon students from that area. Things will vary greatly, of course, depending on the geography and demographics. There is no question of that. This will not be uniformly spread across the country, and that is why the respective committees are looking at their own states and territories to see where this need lies.11:57:00598Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Minister, further to that: will those steering committees be putting in a bid to access some of these funds or will the funds be allocated on a state and territory basis, at which point they will then have to allocate simply what they have been given?11:58:00598Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The process is that the committees invite applications from schools within their various states and territories. The applications then go to the committees and the approvals are made by the minister concerned, who would be Dr Kemp.11:58:00598Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Further to my question: how is that $21 million to be allocated around the country? Will state and territory steering committees put in a bid for that $21 million, or has the department determined how much money each state and territory will get, which those steering committees will then allocate?11:58:00598Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Each state and territory will provide an indicative figure of the amount that the particular state or territory needs. The funding will be done on the basis of that.11:58:00598Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I note also that the funds are to provide for additional support for schools to develop innovative programs and services. Dr Kemp suggested in his second reading speech that that might also go towards employing either new specialist teachers or counsellors. But what of schools which do not choose to do this? Can you clarify for me who will be developing the innovative programs and services? I am assuming that, if schools do not put in a bid to use the money to employ specialists or counsellors, existing teachers in those schools will be given this additional workload to undertake.NaN:00:00598Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—It is true that in some schools you already have teachers who are well-qualified to undertake these tasks, so I would envisage that some schools would not put in a bid which involved employing someone extra. I have seen first-hand some very good courses and examples where teachers have been doing this sort of work. With the retainees, they would continue to do the work with those students at risk. There would be no change. They would continue to work with those students. You would then have the returnees whom they would take on and deal with.The question is whether or not they need someone extra. From some of the examples I have seen, they do not. In one example I saw in Queensland there was a teacher dealing with four students who were at risk. They were dealt with quite separately from the normal cohort of students in that year because of the various problems they had. It was proposed that that teacher could accommodate any student who came under this program because he was well-equipped to deal with students who had a number of factors going on in their lives, such as a dysfunctional family life or perhaps a drug problem. This teacher was well-equipped to deal with those things.This is an instance where the teacher could deal with those at risk plus those who might return to school. But in some schools they may need an additional person with the expertise to deal with them. We do not see that as a problem. We do need the flexibility so that when it is necessary for the schools to bring in someone with the expertise they can.One school I saw was proposing that they would deal with the returnees in a different way because these students had left school. They knew that they could not put them in a classroom with other students. They would have them attending at perhaps a different hour of the day and they would be dealing with a vocational education and training course which was on offer at the school.12:02:00599Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Minister, is the government perhaps suggesting that this teacher, who is coping quite well with four students at risk—and there are probably many of those kinds of teachers around this country—would be expected to do a similar job if the number of returnees increased to 10 or 12? Surely there must be some recognition on your part that in that situation there needs to be a variation to the student-teacher ratio by the provision of an additional teacher or additional resources, or a recognition that that person cannot continue to exist under similar circumstances with an increase in student numbers.12:03:00599Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In that particular instance the idea was that any returnees could be dealt with at a time different from the other students. In any event, there is nothing to stop the school putting in a bid for extra resources. The teacher concerned saw no problem coping with returnees. If there were too many to be dealt with at once you could stagger the classes dealing with them. That was one aspect that could be looked at. If that did not turn out to be appropriate then the school could look at applying for added resources to put into another teacher. The person I spoke to seemed more than happy to accommodate any extra student load in that situation. It really has to be looked at on the basis of what the school has on offer. Some schools have some very good courses in hand already and what they might need is not extra teachers but extra resources in the various courses they provide by way of vocational education and training.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.599Bill (on motion by Senator Ellison) read a third time.Bills599s177599Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator Kemp:That this bill be now read a second time.12:05:00599Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—My contribution to the debate on the Space Activities Bill 1998 is to simply place on record the proposal and to make mention of what is happening at the Christmas Island satellite launch facility. I am aware that this bill seeks to regulate what is happening in this industry. I am also aware that there are two other areas in this country which this bill will regulate. My particular interest is in what is happening on Christmas Island because for federal matters it is under the jurisdiction of the Northern Territory electorate.As a senator for the Northern Territory, I want to say a few words about the proposal for the Asia Pacific Space Centre, better known as the Christmas Island satellite launch facility proposal. Christmas Island is a small island of 135 square kilometres and has about 2,000 residents. With regard to the satellite launch facility there are differences of opinion amongst my constituents on Christmas Island as to whether the proposal should or should not go ahead. The Asia Pacific Space Centre proposal is one of three commercial satellite launch facilities currently being pursued in Australia. There is another in Queensland and another in Woomera in South Australia.The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has previously determined that the Asia Pacific Space Centre proposal for a satellite launching facility would require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. This draft environmental impact statement should soon be released for community consultation. I know that Christmas Island residents are eagerly awaiting its release.In a press release that Senator Robert Hill issued back on 29 May this year he outlined that he had determined that a proposal by the Asia Pacific Space Centre Pty Ltd to build a satellite launching facility on Christmas Island would require the preparation of an environmental impact statement, and this announcement by the minister was certainly welcomed. He went on to say that the preparation of an environmental impact statement would ensure that all environmental impacts of the proposal are fully assessed.It is important that any potential impact on Christmas Island's natural and cultural heritage is taken into account before the approval of this proposal goes ahead. Eighty-five square kilometres of the island are now covered by the Christmas Island National Park, reflecting the unique ecosystems and biodiversity contained on the island. Christmas Island contains a number of unique ecosystems and five nationally listed endangered species.As I am sure the EIS will demonstrate, there are both pros and cons regarding the satellite launching facility, but it is vital that the residents of Christmas Island have all the information they need to make an informed decision about whether or not they want the launch facility to proceed. Seventy per cent of the residents of Christmas Island are Chinese in origin, 25 per cent are Malay and only 10 per cent are European. With this in mind, I would hope that the Chinese-Malay population, many of whom speak English as a second language, have the opportunity to have their concerns explained in the appropriate language. If the proposal does go ahead, it will introduce a technologically sophisticated operation to the island which would be likely to have a major impact on telecommunications, air services and shipping services. The target date for this project is the year 2000.The Space Activities Bill will establish a regulatory framework for space activities in Australia. I want to place on record that, whilst we welcome what is outlined in this bill, there is a need for companies such as the Asia Pacific Space Centre Pty Ltd to bear in mind, when they are conducting consultations about building launch facilities in areas such as Christmas Island, where only 10 per cent of the population are European, that the consultations are conducted thoroughly in all languages so that everybody concerned has a complete understanding of what is being proposed and what are the implications. At this stage, having visited Christmas Island, it is my conclusion that some people there misunderstand the proposal and are feeling fairly threatened and frightened. That is mainly due to the fact that a lot of the information has not been provided to them in a language that they can understand and feel comfortable with. So, on behalf of my constituents on Christmas Island, I remind Senator Hill that future consultations should in fact be in a language that everybody on the island can understand.As well as being important to ensure that Australia attracts investment by commercial interests in the areas of satellite launch facilities and other related activities, it has been said that it will ensure that Australia will meet its obligations under United Nations space treaties. It is essential that there is clear legislation to establish and apportion liability in the event of any damage caused by a satellite launch. As has been spelt out in the Space Activities Bill explanatory memorandum, the risks inherent in space launch operations dictate close monitoring and supervision of launch activities to protect the community from unsafe practices. I know the people of Christmas Island will be watching closely to ensure that, if the satellite launch facility proposal does go ahead, residents will be protected in the case of damage or accidents and that there are adequate environmental safeguards in this event.12:12:00600Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—May I begin, Mr Acting Deputy President Bartlett, by saying how nice it is to see an Australian Democrat sitting in that chair for a change. I wish you well in that new position. I rise to speak to the Space Activities Bill 1998 , an initiative designed to provide a comprehensive framework for space activities in Australia and involving Australian interests. There is presently no regulation for the licensing, safety and liability of Australian launch activities. The justification for this legislation is to secure the investment needed for commercial success of Australian space ventures.I would like to say something about the importance of governments taking the initiative to set in place the framework for new industries. Australia has a heritage of space science and astronomy participation—and a long history of sidelining space program decisions and space issues. Australia uses global communications satellite systems, remote sensing imagery, space based meteorological forecasting and navigation guidance. Space based activities are important to Australia in both monetary and utility terms. Australia already spends more than $500 million annually on satellite systems, but mostly overseas and with no guarantee that a local industry will derive any benefit from or involvement in these programs.This legislation is a step in the right direction to get the Australian industry involved. It is absolutely essential that Australia develop a vibrant and growing manufacturing and services sector to provide the high skilled, high value jobs for the future. This requires the government to provide the strategic direction necessary to develop the local industry. Part of this process is the need to develop a strategic plan for industry sectors. This should be an integrated approach to science and technology, recognising, of course, the importance of education, research and development support and initiatives, intellectual property protections, venture and seed capital, the encouragement of innovation and creativity, a government purchasing policy, a comprehensive industry policy and initiatives, including taxation, in the short, medium and long term, as well as a social assessment of technology and the inclusion of innovation in the economic analysis and budget planning undertaken by government.To achieve these goals, the Democrats have plans to integrate the place of education, research and development and innovation into the economic agenda. The Democrats support, firstly, economic independence for Australia where we as a nation earn more, save more and invest smarter, and in particular support an active industry policy to identify and develop, sector by sector, export and import replacement opportunities and the adoption of the latest innovations and technologies.Secondly, we support the nurturing of a highly skilled work force that is capable of meeting the demands of the future, which presently requires a massive boost to our education sector. Thirdly, we support reviewing and establishing a new gauge of wellbeing—such as a genuine progress indicator or GPI—that takes into account socially and environmentally detrimental and beneficial effects which are not included in the present measures such as the GDP. Fourthly, we support reform of the taxation system to make it fairer and more effective. Lastly, we support increasing public investment in infrastructure to support our nation's future development, job security and wealth creation, especially in research infrastructure to ensure universities and research institutions have state-of-the-art equipment. These measures will directly affect the ability of Australian science and technology to prosper in the future. As for space, the Democrats support a proactive government legislative scheme that sets out the framework for regulating the industry. This bill creates some of that framework.I am taken by Douglas Adams's description:Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it is a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.And here we have a bill that proposes to regulate space—all space. This is a substantial challenge and must be based on some fairly significant ground rules. This sentiment is set out in a number of international conventions. For example, the agreement governing the activities of states on the moon and other celestial bodies:. . . is determined to promote on the basis of equality and the further development of co-operation among States in the exploration and use of the moon and other celestial bodies.The treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is:. . . recognising the common interest of all mankind in the progress of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes.I acknowledge that that was `humankind'.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—We won't report you to the thought police to make sure you are politically correct all the time.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Thank you, Senator Schacht, but I am sure you support language that is not gender specific.Significantly, these conventions identify equality, the common interests of humanity and the peaceful use of space. These are worthy ideals and our legislation must promote and reflect these ideals and goals. In most instances this bill is consistent with these ideals and the Democrats welcome this. However, there are some issues I would like to address broadly.Firstly, I am concerned about radioactive and other toxic and dangerous substances in space. Last year, as some members of the Senate may recall, the Cassini space probe was launched from Cape Canaveral to hurtle around the earth with 33 kilograms of plutonium. I, together with a lot of other people, was concerned about the potential for an accident. I understand that the risk of accident as the probe swung past earth on the way to Saturn was very low—people suggested infinitesimally low—but the consequences of an accident would have seen an estimated five billion people subjected to radioactive plutonium. The issue here is that the risks may be very low—and scientists are very good at calculating risks, I acknowledge that—but it is the broader community that should decide whether or not that risk is worth taking.I appreciate that the role of radioactive and toxic materials in earth orbits is likely to be minimal. However, this bill deals with all space, and I am concerned about any radioactive or toxic material in all space. The lifespan of Cassini's 33 kilograms of plutonium is a long time and we should be cautious about spreading this stuff around.Of more immediate concern to earthbound life is that materials sent into earth's orbit do eventually come back to earth. This is significant as the lifetime of some of these materials spans many generations, so we need to look to the very long term when we are talking about regulation of space. For example, the United States has used radioisotope thermoelectric generators, or RTGs, for earth observations in orbits generally greater than 700 kilometres. RTGs generally use plutonium 238 as a fuel source because of its high heat to mass ratio and relatively long half-life of 87.7 years. The natural orbit decay of these satellites is several hundred years, when they will re-enter the atmosphere and, as a result of friction in the air, burn up. This will, in most instances, turn the satellite into dust that will then be spread around by the wind and weather.Both the United States and the former Soviet Union launched vehicles into space with RTGs as well as nuclear reactors using enriched uranium 235. We know that the US vehicles, which have re-entered the atmosphere, had RTGs that were encased so as to survive re-entry. All reports suggest that this was a successful design strategy, although I will comment more on that later. In contrast, the former Soviet Union designed their fuel sources to vaporise on re-entry.The consequences of radioactive material spreading around the globe are frightening. The most important point to make here—and I will leave the details for another time—is that there is no safe dose of radioactivity, because the harmful effects of low dose radioactivity over generations cannot be presently determined and one `hit' is enough to cause cell damage that may lead to cancers. This means it is not acceptable to send radioactive material into space unless we have determined the risk and made a decision that it is a risk worth taking. Just because it is a low risk—and I say this to the smiling minister—does not necessarily mean it is a risk worth taking.The next issue of concern to me is the increasing amount of what is broadly referred to as space debris. I would like to expand on this to talk about objects in space as being useful objects and as being debris. Whether you have the useful ones or the debris, it is all out there. Australia accounts for some 15 payloads and debris objects.Senator Minchin interjecting—3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I would very much like to hear the minister expand on his thoughts not only of space regulation but also about Australia's 15 payloads and space debris. The way this number is calculated is quite contentious. It should be seen as a relative number compared to the thousands of objects attributed to the United States, the former Soviet Union and the European Space Agency.This also means that Australia's contribution to space objects is a contribution to a fairly crowded space. It is a fairly crowded environment. The United States Space Command reports some 26,000 human-made objects in orbit which have been detected, tracked and catalogued. This number includes around 8½ thousand earth satellites. The rest are used rocket bodies, dead payloads and operational debris, which includes optic covers, attachment hardware and other bits and pieces which fall off vehicles.Interestingly, only about six per cent of the 8½ thousand satellites are functioning. This does not include objects that are less than 10 centimetres in size in low earth orbit and up to one metre in geostationary orbits. This may amount to tens of thousands of objects. This is of significant concern, as these objects are likely to cause accidents and unexpected behaviour of space objects.I have more to say about the specific purposes of this bill. My office received answers to questions about this bill quite late last night. Perhaps the minister will be happy to outline his responses to some of the concerns that were raised between our offices. I will be happy to address some of my concerns in relation to regulation versus self-regulation during the committee stage of this bill.For the record, I do congratulate the new minister on his responsibilities, and I hope that he will bring vigour, a bit of passion as well as intellect to the debate not only about space but about science issues generally. I suggest that science is an area that has been sidelined by this parliament not just in recent history but by the previous government. I think that science issues are intimately linked with a range of portfolio areas like industry, training, education, research and information technologies—all these areas of the future which we should be considering as investments for future prosperity, be it economic as well as contributing to a society where we are more enlightened.I think that science issues are not given the precedence that they often deserve in this place. It has been quite exciting to see a space bill on the Notice Paper for debate. I hope, Minister, that you will ensure that there are many more opportunities for discussion in this place about the crucial areas of science and technology.12:25:00603Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise on behalf of the opposition to support this Space Activities Bill 1998 and do so with some pleasure as a former minister responsible for space activities from 1993 to 1996. It is a pleasure to see at long last a commercial development in space related activity taking place in Australia.I remember when I was the minister, when we were talking to the Kistler Corporation and others who may have been interested in using Australia as a launch site, that it was pointed out to me by the officers in the then Department of Industry, Science and Technology that this bill would be needed to provide a regulatory regime for commercial interest in space. I think I said I could accept that and I think at the time, informally, the department started to prepare what is now this bill, anticipating that we would be successful—after many trials and tribulations—in convincing some commercial organisation to use Australia as a launch site.As a South Australian, I was particularly interested in getting Woomera reactivated because, in two years time with the closing of Nurrungar, Woomera will be basically wound down to being a care and maintenance operation of what 30 years ago was I think the third or fourth biggest town in South Australia. Woomera will be almost a ghost town of only a few hundred people on a care and maintenance basis for the Australian defence forces. In view of the taxpayers' contribution to build and establish Woomera over 50-odd years, it would be very sad—not only for South Australia but for Australia—to have Woomera wind down and allow it and a lot of facilities to basically disappear.I did visit Woomera on a number of occasions as minister to look at what was already there in space related activity. I say to Senator Minchin—a fellow South Australian, as well as the minister—that it is instructive to go to Woomera and to go out to the various places where rockets used to be launched, as part of a military program by the British government in particular, in the fifties and the sixties. I am sure he, like me, would be staggered to see the investment that was made and the range of launch facilities that were built in that area, spread over many hundreds of square kilometres of Woomera and not just near the town. In fact, you have to drive 30 kilometres out in different directions to find some of them. In 1994 the command headquarters for launching rockets of a large nature, including the former ELDO rocket, was still in operational form. It had been maintained all those years waiting for the next rocket to be launched. Much of the equipment and the computers were outdated, but some had been upgraded. There was a care and maintenance operation. It was a two-storey building—more than a blockhouse arrangement—and it could be activated at very small extra cost.It was also salutary to go and see at the edge of Island Lagoon the two sites the ELDO operation built in the late sixties to launch the European rockets before they were shifted for political reasons to French Guiana. We now find that that site in French Guiana is the most successful commercial rocket launching site in the world, regularly launching satellites every few weeks. That was a political decision the French forced on the ELDO operation under the wonders of General de Gaulle and we lost.But, before it shifted, tens of millions of dollars were spent to build two major rocket launching facilities on the edge of the escarpment at the lagoon. One of them was used for static firings of the ELDO rocket and the other was never used at all. They had built the gantry that shifts the rockets to assemble the rockets; they had built all the ancillary equipment.When I was space minister, it was most distressing for me to find that, in the late 1980s, one of these sites had been used by the SAS for target practice, to test gunfire power and to conduct explosives tests. They blew the roof off the underground control bunker with explosive devices as an experiment. That concrete structure, which is equivalent to 10-storeys high, is pockmarked with every type of light to middle level armament. There are shell holes all over it. All the concrete observation posts built around the edge of the site from which the observers watched rockets take off have shell marks all over them.I took the matter up with my colleague the Minister for Defence so as to stop the SAS, or any other Defence operation, continuing to blow up these assets because, in that period, we had invited a delegation from various Russian rocket making companies to visit. They said that the shell of the site which had not been blown up could be used, with very cheap modification, to launch modified proton rockets. I think we got agreement that they would no longer use the ELDO concrete site for target practice and that the SAS would no longer use it to test explosive devices.All over Woomera there are sites for launching very small rockets up to the size of the ELDO. The major advantage of Woomera is that it is a declared area for defence purposes, and it covers many thousands of square kilometres. It would be nice if it was closer to the Equator because we could launch equatorial rockets. Commercially, it is cheaper the closer you get to the Equator. But, for a north-south polar orbit, Woomera is very well placed to launch rockets with low earth orbiting satellites for communication purposes. I think that is what the Kistler organisation is looking at.I think I can mention now for the benefit of the minister that the Russians told us it is possible to assemble and fire these rockets from Australia for as little as $10 million a firing, which is extremely cheap. The Russians provided drawings. We brought a Russian delegation to Australia and they were amazed at what we had at Woomera but also, when we took them through the submarine corporation engineering works at Pooraka—not at Osborne—they said the equipment the submarine corporation had at those engineering works was capable of being used for assembling rockets. The equipment and the technology was available then.In the early 1990s Transfield was interested in putting together a consortium to launch rockets from Australia. As John White, the former head of Transfield, said, making and launching a rocket from Australia is a lot less complicated than building an Anzac frigate in Williamstown. It is not that difficult. We used the old saying that you must be a rocket scientist. But this is not rocket science. By using that phrase we made rocket science sound a lot more complicated and expensive than it now is.I say to the minister that I ran into trouble when trying to convince Treasury and Finance to make money available to seed fund and initiate space related activities in Australia. I think my colleagues in the Treasury and Defence bureaucracies believed I was trying to build Cape Canaveral at Woomera. All I was after was a few million dollars over five years to kick-start something that would be, in the end, a value added industry.As Senator Stott Despoja pointed out, in Australia we probably import now about $1 billion worth of services from space satellites. That goes on our current account deficit. If we are serious about getting the current account deficit down, in the long run we will have to look at areas where we think we can reduce those import costs. One of those areas is through space related activities.If we launch satellites, we can then leverage the service that goes on the satellite because that can be provided to Australia at a cheaper price since we are actually launching it. I have to say that Treasury and Finance did not accept that argument and did everything possible to say that that is not what the free market is about, et cetera.Let me tell you that space is not about the free market. Everything in space is about a controlled, fixed, rigged market. When I was dealing with the Russians or the Americans, they were always leveraging it to make commercial advantage for their nations. We should not be naive enough to believe we will get any advantage without leveraging our geographical and geopolitical position in the world. Australia is very well placed to be a major launch site, but it will need a commitment.I have to say that this bill is an excellent start. I suggest, Minister, that there will be some issues debated in committee and some amendments may be moved. I have no doubt that, within two or three years, you will be back here to amend this bill to expand the regulatory regime and, I would hope, to put in place a more proactive industry policy to provide value adding space related activities from Australia—and, I have to say, from South Australia in particular. I think the Kistler beginning is an excellent one.Minister, I know that you inherited this portfolio and that decisions were taken in the last three years about the funding of space activities. I have to say that, although I was not successful in growing the space budget, I was able to hang on and maintain in it at least a few million dollars. In the first term of your government the decision to abolish the Australian Space Office and the funding that went with it for some proactive research was a mistake. In industry policy terms, it was about leveraging value added for Australia. I am pleased to see that at least you have put some money back to administer the regulatory regime. But in the estimates committee to come in February, I will take that opportunity to have more of a dialogue about developing space related activities.You will never get commercial development to the level of value adding the best jobs unless the federal government of Australia is seen worldwide as being genuinely interested and willing to put some money up-front as seed money for R&D and some infrastructure development. This legislation will be a good message to start off with. I am not suggesting that you need $50 million, $100 million or $500 million. You may need a few tens of millions over five years to target where you need the development of space related activities. If we are serious about creating high quality jobs, reducing our current account deficit and space related activities, this is the place where we can do it without a major cost to the Australian taxpayer.Regarding the development of low earth orbiting satellite networks for telecommunications, we have seen the advertisements on television that the Iridium network is now up and running. This is the start of what we ought to be able to say to Iridium and to Motorola. Every year they are going to have to launch replacement low earth orbiting satellites. We should be able to say, whether to Kistler or someone else, `We can launch these from Australia on a regular basis at a cheap price'. Bill Gates, under his program, believes he can deliver the information superhighway by a network of 900 low earth orbiting satellites. Nine hundred would mean that, every year, 40 or 50 would have to be replaced. Some will fall to earth, some will hit each other and some will not work. So there has to be a replacement.What we have to aim for, in my view, is getting the commercial operators to see that we can effectively launch these satellites. Once we get into that, we can then start leveraging back and asking, `What are we going to do to build the satellite?' We already have people in this country who have won contracts to provide parts to American satellites that are now operating in space, either militarily or for commercial reasons. In this very town of Canberra there are people who have successfully made parts—major and significant parts—for American satellites for various commercial companies. That ought to be built upon. That is why we need an industry policy, an industry plan—not a plan to give a free kick or for someone to grab $50 million, put it into their pocket, disappear and then, after five years, say, `Thank you very much. Give us another $50 million'. We need a dedicated plan to leverage the opportunities we already have—the skill we already have.I read only last week in the Business Review Weekly—and I draw this to the minister's attention—a story about the next generation of jetliners that will actually go through the edge of space, supersonic, to London in two hours. What are they talking about? One of the jet engines compresses gas, or oxygen, at high speed and at a high speed it combusts and provides power. The leading proponent of that technology over the last 10 years is from Queensland University. All they needed for that program was funding from time to time of a few hundred thousand dollars. They have the worldwide leadership in it. They need to test the equipment. They need to put up a test probe on a satellite with a model to show that it actually works.If we get into the league, we have the control of the technology; we have the knowledge and the skill. We will not have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars. Others will come and say, `We want you to be the partner because you have the skill. You have the intellectual property'. That is how I see an effective, subtle, discreet program operating, because we have the intellectual knowledge already in this country if we can put it together with a focused program.Although I have not spoken much on this bill, because I agree with it—and the opposition agrees with it—we see this as the very first small step of what some of us tried to do in the early 1990s as the opportunities arose. There are companies in Australia, given the right leadership, that will invest. There are overseas companies that will invest. The jobs that will come, and the quality of those jobs, will mean that we have a real advantage in this country, in our national interest as well as in our commercial interest.Minister, I urge you to go and visit Woomera and have a look at the site. You will, like me, be a little dismayed at what we have allowed to be destroyed. I ran across an Indian space engineer who skited that, when we wound down ELDO and so on, we sold all our best space equipment to India at give-away prices. They used it to build their own space equipment. They have their own rocket now, built on cheap equipment they bought from Australia in the 1960s and 1970s when we gave away Woomera and the equipment at peppercorn prices.The saga of space in Australia now is a very sorry saga of many lost opportunities. I hope this bill, in a sense of bipartisanship, is the beginning of an opportunity that we are not going to lose—that we see it as the beginning of an opportunity and build upon it. Therefore, I commend the bill to the Senate. I look forward to taking part in the committee stage, if there are further amendments. Minister, I ask you whether at the committee stage you can give any further indication of allocation of extra resources to the space program. I will take that up with you in the estimates committee as well. I look forward, as I say, to further debate in this chamber about establishing a decent Australian space program.Debate (on motion by Senator Minchin) adjourned.Matters of Public Interest60710000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Order! It being 12.45 p.m., we will now proceed to matters of public interest.60712:45:00607Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I rise today to talk about the importance of community sport and recreation and, in particular, what will happen when the 2000 Olympics are over.The course this government is charting is based on providing for elite sport above all else. They have shifted the balance such that grassroots sports and recreational activities are being ignored in favour of medal winning sports. We have seen cuts right across the sporting budget in the last two coalition budgets and inevitably, as that pool of funding diminishes, community and participatory sports programs receive less and less resources. Yes, the Olympics are important—but so too is the local netball court, public pool, athletics track and recreational fishing day.Under this government, Australia's reputation as an egalitarian society where everybody gets `a fair go' no longer applies. It no longer applies because this government cannot see beyond a bandaid solution of short-term funding. There is no depth to their policy and no strategy that has Australia's future in mind. Because sports funding is increasingly being directed away from grassroots and community based participation towards elite programs, in an ever-diminishing pool of funding, there is now an even greater need for government involvement in the promotion of participation.Regrettably, the government has to date ignored some of the critical recommendations contained in the report prepared during its period of government entitled Rethinking the funding of community sporting and recreational facilities: a sporting chance. It has failed to act on some of the report's critical recommendations. Certainly, sport has changed. It is now big business and the corporate dollar that largely shapes competitive sport. It is the sponsorship dollar that determines whether or not a sport survives. If you want an example: here in the ACT our women's cricket team had to clean out the amenities at Manuka Oval during the men's one day game, so that they could raise enough money for an interstate visit. Without sponsorship or funding, the non-elite side of sport suffers.Just look at how sports competitions are declining in many regional areas because transport and registration costs are becoming prohibitive. Rural and regional communities are really doing it tough under the Howard government. We have seen this across a whole range of policy areas. And the one thing that many small towns have to alleviate the many stresses of life—sport—has become a discretionary cost that fewer and fewer families can afford.What happened to sport and recreation as simply a means of enjoyment and exercise? What is the government doing to ensure that participation is increased and that facilities are available to anyone who wants to improve their health?If the government wants the low-down on the role sport plays in Australian life, they should take a careful look at the Confederation of Australian Sports study, the Economic Impact Study of Sport. The Confederation's report highlights the tremendous contribution the sports sector makes to Australian society. In the 1995-96 financial year, the sports sector was worth almost $8 billion and sports related exports contributed over $430 million. Australian households spend around $6 billion each year on sport and recreation, meaning that sport brings in about the same economic benefits as the car, clothing and electricity industry sectors.You would think that the government would recognise the economic benefits by supporting the sports industry. You would think that an industry that employs close to 100,000 people, as well as engaging almost 850,000 volunteers, would be deserving of a long-term commitment from the coalition. But their record to date shows that this is not the case.By the year 2000 to 2001, the Howard government will reduce its financial commitment to sport by over $60 million. The Howard government is happy to take almost a billion dollars in taxation generated from the sports sector, but they will not provide any real commitment beyond the Olympic Games. So when the games are over and the big sponsorship dollars have moved on to Athens, Australia is going to be left without adequate funding for elite and community sport programs and participation rates will drop even further.The government's approach to sport is a short-term strategy—if you could call it a strategy at all. It is bereft of any vision about the important role sport and physical activity will play in our future. And, outside of some cheerleading about the Olympics, I have heard nothing about addressing the fundamentals of physical fitness and recreational sport and the role that that has in the quality of the lives of Australians.The report of the Confederation of Australian Sport, which presents a snapshot of the nation's health, acknowledges the importance of participation. Unfortunately, we are more of a nation of sports watchers than sports participants. In 1995-96, just over 30 per cent of Australians participated in some form of physical activity. That means that over 4½ million Australians were involved in either a playing or non-playing capacity—but it also means that nearly 70 per cent of adults were not involved. One of the most important statistics to emerge is that a five per cent increase in the participation rate in sport would deliver a net economic benefit of over $800 million to the Australian economy. In other words, if the government bothered to invest in sport and recreation—rather than slashing away at the budget allocations and funding—then they might be surprised to find that the rewards far outweigh the investment.The benefits of increased participation are tangible right across the board. A healthier society means a healthier work force. And we know that there is a direct correlation between increased health and fitness and increased productivity and occupational health and safety standards. Conversely, people who are not fit—and less healthy—take more sick days. They are less productive and have greater occupational health problems.So increased community participation in sport and recreation creates greater income for governments and delivers tangible benefits in terms of workplace productivity and safety. Some of these equations represent a correlation of figures that is not currently taken into account in the government's assessments of where they should put resources. It is the blend of looking at these cross-portfolio areas and their interrelationships that becomes so critical in policy development in this area.What the statistics do not tell us, however, is how many people are unable to participate. Statistics do not tell us about people excluded from participation because of structural and economic barriers that this government has done nothing about. They have not done anything about increasing participation, because this is part of the unglamorous side of sport. You will not find the Prime Minister or the minister for sport addressing barriers faced by sections of the community who want nothing more than the chance to participate in some form of recreational activity.You will not see them out there talking up Paralympic sport with the same gusto as non-Paralympic sport. The Australian Paralympic Committee received just $1 million from the Olympic program—or just four per cent of sports funding in Australia. This pitiful amount of money is hardly recognition for the 42 gold medals, 37 silver medals and 27 bronze medals Australia won at the Atlanta Paralympic Games. Yet, in many ways, it is more important to fund programs for people with disabilities, as their ability to participate is often dependent on government provided infrastructure. And the opportunity to participate in those programs presents the first opportunity for them to just participate in physical activity from a grassroots perspective.There are too many barriers to participation—barriers such as lack of public transport to venues; lack of facilities for athletes with disabilities; inadequate lighting of grounds and car parks, which is a real concern particularly for women and children; lack of change rooms and toilets, especially wheelchair access; lack of adequate child care; and lack of quality public facilities.So how do we redress the barriers that are preventing more Australians from pursuing a healthier lifestyle? There obviously is not some magic formula that will automatically make us a fit and healthy nation, but slashing funding and cutting critical government programs are certainly not the answer. What can be done is to look at those sections of Australia where participation is low and then to examine what resources and facilities are available. And what you will find is that, while some regions and urban centres are well catered for, others compete for scarce resources.It is amazing what a decent football field or basketball court or soccer pitch with a clubhouse and change rooms can do for the physical, mental and economic health of a community. The government might be surprised to learn that the health and wellbeing of all Australians is what counts, not just that of certain sections favoured by this administration.One of the reasons that we must enhance and broaden the participation rate is that sport acts as a coalescing force. It binds people together; it gives them a sense of purpose, a sense of place and a sense of community. For many residents of rural Australia, sport is one of the few things that keeps their communities alive. The banks might be gone, the Internet might be unaffordable, pay TV might never arrive—but sport is always going to be there.Governments understand this—or at least they should. They understand it when they underwrite international sporting events, but this government have shown that they do not understand that by investing in people, by investing in grassroots sport and recreation, they will get a far greater return than just the financial revenue.60912:56:00609Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—During the last sitting of the Senate, I spoke on the audit report on the health of Aboriginal communities. I spoke about my concerns in this regard and particularly about the death of one Aboriginal woman. Today I want to speak a little more about that situation today and to commend the Courier-Mail in Brisbane which, through the offices of one its journalists, Tony Koch, has been exposing some of the tragic circumstances which do exist on Aboriginal communities in Queensland.I also want to speak about a great friend of mine, Francis Yunkaporta, who died a few weeks ago on the Aurukun community and whose funeral was attended by many people from around this country, including Minister Herron. I certainly commend him for that.Francis Yunkaporta was a very highly respected Wik elder who died of cancer on Thursday 29 October without seeing justice in his lifelong battle for his people to own and manage their traditional land. His death follows that of many other Wik warriors, but particularly people such as John Koowarta. It represents the loss of one of the most respected and trusted leaders of the Wik people.White missionaries took Francis and his father from the family's home at Cape Keer Weer to the Aurukun mission on the western side of Cape York Peninsula when Francis was only six years old. His father was removed in chains. When Francis' father reached Aurukun and realised his children were being taken from him, he protested and tangled physically with the superintendent, but he was chained up again and thrown onto a barge which took him back to Cape Keer Weer. Francis never saw his mother again. He did see his father, although they never discussed the day the children were taken. In reference to his father, Francis says in his autobiography:He never talked about the day I was taken from him but I could tell he was crying inside when he thought about it.This was reported to John Camplin in 1993, who wrote an article about it then.Francis went on from mission life to join the Australian Army's Light Horse Brigade, and then after the war worked as a stockman on stations around Cape York for 15 years before getting married in Aurukun. Francis was separated from his wife for a year when he was sent to the penal settlement at Palm Island for protesting when a white official at Aurukun pointed a gun at one of his friends.In 1968, Francis was elected Chairman of the Mission Council Board and embarked on a 30-year career as a powerful leader of the Wik people. During this time Francis became involved with the Presbyterian—now Uniting—Church, which administered the Aurukun and Mornington Island mission stations. His first major battle came 10 years later in 1978 when the then Joh Bjelke-Petersen government instructed the church to quit Aurukun in order to allow Comalco to begin mining a massive bauxite deposit found on Wik land.Francis was the main media spokesman during the dispute that followed, which involved former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and federal Aboriginal Affairs minister Ian Viner. It became not only a dispute between Aboriginal people and the state government but also a dispute between the Commonwealth government and the state government at the time. Francis also worked within the church to win support for his people in this particular struggle. Francis did not, however, have the total support of all church leaders, as he found out when he travelled to Brisbane to attend a special synod to discuss management of Aboriginal reserves at Aurukun and Mornington Island.At this time I was very much personally involved with him and with other leaders. I remember the impact that he made on the Uniting Church Synod over a number of years as he attended the synod and engaged in the debates. The synod was, as you can imagine, divided along political lines—the idea that politics does not enter religion is something that only someone who does not know anything about it would believe—on the question of whether to agree to hand over administration of the Aurukun and Mornington Island missions to the state government.Francis sat quietly in the synod while church leader after church leader argued the fate of his people. I remember that he walked quietly to the podium and spoke for about five minutes in his traditional Wik language. It was very powerful, because he then translated what he had said into English. I am quoting from memory, but he said something like: `You have all been debating the future of my people as if you understand us, but I wonder if you do. I am speaking now in your language, but did you understand when I spoke to you in my language?' It was a powerful moment. He then went on to talk about the struggle of the Wik people over the years and of his hope that the church would come to support them in their fight for self-determination in the coming years. Francis Yunkaporta's Christian faith was critical to his fight for the Wik people.I remember when the Aurukun people opened the Wik summit which was held in Cairns in January just two years ago. Francis and other people from Aurukun opened proceedings with a special ceremony. They planted a symbol of traditional Aboriginal law and then they sang a hymn which contained the words: We love the land, oh God, wherein thine honour dwells. They explained that their Christian faith and their traditional law guaranteed for them that God resided in their traditional land and that that meant, from the point of view of both their faith and their law, they had no choice but to protect and fight for that land. This approach was typical of Francis Yunkaporta. Throughout his life, no matter how often governments, churches, mining companies or whoever dished out poor treatment to his people, he always maintained a quiet reserve and stated his case simply and with great dignity.Francis Yunkaporta was one of the most gracious men I have ever known. He possessed great leadership and wisdom. He gave his community stability and leadership throughout the turbulent sixties, seventies and eighties, and even into the 1990s.He was among a contingent of Wik people who travelled to Canberra for the third passage of the Wik legislation through the Senate this year. He watched while Senator Harradine danced with some of his people. The tragedy is that Aboriginal elders like Francis Yunkaporta are now deceased. The Wik warriors before him who tried to get justice through the white system are dying without seeing justice done. That causes me great pain.I visited Aurukun just a few weeks ago. I must say, having visited Aurukun over the last 20 years and having had close connections with many of the people, that I was distressed to see the condition of the community and to read again some of the stories—not only of that community but of other communities on Cape York—that have been collected by Tony Koch and repeated in the Brisbane Courier-Mail. The horror of the situation at Aurukun and other Aboriginal communities has been highlighted through those reports; communities are racked by violence, alcohol abuse and despair. I commend the Courier-Mail for having the courage to tell those stories. I also commend the previous Governor of Queensland, Leneen Forde, who has taken up this particular cause and had some public meetings about it. She intends to pursue the issue. She is a great woman and a great Queenslander. She was also, I must say, a great governor. I commend her for the initiative that she has taken.Those reports in the Courier-Mail are a sad chronicle of lives destroyed by solvable problems. Even more tragic are the reports in the last few days that public servants responsible for the Cape York communities reported this over 10 years ago and cried out for solutions. But action was not taken by governments of any colour. Women and children have been needlessly brutalised over these many years. I commend Tony Koch on his reports and the Courier-Mail for running them, but I wonder what they will achieve. I guess this is the point of my speaking here today.There is community sympathy right now in Queensland. The state government has promised more dollars and an indigenous women's task force to look at the problems—and that is great. However, the Democrats think that the problems are too complex to tie down to just the state government. I believe that there are many other people who are and ought to be involved. Certainly the community councils should be involved.I remember many years ago going to the then minister, Russell Hinze, with a request from the council of Aurukun at that time that they have the ability to pass by-laws making Aurukun a dry community. The minister at the time was unable or unwilling to allow that to happen. The community councils have a responsibility. The women in these communities also need to have a voice, because it is they who are most affected by the violence and the abuse of alcohol. It also comes down to money being provided for proper refuges for those women and children, and whether money is getting through to where it is needed. It comes down to looking at our priorities. I realise that at this moment we are spending millions of dollars on an indigenous arts festival for the Olympics when Aboriginal women and children are cringing in fear of violent men in their communities in refuges that are shot through with bullet holes. That is the reality. It comes down to providing economic futures for remote indigenous communities. That is critical.Francis Yunkaporta rose from a community racked by despair and violence and managed to be a voice of dignity and reason for his people. But the elders are dying out and many of the young people are in despair. If massive cultural and economic change is not wrought in Aboriginal Australia, and if great leaders like Francis Yunkaporta do not come forward, then I fear for the future.61113:10:00611Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I rise today in this matter of public interest debate to address the issue of the by- election on 5 December in the state of Queensland in the state seat of Mulgrave. The seat is currently held by One Nation. That should not be the case, but it is.The Nationals had the opportunity to place One Nation last on their preference ticket at the forthcoming by-election. Whilst it is optional preferential voting, the Nationals chose not to place One Nation last but to leave it to the voters to choose where to allocate their preferences. Whilst this might be something that can happen—and reasonably so under normal circumstances—one would have hoped that a more responsible attitude would have been adopted by the National Party in this by-election on 5 December.Mr Borbidge, the Leader of the National Party and the opposition, hates both Labor and One Nation, and therefore hates to give—Senator Woodley interjecting—7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—You could say that. He refuses to put Labor ahead of One Nation. He has left it up to the voters and to whatever might happen on the day. This is politically irresponsible. It shows why the Nationals are in the trouble that they are in today, both in Queensland and nationally.One Nation raised its head to satisfy the disenchanted voter out there, and they have had some success—no more so than in Queensland. None of this would have happened in the first place in the state of Queensland if Mr Howard had accepted Mr Beazley's challenge and delivered a decisive blow early on in the piece to One Nation. There is no doubt that, if the ALP challenge that was put out as early as June 1997 that One Nation should be placed last—and which was denied by the Prime Minister—had been taken up, One Nation would never ever have got a leg off the ground. That was the morally appropriate action to take, rather than allow One Nation to bubble along and rise to the prominence that they now have. Some may argue that that prominence is on the wane, but I will come to that in a few moments. The fact is that, by failing to address the issue early on, the Prime Minister failed badly.We saw that outcome in the Queensland election in June 1998. The coalition failed badly in failing to put One Nation last. They showed a complete lack of understanding of the political consequences of their decision not to put One Nation last. What we saw was political expediency above principle. In my estimation, the adoption of that position, together with the accelerated pace of change by the Howard government over the last 2½ years, brought about the undoing of the coalition in Queensland.There were harsh initiatives by the Howard government—cuts to legal aid and removal of free job services such as the CES, disastrous policies on aged care and a loss of interest in rural and regional areas. All this fuelled the One Nation fire and contributed to the problems suffered by the National Party and its ultimate demise in Queensland.The coalition in Queensland then went on to legitimise One Nation not only as a party but as a voice in the parliament of Queensland. Of course, this then further legitimised that party in Australian politics.Labor's decision to put One Nation last in that state election held in June this year saved nine coalition seats—nine seats throughout the state of Queensland which would have been lost if Labor had otherwise directed its preferences went to the coalition because Labor put One Nation last. Conversely, though, the coalition's decision to put One Nation ahead of Labor caused One Nation to win eight seats. One Nation, of course, directed preferences to the coalition in 15 seats and saved at least four National Party seats.If that series of events had not taken place, firstly, we would not have One Nation as a force to be reckoned with in Queensland and Australian politics to the extent that they have to be reckoned with today. Secondly, we would not be facing the prospect of One Nation being re-elected in the seat of Mulgrave in the by-election on 5 December if firm action had been taken in the first place. If Labor had not put principle before political expediency in Queensland, then the One Nation numbers in the state parliament in Queensland could have been 20. In that case, One Nation would have been larger than both the National Party and the Liberal Party. What a set of circumstances would have unfolded then. Instead of Mr Borbidge and Mr Beattie vying for the right to form government we would have seen the Governor talking to Mr Feldman during that period of uncertainty. Of course, history now shows that Mr Beattie was successful in forming a Labor government—and a good one at that.Whilst One Nation did not win a House of Representatives seat, it did win a Senate seat in Queensland. It cannot be said that One Nation is a spent force and that One Nation is on the wane. Whilst in the recent Newcastle election held last Saturday there was no Liberal or National Party candidate, One Nation did come second on the poll, well ahead of the Greens, who got nine per cent, and the Democrats, who got eight per cent. They achieved 16 per cent of the primary vote in that election held in the seat of Newcastle. Whilst one cannot read great things into this, it certainly dispels the theory that they are on the wane. If they were not to be a force in Australian politics, why didn't the Greens or the Democrats perform significantly better? They did not. The fact remains that the One Nation candidate did poll nearly 17 per cent of the primary vote with nearly 80 per cent of the vote counted.I think it is a miscalculation to say that One Nation is a spent force. Given the opportunity to deliver a telling blow to One Nation in the forthcoming by-election in the state seat of Mulgrave, the National Party have whimped it, in my view. They had the opportunity to come out decisively by clearly putting One Nation last but, by not putting One Nation last and by equivocating, the coalition have left the door open for One Nation to succeed for a second time in the electorate. That is a frightening prospect indeed. Having succeeded once was bad enough, but to have a second bite of the cherry—or the apple—is unforgivable. The Nationals could be going down the path of further cementing the legitimacy given to One Nation by them on the previous occasion.For the record, in the Queensland election on the last occasion Labor got 44, the Nationals got 23, One Nation got 11, the Liberals got nine and the Independents got two. It was on that basis that Labor was able to form a government with the assistance of one of the Independents and, whilst it is not in government in its own right, Labor still is the government in the state of Queensland.The Nationals putting One Nation last will not in any way alter the state of play in the state of Queensland in the by-election on Saturday, 5 December. The result will not change who is in government. It would, therefore, have been a move showing real leadership and real courage for the National Party to have come out decisively and put One Nation last on the ballot paper, giving a clear preference direction to the people of Queensland, showing that not only is their rhetoric strong by having some of their representatives against the One Nation cause but that, in fact, they also back it up by putting One Nation last.The fact is they did not; they fell at the hurdle again. So what we are faced with in the by-election in the state of Queensland on Saturday the 5th is not just getting One Nation elected for the first time but getting One Nation elected for the second time. I believe that the National Party should have shown the courage of their convictions and should have stood up and been counted on this issue by placing One Nation last. They failed to do so.I have an ongoing concern that One Nation, with their flat earth policies, can in any way gain any legitimacy in Australian politics. Whilst I disagree with most of the views of the people opposite and of some of the other people in this chamber, that does not mean that they are the total anathema that the One Nation views are. One would hope that, if confronted by this again, the Nationals will clearly put One Nation last.61313:23:00613Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—In today's matters of public interest debate, I will seek to highlight the benefits to all Australians, and in particular to my fellow Tasmanians, that will flow from the government's election commitment to provide a 30 per cent rebate for those that insure for their health needs.Health and health care are important concerns for many Australians; they want choice and they want a fair system. In response to community concern, the government announced its policy of a 30 per cent rebate on health insurance premiums. The government was elected on that policy. Yet I understand that there are now elements within this chamber who would seek to frustrate the implementation of this sound social policy—indeed, people who were elected on the promise to the Australian people that they would hold the government accountable for the promises it made.You know the slogan `Keeping the bastards honest'? Well, there are certain elements in this Senate that are deliberately seeking to ensure that the government cannot abide by its election promises, by abusing the power they hold in this place to frustrate the wishes of the government. They seem to be hell-bent on frustrating the wishes of the Australian people and what is a very sound social policy. Recently I received a well-documented submission from the Tasmanian Private Hospitals Association. It contained a wealth of information. It ought to be compulsory reading for any senator but in particular for Tasmanian senators thinking of opposing this important reform.Almost half of the private hospitals in this country are not-for-profit hospitals run by church and charitable organisations, or are charity based. They provide a welfare support role way beyond the point of discharge, which includes a significant range of social services, research and general preventative health education services. All of those would be at risk if our policies are not adopted.It should also be noted that most of the health insurance funds are not-for-profit organisations. Latest research indicates that every one per cent drop in membership of the private health funds incurs an $83 million funding increase in commitment by state treasuries to the public hospital system. If the number of policy holders were to drop by two per cent per year in the next three years, the government would have to find another $500 million per annum for the states to maintain the status quo. The simple fact is that having people in private health insurance, having health insurance cover, takes the burden off the public sector. By pursuing what could only be some ideological motivation in trying to frustrate the government's policy, what they are in fact doing means that there will be a greater pressure on the public health system, which is already moaning and groaning under the weight of waiting lists.It is not generally appreciated that while 91 per cent of funding for public hospitals comes from all taxpayers, 94 per cent of private hospital funding, which is about $3.5 billion, is self-funded: it comes from patient user premium charges. In other words, those who are treated by the private hospital system pay twice for hospital services in Australia: compulsorily, as general taxpayers, for the public system; and, by exercising freedom of choice, by paying yet again by means of premium and user charges to be treated in a private hospital as against a public hospital.Those patients who take responsibility for financing their own health care needs by choosing to use the service of a private hospital directly forgo their Medicare entitlements under the public health system. In real terms, this exercise of choice equates to a private subsidy of Medicare of around $2.6 billion per year which in fact—and this is interesting—is more than double the proposed rebate put forward by the federal government, and thus allows the public hospital system to cater for the more needy members of the community.The private hospital system makes a very significant contribution to Australia's public welfare and health system. Its hospitals treated 1.77 million people last year, which equates to 33 per cent of all admissions, and directly employed in its 472 hospitals 41,918 full-time equivalent staff. If suppliers and contractors are added, private hospital services represent an aggregate employment sector of 100,000 Australians and their families. It is noteworthy to remind ourselves that health insurance is accessed by 700,000 Australians earning less than $20,000 per annum, so private health insurance is hardly the play ground for the rich that the opposition is seeking to portray it as.The Liberal rebate would inject an additional $8 million in disposable income into each federal electorate which, on average, contains 39,000 insured adults and children. Those federal members thinking of voting against this proposal should be giving serious consideration to what they are going to tell those 39,000 adults and children in their electorate as to why they do not want to assist them. Also, they might like to tell the small business owners in their electorate why they did not want that extra $8 million of disposable income in the pockets of their electors. The only reason that could motivate people would be an outdated ideological mind-set.If the health insurance system were to collapse, not only would these 39,000 people in each electorate suffer but it would place an intolerable burden on the public health system, with governments being forced to provide an additional 25,000 beds in the public system, involving greater capital outlays and a recurrent cost of an extra $3 billion per year.If that scenario is not bad enough, it is even worse for my home state of Tasmania. Tasmania has a markedly higher private health coverage than the mainland states. In the June 1998 quarter, 30.6 per cent of Australians had private health insurance, with the Tasmanian rate being 33.5 per cent.Senator Watson interjecting—N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator John Watson has just interjected and made the very telling point that in Tasmania, in fact, we have the lowest rate of disposable income of any state, which, of course, confirms yet again the need for this rebate and blasts out of the water the mantra from the ALP and those that would oppose this rebate that somehow health insurance is the playground for the rich. In fact, it is a need for those who have health insurance. In the two years to June 1998, 19,000 Tasmanians have dropped out of private health cover, which unfortunately constitutes 10.8 per cent of total membership. Such a transfer of patient responsibility from the private to the public hospital sector will inevitably result in increased waiting lists, which are already high, and those who come from Tasmania would be aware of the very real difficulties being experienced by both the previous and current government in trying to make ends meet in relation to the public hospital sector.On top of that, Tasmanians suffer worse health than the citizens of any other state or territory and our demographic profile is the most vulnerable of all the states because we have a pronounced ageing population which will require increasing medical attention as the years go by and, quite frankly, Tasmania of all the states is least capable of financially meeting the challenge. Tasmanians rely more on the private hospital system than any other state. The issue of assisting people to retain or rejoin health insurance funds enjoys overwhelming support.Some people have sought to use a perverted sense of the term `social justice' in this debate, but let me just remind them that social justice is not based on an outdated dogma, nor is it based on jealousy or a desire to cut down tall poppies. True social justice seeks to look after all. When you have got a situation where, as I have mentioned before, 700,000 Australians are in private health insurance who earn less than $20,000 per annum it ought to make people think.VJ4WATSONSenator Watson—They are not rich.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—As Senator Watson quite rightly interjects, they are not rich. But what is the Labor Party's policy for those? It is simply to block our measure. That is all they can do because, on the other side, they are unfortunately a policy-free zone.Allow me to go through this question of social justice. Looked at in isolation, the rebate may appear inequitable because of the lack of a means test. However, when high income earners drop their cover and compete for public hospital beds, the relative tax burden on low and middle income earners increases and the access to public hospitals of those who can never afford the private system is impaired; and that is the social justice issue in this debate.The context is, I suppose, that Medicare is not means tested. The rebate encourages the better off to contribute to their own health care costs, leaving the public system better placed to provide health services to the needy. That is social justice in anybody's language. This is an equitable outcome.The $1.3 billion expended on the rebate will produce more care in the longer run than $1.3 billion spent in public hospitals because individuals have shown time and time again that they will make a contribution to their own health care in return for choice of provider and choice of institution.The key to all this is to use the subsidy judiciously so that the personal financial contribution is a reasonable one. I still recall in the previous government when a certain Prime Minister bragged about the fact that he did not have private health insurance. But take the tip: when he or his family were in need of health care in a hospital, do you think they were required to wait in the overcrowded waiting rooms? Of course not. They were allowed to pass through and get immediate service. That is not social justice. That is not fair, especially in circumstances when there was the capacity to pay for their own private health insurance.My plea is in particular to my fellow Tasmanians to consider this issue very carefully and to my fellow senators from Tasmania to consider this issue very carefully because, if this rebate proposal is lost, the greatest losers will be the people of Tasmania, who have the highest rate of health insurance combined with the lowest income combined with the greatest health needs of this country. I simply ask them: put away the silly ideological dogma or hang-up and look after the people of Tasmania on this very important issue.61613:38:00616Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—The issue that I wish to make some comments on today concerns the matter of dual citizenship and eligibility for standing for public office. The matter has been in the media once again, with some allegations being made against Senator-elect Heather Hill from Queensland, who is scheduled to take her position on 1 July next year.Firstly, it is useful, by way of background, to have a very brief overview of the issue in respect to section 44(i) of the constitution, which provides that:Any person who-(i) Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power: . . . shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.Section 44(i) was involved fairly recently, on 25 November 1992, in a decision of the High Court in a case that was known as Sykes v. Cleary. This matter has been widely reported on occasions since November 1992. In that case of Sykes v. Cleary, six of the seven judges of the High Court found Mr Cleary incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a member of parliament on the grounds that he had held an office of profit under the Crown under section 44(iv) of the constitution and, as a result, the by-election was void. Interestingly, Mr Cleary went on to be re-elected to parliament. The electors made a clear statement about what they thought about this issue.The same case involved consideration of section 44(i) of the constitution. A majority of five to two of the High Court found that two other candidates, Mr Kardamitsis and Mr Delacretaz, were ineligible under section 44(i) and, therefore, a recount could not be conducted. All seven judges found that section 44(i) required a person to take all reasonable steps to renounce their other citizenship.The majority of the court held that this required use of the renunciation procedures of the other country if there were such procedures. Where there were no such procedures, or where the other country refused renunciation, proof of requesting renunciation was sufficient. Because such procedures were available in relation to the two countries of which Mr Kardamitsis and Mr Delacretaz were citizens, they had not taken all reasonable steps to renounce and were therefore ineligible under section 44(i). Two judges dissented on the section 44(i) point and considered that Mr Kardamitsis and Mr Delacretaz had taken all reasonable steps by making oaths of allegiance to Australia when they naturalised, which included a renunciation of other allegiances together with their long-term commitment to Australia.It is fair to say that at the end of 1992 this did cause some major concerns for members of parliament. I was one of them. I do not recall the exact number, but there were certainly double figures of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate for whom there was an arguable case over whether they had failed to renounce the country of their home of birth. If there was a formal procedure, even if they had Australia citizenship, as a consequence of the High Court decision they were open to challenge—let us put it that way. I was one of those who, in a flurry of activity, dashed down to the British High Commission, sought out the details for renunciation of citizenship from Britain, paid the appropriate fee—which at that time was $50, I think—and lodged renunciation forms. There were quite a number of members of parliament at that time who had to go through that procedure.In respect to myself, my father was an Australian who worked in England after the war. My mother was English. My father and my mother intended to come back to Australia in 1955. My father returned to Australia when my mother was pregnant with me. I had to stay in England until I was born apparently. You were not allowed to travel to Australia if a child was less than six months of age. I have to say, regrettably, that I was born in the United Kingdom. My kicking and screaming on the boat over here had nothing to do with my being sad about leaving the `motherland'. There were many members of this place who were in that position—not just, of course, through having been born in the United Kingdom but through having being born in other countries. I took out Australian citizenship in 1972 or 1973, having absolutely no idea that I, in any way, had some sort of legal connection with the English `motherland'.It is a serious issue. As I said earlier, it has been raised in connection with Senator-elect Hill. Since Federation, a number of Australian acts of parliament have been passed that are relevant to determining when persons with dual Australian and British citizenship became ineligible under section 44(i), which I referred to earlier and which the High Court examined.What is interesting is that at the time of Federation, and until the enactment of the Australian Citizenship Act in 1948, there was no such thing as an Australian citizen—Australians were British subjects, full stop. I do not intend to go into all of the legal detail but there have been a number of other acts of both the British and the Australian parliaments which are relevant to the issue of determining when a person with dual Australian and British citizenship became ineligible. They are such acts as the British Nationality Act 1948, Citizenship Act 1969, Australian Citizenship Act 1973, the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973, which uses the title `Queen of Australia', the 1981 British Nationality Act and the 1986 Australia Act. They are all relevant with respect to this issue of dual nationality.One other point about the 1992 case Sykes v. Cleary was that that was about office of profit under the Crown. That was how the issue originally commenced, rather than on this dual citizenship matter.I would like to turn now to the recent speculation concerning Senator-elect Heather Hill from Queensland. There are three aspects of this matter that have caused me particular concern. Firstly, prima facie—and I stress, prima facie—on the facts available as published in the media—and I think we have always got to be cautious about facts published in the media, particularly in this very intricate legal area—it does appear that Senator-elect Hill has a problem if she failed to renounce her British citizenship; if she failed to fill out the form, have it registered with the British High Commission and pay the fee.Given all the publicity at the time of the High Court ruling in 1992, and that there has been subsequent publicity from time to time, we have to wonder how a political party such as One Nation which boasts of its professionalism—it is certainly professionally controlled and organised, some would say manipulated, by a ruling triumvirate—can be absolutely incompetent in the matter of dual citizenship. As I said, it is not as though it has been something that has been hidden; it has been a matter of extensive public debate. Certainly in the case of my party, and I am sure in the case of the Liberal Party and the National Party, all efforts are made to ensure that when people present for elections they are eligible under the constitution. But, of course, in respect of Senator-elect Hill, someone has to challenge her eligibility to sit in the Senate. It will be interesting to see where that challenge comes from.What I thought was particularly offensive were some of the comments made by Senator-elect Hill. She has been publicly reported as alleging that her citizenship would not have been queried, `if I was Chinese or Vietnamese'. Of course, whether it relates to Chinese or Vietnamese or Greek or Italian or even, dare I say, Anglo-Saxon—people of Anglo-Celtic descent—is not the issue. The issue is whether or not she holds dual citizenship; that is the critical issue. I think it is very regrettable that Senator-elect Hill should attempt to off-load at least some of the responsibility for her possible error—and I say `possible' error—with a comment about Chinese or Vietnamese and to imply that that is an issue and an excuse. All that does, unfortunately, is feed off some of the racist sentiment that exists in sections of our community in Australia. I think that was an appalling remark for Senator-elect Hill to make.It will be interesting to see if anyone in or associated with the National Party does take legal action. If they do, it will be no surprise that that will probably occur after next month's Mulgrave by-election in Queensland.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Why not the Labor Party?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Senator Abetz says, `Why not the Labor Party?' I happen to have a view about what Senator-elect Hill can do and I would question, frankly, the practical value of such a challenge in respect of Senator-elect Hill.The third matter of concern that I have about this issue is, again, something that was reported in the media. It was in an article in the Age on 24 November. Apparently, according to this report, if you want to renounce British citizenship you now have to pay a fee of $800. It does fluctuate according to the exchange rate between the pound and the dollar. As I recall, when I renounced in late 1992 I think I paid $50 and collected the receipt. One of my Senate colleagues who renounced about 18 months to two years ago paid a fee of approximately $130. I was staggered to see it now costs $800 to renounce British citizenship.It does seem extraordinary to me that, through accident of birth, those of us who were born in a particular country, in this case, the United Kingdom, but who are not particularly wanting any legal connection with the United Kingdom—no reflection on the United Kingdom—and who did not know that they had any legal connection with the United Kingdom are now faced with having to pay $A800 to be rid of a `privilege' they did not want and, in many cases, did not know they had. I certainly do not believe that an $800 fee is appropriate for the administrative costs, which are relatively minor. They must have imposed a surcharge when they upped the fee to $800.They are the three aspects I raise. One is particularly serious, of course—the comment by Senator-elect Hill in respect of the Chinese or Vietnamese. I think that is very unfortunate, feeding on the racist sentiments in Australia. Secondly, I think she should have known if she had a problem—and we can only look at the facts as presented in the media, and I am always cautious about that.Finally, I think it is an outrageously exorbitant fee that the British government is now charging to renounce citizenship, particularly in circumstances where people do not know of or do not want any particular legal association with the United Kingdom.61813:52:00618Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I rise to speak on a matter that continues to be of significant public interest. Australian drug laws are in dire need of reform. There is no denying it. Most federal politicians have acknowledged this fact. But despite continued community pressure, this government has consistently failed to provide any new solutions to the problems stemming from drug abuse and drug related crime.The failure of the government's current Tough on Drugs approach was highlighted again at the First Annual Conference on Drugs and Young People in Melbourne. Conference delegates condemned the notion of zero tolerance, asserting that the emphasis of anti-drugs strategy should be placed on treatment rather than punishment. People working within the treatment field have been saying this for years but still the Howard government has continued to provide more punitive punishments for drug related crime. This government has consistently been more concerned with promoting an image of being tough on drugs than it has been with addressing the needs and concerns of the Australian people. This complete disregard and apathy for drug users and their families has led to a situation where even established treatment services are struggling to survive, with dwindling resources and funding. Not only has the government failed to introduce new treatment options for Australian drug users, it has failed in its duty of care to those participating in existing services.It is the woeful inadequacy of counselling and other support services that I seek to highlight today. New pharmacotherapies have dominated recent debate in Australia about alternative treatment options for heroin users in particular. There is growing concern, however, among people from within the treatment field that the lack of support services provided for existing treatment options has contributed to low retention and high relapse rates among participants. Many treatment workers emphasise the need for ongoing support to be provided in order to address a user's psychological addiction and assist in social reintegration. Longer-term support services such as counselling and employment assistance help people to come to terms with the practicalities of life while they struggle to overcome their addiction. Such services provide a means of finding solutions to the problems that have often initiated drug abuse in the first place. Often drugs are used to escape the confines of reality. It is not enough to simply take the drugs away from people. We have to offer them some hope to replace them with. Counselling and employment services would be a good start. The provision of additional support services for participants in current treatment programs may therefore be a means of reducing relapse rates and enhancing the success of existing treatment strategies.It has been suggested by some within the treatment field that outpatient services may provide a viable means of providing strong after-care support. The provision of outpatient services would make the range of treatment options already available more flexible and could conceivably be incorporated in any future treatment strategies involving new pharmacotherapies. The development of more flexible treatment services would enable easier access to therapy for many users, particularly those whose time is constrained by work or family commitments. It is often difficult for female users with young children to gain access to counselling services, particularly when they need to find child-care facilities at the same time.The provision of additional support services, outpatient counselling services in particular, may be a means of improving the flexibility and long-term viability of existing treatment options. It would also represent a more practical and humane approach to dealing with Australia's burgeoning problem of drug use and drug related crime. We need to start looking at drug users as people. Until the government actually starts providing treatment options that address their needs in a more practical fashion, we cannot expect any improvements.We need to look at why increasing amounts of Australians are turning to illicit drugs rather than dishing out arbitrary punishments. Many from within the treatment field recognise a growing need for specific counselling services to address underlying problems that are triggering drug use in many heroin users. It has been estimated that anywhere between 30 to 70 per cent of people in treatment for heroin dependence have unresolved issues of abuse, contributing to their psychological and physical addiction to heroin. Hence incorporating a wider range of counselling services within treatment programs could enhance the performance of existing treatment options.The development and introduction of specific counselling services could improve the accessibility of treatment options for a significant number of Australian heroin users. Mr John Bynon, who recently helped to establish Australia's first program for abused male heroin users, is a strong advocate of such methods. He emphasises that it is often pointless to treat a person's drug addiction if that person initially turned to drugs to escape anguish resulting from other forms of abuse. Once again, we must seek to understand the problem before we can begin to address it.The increasing incidence of drug use among young Australians is of particular concern to the community. The youth of today are this country's future and yet each year more and more of our young ones are lost to drugs. It is about time this government thought about developing some kind of proactive strategy to combat this trend rather than initiating further knee-jerk reactions in the arena of criminal law. Australians do not want to make their children criminals and outlaws; they want to offer them help. Many youth workers believe there is a rapidly growing need to establish more youth-specific heroin treatment options. With the incidence of heroin use amongst young people continuing to rise in Australia, there is an urgent need to provide new treatment options and support services relevant and appropriate for catering to their specific needs. Understandably enough, treatment facilities dealing with patients who—(Time expired)10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The time for this discussion has concluded.Questions Without Notice620620620Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Does the Commonwealth Bank's $2 over the counter service fee fall within the category of services referred to by the Treas urer yesterday, that is, `fees for opening and keeping bank accounts, cheque accounts and the like', or does it fall within the category which you referred to on Monday of a `specific fee for service', in which case it would be subject to the full GST?620Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Conroy referred to a question that was answered fully and fulsomely by the Treasurer yesterday. The Treasurer put out a press statement on this issue, which I will table after question time.620Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the Assistant Treasurer explain precisely what he means by `specific fee for service'? Would EFTPOS fees fall within this category and therefore be slugged with a GST?620Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Madam President, I do not think that is a supplementary question. Senator Conroy would be well advised to wait for the press release which I will be tabling after question time. That will make the issue absolutely crystal clear.Distinguished Visitors62010000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's gallery of former Senator Michael Tate, a distinguished senator from Tasmania. I welcome you back to the national capital and hope that your visit here is very pleasant indeed.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice620620620MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—My question is addressed to Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. The government went to the last election with a comprehensive set of policies to strengthen the economy, to raise living standards, to look after families and to nurture small business. My question is: how important is it that these policies are implemented and what planning has been done to bring them about?620Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I thank the honourable senator for his important question. He does raise the contrast between a government that has a clear plan, a comprehensive program and soundly based policies, and a Labor Party opposition that is devoid of ideas, devoid of intellectual contribution and has nothing at all to offer the Australian people. The program that we went to the people with at the last election, and which we seek to implement, builds upon our first term in office—a term during which we were able to offer the Australian people lower interest rates, low inflation, reduced unemployment, massive business investment and all the other benefits that can then flow from that to the betterment of all Australians.In our second term, we take to the Australian people a comprehensive taxation reform in order that Australian business can be as efficient as its competitors, continuing workplace reform in order to give young people in particular better job opportunities, a stronger health system with our reforms to support in particular the private health sector to build upon the record sums that we are investing in the public health sector in this country, a leadership role for APEC built on the substance of that strong domestic economy—RF4COOKSenator Cook—You sold us out of APEC. You know that!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Cook, shouting in that fashion is totally out of order.BH4Senator HILL—Improvements in regional services, strong industry policies with an emphasis on information technology and information industries, a world-class education system, protection for the Australian environment through another $250 million contribution, assistance for families, an agenda for reconciliation and the referendum for the Australian people on a republic. This comprehensive plan was clearly put to the Australian people. It was supported by the community and is now to be implemented by this government.What does the opposition offer instead? Obstructionism, no ideas, no policies, no nothing. What did Mr Beazley say? He rejected the so-called `new way'. He wanted a second way. That has now gone by the by. Mr Latham comes into the party room yesterday and says `It's not good enough,' so Mr Beazley says `It's time for intellectual input.' If this is the first sign that the Labor Party is prepared to recognise that one of the reasons it lost the last election was that it took to the Australian people no viable alternative, then it has taken a small step in the right direction. Now it needs three years to work up an alternative set of policies so that for once people of Australia will not be able to say that Labor stands for nothing. The time is now there for the Labor Party. They have another three years in opposition to think about what they stand for, to try to identify their place in the future of this country and to do the hard work that is necessary in relation to building policies. Then maybe, just maybe, they will come up with something worth while for the next election.621621Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Does the minister recall the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources saying yesterday in the Senate, `Under our new tax system Australian industry is going to save $10 billion a year in costs'? Is this true? Is the government no longer claiming that the reductions in costs that will flow to industry will be passed on to consumers? Is the government not double counting by claiming that that $10 billion in savings will go to industry and at the same time relying on those savings to justify its impossibly low inflation estimate of 1.9 per cent?621Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—If the minister referred to cost savings in the order of $10 billion for Australian industry, that is the correct figure as far as I am aware. But I will check that if you wish. All these costs are set out in some detail in an excellent book.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Have you found the press release?WW4Senator KEMP—Yes, I have found the press release, Senator Conroy, but I do not know what that has got to do with the question I am answering at the moment. One of the big features of our tax package which I think was of great appeal to Australian industry was the fact that we were able to take very substantial costs off industry. The GST is an extremely effective way of achieving that particular goal. Also, Senator Faulkner, there are very substantial cost savings in relation to exports.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Wrong! Wrong!WW4Senator KEMP—The exporters think it is. The exporters are very supportive of our tax reform package. Senator Cook is not supportive of our tax reform package, but the exporters are. In relation to this issue, Senator, I would prefer to support the exporters rather than you. They supported our tax package heaps, and they did not support your tax package.Senator Faulkner, you then referred to the inflationary impact of 1.9 per cent. I think that figure has been very carefully worked out and very carefully modelled. I do not think anything that the Labor Party has been able to produce has knocked the calculations on which that figure is based. I confirm that the package does show that there will be an inflationary rise of 1.9 per cent overall.622Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the Assistant Treasurer clarify how much of the much trumpeted $10 billion in savings from the new tax system the government expects will be pocketed by industry and how much, if any, will flow to consumers in lower prices?622Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—From memory, the questions that Senator Faulkner raised are in fact covered in the extensive tables in this book which I have referred to before. Again, Senator, I urge you to look through that book. It lists the cost savings by sector and it has other tables which deal with—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You are kidding! Try answering the question.WW4Senator KEMP—That is the answer to the question.622622Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—My question is directed to Senator Ellison, the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Will the minister advise the Senate of the coalition's strong commitment to giving young people the skills they need to compete in today's competitive work environment? In particular, will the minister advise the Senate how the Howard government's training policies have helped young Australians? Will the minister indicate the impact that alternative approaches could have on the number of young people in training?622Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—This is a very good question indeed from Senator Watson, because it touches on a very important issue for young Australians. What we are talking about here is training the next generation of young Australians to go forward and obtain jobs and carve out a future for themselves. I can say that, as the result of an agreement with the states and territories via the Australian National Training Authority agreement, some 55,000 extra places have now been provided through efficiencies.Senator Carr interjecting—9X5Senator ELLISON—No doubt Senator Carr would be very interested in this indeed. It is predicted that these places will expand to 70,000 by the end of 1999. That only spells good news for young Australians.AW5CARRSenator Carr—And no extra money from the government. No money from the government—someone else always has to pay.9X5Senator ELLISON—In relation to the funding, can I tell Senator Carr, Madam President, that this government is committed to $1.4 billion in the year 1998-99 in relation to vocational education and training. This is an increase of almost $200 million over Labor's last year. There is also funding of $295 million in relation to new apprenticeships. That will accommodate some 120,000 new apprenticeship positions. That is outstanding news for young Australians and also for older Australians who want to engage in training or upskilling.At the moment, there are over 190,000 people in training. That is a record for this country. Indeed, it is an indicator that this government is travelling in the right direction in relation to its policies on vocational education and training. Vocational education and training in Australian schools has been a subject close to my heart. We have provided $200 million over four years to expand vocational education and training opportuni ties in schools. Added to that, we have provided year 11 and 12 students with the opportunity to participate in vocational education courses.What is significant is that in 1995 some 26,000 students were engaged in such courses but by 1998 that had increased dramatically to 114,000 students. What we have here is a recognition of those 70 per cent of students who do not go on to university; those 70 per cent of students who Labor neglected when it was in power.We are looking at providing those 70 per cent of Australian students with an opportunity to do things other than go to university. This will provide new opportunities for them. Added to that, we are providing part-time training opportunities in courses which are accredited. Some 1,400 students across Australia have embarked upon this. This provides that those students can not only improve their literacy and numeracy skills, but they can also engage in an accredited course so that when they graduate from school there is a seamless transition from school to work and training, and they have somewhere to go when they leave. That is a lot more than was offered to young Australians in the past under the opposition when it was in government.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—And they go to Centrelink, which isn't staffed any more.9X5Senator ELLISON—We have also got the Jobs Pathway program, which I am sure Senator Evans would be very interested in.UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—Sit down!9X5Senator ELLISON—I hear the opposition say, `Sit down.' That is how much regard it has for the Jobs Pathway for young Australians. This is a very important subject, one which the opposition does not care about. We are worried about making sure that there are pathways for young Australians to go from school to work. From the interjections on the other side, it is obvious they do not give a hoot. They know they did nothing when they were in power and what we are providing is over $13 million. Some 83 projects have been funded to provide such pathways. (Time expired)623Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, that is indeed an encouraging response, and congratulations on your part in that achievement. Could you give us further information in relation to this in particular and further indicate the impact the alternative approaches could have on the number of young people in training compared with the policy you have just enunciated?623Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—One can look at the alternative methods, especially those that I mentioned, which the opposition engaged in when it was in power, such as merry-go-round training programs which went nowhere and red tape—if you wanted to become an apprentice or trainee you could go to a multitude of government agencies and organisations and still be none the wiser.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—You told us the Job Network was wonderful.9X5Senator ELLISON—What we have introduced, Senator Campbell, is the new apprenticeship system and some 200 new apprenticeship sites which not only provide employers with information in relation to new apprenticeships but also, most importantly, provide it for those people who want to look into opportunities for themselves in relation to apprenticeships and traineeships. We have cut away the red tape. We have provided the opportunities for Australians to make inquiries and we have made it simple. We have increased the opportunity for employers to take on training. The International Monetary Fund has indicated that Australia is heading in the right direction in building more opportunities for training and jobs. (Time expired)623623Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer. What will be the FBT impact under the GST regime for an employer who pays, or reimburses employees, for GST-free activities such as health, education or child care?623Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will take that question on notice, look at the detail and provide you with an answer.623Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I was hoping it would follow from the answer to the first one. Will there be a different FBT impact under the GST regime for an employer who reimburses employees—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It is important that people are able to hear what is being said in the chamber.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I take a point of order. Senator Crossin is obviously starting a second question. It is not something that has arisen out of the answer to the first question. It is therefore not a supplementary question in terms of the standing orders and she should not be permitted to ask it.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Then make your minister answer the question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy! Cease behaving like that.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order, Madam President, we have a situation where we have an incredibly incompetent minister in Senator Kemp—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is not a point of order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I am speaking to the point of order. He has only two methods of answering a question, either waffling or saying he will take the question on notice.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is not speaking to the point of order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—My point on the point of order taken by Senator Hill is that, given that the minister has indicated that he intends to take the question on notice, surely it is proper for Senator Crossin in a supplementary question to be able to outline further details of what she requires from this minister who is totally incapable of answering any question in this chamber.WW4Senator KEMP—On the point of order, Madam President, I refer you to a statement that was made by someone who some people would say is a very distinguished parliamentarian—others would have a different view—Mr Keating, when asked to provide somewhat technical advice on tax matters. This is what he said:If the honourable member wants a technical explanation of the differences—referring to a technical taxation question—Question Time is not the time or the place to give it.That is a principle which I think is a most appropriate one, and I intend to follow it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, that is not relevant to the current point of order. The question we are dealing with is whether or not Senator Crossin's supplementary question is supplementary. It could not be supplementary to the answer, but the status of such questions has been considered previously by the Procedure Committee and it has become the practice that questions can be supplementary to the question. The first words she uttered—which were all I heard—indicated that it was at least the same topic as previously. I would need to hear the whole of the question to know whether it was supplementary to the question.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—In other words, you can't protect him.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, it is out of order to behave in that fashion.7Y6Senator CROSSIN—Will there be a different FBT impact under the GST regime for an employer who reimburses employees for a GST input-taxed activity, such as an employee who pays, or receives reimbursement for the payment of, private rent?BH4HILLSenator Hill—Not to question your ruling, of course, Madam President, but I would respectfully put to you that that is a supplementary question arising out of her question and not out of the answer—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is correct.BH4HILLSenator Hill—And a supplementary question must arise out of the answer, not out of the original or primary question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Supplementary questions initially, when they were introduced to the Senate, had to be supplementary to the answer. In recent years, most supplementary questions have been supplementary to the original question and not the answer. When the Senate referred that matter to the Procedure Committee, as I said a few minutes ago, it was the view of the Procedure Committee that the way things were functioning at the present time was the way it would continue. If Senator Kemp has anything he wishes to add, he may do so.625Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Yes, I do have some information which I wish to add. If that is a serious question and you want a direct response to it, I will certainly supply that to you when I am improperly informed.625625Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, my question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I refer to this week's conference of more than 250 world experts in coral reef science in Townsville. Minister, is it true that your government specifically instructed the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority not to link the worldwide and disastrous coral bleaching to global warming, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Are you aware that international scientists and reef managers are angry and that they are accusing your government of scientific censorship?625Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—That is news to me. Can I firstly say that I hope the honourable senator has had an opportunity to peruse the State of the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area 1998 report that was released yesterday. It is principally the result of about three years of scientific assessment and records the good state the assets are in, which is a credit to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's management and supervision of the reef and something of which all Australians would obviously be proud.In relation to the coral bleaching that has occurred in the last 12 months—which does occur from time to time—yes, this latest occurrence early this year was more severe than is usually the case. On this occasion it is believed to have been related to an increase in water temperature in the relevant areas. There is some suggestion that there may have been other factors involved, including turbidity and some other stressful occurrences. Having said that, there is still no compelling evidence that the particular instance of warmer water this year is related to climate change activities associated with greenhouse gases. The bottom line is that scientists do not know why this occurs from time to time and the issue will continue to remain one for debate and research. Hopefully in the future we might better understand these occurrences, and if it is possible—although the chances are that it will not be—that some human action can be taken to deter the increase in temperature, that might take place.625Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer, but again I ask: Minister, did you or your officials try to suppress in any way the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's concern about that link between coral bleaching and global warming? I think you did not quite answer that question, so I put it to you again. Why did the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority call a press conference to say that coral bleaching was related to the wet season when at the same time world experts were saying that the biggest threat to coral reefs was rising sea temperatures linked to global warming?625Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I just said that there is a concern that run-off could be contributing to this factor. I also said that it is not known yet whether there is any link between these occurrences of increased temperature in the water and emissions of greenhouse gases. Lastly, GBRMPA's brief to me was as I just related to the honourable senator—that is, that there is no established link. That is the view of the authority.625625Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. In regard to the remitting of GST input credits to registered businesses, will a business lose its input credit when an item it has purchased is used less than 50 per cent for business purposes?625Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I suggest that that particular question wait until the bill is tabled in the House of Representatives. We will provide an answer then.626626Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage representing the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. I refer the minister to the WA Legislative Council Standing Committee on Ecologically Sustainable Development report on its inquiry into the WA Regional Forest Agreement which recommended, amongst other things, that the WA Department of Conservation and Land Management be replaced as lead agency for the RFA, that the RFA be finalised through an accord process and that the draft RFA be released for public comment and assessment by the EPA. I ask: given that this unanimous report of the all-party standing committee reflects a broad concern in the community about the direction of the WA RFA, what is the current WA RFA, when is it expected to be signed and will the Commonwealth government be implementing any of the recommendations in the Legislative Council's standing committee report?626Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I suppose I should start by congratulating Mr Tuckey on his appointment as Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Mr Tuckey will of course bring to the Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement local knowledge as well as years of practical and useful experience in relation to natural resource matters. Having said that, the progress on an RFA for Western Australia, whilst it is a little slower than I would have liked, remains on track. It is true that the Western Australian Legislative Council conducted an inquiry and came to the conclusion that what was needed in Western Australia was a negotiated outcome between all stakeholders—the sort of solution that one would have suggested could only come from a `green' chairman of the committee. It is totally unworkable, nevertheless that is the way it is. The report was of course to the Western Australian Legislative Council, and how the Western Australian parliament responds to it is something to be determined by the Western Australian parliament.In relation to the RFA, as the honourable senator would know, the reports on options have now been out for some time. There was a period for contribution from interested parties, an opportunity to make submissions. In fact over 30,000 public submissions were received. They have been analysed, which was a huge task in itself. We have even had an independent audit done on the process of receipt and analysis of submissions so there can be no suggestion that they will not be properly taken into account. The negotiation between the Commonwealth government and the Western Australian government continues and is now well advanced. I am hopeful that it will reach a conclusion in the reasonably near future.626Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister failed to answer the specific question in relation to the environmental impact assessment. Given that the Western Australian RFA scoping agreement states that the draft RFA will be released for EPA assessment, will the minister ensure that this commitment is met? If he does not, do the agreements between states and the federal government mean anything at all?626Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Under Western Australian legislation the agreement must go to the WA EPA, which is somewhat different from other states when the local assessments become part of the RFA negotiation itself. Obviously if that is the requirement of Western Australian law, that will be complied with.626626Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question without notice is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Will the GST be applicable to various voluntary user fees charged by government schools as opposed to tuition fees for private schools which will be GST-free?626Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Some of these issues were considered in the Vos committee report.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Can we have a look?WW4Senator KEMP—Yes, you can. When the report is tabled by the Treasurer, you will be able to have a look. That issue and the issue of which areas are GST-free are considered in that report. That will enable me to provide a detailed response to your question. This package is one which is very beneficial to education. Make no mistake, the education sector is a very big winner in the tax reform package that the government has brought down. We will make sure that wherever practical the fees in relation to private schools and public schools are treated in an equitable and fair manner.627Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that answer, Minister, how does the government justify to the parents of students at Broadmeadows Secondary College that they should be subsidising the fees paid by parents who can afford to send their children to Geelong Grammar? Will the government ensure that parents of students at government schools will not have to pay a GST on so-called voluntary fees, which in effect they have no choice but to pay?627Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Fees which are paid in relation to education are GST-free. I am not sure what point you are making. I was under the impression you were making another point. I was thinking of making another point: those fees which were not compulsory in relation to curriculum.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You were talking about the Vos committee. You can't have it both ways.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Faulkner, if you could just keep quiet for the briefest of moments one could respond to the question. Fees in relation to educational activities are GST-free. That applies to private and public schools. I thought you were speaking about various fees in relation to clubs and societies—in that voluntary sense.627627McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. I note today information about Online Australia Day this Friday, 27 November. Will the Minister explain to the Senate the importance of this day and the activities to be staged around Australia?627Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Online Australia Day is this coming Friday. It is a very important opportunity to ensure that there is maximum awareness in the general public of the tre mendous practical value that derives from online services, electronic commerce and a whole raft of new technologies. It is well-known not only that Australians are notoriously early adopters of new technologies but also that when it comes to PCs, for example, we are not far behind the US in household penetration, which runs at about one-third. About 14 per cent of households are connected to the Internet and use the Internet regularly—well ahead of other countries.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—What are the stats for rural Australia?LD4Senator ALSTON—The stats for rural Australia are that you failed comprehensively to deliver the goods. You made a complete goose of yourself at Albury. The industry is amazed that you even got a guernsey as shadow minister shadowing the shadow minister. Apart from that we have performed brilliantly.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, you should be addressing your remarks through the chair.LD4Senator ALSTON—I am sorry, Madam President. I was provoked. We certainly accept an obligation to ensure that all Australians are aware of not only the Internet and those facilities but also the enormous job opportunities that are provided and the emerging global skills shortage that will mean that many school graduates will be able to get very significant premiums from pursuing computer related careers. We do have an obligation to ensure that people have access to maximum benefits to ensure that those who are otherwise missing out in rural and remote Australia are given all the opportunities that the Labor Party would simply deny them. We funded them through a $250 million regional telecommunications infrastructure fund which the Labor Party opposed tooth and nail during the original Telstra debate and then put out a press release during the election campaign—in the name of Senator Schacht but obviously endorsed by the rest of the crew—basically knocking off the money. It was pure political theft. You will not be forgotten for that.The Internet does offer tremendous opportunities. It breaks down the tyranny of distance. It enables much greater levels of social interaction in rural areas. It enables people to tackle new markets not only in Australia but around the world. It provides access to a plethora of information for both adults and schoolchildren. It provides enormous opportunities for online commerce, both business to business and business to consumers. In many respects IT and the information economy are going to drive us into the next millennium.Online Australia Day is part of a concerted effort by this government. We have proclaimed 1999 Online Australia Year. We held Australia's first electronic summit, e-commerce summit, in April this year designed to energise business into taking up the commercial opportunities. Over the last six months the national Office for the Information Economy has been conducting a series of regional summits. We are going to have 30 in all to ensure that people do understand these benefits.This Online Australia Day will involve not only the launch of a federal government web site for families but a virtual classroom linking 40 schools around Australia, Internet access and classes in more than 700 schools and libraries, the launch of the Farmwide satellite based trial and online ABC forums—in other words, a whole raft of opportunities. People will even be able to see whether Senator Schacht has managed to update his web site in the last 18 months. I am sure they will not bother going to Senator Lundy's because she is still learning the technology. No doubt the Labor Party is offered the resources to try and assist those who have some degree of computer literacy. Online Australia Day should be a unique opportunity. I am sure the unions will fund the purchase of technology for you and there will be free laptops all round. (Time expired)628628Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. I refer to the recent changes made to the CPI's measurement methodology and in particular the inclusion for the first time of expenditure on dwellings. Minister, given that $17.2 billion was spent on residential building in 1997-98, what will be the impact on the CPI as a result of the GST induced price increases for housing costs? How does this change impact on the government's economy-wide estimate that prices will rise by only 1.9 per cent under the GST?628Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—As Senator Cook said, the estimate is that prices will rise by 1.9 per cent overall as a result of the tax reform program. A wide range of taxes are coming off and there is the imposition of a GST. The overall effect on the economy has been estimated, as a result of Treasury modelling, at 1.9 per cent. This takes into account all the data which is available to the Treasury. We believe—and the Labor Party has not been able to shake these statistics one iota, I might say—that the overall effect will be 1.9 per cent.During the last week of the election campaign, the Labor Party ran some very extensive advertisements which argued that the impact of the GST would be five times the figure which had been estimated by the government. That was wrong; that was a lie. We have not had one apology from the Labor Party for those quite disgraceful ads. We believe that the figures which have been produced which show the overall impact of the GST are fair.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—That's not true.WW4Senator KEMP—They have been modelled by the Treasury on the best data available to them. The Labor Party, despite great efforts on their part to shake this figure, have not been able to do so, and we stand by that 1.9 per cent figure.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—That's not true and you know it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, you have been interjecting far too frequently.628Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I am tempted to give the minister another minute to further humiliate himself by adding to his answer, because he did not answer the question that I put. The question I put was about the change in the measurement methodology of the consumer price index and the impact that will have on the CPI. You did not answer that question, Minister.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Senator Cook has been going on for almost the entire minute and has not yet formed anything in the shape of a question. I therefore ask you to rule him out of order because he is simply not asking a question.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order, Madam President: it is normal practice to allow a questioner in the Senate to complete their question before you make a judgment whether there is a question involved. If Senator Alston could wait that long instead of desperately trying to protect Senator Kemp, who cannot answer any questions at all, I am sure he will find that there will be a question—and another one that Senator Kemp cannot answer.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There was a long introduction, but it was my impression that you were asking a question. Please do so, Senator Cook.RF4Senator COOK—Thank you, Madam President. Minister, given that interest rate related changes will drop out of the headline CPI, will Treasury target, firstly, the new CPI headline rate or, secondly, Treasury's measure of underlying inflation rate, in its consideration of monetary policy settings?629Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—From the point of view of humiliation, Senator Cook, there was no greater humiliation than occurred on 12 November 1997 in a Senate legislation committee. That humiliation was arguably the greatest political meltdown since Federation.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—What did he do?WW4Senator KEMP—I will not tell you what he did because I may well table that after question time, or I may not table that, in case you do not know what the case is, Senator. We have a new index, the 13th series, and that is the index which will be very widely used.629629Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is also to the Assistant Treasurer. I refer to the Prime Minister's comments last night that there can be no mergers among the four big banks until competition improves. I ask the minister to advise the Senate as to what exactly the Prime Minister means when he says:I don't see the conditions of greater competition as having yet been satisfied in order to meet the [sort of] criteria we had in mind when we enunciated our response to the Wallis inquiry.Could the minister outline to the Senate the detailed criteria that the government believes are necessary for a competitive banking system? Is one of the criteria correcting the market power of the banks to impose whatever fees they want on their customers? Is another the introduction of the basic banking accounts promised four years ago so that pensioners and social security recipients are not slugged with fees?629Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In relation to the second part of the question, a variety of banks now offer accounts called transactions accounts.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—Is that one of your criteria?WW4Senator KEMP—You asked me the second part of the question about what pensioners and others can make use of. In relation to the first part of the question, what we are looking at is effectively giving consumers more power.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I'm not sure the Commonwealth bank customers can take much more power!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many interjections on my left and I would ask that Senator Kemp be heard in the chamber.WW4Senator KEMP—In other words, the banking sector will have to be far more responsive to consumers. What we are seeking in relation to the financial sector is to enable the consumer to have widespread choice and for there to be effective competition between the banks, which will drive down costs and ultimately deliver benefits to the consumer in terms of cheaper services. We have travelled some way along that road. I do not think there is any doubt that, as a result of the reforms that we have brought in, we have been able to increase competition in the financial sector. Therefore, in a variety of banking areas we can point to some very real successes. One of those successes, of course, is the really historically low interest rates which are now available. But we still say there is a way to go.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You've still got a way to go.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are still far too many interjections all around the chamber. Senators should observe the standing orders.WW4Senator KEMP—Our policies are designed to increase competition. We believe competition has increased but, nonetheless, there is certainly a way to go. The ultimate end of a competitive market is to provide cheaper and effective services to consumers and to provide consumers with a range of choices. That is why this government is determined, as distinct from previous governments, to make sure that we have a truly competitive financial sector.630Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, is it not the case that the government's policies are in effect giving more power to the banks, not more powers to consumers as you claim? Yesterday the other Assistant Treasurer, Joe Hockey, engaged in a spirited defence of banks, suggesting that people who complained about increased fees were actually subsidising an old banking system. As the Treasurer's right-hand man, does the minister endorse the comments of the Treasurer's left-hand man who, according to the Treasury web site, still has no specific job duties? Does this mean that Australians now face the prospect not of a government that prevents banks from increasing fees but a government that is encouraging banks to do so?630Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, if I can take the last part of your question, you have got this truly wrong.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—I have it here.WW4Senator KEMP—We are about providing market forces which enable better services to consumers. As I said, in a number of areas we can point to some important gains. We are very keen to bring about effective competition in the marketplace for financial services so that consumers have real choices. I have not had the opportunity to closely read what Mr Joe Hockey has said. Frankly, I am always loath to accept quotations which may have been taken out of context. However, on your recommendation I shall read closely what Mr Hockey said yesterday.630630Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Does the minister regard as valid the criticism by business groups of the timing of its proposals to include fringe benefits on employee group certificates? Will the government be giving consideration to delaying these changes until April 2000? I also ask what credence the minister gives to claims that the proposed changes have the potential:. . . to render the Fringe Benefits tax and related rules the most complex that exist, both from a technical and an administrative point of view.Will the government be meeting with the Law Council of Australia, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Taxation Institute of Australia, the Australian Society of CPAs and the Australian Taxpayers Association to discuss this matter?630Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I would like to make a couple of points. Firstly, Senator, you have actually asked me to explain your policy. Did whoever passed you that question tell you that that was actually the policy that you took to the election? Did they say that to you? This is unique. If I am wrong I am sure senators will correct me, and you have a supplementary and a good chance to correct me. I am looking at Senator Cook, who helped write this very unsuccessful tax policy. He can nod or shake his head to indicate whether my memory does serve me. My memory was that the Labor Party picked up all the fringe benefits tax changes which the government proposed in its election policy. So this is a unique case in that a Labor Party senator has got to his feet and asked me to explain Labor Party policy—very unusual. The other comment that I would make is that I think the Labor Party picked up this policy—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Option C! Option C! 10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Shouting across the chamber is unacceptable behaviour.WW4Senator KEMP—The other comment that I would make is that the Labor Party picked up this policy because they, like us, saw there was a need to make sure there was a significant improvement in the fringe benefits area. We moved down that road in relation to our tax reform package and you, in this section, moved exactly down the same road. Unlike you, we always listen carefully to a wide range of groups—community groups and business groups. If they wish to put forward views to us, we will always listen to those views. In the implementation of the tax package, Senator, we will certainly ensure that it is done in a way which minimises problems for the business community. That is, of course, part of the ongoing consultations that—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Will you answer the question?WW4Senator KEMP—I have answered the question. The policy that is stated in our tax reform program is that the reporting of grossed up taxable value of fringe benefits greater than $1,000 on group certificates will be from the 1999-2000 year. Senator, I am not aware of any moves to have that changed at this time.631Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Just for the record, I should answer your kind invitation, Minister. It is not the position of our party to support the GST. We will not support it in the future and we will oppose it when it comes. In the context of the answer to the specific question, we thank you for advising that you will not extend the implementation date until April 2000.I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. Minister, in regard to the use of group certificates for the collection of FBT, do you recall saying on 6 May 1997 that the use of group certificates for collection of the superannuation surcharge tax would `involve some one million employers, would involve some 10 million taxpayers with their group certificates' and that, in rejecting the group certificate method for collecting the surcharge tax, you said you `were not prepared to impose additional red tape on small business in particular'? Minister, what has changed your mind on the use of group certificates for the collection of FBT?631Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Bishop did not clarify his question. His question was not about the GST, which we know the Labor Party does not support; it was about the FBT, which we understood the Labor Party did support. It was actually in their policy, so the clarification he gave us was not effective. What has changed is that we have a major tax reform package which is designed, among other things, to assist business.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Biggest burden of red tape ever given.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, stop interjecting.WW4Senator KEMP—In a number of important areas—the withholding of a range of payments—there will be substantial savings to business. There have been statistics indicating that some companies have up to 32 contacts with the tax office each year. Under our proposals, these contacts with the tax office can be reduced to, from memory, about four. We believe that the overall picture is that business will certainly benefit substantially. (Time expired)631631Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald.UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—Oh!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! That sort of reaction is absolutely not helpful and it is quite absurd.EP5Senator FERGUSON—Minister, rural communities will be big winners under the government's tax reform plan. Will you inform the Senate what will be the effect of taxation reform on rural communities? Will you outline the huge reductions in transport costs and freight charges in country areas? What will be the effect of the introduction of a GST, particularly on local government?631Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Madam President, Senator Ferguson will know, because he comes from regional Australia, that it is one of the most important parts of Australia when it comes to export earnings and the wealth that this nation creates. Senator Ferguson, because he comes from the country and because he has interests in the country, will know that the best thing you can do for business in rural and regional Australia is to get interest rates down, get inflation down and look at unemployment problems and attend to them. I am very pleased to say that in the first term of the Howard government we did that.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—What about regional banking?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, you have been interjecting throughout.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—We hope to have the opportunity of initiating our tax reform package, and I hope the Democrats will help us in this because it is just so important for rural and regional Australia. Senator Ferguson asked me what the impacts will be. Regional businesses will share in the $10 billion reduction in costs to Australian business if we are able to implement our reform package.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—On a point of order, Madam President: can the rural members having a subcommittee be seated so they can hear this very important answer on rural matters?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I call Senator Macdonald.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—It would be more important, Madam President, if Senator Ray would listen to this because he and his colleagues have absolutely no interest in rural and regional Australia, despite the fact that most of the wealth of our nation comes from there.There will be, with the tax reform package, reductions of up to $1.1 billion in the cost to agricultural industries. In the export area, costs will fall by $4.5 billion. They are huge savings for rural and regional Australia. They will in fact give rural Australia the sort of boost that it did not see in the 13 years prior to the Howard government taking office.As well, we have done quite a lot of other things in rural and regional Australia which we will build upon. You will all remember the $525 million agricultural Advance Australia package, the $1.25 billion Natural Heritage Trust—much of which went to rural and regional Australia—the Federation Fund, and a lot of good work done on the highways.Senator Ferguson asked me what will come out of the new tax reform package more specifically for the bush. Once you address interest rates, once you address inflation, once you help reduce unemployment in rural and regional areas, the best thing you can possibly do is get the costs of transport down. That is what the tax reform package will do.We will be reducing the costs of the big trucks that take goods out into rural and regional Australia and take goods from rural and regional Australia back to the ports by 22 per cent because the wholesale sales tax will go completely. It will be replaced by a 10 per cent GST but, because it is an input into business, it will go completely. So the cost of those huge trucks will fall by 22 per cent, and that will make the cost of transport to rural and regional Australia so much better. In addition to that, those trucks that run out to rural and regional Australia and bring the goods back into port—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of noise on my left is absolutely unacceptable.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Madam President, they have absolutely no interest in rural and regional Australia. In fact, they appointed as their spokesman someone who, when she moved from the Gold Coast to the outskirts of Brisbane, thought she was moving to the bush; someone who quite clearly told her former colleagues in the Democrats not to go near the bush because there were no votes there at all. That is the sort of insult the Labor Party put out to people in rural and regional Australia.As I was saying, the cost of running those trucks out into rural and regional Australia and of bringing the goods back into ports are quite enormous.(Time expired)Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Behaviour in the chamber is absolutely unacceptable and disgraceful. It brings the chamber into disrepute. The level of noise is absolutely unacceptable.633Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to further inform us of the effect of tax reform, of the GST, particularly on local government, which was the last part of my question.633Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Thank you, Senator Ferguson. I had not quite got around to explaining the benefits regarding transport costs. Fuel will fall by 25c a litre for the big trucks that bring the goods from rural and regional areas into the ports.In relation to local government, there is more good news. Local government rates and charges and all regulatory matters will be absolutely GST free. They will get rid of all the wholesale sales tax inputs, the indirect ones that really account for some $70 million on local government in Australia. And, in fact, they will make huge savings from the cut in fuel costs. For example, the Queensland Local Government Association—(Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous63363315:04:00633Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Yesterday, Senator Lundy asked me a question relating to an investigation of millennium bug documents. I can advise that an investigation is being conducted and, in accordance with the longstanding practice of successive governments, I have nothing further to add to that. It was referred directly by DoFA to the Australian Federal Police.63315:04:00633Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator Cook asked a question—quite inappropriately, in my view, but nonetheless tagged it slightly to my responsibility—as to whether the AFP had used any resources in relation to Senator Knowles. I am advised the answer is no.63315:05:00633Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—As indicated in question time, I table the press release which was discussed in the question by Senator Conroy. I do not propose to table the extract from Hansard of 12 November 1997 which involved Senator Cook.15:07:00633Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp), to a question without notice asked by Senator Conroy today, relating to the proposed goods and services tax and bank fees.What we have seen today has been one of the most pitiful attempts to answer the questions that have been put before him. There have been 16 questions in three days—16 questions he has had from the opposition—but he has not answered one. That is what we have seen. `It is in the book', he says, `it is in the press release.' It is anywhere but in his head! We have a situation at the moment—and I am glad you have come back, Senator Kemp—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—But I am not staying for you; don't get your hopes up.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—where banks in this country are making massive profits, and this government wants to duck facing up to it. We are seeing exorbitant, excessive profiteering and greed from the banks. We are seeing a 20 per cent return on shareholders' capital on retail banking—and that is on ordinary mums and dads and pensioners and battlers. There is a 20 per cent return coming to the banks. That is what is happening out there right now. We are seeing massive increases in fees and charges.And what did Mr Hockey, the minister, say? He said that they have a system:where we have the opportunity to get the full benefit of user pays. That is in yesterday's Hansard . That is where this government is coming from—`the full benefit of user pays'.The banks have not stopped yet. Everybody in the industry knows there are more fees and increased charges coming. Everybody in the community knows they are coming. What is this government trying to do? They are trying to claim all the credit for interest rates being low but, when banks lose their margins and recoup it through fees and charges, what do they say? They say, `It is nothing to do with us. We are responsible for the low interest rates but, just because the banks are making their money in a different way from ordinary punters, that is nothing to do with us. There is nothing we can do about it.' They claim the credit on the one hand, but they do not want to face up to what is happening to ordinary battlers out there in Australia.Yesterday Mr Hockey said, `There is a simple choice. Do you want lower interest rates or do you want competition in the provision of financial services?' I always thought competition was supposed to be about seeing fees and charges going down—not going up, because that is what is happening. In the last decade, a decade that had low inflation and modest economic growth, we have seen bank profits for the big four increase by 440 per cent. Bank profits are up by 440 per cent. The profits of the big four have grown 3½ times faster than the economy as a whole. In 1997, the big four earned $3.2 billion more from fees and charges than at the start of the decade. We have seen massive increases.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—What did you do in 13 years?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Senator McGauran asks, `What did you lot do? What did you do when you were in government?' The fees and charges have come because the margins have been squeezed from interest rates being low. But you claim you are not responsible for it. The real push for fees and charges has come in the last couple of years and you try to pretend it has nothing to do with you; you do not have to take any responsibility for it. Senator McGauran, as bank branches have closed in rural Victoria, you have said abso lutely nothing. You have been silent. As ordinary battlers out there in Gippsland have had fees and charges stuck on top of them day after day and massive increases, what have you said? Absolutely nothing.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—I rise on a point of order. Madam Deputy President, I draw your attention to the standing orders. Is Senator Conroy going to be forced to address his remarks through the chair or is he just going to scream at another senator across the chamber?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No, he is going to be asked to address the chair. Some of the interjections can cease too. Senator Conroy, please speak to the chair.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—What we have seen is silence from this government. As bank branches in suburbs of major cities have been hitting the fence, where have the government been? Running away from it. They do not want to face up to it. But there is a community obligation involved. Even Don Argus admits there is a community obligation involved in banking.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—He is retiring.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Exactly, Senator Forshaw. Now he is retiring he has a bit of courage. That is what he has had to say on the issue. Even the National Bank, Australia's biggest bank, has turned round and said, `There is a community service obligation.' What has this government done? It is ignoring it: it wants it to go away. According to the minister, Mr Hockey, you have a choice: you get higher interest rates or fees and charges. Those are the choices faced by the community. The government does not want to face up to it.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Twenty-one per cent interest rates.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—As bank branches have closed in Tasmania, Senator Calvert has said nothing. (Time expired)15:11:00634Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—I find today's debate, yet again, quite bewildering. The Labor Party, very carefully and selectively, forget their record. Let us not forget that the very state that the previous speaker, Senator Conroy, comes from is the state that had a Labor government that saw banks go into huge decline, branches close one after the other and the State Bank hit the wall. I note that Senator Conroy is walking straight out of the chamber. He does not want to listen. He is too embarrassed. The fact of the matter is that it was the Labor state government that made sure that people's money was put at risk and they are the ones that made sure that branches closed everywhere.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—And in South Australia.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—And in South Australia, and in Western Australia, my own state. As if the Western Australian Labor government did not do enough through the WA Inc. years to ensure insecurity through building societies and credit unions. Let us not forget also that the Labor Party was in government for 13 years federally and during that time it could have chosen to do what the coalition government has already done in but a few short years and will come into action next month, and that is, allow the building societies and credit unions to issue cheques in their own names, thereby increasing competition and giving greater flexibility to those people who choose to use building societies and credit unions as their alternative source of savings and financial communication.Let us also not forget that, under the Liberal and National coalition government, the average family is now $300 a week better off than it would have been under the Labor government. But that is also forgotten. Those opposite say, `Let us just make sure that we forget all of the things that have been done and simply look at some manufactured answer.' We sit in this chamber every solitary day and hear the distortions about what the tax reform policy is going to do. We hear about simply adding on a 10 per cent tax.Those opposite know that that is not true, but they keep repeating it. Equally, the ones who want to be a little more honest say that it will simply remove the wholesale sales tax and put on a 10 per cent tax. But they do not talk about all the taxes coming off. They do not talk about how many taxes there are. Let us not forget that there are many taxes. Here we are with Labor, nearly three years into opposition, having been defeated the second time, still pretending that the system they created and loyally defended is working. They are pretending that it helps businesses when it actually hurts businesses and hurts job creation. They should know that, because they were the ones that had a million people unemployed. They were the ones that had interest rates at 17 per cent.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—21 per cent.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—Or 21 per cent. Thank you, Senator Calvert. They know how many businesses went broke during their time of government, and they know how income tax rates were crushing families year after year. We want to fix this 1930s tax system—which they wanted to do 13 years ago, and still have not had the courage to do purely and simply because they thought they could win an election on it. It is an old, outdated system. The new tax system will have one simple tax. Why not start to be honest about what the tax proposals are all about and not divert off to these side issues when they actually created the problem? It is this government trying to fix it.The lights having gone out in the chamber—TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—We don't seem to be able to fix much with the electricity system! But this approach is just so symptomatic of what they are doing. But also let us remind you that the new tax system is going to abolish the financial institutions duty, which is the money that you are charged when you put your money into the account. It will abolish the bank account debits tax, the money you are charged when you take money out of your bank account. It will abolish stamp duty on mortgages when people buy homes. It will abolish stamp duties on shares, and it will abolish stamp duties on leases. It will abolish stamp duties and bed taxes. (Time expired)15:16:00635Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Such was the power of that last speech it plunged most of us into the dark! We might as well stay with that because what we have is a government that refuses to take on the banks, a government that claims that it is here on behalf of the citizens but has refused to take on the banks. The opening paragraph of an article by AAP in the Canberra Times today, Wednesday, 25 November, says that the federal government refused yesterday to even criticise the Commonwealth Bank's pre-Christmas decision to raise fees and charges, instead advising customers to shop around. I think it says it in a nutshell.We can add to that the failure of this government to take any responsibility for these fees and the answers given in this Senate today by Minister Kemp, which are a pathetic attempt to obfuscate at every turn. They do not want to answer. They do not want to deal with it. They do not want to deal with the fact that these charges have gone up.Senator Knowles has just made some virtue of the fact that the GST will do away with some of those bank charges. Well, why aren't you complaining bitterly about the one that the bank is putting on? On the one hand, you are taking some of those charges away; with the other hand, they are slipping another one on. And who are going to be affected? It will be the people who use their accounts most, including the little people with small accounts—people like pensioners, school children and small savers who do not want to be carrying a large amount of cash around, who therefore go often to the bank to draw their money from the tellers, and who might often, if they are actually up to it, want to be bothered using an automatic teller machine. These are the people who are going to be hit by these charges—not the top end of town, who will be enormously advantaged by your government's proposals in health and in tax and all sorts of different systems. You do not give a hoot for the people at the bottom end of town, and you do not care at all about what banks are doing.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Oh! What about a million unemployed under Labor?ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—Senator Hill, please. Such a loud and vulgar groan! You do not apparently give some regard to the balance between caring for consumers and caring for shareholders. Madam Deputy President, the braying opposite indicates something—I don't know what; you can't hear it. But there is a balance to be drawn between massive profits and shareholders' returns and consumer and customer consideration. The banks are moving to satisfy the needs of their large customers and more and more disregarding the needs of their small customers—the profit margin is not so much, they are walking.We have just completed a regional employment inquiry of the Senate Employment, Education and Training Committee, which I chaired and which has now changed its name. That regional employment inquiry went all around Australia. Everywhere the story was the same: `Banks have left our small communities and the branches have closed, and behind the bank closures go the small businesses and the money turning over that local consumers will provide.' You know that, and you did not know what to do about it. But the communities are being backed by the Bendigo Bank, for example, which is one of those organisations that is back in there on behalf of small customers.The concern that we have on this side is that it is not a fair notion to put up a flat charge, as the Commonwealth Bank is proposing. It is going to very dramatically affect people who regularly withdraw small amounts of money from their modest accounts. They are the people we are particularly concerned about, and we are concerned that this government does not care to even chide the banks on it.The Advertiser, not known as a red rag but as a much more a conservative newspaper, says in its editorial today:No wonder Australian banks are so unpopular. No wonder there is burgeoning movement to start more accountable new community based banks.Indeed, Mr Editorial Writer. To continue:The federal shadow Treasurer, Mr Crean, suggested that the Howard government should act on the matter. Such interventionism would be ill advised—No surprise! Then it says:At the same time the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, or the Treasurer, Mr Costello, should sharply remind banks that the government could take such power, and that should it do so it would have public opinion entirely on its side.This government is hopelessly out of touch with public opinion. You may have passed the barrier and won the election, but you did not take the minds and hearts of the people with you. This bank exercise and your failure to even give a hoot about your community obligation by requiring the banks to address it is going to backfire all over you in no time at all.You talk about the impacts of the GST and the savings. How can you possibly justify the benefits of the GST because it reduces costs in the banks and at the same time give no regard to the new bank increases?15:21:00637Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—Again we have the Labor Party attacking the government's tax plan. We have had Senator Crowley spending her five minutes talking about banking charges. I remind Senator Crowley and the Senate that with the tax package this government is proposing to reduce banking costs by removing financial institutions duty and debits tax, currently with an aggregate of $2 billion and expected in two years time to be about $2½ billion. We are going to reduce the cost structure for people to do banking.I go back to the general case. Again, the Labor Party have been questioning the Assistant Treasurer today about the $10 billion lower costs for business. That money is going to do two things to business costs. They are going to be substantially reduced and then, through competition in the marketplace, the prices of goods and services are going to come down too. As you all know, the Treasury estimates of the CPI increase is going to be only 1½ per cent.Another critical thing about the lowered costs for business is the big impact this is going to have on exports. Business costs are going to be lowered by 3.2 per cent in general terms across all business in Australia, but the costs for exporters doing business will be lowered by 3½ per cent. We have been shooting ourselves in the foot in Australia by penalising our exporters and by giving encouragement to importers importing into Australia. We are doing something about that. We are going to give our exporters a free kick. We are going to give them help and encouragement by giving them, through the new tax system, lower costs of 3½ per cent—that is, $4½ billion per annum.So what is that going to do? It is going to help the adjustment that is required on the current account deficit, which is still a problem here in Australia; but also our tax plan, through the GST, is going to encourage people to save more rather than to consume. So that is also going to help the current account deficit. And it is going to encourage growth and more jobs in the economy.Just contrast what we are doing and what the government has done with what the ALP did in the last four years of its reign. Did it go out with its tax plan in 1993 and tell the Australian community what it was going to do—that it was going to lift taxes and charges, the total revenue taken in by the government, by 30 per cent? No, it did not tell anyone about that. But that is what it actually did. Not only did it do that; it also went out and borrowed heavily. Over four years of Mr Keating as Prime Minister it went out and borrowed another $70 billion and spent all that as well. It also spent $9 billion that it got from the sale of assets—half of the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas and CSL. It spent 27 per cent of GDP in the last year of the Keating government. Contrast that with us. What have we done? We have reduced costs. We have reduced the government expenditure in the GDP from 27 per cent in the last year of the Keating government to 25 per cent today. The Commonwealth accounts for 25 per cent of expenditure in the economy. Not only that: we are currently in surplus. In other words, we are living within our means, which is quite a big contrast with what the previous government did. Not only that: we are also reducing Commonwealth government debt. We inherited a Commonwealth debt of about $96 billion, and it has been significantly reduced to date. The government plans to keep reducing that government debt. Furthermore, what did we do with regard to the election? We went out a year before the election—in fact longer—and announced that we were going to go in for tax reform. We went through proper process. We actually had an inquiry, which I had the honour of chairing. We had over 650 submissions. (Time expired)15:26:00638Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Senator Gibson has just spent a fair amount of his time talking about the supposed benefits of a GST to business. Of course, when you hear the bank executives these days, they do not talk about customers; they talk about the benefits to business, the benefits to the bank, and the benefits to shareholders. Senator Gibson, the fact is that a major, if not the essential, role of banks is to serve the needs of its customers. All the bank customers out there, the many hundreds, thousands, millions of depositors in banks—ordinary men and women and their families in this country—know that if there is one thing they are not getting today from banks it is decent, good service. Continually we have seen—and particularly over the last 12 months—a reduction in services, along with an increase in fees and charges.Let us have a look at that record over the 12 months. Senator Knowles likes to talk about 13 years. Let us see what has happened under this government in just 12 months. With respect to the ANZ group, for instance, in the last 12 months only, 175 branches of the ANZ Bank around this country have been closed! At the same time, what has happened to the ANZ's profits? Their profits went up by eight per cent to $1.175 billion in 12 months. There is not a small depositor or even a medium-sized depositor with the ANZ Bank who has earned anywhere near that percentage amount on their savings. In fact, when most average bank depositors—those who have their pay packet paid in each month or each week, have the normal household expenses and so forth, and have to use banking services—look at their bank statements these days, most of them will find that on the normal average savings and cheque accounts the level of charges is higher than the amount of interest they earn. You will come back and say, `We have got interest rates low.' That may be okay for borrowers but there are a lot of depositors out there who are finding they are paying more to the banks to have access to their money than they are getting by way of return through the small interest that they are earning. Where is the service in that? One hundred and seventy-five branches have closed. Fee income for the ANZ Bank has gone up to $1.5 billion in 12 months.Whilst we see the impact upon small depositors, families and households around this country, what has happened to the salaries for bank executives? That is a different story. For instance, the Chief Executive Officer of the ANZ Bank earned, in his first year, $1.76 million, and $560,000 of that was a performance bonus. He got paid $560,000 for closing down 175 branches, reducing service!In answer to a question asked by Senator Conroy, Senator Kemp stated at the end of his comments, `The ultimate policy of the coalition government is to create cheaper and more efficient services.' They are not becoming more efficient. How are they becoming more efficient when hundreds of branches are being closed around this country and bank customers are being shunted out by increasing fees for over the counter services and are being forced more and more to use automatic teller machines? And what have the banks done in the last week or two? They have increased the fees for the use of automatic teller machines. They now want to get customers out of the bank, away from the ATMs and into supermarkets to do their banking through EFTPOS.Look at the other banks, for instance, the National Australia Bank. The Chief Executive is retiring on $2.7 million and what has been the great performance of that bank over the last 12 months? They closed 71 branches. They reduced the work force by approximately 1,500 people. But their fee income went up by 19 per cent and their profits increased. It is the same story wherever you look at the four major banks. Competition is a myth. It is the customers who are suffering under this government. (Time expired)15:32:00638Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—We have had a quite extraordinary attack on the ANZ Bank this afternoon from my colleague Senator Forshaw suggesting that banks do not give a damn about the impact of their charges on families and suggesting that we do not give a damn about it either. Senator Crowley made the suggestion that we do not give a hoot about bank charges and taxes. The extraordinary thing about this is that both of these contributions have come from members of this place who where part of a government which delivered interest rates of up to 21 per cent to farmers, to small business and to families with mortgages.Senator Crowley would know that in our home state of South Australia this led to thousands and thousands of bankruptcies in small businesses. Thousands of farm families lost their farms and many families were forced to sell their properties because they could not pay the bank charges that your economic policies delivered. So when we hear who does not give a hoot about bank charges, to coin a rather unfortunate phrase of Senator Crowley's, we suggest that Senator Crowley and Senator Forshaw, and perhaps some of their colleagues, put a mirror up to their faces and consider for a moment the policies which were delivered by their government to the families of Australia.Senator Calvert interjecting—5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—Indeed. Gareth's granny frightener—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ferris, please refer to members in the other place by their correct titles.5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—The member for Holt, Gareth Evans, made a very constructive suggestion for tax reform. He suggested valuations of pre-1985 assets, what is known out in the community as a granny frightener, I believe. Grannies and thousands of other Australians reacted appropriately by voting the opposition down.I would like to read a short and thoughtful piece from a document which members opposite who are still in the chamber may find interesting. It is headed `The Vicious Circle' and says:The patchwork system this government inherited is riddled with inefficiency and unfairness and is now beyond further patching up. The system has lost the respect of a lot of taxpayers and exploitation of the system is rife.. . . . . . . . .It's become a vicious circle. Tax rates rise. More people opt out. Then tax rates have to rise again. Most of my colleagues on this side of the chamber would probably agree with that. Those opposite might be interested to know that this is an excerpt from a contribution that was made as part of the government's guide to tax reform presented at the National Taxation Summit in July 1985 by the government of the day, led by Prime Minister Hawke and Treasurer Paul Keating. There it is, an admission that this taxation system is worn out, inefficient, beyond further patching up and riddled with holes that are being exploited by tax avoiders. What better evidence—out of the mouths of your own people more 10 years ago—can there be that the taxation system needs repair, reform and restoration to give a fairer and greater opportunity to families, to enjoy a greater amount of spending money and discretionary spending, so that they are taxed when they spend and not taxed when they earn?As all roads lead to Rome when policies are being discussed on your side of the chamber, I suggest all roads lead to Werriwa. You only need to have a look at what the member for Werriwa has been suggesting the opposition should do when looking at taxation. I will end my contribution by simply saying that Labor needs once again to take policy seriously, not just to use it as a campaign convenience, not something to be picked up and thrown away. Some of you might like to have another look at A Guide to Taxation Reform of 1985. There is great policy in there. If you took it on board you would realise, as we do and as the population of Australia do, that taxation reform is needed. (Time expired).Question resolved in the affirmative.Notices639639Senator Gibbs to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matters be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 1999:(a) the extent and cost of all market research undertaken by all government departments and agencies in the period 11 March 1996 to 3 October 1998; (b) whether on all occasions a full and open tender process was observed; and(c) what steps were taken to avoid the use of such market research for party-political purposes.Senator Tambling to move, on the next day of sitting:(1) That estimates hearings by legislation committees for the first half of 1999 be scheduled as follows:1998-99 additional estimates: Monday, 8 February, Tuesday, 9 February and, if required, Friday, 19 February (initial hearings—Group A ) Wednesday, 10 February, Thursday, 11 February and, if required, Friday, 12 February (initial hearings—Group B ) Tuesday, 4 May and, if required, Thursday, 6 May (supplementary hearings—Group A ) Wednesday, 5 May and, if required, Thursday, 6 May (supplementary hearings—Group B ).1999-2000 budget estimates: Monday, 31 May to Thursday, 3 June (initial hearings—Group A ) Monday, 7 June to Thursday, 10 June (initial hearings—Group B ).(2) That the committees meet in the following groups:Group A: Community Affairs Legal and Constitutional Finance and Public Administration Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport.Group B: Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Economics Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.(3) That the committees report to the Senate by the following dates: 9 March 1999 in respect of the 1998-99 additional estimates 22 June 1999 in respect of the 1999-2000 budget estimates.(4) That the following documents be referred to committees for examination and report: Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure in relation to the Parliamentary Departments in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1999 Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1999 Particulars of Certain Proposed Additional Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1999 Advance to the Minister for Finance—Statement of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36A of the Audit Act 1901 for the year ended 30 June 1998 Provision for Running Costs Borrowings—Statements and supporting applications of issues, dated March, April, May and June 1998 (tabled on 23 June, 30 June and 11 November 1998) Final Budget Outcome 1997-98 (presented out of session on 18 September 1998 and tabled on 10 November 1998).(5) That the committees consider the proposed expenditure, expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance, the Provisions for Running Costs Borrowings and the Final Budget Outcome 1997-98 in accordance with the allocation of departments to committees agreed to on 11 November 1998.(6) That consideration of the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1998 in committee of the whole be an order of the day for the day on which legislation committees report on their examination of the Advance.Senator Tambling to move, on the next day of sitting:That legislation committees not hold supplementary estimates hearings on the 1998-99 budget estimates.Senator Tambling to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate sit from Monday, 7 December to Thursday, 10 December 1998.Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Conroy, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate views, with deep concern:(a) the Federal Government's callous disregard and total lack of interest in ensuring that the community has access to both affordable and accessible banking services, as evidenced by the fact that under the Howard Government over 484 bank branches were closed in 1997-98; and(b) the failure of the Government to: (i) formally monitor bank fees, and (ii) rule out a goods and services tax being applied to bank service charges.Senator Knowles to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Community Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Monday, 30 November 1998, from 12.30 pm to 1 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 and 2 related bills.Senator O'Brien to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) following persistent demands for action by the Opposition, the Government finally, and reluctantly, launched an inquiry into the impact of pig meat imports on the Australian pork industry, including an investigation of action under the safeguard provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO), (ii) the Productivity Commission has now completed that inquiry, (iii) the commission found that the Australian pork industry has suffered and is suffering serious injury as a result of prices to producers being consistently, and appreciably, below average production costs during 1998, (iv) the commission found that serious injury during 1998 has been caused primarily by imports, (v) the commission report states that safeguard measures can be justified under the WTO rules, (vi) the commission's findings contradict claims by both the former Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) and the Minister for Trade (Mr Fischer) that pig meat imports were not the primary cause of the industry's problems, and (vii) the Productivity Commission's report took 140 days to prepare, was based upon wide-ranging evidence from all interested parties and included a number of public hearings;(b) calls on the Government to act quickly to put in place the WTO safeguard measures recommended by the Productivity Commission rather than further delay assistance to this key industry by embarking on another extensive round of consultations; and (c) urges the Government to consider the application of a tariff at a rate that provides effective short-term protection to the Australian pork industry.Senator Lundy to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate notes:(a) the Coalition's failure to actively address issues relating to access and equity in relation to the internet, in that only 13.5 per cent of Australians have internet access and that the single most cited reason for not having a connection is the prohibitive costs; and(b) that, in the context of converging information technologies, internet access will, in the future, be the key for citizens to access fundamental information.Senator Woodley to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Wool International Amendment Bill 1998 be extended to 2 December 1998.Business641641Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 2 standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Kemp), be postponed till 30 November 1998.641Motion (by Senator Tambling, on behalf 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.641Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 (relating to the reference of matters to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee) and general business notice of motion no. 23 (national competition policy) standing in her name for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.642Motion (by Senator Murray) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 24 standing in his name for today, relating to the tabling of documents under an order for the production of documents, be postponed till 30 November 1998.642Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 21 standing in her name for today, relating to industrial awards and superannuation, be postponed till the next day of sitting.642Motion (by Senator O'Brien) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 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 30 November 1998.Miscellaneous642Motion (by Senator Calvert) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that Online Australia Day, which is being held on 27 November 1998, will involve hundreds of online and offline events including: (i) the launch of a year-long Virtual Expo, featuring hundreds of government agencies, community organisations and businesses, showcasing the best of Australia online, (ii) the launch of the Commonwealth Government's web site for families, (iii) a virtual classroom linking more than 40 schools across the nation, (iv) Internet access and training in more than 700 schools, libraries and community access centres across the country, (v) the launch of Farmwide's satellite-based trial, providing 400 remote farmers with access to the Internet via their television screens, (vi) live forums featuring a range of personalities and celebrities, and (vii) three virtual radio networks streaming live broadcasts via ABC Online throughout the day; and(b) expresses its support for initiatives like Online Australia Day, which are designed to raise awareness among Australians of the online world and provide `hands on' experience of the Internet for first time users.Miscellaneous642Motion (by Senator Allison) proposed: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. Question put.15:49:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)34Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. 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. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.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.35Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Colston, M. A. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.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. Hill, R. M.Faulkner, J. P. Alston, R. K. R.Murphy, S. M. Coonan, H.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous643Motion (by Senator Lundy) proposed:That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration (Senator Ellison), by the adjournment of the Senate on Monday, 30 November 1998, the individual reports and associated documents provided to the Department of Finance and Administration by each Commonwealth department and agency in relation to those departments and agencies' `Y2K' (millennium bug) compliance progress. Question put.15:57:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.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.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. 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.34Abetz, E. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. 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. Boswell, R. L. D.Evans, C. V. Alston, R. K. R.Faulkner, J. P. Coonan, H.Murphy, S. M. Hill, R. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.16:00:00643Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I would like to table a short statement in relation to the return to order motion that has just been defeated.Committees64464464416:01:00644Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I lay on the table the Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 10 of 1998 dated 25 November 1998.Documents64464464410000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 17 of 1998-99—Performance Audit—Acquisition of Aerospace Simulators: Department of Defence .Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) (4.02 p.m.) (by leave)—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I would like to draw the attention of honourable senators to the recommendations from the Auditor-General and to the findings that there do not seem to be any actual policies relating to the acquisition and use of aerospace simulators for training when expensive pieces of equipment—new aircraft—are ordered.I would like to speak on this issue at greater length on a future occasion but, for now, I will just say that it is worth looking at the report and at the fact that perhaps this is a pattern that has been repeated in other areas of the Australian Defence Force. There did not seem to be a specific policy on the acquisition and choice of simulators, including on their design and specifications, and the use of them in training as a money saving device. We are talking about billions of dollars, potentially. We are also talking about the availability of aircraft and amenities for communities where training aircraft are used rather than simulators.I think it is worth while alerting honourable senators and the community to the document because it does fit in with a lot of the concerns people have in general about the acquisition policies of the Australian Defence Force and the need for integrated policies that are effective in spending public money. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Committees644644644UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—I have received a letter from the Leader of the Australian Democrats nominating a senator to a committee.Motion (by Senator Kemp)—by leave—agreed to:That Senator Bartlett be appointed to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.644Debate resumed from 24 November, on motion by Senator Lees:(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 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, 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 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 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, and (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 effects 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, and (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, and (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; and(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) The quorum of the committee shall be a majority of the members of the committee.(13) 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 effects on public and rail transport, (iv)the effects 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 effects 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 effects 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.upon which Senator Faulkner had moved by way of an amendment: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: 1(i) the distribution of wealth in the Australian community, including the distributional impact on different 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 proposed goods and services tax (GST) and other items of the Coalition tax package on wage costs, and (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 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) The event that matters related to these terms of reference are referred to other references committees, the Economics References Committee shall take into account the reports of any such committees in completing its own report on this reference16:05:00650Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I think I was in continuation last night when the clock overtook us and this debate was adjourned. I opened my remarks to the Senate by noting the comments from Senator Harradine, who had spoken just prior to the call coming to me. He made the point repeatedly, and I think with some considerable force, that the terms of reference of this inquiry are very wide indeed. I think it is right to observe that as a statement that is true. The terms of reference run to many pages and cover, I think, all the subjects that I can bring to mind as to what this inquiry should be about.One of the hardest acts of analysis to undertake is to be confronted with a quite comprehensive list of subjects and have the question posed, `Well, what is left out?' If you look at the comprehensive list of subjects, it is hard to think of the one that is missing, if there is one. What the Labor Party wanted to do, given that this document in its comprehensive nature had just been put before us, was to have a look at it and take our time with it to be sure that we got it right and that in its entirety all those details did encompass the field.We have had a look at this overnight. As best I can judge—I can only speak for myself in this—it is comprehensive and I cannot think of a particular area that is omitted. The concern I have—I express this now so that it is on the record, and in the hope that I do not have to return to it or refer back to it but so that it is there as an attitudinal approach to the inquiry that I suspect we are about to embark on—is that when one writes a series of particularly detailed terms of reference, if something then arises which is not expressly covered by that detail, one could get into a procedural argument as to whether it was meant to be inquired into or not.I believe that the spirit of these terms of reference coming before the Senate is to have a complete inquiry into the GST, and that the terms of reference are to point that inquiry to the hot topics and subjects that obviously make up a complete inquiry. Therefore, if something comes up which is not precisely and pedantically related to those terms of references but falls within the scope of what a decent full-blown inquiry should look at, we are not going to get into a bickering argument on point scoring or on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin about whether or not that particular thing is going to be included and considered by the inquiry. I say that bearing in mind that it ought to be related to the inquiry and its broad scope. I am not talking here about issues that might not be and are dragged in as red herrings. I make that point, but I don't want to be caught into a debate in the field that I have referred to.This looks like the mother of all inquiries. It is an inquiry that I think is an opportunity for ordinary Australians to make their voices heard in the Senate chamber about the government's proposals for a GST. It is an inquiry in which Australians can make a difference. They need to put their views forward. Fifty-two per cent of the electorate voted for parties opposed to the GST and 48 per cent voted for parties on the government side of the chamber. Many of that 52 per cent of Australians may not belong to organisations who have got well-paid publicists or are in a key position in the economy to put their points of view powerfully, but it is important that ordinary Australians seize this opportunity, step forward and make their views heard. It is important that this inquiry be comprehensive and complete, and it is important too that when Australia speaks in the Senate through this inquiry the government listens. That is very important.I will mention some of my concerns about the structure of the inquiry, though I suspect that at the end of the day I will vote for the full package. This inquiry is an immense task and it is working to a very tight timetable. The pictorial flow chart of the inquiry, if I can represent it orally, consists of the select committee taking general economic argument, the assumptions and the underlying theory, looking at the tables and so forth about the macro-economic effect of this tax and what the basis might be for proceeding down that course. Then the references committees, divided into their three specific areas, will be looking into those specific areas based on a report of the select committee on the heads of economic concerns or interests about this issue. Then again the select committee will be accepting submissions widely from the community, taking into account what the various references committees might say in their specialist areas and framing an overarching report to the Senate. That is the flow: a general inquiry on foundation economic issues; specialist inquiries while a general inquiry continues; and a final report from the select committee.It is an awkward process. I am not saying it is not a reasonable process but I think one can concede that it is awkward in its style. A great deal needs to be taken into account within a very short time, because this inquiry will have the submissions closing at the end of January, with a first report by 18 February, thus enabling the specialist references committees to proceed, and then a final report by the select committee on submissions by 19 April. Looking at the document, that means that for the first part of the inquiry, the select committee inquiry into the underlying eco nomic issues, submissions close on 29 January and it must report by 18 February. It has got 14 working days to consider the major economic arguments and to take evidence on those.I want to observe that that is a very short time, given the immensity of this task, because these are complex technical issues. These are not simple matters, they are not matters of assertion or contention; they are matters of study, and they are quite detailed and quite technical. That is an immense obligation to impose on a committee at any time. In addition to that obligation, this committee during that period of 14 working days has to direct its attention specifically to six clauses and a further six subclauses—12 particular provisions overall. So I make the point now, and mark the spot as I do so, that this is an immense task, wide ranging, complex and technical, to be executed in a very short time indeed.When the select committee turns its attention to its final report, it has to consider the conclusions of the three references committees, which will be available by 31 March. Then by 19 April it has to complete its consideration. In completing its consideration, bearing in mind the conclusions of those detailed reports from those three specialist committees, it has got 21 specific clauses which have a further 19 subclauses, making up a series of 40 particular provisions that it has got to consider as well. It has also got to consider all of the submissions that Australian organisations and individuals might bring forth.It has 53 working days to do that in. It has to do it while it visits all states and both territories, and while it visits regional Australia as well. It has to do it in such a way that in the orchestration of the flow of information there is due, proper and weighty consideration by the participants in this inquiry. If we weigh this inquiry down under reams of material which cannot be humanly processed in the time, then the conclusions of this inquiry will be defective to the extent that it cannot address its workload.The other observation I make is that for the first part of this inquiry, the highly technical and complex area of the macro-economic assumptions and so forth, if we give notice this weekend in the national media calling for submissions then it is between now and 29 January that submissions will be prepared. Where does one go for advice and information in that area? An obvious place is academia. Academia will be in Christmas recess for most of that time. That may free up individual academics to spend their Christmas break writing submissions for this inquiry. It may mean that others have made family arrangements, even at this point. It may mean that, during the early days of January, it will be very difficult to get access to campus based computations about economic modelling and so forth. I make the point that there are obstructions, by virtue of it falling across the period of the festive season, that would not normally be considered as difficulties.I make all of these points to arrive at this conclusion, which I think is a fair and reasonable conclusion and one that ought to be mentioned: we have an immense task. We have a short time to do it. We have a complex series of hurdles to surmount in order to achieve it. It is expected that our conclusions will be influential in the end and therefore they must be properly considered and given due weight when they are delivered. The timetable to achieve all of that is incredibly short, but the only way one can approach this task is to try to get it done within the timetable.The Labor Party argued for a much longer timetable, one in which it would be more reasonable to be able to complete this work. The agreement between the government and the Democrats is an agreement not to give us a reasonable amount of time to complete that work, but to truncate the time. I do not criticise the Democrats for that because I know that that was not their original position. It may be that, in the negotiations, they were pushed back to that. But I do ask the Assistant Treasurer sitting opposite that he please note the points I have made.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—I always do.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Thank you, Mr Assistant Treasurer. I also ask that he be sympathetic to our needs as we try to complete this inquiry, because we will need the cooperation of some of the organs of government and particularly some of the organs of government that the Assistant Treasurer represents in this chamber—namely the Treasury, which has done a lot of the work in preparing the government's pitch for a GST to the electorate. We will want access to them and we will want a free flow of information from them in order to fairly review the literature, to compare it with criticisms and to look at the underlying assumptions properly.We may also need access to other organs of government. One of those may be the Taxation Office itself when we come to technical questions about how tax revenue is collected and the efficient ways of doing so; issues of avoidance and magnitude of avoidance in several areas; and what they might know about international comparisons of the size of the black economy in countries where there is a GST and in countries like Australia where, fortunately at the moment, there is not.I put those observations and reservations on the record now so that later it cannot be said that we never raised them. If this motion is carried, our intention is to be conscientious about discharging this inquiry in a fully efficient way and to complete the reference, as handed to the committee from the Senate, in a way in which the electors of Australia would be proud to see the machinery of this chamber acting positively in the national interest.Amendment (Senator Faulkner's) not agreed to.Amendment (by Senator Kemp) agreed to:At the end of the motion, add the following paragraph:That the days of meeting for the Senate for the first half of 1999 be as follows:Monday, 15 February to Thursday, 18 FebruaryMonday, 8 March to Thursday, 11 MarchMonday, 22 March to Thursday, 25 MarchMonday, 29 March to Wednesday, 31 MarchMonday, 19 April to Friday, 23 AprilTuesday, 27 April to Friday, 30 AprilTuesday, 11 May to Thursday, 13 MayMonday, 24 May to Thursday, 27 MayMonday, 21 June to Thursday, 24 JuneMonday, 28 June to Wednesday, 30 June.Motion, as amended, agreed to.Notices65365316:22:00653Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1.(Quorum formed)Bills653s177653Debate resumed.16:25:00653Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I rise to speak on this important Space Activities Bill 1998. We are dealing with issues of legislation of space activities, and it seems that it may well have been brought on by recent commercial activities, including those mentioned by Senator Crossin in relation to Christmas Island. They are not issues about what happens in space activities; they are about the launches. Unfortunately, we have seen in recent years that the issues and concerns in relation to space activities are not just about launches—although launches are important because, as we found from the Christmas Island example, we are dealing with superheated steam in a fragile national park environment. We are also talking about dangerous materials that could be jettisoned through the process, and we are talking about processes that need to be carefully monitored.But in particular we are also talking about the range of activities that could occur in the future—about what actually happens in space, what is taken into that environment and what the responsibilities are. We only have to look as far as the 1997 Cassini probe to see the assumption that whoever launches the particular satellite can take responsibility for the rest of the world. We had extreme concern in 1997 about the launch of the Cassini probe and its 33-odd kilograms of plutonium. The launch could have gone wrong—and of course launches have gone wrong; there have been problems in the blast-off stage in the past—and could have put at risk some five billion of the world's population of seven billion. That risk was not shared with the rest of the world; they were not taken into consideration. Those people who conducted the launch took the risk on behalf of everyone else. A great many people in the world—those people who knew about it—were outraged that those who conducted the launch took that risk on behalf of everyone else.Space is considered to be the final frontier. We hear of space exploration, space tourism, women and men travelling to distant galaxies and great adventures in space. However far into the future these visions might be, I think we can be quite confident that it will not be the Space Activities Bill 1998 that provides the framework or legislative basis for them. To be quite fair, this is not the intention of the bill. The intent of this bill is much more mundane: it is to provide a framework for the commercial exploitation of whatever advantages Australia may have in the lucrative business of launching what the bill somewhat quaintly calls space objects and providing them with a place to land. Ironically, the bill does not concern itself with what those space objects do when they are up there. It is about licensing the places from which they are launched and issuing permits for the objects, including both the launch vehicles and their contents.In speaking about the bill today, I will address issues not covered by the bill and some of the many issues that are raised by the bill itself. We believe there is a need for community debate on the future in space. Since the launch in 1957 of the world's first satellite, Sputnik—a small ball sending out regular beeps—through the massive US space program of the 1960s, culminating in the moon mission of 1969, and the recent series of space shuttle missions that have attracted so much attention—and perhaps the first case of space tourism—the range of technological possibilities has expanded at an enormous rate, so much so that we have spacecraft successfully travelling to Mars, Jupiter and beyond. Enormous amounts of resources have been expended on these efforts with very little debate on the real issues of what it means for the long-term future.So what is the purpose of space exploration? Is it an extension of the Christopher Columbus mentality—discovery to open up the way to exploitation of previously untapped resources, perhaps? Can we actually be trusted in space when we do such a poor job of sustainably using and equitably distributing resources here on earth? Are there inalienable rights for aliens? Or can we create a culture in space which does not repeat the errors of the past—greed and exploitation, territorial acquisition and colonisation?This bill does not provide the opportunity for that debate, but it is one we should have in Australia—and we should have it soon. Why so soon? Debate on the hypothetical issues of space will help us to clearly focus on some of the recent and contemporary issues which get lost in the messy business of political partisanship, pragmatism, trade-offs and deals.It might help us to think afresh about some of the mistakes we have made in our recent past—such things as the perpetuation of colonialism; dispossession and denial of rights exemplified in the Native Title Act; destruction of our forests by the vandals in the forest industry, or our failure to take a stronger stance on the elimination of nuclear weapons.In the absence of such a hypothetical debate I will turn to the particular bill we have to consider. The first thing to be said is that it is more about what happens here on the ground in Australia than about what happens in space. It licences sites for the commercial launch of satellites and provides for permits for the launch vehicles to get them into space. The sites for these launches are to be privately owned and operated. That does not mean to say people will be able to control where the bits of space vehicles will land.This licensing of privately owned and operated sites in itself raises cause for concern. We are familiar with inherent conflict between commercial interests and safety and environmental protection. Maybe in Western Australia we will end up with a state agreement act should we have one actually in Western Australia.Let us look at some examples. The bill as originally introduced had no process for environmental protection. We had serious concerns about that. The Labor amendment that the minister be satisfied that all necessary environmental approvals have been obtained and that an adequate environmental plan has been made for the construction and operation of the launch facility goes some way to resolving that, but we would prefer to see the particular environmental laws specified.Launch sites are, by their nature, most likely to be in relatively isolated areas, but this does not reduce the need for strict environmental control. There are other issues of indigenous rights, as we saw with the proposal for a launch site at Cape York.We know that Christmas Island is considered by many to be a remote site, but it is also the site for very important bird and terrestrial life. It has flora and fauna that do not exist anywhere else on the planet. Therefore, we cannot afford to be blase about some of those environmental consequences if there is to be jettisoned material that can cause damage to those environments, or even noise or superheated steam that will impact on the breeding activities of local animals or birds.We need to look at other issues, including the need for strict environmental control and indigenous rights, as we saw with the proposal for a launch site at Cape York, which is now supposedly in limbo. We would prefer no, never. Cape York raised the issue of a need for land rights legislation to empower Aboriginal people to deal effectively with major proposals. The Native Title Act does not do that, but it is important for Aboriginal people in the vicinity of these projects to have their interests protected. Perhaps the opposition might extend their amendment to refer to the relevant Aboriginal legislation as well as to environmental legislation.The same company that was involved in the Cape York proposal, International Resource Corporation, has shifted its attention to Christmas Island. The intention is to launch between 12 and 46 Globalstar mobile satellites there, using Soyuz rockets, with some potential problems with the technology. It is, as I mentioned, an extremely important local environment. I have to declare my interest here. I have a great deal of admiration for Christmas Island. I have a small flat on Christmas Island because I like it so much, though I hardly ever get there.Basically it is a very important environment. The process of developing an environ mental assessment is now under way and, hopefully, it will provide answers as to just what is proposed, what its effect will be on people and the environment, and what will be done in the design, construction and management of the project to reduce the effect on the people and environment of Christmas Island.I understand that there is already agreement between the Commonwealth and a private company for the launch site at Woomera—the Kistler project. I wonder what environmental and Aboriginal issues have been addressed, and remain to be addressed, in relation to that project.The bill, we should note, excludes deals done before 11 November this year. Kistler has done a deal at Woomera, and the International Resource Corporation project at Christmas Island was announced by the government in March 1998. How will they be regulated? We do not know from this bill. How will we know when the contracts are, in fact, commercial-in-confidence?Then there is the proposed project on an island off the coast of Gladstone in Queensland, about which it seems to be very hard to get any information at all. Perhaps the minister might like to tell us more about what is proposed there, and particularly if military payloads are involved.Let us look at the granting of launch permits. This bill is about the commercial launch of commercial payloads into space. It is good that nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction are excluded from those things allowed to be launched, but why stop at nuclear weapons? Why are we allowing weapons of any kind in space? We have no enemies in space. We do not want space used to threaten imaginary or real enemies here on earth either.This is not entirely a hypothetical issue. Billions of dollars were expended on the US Star Wars program before it was finally conceded it was a waste of money. Nevertheless, there are no shortages of military minds still harbouring illusions about deploying such weapons. Australia should ensure that Australia's laws do not allow such things to be launched from here. Please recall that Australia was a very important element of the whole Star Wars strategy that many of us found totally abhorrent.The US General Accounting Office reported last year that the US military would spend $US7.8 billion on upgrading its defence systems communications satellites and leasing time from commercial suppliers. Is this beginning to ring bells? No wonder there is such demand for launch facilities with that sort of budget driving the industry. It could be that the US military or other military will, in the future, buy time from launching facilities in Australia.The difficulty for us is to know how such satellites, launched from Australia, are being used and will be used in future. The legislation gives the power to permit a launch and the minister can take into account the payload in deciding whether or not to grant the licence. But it does not allow the minister any say in the use of the satellites once they are launched. This is a very dangerous omission as far as we are concerned. The legislation goes only to the launch period and does not cover what happens with the satellites while they are in orbit.This is a major problem. Communication satellites are able to be used for any communication and the nature of that can change to military use at any time. But that does not mean it cannot be controlled by legislation. Time is leased on satellites with clients whose purpose is known. There should be provision for the exclusion of whole ranges of activities which have the potential to contribute to the growth of militarism or to harm regional peace and security.Fissionable materials can be sent into space under this legislation. Even with the ALP amendment, this can still happen. A requirement for permission from the minister does not impress me at all. One approach may be a ban on all radioactive material with exemptions spelt out in regulations for small quantities of specific types of isotopes. The idea that material capable of causing enormous harm in the event of an accident—the industry has had plenty of major accidents—could be included in the fuel or the payload of launch vehicles launched from Australia or allowed to return to earth on Australian soil is one that would be opposed by the vast majority of Australians, and rightly so, as was the Cassini probe, by just about everyone who ever heard about it.People were outraged. They could not believe that such a thing was proposed, yet it happened. It really did happen. People should thank whoever they pray to that that launch did not go wrong. That it could come about as a result, for example, of a request from the United States to allow a return to earth of one of its interplanetary missions begs the question of why they do not want it to come down in their own back yard.We also have a number of serious concerns about other aspects of the bill, from the nature of the standard launch conditions to the role and independence of the launch safety officers. We want to see further extension of the administrative review provisions for a review of ministerial decisions, especially any decision to instruct a launch safety officer. We believe that a launch safety officer should be available in every launch safety facility, but it seems they are to be shared amongst the various potential sites in Australia.These matters are ones about which we will be proposing some amendments, but the issue of most concern about this bill is the space activities it does not cover. It does not cover the uses of space objects after the 30-day launch period. It does not even put in place adequate coverage for liability in the event of an accident or the inadvertent return to earth of Australian space objects after the launch period.Yes, we need legislation to ensure the safety and protection of the environment associated with space activity, but it needs to go further. It needs to set an example in the spirit of our internal commitment to the peaceful uses of space by going much further than this bill does in outlawing weapons in space and the use of space for military and military intelligence purposes—for Australia not to be involved, inadvertently or otherwise, in putting very dangerous material into the atmosphere, or likely to be causing harm if an accident occurs to very many people not covered under this agreement.So there does need to be a lot more work done on this bill. Unfortunately, the indications have not been strong so far that the government is listening to these concerns.16:42:00656Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank all speakers for their contribution to the debate on the Space Activities Bill 1998 . I welcome the opposition's support for this bill. I note the concerns that have been raised by the Australian Democrats and the Greens and I think it appropriate that we deal with them at the committee stage. With that, I conclude my second reading contribution.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that consideration of the bill in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for a later hour. Bills656656Debate resumed from 23 November, on motion by Senator Kemp:That this bill be now read a second time.16:43:00656Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I am part-way through my speech on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1998. To recapitulate, this is a bill which, according to the second reading speech, does certain things. I will quote from the second reading speech as it sets it in context.In a world of rapidly increasing people movements, our immigration arrangements must be designed to streamline the entry and stay of all genuine visitors, students, business people and permanent residents. However, a small proportion of non-citizens seeking to enter Australia do have substantial criminal backgrounds or criminal associations. Others commit crimes while they are in Australia.What this bill does is to so change the law that those people can be dealt with more expeditiously than is presently the case. The proposition that I put seems clear. I said the other night, and I say again now, that there are dangers in this legislation in so far as it reflects an attitude towards immigration and migration legislation that needs to be watched.Very few people are going to be affected by this legislation. Some of them, in the past, who would have been caught by this legislation—if it had then been operative—would have been banned not so much because of criminal associations or of criminal acts but, in reality, because of what they represented or because of the particular philosophy they had adopted. At all times, no matter what the legislation, we should be very hesitant about taking an approach in Australia that would come down upon us and affect, either directly or indirectly, those civil rights and civil liberties that we enjoy.I will quote from a decision of a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of some time ago who was dealing with a case that concerned the Communist Party, a party not popular in the United States then or now. He had this to say in his judgment, which I think is worth quoting here today:I do not believe that it can be too often repeated that the freedoms of speech, press, petition and assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment must be accorded to the ideas we hate or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish.In so far as this bill will be directed against people who fit within its terms, but who are not being banned because of their criminal conduct but rather because of their thoughts and what they represent, then there is danger. The tests that will be applied include tests that depend for their validity on decisions made by courts overseas which are not as full of integrity and fairness as our courts in Australia. So, although this proposed act may seem a reasonable piece of legislation, there are dangers in it.The other issue that I raised the other night, and that I raise again now, is that of due process. If anybody is to be thrown out of the country, if anybody is to have their reputation besmirched, if anybody is to have action taken against them, that should be done only after the facts have been ascertained to a reasonable degree of proof. This bill endang ers that proposition because it removes, in certain instances, the ability of courts to review decisions.There is concern that this bill represents an unfortunate trend in migration law. I note, for example, a report in the Age last weekend of a speech to the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Council by the Prime Minister in which he said we have to toughen up on migration law. He said, as the paper reports, that:. . . there was a need to balance integrity and compassion in the migration program.Everybody would agree with that, but what do you mean by integrity? Does that mean that you are going to apply the law in a way that comes down too harshly?Remember that our Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act contains provisions, as a schedule, which say that everybody, no matter who they are, should be treated with humanity and should be treated equally. If, in this legislation, we are going to choose certain people that we are going to move against in an unfair way, then we have something to worry about. (Extension of time granted) I think there is a need for a change in the culture of the administration and perhaps the legislative underpinning of our migration law.As I said the other night, the minister who heads this legislation is a person who is noted for his fairness and for his dedication to civil liberties. He is a member of Amnesty International and has been for years, so what I am saying now is not an attack on the minister. It is an attack on the system and the culture that seems to have entered the migration area at this stage. We had the spectacle, and I use the word advisedly, of a person from Somalia being returned to that country. That person was not a refugee within the strict terms of the provisions of the Geneva Convention but, nevertheless, was a person who deserved compassion from this country, which is a compassionate country, and from the minister, who is a compassionate minister. I will finish with those few remarks, and I am indebted to the chamber.The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley )—I think the chamber is also indebted to you, Senator Cooney.16:53:00658Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I am indebted to Senator Cooney for enlightening us on this occasion even more than usual. We are addressing the second reading stage of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill. As Senator Cooney said in his contribution then and also, I think, in the first stage of his contribution a day or two ago, whilst a lot of this bill obviously seeks to make some concrete changes, many of the concerns the Democrats have about it actually relate to the culture that it promotes and the message that it sends out to the general community.The issue of immigration and the perception and rhetoric around the motivation of migrants or potential migrants is one that has been in the news and in public debate a lot in the last couple of years, often in a negative way and a very misleading way. It is for that reason that I think we need to be very careful about the messages that we send out to the community about the intentions and the motivation of most potential migrants—there has been a lot of scapegoating and a lot of repeating of myths about migrants or potential migrants attempting to rort the system. Whether it is refugees or people wanting to enter the country for various reasons, the Democrats are concerned about the potential for a continuation of the momentum, if you like, towards more of a negative culture, more of a non-accepting and non-inclusive culture in relation to how we perceive potential migrants and people entering the country.This bill makes a number of changes which have the effect of giving the minister more power, discretion and influence over granting or refusing visas on the grounds of character. It reverses the onus of proof in relation to character. It limits the time for the process of review by the AAT, albeit by a less severe limitation than was originally intended when this bill was first tabled in the previous parliament. It provides protection from disclosure of confidential security and criminal intelligence information that is provided by various agencies. So basically it provides a lot more power and discretion to the minister.The approach that I have taken since taking responsibility for the Democrats in the area of immigration is to try to work constructively with the government and with the minister, who I believe—as Senator Cooney said a number of times—is someone who tries to approach what everyone agrees is a very difficult area from as humane a perspective as possible. We recognise that there are difficulties in terms of the ability of the minister and the department to adequately address some of the issues that they are confronted with in relation to people applying for or holding various visas. We are happy to try and work constructively with the government in all sorts of areas to address the real problems, but of course the issue in this as with many issues—but perhaps this more than most—is one of ensuring that we do not unfairly restrict the rights of genuine or what one might call innocent people in the process of trying to catch the non-genuine or non-innocent, if you like. That is always a concern, and I think it is an issue here.The Democrats accept that Australia has a right to monitor and restrict the entry of persons who are of what might be called bad character, and we do support the implementation of workable provisions to protect Australians from so-called undesirable or obviously dangerous entrants. Obviously, the government does have a responsibility to protect residents of Australia—anybody in Australia, residents or tourists or whatever—from people who are potentially dangerous. But we do believe that such provisions must be sufficiently flexible to be applicable in a wide range of circumstances, not pigeonhole people too severely and must be firmly founded on principles which include many of those that Senator Cooney elaborated on: compassion, empathy and natural justice.We do have concerns about the direction of attitudes and the culture, as Senator Cooney mentioned, in relation to immigration in recent years. Probably the one that is most relevant in this bill is the issue of the changes to the character test and the reversal of the onus of proof. A number of witnesses told the recent Senate committee that looked into this legislation in the previous parliament about the strong objections they had to the character test itself. Certainly, the inclusion of certain levels of criminal sentences as an automatic indication of someone's character does seem to me and to the Democrats to be a potential problem. Whilst the current minister may be a person of sufficient wisdom and fairness to be able to work his way through some of the minefields in this area, one can obviously never guarantee the integrity of future ministers in this area. That is always the danger when increasing the power and discretion of ministers in general.In his second reading speech the minister said that decision making in relation to character judgments will be improved by deeming that certain levels of criminal sentences will lead to an automatic finding that the non-citizen concerned is not of good character. Then of course it becomes incumbent on that person to prove otherwise. In other words, the onus of proof is reversed automatically, based on certain criteria. It assumes a uniform system and standard of justice around the world, which clearly is not the reality.The character test does not adequately take into account, in our view, that justice and criminality are defined very differently in various countries throughout the world. We have had pointed out to us during committee hearings and on other occasions that certain world leaders would, under the test to be imposed in this legislation, automatically be deemed to be of bad character and then would have to prove otherwise. Nelson Mandela is an obvious example, as is the President of South Korea, whose name escapes me, not being as learned in these matters as I should be.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Kim Dae Jung.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—Thank you for your assistance, Senator. I am sure other world leaders and people who are now seen to be people of influence and significance would automatically be deemed to be of bad character. Obviously, on a case by case basis, the government would say that we would not have a problem with Nelson Mandela, but this points out the problems of having an across- the-board, automatic mechanism of determination. Perhaps even more importantly, people who are now world leaders will usually be fine. They obviously have that extra public profile to assist their cases, but for more anonymous people around the globe, many of whom have been caught in justice systems which are not as fair as ours, that is something which is not open to them. Perhaps even more relevant is the potential lack of a clear distinction in many areas between criminal behaviour and psychiatric illnesses, where people may have had psychiatric disabilities in various countries that are not as capable as ours of determining these differences and may have established criminal records as a result. In those circumstances, they will find it a lot harder to meet the reversal of onus of proof that is put upon them.A number of submissions to the Senate committee which looked into this matter voiced a lot of opposition to the degree of personal power which will be given to the minister as a result of this bill. That is always a risk, as I mentioned earlier. The Law Council of Australia noted that the minister will have virtually absolute powers to exclude or remove non-citizens who are deemed not to be of good character. Again, this goes to trying to reach that middle ground between providing adequate powers to address a situation but not providing such absolute powers that it leads to the potential of overkill.The minister will have the ability to set aside decisions of the AAT and to refuse or cancel a visa where the minister suspects that the person does not pass the character test and the refusal or cancellation is in the national interest. The flexibility of the definition of `national interest' again is another one that is potentially open to misuse and is one that is able to be used to provide the minister with extremely wide powers, which is always a potential concern.I should mention again the Democrats support for the proposal to increase from 42 days, which was in the original bill, to 84 days the limit on reviewing character cases. This seems to us to be much more reasonable. Nonetheless, we share the concerns held by many people who deal with people who are applying for visas of all sorts regarding the subjective nature of the term `national interest' on which the minister will be able to refuse or cancel a visa on character grounds.The Ethnic Communities Council of Western Australia pointed out that, rather than having access to an independent review process, these people will now be subjected to the whim of the government of the day determining what is in the national interest. Whilst this government may be able to exercise that discretion with expert ability, perhaps a future government may not be able to do it so well. The term `national interest' potentially is so broad as to be able to justify almost any issue of a certificate of exclusion if the government deems it necessary. Obviously the politics of these things could come into the situation as much as the real facts.I would now like to refer to the culture and the message that we send out to the community. I have been a bit disappointed by the statements—at least those of the Prime Minister, if not of the other ministers of the government—since the election which seem, to a large extent, to be continuing to send a message out to the community to reinforce a perception that there is a problem of large scale abuse of the system by people entering Australia and not playing by the rules or seeking to exploit the system. Whilst the Democrats certainly do not suggest that there are not people who are doing the wrong thing, I think it is always a danger, whether it is in this area, in social security or in anything else, to overstate a problem and affect community attitudes towards a whole class of people, the vast majority of whom are not doing anything wrong and are simply trying to follow appropriate process.Those are some of the concerns that the Democrats have with the thrust of this legislation, whilst recognising that there are real issues that the government is trying to address. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Senator Patterson on being promoted to the position of parliamentary secretary for this area. I am sure we will be engaging in more constructive debate on immigration issues over the coming months and years.17:07:00660Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate that we support the passage of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions Relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1997. In their remarks, the previous speakers—Senator Bartlett and my good friend Senator Cooney—raised the vexed issues of the balance between due process, human rights, the right of the individual vis-a-vis the state, the onus of proof and so on, which are all very relevant. Those issues have been debated at some length in the Labor Party and we, on balance, believe that what the government has proposed in this bill should be supported.In the broader Australian community, irrespective of one's view, the due process and the natural inclination have always been to say that someone is innocent until proven guilty. In the situation where we face the onus of proof being reversed from the standard that most of us have always supported, that is, on balance, a reasonable thing to do in view of the clear evidence that there are people around the world in organised criminal activities who would find it useful to get permanent residency or a period of stay in Australia to carry out some form of criminal activity against the citizens of Australia.We believe that it is very important to decide on the balance of probability of what is in the national interest as to whether the minister should have the power to ultimately overrule an appeal to the AAT. The opposition believes that in the national interest, where the minister overrules the AAT and that decision is provided to the parliament, it is on the minister's head—to use that crude term—that the decision be made public in the terms that it has been refused. The community can then debate whether the minister has used the character test appropriately.At a personal level, I have always argued that ministerial responsibility to the parliament is the ultimate sanction in a properly functioning democracy. I have always been more interested in a minister standing up and saying, `I did it—or I did not do it—and I take responsibility, and I will be judged accordingly by the community as well as by the parliament,' rather than having some tribunal elsewhere make a judgment.I have noticed, by the way, that when the public disagrees with a finding of a quasi-independent tribunal, they still blame the minister anyway. It is a bit like the old saying in politics: a minister will always get the three jeers when something goes wrong and will be blamed, but he seldom gets the three cheers when something goes right.In the end, it has to be a ministerial power as long as it is transparent that it is being used. If it were shown that a decision could be taken to overrule the AAT without it being made public in some form and for it to be acknowledged, we would not support that position. I do not think any person in a democracy should have the right to make a judicial decision in any form without it being publicly available for debate. This is an important issue. The opposition believes that, on balance, that protection is reasonable. Any minister from any government will stand to be judged accordingly. These issues of good character are always going to be matters of fine judgment. For example, I know that my colleague Senator McKiernan has raised the issue of the application for a visa by Gerry Adams, a member of Sinn Fein, who may or may not have some formal connection with the IRA. He was refused an application for a visa to visit Australia.Before the peace settlement in Northern Ireland, one might have argued that it was a very reasonable position that previous governments and this government had taken. But now there is a peace settlement and Gerry Adams meets the ministers of the British government, and he is now a minister in the government of Northern Ireland in the reconstituted Stormont parliament. I therefore think he may have a stronger case to argue as to why he should be given a visa to come to Australia—even if that visa is given, as usual, with some caveats. We have no quibble with ministers from time to time putting caveats on those applications for a visa and that people must obey those caveats.When Louis Farrakhan visited Australia recently, Minister Ruddock put some caveats on his being granted a visa. I understand that Mr Farrakhan accepted that and I do not think there was any breach of those caveats, instructions or restrictions. I stand to be corrected on this, but I think that was the case.There is an equally celebrated case where previous governments—including a former Labor government—had refused a visa under the issue of good character to the British author and so-called historian David Irving. Mr Irving has written a number of books, some of which, to say the least, are controversially contested, about his view on such issues as the Holocaust and the Second World War.He has also written other books on matters that do not deal specifically with the Holocaust and related areas that that are, other historians tell me, quite reasonable books in historical terms. In fact, I have read one of them myself. I think it was entitled The War Between the Generals.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—Don't ask me!4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—No, I am not looking to you, Senator McKiernan, to vouch for this, but it was a very interesting book about the personal disputes between the various Allied generals from the time of Normandy onwards in the Second World War—Eisenhower, Montgomery, Bradley, Patton and others. That book was quite an interesting read and it gave new information.Again, the argument of judgment about David Irving being granted a visa is a matter of fine judgment as to whether he should or should not. He clearly upsets a significant section of the Australian community because of his views about the Holocaust. He also would argue that in a democracy he should be entitled to have free speech. Others may say that they want to hear his views. But he is not a citizen of Australia and I believe it is a matter of judgment, so long as the ministerial decision to either grant or not grant him a visa is made public. The public will make a judgment, and that will be part of the public debate in a democracy.We do not oppose the government's bill on the power of the minister to effect a decision, even though the AAT may say something different. We do not have any objection to the government reversing the onus of proof. We believe it would be easier for some of the criminals who may be wanting to get into Australia to carry out their criminal activity to gain and maintain entry while a government tried to prove their background. I also accept, as a former Customs minister in particular, that unfortunately there are times when you cannot allow all the evidence before you to be made public about why some person does not pass the character test.I know, as a former Customs minister, that if you divulge the information you have had internationally provided to you about why someone should be refused a visa and therefore at the customs barrier not be let into the country if they tried, you may put at risk somebody elsewhere in the world who has provided that information and you may put at risk the future arrangements Australia has with our services—the Federal Police, Customs, et cetera—for getting adequate information, because they would not want to have put at risk their sources. I understand that you cannot automatically provide all that information. It should not be made available for someone to defend themselves and probably to use the information indirectly or even directly to carry out and further extend their criminal activity, and to use it to threaten people who may have provided the information. I think the onus of proof in this case on balance, as I said, is reasonable.I understand that when this bill was first proposed the time to lodge an appeal was 42 days. I think through work and negotiation that has now been extended to 84 days and we think that is a reasonable outcome. I think the minister also wanted an extension of some time to respond as well in certain procedural matters. We think on balance that that was reasonable.I have no doubt that circumstances may be such in two or three years time, if this bill is carried—and I think it will be carried with the government and opposition supporting it—that there may be people debating that the bill has gone too much one way or not enough in another direction. There is no guarantee that any bill in this area of balancing the individual's right against the collective right of the community to defend itself will always be perfectly reached. Circumstances will change from time to time.If this bill goes through and if, after we have the experience of its operation, it does require further amendment in view of future experience, so be it. That is not a deficiency of this legislation. It means that from time to time the balances will be shifted around in debate in the community and in the parliament. That is a strength of our democracy, not a weakness of it.I would always say in these areas dealing with judicial rights et cetera that although we should always err on the side of the individual, we cannot automatically forgo the rights collectively of the community if that individual who is not a citizen of this country is perverting our own processes to advance their criminal activity. I think the view in the community would be that the collective view must outweigh in this case the individual rights on the normal things that we would argue for, for our own citizens internally within Australia. Therefore, the opposition supports this legislation.17:19:00662Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1997 seeks to amend the Migration Act of 1958 to increase control over the entry into and presence in Australia of certain non-citizens who are unable to pass the character test and to strengthen the procedures used in dealing with such people.The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on 30 October 1997 and they passed it on 19 November of that year. There were six opposition amendments moved at the time, all of which were negatived. There was a relatively brief and narrow inquiry in the Senate. There were 23 submissions received and, subsequently, 11 witnesses appeared before the committee. Furthermore, Senators Bolkus and McKiernan wrote minority reports and the Democrats wrote a dissenting report, leaving only Senators Abetz, Coonan and O'Chee, all coalition senators, to agree to the provisions of this bill.Labor, I believe, has now had its amendments incorporated into the Senate bill and I understand it intends to pass the bill without further amendments. The character test at its minimum is whether a person has been sentenced to 12 months in prison. It would deem all visas of a person not meeting the character test to be cancelled or refused. It is, we believe, worth while to have an objective, standardised and legally binding character test with its potential for simplification and greater consistency in decision making but, in its current form, this test leaves no room for those who have since reformed, how long ago their sentence was given, or those who have been wrongfully imprisoned. That includes political prisoners.Under this legislation, neither President Nelson Mandela nor Aung San Suu Kyi would have passed the character test. I wonder whether somehow this legislation will change in order to alter that situation if those people, or others in a similar position, ever apply to come to Australia. The length of time a person has been in Australia and the stable links they have formed with the Australian community, including family, are not taken into consideration, nor is a person being of good character and yet associating with those who have a criminal background; that is, community groups and church workers.Senator Schacht, in his contribution, said that he was comfortable with the reversal of the onus of proof. I think that is a problem. The amendments would place the burden of proof on visa holders to convince the minister that they pass the character test. Since 1992 it has been up to the department to prove that the person did not meet the test. When you are dealing with refugees who may well have been wrongfully imprisoned, sometimes for several years at a time—which I must say I heard today in relation to Chilean refugees who were tortured and imprisoned—you put a very great burden on people who are already traumatised to prove and put up a case to the Australian parliament that they have been wrongfully imprisoned.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It would not be difficult to prove, I would have thought.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Senator Schacht interjects that it is not difficult to prove, but you are putting that onus on people to prove their wrongful imprisonment. The detail—the proof—is not so easy to get when people themselves may be under great distress and stress. What is considered to be proof under the law? Do you have to have witnesses to your torture? What kind of proof would be considered to be adequate proof for victims of wrongful arrest, torture or bad treatment? Should we put people through this when they may well be refugees who would normally be accepted?It gives stronger ministerial powers to refuse or cancel a visa on character grounds. The minister may intervene in any case and substitute his or her own decision to refuse or cancel a visa on character grounds. This decision will be non-reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Applicants can be lawfully placed in detention following their failure to meet the character test. If the decision is revoked, they can subsequently claim against the Commonwealth because of their detention. We have had an example in recent days of a potential decision where the minister basically was trying to expel a person whose life was in danger. It is always possible that ministers make wrong decisions, and here we are removing the ability to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.It undermines the integrity, independence and public confidence in the work of the tribunal even if these powers are used only in rare cases. Theoretically, an independent tribunal could find the person to be of good character but the minister could decide they are of bad character, and the minister would not have to disclose the details of how he or she came to this decision.The minister can intervene at any time during the review process even if the application is still being decided by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. No indication is required as to which individuals or groups should be excluded and on what grounds. A visa can be refused or cancelled if the minister decides it is in the national interests, and the national interests are not defined. The applicants, we believe, should be able to claim for improper time in detention.With the scheme for expedited review, the review application must be lodged with the AAT within nine days of notification of decision, with one set of all documents. The minister must provide non-disclosable documents within 14 days of being notified of the application by the AAT, and if no decision is made within 84 days of the person's original notification, the original decision is upheld. The 10-day limit for applicants to lodge a review is impractical and unrealistic, given language and postal barriers and the difficulties for individuals in getting their application together, especially in conjunction with an already overburdened legal aid system.We have had many debates about that in the past, and Senator McKiernan can attest to the difficulties getting worse under our legal aid system. One aim is to ensure the review process is not used as a mechanism to prolong the person's stay in Australia. The majority of applicants will be in detention anyway whilst awaiting their review. It is not much of an incentive to stay on for review process.There is a new test for conclusive certificates. The new standard test for all conclusive certificates will be the `national interest'. The minister will have the power to prevent a case being reviewed by the Immigration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal as well as the AAT if he or she deems that it is in the national interest—again, unspecified.Again, this undermines the independence of the review process. National interest is not defined and gives the minister an unacceptably vague and broad base for excluding people to merits review. Currently, the national interest is defined in some degree as the security, defence or international relations of Australia. At least this degree of clarity should remain, and that is not here.With protection from disclosure of confidential security and criminal intelligence information, the information provided by specified law enforcement or intelligence agencies for the purposes of assessing a person's character would be protected from the Freedom of Information Act. It is a double bind. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are reluctant to give information because of the government's inability to promise non-disclosure and, therefore, character assessments cannot be easily or properly done. Yet if the information does not have to be disclosed to anyone, including the parliament, it weakens an evaluation of the decision on the person's character. The AAT argues that the information should at least be available to them for the purpose of the review, and that sounds like a reasonable argument.This could prevent people from applying for other visas. The amendments prevent, with limited exceptions, persons who have a visa refused or cancelled on character grounds from applying for further visas while they are still in the migration zone. A person could still apply for refugee status, which is an essential caveat to this provision.The minister must notify the applicant of a decision and the process of coming to that decision and of any rights of appeal, much as before. Notification must also be accompanied by two copies of all relevant non-disclosable documents. Giving two copies enables the applicant to quickly apply for appeal to the AAT.It does enhance the power to give binding directions. The minister's power, under section 499, to delegates and tribunals would be expanded, and the minister would be able to specify more precisely how a discretion should be exercised.We are not sure how this would work out in practice. We are very concerned about the implications for basic human rights, and we think that it is very dangerous legislation. Therefore the Greens will not be supporting the Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1997.17:29:00664McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I rise to support this Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1997 in its amended form. We cannot be accused of acting in haste in the passage of this particular bill. Senator Margetts in her opening comments went through the dates from the introduction of the bill through to its presentation to the Senate. It is now more than 12 months since we have seen the bill. I was very tempted to get a copy of the minister's press statement, which he released at the time, making all sorts of accusations about the Labor Party and where the Labor Party stands in regard to the control of criminals entering this country and what stance we might take on the bill.In the sense of where we are going with the bill and in recognition of the very positive negotiations that have occurred, I have decided not to go down that track. But I do make mention of it. It might be better if those negotiations started or if there were at least some element of consultation with the parliament before the press secretary drafts, prints and issues those press statements. It might save some egg being tossed at the minister's face, because it is the minister who ultimately gets it. It might seem to be a good idea for the press secretary at the time, to justify the income they are on, but it may not necessarily be the right thing for the government in the long term.With the passage of this bill we are clearly seeing a vindication of the stance that Labor has taken consistently over many years, and certainly in the years that I have been a member of this parliament. Labor stands very strongly for parliamentary control of who can enter this country and who can remain in this country. Those who have criminal records, who have been involved or engaged in criminal activity, are not welcome. We have not welcomed them and we will not welcome them as members of the opposition. Irrespective of what is contained in the ministerial press statements from time to time, action speaks louder than words. And the actions have been the negotiations that have gone on around this bill.The bill, as Senator Margetts and Senator Schacht have said, was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, which did conduct some public hearings on the bill. We took evidence on the bill in Perth, which is somewhat strange for a legislation committee because generally they take evidence in only Canberra. We also took evidence in Melbourne and Canberra. We presented a report to the parliament before 23 March this year. The bill has languished since then despite the urgency of the message contained in the minister's press statement. Nothing has happened on it until today. It is proceeding today because there is, I understand, unanimity on where we are going.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Ahem.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Not quite.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—Thank you, Senator Margetts, I accept that interjection but I am not sure how Hansard will deal with it. Even you would accept that the bill is probably going to get relatively speedy passage.The minority report by Senator Bolkus and me, which is attached to the committee's main report, is a short, very considered four-page document. In it we give some very considered advice to the department and to the minister. We are very pleased that, from what we have heard so far, the suggestions contained in that minority report have been taken up and will be actioned by the committee. I recognise that there are some in the chamber who do not necessarily agree with the stance we have taken on it. But we very clearly outlined in that very short 3½-page minority report that there would be considerable debate during the committee stages of the bill had the amendments not been presented to the chamber. The amendments are forthcoming so I do not need to dwell and delay the Senate much more on it.I do need to follow up on the comments made by Senator Schacht when he mentioned some of the less desirable people that we would not be wanting to come into this country. Mr David Irving is one of those. Mr Irving has an international criminal record. He has been deported from Canada and also from Germany. That in itself is reason enough not to issue that particular individual with a visa. Mr Irving's lawyers have challenged both ministers' decisions—the current minister, Mr Ruddock, and the previous minister—in the Federal Court of Australia. Thankfully, those appeals have been dismissed. They are decisions that I hold to.But not all ministerial decisions are necessarily correct in the fullness of time. Senator Schacht mentioned Mr Gerry Adams. He probably should have called him Mr Gerry Adams MP. Not only is Mr Adams a member of the new assembly in Northern Ireland; he is also an elected member of the Westminster parliament, which is said to be the mother of all the parliaments. He has not actually taken his seat but there are political reasons for that.I have not been on the public record before saying that the Australian government—either Labor or Liberal—should grant a visa to Mr Adams. I have not until now. I now go on the public record and say that if Gerry Adams applies for a visa in the normal way he ought to be issued with one so he can enter this country to speak with his supporters in this country.I am changing my mind on Mr Adams. There are some members of the community, particularly back in Western Australia, who will know that I have not previously supported Mr Adams in his quest to come to Australia. I certainly did not support the visa request when his book was being published. But things have dramatically changed in Northern Ireland and I pay great tribute to Mr Adams for what has happened in that very divided nation of Northern Ireland, and in Ireland and the United Kingdom.Adams played a very crucial role in the peace process which culminated in an agreement on Good Friday of this year—a peace process which was later validated and vindicated by referendums in both the north and south of Ireland. Adams's role has been internationally recognised and he probably should have been included as one of the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize along with the two recipients who were granted it. I understand there were political reasons why Adams could not be included in that.Whatever reasons there were previously for Adams not being granted a visa on character grounds—a decision on which I understand there is a challenge still ongoing in the courts—I think those reasons have now been put behind us, and we have to move forward with the times. Times have changed, and I hope the minister is receptive to pleas such as I am making.I would stress and urge to Mr Adams and his supporters that the application be made in the normal way. There are millions of applications for visas to enter Australia made each year. Not all of them need to be done through the media; they can be done in the normal way according to the law. I know there are people in Australia who want to meet with Adams, want to talk with him and want to listen to his experiences in the lead-in to and actual happenings in the peace process in Northern Ireland. I hope that that visa will be granted and that members of parliament such as us assembled in the Senate of Australia might be given the opportunity to meet directly with him and hear his views. There are, Mr Acting Deputy President, as you would quite well know, very strong links between Ireland and Australia and between the United Kingdom and Australia, and I hope that the passage of this bill will actually lead to some positive developments in that regard.I made some remarks earlier about the benefit of consultation on matters before statements are announced. I am aware of a ministerial statement given yesterday during question time in the House of Representatives when the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs made some comment about alleged abuses of the special needs relative category. He said that the regulations are going to be tightened up—regulations, I might add, that are subject to examination by this chamber and indeed can be subject to disallowance if they are wrong.I have from the Internet a copy of the Fuduche judgment, which I understand was the judgment the minister referred to when he said, in his answer to a question—which was more a ministerial statement—that the special needs relative category system was being abused because someone was allowed to stay because of homesickness. That is in the statement in the House of Representatives. From my quick glance through the judgment, and it is a fairly substantial judgment, I do not think that the minister is quite accurate in his description that it was merely homesickness. I do not want to distort the record either, but there might be opportunity during the committee stages, if there is need to, to come back and look at that. But I think this particular case was a lot more serious than merely homesickness. I understand that an individual had a psychiatric disorder and the separation of the family had an enormous impact on the individual, and that was substantiated by medical opinion.Maybe it is useful for ministers from time to time to grab a headline and get their name in the paper, to be seen from time to time to be doing something. But, if we are going down the wrong track—the wrong track in terms of the government, the wrong track in terms of protecting Australia—maybe it is better to sit and wait before we go for the headline. Certainly I have been tempted to do that, but in my latter years in the parliament I have not been issuing press releases on such a regular basis. We can make mistakes, and in this particular category of character testing it can be very decisive and have a great impact on the individuals concerned. We need look no further than July of last year and the case of Mr Lorenzo Ervin, and the embarrassment that that case caused to the then acting minister, Senator Vanstone, when she got it wrong, and the embarrassment of the department whose advice she was probably acting on who had got it wrong, and the embarrassment of the QC before the High Court of Australia because they had got it wrong.Mistakes and errors can occur, and I think what we are doing now, the referral of a bill such as this to a Senate parliamentary committee, has vindicated the processes of the Senate. There were only three hearings of the committee to take evidence from different parts of Australia and it was not the biggest inquiry that the committee has ever participated in, but they were all very useful hearings. Very useful evidence was collected and a very useful report was presented to the parliament of Australia. I would argue there was a very useful minority report from Senator Bolkus and me, which I understand has been heeded. Perhaps this is a better way to go than racing to grab an immediate headline from ministerial statements, from press statements and whatever. Ultimately, as I said, what we on this side of the chamber are about is protecting Australia, which I understand people on the other side of the chamber are about. We can work together on this, and I think the actions and the amendments that are forthcoming on this particular bill are living proof of how we are working together.17:44:00667Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I would like to thank Senator Cooney, Senator Short, Senator Bartlett, Senator Margetts and Senator McKiernan for their contributions to the debate. To sum up, I remind all senators that the objective of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1997 is to safeguard the Australian community. It implements a number of important policy measures in relation to the entry and stay in Australia of non-citizens who are of character concern. These measures continue the process of restoring community credibility in the management of immigration matters. It will enable the government effectively to discharge its duties and responsibilities to the Australian people and ensure a higher level of protection for the Australian community.The bill sends a clear and unequivocal message on behalf of the Australian community, which expects that non-citizens coming to Australia should be of good character. To meet this expectation, the government must have the ability to act quickly and decisively wherever necessary and to remove non-citizens who are not of good character. This message is especially timely given Australia's hosting of the Olympic Games in less than two years time.I would like to address a couple of issues that honourable senators raised during the debate. The other night Senator Cooney said in his remarks that the proposals in this bill would only apply to visitors to this country. I would like to clarify that the provisions can apply to all non-citizens in Australia, whether they are visitors or permanent residents. I would also like to clarify that the rights of non-citizens to seek judicial review will not be changed by this bill.Senator Cooney also said that the minister must apply the provisions of section 501 personally. I would like to clarify that the major power under section 501 to refuse or cancel a visa is exercisable either by the minister or by a delegate of the minister. Also, Senator Cooney pointed out that the power under section 501 is a discretionary power which allows the minister or delegate to exercise their discretion to refuse or cancel a visa. This means that, even if people like Anwar Ibrahim did not meet the requirements of a character test, they could still be granted a visa. I cannot quite remember but I think Senator Cooney actually referred to Anwar Ibrahim.He also requested evidence of people who have come to this country and `done violence'. While the majority of visitors and permanent residents are law-abiding citizens, there are many instances of such conduct. I have been given a recent example of such behaviour where criminals from a particular country—and I do not think it does any of us any good to name that country—who travelled here and committed crimes of violence against members of their own ethnic groups who had settled in Australia. Senator Cooney may wish me to give him more detail about that. It is not appropriate here, but there are examples that can be given of that happening. I would like to add that this bill is not just about preventing physical violence in Australia by visitors or permanent residents; it is also designed to protect the community from other threats such as harassment, intimidation and vilification by preventing people with substantial criminal records or criminal associations from coming to or remaining in Australia.Senator Bartlett raised the issue of the reversal of the onus of proof. I think Senator Schacht dealt with that in his contribution when he talked about the very delicate balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of a country, or the national interest. The reversal of the onus of proof reflects a general principle that, where a person is seeking a benefit, responsibility lies with that person to establish eligibility. One of the requirements for a visa is that the non-citizen must demonstrate that they meet the criteria, one of which is character. This bill ensures that the objective of protecting the Australian community will take precedence, with the onus being placed on the non-citizen, as it was before 1992. This existed in 1992. It was a change then that actually led to a period where the minister or the delegate had to indicate that the person was not of good character. So it is really not earth-shattering or rocket science; it was in legislation before.Senator Bartlett also referred to the minister's personal powers. The powers that are conferred by this bill on the minister to refuse or cancel a visa are subject to the requirements of natural justice. Non-citizens will still have the opportunity to make representations to the minister that they do meet character requirements. The only time that a non-citizen will not be entitled to make a representation or seek a merits review is where the minister decides that it is not in the national interest.Senator Schacht, in his contribution, indicated maybe the difference between why the opposition is agreeing with the government in this case and why the minority parties are not: that is that members of the opposition, when they were in government, had to make the sorts of decisions that Mr Ruddock has to make now in government. It is, as Senator Schacht said, a fine balance between the rights of the individual and national interest. I think Senator Schacht put very clearly the dilemma we face in—if I can be a little bit rude to you, Senator Schacht—an uncharacteristically succinct way, because he did not take his whole 20 minutes. He was able to put forward a very clear case about why he is going to agree with us.It speaks volumes that the opposition is supporting us on this—because you have been in the position of having to make these very difficult decisions. I will admit to Senator Margetts and Senator Bartlett that they are very difficult decisions and there is no real answer. It is an issue of judgment, but it is a judgment that has to be made to protect the interests of Australian citizens.Senator Schacht indicated that the requirement for the minister to table reasons for the overturning of an AAT decision allowed transparency in that decision making. I think he was correct in saying that and I think that is appropriate. Senator McKiernan, I will draw your comments regarding Gerry Adams to the minister's attention. I am sure that he will make any decision, if there is an application, based on its merits.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—And mine too, if you wouldn't mind.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Of course, Senator Schacht, I will bring your comments to his attention. I was just checking about a judgment that Senator McKiernan referred to. I have been advised that there may have been some confusion about whether the homesickness related to another case. I have not had time to have that checked, but if you would like a briefing on that the departmental officers would be only too happy to do that. There may have been some confusion, because I think there were two cases, but I have not had time to follow that up.I would like to thank honourable senators for their contributions. I would also like to thank the opposition for their cooperation in supporting this bill. I look forward to working with the minister to ensure the integrity of our migration system and the granting of visas. Question put: That the bill be now read a second time.17:56:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)43Abetz, E. Bishop, T. M.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Faulkner, J. P.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Lundy, K. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.O'Brien, K. W. K. O'Chee, W. G. *Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Tambling, G. E. J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.669Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.669Bill (on motion by Senator Patterson) read a third time.Address in Reply669669Debate resumed from 11 November, on motion by Senator MacGibbon:That the following Address-in-Reply be agreed to:To His Excellency the Governor-GeneralMAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY—We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign and to thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.18:01:00669West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President Bartlett. Well done on your first day in the chair. This is a typical example of this government's inability to manage its business. Quite literally, notice was given us about this change to the program within the last 30 seconds. I have just had to ring my office and, as people possibly observed, my staffer has just arrived with the notes I was using earlier.There are a number of issues that I want to continue to canvass here about what this government's policies and the new directions that they are taking—or, rather, not taking—mean for people, and particularly what they mean for people in rural areas. I spoke earlier about the concerns of various groups about the impact the GST will have on them. In particular, charitable organisations and church groups with their op-shops and things like that—which they run for people's benefit—are expressing concern. Other groups also are expressing concern about the GST. Certainly local government bodies are expressing concern.The Local News is a briefing paper for parliamentarians produced by the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales. In the October-November issue, issue 7, they say:Local Government has some concerns about the application of a GST on council activities. The extent to which the GST will apply to Local Government `commercial activities' is a major concern in the absence of clear definition. It is understood that water, sewerage, child care, nursing homes and domestic waste will remain GST-free, however, this leaves in doubt the status of a number of other activities for which councils collect fees.The Voss inquiry was set up and given three weeks to answer these questions relating to health and what is in and what is out. These sorts of things are going to take Senate committees a number of months to sort out and work through, yet the Voss committee was given three weeks to do it.I have extracts from local papers such as the Daily Advertiser in Wagga. Local disability groups and services in that town have expressed concern about the impact of the GST on them. I have seen press releases by groups like St Vincent de Paul deploring the lack of compassion for the poor in the GST. It is a pity, mind you, that they did not make these comments before the election to alert people to the very negative impact that the GST will have upon people on low incomes, but it is nice that they have done it now. People are beginning to realise that the GST will have major impacts on the general community.There is another issue that I want to take up: this government's treatment of health—or lack of treatment. I am referring to the government's cut, in its first budget in 1996, to its component of the Commonwealth Dental Scheme. That has had a major impact on many people and many services. I have here a copy of a letter to the editor of the Daily Liberal, which is the Dubbo newspaper. On 11 November, an Elaine Elliot wrote to the paper expressing major concern about what happened to her mother.Her mother, who is an insulin-dependent diabetic, broke her false teeth. When she rang the dental clinic she was advised to superglue them so that they might last the necessary five months. Otherwise, she had to get a letter from a dentist or a doctor confirming her current health problems and explaining why she needed urgent attention. Even with a medical certificate she could only get a number and be placed on a waiting list. The clinic could not determine the time in which she would get treatment. Elaine Elliot finally found a private dentist who would repair the dentures, but it was at cost to her mother.I know of another lady who lives in Orange and who has been waiting five months for replacement of a filling that has fallen out of one of her front teeth. She is on social security. She would like to get a job, but she cannot afford to get her tooth filled. She cannot get onto the emergency waiting list of the local dental health clinic, so she has to sit at home. She is not able to eat properly. She does not feel confident enough to go out and get a job.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Raise it with Mr Carr.1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—The parliamentary secretary says, `She should raise it with Mr Carr.' The parliamentary secretary does not understand that the reason this particular scheme was introduced by the Labor government when we were in power was that there were insufficient funds to all of the states, including the Liberal held states.We had some compassion when we were in power and cared about dental health and, therefore, the general health of people. We introduced the scheme whereby poor people and those on low incomes were able to have dental treatment more quickly than before. This callous, uncaring government scrapped the scheme because they said the Commonwealth had no role or responsibility for the dental health of the people of this nation. Teeth do not know state boundaries.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—I rise on a point of order. I was waiting to see whether Senator West would correct what she had said. I said that Senator West should raise it with Mr Carr, not the person to whom she was referring. It should be Senator West who raises it with Mr Carr.10000West, Sen SueThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—There is no point of order.1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—The parliamentary secretary knows jolly well that it does not need to be the responsibility of me or anybody else to raise this with state premiers. The federal government should be accepting its responsibility for dental health, not passing the blame on to the state and flicking it off. This is typical of the attitude of this government. They do not want national schemes. They do not think that people in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania or Queensland have the same right of access to the same schemes.People are being told, `Use superglue for your dentures' and people cannot even get an appointment for five months to see whether their case is an urgent one. This government stands condemned for their lack of concern and compassion for people. This is typical of what you would expect from a conservative government. For that they are to be condemned. People deserve better than that. But this government just does not care at all. They should be roundly condemned. In less than three years time they should be kicked out by the people of Australia because they jolly well know that they are not going to be cared for by a conservative government. They are an uncaring and uncompassionate mob of people.18:10:00671Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I rise to respond to an issue that the Governor-General touched upon in his address. His Excellency referred to the government's so-called Tough on Drugs initiatives, asserting that the government will be maintaining its momentum on the fight against illicit drugs. To many from within the treatment field this must have come as a big surprise, considering that they were unaware that any momentum had ever been gained.The Prime Minister rejected the recommendations of his own Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy last year when they concluded that the ACT heroin trial should go ahead. He has subsequently set about establishing a new body that might be more accommodating to his own personal opinions. The new Australian National Council on Drugs is chaired by Major Brian Watters from the Salvation Army, who was the other most prominent opponent of the heroin trial.The Prime Minister has recently been asserting his commitment to addressing social policy issues and I think it is about time he had a second look at his stance on drug law reform. I find it particularly ironic that Mr Howard continues to pay lip service to the cause when he has repeatedly ignored the advice and direction of doctors, academics, workers from within the treatment field and indeed his own cabinet ministers with regard to possible avenues for reform.Legislation governing illicit drug use in Australia has traditionally been steeped in attitudes of fear and prejudice. The very first laws enacted in Australia to restrict the consumption of drugs were initiated to prohibit the smoking of opium in the early 1900s. These laws were enacted largely as a knee-jerk reaction to the increased presence of Chinese immigrants in Australia at the time. The Chinese, who had come to Australia throughout the gold rush, were perceived with suspicion and trepidation by the broader population. Significant racist sentiment at the time reflected the belief that the Chinese were stealing jobs from `real Australians'.It was from within such a climate that restrictions on opium were born. There were many stark and frightening contrasts between Australian and Chinese culture at that point and these were embodied in the denunciation of opium smoking. The smoking of opium became a symbol for the breakdown of traditional values and norms within Australian society. It represented all that was unfamiliar and confronting about the new immigrants and their culture. Instead of trying to understand this new culture and integrate it into the established social fabric, early governments simply sought to legislate against unsavoury aspects of it.The prohibition of opium smoking at the time reflected racist sentiment more accurately than it reflected any actual danger posed by the substance to the broader community. Similarly, in Australia today, people reject the notion of heroin as a legitimate pharmacotherapy because of their fear of and paranoia about heroin addicts—who are perceived as a dangerous minority. Meanwhile, after the prohibition of opium, a wide variety of medicines, the great majority of which contained heroin, morphine or cocaine as their active ingredients, were supplied with increasing popularity by chemists and doctors.The history of illicit drug legislation in Australia bears testimony to a haphazard and reactionary approach to policy formulation that has continued to the present day as successive governments have bowed to both internal and external political pressures. Australia became a signatory to the 1931 Convention on the Suppression of Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs in response to pressure from the United States. This decision was taken against the wishes of the Australian medical community at that time.Especially in the 1990s it is worth wondering why we have mirrored the American approach to legislation on illicit drugs. I think it is widely recognised that North America has largely failed in its so-called war on drugs. The punitive war on drugs was launched in America in the 1970s by the Nixon administration. Decades later the war on drugs continues in America, and the casualties continue to rise unabated. Surely advocating the `just say no' message and putting your head in the sand is no longer a viable means of addressing the problem.It is commonly accepted by many from within the treatment field that the punitive approach to heroin users and drug related crime instituted under prohibitionist strategy may actually be exacerbating costs for law enforcement agencies. Prominent Australian lawyer Chris Murphy agrees with this argument and has emphasised the irony of incarcerating a person for crimes perpetrated in order to finance their addiction when often that person's addiction cannot be treated in gaol. By gaoling users under a prohibitionist policy instead of providing additional treatment services, the federal government is reinforcing a self-perpetuating cycle of crime and punishment for Australian heroin users.Last year the ACT heroin trial proposal gave the government the opportunity to test a new treatment option for severely dependent heroin users. The trial would have yielded invaluable information for doctors and other treatment experts with regard to the potential for pharmaceutical heroin to be used in the treatment of addicts. Far from heralding the mass production and distribution of heroin by the government, the first stage of the trial would have been limited to 40 registered dependent users from the ACT. Far from being a radical movement, the ACT heroin trial proposal received support from a wide range of individuals and groups.The report of the NSW commission into police corruption in 1997 recommended that the trial be allowed to go ahead. The report claimed:Without such a trial its efficacy or otherwise would never be known. Until attempted, it is very difficult to move forward or to consider alternative strategies.I believe that was a very sensible conclusion. The proposal had been further bolstered by the resounding success of the recent Swiss heroin trial. Retention rates and compliance with treatment were increased. The numbers of those with permanent employment doubled, the incidence of criminal activity among participants rapidly decreased and they experienced improvements in their general health. Perhaps most importantly, however, a significant number of participants decided to give up heroin and switch to abstinence therapy in the longer term. This is in stark contrast to methadone maintenance therapy, which few addicts ever fully recover from, even after decades of treatment. A Swiss national referendum in 1997 saw 71 per cent of the population come out in favour of continuing the trial. Clearly the Swiss have found that hordes of desperate heroin addicts will not descend upon their country the instant a trial is initiated. Indeed the Swiss have found that crime has decreased as users are not forced to become criminals to support their habit.Given all of this evidence and support for the trial, what happened? What incredible purveyor of knowledge was more authoritative than all of these experts, politicians, doctors, lawyers and scientists? What amazing all-powerful force could outweigh the evidence gathered by years of studying, compiling, fasting and contemplation? Our Prime Minister was listening to the likes of John Laws and Alan Jones when he made his decision. He had a health minister, Dr Wooldridge, who was telling him it should go ahead. He had the entire Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy telling him this was a good idea. He had the bipartisan support of a number of leading political figures, not to mention the support of countless doctors and treatment professionals. Apparently none of this stood up to the scrutiny of a minority of prominent media figures with dubious qualifications and a bigoted understanding of the issues.While Laws and Jones launched a misinformed and misguided scare campaign against the trial on the airwaves, the Daily Telegraph followed suit in the print media. On 2 August a photo of ministers from the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy appeared under the heading `Drug pedlars in business suits'. On 18 August an editorial from the same paper referred to `the contentious, morally indefensible and profoundly evil heroin trial'. I find it particularly disturbing that the Daily Telegraph seems to have put itself up as the guardian of public morality. It will be a sad day in Australian history when a tabloid newspaper is the guardian of the moral fabric which binds our society, and it was rather presumptuous of the Telegraph to assume that role.However, the Prime Minister was significantly swayed by the media storm that erupt ed in response to the heroin trial proposal. With Dr Wooldridge out of the country and the Thredbo disaster a high priority, Mr Howard wavered under increasing pressure to abandon the trial. On 19 August federal cabinet released a statement indicating that it would not support the heroin trial, so years of research and expert recommendations were overturned after a media smear campaign that lasted a mere couple of weeks. Mr Howard rejected all of the recommendations placed before him. In doing so, he dashed the hopes and dreams of families and friends of heroin users throughout the country who had been eagerly awaiting a new treatment option that might eventually offer a lifeline to their loved ones. Even more cruelly, he offered no alternative on which they could pin their hopes for the future.There are a number of new treatment options worthy of further examination in the Australian context. The drug naltrexone has been trialled overseas with very positive results and is currently being used in a number of Australian treatment facilities. Naltrexone has so far been linked primarily with the controversial ultra-rapid detoxification technique but has also been used in more conventional forms of maintenance therapy. Naltrexone blocks a person's opiate receptors so that the administration of an opiate has no effect. A patient on maintenance therapy with naltrexone would therefore be unable to obtain a high from injecting heroin. This helps people come to terms with their psychological addiction, even after the physical symptoms have gone.A number of private treatment facilities have already incorporated naltrexone as a fundamental part of their treatment regime. Despite this, the government is yet to acknowledge its potential as an alternative treatment option for Australian heroin users. It is very difficult to take the Prime Minister's commitment to social policy seriously when he has failed to respond to a huge medical breakthrough that has the potential to make a big difference for heroin users and their families.In addition, existing treatment facilities are seriously underfunded and are struggling to provide even the most basic of support services to participants. One would assume that counselling services should be made available to all people trying to come to terms with a serious addiction, but the reality is that many of those on the methadone program continue to be maintained without proper counselling, guidance or supervision. There simply are not enough services to go around, and the Prime Minister seems unwilling to institute a reallocation of resources to fill the gaps.So the dubious history of drug legislation in Australia continues in the 1990s along the same path it embarked upon in the early 1900s. Once again a section of the population has been marginalised and demonised to the point where the government can justify legislating against them instead of for them. In Australia today, heroin addicts are seen as a threat to the moral and social fabric; their lifestyle is completely alien to the understanding of most everyday Australians. Will we legislate against them, punishing them for their difference? Or will we legislate for them, with the ultimate aim of helping them and integrating them back into the community? The decision is now ours to take, and I trust we will consider it carefully.The politics of this issue is a constant frustration to those dealing with heroin use. Families of heroin users and those in the treatment field need help now to address the problem, and the intricacies of party politics are just another barrier. I recently attended a national remembrance ceremony for people who have lost their lives through drug use, and let me assure you that the message there was one of unity, not one of politics. People expect us as their elected representatives to address the issues that are worrying them the most, and this is one of them. I therefore advocate a bipartisan approach to addressing the issue. This is a wide-ranging social problem that affects all Australians, and as their elected representatives we have a duty to work together to find a solution. The Prime Minister must learn to listen and become responsive to the needs of the Australian people. But first he must learn to listen to his own colleagues.It is Mr Howard's responsibility to bring drug law reform back onto the political agenda in Australia. The Australian people are looking to him for leadership and some plausible answers to this most debilitating problem that is stealing our children and threatening the very future of our society. Personally, I think Australia deserves better than John Howard. But since the Australian people are counting on him, I hope he is serious about his commitment to social policy and decides to reconsider his stance—not only on the heroin trial but also with regard to other alternative treatments.We do not need a Prime Minister who is trying to win votes by declaring that he is tough on drugs. We need a Prime Minister who can look at the facts objectively and then respond with courage to the needs of the Australian people. While many heroin users supported the trial, it is not the free drugs that they were after. A young girl in an inner city treatment facility made this clear to me last year when she said:I want more than free heroin from my life. I actually want to be happy and accomplish things.Don't we all?18:28:00674McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—The Senate is considering the address-in-reply. The motion reads:May it please Your Excellency:We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.I sincerely hope that is the last time that I will be addressing a motion such as that. I say that in the knowledge that some time next year there will be a referendum in Australia on whether or not this country shall become a republic. I have great confidence that that referendum will be carried and that, following that referendum, Australia will indeed become a republic. It is my fervent hope that that will occur prior to the next election. So when the opening of parliament next occurs, it will be `the President' or a person by some other name who will open this parliament and make the address which the parliament will then be pleased to receive and to thank His or Her Excellency for.I do have great faith, and even greater faith following the Constitutional Convention which was held in Canberra earlier this year, attended by some 148 people—some of whom were elected and some of whom were appointed—who came down with recommendations on the direction in which Australia should go. I was not a supporter of the convention in the first instance, and certainly not a supporter of the appointment of people to the convention. I was not a supporter of the method of election of those who were elected to the convention. I think that, with the benefit of hindsight, those people who determined the methods of election would not have been quite so supportive of them had they known what the results were going to be. It is common knowledge now in my state of Western Australia that the representatives of the Australian Republican Movement significantly won the poll in that state under a voluntary voting method, and I am pleased to have made some small contribution to that success as a public representative of that state. The people whom we elected to come over to the convention from Western Australia made eminent contributions. One of them, a most significant individual, has since been elected as the member for Cowan and sits in the other place as the people's representative from that electorate in Western Australia. I am referring to Graham Edwards—the Hon. Graham Edwards, as he was a minister in a previous Western Australian government.I make note of the address-in-reply out of courtesy to the parliament, because that is the motion before the chamber, but also I wish to use this opportunity to pay tribute to another great republican—but one who was also a great royalist—who unfortunately passed away on 2 October 1998. I am referring to Albert John Marks, or Jack Marks, or, as he was more commonly known, Marksy. Marksy was a republican. All his life, and certainly during the life I knew him, he was a republican. He was a royalist merely because he supported the East Perth Football Club, whose nickname was the Royals. So he had this dichotomy in life, which he didn't have a problem in explaining to people, and we were quite happy from time to time to remind him of the fact that he was indeed a royalist as well. He took it in good humour, but not always without an argument. If there was one thing in life that Jack really enjoyed, it was a good, forceful argument.Jack Marks was an extraordinary individual and I owe him more than I think I owe any other human being other than my immediate family. He probably is the person mostly to blame—or mostly to credit, depending on which way you look at it—for my presence in this parliament. Certainly it was his oratory that convinced me to not only become a member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union and on the same occasion become shop steward for that organisation in a place called Dillingham Shipyards, in Fremantle, Western Australia, but also to do so at a time when I was actually a member of the Australasian Society of Engineers. So it was a rapid introduction into the Australian trade union movement. Jack was a mentor in my life, as a member of the union, as a branch official, as a shop steward and as a conference delegate at both state and federal levels.While he was a mentor and a father figure in many respects, he was also a very great mate and a very great confidant in times when a young, brash individual needed some guidance and needed some advice. He would certainly give that to me. He provided an enormous amount of support and wisdom, and indeed advice, at the time of my first marriage breaking up. For a time, he and I shared accommodation—bachelors together, both of whom had a penchant for red wine, and many other things.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Is that where you got your ties from?1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—At that time I used to be pretty tieless, but I still enjoyed the red wine. Jack was, as I said, an amazing individual. It was his oratory ability and his lifestyle that encouraged me to get involved in politics in Australia. My involvement in the union movement started first; my political involvement started afterwards, and both he and another official of the later Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, Harold Peden, were both members of the Communist Party of Australia, where I started my political thinking in this country.I actually left the Communist Party before Jack did. It was something that I discussed with him at the time because I was frustrated by where it was going, and indeed his frustrations were brought to bear but he felt it was not the time for him to leave the party. He gave me great encouragement in joining the Australian Labor Party after a space of time, and he himself joined the Labor Party later on in life. Had he joined before or around the time that I had joined, perhaps he might have been, as Kim Beazley said in the oratory at his remembrance celebration in Hyde Park, a Premier of WA. Nothing was beyond Jack Marks. He lives very fondly in my memory.We also have a living reminder of Jack Marks which shows the benefit of his persuasiveness. One afternoon, around 15 years ago, my present wife, Jackie, and her children were called over to his place in Stirling Street, Highgate, where he told us of a pending overseas trip to the United States. Jack had a cat, and his cat had kittens, and he convinced the children that they could save at least one of those kittens.I do not, and did not at that time, have a love of cats, but I—and Jackie as well—got lumbered with this black furry thing which we called AJ after Albert Jack Marks. That cat is still with us. It is a very fussy cat. It does not share Jack's love of red wine, but it certainly shares his love of contrariness and can, in its own way, be particularly argumentative—to a certain extent, it has the characteristics of my mate Jack. He has gone, but his memory lives on.I have spoken briefly about his trade union involvement and some of his political involvement. He finished his life as a very active citizen of Western Australia. He became the first mayor of the town of Vincent in Western Australia, a town which evolved after the metropolitan area of the city of Perth was broken up to form four different municipalities. Jack made enormous contributions during his life—in his personal life to his family and his loved ones, and to the trade union movement and workers generally right around Australia.Jack was one of the individuals targeted by the then Premier of Western Australia in 1979 when he was arrested with Laurie Carmichael at the airport and charged under the infamous section 54B of the Police Act—an action which the government later very much regretted because the whole of Australia was brought to a standstill on a number of occasions as the working people defended their right to meet with more than three people at a time without having to ask for police permission.Jack made that contribution, and I was very pleased to be at the memorial ceremony in Hyde Park, just opposite where he lived, on 9 October 1998 to share with his family and other loved ones the memory of a very remarkable man. He was one of a kind, the champion of the battlers, and a man who could break bread with either prince or pauper. As the tribute to him that was distributed on the day said, he had an irreverent sense of humour and there was no bulldust about him.This was so even on his deathbed. I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to visit him in his final days. When the doctor revived him, he abused the doctor and said, `Don't you ever do that again. You've got enough film in the can. You're not filming Ben-Hur.' The doctor said he would not do it. That was the end of the life of Jack Marks, but his memory lives on.18:40:00676Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I want to respond to the speech by His Excellency the Governor-General on the occasion of the opening of the 39th Parliament on 10 November 1998. The Governor-General touched on a number of subjects and developed themes on others. The topics included economic challenges, a new tax system, reform in the community context, jobs and workplaces, our future generations, and so on. The address-in-reply looked to the future. It is interesting that it should do so, because a challenge is before the Australian people at the moment as to how we go into the future.When the Governor-General spoke of a new tax system, he was speaking about the new tax system put forward by the coalition. Central to that new tax system is the goods and services tax. How new is the concept of a goods and services tax? How new is the concept of a tax on consumption? I will read from a work by Thomas Paine, a great thinker in the 18th century. I will read from his work The Rights of Man.Thomas Paine made two contributions in the work that is now called The Rights of Man. The one I will quote from is from 1792—well over 200 years ago. He was talking about taxes. This is what he had to say about taxes over 200 years ago. People might agree or disagree with what Thomas Paine said at that point in time, but what is clear is that he was talking about it over 200 years ago, and so to call the goods and services tax a new tax system is hardly accurate. Thomas Paine said:Notwithstanding taxes have increased and multiplied upon every article of common consumption, the land-tax, which more particularly affects this `pillar,' has diminished. In 1788, the amount of the land-tax was £1,950,000, which is half a million less than it produced almost a hundred years ago, notwithstanding the rentals are in many instances doubled since that period.Just to put that in context, he was saying there were two forms of taxes: there was land tax, which fell upon those who had landed estates—in those days the aristocrats—and there was a tax on consumption. What Thomas Paine was complaining about was that the taxes on the aristocrats were diminishing and those on consumption, which hit the poor, were increasing. He went on to say:Before the coming of the Hanoverians, the taxes were divided in nearly equal proportions between the land and articles of consumption, the land bearing rather the largest share: but since that era, nearly thirteen millions annually of new taxes have been thrown upon consumption. The consequence of which has been a constant increase in the number and wretchedness of the poor, and in the amount of the poor-rates. Yet here again the burden does not fall in equal proportions on the aristocracy with the rest of the community. Their residences, whether in town or country, are not mixed with the habitations of the poor. They live apart from distress, and the expense of relieving it. It is in manufacturing towns and labouring villages that those burdens press the heaviest; in many of which it is one class of poor supporting another.Thomas Paine is showing that through the tax system, and through taxes being thrown onto consumption, the effect is that those who are most able to bear the burden of paying money for the proper running of the country are relieved of that obligation and those who are least able to do it, the poor, have it cast upon them. When in this address that the Governor-General gave to parliament it is said that there will be a new tax system, and when it is remembered that a central feature of that new tax system is the consumption tax, on reflection it hardly fits the description of a new tax system.Not only that, what is pointed out in the Rights of Man by Thomas Paine is that, for the relief of those in distress, money is needed and if that money is taken from those who can least afford it there is an injustice. That is quite clearly the case not only in the 1790s but in the 1990s in Australia. There will be a lot of discussion over the next few months about taxes and there will be plenty of opportunity for me to address that issue again. I repeat that it is not a new tax, it is an old tax going back centuries, and a tax which over 200 years ago was condemned for the defects it had then—and there are holes now.Another thing I want to talk about is that there is stress again and again in the economic policies pursued by this government and pursued not only by this government but by many people in the corporate sector which requires that expenses be cut, that employment be shed and that the interest that we should all have, according to this philosophy, is in the bottom line and nothing else. That again is not a new concept. I go this time to one of our own great authors, Banjo Paterson, Andrew Barton Paterson, who said in a poem that was published in the Bulletinon 20 December 1890, well over a hundred years ago—HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—I like the poem A Bush Christening .SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—This is On Kyley's Run , Senator Woodley. I think it is set in Queensland. A lot of his poems were set in Queensland.Debate interrupted.Documents677UNKNOWNThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—Order! I am sorry to interrupt you, Senator, as you were about to burst forth into verse. It being 6.50 p.m., I now move to the consideration of government documents.67818:50:00678McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I received this document only today and I find it to be an enthralling document, and also one that is particularly useful because of the number of letters that I am receiving in my electorate office and indeed the few letters that I am receiving in the parliamentary office. Let me in the first instance refer to the letters I am receiving. I am grateful for them because they have helped me make up my mind as to how I am going to vote on the proposed 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—You haven't made up your mind recently.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—I note that Senator Macdonald is here. He looks so much like Noel Crichton-Browne it is amazing. Senator Macdonald has prompted me to declare that indeed I am a member of a private health fund. If there is a pecuniary interest I declare it at this point in time.The letters did help me make up my mind. The fact is that the health funds went to some lengths—and I am particularly referring to the documentation that originated from the Hospital Benefit Fund in Western Australia that was sent to all their members to be sent on to me and other members of parliament—to encourage us to vote for the proposed 30 per cent reduction. I have looked at my own personal private health insurance in the past to see whether I could continue to afford to pay for it. I have examined that and tossed up whether, taking all risks into account, I could continue to support it.Obviously, a fund such as HBF wants as many people as possible to remain in it. I wonder if I would want the taxpayer to come in with such a subsidy in what is essentially a private enterprise field. That is where this particular report comes to help me, because it tells me that the private health insurance funds are in very serious decline and have been so for quite a period of time. This has all been happening as the contributions that I have been paying as a personal member of the funds have been increasing dramatically over the years. Indeed, as this report tells us, they have gone up by seven per cent in the last financial year, the year to which it refers. That is talking about the funds overall.Membership has declined. Now just over 30 per cent of the population has private insurance. The Medibank Private fund—which comes up later in the papers list—has actually increased membership in the year. I suppose that might be attributable to all of the advertising that it does and to the $118.29 per person that it spends in servicing each member. I also note that, despite the dramatic decline in membership and the enormous pressures that appear to be on the health insurance funds throughout Australia, this particular document tells me on page 16:Management expenses for the year ended 30 June 1998 were $540 million representing a 1.9% increase over the prior year amount.I find it extraordinary, when the funds are in such diabolical trouble, that their management costs are increasing. If the largest fund is actually increasing its management in a period when the overall fund numbers are declining, where is the money going? How is it being spent? Who is benefiting from it?My initial thought when this proposal was mooted in the election was that this would be a lovely subject for a parliamentary committee inquiry. After the decision earlier today I am not going to move down that track—I think there are enough inquiries under way—but that is the way I would really like to go: to have the health funds and the health fund directors come in front of a parliamentary committee and tell us how they are spending their money.I would also like to have Australian Medical Association representatives, who wrote to me today in Canberra offering me some submissions to support their proposal, in front of us and justify the costs that their members charge. I refer in particular to gap fees. People take out medical insurance and pay for the insurance but that does not pay the overall hospital bill. Where does the extra money go? Where do the gap funds go? That is why I would like to see a parliamentary inquiry into this whole issue. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.67918:57:00679Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This is the annual report of the Department of Industry, Science and Resources Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee. It is on one of my favourite topics, as you may know. This is a particularly welcome report, setting out the activities of the GMAC, a non-statutory body responsible for overseeing the development and use of novel genetic manipulation techniques in this country. The scope of GMAC is:. . . any experiment involving the construction and/or propagation of viroids, viruses, cells or organisms of novel genotype produced by genetic manipulation which are either unlikely to occur in nature, or likely to pose a hazard to public health or the environment.The GMAC issues guidelines which it hopes will be followed. These include procedures to be followed by institutions and researchers intending to undertake genetic manipulation work, and details for containment facilities. The problem with the GMAC is that it is not a body which is backed by legislation. In fact, it has terms of reference to oversee the development and use of genetic manipulation techniques and advise the minister about this. It is a good idea without teeth and another example of the government's present notions that regulation by voluntary compliance is satisfactory. Sadly, there is no compulsion about this whole scheme and that is its fundamental weakness.When it comes to self-regulation—despite their best intentions—voluntary codes always hide the potential activities of disreputable organisations and disguise the fact that there is no guarantee of protection. Without compulsion through clearly stated guidelines and legislated rules, there will not be the certainty or the confidence necessary for the broader community to accept this technology—and that it is acting in their best interests—or to take up its beneficial parts.This is not about uninformed criticism. Genetic technology is very new and likely to have a huge impact on our community. I hope it will bring about improved health care in the way we have already seen cloned insulin and other drugs radically improve lives. However, I also want to be sure we do not end up with the less desirable aspects of this technology.I am a keen advocate of government involvement in industries to try to set out the regulatory framework necessary to get Australian industry going. We have seen a good start on this by the new minister in the regulation of space activities. We have had a welcome recognition of this from the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, and I hope we will have the same response from the government about gene technology.In a press release dated 30 October 1997 the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and the Minister for the Environment said that there is hope for positive changes. This press release proclaims new regulation for gene technology:The Federal Government has decided to introduce a package of measures designed to provide appropriate regulation of gene technology.I look forward to this legislation.As part of this proposal I believe we will establish a Gene Technology Office to undertake a number of functions presently undertaken by GMAC. I hope the powers of this office will include uniform, comprehensive and compulsory risk assessments together with effective mechanisms to enforce the GTO decisions.I have a number of concerns about the release of genetically modified organisms. Many of the cells and organisms that are being subjected to genetic manipulation have near relatives in the environment that are able, under ideal conditions, to incorporate modified genetic materials. Once a gene has been incorporated into a population of cells or organisms then that gene will form part of the gene pool for that cell or organism. For example, some of Australia's major seed crops have closely related weeds that infest those crops with similar life cycles so that genetic material is at a high risk of entering the weed population through pollen transfer. If the crop has a herbicide resistant gene and the related weed infests that crop then there is a good chance that the resistant gene will enter the weed gene pool because of the selective pressure applied by the herbicide which will select for herbicide resistant weeds.There are real risks associated with this new technology and we need to have the regulatory mechanisms to deal with this. GMAC has been a good organisation to start this process, despite my concerns, which are reflected by a number of groups in the community. I suspect that some broader social and environmental issues may have been subsumed by obfuscation of scientific evidence and the selective claims of particular interest groups. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.68019:03:00680Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This report of the Productivity Commission's independent safeguards inquiry, titled Pig and Pigmeat Industries: Safeguard Action Against Imports—report No. 3 , into imported frozen pork was handed to the Treasurer on 13 November and has now been released publicly following tabling in the Senate today. The inquiry was held to determine whether the WTO safeguards action is warranted against imports of certain frozen pig meat and also to report on the factors affecting the profitability and competitiveness of domestic pig farming and pork processing industries.The Productivity Commission has made a number of findings that will need to be considered carefully by the government, including attributing injury to the impact of increased imports and the finding of a temporary measure to remedy that injury. The options include a temporary import tariff, but the Productivity Commission seriously ques tions whether a tariff is the most appropriate means of remedying serious injury and facilitating adjustment in the Australian pig meat industry. The Productivity Commission is of the view that fixing the current injury and facilitating adjustment is better targeted with a combination of direct assistance to those forced to leave the industry and appropriate short-term assistance to facilitate an expansion of export capacity.The Senate would be well aware of the range of government assistance that has been provided to this very important industry. The $19 million pork industry adjustment package has been settled over the last 12 months or so and includes a $10 million National Pork Industry Development Program, an $8 million Pigmeat Processing Grants Program that aims to stimulate investment in the processing sector and $1 million under FarmBis for a notional skills enhancement training initiative for pork producers. Funding approvals under the $10 million National Pork Industry Development Program commenced in July 1998 and to date some $2.8 million have been approved by the government for projects in the production, processing and retail sectors.There is much work to be done, but in response to the Productivity Commission report the government will be consulting with representatives of the pig meat industry and all other interested parties in developing the best and most useful response. This inquiry is the first safeguards inquiry Australia has undertaken under the new rules that came into operation under the WTO in 1995. It is being closely watched by our trading partners. The outcome of the inquiry will be notified to the World Trade Organisation and we will also consult with Canada as the major supplier prior to responding to the report.The pig meat industry is a big and vital industry, especially for many family farmers right across the country. Times have been very difficult. I am aware of that. However, exports are growing. They are up 80 per cent this financial year. The industry is working to restructure itself. Assistance has been given by the government, with more to come. We will look at a further response as a result of the report of the Productivity Commission. We said it would be tabled immediately it was provided to the government, and it has been. It makes some interesting suggestions and it acknowledges the very constructive role the government has played in this very important and widespread industry.19:08:00681Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I also wish to speak on the Productivity Commission report into the pig and pig meat industries. I agree with some of the remarks that Senator Sandy Macdonald has made; in fact, I probably agree with most of them. But I say that the government is going to have to do more than it is projecting at the present time. There is no doubt that the Productivity Commission has found that the influx of cheap imports from Canada and Denmark has caused serious injury to the Australian pork industry. We knew that; we knew it months ago. Yet the government, despite having a number of reports which told it that, decided to commission another report, which told it the same thing again.There is no doubt that the Productivity Commission found that safeguard action is justified under World Trade Organisation criteria. Those criteria allow for a quota, a tariff quota or a tariff to remedy serious injury caused by imports. It is quite clear that I cannot read out all of the report but, so that the Senate will not be in any doubt about what the report says, let me just read into the record one or two very important paragraphs. Under `Serious injury' it reads:Although there are no hard and fast rules for determining serious injury, the Commission considers that for the first half of 1998, the loss of market share, decline in price and reduced profitability recorded by the industry constitute serious injury in terms of the WTO Safeguards Agreement.That follows a paragraph which says that serious injury was undoubtedly caused by imports. I will read a little more into the record. It says:The Commission has examined a wide range of factors which may have contributed to the injury described above and has concluded that increased imports were the dominant cause of low pig prices and reduced profitability.There is no doubt about it. They are quite unequivocal and they nail their colours to the mast. We now know what I think most people in the pig industry knew months ago. The opposition parties, and the Democrats as part of that, have been urging the government to take action.After this delay, as we consult and get more reports which continue to tell us what we know, I urge the government to really take action at this time. There is no point our continuing to allow an industry to hang by its fingernails while we consult more people when we know exactly what the cause of injury is and in fact we have, under the WTO criteria, the action that we can take. The Democrats want immediate action now that the Productivity Commission has cleared any hurdles to implementing safeguard action for the pork industry. I put on the record what the Pork Council itself has said with regard to what it believes the government should do:A temporary tariff quota is the most appropriate measure for the industry. We will be calling on the Government to implement the tariff quota system proposed by the industry.They are not asking for something outside of the WTO; they are simply asking that the appropriate action, which is within the WTO guidelines, be applied at this time. I call on the government to do that immediately. There is no need for any further consultation, reports or commissions of inquiry—what we want is some political action. The federal government must immediately implement a tariff quota on pork imports so that Australian families and Australian pork farmers can benefit from the Christmas peak in demand. We want immediate action, because this Christmas we want Australians to be eating Aussie ham and not imported ham. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.68119:12:00681Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.In the context of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner annual report for 1997-98, I note that indigenous people in the Northern Territory, specifically at Kakadu, have had a very significant victory today. Just hours ago the UNESCO World Heritage Committee released its report on its investigation into the Jabiluka uranium mine. This was a high-level team of scientists who came to Kakadu last month to consider whether on environmental and cultural grounds the Kakadu world heritage area should be placed on the world heritage endangered list. This report unambiguously says that it should. The government has been humiliated and disgraced by this report, and the Democrats will be calling on the Minister for the Environment and Heritage in the Senate tomorrow to trigger the World Heritage Act to issue a proclamation and, on gazettal—which can be done in 24 hours, I understand—make a determination to stop the mine. The report says:After assessing the information made available to the mission in the background documents and stakeholder submissions and through site visits and overflights, the mission has concluded that Kakadu National Park is exposed to a number of serious threats which are placing it under both ascertained and potential danger.That comes as no surprise to the Democrats, and I don't think it will be a surprise to the 60 per cent and more of Australians who think we should not be mining uranium within or even near a world heritage area. And it will come as no surprise to the Mirra people from the Northern Territory, who have been fighting this mine because of the damage it will do to their ancient culture. They do not want the mine and, contrary to what Senator Hill says, it has brought no benefits to Aboriginal people in Jabiru or to the surrounding area. It is a disgrace that the minister has been saying that this mine poses no threat to Kakadu. He has let the mining company proceed on that basis and he has ignored the science and the scientists, conservationists and ordinary Australians.The report noted the serious concerns and preoccupations expressed by some of Australia's most eminent scientists as to the unacceptably high degree of scientific uncertainties relating to the Jabiluka mine design, tailings disposal and possible impacts on catchment ecosystems. The report singles out Environment Australia for their failure to properly present the environmental issues. One wonders whether this might have been at the orders of the minister. The minister must now trigger the World Heritage Act by issuing a proclamation over the area. This can of course go to the Governor-General and be completed within 24 hours. Then the minister is able to issue the determination.The report also states that there are unacceptably high levels of scientific uncertainty, lack of participation, negotiation and communication with traditional owners. There are negative regional and socio-cultural impacts of this development on Aboriginal people. The report recommends that we should rescind the Koongarra Project Area Act 1981 to change the boundaries to accommodate a mine at Koongarra. The report also says that there has been a breakdown in trust with indigenous Australians.The commission is of the view that it is incumbent on the Australian government to recognise the special relationship of the Mirra to their land and their rights to participate in decisions that affect them. The report says that the Australian government should reconsider the status of the 1982 agreement and the 1991 transfer to ownership to ensure maintenance of the fundamental rights of traditional owners. The commission concluded:The existence of sacred sites, dreaming sites, and trails and other areas of particular spiritual significance to the Aboriginal people were not fully considered in the course of establishing:(1) the original boundaries of the Jabiluka lease;(2) the mine construction site;(3) the boundaries of the areas identified as significant by the Australian Heritage Commission; and(4) the boundaries of the World Heritage Area.I suggest this report is a victory for commonsense and a deep humiliation for a government which cares more about the short-term dollar than for the environment or for its reputation on the international stage.Question resolved in the affirmative.682The following government documents were considered and not debated:Australian Institute of Marine Science—Report for 1997-98. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Hogg. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Hogg in continuation. Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited—Statement of corporate intent, August 1998. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Woodley. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Woodley in continuation.Health Insurance Commission—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.Remuneration Tribunal—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.Wet Tropics Management Authority—Report for 1997-98. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Woodley. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Woodley in continuation.Adjournment68310000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being nearly 7.20 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.68319:18:00683McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—As the Senate would be aware, there has been a resurgence of student demonstrations in Indonesia which left 14 dead at the hands of the army and hundreds wounded. Now, with the news this week of Muslim mobs attacking Christian churches and lynching Christians, it is fair evidence to what degree our neighbouring country has disintegrated. Indonesia's economic and political turmoil is a legacy of the Suharto regime. In a short space of time the Indonesian facade, which the Australian government has hailed for 20 years or more, has disintegrated into a poverty stricken country on the political precipice.It is true to say that much of Australia's thinking over those years was designed to avoid the consequences of an archipelago with the multitude of ethnic communities and religions at war with each other, the consequences of which are obvious. The cornerstone of Australia's foreign policy towards Indonesia over the last 20 years plus has been designed to avoid this possibility. Our foreign policy therefore gravitated to the Suharto regime, which it was believed would deliver a politically and economically secure Indonesia. But, like all good foreign policies based on self-interest, a balance is needed. And on any analysis, Australia lost its balance.Within a generation, the policy has been shown to be a failure. Australia too frequently turned a blind eye to the corruption and only whispered its dissent to human rights abuses. For all this neighbourly bonding we saw nothing coming—not the economic, social or political collapse. The foreign policy we spent decades manicuring can hardly be said to have built up any useful insight into Indonesia. For all the achievements the department of foreign affairs would claim from their softly, softly relationship over the past 20 years, the lack of achievement has been greater. Just look at today's results. The truth is that the Suharto regime ploughed on regardless, without meaningful political, social or economic reform.Now that fundamentally the power of the day has gone up in smoke, Australia's foreign policy requires a new approach to deal with the new circumstances. Ironically, given the precarious situation Indonesia finds itself in, a softly, softly approach is more relevant now than it was then. I accept that we must understand the dilemma the new government finds itself in. On one hand, law and order must be preserved and minorities protected from the street rioters; on the other hand, the military presence on the street must be kept from turning into brutal repression. Provided the new government of Indonesia is moving towards major reform, we should understand their dilemma and tailor our responses accordingly. Yet this is no time, nor any excuse, to diminish any effort to resolve the East Timor question. In fact, it has never been more timely for Australia to reassess its foreign policy regarding East Timor.I urge a reassessment involving a stronger stance for a free East Timor—one that is more aligned to the international community and, more particularly, the United Nations. All the old arguments used to sustain Indonesia's occupation of East Timor are now either well and truly outdated or irrelevant to the emerging Indonesia of today. For exam ple, the claim that Indonesia's invasion and continued occupation has been necessary to prevent a little Cuba developing can no longer stand. Perhaps in 1975, at the height of the Cold War, this had some validity. With the end of the Cold War, the tagging of East Timor as a little Cuba can no longer be justified. Another example is the claim that the Portuguese were `lousy colonisers' who are now just in it for themselves and therefore have no right to reclaim their colony. This has been debunked by the fact that Portugal does not seek to recolonise. Rather, they are pushing for a free East Timor at the United Nations—at the request of the East Timorese.I believe the following steps are needed to increase pressure on the Indonesian government to accelerate a resolution of the East Timor question. First, support East Timorese participation at the United Nations-sponsored peace talks between Portugal and Indonesia. Second, Australia should offer to play a greater financial and administrative role in the United Nations-sponsored peace talks. Third, Australia should establish a consulate in East Timor which would enhance the monitoring of human rights abuses. Fourth, Australia should forge closer relations with the Portuguese government thereby dispelling the international perception that Australia may have a biased approach to the East Timor question. Fifth, seek the release of Xanana Gusmao. Sixth, maintain, into the foreseeable future, the suspension of military exercises with the Indonesian armed forces. This would maintain the pressure for meaningful progress on the Indonesian government. Seventh, support an Indonesian-Australian inquiry into the 1975 deaths of the five Australian journalists at Balibo. Those responsible must be brought to account for their crimes, as much for the sake of the families as for Australia's own code of justice.I concede that if Australia were to do any immediate backflip on its foreign policy towards East Timor, it could definitely confuse the Indonesians and, perhaps, even create a hostile neighbour. So I am not asking for a backflip or a great leap of change in our foreign policy. But I believe, for the reasons I have given, that we need a definite shift in our foreign policy.68419:25:00684Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I thank Senator McGauran for making some very interesting remarks. Tonight I would like to talk briefly about banking services, local government and regional Australia. On 20 June 1996 the Treasurer, Peter Costello, told the House of Representatives that:If there is any suggestion of anti-competitive activity or collusion in fees and charges, the government does have the option of referring the matter to the relevant body, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. And we will take that action if necessary, or if any information arises of inadequate competition in that area of products as well.Yesterday, in response to calls for the government to take action on what seems to be exponentially increasing bank fees, Senator Rod Kemp said:Bank customers can maximise the benefits of competition by actively shopping around for the best products, services and prices to satisfy their needs.It seems that these two statements, at worst, directly contradict each other and, at best, seem completely different. The latest line from the government seems to be that if customers are not happy with bank fees, bank closures and loss of services around the country, then they should simply swap banks.This government—or, certainly, Senator Kemp in relation to the remarks he made—clearly has no real understanding of the terrible impact of bank closures on regional Australian communities. Many people in regional Australia now have no choice at all when it comes to banking, which makes the concept of shopping around a bit senseless. More and more communities are losing their basic banking services, and the Prime Minister simply mouths platitudes of sympathy whilst no action is taken.Regional Australians can only be offended by the Prime Minister's statement to the National Farmers Federation last night, reported in the Australian Financial Review today. He said:Another matter I want to acknowledge is the great concern in rural Australia about the disappearance of services. Some of these services, the loss of them, has been very painful, and some of it is unavoidable and some is irreversible.The final insult was his claim that he was:very conscious of the concern within rural Australia about the presence of bank branches.I would interpolate there the `lack' of presence of bank branches. Under the Howard government in 1997-98 we have seen approximately 500 bank branches close. Yet the government still claims that customers can shop around and that competition will ultimately sort it out. But that clearly is not happening.One particularly significant sector that has expressed deep concern about continuing closures, particularly in the face of large profits for the banks, is local government. And those profits are enormous, as a number of senators have alluded to today. The big four earned a pre-tax profit of $6.29 billion this year. Perhaps this government has not heard clearly enough the message on banking which has been coming from local government over the last year. After all, it is clear from the tax package, which seeks to rid the Commonwealth of any direct relationship with local government, that councils and their communities do not seem to rate very highly on this government's agenda.The government has consistently ignored local government and clearly underestimates its importance to the community with regard to a range of issues. Despite the ongoing protestations from the Australian Local Government Association, the government has effectively washed its hands of any real responsibility and any national approach to local government by proposing to hand over responsibility for local government funding to the states—something which is regarded with deep trepidation, particularly by local councils in Victoria. They propose handing local government to the states with little, if any, consultation and no guarantee that funding will be improved, or even maintained, in the long term. There has not been a clear signal from the government with respect to that. It is also clear that the coalition has not yet listened to local government with regard to tax reform, and there is no indication that they will. But local government has expressed great concern about the continuing withdrawal of services from regional Australia. In fact, it has been voicing its concern for quite some time.In 1997, the General Assembly of Local Government, a gathering of over 700 councillors from around Australia, considered the issue of regional banking services. Earlier this year the Australian Local Government Association made a submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration inquiry into banking services in regional Australia. In its submission, the ALGA said:While government may not have a direct role in maintaining banking services, it has one in ensuring that the outcomes of commercial decisions of business reflect adequately the needs of rural Australia and take account of the intrinsic values of community and diversity.`Hear, Hear!' we all say. ALGA pointed out that the issue was a matter of both:. equity of access to services for those Australians whose circumstances dictate a life outside the major urban centres of the nation; and. Maintenance of the viability of rural local communities in the name of diversity and their intrinsic value.At the recent General Assembly of Local Government, which I was pleased to be able to attend, a motion on banking services was carried. That motion reads:The Australian Local Government Association calls on the Federal Government to obligate banks to return to providing banking services to towns throughout regional Australia, particularly in view of the large profits of the four major banks and the large number of towns that have lost banking services and the associated socioeconomic problems which have occurred as a result.The situation has got so serious—not just in regional Australia but in the cities as well—that local government in NSW seriously considered withdrawing some $4.4 billion worth of business from `recalcitrant banks' and depositing these revenues with community friendly financial institutions. So effectively they are considering voting with their feet. Local government has shown that it is very concerned about the effect bank closures have on its local communities, but this government does not seem to care. This government stands by while banks increase their fees and continue to close services.What are communities to do in these circumstances? Certainly, shopping around in many small towns where there is only one bank is, as I indicated, simply not an option. Once again, if the government actually did listen to local government it might get a few ideas. The General Assembly of Local Government also addressed what to do when banks do close. Their motion reads:The Australian Local Government Association calls upon the Federal Government to negotiate an agreement with the Australian Bankers Association to develop protocols concerning the closure of any bank, and in particular those branches located in rural and regional Australia. Such protocols take account of the social and economic impacts on communities, including:. Alternative Service Provision. Training in other banking techniques (telebanking, giro payments, ATM network development, links to Credit Union Partnership arrangements and such like);. Consideration of Agency/Joint Venture Service provision.Local government knows what happens when banks withdraw from communities. Appearing before the House of Representatives banking inquiry last year, a representative of the Tasmanian Local Government Association illustrated the impact very clearly. He said:Importantly, when people travel to larger centres to utilise their banking services, they also conduct other business there. There is a drop, therefore in consumer spending with local businesses in rural municipalities resulting in a loss of jobs and out-migration of households and businesses This would be likely to result in a reversal of any previous intentions to take out loans for investment in local business and thereby impeding development of small enterprises. Therefore, a loss or reduction in the full range of banking services could impede the viability of rural communities and place them in jeopardy.I do not think I could have put it better myself. Unlike this government, the Labor Party recognised the deleterious impact of bank closures on regional Australian communities. Prior to the election we thought long and hard about our policy development process and we committed to:. Develop a Charter of Regional Banking Responsibility to define the obligations to rural and remote communities which banks should reasonably be prepared to meet;. Encourage voluntary arrangements to provide banking services; and Ensure that through a Regional Banking Services Fund (contributed to by all licensed banks) services are maintained and restored where justifiable.We knew we were pretty much right on the button when the banks screamed the house down, particularly in relation to that latter point. Will the coalition match that? Will the coalition do anything about it? At the moment, despite the immense coverage that this issue is getting, nothing seems to be emanating from the government. We need action on this. Local government knows that government cannot just stand around and watch from the sidelines as local communities are hit by bank fee increases and bank closures. Why doesn't the government seem to understand this? We call on the government to take action in this regard.68619:35:00686Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I wish to expand on some of the points I made on Monday, 23 November 1998 concerning the critical issue of claims by the executive to the commercial-in-confidence ground for refusing to produce documents requested by the Senate. Senators will recall that in a tabling statement accompanying documents in response to a Return to Order, the Leader of the Government claimed that it was `in accord with Senate practice' that certain documents are withheld. Of course, such a claim is baseless. The Senate may decide at its discretion that certain documents should not be made public, but it is not at the discretion of the executive that such a decision is made. To do so is for the executive to usurp the crucial role of scrutiny of government that the Senate performs and that all parliaments perform as a democratic and public duty.It is time the Senate bit the bullet with respect to this issue. Recent academic, judicial and media comment all follow the same theme that members of the executive must not be able to ignore requests by upper houses for information with impunity. I will provide examples of such comment shortly. The point is that the climate is now right for a Senate challenge to such an arrogant use of executive power or, perhaps, to put it more correctly, such arrogant use of purported executive power, as it is not clear that refusal to produce documents in the face of a valid order by the Senate is within the constitutional power of the executive. We all know that the executive does exercise this power at present. My point is that they do it without authority.In their joint judgment in the recent High Court case of Egan v. Willis, Justices Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne described the relationship between the executive and the parliament as follows:A system of responsible government traditionally has been considered to encompass the means by which Parliament brings the Executive to account so that the Executive's primary responsibility in its prosecution of government is owed to Parliament. The point was made by Mill, writing in 1861, who spoke of the task of the legislature to watch and control the government: to throw the light of publicity on its acts. It has been said of the contemporary position in Australia that, whilst the primary role of Parliament is to pass laws, it also has important functions to question and criticise government on behalf of the people and that to secure accountability of government activity is the very essence of responsible government.That is about as unequivocal an endorsement that I could get for the position of myself and my party on this issue, and that endorsement is from the highest court of this country. This judgment sends a clear signal to the executive that it cannot simply ignore the structures set up by our constitution and its conventions for the proper and transparent conduct of government.Further judicial support comes from the unanimous judgment in the 1997 Lange case. Here the High Court directly addressed the issue of the reach of executive power in the following terms:Those provisions which prescribe the system of responsible government necessarily imply a limitation on legislative and executive power to deny the electors and their representatives information concerning the conduct of the Executive Branch of Government throughout the life of a Federal Parliament.Thus the court highlights a constitutional limitation on the power of the executive to withhold information from this house.In a valuable analysis of claims to commercial-in-confidence by the executive at federal level, Tom Brennan, a partner in Corrs Chambers Wesgarth, in a paper entitled `Undertakings of confidence by the Commonwealth: are there limits?' in 1998 argues that arrangements entered into by the executive that involve undertakings of confidence may be void as being beyond power. He says on this point:Where the information concerned is material to the operation of government, it is inconsistent with the responsibility of the Executive to the Parliament for the Executive to enter into enforceable obligations of confidence which would prevent such disclosures to the Parliament . . . The Executive does not have the power to enter into an obligation with such an effect.Brennan further suggests that `parliamentary privilege law would suggest that the executive could not refuse to comply with a requirement of either house that such information be provided'.It is therefore clear that the weight of legal analysis is in the corner of the Senate on this issue. Therefore, if the Labor Party's partisan interest in this issue—and that partisan interest is with their keeping one eye out for what might impede their own executive power when they get their turn in office—can be put aside for just a short time, this house would be on solid legal ground by imposing appropriate penalties for a repeat of the executive's contempt of the Senate as exemplified by its response to the return to order to which I have referred.But we would not only be acting soundly in a legal sense but also in the public good in enforcing accountability in the eyes of commentators and the public. In his column of 24 November 1998 in the Bulletin, for example, Laurie Oakes states:Executive control is a major reason for the decline in the status of Australian Parliaments. And it is a solid argument for not tampering with the system that allows the Senate to act as real parliaments should be holding governments accountable and subjecting their policies and actions to proper scrutiny . . . Only in the Senate—thanks to minor parties and Independents—is the power of a bloated executive ever challenged.Further, in an editorial in the Australian newspaper of 20 November 1998, the writer says of claims to commercial confidentiality:This defence is over-used by governments trying to avoid scrutiny and embarrassment and often represents arrogance of the first order: a democracy elects its representatives to act on behalf of the electorate as a whole, not of vested interests. The system requires the utmost transparency and direct accountability from its parliamentary representatives. Lack of transparency and limiting the capacity of Parliament to review government decisions weaken our democracy.Election results federally and in the states clearly reflect a desire by the Australian people to have independent upper houses that act as a check on the executive. But in order to carry out this desire of the people, upper houses must demand, and get, full disclosure on government dealings.Given the weight of opinion on this issue, and the recent experience in New South Wales, where only legal action would bring the executive to the table to resolve the issue, it is time for this house to send a clear signal to the federal executive that further defiance of Senate orders will result in the appropriate penalty being applied. It appears that only by such action will the Senate get the disclosure it needs to carry out its constitutionally and electorally ordained role.68819:43:00688Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—I rise tonight to pay tribute to a great Victorian and indeed a great Australian. I pay tribute to Sir John Buchan, community activist, business leader and political pillar. He was a civic leader in the true sense of the word; imbued with a sense of duty and altruism. He was a visionary. John Buchan left behind a wonderful legacy—a legacy that most people could not accumulate in a dozen lifetimes. There were many who knew him better and longer than I. That I knew him at all, and felt his support and patronage, is an honour and a privilege.There are many others who have paid Sir John Buchan more eloquent tributes than I can, but I am proud to say that, along with another great former Liberal Party president, Michael Kroger, Sir John agreed to be my referee for my preselection to this place on two occasions. I hope and pray that my contribution to the parliament will do him proud. I am honoured to be able to rise in this place to pay him tribute tonight.Sir John Buchan's achievements were many; his life dedicated to the service of other people. There were so many aspects to Sir John's life. He was undoubtedly a great architect and business leader, one who headed, for 40 years, what is today one of Australia's largest, oldest and most respected architectural practices.He had an indelible influence on Melbourne's landscape. He is credited with providing the catalyst and vision for Melbourne's great South Bank development—a vital and vibrant landmark that will be part of Melbourne for many generations to come. Under the auspices of the Soldier Settlement Scheme, he built over 2,000 homes across Victoria to house returned servicemen. The Stock Exchange building, the Russell Defence Complex here in Canberra, Jupiters Casino, shopping complexes and many other fine Victorian and Australian landmarks all bear Sir John's creative mark.He was co-founder of Apex Australia, with its origins in Geelong as the Geelong Young Businessmen's Club. It was formed in the shadow and pain of the First World War and the Great Depression. It was formed because of the compassion and vision of three friends. John Buchan was just 20 at the time. In his own words:It was post-depression. We felt we had jobs, albeit minor ones, and here was an opportunity to do something for young men by bringing them together in some form of fellowship and service.Apex's emblem, no doubt, is well known to all of us. The three equal sides represent the great qualities of citizenship, fellowship and service for others. The triangle and name represent the scaling of great heights and the rays are symbolic of the rising generation of youth. This emblem could well be a metaphor for John Buchan's life. Apex has gone on to become a national and an international institu tion dedicated to the service of others. Sir John did the same.John Buchan served his country with distinction in Greece, the Middle East and Africa during World War II, reaching the rank of captain. He served on the Melbourne City Council from 1954 to 1959 and had an important impact on town planning and local governance issues. He also served on the boards of the Royal Melbourne Hospital and La Trobe University.He went on to become President of the Victorian Liberal Party of Australia from 1958 to 1962 and then its Treasurer from 1962 to 1967. He counted amongst his close friends and confidants Sir Robert Menzies, Sir Henry Bolte and Lord Casey. He could pick up the telephone to Roosevelt and Nixon. He was critical in forging a strong and vibrant Liberal Party in Victoria.He loved all things American, not least his charming wife, Lady Virginia, and became state and then federal president of the Australian-American Association. In 1971 Sir John was knighted in recognition of his contribution to international relations, in particular between Australia and the USA. Sir John was always in for the long haul. Whether it was the Southbank project, which took over 20 years to come to fruition, or youth unemployment, Sir John did not allow any setback to diminish his enthusiasm or tenacity.Ted Baillieu provided a moving tribute to Sir John at his memorial service. With Sir John, Ted shares the distinction of being a great former president of the Victorian division, an architect and a Geelong Football Club supporter. Ted observed that if John Buchan was guilty of an obsession then it was his commitment to the next generation, his faith in the future, his trust in the young.Despite our mutual involvement in the Liberal Party, it was our mutual concern for the unemployed which forged our relationship. In 1984, two years after his retirement, Sir John founded the National Committee for Development of Youth Employment—a group that had as its members six knights, a major-general and six heads of some of Australia's biggest companies. It was typical of Sir John to draw on his business and political contacts for a worthy cause and in his mind there was no worthier cause than tackling youth unemployment. The committee did not shirk from the difficult questions and combined practical on-the-ground solutions with hard-hitting policy recommendations, not least among them calling for a review of youth wages and legalising voluntary work contracts. Back in the mid-1980s he talked of community service in return for the dole. His passion for the unemployed in his final years was JANA—Jobs A New Approach, established in country Victoria with Sir John ambitiously planning for a national expansion. JANA embraced all that Sir John believed in. It calls upon members of service clubs, who are so fortunate in life, to share their experience, time and skills with those less fortunate. Just as Sir John had mentored so many in his own life, he was challenging others to do the same.Sir John knew that we would only ever start to come to grips with unemployment when government, community and business worked together. In the past four years alone, there are over 500 young people who have jobs and hope, thanks to Sir John's vision, compassion and drive.Just weeks before his death, inevitably in the first week of the election campaign, I spoke with Sir John. We spoke naturally enough of politics and of the deservedness of another coalition victory. He encouraged me during a difficult personal and political time. As with every conversation we had, it turned to our mutual concern about unemployment. At 89 years of age, Sir John was still searching for ways to respond positively to the tragedy of youth unemployment and pondering what impact the forthcoming election would have on thousands of young people.Characteristically, we talked about who he should lobby next. No minister, Prime Minister, industry or community leader was immune from his phone calls or letters. The conversation with Sir John was typical of him—warm, encouraging, optimistic and a bit cheeky. Sir John may have retired from work but he never retired from life or from the service of his community. He was filled with an indomitable spirit and a great love for humanity. Sir John was a great man but, more importantly, he was a good man.Victoria lost a great leader and a great citizen with the passing of Sir John on 25 October, and those who were honoured to be part of his world, in some small way, will miss him greatly. To his gracious and beautiful wife, Lady Virginia, and to his children, Susan, Tom and Debbie, may I express my heartfelt sympathy. As one of the many tributes printed in newspapers around the country over the past month said, `Put simply, Buchan made Australia a better place in which to live.'19:52:00690Senate adjourned at 7.52 p.m.Documents690690The following government documents were tabled:Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act—Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Report for 1997-98.Australia Post—Statement of corporate intent 1998-99 to 2000-01.Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited—Statement of corporate intent, August 1998.Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act—Australian Security Intelligence Organization—Report for 1997-98—Erratum.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Reports for 1997-98— Australian Institute of Marine Science. Australian National Railways Commission (Australian National). Health Insurance Commission Act. Medibank Private.Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act—Equal employment opportunity program—Australian Broadcasting Corporation—Report for 1 September 1997 to 31 August 1998.Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee—Report for 1997-98.Medibank Private—Statement of corporate intent—1998-99 to 2000-01.National Health Act—Private Health Insurance Administration Council—Report for 1997-98 on the operations of the registered health benefits organisations.National Rail Corporation Agreement Act—National Rail Corporation Limited—Report for 1997-98.Productivity Commission Act—Productivity Commission—Report—No. 3—Pig and pigmeat industries: Safeguard action against imports, 11 November 1998.Remuneration Tribunal Act—Remuneration Tribunal—Report for 1997-98.Royal Australian Mint—Report for 1997-98.Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area Conservation Act—Wet Tropics Management Authority—Report for 1997-98.690The 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—Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.690The following document was tabled by the Clerk:Return for 1997-98 for— Bounty (Books) Act. Bounty (Computers) Act. Bounty (Machine Tools and Robots) Act. Bounty (Ships) Act.