1998-11-263911SENATE69101998-11-26The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.69110001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:69136GB6Collins Sen JacintaTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows that we are opposed to the National Competition Council Report proposals to deregulate Australia's postal service as they will drastically reduce the revenue of Australia Post resulting in adverse impacts for most Australians including increased postal charges, reduced frequency of services, a reduction in counter and other services currently provided and a loss of thousands of jobs.Your petitioners request that the Senate reject the NCC Report proposals and support the retention of Australia Post's current reserved service and the uniform postage rate, the existing cross-subsidy funding arrangement for the uniform standard letter service and require a government assurance that no post office (corporate or licensed) will close due to these proposals.Further we call on the Senate to support the expansion of the existing community service obligation of Australia Post to encompass a minimum level of service with respect to financial and bill paying services, delivery frequency, a parcels service and access to counter services, whether through corporate or licensed post offices.Senator Jacinta CollinsGB6Senator Jacinta Collins(from 36 citizens)691158DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senator assembled in the Parliament.The Petition of the undersigned draws attention to the potentially damaging affects of National Competition Policy on small business such as newsagents.Your petitioners ask the Senate in Parliament to call on the federal government to review the decisions of the Australian Consumer and Competition Tribunal which threaten the viability of newsagents and introduce legislation to override these decisions and preserve the current system of distribution for magazines and newspapers through Australian newsagents.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 158 citizens)Petitions received.Notices691691Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the United Nations world heritage investigation team has recommended unambiguously that the Jabiluka uranium mine be stopped and that Kakadu meets all the criteria for the world heritage endangered listing, (ii) the Australian Government has repeatedly and consistently got it wrong on Jabiluka, deceiving Australians about the impact of the mine and deceiving international forums about the impact of the mine on world heritage values, (iii) the Australian Government has deliberately put itself in a position of having given all the permits to the mine and now saying it cannot stop it because of the potential compensation issue, (iv) that there is no doubt the mine will impact severely on the indigenous Mirrar people of the area and destroy natural and cultural values, (v) an endangered listing will negatively affect tourism, (vi) the Government has not represented the majority of Australians, who want the mine stopped, (vii) the Government's credibility on the environment is in tatters, as there can be no higher evidence that it is unfit to manage world heritage areas, (viii) it is clear the processes for assessment under the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 are completely inadequate for assessing world heritage and taking into account natural and cultural values, (ix) the experts commissioned by the Government and the company which said the mine could go ahead without affecting world heritage values have prepared reports that are incompetent, (x) a number of other mines are poised to go ahead inside world heritage boundaries, and (xi) sadly the Government's response is to attack the quality of the report and try to level inaccurate claims of bias;(b) condemns the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) for his determined inability to protect the values of the Mirrar people and the Kakadu world heritage area; and(c) calls on the Minister to proclaim Kakadu a world heritage area under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 and use that as the lever to stop the Jabiluka mine forever.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Allison, I draw your attention to standing order 76, which says that notices of motion should be succinct.Senator Lundy to move, on the next day of sitting:That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Communication, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston), by the adjournment of the Senate on 30 November 1998, the individual reports and associated documents provided by each Commonwealth department and agency in relation to those departments and agencies `Y2K' (millennium bug) compliance progress.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes the meeting called GeneCom98, held in Adelaide from 29 November 1998 to 1 December 1998, examining the impact of emerging gene technologies; and(b) encourages all senators to take note of this conference and the broad ranging issues which are likely to affect the future regulation of this technology.Senator Tierney to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the opening on 13 November 1998 of Australia's first centre to develop markets for recycled and other materials, (ii) that this centre is located in Newcastle, and (iii) that it will create a significant number of jobs for the Hunter region; (b) commends the Federal Government for committing funding of $850 000 in support of the centre;(c) notes that the Government has undertaken to support more of this type of centre; and(d) recognises that this initiative is important for Australia because these centres will encourage businesses to use recovered materials.Senator Margetts to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Western Australian Planning Commission is currently considering plans for the development of residential canals on the Creery Wetlands in the latest instance in a continual assault on the viability of the Peel-Yalgorup Wetlands of international importance, (ii) the site of the development, whilst adjacent to the area listed under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, was not included in the 1990 listing of the Peel-Yalgorup Wetlands under the Ramsar Convention because of objections from the developer, (iii) during the 1996 federal election the Australian Labor Party Government gave a commitment to list and protect part of the development site under the Ramsar Convention and also offered to purchase the relevant areas of the site from the developer, and (iv) the current Government indicated in 1996 that a memorandum of understanding was being drafted by the Australian Nature Conservation Agency, the Western Australian Government, the Mandurah City Council and the developer, Cedar Wood Pty Ltd, but this agreement has never been finalised; and(b) calls on the Federal Government to urgently intervene on this crucial issue to ensure that the Peel-Yalgorup Wetlands is protected in accordance with the provisions of the Ramsar Convention.Senator Hogg to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matters be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 21 October 1999: (a) economic, social and political conditions in East Timor, including respect for human rights in the territory;(b) Indonesia's military presence in East Timor and reports of ongoing conflict in the territory;(c) the prospects for a just and lasting settlement of the East Timor conflict;(d) Australia's humanitarian and development assistance in East Timor;(e) the Timor Gap Zone of Cooperation Treaty; and(f) past and present Australian Government policy toward East Timor including the issue of East Timorese self-determination.Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes the finding of the World Heritage Mission that the Jabiluka uranium mine threatens natural and cultural values of the Kakadu World Heritage Area; and(b) calls on the Government to halt the mine.Senator Watson to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes, with regret, the resignation of Mr Rod McGeoch from the board of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games; and(b) acknowledges the very big part Mr McGeoch played in realising a very important vision for Sydney and Australia.693693Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provision of standing order 111(6) which prevents the continuation or resumption of second reading debate on a bill within 14 days of its first introduction in either House not apply to the National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill 1998 .I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered within the 14-day period and seek leave to have the statement incorporated.Leave granted. The statements read as follows—DRAFT COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION MEASURES (IMPLEMENTATION) BILL 1998BackgroundThe draft Commonwealth National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill 1998 was first presented to the Commonwealth Parliament in 1997 as the National Environment Protection Measures 1997. 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 proroguing of Parliament on 31 August 1998 resulted in all previous action in relation to this Bill lapsing, with the result that Bill has been re-introduced.DescriptionThis Act will fulfil the Commonwealth's obligation to implement NEPMs passed by the National Environment Protection Council to all Commonwealth activities within the States and Territories. This Commonwealth obligation is set out in Schedule 4 of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment 1992 and section 7 of the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994.Reason for UrgencyState and Territory Governments have been pressuring the Environment and Heritage Minister to introduce this bill as soon as possible. The Commonwealth is the only jurisdiction not to have introduced legislation required by the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994. This Act requires that each state and territory take steps to secure the passage of legislation made under the aegis of the Act through separate implementation legislation.Three National Environment Protection Measures (NEPMs) have now been made. These are the National Pollutant Inventory NEPM, the Ambient Air Quality NEPM and the Movement of Controlled Waste Between States and territories NEPM. It is essential for the bill to be fully operation to allow necessary establishment and finalisation of administrative arrangements within the Commonwealth, and for negotiation with the States and Territories, to permit implementation within the Commonwealth of the three National Environment Protection Measures now made.Complementary State LegislationACT: The National Environment Protection Council (ACT) Act 1994NT: The National Environment Protection Council (NT) Act 1994QLD: The National Environment Protection Council (QLD) Act 1994 NSW: The National Environment Protection Council (NSW) Act 1995SA: The National Environment Protection Council (SA) Act 1995TAS: The National Environment Protection Council (TAS) Act 1995VIC: The National Environment Protection Council (VIC) Act 1995WA: The National Environment Protection Council (WA) Act 1996Circulated with the authority of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage694Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes the first national internet day to celebrate and promote the use of the internet; and(b) encourages the Government to bring on the framework legislation for online regulation, which should address the broader issues including privacy, defamation, encryption, vilification and a range of consumer protections.Senator Mackay to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes, with concern: (i) the scheduled closure of Telstra's Hobart Work Management Centre in January 1999 and the loss of up to 35 highly skilled positions because of this closure, (ii) the scheduled closure of the Launceston Activation Unit in January 1999 and the loss of up to 20 highly skilled positions because of this closure, and (iii) that the closure of the centre and the unit will mean a further decline in customer service for Telstra's Tasmanian customers, which will be detrimental;(b) deplores: (i) the empty assurances of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston) to Senator Harradine that the centre would remain open, and (ii) Telstra's empty assurances to Senator Harradine that the unit would remain open; and(c) calls on the Minister to honour his promise, given to Senator Harradine and the people of Tasmania, and, in accordance with sub section 9(1) of the Telstra Corporation Act 1991 , to direct Telstra to amend the Telstra Business Plan to allow for: (i) the centre to remain within Hobart and the retention of the positions within the centre as this is necessary in the public interest, and (ii) the unit to remain open as this is necessary in the public interest.Senator Margetts to move, on behalf of Senator Bolkus, Senator Murray and Senator Margetts, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the all-party Standing Committee on Ecologically Sustainable Development in the Western Australian Legislative Council recently released a report on the Western Australia Regional Forest Agreement (WA RFA) which, inter alia , called for the replacement of the Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) as lead agency for the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA), the finalisation of the RFA through an accord process and the release of the draft RFA for public comment and Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) assessment, (ii) the terms of the WA RFA Scoping Agreement, signed by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) in July 1996, state that the draft RFA will be released for EPA assessment and notes that the Western Australia Minister for the Environment (Ms Edwardes) has denied that such an obligation exists, (iii) the state and Commonwealth governments are refusing to release details and the analysis of the approximately 30 000 public submissions to the RFA until the RFA has been completed, and (iv) the 1992 National Forest Policy Statement called for a moratorium on logging high conservation value old-growth forests until the RFA is complete and that, despite the fact that the WA RFA has again been deferred, high conservation value and heritage listed old-growth forests, such as those in Wattle block, continue to be destroyed; and(b) calls for: (i) the immediate release of details of the public submissions to the WA RFA, (ii) the removal of CALM as the lead agency for the WA RFA, (iii) the establishment of a genuinely consultative process to finalise the WA RFA, including the preparation of a draft RFA, (iv) a commitment by the Federal Government to honour its promise to release the draft RFA for EPA assessment and also for public comment and tabling in the Parliament, and (v) a moratorium on the continued logging of high conservation value old-growth forests that may be required for Western Australia's comprehensive, adequate and representative forest conservation reserve system.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Margetts, I draw your attention to standing order 76 which says that, to be in order, notices of motion should be succinct.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Madam President, there are four items of information and five items of action in that notice of motion. I do not know how to put something in a more succinct way than that on a complex issue.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Information should not be included in notices of motion, Senator.Senator Calvert to move, on behalf of Senator Hill, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the passing, on 19 September 1998, of John Henry Calaby, who rose from humble origins to become one of Australia's foremost naturalists, and (ii) that among John Calaby's many achievements in a very productive life were: (a) his close association with the successful introduction of myxomatosis for rabbit control in the early 1950s, (b) his pioneering faunal surveys in northern Australia, including those in the Kakadu region which were instrumental in the eventual establishment of Kakadu National Park, (c) his groundbreaking work on kangaroo physiology and reproduction, through close involvement in publications, in the making of the film, The Birth of the Kangaroo , and his contribution in helping Australians gain an appreciation for this supremely adapted animal, (d) the establishment of the Australian National Wildlife Collection, a superb scientific collection of Australia's mammals, birds and reptiles, and (e) his many contributions to the Australian National Dictionary of Biography , the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies and the Council of the Museums Association of Australia; and(b) expresses its condolences to John Calaby's wife Jo, their four sons and their families.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Calvert, I would draw your attention to standing order 76. That notice of motion is also providing information.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes, with great concern: (i) the report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 26 November 1998 that the unemployed will be forced to seek assistance from Job Network under threat of losing their income support, and (ii) that the operation of Centrelink will be downgraded;(b) condemns the use of further harsh measures to attempt to fix the ailing Job Network, once again blaming unemployed people rather than actually addressing the problems within the system; and(c) urges the Government to look at the design and operational flaws in the system, which are forcing unemployed people out of the job search market, rather than `scapegoating' job seekers.Senator Tierney to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Member for Paterson (Mr Horne) voted against the Government's proposed private health insurance rebate in the House of Representative on 25 November 1998, and (ii) this is a direct failure by the Member for Paterson to represent a majority of his constituents;(b) recognises that 41 764 people or 53 per cent of the people in Paterson hold private health insurance and will benefit from the government rebate; and(c) condemns the Member for Paterson for not having his constituents' best interests at heart when voting on this issue. DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Madam President, can I ask a question for clarification? When you are putting something to the Senate in order to get agreement from the Senate, generally you need to note something in the notice of motion so that people know the issues which you are asking them to agree to. I am just wondering how you can give a notice of motion without putting some information to find out what people are going to agree to.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Information is not in order in the motion. Information is what you use to debate the issue and persuade others to your case when it is debated. That may be done outside the chamber when you want them to support it or when it is debated in the chamber.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—What I am trying to get a clarification on—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I understand what you are saying.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—So noting anything in a notice of motion is out of order? Is that what you are saying?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Not necessarily. It is a matter of how it is worded and what it is; but information should not be supplied. That is a matter for debate.696696Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1.Committees696696696696Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the 11th report of 1998 of the Selection of Bills Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I also seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEREPORT NO. 11 OF 1998The Committee met on 25 November 1998.The committee resolved:(a) That the provisions of the following bills be referred to committees:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting datePetroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyRural and Regional Affairs and Transport11 March 1999Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyCommunity Affairs7 December 1998Private Health Insurance Incentives Amendment Bill 1998 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyCommunity Affairs7 December 1998Taxation Laws Amendment (Private Health Insurance) Bill 1998 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyCommunity Affairs7 December 1998(b) That the following bills be referred to committees:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateAustralian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyCommunity Affairs1 December 1998Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Bill 1998 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyCommunity Affairs1 December 1998Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyCommunity Affairs1 December 1998Wool International Amendment Bill 1998 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyRural and Regional Affairs and Transport2 December 19983. The Committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:. 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998. Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1998. Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998. Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998. Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation Amendment Bill 1998. Constitution Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament--Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill 1998. Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998. Payment Processing Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998. Space Activities Bill 1998. States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1998. Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Bill 1998 . Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998. Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998.The Committee recommends accordingly.4. The Committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 25 November 1998). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998. Aged Care Amendment (Accreditation Agency) Bill 1998. Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998. Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1998. Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill 1998. Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998. Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998. NRS Levy Imposition Amendment Bill 1998. Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 . Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1998. Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Amendment Bill 1998. Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998. Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998.(Paul Calvert)Chair26 November 1998Appendix 1.THE SENATECANBERRA, A.C.T.SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEProposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of Bill—Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: The Government committed during the election campaign to referring this Bill to a Senate legislation committee. In particular, this is to allow concerns about the impact of the Bill on small service stations to be considered. The letter from the Government to the MTAA is attached.Possible submissions or evidence from: See attachmentCommittee to which bill is to be referred: Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport CommitteePossible hearing date(s): 12 February and following, with submissions due mid-JanuaryPossible reporting date: 11 March 1999 (subject to finalisation of sitting timetable).(signed) Paul Henry CalvertWhip/Committee memberMINISTER FOR WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESSLEADER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESParliament HouseCanberra, ACT 260028 SEP 1998Mr RC AllenPresidentMotor Trades Association of AustraliaPO Box E368KINGSTON ACT 2604 Dear Mr AllenI refer to our discussions with you and your colleagues on Thursday, 24 September 1998. At that meeting we, on behalf of the Government, made a number of undertakings regarding consultation and the finalisation of the Government's taxation policy. As agreed, this letter puts those undertakings in writing.May we begin by acknowledging the MTAA's constructive approach to our negotiations. In particular, we note that at the meeting the MTAA supported the need for taxation reform and acknowledged the overall benefits of the Government's plan for the Australian community.For its part, the Government acknowledged three particular issues raised by the MTAA at the meeting:The potential transitional problems faced by the MTAA's members in the lead-up to the abolition of the wholesale sales tax (WST) and the introduction of the goods and services tax (GST). The MTAA are concerned that in the lead-up to the introduction of the GST they will face transitional costs that need to be accounted for in the Government's tax plan.In addition, the MTAA stated that under the existing WST they operate under arrangements, agreed with the Taxation Commissioner, that account for the timing of the payment of WST. Under the taxation plan no similar agreement has been proposed for the collection of GST on motor vehicle sales.The MTAA are concerned about the impact of GST on the used car market. They have raised concerns about the margin system of taxation being proposed by the Government. They are also concerned about the relative impact of the GST on used car dealerships vis a vis private sales of vehicles.In response to these concerns, the Government stated at the meeting that it is prepared to enter into a process of consultation with the MTAA to address these concerns. In doing so the Government stated at the meeting that its objective was to ensure the livelihood of motor vehicle dealers. It would seek to develop a practical transition arrangement that would address the concerns about the crossover from the WST system to the GST system. Further, the Government would seek ways to address the cash flow benefit issue raised by the industry.The Government also recognised that the impact of the transition issues would become of immediate importance to the industry as from the re-election of the Government on 3 October. Therefore the issues at hand, including the cash flow issue, will need to be dealt with expeditiously. The Government stated that a meeting between the Treasurer and the MTAA would be held within a fortnight of the election result. The meeting will be preceded by a meeting between the MTAA and Treasury officials.With respect to the impact of GST on the used car sector, the Government said it would consider an alternative to applying the margin system to calculate GST due. The Government noted that the Cole Committee report into the 1993 GST proposal of the Coalition recommended that notional input credits be paid on the purchase of a used car from non-registered members of the public (eg private citizens). This is also the system that applies in New Zealand. The Government thinks that this system may have merit and will give favourable consideration to it in the finalisation of the Government's taxation legislation after the election.The Government also noted that the MTAA had raised the option of marginally increasing the stamp duty paid on private transactions of used cars as an offset to the fact that registered dealers would have to charge GST while private sellers would not. This matter could be raised by the MTAA with State Governments (who levy the stamp duty). The Federal Government believes one option would be for State Governments to reduce stamp duty on used cars sold by registered dealers.The MTAA has also raised a number of other issues with the Government. These include the impact on small service stations of the Government's petroleum industry reforms. The Government will continue its discussions with the MTAA on these matters. However, the Government is prepared to refer the legislation dealing with the repeal of the relevant petroleum legislation to a Senate legislation committee.As discussed at the meeting we are quite happy for this letter to be made public and in fact urge you to copy it to all your members.Yours sincerelyPETER REITH(Minister for Workplace Relationsand Small Business)JOHN MOORE(Minister for Industry, Tourismand Science)NameContactAddressSalutationContact SalutationFaxContact FaxPhoneContact phoneDr J Roland Williams Chief Executive OfficerMr Ian McKenzie External Relations ManagerShell Company of Australia Ltd Shell House 1 Spring Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000Dr WilliamsMr McKenzie(03)9666 5008(03)9666 5466(03)9666 5104(03)966 6 5104Mr Ron McGimpsey Managing DirectorMr Bill Frilay Manager Government RelationsBP Australia Ltd Melbourne Central 360 Elizabeth Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000Mr McGimpse yMr Frilay(03)9268 3321(03)9268 3467(03)9268 4890(03)926 8 3467Dr Ian Blackburne Managing DirectorMr Bruce Hollett National Franchise Support ManagerAustralian Petroleum Pty Ltd MLC Centre 19-29 Martin Place SYDNEY NSW 2000Dr BlackburneMr Hollett(02)9250 5742(02)9250 5115(02)9250 5357(02)925 0 5634Mr P C Tan Managing DirectorMr David Ball Manager Programs and Projects Corporate Affairs DepartmentMobil Oil Australia Ltd 417 St Kilda Road MELBOURNE VIC 3004Mr TanMr Ball(03)9866 9079(03)9252 3882(03)9252 3111(03)925 2 3357Mr Jim Starkey Executive DirectorMr Jim Starkey Executive DirectorAustralian Institute of Petroleum 500 Collins Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000Mr StarkeyMr Starkey(03)9614 1127(03)9614 1127(03)9614 1466(03)961 4 1466 Mr Gerry Watts General ManagerMr Gerry Watts General ManagerAustralian Petroleum Agents and Distributors Association 15th Floor 499 St Kilda Road MELBOURNE VIC 3004Mr WattsMr Watts(03)9866 6960(03)9866 6960(03)9866 6900(03)986 6 6900Mr Michael Delaney Executive DirectorMr Michael Delaney Executive DirectorMotor Trades Association of Australia Motor Trade Association House 39 Brisbane Avenue BARTON ACT 2600Mr DelaneyMr Delaney(02)6273 2738(02)6273 2738(02)6273 4333(02)627 3 4333Mr Grahame Henderson ChairmanMr Brian Mark Executive DirectorService Stations Association SSA House 504 Darling Street ROZELLE NSW 2039Mr HendersonMr Mark(02)4969 1541(02)9810 0513(02)9555 1655(02)955 5 1655Mr David Purchase Executive DirectorMs Nicola Card Manager Service Station DivisionVictorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce 464 St Kilda Road MELBOURNE VIC 3004Mr PurchaseMs Card(03)9820 3401(03)9820 3401(03)9829 1110(03)982 9 1111Mr Barry Jacobson Managing DirectorBurmah Fuels Australia Ltd Unit 2, 47 Epping Road NORTH RYDE NSW 2113Mr Jacobson(02)9889 2222(02)9889 2222(02)9889 3000(02)988 9 3000Mr Mark Kevin General ManagerMr Mark Kevin General ManagerLiberty Oil Pty Ltd 1st Floor 578 St Kilda Road MELBOURNE VIC 3004Mr KevinMr Kevin(03)9529 3833(03)9529 3833(03)9529 3400(03)952 9 3400Mr Reg Clairs Managing DirectorMr Rohan Jeffs General Manager Corporate Services and Company SecretaryWoolworths Ltd PO Box Q70 QVB Post Office SYDNEY NSW 1230Mr ClairsMr Jeffs(02)9323 1599(02)9323 1599(02)9323 1555(02)932 3 1555Mr Neil Rae Executive DirectorMr John Connell General ManagerGull Petroleum Pty Ltd PO Box 5164 ROCKINGHAM BEACH WA 6168Mr RaeMr Connell(08)9439 5200(08)9439 5200(08)9411 4999(08)941 1 4999This table is available in electronic form for merge purposes. Please contact David Wawn on x7580.Appendix 2AUSTRALIAN SENATECANBERRA, A.C.T.AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS WHIPSELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEProposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998Private Health Insurance Incentives Amendment Bill 1998Taxation Laws Amendment (Private Health Insurance) Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:To consider the large expenditure that this rebate involves, in particular the subsidy to high income earners, and to investigate evidence for the Government's claims that this scheme will improve Australia's health system and reduce waiting lists in public hospitals.Examine the competing priorities for health funding and to consider the advantages and disadvantages of making private health insurance a higher priority for funding than some other critical areas of need, such as rural health services, indigenous health services, and public hospitals.Examine the impact of the proposed rebate on overall health expenditure, health outcomes, and access and equity to quality health care for people on low incomes.Possible submission or evidence from:Consumers' Health ForumAustralian Consumers' AssociationCouncil on the AgingCombined Pensioners and Superannuants FederationRural Health AllianceAustralian Catholic Healthcare AssociationCentre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National UniversityCentre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash UniversityCommittee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s):Possible reporting date: As soon as practicable(signed) Vicki BourneWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 3THE SENATEDee MargettsSenator for Western AustraliaThe Greens (WA)SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEProposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill: Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 and associated BillsReasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:The need for there to be opportunity for the Senate to hear concerns about the Bill expressed by community representatives (especially those in the vicinity of nuclear installations), the Australian Conservation Foundation and environment groups. The main issues are allowable levels of radiation; independence of the proposed Agency from the Government of the day; process for appointment to and make up of Advisory Councils; process for public review of new projects; penalties; liability in case of accidents; and waste disposal and storage issues.Possible submissions or evidence from:Australian Conservation Foundation; Conservation Council of South Australia; independent nuclear consultant, Jean MacSorley; Sutherland Shire and local representatives from the area around Lucas Heights including Genevieve Rankin; environmental lawyer, Tim Robertson; physicist, Prof. Ian Lowe, Griffith University; Dept of Health and Family Services; Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and other relevant government regulatory bodies.Committee to which bill is to be referred:Community Affairs Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s):Friday 27 November, 1998Possible reporting date:Tuesday 1 December, 1998(signed) D E MargettsWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 4THE SENATECANBERRA ACT 2600SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEProposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill—Wool International Amendment Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Significant interest in the Australian Wool IndustryPossible submissions or evidence from: A number of state and national industry bodiesCommittee to which bill is to be referred: Rural and Regional and Transport Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s): 27.11.98Possible reporting date: 3.12.98(signed) Kerry O'BrienWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberBusiness702702Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That the following government business orders be considered from 12.45 pm till not later than 2.00 pm this day:No. 2—States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1998 .No. 3—Governor-General's Opening Speech—Address-in-Reply.702Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(a) General business notice of motion No. 25 standing in the name of Senator Conroy relating to banking services; and(b) Consideration of government documents.702Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 23 standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, relating to national competition policy, be postponed till the next day of sitting.702Motion (by Senator O'Brien) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 27 standing in the name of Senator O'Brien for today, relating to the Australian pork industry, be postponed till the next day of sitting.702Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Lundy) agreed to:That general business notices of motion No. 19 (relating to the year 2000 (Y2K) compliance progress) and No. 28 (internet access) standing in the name of Senator Lundy for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous702702Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell, at the request of Senator Tambling) agreed to:(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.Miscellaneous703Motion (by Senator Allison) put:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) in a major test case, the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has applied to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) to amend the superannuation clauses of several building awards, (ii) if the claim is successful, employers could push employees' superannuation into any fund they can persuade their employees to agree to without having to provide basic information to employees about their entitlements, the superannuation provider or the employer's relationship with the provider, and (iii) the draft clause, if accepted, falls well short of even the minimum standards of the Government's own superannuation policy, which has yet to be debated by the Senate, and falls well short of the recommendations of the report of the Select Committee on Superannuation on choice of fund;(b) calls on the Government to withdraw the claim as inconsistent with government policy and the provisions of its own choice of fund legislation; and(c) calls on the AIRC to reject the claim as failing to provide adequate protection for workers in the important decision of where their superannuation is directed.09:54:00The 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.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, 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.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J. 34Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W. Evans, C. V. Parer, W. R.Murphy, S. M. Hill, R. M.Reynolds, M. Vanstone, A. E.Schacht, C. C. Macdonald, S.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous70470409:57:00704Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I ask that government business notice of motion No. 2 be taken as formal.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this notice being taken as formal?09:58:00704Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—by leave—The supplementary round of estimates was due to occur in August. It was then postponed to September, and it was then subsumed by the election. The opposition believed that it was not only impractical to schedule them this side of Christmas but was impossible. Nevertheless, those questions that hang over from those inquiries can be pursued in February.Senator Campbell has given us an indication that estimates committees will sit on 8, 9, 10 and 11 February, with 11 February, I think, being a spillover day for the first group and February 19 a spillover day for the second group. Whilst it is not in the resolution carried earlier today, Senator Campbell has given me an indication that if there is need for further spillover hearings they will be held on 22 and 23 February. It would be convenient if Senator Campbell could confirm those arrangements, although, from the opposition's point of view, we doubt that those extra informal spillover days of 22 and 23 February will be necessary.09:59:00704Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I have been informed that we have just voted on that, and the two extra spillover days are con firmed. They were in government business notice of motion No. 1 apparently. We delivered ahead of time and on budget.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There being no objection to the motion being taken as formal, I call Senator Ian Campbell.Motion (by Senator Campbell) agreed to:That legislation committees not hold supplementary estimates hearings on the 1998-99 budget estimates.Business70470410:00:00704Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I ask that government business notice of motion No. 3 standing in the name of Senator Tambling and relating to the days of meeting for the week commencing Monday, 7 December, be taken as formal.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Yes.10:01:00704Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—I thank the Senate for this opportunity to make a statement on the important issue of the programming of the sitting days of the Senate until the end of this calendar year. The opposition will not oppose this motion when it comes before the Senate. I do, however, want to place on record some substantive concerns about the way the legislative program is being managed by the government. The government released its program for parliamentary sittings on 16 October. The extra week was described as an `if required' week. The opposition accepts that that is the case. A mere 11 sitting days were placed in the sittings program plus this extra `if required' week.It was absolutely unrealistic of the government to expect the Senate to process the huge number of bills it wanted the Senate to deal with. Senator Hill, after all, publicly indicated that there was a backlog of some 80 bills that, in his view, needed to be dealt with by Christmas. It was unrealistic to expect that number of bills to be dealt with even in 15 days, let alone 11.It is also true to say that the government had an opportunity to include this extra sitting week in the original sittings program. That could have been moved in the motion that went before the chamber two weeks ago. I assumed the Manager of Government Business would tell us that the government was going to assess progress with the legislation program before making a decision whether this extra sitting week was required. There has been a huge dose of lack of realism in relation to this particular matter.But there are more substantive issues that I want to concentrate on very briefly. I do hope that the government takes some of these comments seriously and does try to address them. You cannot really expect the chamber—whether it be the opposition, the minor parties or Senator Harradine—to cooperate fully with the government if the government continues to handle its programming in the way it has been. It is becoming absolutely impossible in this chamber to prepare for legislation. Forward legislation programs have gone past being an endangered species now—they are actually extinct. All we get these days is a document called a `draft legislation program' for a sitting period which consists of an impossibly inflated wish list of bills. It is distributed within just days of the commencement of the Senate sittings and it does not give senators an opportunity to understand the order in which the government proposes to bring on bills. There is no indication of that in the draft legislation program. So it is of no assistance to the chamber and senators in determining what the priorities are for the examination of bills. It makes it extremely difficult from the opposition's perspective—I do not know about the minor parties and Senator Harradine—as far as its internal processes are concerned in preparing draft submissions for the shadow cabinet, for caucus and so forth.I remind senators that we received the draft legislation program for the 1998 autumn sittings, which began on 2 March, on 23 February. That was a list of 98 bills, 10 days in advance of the sittings. We received the draft legislation program for the winter sittings, which began on 12 May, on 4 May. That was a list of 18 bills, minus budget related legislation, just eight days before the commencement of sittings. We received the draft program for the current spring sittings—a list of 27 bills—on 10 November, the same day that the sittings began.It is important to remember that this draft program does not even contain or provide an indication of the order in which bills are going to be brought on. For the current sittings we have simply been given a list of 27 bills which are proposed for debate. The earliest indication you get of the proposed order for debate in the chamber is usually on the Friday before a sitting week. I say very seriously to the government and other senators in the chamber that this is increasingly becoming a very serious problem. It is not a surprise in those circumstances that an increasing number of bills are being referred to legislation committees.As an opposition, we do need time to examine legislation and, just like the government has, we have internal party processes which we expedite but which are important to the proper functioning of the opposition and I think important to the proper functioning of this place. We are entitled to take legislation through our internal party processes. So the government cannot complain about delays if there is not this level of information, if there are not clear indications, well in advance of parliamentary sittings, of the order in which the government proposes to bring bills on for debate in this place. Let me say again that the opposition has very limited resources to scrutinise legislation. If the government expects and wants the opposition to meet the government's priorities, the government has an obligation and a responsibility to get its act together, work out these priorities and—this is my point—share these priorities with other parties in the chamber. It needs to do it much sooner than is occurring with current practice.I want to make this substantive point for the government to consider. I know that the Parliamentary Library is experiencing the same sorts of problems—as you may well know, Madam President, given your responsi bilities—in preparing the Bills Digests. The government would know from their many years in opposition that these are an invaluable tool for senators in scrutinising legislation. The Library cannot possibly prepare 27 Bills Digests in just a matter of days. They also need assistance in prioritising their work. I think it is in the government's interest, as much as it is in the interest of the opposition, minor parties and Senator Harradine, for that level of assistance to be given. Given that the opposition has these difficulties in keeping up with the legislation program in these circumstances with our resources, I assume that others in the chamber have similar problems, if not more difficulties, in keeping up.In the spirit of this contribution, I am not suggesting that when the Labor Party was in government our record on these matters was perfect, but I do draw the government's attention to the fact that we did circulate forward programs that indicated not only the legislation that we were proposing for sittings but also the order in which it was proposed to bring it on for debate in the chamber. I draw the government's attention to the commitment that we gave in 1993 to circulate that sort of program at least four weeks in advance of a sitting period. I can say, as the then Manager of Government Business, that we honoured that commitment for the remainder of the period that we were in government. I think it is a good practice and a useful practice for all senators, including the government, and I urge the government to revive that practice. I also suggest that forward programs which are issued by the government ought to be published on the Internet so that they can be made immediately available to interested parties, whether it be senators, the Parliamentary Library, members of the public or interest groups and the like.The opposition will support the motion that will soon be before the chair. We do not understand why the government could not have anticipated this need and made the necessary adjustments previously, but I suspect that is just another example of the problem that we face. It is symptomatic of the fact that there has been an absence of forward planning on behalf of the government. I believe that this is something the government needs to seriously address if we are to improve the approach to handling legislation in this chamber, for which the government has responsibility. If the government expects the cooperation of non-government senators in this chamber for the remainder of this parliament, I ask them to take on board very seriously these issues, particularly the constructive suggestions that I have made today on behalf of the opposition.10:13:00706Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I appreciate the advice the former Manager of Government Business has given us. I did listen carefully to what he said. Even though I know that Senator Faulkner tried not to use a gratuitous tone of voice, I do regard some of what he said as gratuitous, but much of it was sound.The government does seek to provide all honourable senators with as much advance notice of the program as possible. I think even Senator Faulkner would recognise that slightly unusual circumstances occur after an election where you do have a whole range of bills, many of which are on the program now, which have got to a certain stage in the Senate before an election but which, because of the prorogation of the parliament, have to go back to the House of Representatives. Even though some people in this place may argue that there is a more efficient route to go, the government has taken the decision that the proper course within our democracy is to see those bills basically start their life again in the House of Representatives and find their way here.The reality in relation to this Senate program at the moment is that all of the pieces of legislation that we were dealing with last week, and will deal with this week and next week, were before the previous parliament, with a couple of important exceptions: the Space Activities Bill 1998 , which I expect we will be getting onto shortly, and the Wool International Amendment Bill 1998 —and there may be another one that I have missed. So with the exception of those two important bills, one dealing with sheep and the other with space—AW5CARRSenator Carr—That is National Party stuff.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—That is right—it is important stuff.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Lost in space!H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Lost in space, Senator Carr! With the exception of those bills, all of the other bills are matters that have been before the previous parliament—the 38th Parliament, as it was officially called—so, in terms of the Parliamentary Library, I do not regard that, with the exception of the space and wool bills, there would have been any additional load because all of these matters would already have been the subject of bills digests.The second point is that a number of the pieces of legislation that we are seeking to deal with are stuck in committees. One of the reasons why we have not been able to get them out of the committees is that the committees were only formed late yesterday afternoon because there were delays in nominations to those committees. The government was ready to re-man and re-woman—re-person—those committees at the beginning of the last sitting week, but there were hold-ups with other parties in the Senate in manning those committees.Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition has said, the coalition government and myself as manager, seek to provide lists of legislation for the forthcoming week as early as possible.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Why didn't you do it four weeks in advance like we did?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—The Leader of the Opposition interjects. It is very hard to do something four weeks in advance, particularly during a sitting period. I know that the Senator suggests that we would do that prior to a sitting, but looking at the sittings for this week—and I am not sure whether it was circulated by the new opposition whip, but I know that he is coming to grips with a new job, and I know that our government deputy whip is coming to grips with a new job, a job which is hard and onerous—we distributed the list for this sitting week the Monday before last.AW5CARRSenator Carr—So did we.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—The opposition manager of business says that he circulated it, or the whip circulated it, or someone circulated it over there, so you have had at least a week, if not more than a week's notice, of the program for this week. It is impossible to determine what we are going to be doing next week until we find out at about lunchtime today what we have actually done this morning. We will circulate, as we always do—and I sign off on a list this evening—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—What about the priority order? How did we manage to do it for three years?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—As Senator Faulkner told the people at the last election, as Mr Beazley told the Australian people, these guys, with a couple of exceptions, got it almost perfect for 13 years. They ran the country beautifully, they ran the parliament beautifully! They did things like bringing in the biggest bill, as it was at the time—the Native Title Bill—on the last day of sitting in one session and then making the parliament sit for eight days, using the guillotine and the gag.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Not the gag.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Sorry, Senator Ray, not the gag, but the guillotine. They were fantastic managers, they were fantastic managers of the economy. We all know that. Senator Cook and Senator Faulkner keep convincing themselves of that. One day they might convince the Australian public to forgive them for the disgraceful way they managed the place.I share Senator Faulkner's view. We do try. It is in the government's interest to ensure that all members of the Senate are given as much notice of the legislation program as possible. There are things that are outside our control. We cannot, in many respects, control how long bills are sent to committees for, what committees they get sent to, and when they report. We have a number of bills that we would like to deal with at the moment that are stuck in committees and could not be taken out of committee because the committees were not formed until yesterday afternoon, nearly two weeks into the first sitting period. I accept Senator Faulkner's pleadings and I accept the opposition's support for the motion that we hope to see declared formal.Committees708708708Motion (by Senator Woodley)—by leave—agreed to: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 1998.708708Motion (by Senator Knowles)—by leave—agreed to: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.708708708Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Knowles, I present the report on matters referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee during the previous parliament.Ordered that the report be adopted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEEREPORT ON MATTERS NOT DISPOSED OF AT THE END OF THE 38TH PARLIAMENTThe Committee met and considered references not disposed of at the end of the 38th Parliament and resolved to recommend to the Senate that—1. The following inquiries of the 38th Parliament be re-adopted: Australian Hearing Services Reform Bill 1998, to report by the last sitting day of 1998.2. The following inquiry of the 38th Parliament not be re-adopted: Continued monitoring of the operation of the Health Legislation (Private Health Insurance Reform) Amendment Act 1995.The provisions of the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Payment Processing) Bill 1998 were referred to the Committee by the Senate on 12 November 1998 to report by 24 November 1998. The reporting date was subsequently extended to 30 November 1998.Senator Sue KnowlesChairman25 November 1998708708708O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Crowley, I present the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on matters referred to the committee during the previous parliament.Ordered that the report be adopted.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—COMMUNITY AFFAIRS REFERENCES COMMITTEEREPORT ON MATTERS NOT DISPOSED OF AT THE END OF THE 38TH PARLIAMENTThe Committee met and considered references not disposed of at the end of the 38th Parliament and resolved to recommend to the Senate that—The following inquiry of the 38th Parliament be re-adopted: Inquiry into Child Care Funding, with a reporting date of 18 December 1998.Senator the Hon. Rosemary CrowleyChairman25 November 1998 709709709Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I present the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on matters referred to the committee during the previous parliament.Ordered that the report be adopted.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—SENATE FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADEREFERENCES COMMITTEEREPORT ON MATTERS NOT DISPOSED OF AT THE END OF THE 38TH PARLIAMENTThe Committee met and considered references not disposed of at the end of the 38th Parliament and resolved to recommend to the Senate that—1. The following inquiries of the 38th Parliament be re-adopted:Australia in relation to Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), with a reporting date of 31 March 1999.Nuclear weapon and ballistic missile proliferation in South Asia, with a reporting date of 26 February 1999.Examination of developments in contemporary Japan and the implications for Australia, with a reporting date of 29 October 1999.Senator John HoggChair26 November 1998709709709Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—I present the report of the committee on the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Payment Processing) Bill 1998, together with submissions and the Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Miscellaneous709709709Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, I present additional information received by the committee relating to the budget estimates hearing for 1998-99.Committees70970910000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have received letters from party leaders nominating senators to be members of committees.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be appointed to committees as follows:Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Participating members: Senators Abetz and Gibbs.Substitute members: Senators Forshaw and Stott Despoja to replace Senators Evans and Bartlett, for the committee's inquiry into the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 and two associated bills.Community Affairs References Committee—Participating members: Senators Abetz and Tierney.Substitute member: Senator Bishop to replace Senator Forshaw for the committee's inquiry into the impact of government child care funding cuts on families, children and child care services.Economics Legislation Committee—Participating members: Senators Abetz, Boswell, Coonan and O'Chee.Economics References Committee—Participating members: Senators Abetz, Boswell, Coonan, O'Chee and Watson.Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee—Participating members: Senators Abetz, Boswell, Brownhill and Watson.Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee—Participating members: Senators Abetz, Boswell, Brownhill and Watson.Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—Participating members: Senators Abetz, Boswell, Brownhill and Coonan. Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee—Appointed: Senator Payne.Discharged: Senator Eggleston.Participating members: Senators Abetz, Boswell, Brownhill, Coonan and Eggleston.Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Participating members: Senators Abetz, Coonan and Watson.Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Participating members: Senators Abetz, Coonan and Watson.Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Participating members: Senators Abetz, Boswell, Brownhill, Eggleston and Gibbs.Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Participating members: Senators Abetz, Boswell and Brownhill.Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee—Participating members: Senator Abetz.Legal and Constitutional References Committee—Participating members: Senator Abetz.Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Participating members: Senators Abetz, Boswell, Brownhill, McKiernan and Watson.Substitute member: Senator O'Brien to replace Senator MacKay for the committee's inquiry into the Wool International Amendment Bill 1998.Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Participating members: Senators Abetz, Boswell, Brownhill, McKiernan and Watson.Bills710Message received from the House of Representatives returning the following bill without amendment: Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Amendment Bill 1998 (No. 2) Bills710r598Billsr608Billsr609710Bills received from the House of Representatives.710Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.71010:24:00710Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I 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—AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1998The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Act 1978 and amend the Pig Industry Act 1986.The repeal of the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Act 1978 will cease the current equalization of export returns for dried vine fruits from 1 January 1999. As equalization currently occurs over the course of a season, with returns calculated at the last export of fruit from that season, the repeal allows for the continued operation of equalization for the previous (1998) season.The dried vine fruits industry is the only commodity which continues to operate an equalization scheme. The industry now contends that, in the prevailing market circumstances, equalization arrangements are inappropriate, and mask market signals and inhibit industry and marketing innovation. The industry peak body, the Australian Dried Fruits Association has requested the termination of the scheme.The purpose of the amendments to the Pig Industry Act 1986 is to replace reference to the former National Meat Processors' Association in the act with reference to the Australian Food Council's Processed Meats Forum, which is now the meat processors' representative body.The bill provides for a nominee of the Australian Food Council's Processed Meats Forum to be nominated to the selection committee for the Australian Pork Corporation; and for the Australian Food Council Processed Meats Forum to be defined as an "eligible industry body", in lieu of the disbanded National Meat Processors' Association.In October 1997, the National Meat Processors' Association agreed to disband, with all functions and future deliberations on issues affecting the processed meats industry being dealt with by the "Australian Food Council Processed Meats Forum".The amendment will allow the establishment of a new Australian Pork Corporation Selection Committee comprised of a presiding member, two members from the Pork Council of Australia, and one member from the Australian Food Council Processed Meats Forum.Once validly constituted, the Australian Pork Corporation Selection Committee can exercise its powers in nominating persons to fill vacancies on the Australian Pork Corporation board.The amendments will also allow for the Australian Food Council Processed Meats Forum to be defined as an "eligible industry body", thereby obliging the Australian Pork Corporation to consult with the forum before approaching the Minister on issues relating to the making of regulations, prescribing levy amounts, formulating or revising a corporate plan or annual operational plan, and the appointment of the Australian Pork Corporation company auditor.TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1998The Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 amends paragraph (1)(a) of Clause 55 of Schedule 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 to extend the current sunset provision to 2001.Clause 55 currently imposes a requirement for telecommunication carriers to notify the Commonwealth where an activity may affect a matter of Commonwealth environmental interest. This is to ensure that the Commonwealth has the ability to intervene in matters of national environmental significance.In addition, in the absence of clause 55, Telstra, as a Commonwealth body, would be subject to an additional level of environmental regulation through the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. act's which do not cover the other telecommunication carriers.The clause ceases to apply after 1 January 1999. At the time the Telecommunications Act 1997 was introduced it was planned to have similar arrangements in place through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998. Delays in introducing that bill due to the complexity of drafting involved now means that from 1 January 1999 the telecommunications carriers will no longer be under an obligation to satisfy the Environmental Secretary (the Secretary to the Department of Environment and Heritage) about activities they propose to undertake which have an environmental significance. The Commonwealth will have no powers to regulate relevant matters of Commonwealth environmental interest.The current bill therefore proposes that the Telecommunications Act 1997 be amended to provide for the environmental impact requirements placed on carriers proposing to install facilities prior to 1 January 1999 to extend beyond that date. The need for the current clause will then be reviewed in the context of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 and related bills.1998 BUDGET MEASURES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS) BILL 1998Madam President, this bill gives effect to a number of measures announced in the Government's 1998 Budget that will assist in more effective and efficient social security administration.First, more assistance will be provided to self funded retirees through the extension of the seniors health card. This will be achieved by simplifying the application process and by applying more generous income limits. The income test that applies to the seniors health card will, in future, be based on taxable income. Retirees will, in most cases, be able to demonstrate their taxable income by simply providing their latest income tax assessment notice. In addition, the present income levels will be almost doubled, from $21,320 to $40,000 for a single person, and from $35,620 to $67,000 for a couple. It is estimated that 222,000 retirees will benefit from this measure. Madam President, the sharer's rule relating to rent assistance was introduced in the 1996 Budget in recognition of the fact that people who live in shared or group accommodation derive economies of scale from that arrangement. The rule operates by reducing the maximum rate of rent assistance payable for single people, without dependent children, who share accommodation to two thirds of that payable to non-sharing single people.As part of its 1998 Budget, the Government announced that recipients of rent assistance who are lodging in commercial board and lodging type accommodation would be exempted from the operation of the sharer's rule. The exemption recognises that people living in this type of accommodation are in a different situation from those who share accommodation in private residential group houses. This bill gives effect to that announcement and is estimated to benefit 12,000 recipients.Madam President, two further measures announced in the 1998 Budget and dealt with in this bill illustrate the Government's recognition of the important role played by foster carers in helping young people.From 1 July 1999, a health care card will be issued to the fostered child of carers who receive family allowance at less than the maximum rate in respect of the child, provided that the foster child was eligible for a pensioner concession card or a health care card as a member of their original family. This measure will benefit the carers of approximately 4,400 foster children.Further, from 1 September 1999, the 12-month waiting period for parenting payment for single foster carers will be removed, benefiting around 900 single foster carers.Madam President, I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading speech of this bill be adjourned till fourteen days after today, in accordance with standing order 111.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Committees71271271210:25:00712Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—On behalf of Senator Gibbs, I move: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.Let it be said from the outset that Labor does not oppose the use of quantitative and qualitative market research by governments when they are devising and testing the effectiveness of promotional campaigns. It is a useful tool in developing communications strategies for government policies that have been passed in parliament in the form of legislation or adopted by government through legitimate processes of executive government. It is not, however, legitimate to research areas that are the province of election campaigns, especially where one's party is seeking a mandate on a specific issue.The current government has not provided, in any meaningful detail, data relating to market research undertaken by government departments. In response to questions from both Senator Faulkner and me, some departments have provided detail of market research undertaken by them. Other departments have refused outright to disclose any information about their market research programs. Hence, it is not possible to quantify total expenditure in this area.Today we have put further questions on notice seeking detailed disclosures of such expenditure and would expect the government to come clean and outline how much taxpayers' money has been spent in this area.Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—In response to a question on notice from Senator Faulkner in June of this year, Senator Minchin informed the Senate that, according to OGIA records, Commonwealth departments and agencies let out 78 contracts for market research. He was unable to provide details of the costing of these proposals. Based on FOI requests, we do know the following.Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—The Department of Social Security and Centrelink spent $90,000 on qualitative market research to gauge community attitudes to social security fraud—Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—and to assist in developing an advertising campaign aimed at raising public awareness of the government's efforts in this area.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It is a shambles.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator!UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Of course, this area was a key element in the Liberal Party advertising in the recent election.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You are a bunch of hypocrites.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell!H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—They are a bunch of hypocrites.10000Ray, Sen RobertThe PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell—UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—A further contract worth up to $145,000 was let out—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Just a moment, Senator Ray. Senator Campbell, I ask you to withdraw that.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam President, these blokes are hypocrites.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no need to debate it. I ask you to withdraw.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—They said that we should be informing them about the government's program in advance and we have just had this brought on without any notice to the coalition whatsoever. They are a shambles. They have given us a lecture about giving advance notice and they have now brought this matter on with no advice through the whips, no advice from the manager—they are absolute, unadulterated hypocrites.10000Ray, Sen RobertThe PRESIDENT—Senator, I ask you to withdraw that and remain silent. You will have your chance to speak.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I withdraw that word.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Madam President, a further contract of up to $145,000 was let by the Department of Social Security to benchmark and evaluate the government's campaign to promote the new youth allowance. The department of finance reported through their lead brokers in the partial sale of Telstra that they spent a grand total of $460,035, in two bites, to conduct qualitative research into the attitude of shareholders and Telstra staff, amongst others. The original budget for this research was $200,000.Environment Australia, through a consultant—a former staffer for John Hewson and Andrew Peacock and also a Liberal Party operative, Jane Seaborn—paid Mark Textor, from the Australasian Research Strategies Proprietary Limited, the sum of $7,541 for focus group research regarding the Natural Heritage Trust.The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs allocated $184,850 to a research company for a mixture of quantitative and qualitative research in the preparation of the anti-racism kits for schools. A developmental research concept testing and tracking polling for an information campaign for the Office of the Employment Advocate is budgeted up to $300,000.These are just six contracts of the 78 recorded by OGIA. The total expenditure is massive and the government must be forced to give parliament accurate figures as to the total expenditure.The extent of the government's reliance on market research techniques is not surprising. They have learned the hard way not to ignore the merits of qualitative research. During their first term, they were twice saved from going ahead with potentially disastrous advertising campaigns because of qualitative research employed to test their effectiveness. In both cases the advertising campaigns were cobbled together by the Liberal Party apparatchiks, whose employment clearly owed more to political debts of gratitude than to any expertise in the field.It was revealed in September 1996 that qualitative researchers Elliott and Shanahan had reported to the government that the forthcoming guns buyback campaign, proposed by DDB Needham with the theme of `Bite the bullet', was overwhelmingly rejected by focus group participants. They found that it generated considerable anger, that it would lead to non-compliance, and that it presented a message in a way which suggested that the government was dictatorial—`We are coming to get you.' The researchers found that it was the worst of all proposals.However, it did not stop the ministerial council, via a blatant political fix, allocating the contract to DDB Needham as a reward for services rendered by key operatives in the previous federal election campaign. This research resulted in DDB Needham changing strategy. The campaign that finally emerged was dull, ineffective and, basically, a waste of taxpayers' money. But, thanks to market testing, it was at least no longer insulting, offensive and counterproductive.In January this year, yet another PR disaster was narrowly averted. The Prime Minister's office, in disarray over native title, proposed to cabinet a massive advertising campaign to push the government's position on the Wik issue. Drafted by self-appointed advertising experts in the Prime Minister's office, the proposed advertisements were, at the last minute, sent for market testing.The results of that testing were damning in the extreme. This report showed that, one, the ads tested poorly across all demographics. Secondly, the reaction to the ads ranged from outright disgust to apathy, with respondents commenting that they were alarmist, racist and corrupt. Thirdly, far from reinforcing the desired message, the ads would have actually damaged the government's position.Now the government—exposed by the opposition in Senate estimates, ridiculed in the national press and lampooned by its own market research—killed the advertising campaign, thus saving Australian taxpayers $3 million. The government, however, did not escape entirely unscathed from this shabby, amateurish effort. Caught out giving misleading evidence to the estimates committee, exposed as incompetent cowboys, they were nonetheless saved from total humiliation by the appropriate and timely application of market research.All this highlights is what the government should already know. There is a place for the use of market research techniques in devising and testing appropriate government promotional campaigns. There is absolutely no place for taxpayer funded market research to be used for purely party political purposes.Because market research companies essentially conduct opinion polling and focus group research, the potential for crossover into the party political arena is self-evident. Therefore, when the government funds market research programs, there must be detailed public scrutiny because of the nature of the techniques involved and, especially, the high risk of inappropriate and unethical use.It is proper that a number of ethical issues are considered to test the appropriateness of government actions in this area. For the benefit of government senators who seem to be unclear about these issues, I will outline some of the broad and non-controversial matters for consideration in the use of market research by governments.Firstly, there is legitimacy. Any research conducted by the government must be designed to meet public policy and not party political objectives.There is ownership. When the government commissions research for use in promotional campaigns, the question of who owns the information is critical. Because such research has the potential for political partisanship, it should be either quarantined from ministers' offices or made available for all to see via parliament.There are tender processes. As with all external contracts, the tender process must be conducted in a fair and appropriate way with equal consideration given to all tenderers. Given that this area is often subject to contract changes, if there are substantial changes, they should be retendered.Then there are the budgetary issues. There are too many examples where a budget has been set and then blown out with no thought of retendering. These budget blow-outs are usually in direct proportion to the political panic at the time.The final issue is accountability. Given the sensitivity of government sponsored market research, the process must be transparent and as accountable as possible. All information relating to these projects—that is, the tender process, the departmental briefs, detailed budget information including estimated and actual costs, and the research findings themselves—should be made available at the soonest possible time for parliamentary and wider scrutiny.Let us measure off these principles as they apply to the latest government outrage in market research—the tax reform market testing. In this case the research was conducted by Worthington Di Marzio to prepare the government's tax advertising campaign. Leaving aside the outrageous expenditure of taxpayers' funds on a partisan political exercise, the research aspect itself is nothing more than a scandal. The research project went well over budget, and we are still waiting for the Treasurer to provide details of the actual expenditure. At the moment we are working off the estimated cost as presented to the Treasury by Worthington Di Marzio.On 3 June this year, the Senate Finance and Public Administration estimates committee was told that the research budget for the tax advertising campaign would be up to $200,000. On the following day, Treasury bragged to the economics estimates committee that they were able to keep the budget to just under $100,000 despite the earlier estimate of 200,000. At no point, despite questioning from the opposition, did Treasury officials provide details of any future expenditure, some of which would be allocated just a few days after the estimates hearings. Further evidence was given that the research would be overwhelmingly qualitative.The contracts let out to Worthington Di Marzio were, firstly, research into community views regarding tax reform. The final report was due 3 June 1998, there was a budget of up to $100,000 but Worthington's quote was $93,850. Then we had the amended brief to test advertising concepts and information products with target groups. There was a $16,900 quote from Worthington, let on 18 June. Then we had the research brief for the `concept for tax reform information program'. Worthington's quote was $29,750, let on 17 July. Then in August 1998 there was `bench mark tracking and evaluation results for message delivery and effectiveness evaluation'. Worthington's quote was $221,350, let on 21 July. In addition, Worthington Di Marzio were charging $1,000 per day for each consultant when required in Canberra. This comes to a total cost of $361,850—$161,850 over budget, as outlined at the estimates committee hearings; an 81 per cent blow-out.If there were any decency in government life or public life, Worthington Di Marzio's account should be sent not to the Treasury but to `Lightweight' Lynton, c/- Robert Menzies House, Barton, ACT. You might ask why. We asked this question: was the research purely for public policy reasons or was it research for the Liberal Party of Australia for its upcoming federal election campaign. The documents tabled by the Treasurer clearly show that it was commissioned for partisan political reasons. Worthington Di Marzio were instructed by Treasury to do extensive research on the Australian Labor Party's 1993 campaign commercials.In the Wave 2 lines of inquiry document, the moderators were instructed to show the Singleton ads from the 1993 ALP election campaign to test recognition, to test respondents' overall opinion of the campaign, to evaluate which components hit the message home and why, and to ascertain where respondents thought they had failed and why. This section of the report, referring to ALP ads, is entitled `Towards a counter-attack strategy', so there is nothing subtle about this. This is most inappropriate subject for taxpayer funded research that I have ever seen or could possibly imagine.Elsewhere in the documents there are several other references to the need to devise responses to potential criticisms of the tax package. In a campaign the government claims is to inform the electorate about a government proposal, how can it be appropriate to engage consultants to research a counter-attack strategy which, by definition, is less about information than about partisan political persuasion?The next question that arises is what happened to the research when the election was called. The welter of information collected by Worthington Di Marzio would have been of massive assistance to a political party going to the electorate with tax reform as its key issue. The research provides detailed analysis of voter attitudes to tax reform across all age groups and education and income levels across metropolitan, rural and regional voters by gender.This is precisely the kind of data which political parties use to develop campaign strategies, to analyse policy strengths and weaknesses and to mould campaign messages to target a range of groups within the community. It is the very information that political parties pay for themselves—but not the Liberal Party. Why pay for it yourselves when you can get the taxpayer to fund it?We know that the research would have dovetailed beautifully with the Liberal Party campaign strategy. After all, the report contained 312 pages of detailed, quantitative data which analyses in great detail public attitudes towards what would become the centrepiece of the Liberal Party campaign in 1998. It includes focus group research testing attitudes towards an opponent's campaign conducted just weeks before the campaign was called.We still do not know what happened to the tracking polling. Was it ever done? If so, where is it? Why wasn't it tabled? When did it start? When did it finish? Was any of it done during the official election campaign period? What guarantees can the government give that none of this research found its way into the hands of the Liberal Party organisation? We are entitled to have doubts about these matters because the government will not come clean on the extent and nature of market research done.We must give credit to some departments for being transparent and accountable. But this may no longer be the case as OGIA has been shifted from DoFA across to PM&C under the direct control of the Prime Minister's office rather than the department. As the auditor-General said in relation to government advertising, there would be major benefit in a parliamentary inquiry into the use of market research by governments. There can be no more opportune time than now to review the ethical guidelines which cover advertising and market research, given that supervision has been transferred from DoFA to PM&C. Such a committee inquiry could establish both the scope and the cost of market research by government and make recommendations as to appropriate guidelines that would govern the use of such techniques.This is a government that has systematically rorted advertising and research. It rorts the selection processes to give jobs to its mates. It rorts the research briefs to acquire taxpayer funded political research. It flagrantly rorts copyright so that the Liberal Party can use government artwork. It covers up by refusing to table all relevant material for parliamentary scrutiny. It covers up by refusing to answer questions on notice. It covers up by rejecting freedom of information requests. It covers up by giving misleading answers at Senate estimates committees.Only a full Senate inquiry can get to the bottom of the murky, rorted research activities of this government and make sensible recommendations to ensure cleaner, more accountable and more honest arrangements in future.10:45:00716Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I am not going to speak on the substantive motion; I am going to explain why we received a lecture less than half an hour ago from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate on his advice that the government should inform other senators of what the advance program should be.At the whips meeting last night at approximately 7 o'clock the opposition whip advised that the motion which is listed at item 6 under discovery of formal business under Senator Gibbs's name would be deferred. That was clearly either a mistake—to give the new whip his due, he may have made a mistake. He certainly made a series of mistakes the day before when he advised all parties that every motion was going to be declared formal and embarrassed his colleague Senator Lundy. But we all make mistakes, as I said earlier.We were told that this motion would be deferred. Clearly, the government had not been told that the motion would be brought on and debated. Senator Ray has obviously wanted to pull on what is a stunt. He has obviously done that. It is sad to see a former distinguished senior minister in a former government brought down to the level of having to dig around, jump up and down, scream and yell, and try to keep his name in the public spotlight. It is very sad to see, because we all know that Senator Ray is far more capable than that.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I am a has-been; you're a never-been.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Senator, I thought you were supporting my ministerial aspirations. I thought you were the one bloke over there who was trying to help me. I was modelling my career on you, Senator Ray. I thought I'd get to the front bench in the same time as you made it.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You're better than Senator Kemp. We're all on your side.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Thanks, Senator Ray. As I said in, I guess, an intemperate interjection at the beginning of Senator Ray's adventure, speech, whatever you might call it—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Opus.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Opus, rage, rave, it was hypocritical to give the government a lecture by leave about giving advance notice about the government's program and then to deceive the whips meeting, to in fact inform us that that matter would be deferred and then bring it on with certainly all of the senators on this side not being informed about it. I understand some Independent senators were not informed either. So I will not bother going to the detail of the motion. I just say that we will not take advice from the opposition on our management of the program, when it is hypocritical for them to give that advice, because within half and hour of receiving that advice they basically not only did not tell us what they were doing; they actually told us they were doing the opposite and then did it. It is hypocrisy; it is deceit. I give Senator O'Brien the benefit of the doubt. He has only been in the job for a few sitting days. We look forward to dealing with this motion in the way that it should be—with ultimate contempt both for the motion and also for the process with which it has been brought on.10:48:00717Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I will let the opposition whip debunk the last contribution from Senator Campbell and I will address the substance of the motion before the chair. The Liberal machine has always boasted of the roles played by many of its key operatives—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—This is a disgrace. You have no honour at all.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—in support of the Country Liberal Party in Northern Territory elections. The DDB Needham ad team of Toby Ralph and John King, the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, Grahame Morris, and the Liberal Party pollster, Mark Textor, all cut their political teeth in the Territory while working on CLP campaigns.The coalition are proud of these operatives and the work they did in the Territory. They are proud of the racist, lowest common denominator campaigns that they have run—campaigns which not only `de-Territorianise' the Aboriginal community there but also dehumanise them, campaigns that are based on character assassination, fear and loathing.These were the operatives who assassinated Terry Smith in 1990 in a vicious personal campaign that scarred him and his wife and children. The Needham operatives later boasted in the Adelaide Advertiser—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I raise a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. Not only has the senator on his feet at the moment deceived the chamber and breached any honour; he is now flagrantly breaching standing order 187. He is reading word for word—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—Order, Senator Campbell!H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—some speech that a staffer has written out for him.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Campbell!H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—This man is a senior member of the Senate. He should not have to read a piece of puerile—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Campbell! Will you please resume your seat.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—political rubbish word for—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Campbell, will you please resume your seat. Would you please withdraw the word `deceived', which is unparliamentary, I am advised.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—He flagrantly misled other honourable senators, and he is in flagrant breach of standing order 187. I ask you to call him to order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a new point of order. The opposition leader in the Senate is reading word for word a prepared text in large full spaced orator font, which is in flagrant beach of standing order 187.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am aware of that standing order, but I am also aware of the general practice of this place—certainly in my experience—that a number of senators do refer to copious notes. I believe there is no point of order to be taken.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I raise a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. There is a difference between copious notes and a speech that is written out word for word in full orator font being read word for word by a senator who cannot look up, who cannot even extemporise. He has to read every single word of it. This guy is a leader of the opposition in the Senate. He has been in the parliament for nearly 10 years; he should be able to make a speech without reading it word for word like a grade 4 school student who is learning to read.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, this is an issue that is occasionally raised. I think it would be appropriate for me to refer it to the President to make a comment on, but I think you will agree that senators on both sides, on all sides of the chamber, do refer to copious notes.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You've never read a speech, Senator Campbell.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Once. That's it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Ray.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I raise a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I was going to let you resume your speech.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I would like to speak to the point of order. As you would know, Madam Acting Deputy President, I have an excellent record in this chamber in relation to making extemporaneous speeches. It is very unusual for me to take a point of order like the one that Senator Ian Campbell has raised. It is also very unusual for me to use copious notes. On this occasion I intend to use copious notes because there are certain facts here that need to be placed on the public record. I want to ensure that they are absolutely accurate. In relation to this contribution I am, unusually, going to use copious notes. But if Senator Campbell wants to set a new example—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Go outside and make this speech; Robert Ray won't. It is 10 yards to courage.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I will be one senator who would be very happy every time a government senator in this chamber refers to copious notes to draw it to the chair's attention. I do not use notes on even an irregular basis. It is unusual for me, as you would know Madam Acting Deputy President, but I intend to do it in this speech because there is certain factual material. When the point of order was taken, I was quoting directly from the Adelaide Advertiser . I want to get these quotations right. I want to get this material right. I know we are going to have the government engage in a cover-up here, but I am afraid we are going to get this material on the public record whether Senator Campbell or other members of the government like it or not.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, your comments are not a point of order. The reason I am referring this question to the President is that it is often used as a device by all sides in this place to restrict debate. I think it is time that we looked closely at the way in which copious notes are used because everybody uses copious notes in this place at different times when, as Senator Faulkner has indicated, they want to be sure to get particular facts on the public record. I think it would be appropriate if you finished your speech, Senator Faulkner, so that we can continue the business of the Senate.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I will continue this quote from the Adelaide Advertiser from the Needham operatives. They said:. . . from a marketing perspective, the less decisive, the less interested, the less informed the voter, the more desirable, the more influential and the more seducible their vote.In the same article, Toby Ralph bragged:. . . the first part of our negative strategy was a vicious attack on Labor leader, Terry Smith . . . we called him Terrence—not Terry—because it sounds more contrived and effeminate and very un-Territorian.These are the operatives who in 1993 put together the Liberal Party ad that showed Australians in the crosshairs of a telescopic gun sight while a deep male voice asked who would be next. This was an ad that was supposed to be about unemployment. The Coalition for Gun Control issued a press statement calling the ads `a cynical exploitation of the tragic gun violence problem in this country'. In response, the then Deputy Director of the Liberal Party, Grahame Morris, dismissed complaints about the ads as being `mild by political standards'.Mark Textor is the notorious Canberra by-election push pollster and the first known user in Australia of this invasive, anonymous and cowardly technique. He learned the technique in the USA and perfected its use in the 1994 Northern Territory election when voters were asked whether they knew that Labor planned to introduce two sets of laws, one for blacks and another for whites. Morris, Ralph, King and Textor—these are the operatives of whom this coalition is so very proud.The coalition embraced them into the Liberal Party. It entrusted them with the key role in developing the Liberal Party election strategy in 1996. It gave Morris the key role in the Prime Minister's office. It gave the others key government contracts such as the rorted guns buyback advertising contract awarded to DDB Needham, with the research component of the public relations campaign carried out by Textor. It was Morris who orchestrated the fix to get them this work, despite their concepts testing disastrously.The coalition threw other government work their way. There was a research contract for Textor on the Natural Heritage Trust. Waterfront reform research conducted by Textor cost taxpayers $42,000 alone. Who is Mark Textor, the Liberal Party pollster who was recruited out of the Northern Territory by Andrew Robb? We know that both his methodology and his analysis are morally bankrupt. He is a push pollster obsessed with negative campaigns based on emotive and racist research findings. He is unprincipled and he is dishonest. In 1990 he participated in a scheme to defraud the taxpayers of the Northern Territory. Shane Stone, Mark Textor and Andrew Coward conspired to corruptly bill the Northern Territory government for $35,540 worth of qualitative research into various governmental and political issues in the Northern Territory.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You are so gutless and so cowardly; you won't say this outside. You are disgrace to the Senate.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell, that is inappropriate language. Please do not use it.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam Acting Deputy President, he is gutless and cowardly. He won't say this outside. He is disgraceful and does not deserve to be a senator. Why don't you step outside? Go and say it outside.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, regardless of your feelings about the subject matter, you must withdraw the comments you have made about Senator Faulkner—regardless of the content, which I understand you feel strongly about. Would you please withdraw your remarks?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam Acting Deputy President, all senators should feel strongly about a senator defaming a character.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Withdraw your remarks!H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I will be withdrawing. These are words that this senator would not say outside.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You withdraw; this is not your speech.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, would you please withdraw?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—This is a premeditated character assassination of a person who cannot defend himself. I withdraw what I said about Senator Faulkner.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a further point of order. You should ask Senator Campbell to apologise to the chair. You were on your feet and he constantly interrupted, sniping from his seated position. He knows better than to put on this puerile performance, but because he cannot counteract any of the arguments we get this smearing interjection from him time and time again. It will go on all the time, Madam Acting Deputy President, unless you are firm with him.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Madam Acting Deputy President, it might be in the interests of the good conduct of the chamber if Senator Robert Ray's point of order is noted, but we proceed with the business. In question time we have similar interjections from Senator Faulkner on the other side when Madam President is trying to keep order. I think we should just get on the business.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—That is a useful contribution, Senator O'Chee. We certainly do have interjections constantly in this place which are inappropriate and unparliamentary. That is why I asked Senator Ian Campbell to withdraw. The public is unimpressed with those kinds of interjections which both sides of this chamber engage in. I think that Senator O'Chee's suggestion, notwithstanding the comments of Senator Robert Ray, is appropriate. Senator Campbell, I ask you, notwithstanding your feelings on this subject, to restrict your comments to comments that are parliamentary and not unparliamentary so that Senator Faulkner can proceed.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam Deputy President, I appreciate that and I appreciate the offer made by Senator O'Chee, but I think Senator Robert Ray's advice is absolutely accurate and I should not have spoken while you were on your feet. I should not have interjected upon you and I unreservedly apologise to you and to the position of President of the Senate. I think what I did was wrong.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Madam Deputy President, could I indicate on a point of order that I kept addressing the chair because Senator Ian Campbell stood in his place and was addressing you without taking a point of order. Of course, if there was a point of order and Senator Campbell was called, I would have resumed my seat. I ask you to rule that, if a senator wishes to take a point of order—which they can at any time during a senator's contribution, particularly if they want to cover up what a senator is saying because it is so embarrassing to the Liberal Party and the National Party—they must stand in their place and seek the call. They just cannot stand up and scream across the chamber like the Manager of Government Business in the Senate who is setting such a poor example.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I think we are all aware of the normal rules of procedure in this place and I would ask you to proceed with your speech.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Thank you. Shane Stone, now the Northern Territory's Chief Minister, was the President of the CLP at the time. Mark Textor was employed as a researcher for the CLP and Andrew Coward was the key operative in Chief Minister Perron's office. The same research that cost Northern Territory taxpayers over $35,000—conducted by the same researcher, using the same focus groups, on the same days, in the same locations—was made available to the CLP for a mere $3,700. Every aspect of the research provided to the territory government was also passed on to the CLP, but large sections of the document received by the CLP were never included in the research commissioned and paid for by the Northern Territory government.The scheme was for the CLP and the Northern Territory government to simultaneously request research from Brian Sweeney and Associates into various governmental and political issues in the Northern Territory. The Chief Minister's office informed public servants of the parameters of the research and who would be conducting it. The public servants were never told that the CLP would piggyback on the government's research, that it would receive all of the findings and more. This is in total breach of copyright.The public servants were also never told that taxpayers would bear the full cost of the group discussions, the group moderation expenses and the group recruitment expenses. They were never told that while the Northern Territory government would be billed $4,800 for focus group recruitment alone, the total cost to the CLP for the entire project, using the same focus groups, would be only $3,700. The public servants were never told that only swinging voters would participate in the focus groups. The public servants were never told that every focus group, in every locality, would comprise only white territorians, even though Aboriginals comprise approximately one-third of the territory's population.The public servants were never told that the real reason for the research was contained in a memo dated 2 April 1990 and sent under the signature of Mark Textor to key CLP operatives. In that memo, Mark Textor specifically recommends that government and CLP research be run simultaneously. This memo is the genesis of the conspiracy hatched by Textor, Coward, Stone and Klein to falsely bill the territory government for the CLP's campaign research. The public servants were never told any of these things. Nor were they told that Mr Klein would totally breach his signed undertaking to the Secretary of the Chief Minister's department that all copyright would vest with the Northern Territory government. They were never told that all the research would be provided to the CLP. Nor were they told that Mr Ron Klein's letter of 14 June 1990 outlining the subjects to be covered in the research, included an attachment, which no public servant ever saw, which separated the governmental from the political information requirements.This letter makes it absolutely clear that it was always intended to illegally bill the Northern Territory government for research that was purely for the political purposes of the CLP, research that was never intended to be made available to government.Ron Klein's 12 focus groups resulted in two reports. The first is entitled A 1990 Insight into the Northern Territory and was prepared by Ron Klein for the Northern Territory government in July 1990. I shall refer to that as `the government report'. The second report is entitled A 1990 Insight into Northern Territory Politics and was prepared by Ron Klein for the confidential attention of Shane Stone and Mark Textor of the Northern Territory CLP in July 1990. I shall refer to that as `the CLP report'.The government report is numbered 6706, while the CLP report is numbered 6697. I ask: who from Brian Sweeney and Associates made the decision to use the deceptive device of non-consecutive numbers for these reports? I ask Brian Sweeney and Associates whether its researchers are routinely instructed to provide advice on ways to conceal copyright and billing breaches to clients? Is it standard practice for their researchers to aid and abet the defrauding of taxpayers?The government report commences with the quote, `This document reports the findings from 12 group discussions conducted across the Northern Territory between 25 June and 3 July 1990.' The CLP report commences with the quote, `This document reports the findings from 12 group discussions conducted across the Northern Territory between 25 June and 3 July 1990.' This is not surprising. After all, the methodology of each report, contained on pages 7 and 4 respectively, is exactly the same. The group numbers, the locations, the age and gender profiles and the dates are exactly the same. The only difference is that the CLP report contained the observation that the respondents had no involvement or strong affinity with any political party and every respondent in every group was white.These two facts were deleted from the report provided to the government. In other words, the government never knew that the focus group samples were unrepresentative. They needed to be unrepresentative to suit the political parameters of the CLP. The government report, costing $35,000, runs to 46 pages. The CLP report, costing $3,700, runs to 65 pages. The CLP report includes page after page of material that they never asked for in their formal brief but, since it had been provided to the territory government, it was passed on to the CLP, in total breach of copyright.Page after page of the report matches one another verbatim—the same layout, the same font, the same quotes, the same observations. Both reports contain the same chapter headings. In some cases, political quotes are left out of the government report but blended into the CLP report. Under the heading `The Northern Territory economy and federal funding', on pages 13 and 10 of the reports respectively, the CLP report contains the focus group quote, `It could be doing better if the government (NT) didn't waste so much money'. This quote was deleted from the government report, as were other comments relating to NT government waste.Even though the government brief specifically sought information relating to the Sheraton hotels in Darwin, Yulara and Alice Springs, unfavourable political comments on these projects were deleted from the government report. The comments were, however, included in the CLP report. This must constitute, on Mr Klein's part, a massive breach of his legal, ethical and contractual obligations to provide the full findings of the research to this clients—the copyright for which vests with the territory government.Time and time again aspects of the report are softened or altered so that the government report, for which taxpayers were billed over $35,000, is a weaker, less precise and less informative document. Time and again, salient observations and quotes are left out. The only conclusion is that the Northern Territory government was provided with a useless document—research without any hard edges—a document which would gather dust.The real findings, contained in the CLP report, start on page 44. Remember, the government report ran to only 46 pages. The first of the chapter headings in the CLP report that is not matched in the government report is headed `An introductory comment on the local political arena'. Mr Klein's research told the CLP that there were perceptions of government waste; that the government lacked experience and maturity; that they were helping out their mates—and he wasn't wrong there—and that too many territory contracts were being offered interstate. That, I might say, was from the Melbourne-based Mr Klein. On it goes until page 64—20 pages of political findings. So one-third of the research the government never saw.The NT public servants were merely the mugs who provided the taxpayer-funded structure around which the CLP could conduct its real political research. This research then formed the basis of the CLP's election campaign, run by DDB Needham, in October 1990. This is not only dishonest and unethical, it is also corrupt. The operatives involved—Textor, Stone, Klein and Coward—conspired to defraud the taxpayers of the Northern Territory.Mark Textor's involvement in territory politics did not end with the Sweeney swindle of 1990. On 14 April 1993, Mark Textor's business—Territory Focus Consulting—entered into a contract with the Northern Territory government to provide research during 1993-94. The business name was registered with the ASC on the same day. In other words, registering the business name was simply a device to enable a paid coalition political operative to be engaged on voter research at taxpayer expense in the run-up to the election. The contract was for 12 months and the fee was $740 per day. The services that Textor was to provide were described, in deliberately vague terms, in two lines in schedule 3 of the contract. I quote:The consultant shall provide to the Territory advice on community attitudes towards government programmes and initiatives as required. It was never intended that Textor would perform anything other than political research for the CLP. By July, Textor was providing advice to the private staff of Chief Minister Perron. In a letter to Andrew Coward, dated 16 July 1993 and marked `private and confidential', Textor, a consultant engaged by the NT government on a $740 a day taxpayer-funded consultancy, provided details of the voter research that he intended to conduct.Time and again his research intentions refer to voters. He writes of determining `what factors are most important in influencing voter behaviour'. He advises Coward that `a campaign researcher needs regular voter contact in order to put his or her findings in their proper historical context and to properly interpret subtle changes in attitude'. He writes:My groups were intended to be nothing more than a `snap shot' read, or the first of a series of updates of the general political mood of the under 35 target market in the northern suburbs to see what (and if) further research was required and in what directions.That goes to the heart of the scam. Textor's work was political. The letter to Coward was faxed from the Liberal Party's national headquarters in Canberra. In further faxes in September 1993, Textor describes the focus groups he is setting up for further research. He describes the processes that will be used to weed out committed voters. The evidence is unambiguous. Textor's research is political. Indeed, he boasts that he has seen `more political focus groups than anyone in Australia over the last two years'. It is totally political. It serves no other purpose than the development of campaign strategies for the CLP. Yet it is paid for by the taxpayers of the Northern Territory.The documents that we have in our possession and which are now being tabled, or soon to be tabled, in the Northern Territory parliament show the contempt that Mark Textor has for public accountability and ethical standards. They show that he is both an initiator and an active participant in conspiracies to defraud the taxpayers of the Northern Territory. This man is John Howard's own political pollster. This is a person appointed by the Liberal Party, nationally, to conduct their research.Some of these scams were actually conducted by Textor while operating out of the Liberal Party national secretariat and using their equipment. This is a person considered suitable for government research projects for the Commonwealth of Australia. But we say this about Mark Textor. We say that he is a person unfit to receive government work in this country. We say that, in a democracy, political parties must observe some standards in respect of their own advertising and research. We say that Mark Textor is not fit to be retained as the chief pollster of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister of Australia.We say that Mark Textor conspired with Shane Stone, Ron Klein and Andrew Coward to defraud the taxpayers of the Northern Territory and we say that Mark Textor also conspired to use his business name, Territory Focus Consulting, to further defraud territory taxpayers by conducting political research for the CLP under a bogus government contract. We say that both the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party are tainted by their association with and involvement in dealings with one of the lowest, most unethical, most grubby political operatives Australia has seen.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. We have been very restrained on this side while the Leader of the Opposition has been reading his speech and ranting and raving and carrying on. I would like to seek some advice from you. He is constantly slandering and abusing an individual, making wild and extreme claims about this person. What protection does this person have in this parliament to stop Senator Faulkner behaving in this quite disgraceful manner?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. I think you, like all other honourable senators, are aware of references to the Privileges Committee.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—We do need a committee of inquiry in order to establish whether the Textor modus operandi has ever been used at the federal level. I think the parliament needs to know whether Textor was given contracts for market research by this government and, if so, whether those contracts were for backdoor, taxpayer funded polling for the coalition or whether they were won on the basis of the merits of his bid.We say that Textor's market research for the federal government needs to be examined in detail and we also say that a only a Senate inquiry is likely to do that. I commend the motion to the Senate. I have provided the minister at the table with a copy of documentation and I seek leave to table that material.11:17:00724Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Leave is not granted. This material, I understand, was passed to the coalition just in the last 30 minutes or so. There are some hundreds of pages, by the look of it, in this material. The normal courtesies, as usual with Senator Faulkner, were not observed. Fancy dumping this vast quantity of paper and then demanding approval for it to be tabled. We will take time to look at the material.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Then give it back.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—In that case, I give it back, but the answer is no.11:18:00724O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Given that the coalition obviously is not prepared to proceed with this matter, I move:That this matter be adjourned until 15 February 1999.Question resolved in the affirmative.Personal Explanations72411:19:00724O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I seek leave to make a personal explanation.Leave granted.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—Senator Campbell, in the previous debate, indicated that at a whips meeting held last night at approximately 7 p.m. I had advised the coalition that Senator Gibbs's motion, the subject of the previous debate, would be deferred. In that regard I have been misrepresented. I did not say that. What I said was that I had no instructions that we would be seeking formality on the matter. Indeed, had I given the indication that the matter would be sought to be deferred, I would have assumed it would be placed in item 5 on the Notice Paper and not in item 6 as it was. It may have been that assumptions were made by Senator Campbell and perhaps others at the meeting but I am not responsible for the assumptions made by others. In relation to the claim that I misled, deliberately or otherwise, the members of the coalition at the whips meeting last night, I categorically reject that and I indicate that the Notice Paper confirms that I did not say that this matter would be deferred this morning.Business724724Motion (by Senator Abetz, at the request of Senator Tambling) proposed:That the Senate sit from Monday, 7 December to Thursday, 10 December 1998.11:21:00724Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I was the person who denied formality when this motion was proposed in the first place. I must admit I was disorderly, to the point of interjecting a little later and saying, `Nobody tells us anything.' There was, I believe, a message left last night on my answer phone from the Manager of Government Business to call him. I received the message this morning but I have not had that call. There has been no discussion between the government and the Greens (WA) in relation to the matter of the sitting weeks.I wanted to ask basic questions like, `Is this going to be government business only? Will we have a normal sitting period? Can we debate the issues?' The point was to say that the government ought to put some words on the record as to what is happening with their program and why they have made their mind up.Now I notice that there was an agreement between the government and the opposition. They made an agreement to swap statements when the formality was going to be pushed through this morning. That arrangement was not passed through to me either. So, if the government wants to progress at this time of the year, I would suggest a better form of communication. Don't just take parties like the Greens for granted. Try to actually discuss with us the reasons for making decisions.In fact, we are having difficulty at the moment: we are running out of legislation. I realise, as was hastily mentioned at the whips meeting last night, that there is more legislation coming on as a result of committees that have not finalised their deliberations. I also note that it has been suggested that a bill which was never on the list of 10 November is now coming on—an environmental bill that was not even on the list. The government is going to be ranting and raving at some stage about the recalcitrance of the Senate when there is a major environmental bill which, we are now told, it is hoping to debate before December, before Christmas.It has to have it one way or the other. It has to tell us what it is doing. Quite frankly, there are great difficulties. We are supposed to be debating a bill, whenever this debate finishes, when we still have not had the government's amendments. The government did not tell us until the day before yesterday that it was not planning to take anybody else's views into consideration. All the different parties, I can see, are now just circulating amendments; nobody has had a chance to look at them. I think if the government wants cooperation on its program it has got to give cooperation to everybody else. We have just received the amendments from the opposition; the Greens and the Democrats have been working all hours to try to get our amendments together; and the government was sitting on its hands, not giving advice on that particular bill, and we will deal with that more when we get back to the committee stage of the bill.Fair is fair in this place. If the government is going to get up and rant and rave about the Senate, then it has to look at not just the management of the program but its own means of communication—what it is doing and when—with ample time for all parties to be adequately covered and for the Senate system—the library system, the legal system and everybody else who needs that time—to be properly prepared. It would have been nice. Now I can see that the deal has been done and finally the vote is going through, but I simply wanted to say that this kind of motion should not have gone through as a formal nod and a wink motion because it needed to be at least explained and put on the public record.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills725s177725Consideration resumed from 25 November.(Quorum formed)The bill.11:28:00725Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Madam Temporary Chairman, I know that we are waiting for the minister to come. I have circulated a number of amendments. I have not actually moved them. As I understand it privately, the government has accepted the opposition's amendments. Is that correct?N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Yes.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—These are the ones that have been circulated in my name. I think that, in view of the information that the government has accepted my amendments, it might be best if we now move to the minor parties' amendments and have the debate over those. I will come back to mine later.11:30:00725Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—As I was venting some of my spleen in the debate on the previous motion, I would like to round that off by explaining why I was so concerned about this Space Activities Bill 1998 as we move into the committee stage. We are all finding that as we come into the chamber there are amendments which we have only just seen, which have just arrived into our hands. The government may say, and the usual set piece is, `Why weren't people well prepared?' We have been trying very hard over the last week to move as quickly as possible on this bill.It is one of those bills which is potentially of much greater import than meets the eye initially because we may discover—or find out later on with subsequent bills in the next week or so—that sometimes a bill which seems to be dealing with just one issue may in fact potentially be dealing with other issues in the future. So a lot of work had to be done to find out what the issues were. There did not seem to be time to get the usual assistance that would normally speed things along—like the ability to get a Bills Digest in time—because of the government's handling of this. Our officers have been trying to gain information from the government about concerns we have had for some time and they were very late in coming back to us. I understand the situation was similar for the Australian Democrats. Getting amendments circulated by today required a great deal of effort.In this particular case, all the parties involved have been working their way through this bill. As I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate, it is very useful to have legislation dealing with space activities because Australia is getting more into those activities and is likely to have some commercial pressure for future activities. However, all of these kinds of activities ought to be carefully considered. If there are military or corporate implications or implications for Australia being a good global citizen then these ought to be carefully considered. We need the opportunity to look at the bill carefully. We also need the opportunity to look at the amendments.The last amendments we received in this flurry of activity leading up to the bill being called on again in the committee stage were in fact the government's. So the last group of amendments to be looked at and considered are the government's amendments. It may well be that there has been discussion between the government and the opposition on these issues, but there has been less discussion between the government and parties like the Greens (WA) on these issues. There may even have to be a new running sheet. Senator Schacht has suggested that we go straight to the Democrats amendments and the Green (WA) amendments. That is fine, but where do the government's amendments fit in, and why weren't we given these a little earlier than now?11:33:00726Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—On the same subject of this Space Activities Bill 1998 , I echo some of the comments of Senator Margetts. I should note that my office has received excellent assistance from the minister's office. I have found the minister's office particularly agreeable in assisting my office.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Don't encourage them.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—Senator Schacht, I would appreciate it if you would not walk between the speaker and the chair and have a conversation between the speaker and the chair.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—The difficulty for everyone concerned has been the time line. Senator Margetts is correct in saying that the response to some particular queries came through fairly late before we began this debate yesterday. I note now that the Greens (WA) amendments and the Democrats amendments have been circulated. Certainly my amendments have been drawn to the attention of the minister's office. I understand that you have given us indications as to what is acceptable and what could perhaps be amended. We have yet to see the opposition's amendments. I am not suggesting that there is any fault on anyone's behalf in getting these.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It is not a conspiracy.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Senator Schacht, would you like to sit down? I am just suggesting that this debate has come on at a point where I do not feel that we have had sufficient time to examine everybody's amendments in appropriate detail.11:43:00726Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Are you suggesting that we defer the committee stage to a later time? The opposition is happy to continue with the committee stage now. The opposition amendments are being circulated, as I understand it. The government has accepted our amendments, as I understand it. The Democrats amendments and the Green (WA) amendments, as I understand it, are not acceptable to the government, and they are not acceptable to the opposition. That is what I am advised.In order to continue with the committee stage now, I am proposing we progress this by dealing with the Democrats amendments and the Green (WA) amendments, which, it appears, neither the government nor the opposition support. That is the advice I have received. The government has apparently accepted the opposition amendments, though the Greens (WA) and the Democrats may oppose them. I propose we deal with those later on if it does not affect the running sheet order too much. I do not think that it is `rocket science' to handle the running sheet and the amendments that have been circulated in this way. I apologise to everybody if you have not received the opposition's amendments. They are about to be circulated.11:36:00727Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I am advised that a draft of the ALP amendments was made available to the minor parties on Monday so that we could debate this matter this week. The government agree with the opposition; we want to proceed with the committee stage. We do regard this bill as urgent. It has been introduced to the Senate so we can have this debate. Then it will go to the House. I point out to Senator Stott Despoja that, as a senator for South Australia, it is important she recognise the importance of this legislation in relation to a most important project in South Australia—the Kistler project. One of the reasons we regard this as urgent legislation is to enable the Kistler project to proceed within the framework of this legislation. I appreciate the pressure on the minor parties in relation to legislation but in this case we do have the opposition and government by and large in agreement as to where this bill should go. There is urgency with it. We will debate the amendments. There are a few that are acceptable to the government; others we oppose. We can discuss those in the committee stage but we would like to proceed.11:37:00727Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am beginning to see that there is a context to the debate which has totally cut out elements and voting elements of the Senate. There seems to be a context by which two of the parties have worked out a position and have worked out a strategy for the running sheet and for the way the debate should go but information has not been available to the other parties. This really is not acceptable, and I think that in this particular case I am prepared to move that the debate on this bill be adjourned. Quite frankly, it is not acceptable. It is a case of, `We have a deal stitched up, so we are all right, mate.' There is no context of what that deal is and what the government amendments say, and I don't think it is reasonable. I move:That progress be reported.Question resolved in the negative.11:39:00727Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—For the record, this is not so much a case of rocket science, as Senator Schacht has pointed out, but it is a case of Lost in Space. I suggest that it is the opposition's amendments that were lost in space.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—They are now circulated.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Terrific. Thanks.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Senator Margetts was correct in suggesting that perhaps in this committee stage debate a couple of the parties may have been somewhat disfranchised in this process. I and my office have had 15 minutes to look at the amendments—the deal, if you like, that has been struck between the government and the opposition. You have a perfect right to exchange those amendments and make decisions, but, Senator Schacht, we have not had an opportunity to examine your amendments. I realise that they are acceptable to the government and therefore they will be passed. Yes, I do note also, Minister, that I am sure it is no coincidence that there are three South Australians debating this bill, so the significance is not lost on me.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Two parties want space activities, one doesn't.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—However, there are some significant elements of this bill which we believe should be teased out and in fact amended. I suggest that not the least of these relate to environmental concerns that we have with the bill and concerns to do with weaponry and harm. These are not trivial matters, and I guess we will proceed on that basis. I move my first amendment:(1) Clause 8, page 5 (lines 24 to 31), omit the definition of liability period , substitute: liability period means:(a) for the launch of a space object—the period beginning when the launch takes place and ending when the return period begins; and(b) for the return of a space object—the period beginning when the relevant re-entry manoeuvre or other re-entry event begins and ending when the object has come to rest on Earth. Note: The liability period for an object which does not return to Earth is therefore open-ended.The clause that I seek to amend provides definitions for the operation of the bill. The term `liability period' is defined in that clause to mean:(a) for the launch of a space object—the period of 30 days beginning when the launch takes place or such other period as is specified in the regulations; and(b) for the return of a space object—the period beginning when the relevant re-entry manoeuvre has begun and ending when the object has come to rest on Earth, or such other period as is specified in the regulations.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—That could be 30 years, if it is a satellite.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—That is in the bill. The effect of this provision is to specify a liability period which is limited and in particular leaves out the period after the launch and before the re-entry manoeuvre. This is particularly concerning because this creates a scheme which is incomplete.The amendment that I am proposing on behalf of the Democrats would make the liability period cover the entire time from the launch until the time the object returns to the surface of the earth. This is achieved by changing the definition of the term `liability period', which then flows into the operation of the bill, for example, in clause 62, which provides for damage covered and distinguishes between a launch and a return. The amendment proposes extending the launch period to cover the existing launch period as well as the time the object is in space and until the object begins a planned re-entry or an event which results in re-entry. Where there is no re-entry, such as where the object is sent out of the earth orbit into the furthest regions of space, like the Galileo probes, the launch period will be open-ended.Importantly, removing the existing definition avoids unfairness in the application and apportionment of liability. For example, the period of 30 days after a launch appears to be a fairly arbitrary figure. Certainly the minister can feel free to explain the rationale for that figure. I accept the assurances from the minister that damage after this period is improbable. But should we again overlook the risk—this is something I touched on in my speech on the second reading—just because there is a low risk? And, if it is very improbable, then the indemnity will reflect this. Further, the launches are supposed to be low risk, yet there is a distinction between damage within 30 days and another later period after the launch.The change to the return provision is also necessary to take account of the chance of an accidental return to earth as a result of an event causing re-entry. Accidents do happen, and this may result in the return of materials to earth. These are events that do happen and, although infrequent, they should be taken into consideration in this legislative scheme. I set out in my speech on the second reading an outline of the number of objects in space and the increasing numbers. The ESA, the European Space Operation Centre, has a debris database of more than 1.7 million elements, and it is adding nearly 30,000 new elements each month. This does not include the tens of thousands of elements less than 10 centimetres wide which can be deadly. For example, a one-millimetre object travelling at 10 kilometres per second will penetrate most satellites and can cause failure of the satellite. These can cause accidents.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—They won't hit someone in Australia.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—You will have your turn, Senator Schacht. On 24 July 1996 a French military satellite was struck by a piece of space debris from the break-up of an upper stage of an Ariane rocket in November 1986. The debris, travelling at nearly 15 kilometres per second, severed the satellite's gravity gradient boom. This event disabled the satellite and turned it into debris. These fragments are returning, albeit slowly, to earth and, although unlikely to cause damage to the earth's surface because most of it is water or unpopulated, there is always the potential that it can cause damage.We all remember the 90-tonne Skylab which returned to earth in Senator Margetts's home state of Western Australia in 1979. It would have caused devastation had it struck the east coast. Similarly, a stainless steel container weighing several hundred kilos from the Delta second stage of a US MS-X satellite survived re-entry to land near Georgetown in Texas. Although there have been no recorded fatalities, the potential is there. This is increased with the amount of debris. These are the potential events which are not covered by the present provisions. I think they should be covered.Finally, the cost to those launching objects into space will undoubtedly increased. This is a cost which eventually will have to be taken on by somebody. If an accident happens and a third party is affected, this amendment says that they should look to the party responsible for the launch or return. An Australian national should not have to use the common law to enforce their rights because of an omission in this bill. The Commonwealth should not be liable by virtue of its international obligations to foreign nationals. The cost shifting in the present provision is unfair and the Democrats believe that this amendment will reflect this.11:45:00729Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens (WA) are certainly prepared to support Senator Stott Despoja's amendment No. 1. I want to refer to two interjections made by Senator Schacht. In the first he said, `Two parties want space activities, one doesn't.' I think he was saying that the government and the opposition want space activities, but the minor parties—the Greens and the Democrats—do not.I would like to clarify that. I remind the space cadets here that what the Greens and Democrats are saying is that, if we have space activities, we want well-regulated and safe space activities. That is not the same as one wanting it and one not. That is a fairly puerile way of dealing with the issue. The way this has been negotiated is along those lines. It is a matter of testosterone-pushed, big guys toys. We are interested in community concerns. I remind Senator Schacht that he is not the minister. He has the same responsibility as everybody else to look after the concerns of his electorate.The second interjection from Senator Schacht was, `They won't hit people in Australia.' He is forgetting the fact that there may well be potential for space junk to create damage elsewhere or in space. If we are getting the benefits and profits of having commercial operations in Australia, then we should also take the responsibility of any problems associated with those commercial operations.I do not think it is a good example of how this debate is going to go when puerile comments are made across the chamber, with people doubting that the concerns of the community—and of informed members of the community—ought to be taken into consideration. When in the past I dealt with the issue of shipping liability, I did not get a good responses from the then government, which is now the opposition.In my opinion, liability is about taking responsibility for activities that are in your waters or, in this particular case, taking responsibility for the activities in your region from which you are prepared to take profits. If it is considered that, on balance, these space activities are going to be beneficial, then we must also be prepared to accept liability for anything that goes wrong as a result of these activities. These are the real costs of those activities.Yesterday, I mentioned the example of the Cassini probe. If any reasonable risk analysis had been done in any way, shape or form by any reputable company throughout the world, the risks of the Cassini probe would have far outweighed any potential benefits, but it was never done. The responsibility for that was never accepted by the United States. The enormous, horrifying, appalling risk was just pushed under the carpet under the guise of secrecy, national security or something else.That risk was never accepted by the United States, NASA, or anybody else just for the sake of seeing how far technology could go. It is amazing that 72 kilograms of plutonium could, with impunity, be put at risk and that the lives of so many billions of people throughout the world could be put at risk for the sake of a technological achievement. Would anyone in their wildest imagination have said that this would pass any reasonable risk analysis? The answer is: no, of course it would not.Does Australia think this is the kind of thing we should be aspiring to? As we get to some of the later amendments, you will see that this kind of use is not beyond the scope of the legislation as it has been written. It does not preclude military operations, it does not preclude what the space activity is used for, and so we have to deal with the issue of liability.We have to deal with the government taking a responsible role in calculating and having some input into whether the liability is reasonable and into who is going to manage that liability—whether the companies involved have the wherewithal to manage the liability for any reasonable risk that they are associated with.This is not a laughing matter. It is not a matter of people who want space activities or do not want space activities. It is a matter of taking seriously the responsibility that we are all given as members of parliament and the responsibility which, in this particular case, is being shared by the people who definitely have fewer resources than the government and the opposition to deal with it. We are trying to do that. I support Democrats amendment No. 1.11:52:00730Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I appreciate that some of my interjections may have been misunderstood by Senator Margetts, but when Senator Stott Despoja gave a technical list of the amount of space junk that was floating around—I am not disputing the list and the material—it did not contain those many thousands of items of less than a very small size that are floating around in space.My understanding of the physics is that, if very small items the size of a bolt, a nut or a piece of metal fall back into the atmosphere, they burn up because of the speed they are travelling at. I may be wrong, but that is how I understand it. Therefore, to citizens on the globe—on the surface of the earth—it is not a risk. I accept that it may be a risk to another satellite and it may be a risk to astronauts who are in a space station, but that is not what this legislation is about. It is about providing the protection for Australian citizens going about their general daily business in Australia.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—What about international citizenship and international obligation?4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—We are about protecting Australian citizens from—putting it crudely—having a piece of space junk or a part of a rocket fall on them and causing substantial injury, either personally or to their property. The basis of my interjection was that when material that was unlisted in Senator Stott Despoja's information falls back—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—What about plutonium in the atmosphere?4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I don't think Senator Stott Despoja indicated that those small pieces of space junk were pieces of plutonium, which you are now trying to imply, Senator Margetts. I think that this argument that we are getting into is not about the question of liability for protection of Australian citizens.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—We never said it was.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I interjected on Senator Stott Despoja—which I think you choose to misinterpret—because I am trying to clarify. The issue I want to put to the minister, vis-a-vis the impact of the clause moved by the Democrats, is whether we have any estimations of the costs of taking out insurance to cover the impact of the Democrats—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—That is the real cost of the operation.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Yes, that becomes a cost of the operation. Secondly, Senator Stott Despoja wants to amend page 5, lines 24 to 31 of the bill. I want to ask the minister whether what the government has proposed in its bill is similar to legislation for insurance liability of other countries in the Western world. I want to know whether the government's proposal to provide protection and liability is operating elsewhere in the Western world. If it is similar, then I think that it is reasonable that the government supports it. Minister, is the structure about the liability period in lines 24 to 31 similar to what the United States, Canada and the European countries use in drafting their regulatory regime about liability? What Senator Stott Despoja is moving is significantly different. Her amendment says:(a) for the launch of a space object—the period beginning when the launch takes place and ending when the return period begins; and(b) for the return of a space object—the period beginning when the relevant re-entry manoeuvre or other re-entry event begins and ending when the object has come to rest on Earth.Minister, if the rocket is launching a satellite that is going to be in orbit around the earth—whether it be low earth orbiting or geostationary or anything else in between—does the Democrat amendment mean that the liability period applies forever and a day until that satellite disappears or burns up? In 30 years time, if it did re-enter the atmosphere and a small part of it came down to earth, does that mean the liability would have to cover the life of that satellite until it either completely burnt up or was removed by some other means in space? If so, is it equivalent to other Western countries with space programs, and do they have similar liability arrangements? If they do not, I would imagine there is going to be a substantial difference in insurance liability costs to meet the demands of Senator Stott Despoja.11:58:00731Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—In putting together this bill, the department has undertaken significant consultation with the space industry in Australia and overseas and has examined all international practice to determine an appropriate regime for Australia. The 30-day period that we have set reflects the best international practice. It does mirror the US arrangements. It is at the high end of the commercial requirements that are set internationally. There is no nation on earth with a space industry that has a clause like the one proposed in the Democrats amendments. It would mean, as Senator Schacht has implied, that a liability would fall on the launcher to cover or accept liability for a period which could run for years and years.We think that the periods where there is danger are the launch itself and a controlled re-entry, which our bill covers. We think the period of 30 days after launch is more than appropriate and complies with and mirrors best practice internationally. We are about endeavouring to get a space industry under way in Australia. We think that has enormous benefits for Australia, with significant spin-offs in technology, science and other things that, we understand, the Democrats support. There is a real risk that an amendment like this would render the space industry stillborn and that we would be so unattractive a place to engage in launches that people simply would go elsewhere. We are adopting best international practice in our proposal.NaN:00:00731Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—If countries like the United States or the former Soviet Union are limiting their liability, I would not consider that to be world best practice. It is probably a very low hurdle, and I do not think it is something we should be aiming to mirror.One should ask whose liability it is. Having put stuff into space on the basis of making profits—and these are commercial operations to make money—who should accept the liability? I would argue it should be the people who are making money out of it. It might be shared by the people who are using the satellite. I would argue, quite distinctly from Senator Schacht, that that is the real cost of those operations.If we do not include that liability, then we have a subsidised cost. If there is no risk whatsoever, then the liability insurance obviously is not going to be particularly high—and that can be argued. If all the technical arguments say that the risks are almost infinitesimal, then the insurance companies will be able to work out those risks themselves. They have to operate in a commercial environment themselves.If, however, there are substantial risks—and those risks could be extremely costly at some stage in terms of, for instance, possible pollution of the atmosphere or some other major concern—then they must be built into the cost of the operation. You cannot talk about international competitiveness unless you have built those costs in at some stage; otherwise the global community will be subsidising this operation on the basis of satellite users and launch operators making a profit or getting a benefit.If there is a benefit, and if it is a reasonable benefit, then the users and profiteers, the people making the profit—and that is fine—should work out what those real costs are. There is no point in saying, `Well, these costs go so far into the future it is unreasonable to cost them.' It is like someone putting major radioactive waste into the ground—assuming that someone can make a profit by putting it there—and then, after 10 or 20 years, pretending that their responsibility or liability is finished so they plant trees over the top and go away. The Greens (WA) have always argued that that should not be the case. There should not be the ability for people to do that with things like nuclear waste. If this is the way the government and the opposition are dealing with the 30-year issue of liability, what on earth could we expect should there ever be the horrifying concept of a major international radioactive waste dump in Australia? I hope it never happens. Can you imagine—if this is the attitude to liability now with a 30-year proposal for putting something into space—that somehow or other, because it is there for so long, the liability for having put it there in the first place should stop? I do not think the arguments hold water.12:03:00732Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Like Senator Margetts, the Australian Democrats believe in the concept of intergenerational equity; that is, that we have responsibility—Senator Schacht interjecting—3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Madam Temporary Chairman, I notice the exchange of looks across the chamber between the men. It is a concept where you—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Are we going to be hounded all day because we just happen to be blokes at this end of the Senate?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I think it is more symbolic than that. We believe in that concept, which does ensure a degree of responsibility for those who inhabit the earth now, hopefully leaving it, if not in the same state, in a much improved state for those who follow us. Senator Margetts is correct in claiming that, if this risk is so small, the insurance and the liability will reflect that.To answer Senator Schacht's comments earlier about space debris, I mentioned that lots of space junk is larger than 10 centimetres. I also talked about space debris that is smaller than 10 centimetres, and I acknowledge that that can be deadly. Senator Schacht talked about that burning up. One of the examples that I gave was of debris actually having the potential to disarm satellites, to break up satellites. But there are many examples.So I was not necessarily talking about objects smaller than 10 centimetres rushing to earth, knocking senators on the head and causing some kind of fatal accident. But there are possibilities for this space junk to cause other accidents. It can disarm satellites, which again could cause accidents. We have many examples of fragments coming to earth—with not too many fatal consequences thus far, but that is not to say that it will not happen.I acknowledge the minister's response to Senator Schacht in relation to comparable international laws. I mirror again some of Senator Margetts's concerns in that area. Just because legislation exists in other countries in the Western world—such as in Canada and the United States—it does not mean that we cannot seek to improve and refine it and, as the minister stated, have legislation that is an appropriate regime for Australia. That is all we are seeking to achieve with these amendments.Amendment not agreed to.12:05:00732Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:(1) Clause 18, page 14 (after line 9), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the Minister is satisfied that all necessary environmental approvals under Australian law have been obtained, and that an adequate environmental plan has been made, for the construction and operation of the launch facility; and(ab) the Minister is satisfied that all necessary processes and consultations required under the Native Title Act 1993 or other Australian laws relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land or cultural rights in relation to the construction or operation of the launch facility, have been completed; andHere we are looking at the issue of environmental and Aboriginal approvals. It is one of the issues that we worked through to find what was missing from this legislation.It may be obvious that major projects like spaceports need environmental approval, but it is not in the legislation. We believe that it is too important to be left to regulation at some later stage.Possible environmental issues include construction and clearing, especially if you are dealing with areas which are considered remote, such as island communities like Christmas Island or areas where Aboriginal land is concerned—and I will get to that later. Clearing of areas in tropical wetlands or otherwise is of concern, as are geotechnical issues and foundations; aesthetics; materials used in the containment of waste and rubbish, radioactive or otherwise; the impact on the coast of any marine facility; and the processes for minimising the impact of construction.We should be looking at the impact of the facility; the security of the fuel or the containment processes, the communications systems, transport in and out—roads, airstrips, et cetera—and issues regarding materials being transported; the use of resources by the facility—that is, water and power, especially if they are remote or arid areas; waste project management—that is, domestic or industrial; and basically all the things you would expect to be reviewed in any major project. And we are talking major projects here.There are also the impacts specific to the space facility—issues of the types of launcher vehicle, the fuel system, the payloads, and so on. Possibly most important are the proced ures in place to minimise the impact of accidents. The possible impact of a variety of accidents would need thorough examination. In the case of the proposed space probe at Christmas Island, it means looking at the equipment and the technology that is being used and asking for specific information on what that would be. Currently, there is an environmental review process into that, but if such a process is not made necessary by legislation the community will be left out of that process. The launch pad, following take-off, further into the flight and so on, are other things to be considered.I am not just concerned about accidents to do with the launch; I am concerned about other aspects of the facility, for example, an explosion in its fuel store or leaks of toxic materials. Another issue to do with the proposal on Christmas Island is that superheated steam will come from the launch process. It is not an accident; that is what happens. We have to consider the rainforest, important bird species, and so on. All those things have to be taken into consideration. There needs to be a process of examining the environmental impacts on each of these areas in which activity takes place.The list of things which make for a thorough environmental impact statement could go on and on, but the most important thing is the process that is set in train to ensure there is full and open consultation with the affected communities—the scientific community and the broader community. It is not just the local people who have specific information on these issues. The way to ensure this is to have a reference to the necessary environmental approvals written into the bill.The second part of our amendment deals with Aboriginal approvals. This part of our amendment has been moved for the same reason as the first part: to get specific mention of these things in the act so that nothing can be done to get around the necessity for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be respected. Unfortunately, the record of the government on this is not good. The opposition will remember the debates that have occurred on this. The debacle over the proposal for a space facility at Cape York is a very clear example of the government's record on this issue. Aboriginal people must have the right to negotiate on any major development on their land, and there is no room for any exemption for space activities.One aspect of the current proposals that is of concern is the haste with which the issue is being pursued. Contracts have been entered into and deals done already. If this is the way the industry operates, enormous pressure will be put on Aboriginal communities. These must be taken into account in planning for these projects. If it means the project is held up for awhile, then so be it. The project will be better in the long run if it is done in full consultation with local Aboriginal communities. The project should be required to include consideration of cultural impact as well as environmental impact.I do urge support. I believe the government are prepared to look at this amendment, and I urge the support of the rest of the Senate.12:10:00734Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we support these amendments to clause 18, page 14, after line 9, as described by Senator Margetts. I do not know whether this means that my testosterone level is dropping at all, Senator Stott Despoja, but they are reasonable amendments. The opposition is always reasonable about improving legislation.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—I did not make that comment.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—I'm afraid that was me.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I see. I am sorry—it was Senator Margetts. Anyway, we think that these are quite reasonable. I understand the government will probably support them, and I think that is good. The opposition does not in any way want to railroad anything that the law requires elsewhere in environmental investigation and research into the development of environmental impact statements. That is now a natural part of Australian public policy. It should be supported.We strongly support the rights under the Native Title Act. As some of these areas, including Woomera, are clearly areas where the Native Title Act will operate, there are Aboriginal people who have an appropriate and proper claim—an association with the land that Woomera itself covers. As I understand it, they have been consulted in considerable detail going back several years to when the previous government started the process of trying to reactivate Woomera as a space launching facility. Those consultations have continued. As I understand it, only a few months ago the representatives of the Aboriginal people who have a claim to that area approved the Kistler project. As understand it, those consultations have been agreed to.This is an example of how good land rights issues should be dealt with between government, between the private sector and between the appropriate aboriginal people. Therefore the opposition supports this amendment.12:13:00734Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Similarly, the Australian Democrats will support the Greens (WA) amendment which adds some requirements to the existing measures set out in the provision, namely, necessary environmental approvals, together with the necessary processes and consultations under the Native Title Act 1993.We think it is a worthy amendment because of the fact that it clarifies the requirements for the granting of a space licence, and it also reflect worthy ideals and considerations. For those reasons we will be supporting it.12:13:00734Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—We are prepared to accept part (aa) of the amendment. I understand it exactly reflects an opposition or ALP amendment which we had already indicated we would be prepared to accept. All these projects will have to satisfy all necessary environmental approvals anyway and a requirement of this kind was to be in the regulations, so we do not object to it being brought forward into the act.I have only just been able to turn my mind to part (ab). I would have to say I have always had a concern about the extent to which Australian parliaments want to legislate to excess, to the detriment of every Australian, and include in bills completely unneces sary clauses which become lawyers' picnics and create extraordinary difficulty for Australians who want to just get on and create jobs and wealth.It seems to me that (ab) is an unnecessary paragraph. The fact is that a launch facility cannot be built unless all the requirements under the Native Title Act or other laws relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights are satisfied.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Because of the Native Title Act itself.JX4Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHIN—Yes, a state government would be acting illegally if it granted the right to construct a launch facility in contravention of either its own or the federal Native Title Act. Therefore, this is completely unnecessary. I do have some concern about the extent to which we introduce completely unnecessary clauses, the extent to which we create an additional regulatory burden, the extent to which we create the avenue for hostile, time wasting and resource consuming legal action. I therefore have great concern about (ab), simply on that ground—that you cannot proceed to construct a launch facility unless all the relevant Aboriginal land and heritage matters have been dealt with. Any government proposing to authorise such a construction would be acting illegally if it attempted to do so, and that would be actionable. Any affected party could bring an action to prevent the construction in the first place. So, on balance, I would much prefer that this paragraph was not there. At this stage I indicate my opposition to (ab).12:16:00735Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The existence of the 1993 Native Title Act—can I be churlish enough to mention—has not stopped the Western Australian government from failing to undertake a number of their commitments in relation to mining under the 1993 Native Title Act. So the very existence of it does not stop state governments from acting against the interests of—nor compel them to participate in proper consultation with—indigenous land-owners. In the case of some islands that Australia might be negotiating with, the Australian government might be the administrative body, so the reality is that there is a very good reason that we should put this in legislation, that we should make it as clear as possible in relation to such activities. I would still urge the government to take responsibility for making sure that this is clear in this legislation.12:17:00735Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I simply repeat the point that the law is clear in relation to native title and other Aboriginal cultural matters. Any state government purporting to act in contravention of them would be acting illegally and would be subject to legal action under those pieces of legislation to prevent them authorising—in this case—the construction of a launch facility. The Western Australian state government has not knowingly contravened any law.Every state government, after the passage of the 1993 act, based on the understood law at that time and in relation to the statements of the then government, understood that, in relation to pastoral leases, native title had been extinguished and they could therefore issue various licences and leases over such land. That was made in good faith. We did not know that that was illegal until the Wik decision at the end of 1996. From that point on, no leases or licences were issued over pastoral leases—once it became evident that as a matter of common law native title could survive on a pastoral lease. That was anyone's understanding of the law up to that point. So it is not true to say that the Western Australian government was acting knowingly in contravention of any such law.As I say, there is every legal avenue for complainants to stop any illegal activity by a state government in relation to space launch facilities now. Therefore, I assert that this paragraph is completely unnecessary and should not be accepted.12:19:00735Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—If (aa) is acceptable, there is no reason, except the fact that we happen to have mentioned indigenous people and money in the same clause, for the government to make a distinction. I really think this is an appalling process of bracketing out any issues of rights under indigenous people as an exception whenever there is money to be made.Amendment agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Margetts, (1)(ab), be agreed to.12:24:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. 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. Faulkner, J. P.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. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. 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. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Crane, W.Cook, P. F. S. Vanstone, A. E.Evans, C. V. Macdonald, S.Murphy, S. M. Parer, W. R.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.12:29:00736Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I move:(1) Clause 18, page 14 (after line 9), after paragraph (a), insert:(aa) the Minister is satisfied that the person has sufficient funding to construct and operate the launch facility; and(ab) the Minister is satisfied that the probability of the construction and operation of the launch facility causing substantial harm to public health or public safety or causing substantial damage to property is sufficiently low;This amendment expands the government's proposal relating to the granting of a space licence. We believe that this will strengthen what should be required. We believe the amendment will bring about better public policy because it will improve the conditions to be satisfied before the minister will grant a space licence.The first part of the amendment ensures that a person has sufficient funding to construct and operate a launch facility. I can remember many of the proposals that floated around when I was a minister. For the Cape York Peninsula proposal we made it very clear that before the government would even attempt to start the process of an environmental impact statement and other approvals, a substantial amount of money had to be transparently deposited in an appropriate bank to show that the consortium proposing the project had the financial resources to see it through.We believe that there will always be some people with a brilliant idea who hope that the money will turn up at a later stage. We certainly do not want to have proposals which are half-completed and then left in limbo because the money runs out. This is a very important proposition.The second part of the amendment seeks to ensure that the minister is satisfied that the probability of the construction and operation of the launch facility causing substantial harm to public health or public safety or causing substantial damage to property is sufficiently low. I believe that that gives a broader indication to the community that these are the issues of public safety which the minister must take on board.In moving this amendment, Minister, I want to ask a specific question. When the minister, under this legislation, approves the licence for a space activity, will that approval be publicised in the government Gazette, in an appropriate document of the government, or in a press release well before the launch so that, if there is any public debate needed or somebody has a concern about the particular project, they can raise that issue? I think it is important for public transparency and for confidence in the process that a licence given by the minister for a particular launch or a group of launches is made public and, if there is any contention, public debate can take place about the approval well before the launch is committed or the consortium has started to expend what may be large amounts of money. I do not have this as an amendment, but how do you envisage making public the minister's approval for granting a space licence for a launch to take place?12:32:00737Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I expect that, without legislative prerogative, the granting of a space licence would be a matter of wide public dissemination. Obviously the government would be very keen to ensure that the whole world knew that you had agreed to grant a space licence. The community concerned would obviously be very interested to know. The imperatives would clearly be to ensure that there was widespread knowledge of such an occurrence. I really do not think it is necessary to build in a regulatory or legislative regime to ensure publicity that a space licence has been granted—it is hardly going to be a big secret.There is a long process to go through in relation to the grant. The recipients of the licence would be very keen to ensure that everybody knew they had it, as would the government of the day, whether it is you or us. So I really do not believe there is any necessity whatsoever to build in any legislative requirement in relation to that and I am not sure whether you are suggesting that it could somehow be kept a secret.We have indicated that we are prepared to accept parts (aa) and (ab) of the opposition's amendment. We believe these things would be required anyway in practice. It is unlikely that a minister would grant a licence unless the government felt confident that they were able to proceed with the necessary funds. This also applies to part (ab), which was something that was proposed to be in the regulations.12:34:00737Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I thank the minister for stating the obvious that, if he were the minister and there was a launch to be made in the future, particularly from Woomera, being a South Australian senator and minister, it would be announced with all bells, whistles and shouting.JX4MINCHINSenator Minchin—In a multi-million dollar government advertising campaign.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Yes, and I suspect you might even insist that the Prime Minister have a cabinet meeting in Woomera to be there to watch the first launch. It is on the record now and I accept that that would be the process. I do not want to support unnecessary legislation. I think there will be enough publicity so that those who may have a concern get a chance to create a public debate. You never know in this game. Maybe after some experience somebody may want to propose, for example, a two-stage approval process where you approve it and there is a period of 30 days for the public to lodge objections, et cetera. I am not proposing that at the moment. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and I do not think we should propose unnecessary legislation.As I said in my speech during the second reading debate, this is the first act. Experience will dictate subsequent amendments that clearly will come as we get experience in the area, but I am pleased it is on the record that the minister has no intention of hiding his success under a bushel. If we were in government, we would not be hiding our success on a launch under a bushel either.12:36:00737Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I can just see it now: it is going to be a lovely South Australian launch and we are all going to be there.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—We certainly will be.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I bet we will be, Senator Schacht. I am glad to see that there are lots of South Australians in the chamber for this debate. The Democrats will be supporting the amendments moved by the opposition. I congratulate Senator Schacht not only for considering the financial aspects but also public health and public safety considerations. I hope that that concern will extend to supporting some of the other amendments, to be moved on behalf of the Australian Democrats and the Greens, which pursue similar themes. Certainly, we see this as an improvement on the current provisions and we will be supporting them.12:36:00738Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens (WA) will be supporting the opposition amendment.Amendment agreed to.12:37:00738Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:(2) Clause 26, page 19 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add:(5) The Minister must not grant a launch permit to a person if the space object that is the subject of an application for a permit includes radioactive or toxic material, unless all of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) the Minister has caused to be prepared a risk and hazard assessment in relation to the material; (b) the Minister has caused a copy of the risk and hazard assessment to be tabled in each House of the Parliament; (c) the Minister has specifically authorised the inclusion of radioactive or toxic material in the space object.(6) In this section: radioactive material means material that has an activity of more than 35 becquerels per gram; toxic material means any material which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death or harm to life forms.This amendment relates to the granting of launch permits. Clause 26 sets out the powers to grant a launch permit and some of the criteria the minister should take into consideration when making such a grant.The amendment before the chair from the Democrats adds a requirement that space objects should not contain radioactive or toxic material without special consideration and reporting requirements being satisfied. This amendment accepts that there may be some very limited circumstances where these materials may be launched into space. I am unclear as to what exactly these occasions might be.I generally oppose—and my party generally opposes—the use of radioactive material in places where there may be a risk. Basically, we believe that there are no safe levels of radioactivity, as we know any radioactivity can cause harm. I would like to see a blanket ban on radioactive material and other toxic materials in space, but this amendment is a compromise in an effort to get the government and the opposition to recognise that there is a community concern about radioactive and toxic materials and that there need to be very good reasons why such materials should be put into space. These reporting arrangements and requirements will alert the parliament and the broader community to any of these activities and ensure that the minister responsible accounts for his or her decision.12:38:00738Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Likewise, the Greens (WA) have been very concerned about toxic materials being launched into space and the potential for some harm to occur as a result of some event occurring later on, whether at the time of the launch or some time later—even if it is 30 years later. We keep mentioning Cassini, but that is an issue that must be seen as very real. It is still seen, potentially, as a very real issue if it ever came back into the earth's atmosphere. That is something that we all ought to be concerned about. It is a pity that we cannot exclude it altogether. We have a situation where the minister is making a decision, but if you are sending up highly toxic and in this case radio-toxic materials, in effect you have something that could be as bad or worse than a nuclear weapon and, therefore, it ought to be controlled. We support the amendment.12:40:00738Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—In one sense you cannot argue against the Democrats' and the Greens' support for this amendment in that these are dangerous materials and obviously dealing with them in the Australian community, or the world community, can create considerable concern. No-one denies that. Certainly, the opposition does not deny it. However, we believe that, on balance, the amendment is unnecessary. In the procedures in the bill itself under the full section—that is, clause 26—concerning the granting of launch permits, 26(3)(e) states:the minister is satisfied that the probability of the launch or launches, or any connected return, causing substantial harm to public health or public safety or causing substantial damage to property is sufficiently low;If the proposal for a rocket launch with a satellite in any form had any of these materials—radioactive materials, et cetera—any minister would have to be extremely derelict in his duty, or basically a certified dill, not to take into account before he or she granted the licence that one of the issues that they would be dealing with and getting advice on was the fact that the satellite at the top of the rocket had some of this material in it and the reason it had it. As the minister has said, there will be more than a lot of publicity at any stage about the announcement. If the minister or the government of the day were willing to approve such a launch and did not properly take into account such issues, I think that public debate would be more than a little robust and I suspect the minister might have a rather short-term life—a life much shorter than radioactive life—in his or her portfolio.Again, we in the opposition say, `Let us take the present act on board. We do not want to restrict it unnecessarily. We are going to learn by experience'. If it is shown that many launches regularly take place with satellites or vehicles in them that have this material and there is consistently a debate about it, I think we will have to revist it. However, at the moment what is before us is the possibility of space launches from Australia. Such material may not be in every launch and it may only occur very occasionally.On balance, we believe that the act in its present form should be allowed to work, although I do place it on record that this is an area the opposition will follow very closely. If we do think that the minister or the govern ment of the day is deficient, we will ask for the act to be revisited. We always think that, if you try to prescribe everything initially, you end up making the act unworkable.12:43:00739Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am not sure whether the shadow minister is aware of the fact that the current launch proposed for Christmas Island is already dealing with issues of radioactive waste as a result of the launch. So it is not perhaps something we are thinking of that might happen in the future. It is something that is already there and is already part—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Christmas Island has not been approved yet.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Christmas Island is not even in this legislation because it does not need this legislation. The shadow minister is saying that if it happens in the future we will look at it—as if he were the minister. In fact, he is supposed, as is his party, to be representing the interests and concerns of the community and protecting the community. There are already issues involved. The community of Christmas Island have already had to have public meetings to express their concern about proper management of potential cast-out radioactive materials of quite high levels of radio-toxicity.Therefore, we are not dealing with a potential `might happen' situation in the future. We are dealing with things that potentially could happen within a relatively short time. These things ought to be, by any responsible legislation, built into the legislation so that it is clear where the responsibilities lie and clear that there is a line of contact that the community can make with the minister to express their concerns. It is not just something that is put into an environmental impact statement. It is something about which there is clearly a responsibility and on which the parliament can be questioned directly.12:44:00739Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I am not satisfied with the current arrangements, or provisions, particularly the paragraph to which Senator Schacht referred. This is not a case of making unnecessary legislation. It is not a case of being too prescriptive. For goodness sake, if you prescribe anything it should be in relation to matters dealing with radioactive and toxic materials. This is not an amendment that stops these particular materials being launched. It is just an amendment that ensures that a risk and hazard assessment has taken place and that the minister satisfies other reporting and accountability provisions by ensuring that that is tabled in parliament. I suggest that public debate would be robust, but public debate would be greatly assisted by a risk assessment.Progress reported.Bills740r624740Debate resumed from 23 November, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.12:45:00740Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—The States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1998 is a non-controversial bill and as such is supported by the opposition. It provides the untied Commonwealth financial assistance to the states and territories for 1998-99. The untied assistance is that which may be spent according to the states' own priorities. The bill authorises payments for the funding agreed to at the 1998 Premiers Conference of $17.1 billion for the financial year 1998-99. In doing so, the government has continued the Labor practice of indexing the pool of funds on a real per capita basis; that is, increasing population. This is a fair funding formula in the view of the opposition as demand for state services such as health, education, infrastructure and the like is often driven by both inflation and population changes.The bill also authorises revenue from the safety net arrangements introduced to make up for the state revenue shortfall arising from last year's High Court decision in the Walter Hammond case which invalidated state business franchise fees concerning tobacco and the like as being uncontroversial; that is, $6.5 billion for 1998-99. I indicate that the opposition is supporting this bill.12:46:00740Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I think it is rather interesting to call the States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1998 non-controversial. It depends whether you think national competition policy is controversial or non-controversial. From the Greens (WA) point of view, right from the beginning we have considered that the whole concept, which was brought in by the Labor Party, was controversial. The purpose of this bill is to amend the states grants acts for the provision of general revenue, including competition payments, payments under the business franchising arrangements and agreed fiscal contributions by state and territory governments to the Commonwealth in 1998-99.Let me give you some historical context, Mr Acting Deputy President. National competition policy payments initially were essentially a bribe to the states to get them on side without public consultation or widespread debate. When were we asked about this? When the general purpose grants were reduced—and I do not blame the states for being tempted by the allure of increased finances—it meant that national competition policy was adopted without proper consultation or examination, and for the wrong reasons.In terms of accountability, national competition policy fundamentally affects all aspects of Australian society and has been introduced and implemented through bureaucratic processes that avoid public accountability, the accountability of the parliament and the Senate. The payments are conditional on satisfactory progress being made by the states and the implementation of the competition policy, but who effectively decides what is satisfactory? In this case it is the National Competition Council, an unelected body that makes recommendations to the government on what money should be allocated.There has been no real, proper and open political debate on this issue. National competition policy relies heavily on intergovernmental negotiations in COAG, which are largely remote from open political debate. The competition principles agreement in the Competition Policy Reform Act of 1995 was rolled through in 1995 with almost no debate. I remember it very well. Competition policy has been presented as a given, something not open to negotiation. The reality is that national competition policy is a policy choice. It was a policy choice made by the federal government at the time and it was a choice, albeit under the duress or bribe of increased funding, by the states.Before the last Queensland election, most people had been experiencing massive changes in their communities but did not know that competition policy was related to many of these changes. They did not know where to direct their anger or lobbying efforts, and often thought that national competition policy was beyond reach and non-negotiable. In some instances I think the government and perhaps the opposition think that this is true.Compare this to the goods and services tax proposal. There has been much debate over this and the government has offered further funds to the states to get them on board on this occasion as well. Everyone knows that they can lobby the government on this issue and that they can have their say and possibly achieve some amendments or changes. We also know that there is massive debate within the media and within the community, and that is important on these major issues.The recent Queensland motion on national competition policy exemplifies that at least some states are not happy with the way competition policy implementation is proceeding and possibly indicates that they never really understood what they were signing up for in the first place. Indeed, Mr Borbidge, Leader of the Queensland National Party, actually added weight to the motion calling on both federal and state governments to negotiate changes to the administration of national competition policy to take into greater account the adverse social implications of these policies.The major point I would like to make in the context of this bill is that the use of financial penalties to compel state governments to comply with the agreement is undemocratic and should be abandoned. The power of the National Competition Council to make recommendations concerning the payment or withholding of such grants means that an unelected body uses the carrot and stick approach to push along a raft of reforms which are not necessarily in the public interest. At the very least, this process should be paused.There is still ambiguity as to whether eligibility for payments depends on the implementation of the competitive reform process, including the public benefit test, or on the adoption of particular reform options with or without a bona fide public benefit test. But the decisions are being made by individuals, in this case the head of the National Competition Council.Let us look at the public interest. The public interest test is a concept of public interest which I have been very concerned about since 1995. National competition policy involves an approach to policy which differs in important respects from the standard economic approach. It is focused on the nature of market processes, not equity and efficiency. For example, section 44X(1) of the Competition Policy Reform Act directs the ACCC, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, to take account of `the public interest in having competition in markets'.So we have the wonderfully circular logic of competition equals public interest equals competition. When people argue for exemptions, they have to argue on the basis that they are not anticompetitive. So public interest in other issues has to be linked to anticompetitiveness. This absolutely undermines the concept of public interest as a benchmark for when ideal economic assumptions are not satisfied.This bill provides for up $217.2 million in competition payments to the states and territories in 1998-99. The National Competition Council has recommended that all states should receive competition payments except New South Wales, which may incur a reduction of $10 million if they fail to reform their domestic rice marketing arrangements. I believe we need to revisit the whole carrot and stick approach of these competition payments to analyse the distortions created by the fear of losing the payments.There is no requirement that any so-called reforms have the majority of public support, and that is a fault of this legislation and this process. There is no requirement that the broader policy changes have the majority of public support—indeed, any public support at all. Public opinion is not an issue in the implementation of national competition policy, unlike the way the issue of the GST is being dealt with. There is just a paternalistic approach that says, `We know what's good for you people. Don't question it and don't complain if there are problems, because we will work it out. Besides, if you are complaining, you obviously don't understand.' That seems to be the theme. Even the recent report from the National Competition Council, which recognised the range of concerns and issues, said that what we have to do to address this is to provide more information so that people understand that it is really doing them good.Queensland is current negotiating to subsidise a number of water facilities, including dams, to be involved with operations which I believe are largely of a non-commercial nature. I would like the minister to explain whether or not this way of dealing with water resources in Queensland means there will be any problem with obtaining their National Competition Council approved payments. That is a very important question and perhaps the minister could respond to it. It is only New South Wales, according to this, which is getting a deduction for its domestic marketing arrangements. Perhaps the minister can clarify whether there is going to be any holding back of Queensland's National Competition Policy payments as a result of the current processes about to be signed up in relation to subsidies relating to dams. I believe there are a whole lot of dams in Queensland.In the opinion of the Greens (WA) there needs to be a major review of the whole nature of national competition policy, the way it was pushed through, the unintended consequences of it—that is the most charitable way I can say it—and its method of implementation. There needs to be a review of the framework and administration of national competition policy, of which payments are a fundamental part.I am hoping that all the statements that have been made in recent times, including those in Queensland and those made during the election by Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, will actually result in some action in dealing with these consequences and the necessity to make changes to deal with them.12:56:00742Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—This States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1998 is an annual reminder of the ludicrous state of state-federal relations in this country. Under this bill the Commonwealth will transfer $17.1 billion to the states in general revenue assistance. Combined with special purpose payments and the $6.5 billion in revenue replacement payments collected on behalf of the states, the Commonwealth now provides the majority of running costs of the states. That level of fiscal imbalance between the Commonwealth and the states is obviously excessive and needs to be changed. To the government's credit, I must say, it has tried to address some of those problems in its taxation package, although we do have concerns about the financial robustness of the package. We are concerned that the functions provided by states and local governments are still at risk of getting squeezed.This is a very important area for the tax inquiry process that the Senate set up just yesterday. However, the Australian Democrats also believe that spending powers ought to be reviewed as well. In some areas, such as health and the TAFE sector, where most of the funding already comes from Canberra and the policy setting is also nationally driven, I think we should ask whether the states should hand their powers over completely, thereby saving them around $8 billion a year.The Democrats see merit in a national taxation system rather than breaking it up into nine separate tax systems. But I also recognise that the current system is unsatisfactory. It is unsatisfactory because the states can make cuts and blame Canberra, and of course Canberra so often makes cuts to the states grants knowing that it will be the states that bear the odium, not the Commonwealth. The Hawke-Keating government worked out very early that the states grants were an easy target for cutting spending in what was for Canberra a fairly painless way of extracting a few extra billion dollars. Grants fell in real terms every year from 1984 to 1991, falling from 18 per cent of Commonwealth outlays to just 12.6 per cent. The cuts in grants during the 1980s forced the states to shed around 12,000 jobs. Since then, grants were largely retained on per capita terms.Mr Howard, as part of his federalism policy, promised to retain states grants in real per capita terms. That was a promise that his Liberal colleagues Jeff Kennett, Richard Court, Dean Brown, Ray Groom and Bob Borbidge were hoping he would keep. But at the 1996 Premiers Conference they, like the other 18 million Australians, found that what Mr Howard regarded as a promise and a core promise was quite different. The genuine anger at that Premiers Conference, and again last year, exposed the agenda of Mr Howard and Mr Costello. A fiscal contribution of $1.5 billion over three years was agreed upon, and that represents another 10,000-12,000 jobs lost. In 1997 it was TAFE, public housing, local government, public health, rail infrastructure and privatisation receipts that were raided. It is little wonder that the state premiers have so much to complain about with this government.This year the issue was health funding, but I want to focus my comments today on one key aspect of the bill: the application of competition policy, particularly in relation to the local government sector. The Australian Democrats' opposition to the national competition policy goes back to and before the passage of the legislation through parliament in 1994. We do of course support the aim of improving the efficiency of Australian industries, utilities and infrastructure provision to reduce the cost to consumers and industry and to provide us with our international competitiveness. The problem, as is so often case, is the implementation. Often the broader effects of micro-economic reform are lost in pursuing economic neo-liberal or economic rationalist agendas. Governments have often become consumed with the figures and have forgotten the human dimension. This has been felt in cities but especially in the bush.Where previously government instrumentalities had recognised a social obligation in the operations, this has now become a somewhat awkward extra tacked onto the commercial activities of corporations. The arguments over the cost of the universal service obligation for telecommunications is an excellent case in point. Those in rural and regional areas are particularly vulnerable in those kinds of circumstances. As government institutions have increasingly had to compete with corporations concerned with higher returns for shareholders, they have had to shed large numbers of jobs. One tenet of the theory underpinning competition policy is that more efficient industries will free up funds for more investment and that there will be greater consequent employment—the so-called trickle-down effect. But we see very little evidence of a jobs dividend; the dividends seem to be accruing squarely on the shoulders of the private sector companies rather than to directly productive industry.The competition principles agreement talks about public benefits and costs in implementing the national competition policy. It is essential that there is consideration of a broad interpretation of public interest. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre propose that the public interest is more than `the balancing of competing collective interests'. They say :. . . the public interest will vary, but will always include some element of social justice, empowerment and participation in decision-making.Working for the public interest means challenging the self-defining right of those in positions of power to make decisions on their own behalf or on behalf of narrow constituencies, which will have a negative impact on those at the other end of the power or income spectrum.In this connection, the recent resolution adopted by all parties in the Queensland parliament is very significant. They called on governments to take greater account of the social impacts of competition policy and to change the public benefit test so that it would:. . . give full weight to issues including jobs and job security, social welfare and equity considerations, health and safety, and regional development as well as the interests of consumers.I would add environmental issues to that as well. I foreshadow the Australian Democrats' support for the motion by Senator Margetts in this respect.The Australian Democrats will use these tests to closely monitor the implementation of competition policy to ensure that the interests of all Australians, particularly low income families, small businesses and those in regional Australia, are properly addressed. Clearly they have not been thus far.The act before us makes available to the states a pool of $217.2 million in payments to promote competition policy. That is a recognition of progress in this area. The Commonwealth will take into account the advice of the National Competition Council as to whether the states have made sufficient progress in implementing the NCP and the principles laid down in the agreements. That was all agreed at COAG and, even though the Democrats believe that competition policy is yet another ideological attack on the public provision of public services, at least both levels of government agreed to it.But competition policy has also been inflicted, without agreement and with only the minimum amount of consultation, on the local government sector. Right across Australia, local government is being turned upside down in an effort to come to terms with that. We see local government workers, particularly in my home state of Victoria, losing contracts to private contractors from, in many cases, outside their immediate area. When they lose those contracts, the area loses employment opportunities and money flows out of the community.Competition policy reform has, for many rural and regional areas, been a very significant force in centralisation too. Local councils are not able to engage in the `buy local' policies and campaigns they might have had previously because that breaches competition policy. As the regulatory review processes crank up, locally determined by-laws will be reviewed, reducing the options available to communities to determine what they think are appropriate rules on, for instance, town planning and community amenities if the National Competition Council regards them as potentially anticompetitive.In Victoria all councils must put to competition virtually all of their services. Forced competition policy was introduced at a time when local government in Victoria had government appointed administrators and it was used to significantly reduce services and conditions of staff. It also turned out to be a very costly policy to implement in terms of administration and very uneven in terms of delivering cost benefits.Competition policy will be, and in some states already is, very intrusive into local government democracy and services. Yet, in spite of all that, there is no guarantee that local government will receive any of the payments from the competition policy bonus under this act, because these payments are subject to agreement between just two levels of government and not three, as is so often the case. I think this is a very clear breach of coalition policy before the 1996 election. That policy said:A coalition government will build an effective partnership between federal, state and local governments based on frequent and high level consultation.The coalition also promised to recognise the important role of local government in its policy. It said it would:. . . seek to resolve issues of long-term importance to local government, including the declining share of revenue allocated to local government and the best way local government can participate in the benefits of national competition policy.It would also:. . . monitor the impact of the Hilmer reforms on rural communities to ensure that they receive their fair share of the benefits.Principle 7 of the competition principles agreement signed in 1995 makes it clear that the agreement applies to local government, but it is entirely up to each state government as to how that is achieved. I would argue that, if competition policy is to be seen as a partnership between all levels of government—and it should be—then local government needs to be brought into the loop.For the benefit of the Senate, the situation at present is that the Victorian state government has promised to local government a share of the competition payments and that these will be delivered to local government at $50 million over five years. But, of course, this is dependent on assessment in council annual reports, a statement of compliance with the Trade Practices Act, achievement of the compulsory competitive tendering target, methods used to achieve competitive neutrality and undertaking of review of local laws for anticompetitive elements.In Western Australia, local government has secured $5 million over three years at this stage. But there is a shining example; the Queensland state government has made an agreement with the local government association up there and it will give over $150 million over a five-year period. I must say that local government in Queensland, in so many respects, seems to be ahead of the game when compared to other states.Our policy in this area is very clear. We oppose the use of competition policy to compel local government to tender out its services, as is the case in Victoria. We would also like to see the complete overhaul of our tax system as an opportunity for safeguarding the funding of local government. The financial assistance grants to local government should be restored to real terms per capita levels, as was promised by the federal government back in 1996. We would also generally prefer to untie federal grants to local governments, but encourage Commonwealth-local government agreements for the delivery of national programs and services.13:10:00745Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank the senators for their contributions. I would like to briefly correct a misunderstanding that the national competition policy benchmarks are in any way undemocratic. I think that point was raised in the contributions we have had. These benchmarks are mainly based on the COAG agreements that were already in place when all other jurisdictions agreed to implement national competition policy. Water is a second tranche issue which will be assessed by the National Competition Council in June 1999.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.745The bill.13:11:00745Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I asked the minister if there was the potential for the funding for Queensland to be affected, and the minister has indicated that the funding in this tranche will not be affected by any arrangements that may be entered into in relation to dams. Could he advise the Senate as to whether funding for June 1999 may be affected by the current proposals in Queensland for private arrangements for dams with a public subsidy which may not have gone ahead under ordinary commercial consideration because they were considered non-viable?Could the minister also advise me of the progress of the review of state agreement acts in Western Australia? The last I heard—and it might have changed—they were with the state cabinet and they had been sat on for a long time. I wondered if they had been released. It was one of the issues that was debated between the federal government and the state governments, and it was still suggested that the Western Australian government ought to review its 62 current state agreement acts. Three of them were chosen for indicative review. It has been very difficult to find any information on this, but I wanted to know the status of review of the state agreement acts. Does this relate to the second or third tranche? What tranche does it relate to and what impact will there be on funding for Western Australia?13:12:00745Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The advice I have received is that the council is currently working on the benchmarks by which these matters will be considered in June 1999. I take it from that that it would be premature to make a comment until those benchmarks are determined. In relation to the Western Australia matter, I have been advised that the same principles apply.13:13:00745Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am not sure that the minister was quite careful in his listening. I wanted to know what the status of that review is in Western Australia. Has it been released? The National Competition Council has asked for the review of state agreement acts in Western Australia. It is of great interest to a number of people as to whether or not the 62 current state agreement acts or the indicative acts that were looked at are considered to be anticompetitive and therefore have to change in any way in the future. Minister, could you tell me whether that review has been completed or released? This has nothing to do with any of the other agreements; I just want to know whether that agreement has now been released by the state cabinet in Western Australia and when we will have a chance to look at it.13:14:00746Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I have checked with my adviser and the information is that this is a matter between the jurisdiction—that is, Western Australia—and the council. We do not have any advice on that. We could make inquiries on your behalf to see whether we can get that information but, as I said, that information is essentially privy between the jurisdiction and the council.13:15:00746Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—This is exactly the level of unaccountability that I have been talking about ever since national competition policy came in during 1995 through legislative change. Here we have Commonwealth taxpayers' money going into paying the states and, in particular, a major issue of contention in relation to national competition policy—state agreement acts. Western Australia is the champion of state agreement acts; we have 62 currently for major corporate welfare. If anything is anti-competitive that would have to be it.It is not in the jurisdiction of this parliament, but the minister tells us it is a private matter between the National Competition Council and the state governments. This is total lack of accountability. The issue was that the National Competition Council was set up by this parliament and this Senate was involved in setting up the timetables. The money is federal taxpayers' money. This minister tells me that whether or not a review has taken place, whether or not it is finished or whether or not we will even see this review is outside the responsibility or the interest of this parliament.13:16:00746Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The accountability, as I understand it, runs through the Western Australian government. The Western Australian government is accountable to the electors of Western Australia for its actions. I think what the council does is reasonable. It is elected by the Western Australians and it is accountable to the Western Australians for its action. What we do through the NCC is to implement the competition and incentive payments. They are then decided and recommended to the government and the government makes a decision.13:17:00746Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The minister has missed the point. Federal taxpayers' money is being paid for the states implementing the policy which is being reviewed, which is being overseen by the National Competition Council. Federal taxpayers' money is being paid on the basis that the states do what is being asked in terms of implementation. I am not—as you well know—a big fan of national competition policy. I have been one of the greatest critics.If federal taxpayers' money is being paid to the states like Western Australia, have they done what they were required or asked to do by the National Competition Council? Are we paying Western Australia? Were they required to have done this review of state agreement acts by this tranche or the next tranche, or is there any requirement that we should ever need to see this report on state agreement acts? What is the line of accountability if we are spending Commonwealth taxpayers' money?13:18:00746Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—This is a second tranche issue which comes up in June 1999. I have said to you that the Western Australian government is accountable to the Western Australian people for its actions under a variety of areas. Presumably, whether they like and support the Western Australian governments in relation to competition policy will turn the minds of Western Australians.There was an agreement that was signed on by all the jurisdictions on the competition policy. The federal government's role is to provide incentive payments so that states coming together to agree on national competition policy meet certain benchmarks and those recommendations are made. I do not see a lack of accountability there. There is a proper accountability of the Western Australian government to the Western Australians. As I said, we, as a federal government, are providing incentive payments as part of that agreement.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.747Bill (on motion by Senator Patterson) read a third time.Address in Reply747747Debate resumed from 25 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.13:20:00747Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I was just about to quote a poem by Banjo Paterson the other day when time caught me out. Just to put it in context, this is Banjo Paterson, one of the great poets in Australian history, talking about the effects of economic theory. He was saying that, when we talk about economics, we should put that in the context where it properly belongs—that is, as a servant of a good community—and that harsh economic theory should not be the thing that dominates the way we go about our business. Matters social, cultural and spiritual should also be taken into account. What he was talking about here was the way a run—a farm in those days—changed its character because of the imposition of harsh economic theory. I think it is worth quoting what he wrote: The owner lives in England nowOf Kiley's Run.He knows a racehorse from a cow;But that is all he knows of stock:His chiefest care is how to dockExpenses, and he sends from townTo cut the shearers' wages downOn Kiley's Run.There are no neighbours anywhereNear Kiley's Run.The hospitable homes are bare,The gardens gone; for no pretenceMust hinder cutting down expense:The homestead that we held so dearContains a half-paid overseerOn Kiley's Run.All life and sport and hope have diedOn Kiley's Run.No longer there the stockmen ride;For sour-faced boundary riders creepOn mongrel horses after sheep . . . He goes on in that theme, but I think those words give the sense that Banjo Paterson intended.The same sorts of things could be said today. I say for the record that the poem appeared in the Bulletin on 20 December 1890, about 108 years ago. The sorts of themes that we talk about now were talked about then. It is unfortunate that the great issues are still to be resolved.I suppose, as generations go by, the same questions will arise and the answers will be sought. Whether the problem will be solved is another matter. When we look at Australia, we must look beyond simple economic theory—in particular, simple harsh economic theory. Otherwise Australia will go down the path of Kiley's Run.In further consideration of the speech by His Excellency the Governor-General, which was given in this chamber on 10 November 1998, I mention the heading `Jobs and the workplace'. There is a lack of proper research into how the workplace operates. There is a lack of good investigation in Australia into how the workplace runs: whether it is better off when it is unionised or when it is not unionised or whether there is some other position. That is a trend around the world.There has been some very interesting work done in the United States of America. I was given an article by Max Ogden, a very emi nent intellect, who works with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He is a man of great quality. Many a time he has stood with me behind the goalposts when Fitzroy have unfortunately lost more than they have won. But there were great days when we had great encouragement. We stood there for years. Unfortunately, Fitzroy has gone—another sacrifice to forces that operate, not always to the good of the country.In any event, he referred me to an article which was published in Scientific American, a highly respected journal that deals with issues of science and related issues in America. The work was done by Sandra Black and Lisa Lynch. They put out this working paper No. 6120 for the National Bureau of Economic Research. I have an abstract from it and I think it is worth reading into the record. It says:Using data from a unique nationally representative sample of businesses, the Educational Quality of the Workforce National Employers Survey (EQW-NES), matched with the Bureau of the Census' Longitudinal Research Database (LRD), we examine the impact of workplace practices, information technology and human capital investments on productivity. We estimate an augmented Cobb Douglas production function with both cross section and panel data covering the period of 1987-1993 using both within and GMM estimators.I will interpolate there. As you can see, some highly technical processes have been gone through, which are set out in the article. I cannot fully appreciate it. Somebody with your great intellect of course could, Mr Acting Deputy President. All I am pointing out now is that this is work done on the basis not of impressions or anecdotal evidence but very scientific processes. The abstract goes on:We—that is, Sandra Black and Lisa Lynch—find that what is associated with higher productivity is not so much whether or not an employer adopts a particular work practice but rather how that work practice is actually implemented within the establishment. We also find that those unionised establishments that have adopted what have been called new or `transformed' industrial relations practices that promote joint decision making coupled with incentive based compensation have higher productivity than any other similar non-union plants, while those businesses that are unionised but maintain more traditional labor management relations have lower productivity. We also find that the higher the average educational level of production workers or the greater the proportion of non-managerial workers who use computers, the higher is plant productivity.What they are saying is something that I think my colleague Senator Forshaw, who has vast experience in the union area, would no doubt have known for a long while—that the best way of getting productivity raised is to have high productivity workers in unionised companies. If the union and the company work in a proper relationship, that gives you higher productivity than where you have high productivity workers in non-unionised companies. Of course, where you have the union and the company in conflict, there is not so much productivity at all.The point that is being made in this article, and that research shows, is that our national policy ought to encourage people to join unions and to encourage unions and employers to work on the basis of an understanding between them. If we get that going, then productivity is going to be higher.We do not get higher productivity by making workers subject to employment where there is no protection. We do not get higher productivity, for example, through Australian workplace agreements. We get higher productivity by having a good, strong, sensible union in a good, strong, sensible company. I close with that. I think that Australia, and the nation as a whole, ought take on board the need for better economic policy and for a stronger union force.13:31:00748Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—At the outset, I pay tribute to the speech of my eminent friend Senator Cooney, not just because of his eminent status but also because of the content. Indeed, listening to him quoting from Banjo Paterson, I was for a moment transported back to my days at university studying literature. I wish I had more time to read today. As they say, as one book closes another chapter opens.Indeed, we are here responding to the address of the Governor-General, Sir William Deane, given at the opening of this parliament on 10 November. May I, at the outset, also pay tribute to an eminent Australian, Sir William Deane, who is respected and loved by all Australians for his decency, his openness, his tolerance and his commitment to a fair go for all Australians, particularly for those less privileged. Whilst I pay tribute to the man, I have to take issue with a number of the remarks in the speech, a speech which was written for him by the government of the day. The Governor-General, outlining the government's program for the ensuing parliament, at the outset stated:Above all, the government is committed to implementing the priorities for its second term on the basis of its unequivocal commitment to the Australian values of decency, openness, tolerance and a fair go for all.I have to say that it is my belief—and I believe it is the view of the vast majority of Australians—that this government pays lip-service to those values and to that commitment. Far from being a decent, open, tolerant and fair go government for all Australians, I would submit that their record of two short years in government has demonstrated to be one of indecency, intolerance, hypocrisy, secretiveness and ignorance of history.This coalition government obtained a huge majority when it was elected in 1996 at the end of 13 years of Hawke and Keating Labor governments. Yet within a short 2½ years, at the election on 3 October, they suffered the biggest first term reversal in Australian political history. They went from a position of having an overwhelming majority and the confidence of the people expressed in 1996 to a position where they lost 18 seats in the House of Representatives and two Senate seats. Furthermore, one of the six states, Tasmania, no longer has any representatives from the coalition in the House of Representatives.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Hear, hear.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Hear, hear. I congratulate my colleague, Senator Mackay, on her efforts in ensuring—not that they needed much assurance—that the people of Tasmania sent their views back to this government in a resounding manner.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—They'll be sorry.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—The people of Australia are very sorry for what your government has inflicted upon them since they misguidedly or mistakenly gave you a vote of confidence in 1996. They went very close to tipping you out in 1998, and I am confident that they will finish the job at the next election.Let us have a look at what actually happened at the election on 3 October. I want to address some remarks to the supposed mandate that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer—the government—claim for their GST.The government won the election. They won a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. I acknowledge that. It is a statement of fact. Therefore, they retained government. It is also a fact that they did not get a majority of the votes of the Australian people. Indeed, the Australian Labor Party obtained a majority of the votes on a two-party preferred basis in the House of Representatives. They obtained 51.2 per cent of the votes of the Australian people on a two-party preferred basis—almost four per cent more than the coalition obtained on a two-party preferred basis.This is not the first time that it has happened in the history of this country that the party that has won or retained government has not obtained a majority of votes. That is the nature of the way in which the votes have been distributed according to the seats. But it is very important because of some remarks that I will quote from the now Prime Minister that he made some years ago.As I said, firstly, in the House of Representatives the majority of people voted against the government and voted for the ALP on a two-party preferred basis. Secondly and most importantly, in the Senate the majority of voters overwhelmingly supported those parties and those candidates that were specifically and implacably opposed to the introduction of a GST, namely the Australian Labor Party, the Greens and the One Nation Party. Over 50 per cent of people voted for those parties or groups who were specifically opposed to the GST in the campaign. The Democrats had a position which was opposed to the government's GST proposal but nevertheless one whereby they were prepared to consider it. If you add in their vote, 55.8 per cent of people voted for parties that rejected the government's proposed GST.You can talk all you like about having won a majority of seats and having won government and talk all you like about the supposed mandate theory of politics but the facts of the matter are that there were more people in this country at the last election, just as there were more people in this country in 1993 when the GST was on the agenda that voted against the coalition's proposed GST. They voted against the coalition's proposed tax policy changes. So, when the Prime Minister talks about his mandate and talks about what the people of Australia want, let us remember that the people of Australia, by majority, have voted against a GST.I would just like to quote, and I am sure that my friends on this side—and, indeed, members of the government—will recall these words. Those opposite do not like remembering them, but I will quote them again. This is what the now Prime Minister had to say back in 1987, following an election where the then Labor government had proposed the introduction of the Australia card as part of its policy. Whilst we retained government, this is what Mr Howard had to say:By any measure of any politician with any experience, the majority of the Australian people have turned against the identity card. If the Prime Minister and government members doubt our assessment of this, if they really believe that the Australian people have bought their argument about people opposing the card being friends of tax dodgers, why do they not put that belief to a test at a referendum and not hide behind the argument that there is some kind of mandate out of the last election? That suggestion is invalid, not only in terms of the number of votes cast but also on the simple proposition that when people vote in an election, they do not vote on only one issue. The mandate theory of politics from the point of view of proper analysis has always been absolutely phoney. The one thing that would not be phoney would be if this government had the guts to submit this proposal to a referendum.I would invite the Prime Minister to take up his own words and have the guts to submit the GST proposal to a referendum. It is clear from the last election results, where the GST was a major issue, that a majority of voters rejected the GST, notwithstanding that the government won the election as a result of having a majority of seats.This Prime Minister, through the Governor-General's speech, talks about openness and commitments to decency and honesty. Of course, the Prime Minister no longer adheres to his views on the mandate theory that he announced in 1987 and he has not followed really any of his pronouncements at all since then.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—He wasn't too keen on them when he was destroying Whitlam.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Senator Quirke reminds me of that incident, but I also remind this chamber of a promise that he made not so long ago. Again, holding himself out as honest and decent and committed to these noble principles that we all should follow here in this country and particularly here in this parliament, he said he would not accept the vote of Senator Colston. Look how quickly he changed his position on that after the election. Why has he changed his position on that? For one simple reason: it gives him the opportunity to possibly get his GST legislation—which, as I have said, the majority of people in this country have said they do not want—passed by this Senate before the full results of the 1998 election are represented in this chamber after July next year when the government will have two fewer senators than it has today. He has reversed his position on that, but he still claims this is an open, decent, honest and tolerant government.Let us also look at the way in which the GST was put before the people at the last election. Back in 1993, John Hewson at least had the political honesty and decency to put the proposal before the people well in advance of the election. It was out there and it was debated every day and every night through the media and in this parliament and everywhere else. But what happened on this occasion? Having indicated to the parliament and to the people months beforehand that he was going to bring down a tax package and allow plenty of time for people to debate it and assess it, what happened? The tax package was only released for people to scrutinise after this parliament rose in July. The tax package was released first on 13 August this year. With no opportunity for the parliament to give it any scrutiny, for any of the parliamentary committees to have a look at it or for any proper debate to occur, the Prime Minister, rather than recall parliament, went to his election on 3 October. Just a bare six weeks after this major change in taxation policy in this country was put forward, he called the election.During the election campaign the Prime Minister said, `We really haven't got all the detail for you at this stage but let us have the election and after the election we will set up an inquiry of some eminent business people to have a look at it.' We did not have the detail; we did not have the legislation. We particularly did not have, because the government refused to put it before the people—even after it was called for by the Labor Party and others—the Treasury analysis of the GST. When that was released after the election, it demonstrated that the GST was going to have a far worse impact upon pensioners, for instance, than had been acknowledged by the government. This was the GST that John Howard said we would never, ever have—another reversal of his position. Yet he says he runs an open, decent and honest government.One of the most extraordinary arguments that has been put forward in order to suggest that the Senate should simply roll over and rubber stamp the GST has been that put forward by the Treasurer. He argued in an article on 11 November that senators who are currently in the Senate, having been elected in 1993—and will be here until July next year—should vote for the GST that was part of the election in 1998. Peter Costello's argument is that, because Paul Keating said in 1993 that if the people voted for John Hewson and his GST then the Labor senators would not stop it becoming law, that promise made by Paul Keating in 1993 should somehow be binding on senators in 1998, after an election has been held whereby a majority of the people voted against a GST.The illogicality of the Treasurer's argument is that in 1993, when that promise was made by then Prime Minister Paul Keating, the people rejected the GST and they rejected the coalition. They re-elected the Labor government, with the majority of seats and with the majority of votes. I do not know what has happened to the Treasurer's thinking of late but certainly, if that is the only logic that he can bring to bear and the only argument that he can put forward as to why this Senate should support his GST, then one has to wonder about all of the other arguments that he will be putting forward in support of his tax policy.I will now turn to one other issue mentioned in the Governor-General's speech—the proposal to hold a referendum on the issue of a republic. I welcome that, just as I welcomed the fact that the people had the chance to elect delegates to the Constitutional Convention earlier this year and that those delegates then participated in the convention. The overwhelming view of the Australian population then was that they supported Australia having an Australian as their head of state. I have often wondered why it is that in the United Kingdom the House of Commons has greater power, particularly with respect to the position of the monarchy and their constitutional arrangements, than we do in our own country.It is a fact in the United Kingdom that the House of Commons, if they so desired, could vote to change their own constitutional arrangements including—dare I say it—the abolition of the monarchy. They had a go at it in about 1630 with Charles I but later they did not think it was such a good idea. But that is certainly the political and constitutional position. I note that only yesterday Her Majesty, in giving the opening speech in the British parliament, indicated that they will be moving to abolish the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. I welcome the day when we will become a republic and follow the example of the British House of Commons. (Time expired)13:51:00751Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Hear, hear, Senator. I rise to speak on the address-in-reply, and there are a number of issues that I want to canvass. The first is the appalling performance by this government in the lead-up to the last election, and since, in its management of the people who are unemployed in this country. I refer in particular to the Job Network. I notice the good senator from Victoria over there frowning. She knows as well as anybody what a total—LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—I did not frown. I was reading a bill.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—Never mind, Senator. You have invited yourself in as not frowning and therefore not aware. Your good colleague knows very well about it. We have had a Senate inquiry into regional unemployment, which meant the members of the committee traversed and travelled very widely across Australia. Unlike lots of committee inquiries, we took the opportunity to go deep into many parts of regional Australia. The story everywhere was the same: the cuts to government services—to social security, to tax offices, to the Public Service, and not only in Canberra but in particular in regional Australia—have had a devastating effect on these small regional communities.When you add to that the retreat of the banks, the closure of many branch banks, you have a compounding effect. The retreat by government was faster and cut deeper than any previous experience, and that was very devastating. Public sector money was no longer available for spending in the local community. The people who had jobs are no longer participating in community activities, whether that involved the local football club, the netball club, the hospital board or whatever. Communities were suffering dreadfully.On top of that came very high unemployment. It was bad, but it got worse, dramatically worse, under the Howard coalition government. Senators opposite can remind us of those figures but they are much worse under the Howard government. In the two and a bit years you have been here you have managed to increase youth unemployment considerably—to well over 30 per cent in most of regional Australia.What did you do? You established a thing called Job Network. What a fiasco! What an unmitigated disaster! At its hearings around Australia, the Senate inquiry heard almost no good news about Job Network. A few people said they were coping, a few people said that they were able to manage, but almost invariably those who were coping were those who had FLEX 3 people, the long-term unemployed, on their books, because they were getting an up-front contribution for that. They were able, therefore, to carry the cost of their FLEX 1 and FLEX 2. For everyone else the Job Network was a disaster.We all know about Mr Khadar Roude who earned $1 million. He was successful in tendering for $1 million to provide Job Network services in outer Sydney. He turned out not to have a phone, an office, or any facilities at all. He did not last very long in the system.Then there was Hospitality Horizons, a firm that won a contract for $15 million. I was particularly interested in that contract because, operating out of Sydney, they had responsibility for delivering a lot of those Job Network provisions to the Northern Spencer Gulf region, previously known as the Iron Triangle. Not one Hospitality Network outreach job service was provided in Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie, the three cities we visited in this region. We have since discovered that Hospitality Horizons has gone the way of a lot of the things that this government has had its finger in. It has gone to no good and to nowhere.The big problem is that the providers who are left in the system are desperately overworked and receiving very small remuneration for their services. They are going to the wall too. The most decent and proper and hardworking of those people and organisations are now closing down in increasingly large numbers.Also, many of the employers were vastly annoyed at having to pay up to $250 for assistance and for advertising to get people onto their books where previously the service was provided at no cost at all. In South Australia, some of the employers were furious because it costs $250 per advertisement and in certain parts of South Australia, particularly the Riverland area, much of the work is seasonal. They would be advertising four times a year for the one position, effectively, compared to other people who might advertise once for somebody to hold a job for a year or longer. This is grossly unfair.There is a rumour that those people do not have to pay. However, it is terribly interesting to know how many people did have to pay and so decided the Job Network was a useless organisation and they would be no part of it. They went back to putting `Job vacant' signs in their windows, and they went back to advertising in the newspapers. No wonder there are increased job ads for those people who count them as a sign of economic recovery. It is because they are no longer getting jobs through Job Network. It is an unmitigated shambles.I come now to the dreadful treatment of the unemployed people for which this system is designed. It is designed to assist them back into the work force. However, at every opportunity the Job Network has made it hard, if not impossible, for such people.The first group of people who were upset were those people who were not on any benefit. Suppose somebody, some man or some woman, loses his or her job and they are currently not eligible for any benefit. They are not on single parent benefits, they are not on unemployment benefits, but they have just lost their job, so they go to look for jobs. If they go to the local Job Network, what do they find? They are told, `You are eligible for no assistance at all. We want your name and your number, but we are not going to give you any assistance. You are not on any benefit.' It was very, very unkind and it was very, very inefficient. It was very, very heartless. The unemployed people were the last of your considerations.When I continue this contribution in the address-in-reply debate I will pick up your recognition that you know it is hopeless. You may frown, Minister, but you know it is hopeless, which is why you are having yet another go at fixing it. Why was it that in the course of the election campaign Senator Kemp's brother, the minister—he may be a great brother but he is a drongo minister—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease contributing.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—Thank you very much. He may be a great brother but he was a hopeless minister. Even Mr Howard agrees with that, as the minister has lost responsibility for Job Network. He has been demoted, dumped, as they say.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—You can talk!ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—Fifty million dollars was found by the government on the eve of the election to patch up the Job Network mess. Aren't you glad you did not get that portfolio, Senator Minchin?Tom Allard in today's Sydney Morning Herald has an article where he says the government itself recognises it must have yet another run at trying to fix this. And the way they wish to fix it? First of all, let us make it even rougher and tougher for the unemployed people. He says:The unemployed face a cut in their benefits if, after registering, they do not seek assistance almost immediately from Job Network, under reforms to be put to Cabinet by the Federal Government's employment ministers.I will come back to that again.I have to say that in the midst of this mess that is Job Network there was the failure of Centrelink to refer any names at all for up to eight weeks in the beginning of the Job Network operation. This government stands condemned on all of those fronts.The people voted, although they did not quite vote in the right place. You can smile again, Senator Minchin, you are there, but we got the numbers. The people are not convinced and at every opportunity they will tell you that, as you recognise yourself.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has concluded.Questions Without Notice753753753O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—My question without notice is to the Special Minister of State, Senator Ellison. Did the Greenfields Foundation furnish the AEC with an annual return under section 305B of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, which requires organisations making gifts totalling $1,500 or more to political parties to furnish a return to the AEC within 20 weeks after the end of the financial year, 17 November 1998?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Is there to be a rearrangement of ministerial arrangements in the absence of Senator Vanstone? Could Senator Hill inform the Senate what the situation is?BH4HILLSenator Hill—I inform the Senate that Senator Vanstone is temporarily absent. In her absence I will take her questions without notice.8O6Senator O'BRIEN—Did the Greenfields Foundation also lodge an annual return as an associated entity under section 314EA of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, which requires associated entities of political parties to furnish a return to the AEC within 16 weeks after the end of the financial year? If not, why not?754Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I can advise the Senate that on 31 July this year the AEC received a request for an amendment to the Liberal Party 1996-97 annual return. The amendment identified a receipt by the secretariat of an amount of $4,750,000 from Mr Ronald Walker. The amendment states that Mr Walker advised that the amount is to be a debt assigned to the Greenfields Foundation—a charitable trust. The trustees of the Greenfields Foundation have informed the AEC that the Greenfields Foundation is not an associated entity and that its constitution states that it cannot make donations to a political party. The AEC is continuing inquiries into the matter and I will keep Senator O'Brien posted on that and on the other matters he has raised.754O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister advise the Senate when it is expected the inquiries will be completed and when the findings will be made public?754Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I have no instructions as to when the inquiries will be completed but I will advise the Senate as soon as they are.754754O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Tomorrow's Online Australia Day clearly demonstrates the government's strong commitment to technology as being integral to Australia's future economic prosperity. How will the government's tax reforms help Australia attain maximum social and economic benefit from the new computer age? Is the minister aware of any alternative proposals that might be so backward looking that they could derail Australia's chances of taking advantage of these opportunities?754Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am delighted to receive a question from probably the most computer literate member of the Senate. Senator O'Chee quite rightly draws attention to the incredible opportunities that confront Australia if we can really take advantage of the information age. There is one thing that ought to be crystal clear and it applies to any sunrise industry, not just this one: the laws of supply and demand operate as iron principles. Clearly, the cheaper the products are the more likely they are to be in demand. The same applies to computer technology. That is why we were particularly concerned to ensure in our fundamental overhaul of the taxation system that a number of items that are currently priced so as to be discouraging for consumers are made much more attractive. You only have to look at computers, printers, keyboards, modems, scanners, digital cameras and a whole range of new age technologies—calculators, telephone answering machines, electric cords, electronic play stations and cartridges and fax machines—to realise that all of these are part and parcel of modern living. They are integral parts of the economic opportunities we have to develop as a nation and to improve our export capacity.The problem is that, up until now, they have been hit by a 22 per cent sales tax courtesy of Labor's 1930s taxation system. When you introduce a GST you abolish all these anti-knowledge taxes and for the first time you make these items much more attractive. You make them fundamentally cheaper. You ensure that Australia has a capacity to attract investment. The tragedy of all this is that the Labor Party knows that that is the way to go but they are not interested in the information age. They could not care less about IT. They do not even have a shadow minister for IT.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—You are guaranteeing falling hardware costs, are you? Are you guaranteeing retail prices will drop?LD4Senator ALSTON—Senator Lundy, I know it must be a source of exquisite concern to you that the big boys would not give you a run in the paddock. I can understand why that is after your performance at Albury. I suppose at least you are allowed out of the change room, which is more than I can say for Senator Schacht.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, you should not be addressing your remarks directly across the chamber.LD4Senator ALSTON—I apologise, Madam President. You have a very stark choice. You have a 1930s tax system espoused by the Labor Party with no interest in IT. They have no shadow minister for IT, which I think says it all. They are not interested in this area of policy. Under us you have a much more outward and forward looking positive approach. What do we see now? Are they interested in the new millennium? Are they interested in Online Australia Day? Of course they are not. They are into the Greenfields Foundation. They are into Mark Textor. They are into anything that moves. The tragedy is that you have a bitter and twisted old man like Senator Ray, who once had the capacity to turn his mind to ideas instead of getting into the gutter. But no, instead of taking the opportunities, instead of learning the big lesson from the election that there are opportunities here and that IT has to be a classic source of them, you would rather sulk in your rooms and paw over all the stuff that the unions send you, all the dirt and filth you can dredge up. As a result you will pay the penalty in three years time.We are looking at a new millennium tax system that will be in such marked contrast to that espoused by our opponents that at least those coming to these shores will not quiver and ask us constantly, `How is it that you were not able to reform the tax system?' Well, we have. (Time expired)755O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I am pleased to see that we are going to have a new millennium tax system as opposed to a 1930s taxation system. Is the minister aware of any support from leading international information technology countries for the taxation system which he has outlined to the Senate?755Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—You only have to look at the drivers of the information economy like the US to understand that the last thing they would ever contemplate is a 22 per cent tax impost—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—They don't have a GST.LD4Senator ALSTON—Of course they have indirect taxes at state level, as you well know. The tragedy is that when it comes to taxation systems there are only about three countries that are seriously shoulder to shoulder with this mob over there. They are Swaziland, Ghana and the Solomon Islands. I suppose that is solidarity for you. You take your friends where you can get them, but that won't take you anywhere into the future; that will simply sideline you as a nation. We have had the courage to actually bite the bullet and reform the taxation system in ways that will make the information age a reality in this country. But it is no thanks to the other side of the chamber and it is no thanks to their total absence of any policy initiatives. It is all to do with the fact that you are run by the trade union movement, and the sooner you do something about it the better.755755Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald. Is the minister aware that local government has expressed concern that it is in the dark as to how a GST will affect council activities? In fact, is the minister aware that Logan City Council and the minister's former council, Burdekin Shire, have identified that the GST may apply to up to 50 per cent of their activities and charges? Can the minister clarify for these councils and the Senate whether the GST will apply to the following activities: building approval and inspection, water meter testing, refuse disposal, library membership and book hire for non-residents, district maps and cemeteries?756Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—It is a pretty silly question, but I do appreciate Senator Mackay asking it of me. I have to tell the Senate that this is the first time since we have been in government that any senator on that side has asked a question about local government. In fact, the last question asked about local government in this chamber was when Senator Calvert, a former warden of a local authority, asked Senator Bolkus something back in 1995. It shows how interested the Labor Party are in local government. So I am pleased, Senator Mackay, that you have in fact asked this question. I am pleased you have given some recognition to my former council, the Burdekin Shire. I have got to say they are a very good shire. They have gone off a bit since I was on it, I have to tell you, because if I was still on it they would not have asked some of the questions they have asked. They are fairly simple ones.Local government is keen on the GST and the tax reform agenda of this government. In fact, it is quite significant that at the recent Australian Local Government Association forum a motion was put calling upon local government to oppose the GST. It was put by Peter Woods, a nice fellow but an old leftie who was even expelled from the Labor Party. Do you know what happened to that motion at the local government national conference? It was defeated overwhelmingly. In fact, the couple of people who had the temerity to speak to it were almost booed and hissed off the stage. It shows that local government understands—and I do wish the Democrats would understand this as well—that we do need tax reform in Australia.You would be aware from your attendance at that conference, Senator, which I very pleased that you and I were both able to attend and speak at, that local government, once the truth is explained to them, are very happy about the GST. They now understand that they do not pay GST at all. In fact, they get a huge break. Whilst before they did have wholesale sales tax exemption, there were embedded wholesale sales taxes in everything they bought. Treasury has estimated that about $70 million of wholesale sales tax will go as a result of our program, so rates should be cheaper.You mentioned councils in Queensland and you mentioned the Burdekin shire council. They use about 400,000 litres of fuel every year, and they are going to have savings of about 25c a litre on most of the fuel they use, because the benefit is for trucks that are over 3.5 tonnes. So there are big savings for the Burdekin council. The Local Government Association of Queensland, which is a very good organisation, have done some work and they have worked out that local authorities in Queensland will save—these are their figures, mind you—some $18 million because of the reduction in the cost of fuel to local authorities. That means big savings for the ratepayers—and big savings for your constituents, Senator. That is why they are very pleased with it.You have asked about these regulatory matters. I have had conversations with Mr John Campbell, the president, about this very matter. He knows, as you should know, that these are the sorts of things that we will be working through in the next few months and clarifying exactly what is subject to a GST. It is where it is commercial and where commercial operators provide it. That is very clear. Anyone can work that out if they set their mind to it. (Time expired)756Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. We are attempting to get the truth here and attempting to find out precisely how a GST does apply to local government.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Don't kid yourself, you're voting against it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I ask senators on my right to observe the standing orders.9L6Senator MACKAY—I ask the minister to answer the question with regard to whether the GST applies to those very specific instances that I mentioned. Minister, are you aware that it is not just these two councils that are bewildered by the GST but that local government as a whole is completely confused about the application to local government activities? Isn't it a fact that not only you but the entire federal government has literally no idea what the real impact of a GST will be?757Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator, you do not understand the GST, but councils do, I am very pleased to say. Watch my lips: councils do not pay the GST. They do not pay it. Even with the matters that you raised, councils do not pay that. Can you understand that? Can you get that through your skull? They know; councils understand this very clearly. If they pay GST, they get it straight back—fully and immediately, with no impact on the councils. But their customers in certain instances, where they run commercial activities, will pay the GST—the same as we all will. It is the customers that will pay, not the councils. If you like, I can give you a private briefing on how the GST works as your lot have not been able to get through to you the impact of the GST. Councils do not pay GST—or at least they pay it, but they get it back, fully and immediately—absolutely, 100 per cent, the same as every business does. You have no idea. This indicates that you have no idea how this works. (Time expired)5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—That was a Kemp-like performance.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—It wasn't that bad!UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You were much better, Ian.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! This is supposed to be question time.757757Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. Recently the International Monetary Fund gave a glowing assessment of this government's economic performance and policies. Does the government support the IMF's call for time limits to be placed on unemployment benefits? Has the minister's attention been drawn to the references by the IMF on the need to protect the revenue base from erosion in order to maintain critical community services?757Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Synon for the question. The government has totally rejected the IMF's recommendation to impose time limits on unemployment benefits. I want to make that absolutely clear from the outset. Australia's approach to welfare is unique in the world. It is a civilised approach—which has largely had bipartisan support over the years—to those who need some form of assistance in our country. However, the government released for the first time last week a public information notice put out by the International Monetary Fund, which is an independent assessment in relation to the Australian economy. The IMF said that its directors welcomed the government's efforts at labour market and social welfare reform. The IMF also said that the directors strongly endorsed the proposed tax reform package.Under our government, overall unemployment dropped to 7.7 per cent last month—the lowest since 1990 and the recession that we had to have, as we were told by Mr Keating—and our skilled vacancies rose by 1.1 per cent in November, continuing the growth trend over the past two years. Skilled vacancies are 18.8 per cent higher than in November 1997, and are at their highest level since January 1990. The number of long-term unemployed recommenced its downward trend in mid-1998, and women's employment has also risen each month in trend terms for each of the last 17 months since June 1997.I believe that Australia and this government have struck a sensible balance in the provision of social support between two fundamentally important objectives: firstly, the maintenance of appropriate labour market incentives; and, secondly, the provision of an effective social safety net which reflects the Australian characteristics of a fair go for all and decency. Those in this place who care about the provision of social services should embrace tax reform, as that is an important way to stop the erosion of the revenue base which provides the funding for the social safety net, as well as the community services which will be provided into the future by both state and federal governments.The IMF has also said that the introduction of a broad based tax on goods and services would enhance efficiency while protecting the revenue base from continued erosion. The accompanying reduction in effective marginal income tax rates would improve the incentives for saving and employment. That is what the IMF says. The President of ACOSS, Michael Raper, has said that revenue is the lifeblood of the welfare system in Australia. He also accepts that tax reform is essential for the system's continued maintenance. I agree with Mr Raper, and the Labor opposition should listen very carefully if it wants to have any credibility as a responsible opposition. The IMF endorses our reform package. The government is determined to implement our election promise. I find it incomprehensible that any political party should try to stand in the way of the government implementing its most important election commitment.758758Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—My question without notice is to Senator Macdonald, the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. Can the minister confirm that the costs of the `big trucks' he was talking about yesterday—the trucks that take goods into and out of rural Australia—will fall, as he told us they would yesterday, by 22½ per cent? How will the costs fall by 22½ per cent when the government's own tax reform document states, under the category `Road transport—price effect', that road transport costs will actually increase by 2.6 per cent? Is the minister correct in claiming a 22½ per cent fall in costs, or is the government's own tax package correct in indicating a 2.6 per cent rise?758Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—These are the dorothy dixers that my side are supposed to be asking me, but thank you, Senator Hogg, for giving me the opportunity to explain this. I will go through it slowly and very clearly. Trucks currently have a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on them.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—Which `big' trucks?YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—They are trucks over 3.5 tonnes. They are big trucks, Senator Crowley—B-doubles and B-trebles, over 3.5 tonnes.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Macdonald, your remarks should be addressed through the chair.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I am sorry, Madam President. I am trying to go through this very clearly, very slowly, for the opposition because they really do not understand it. So I will start with the 22 per cent wholesale sales tax currently on trucks, tyres and spare parts. Under the government's program wholesale sales tax will go, so a truck will be 22 per cent cheaper. But we are going to put a GST of 10 per cent on it. So the truck will have 22 per cent going, 10 per cent added on. But, of course, all of these trucks that run out into the country, all of the trucks that get the goods from the country and take them into the ports, are operated as a business. So, under our plan, all business GST inputs will be refunded fully and immediately. I will just explain that again: 22 per cent on trucks goes as the wholesale sales tax goes; 10 per cent is put on as a GST but, because it is a business input, the 10 per cent comes off. So the net effect is that trucks will be 22 per cent cheaper.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Big trucks or little trucks?YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Trucks over 3.5 tonnes. Yes, they are big trucks. I am glad you understand that any over 3.5 tonnes are, in fact, big trucks. If they were little trucks, I might tell you—little utes—and used in business, they would get their fuel at 7c a litre cheaper. But getting back to the trucks: do you know how much those trucks are worth, Senator Hogg? Something like $200,000, $300,000 or $400,000. You do the sums; you cut that down by 22 per cent and just see what the cost is.In addition to the wholesale sales tax reduction, in addition to the GST rebated nature of trucks, we can also turn to the fuel. Those trucks, because they are over 3.5 tonnes, get the rebate of 25c a litre on fuel. Fuel is now 43c a litre excised. That goes down to 18c, a saving of 25c a litre. If any of you ever went to the bush, you would understand just how important it is for those of us who live out in the bush to get freight at a reasonable cost. Under your government, the excise went up to 43c a litre. Under our government, for those trucks it is coming down to 18c—huge savings for those of us who live in the bush. That is one of the biggest things we can do for regional Australia, and we are very proud that we are going to do it.759Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Yesterday, Minister, you told us the cost would fall by 22½ per cent. Today you are telling us 22 per cent. Why the difference? Can you also explain why, in the government's tax package, the cost effect of road transport decreases by 6.7 per cent, yet the price effect of road transport increases by 2.6 per cent? Does this mean that the cost savings made by the road transport industry will not be passed on to consumers, and that rural and regional Australia will actually now face a price increase?EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Ask the Road Transport Forum.759Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I take up my colleague's response: ask the Road Transport Forum and see what they think about it. Go out and ask some of the truckies who operate trucks in regional Australia. See what they think. They have said quite clearly that trucking is such a competitive industry that all of these savings will be passed on to consumers. Those of us who live in the bush—and there are many on this side; regrettably, very few on the other side—know what that is about. We talk to truckies and we understand what huge savings people in regional Australia will make. It is a simple factor. You just have to get out your calculator and work out that it is 22 per cent cheaper not only on the capital cost of the trucks but—and I emphasise this—also on the tyres. Some of those tyres, the big tyres on big trucks, are very expensive, and the cost of those is paid all the time. But it is not the truckies that pay it; those of us who live in the bush have to pay the additional cost of this transport. (Time expired)759759Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is addressed to Senator Hill, the Minister for the Environ ment and Heritage. What communication has taken place between the Australian government and the Director-General of UNESCO, Mr Frederico Mayor, regarding the Kakadu field mission report? Has Australia made threats to pull out of UNESCO? Finally, can your government guarantee that Australia will stay in UNESCO if Kakadu is put on the world heritage endangered list?759Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I know of no threats that have been made to pull out of UNESCO. As I recall, we wrote to UNESCO expressing our view on the so-called report that has been published by the mission on Kakadu. That was of a similar nature to the letter that we wrote to the head of the mission. I think the letter related to whether it was appropriate that the bureau and committee consideration proceed in the circumstances where the mission failed to honour its commitment to the Australian government that we would receive a draft of the report and have an opportunity to respond to it. The third part of your question concerned any subsequent action affecting our attitude to our relations with UNESCO. I don't think so.759Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Unfortunately, Minister, it seems that there are some officials in Japan at the moment who are not following your instructions, so can I ask you: can you guarantee that you will give your officials in Kyoto written instructions to cease the threat that Australia might withdraw from UNESCO, and actually provide us with a copy of them by the end of today? I think this is a very important issue. If we have officials in Japan that are not following government instructions, then can we please have written instructions forwarded to them immediately?759Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—No, I am not planning any further written instructions to our mission.759759West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Does the minister stand by the government's own modelling which indicates that the net effect of its proposed $1.5 billion private health insurance initiative will be an increase of only 2.7 per cent in private health insurance membership? Can the minister confirm that this translates into around 500,000 new members? If this is the case, can the minister confirm that this means taxpayers will be paying $3,000 for each new member?760Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator West for the question. The question on modelling was answered in the other chamber, but I think it is important that we also put on the record what the Labor Party's position was in this regard. I have some marvellous quotes, Madam President—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, I do remind you of the question you were asked. Relevance is important.VW4Senator HERRON—Yes. It is just a preamble to the answering of the question, Madam President.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, Madam President: the minister attempts to answer the question by suggesting that the question has been answered elsewhere—you know, as I know, that is not a satisfactory response—and he decides to go and answer some other question that was not asked. I would ask you to direct the minister to answer the question that Senator West directed to him. That is what he is obligated to do, and I think you are obligated to ensure that he conforms to standing orders.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have reminded Senator Herron of the question that he has been asked, and relevance is important to the answer.VW4Senator HERRON—Thank you, Madam President.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You can't answer it, can you?VW4Senator HERRON—I am very happy to answer it. Senator Faulkner is doing his usual bit of grandstanding. There were modellings done, of course, because we were faced with the position when the Labor Party was in government of a fall-out in private health insurance from 70 per cent to 35 per cent. What I was going to put on the record was a statement by the then health minister just before we came into government. She said in a second reading speech on 2 February 1995, and I think it is important we record it:The reforms—that is, her reforms—will place the health insurance industry in a position to achieve efficiency gains and pass on the benefit of these gains to their members in the form of lower premiums and better controlled costs.And what happened after that? In the little over 12 months before we took over government, private health insurance fell by 2½ per cent. So it fell more rapidly. That was the Labor Party's approach.We unashamedly support private health insurance. The Labor Party has taken a totally different tack on this since we came into government. Many of us who were here well remember the then health minister, Graham Richardson, saying—LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—And still says.VW4Senator HERRON—And still says. Thank you, Senator Patterson. I quote from the Age of 25 July 1993:At a bare minimum we must try to stop the decline in private insurance. If the coverage gets any worse we will have huge problems with the queues in public hospitals.Madam President, what has happened to the Labor Party? Why aren't they advocating private health insurance? That is the only way we can solve the situation that is existing now where wealthy people are excluding people from public hospitals because they have dropped out of private health insurance.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—If I could take a point of order, Madam President: the minister has had now a considerable amount of time to answer the question. He was asked about the government's modelling only resulting in a 2.7 per cent increase in private health membership. That has not been canvassed. He was asked whether that translated to around, I believe, half a million new members—which he has not attempted to address—and whether that meant taxpayers would be paying $3,000 for each new member. That was the question, and he ought to be directed to answer it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—He may not have answered as you want, Senator Faulkner, but you could not say that the answer being given is not relevant to that question.VW4Senator HERRON—It is obvious that the Labor Party has no understanding whatsoever of the problems of health care in this country. I will give an example to answer specifically the question Senator West asked. They have assumed that a percentage will increase without taking into account the tax deductibility, for example, that will occur for 80 per cent of people who would be insured under our proposals and have virtual tax deductibility of their insurance premiums. They also do not take into account the fact that the fall-out of privately insured people means that they must be accommodated in public hospitals. There is no other alternative. Have they got another alternative?The Labor Party is still a policy free zone in relation to health care. They have no answers whatsoever. They were in government for 13 years, and what occurred over the 13 years that they were in government was a free fall in private health insurance. We are attempting to slow that down. I cannot remember whether it was Senator West or another senator asked me a question earlier this year when I said it would plateau. Private health insurance has been plateaued in Queensland for 14 years. It has just now dropped below 30 per cent. (Time expired)761West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that the Productivity Commission found that each person who transferred from public to private treatment led to a saving of just $252, and how does the minister justify spending $3,000 per new member to save $252?761Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator West has missed the point that I made previously. She is only taking into account new members and not those who are being retained in private health insurance. That is the whole objective—to retain people. Under the present arrangements they are dropping out because they cannot afford it. We are putting a floor under private health insurance so it can be sustained. Again, nobody takes into account the fact that nearly 14 per cent of people who go to private hospitals are self-insured, particularly for one-day stays. It has not got through to the Labor Party that this is in fact what occurs in the real world. There is cross-subsidisation between the specialists in the public hospitals and the specialists in the private hospitals. Because nobody on that side has ever worked in this sort of situation, or it is so long ago they do not know what is occurring at the moment, they have no understanding of the health system of this country. They demonstrated that when they were in government. (Time expired)761761Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. To what degree will the growing furore over the Carr government's failure to protect hundreds of thousands of hectares of wild forest in New South Wales damage the image of the Sydney Games as the `green' Olympics? Added to that, is the minister aware that Australia's and the world's most lofty hardwood tree, a Eucalyptus regnans in the Styx Valley near Hobart, has essentially been left unprotected in a sea of loggable forest under your Tasmanian regional forest agreement? I further ask: is the road currently being bulldozed along the wild Huon River in Tasmania not the same one which the minister's departmental officials back in 1993 warned was going to damage world heritage values in Tasmania? Is it not likely, therefore, with this logging activity in Tasmania, that you will see a repeat of a world heritage mission condemning that activity in Tasmania and placing the world heritage Tasmanian wilderness on the list of threatened world heritage properties?761Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I am staggered to learn that Senator Brown and I hold a common position in relation to the Carr government's contribution to the RFAs. We both oppose the position of the Carr government because that government has unilaterally undermined the RFA process which is, of course, designed to provide world-class conservation reserves together with sustainable, productive forests harvested according to best forestry management practices. The Carr government has, however, breached the agreement and unilaterally gone out and taken short-term choices which it believes to be to its electoral advantage prior to the New South Wales election in March. That is shortsighted, it is not going to result in a good conservation outcome, and it is not going to result in the maintenance of forestry jobs based on a sustainable forestry industry—jobs for this generation and jobs for future generations. So, yes, Senator Brown, we join with you in condemning the Carr government. It has failed its people in New South Wales in this instance.In relation to Tasmania, I am pleased to see that in Tasmania we have achieved the goal of good conservation outcomes and good forestry outcomes through a negotiated agreement between the Commonwealth and the Tasmanian state government. It is interesting how widely that agreement has been accepted. Apart from Senator Brown and the last merry men that he retains—which is not too many these days—most Tasmanians will see that what was achieved was a fair and sensible outcome that will preserve Australian jobs and, at the same time, preserve a very fine conservation reserve system. If there is some threat to that conservation reserve, then certainly we will investigate it and, if it threatens world heritage values, we would take the action that is necessary to protect those values.762Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question of the smart alec minister.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, that is an appropriate way to address the senator. I would ask you to rephrase your question.QD4Senator BROWN—Madam President, the minister might smile and feel smarmy about it, but while he is doing it world heritage value forests in the Tasmanian wilderness are being logged.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I cannot hear what is being said in the chamber. Order!Government senators interjecting—QD4Senator BROWN—I will not! I ask the minister: will he withdraw his chainsaws and bulldozers from world heritage value forests in Tasmania?Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my right will cease shouting.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I asked the senator to rephrase his question, which he did.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam President, on a point of order: Senator Brown referred to the Leader of the Government in the Senate by a term which is clearly unparliamentary and, rather than just asking him to rephrase the question, he ought be asked to withdraw.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I regard asking him to rephrase his question as the same as asking him to withdraw, and he has rephrased his question. The word is withdrawn in that sense.QD4Senator BROWN—The question specifically to the minister is: why has the tallest hardwood tree on the face of the planet been left unprotected by any official reserve? Has the minister been to visit this tree? Is he aware that by his actions forests right around that tree are threatened by logging? What action will he take, firstly to visit the tree and secondly to protect this world heritage value forest?762Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I am not sure whether I have visited that particular tree but I have certainly visited some very fine forests in Tasmania, and I am very proud of the fact that those forests are being properly protected. I presume Senator Brown is referring to forests that have been set aside for sustainable harvesting, which is part of the balance that was negotiated between the Commonwealth and the state pursuant to a framework that was, I have to concede, negotiated by the previous ALP government. We are committed to achieving those dual goals of a world-class conservation reserve and a sustainable harvest forest which will provide jobs for Australians.Senator Brown interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, would you withdraw the interjection that you shouted out just now? Unconditionally, Senator.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I am not sure what I said.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I heard what you said referring to Senator Hill. I ask you to withdraw. QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam President, the word `disgrace' I withdraw because it infringes the rules.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Unqualified withdrawal, Senator. I ask you to withdraw.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I am sorry, Madam President; to do so would be contrary to my apt description of what this minister is.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, I ask you to withdraw that word. It is not a parliamentary word that is used in this chamber.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam President, I will not withdraw that word.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I don't take offence.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is very generous of you, Senator. It is an unparliamentary word. It ought not to be allowed, and I note Senator Brown's conduct in relation to it.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Bad luck—you missed out on all that publicity you were seeking.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right are disrupting question time.763763Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that the finance department modelling which indicates that $1.5 million of taxpayers' money will buy a paltry 2.7 per cent increase in private health fund membership is based on premiums remaining at their current levels? Further, does the minister share this assumption? If so, on what basis does he believe premiums will remain at their current levels?763Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—We are getting a re-run of questions in the other chamber. I am happy to give the same answer that was given in the other chamber. As Senator Forshaw knows, premiums are related to the number of people that are insured and the age groups of those people that are insured, and of course they fluctuate—they always have fluctuated. In fact, under the Labor Party, during 13 years premiums trebled. You cannot entirely blame the Labor Party for this, because—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Your doctors got greedy.VW4Senator HERRON—The reality is that even Senator Schacht is getting older day by day. The fact of the matter is that two-thirds of health care dollars are spent on people over the age of 65. We passed zero population growth in this country 22 years ago. Some of us have done something about that but there are many who have not.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—Senator Macdonald drives trucks; so what? Talk about the question.VW4Senator HERRON—The reality is we have a rapidly ageing population. Also, there has been rapidly improving—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is far too much talking and shouting in the chamber. I ask senators to observe the standing orders.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—How about answering the question?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Crowley!VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Crowley should know better too, because she is also getting older. When one gets into that age group, older people are disproportionately more insured than young people. The facts of the matter are that we must try to retain that level of private health insurance. As Graham Richardson said, all that happens by people dropping out of private health insurance—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I raise a point of order, Madam President. I know we are getting a re-run of the usual waffle we get from this minister, but my question was very specific: does the minister agree with the finance department's assumptions that the increase in private health membership would be based on no increase in premiums? I have asked him whether or not he agrees with that and, if he does, on what basis. I do not need a lecture in history—whether it is true or untrue. Most of it, if not all of it, is untrue. I would rather have am answer to that question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—My role is to see that the answer to the question is relevant to what has been asked. I cannot direct the minister to answer it in the way that you precisely want it.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—But have a go.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht!4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I was just trying to help.764Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Schacht is trying to help, Madam President. I thank him for that. Senator Schacht sometimes is helpful. The facts of the matter are that all these parameters were taken into account in the modelling. Where the Labor Party makes a fundamental error is that if we followed the trend that they set in place in 13 years we would be down to a 20 per cent private health insurance membership which, in turn, as part of the modelling exercise that Senator Forshaw has referred to—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I didn't talk about that; I just asked a question.VW4Senator HERRON—I am answering the question asked by Senator Forshaw. If that occurred, under those Medicare agreements—which the Labor Party made to have a five-year turnover—there are compensation mechanisms that go to the public hospitals because of the fall-out in private health insurance. So I think it is important to note—and that is what the government has done—the fact that under the current trends there is a base of 20 per cent private health insurance. So all the parameters were taken into account, Senator Forshaw, including the ageing population. What I have not mentioned is the increasing cost of technology, the increasing cost of pharmaceuticals—all those things were taken into account.We have a basic philosophical difference with you, Senator Forshaw, in that your party believes that the end game is no private health insurance. Neither Senator Richardson nor the then minister, Carmen Lawrence, believed it, but for some reason the Labor Party now seems to think it is good politics to advocate no private health insurance. We know what that does to the country. We are not going to allow that to occur. We are putting a base under private health insurance to retain people in private health insurance so it is affordable for them. It will be virtually tax deductible for 80 per cent of people.764Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that in the last two years private health insurance premiums have been increasing by at least three times the rate of inflation? On what basis has the department of finance therefore assumed that they will not continue to increase, and at a similar rate?764Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I can confirm that the member for Jagajaga used that statement in the other chamber this afternoon—that there has been an increase. But I am always very reluctant to accept at face value anything that is said on the other side. I will check that out for myself. Was it the member for Jagajaga who headed up the $15 million health reform strategy that was put in place to give her a job while she was lining up waiting to get into parliament? I think it was $15 million, out of which no reforms occurred—none whatsoever, except a further rapid decline in private health insurance.764764Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—My question is to Senator Hill in his capacity as Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Minister, it is just a year since the government released a $180 million package to address the important issue of climate change. Will you inform the Senate how the government is continuing to respond to the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions?Senator Schacht interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht!4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I'm just helping him out.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, he doesn't need help.764Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Thank you, Madam President. It is nice of you to notice. All honourable senators will be pleased with the constructive and positive role that Australia is playing on the international agenda in addressing the climate change challenge, and they will also be pleased to note the progress that is being made in our domestic response. We are now one year on from the historic Kyoto protocol—a protocol intended to put in place a legal obligation to reduce greenhouse gases by industrialised countries to the extent of five per cent off the 1990 level by 2010. It is historic because this will be the first legal obligation on industrialised countries to ensure a better performance, and therefore it is vitally important in ultimately putting in place an international response that will stabilise greenhouse gases at a safe level. Obviously what is happening in the developed world is not going to be sufficient in itself, because the developing countries are overtaking the developed world in terms of greenhouse emissions. Therefore, it is important that those responding are extended to include developing countries, particularly the large emitters.Madam President, you will be aware that, 12 months on, there has been a further meeting of the parties at Buenos Aires in which progress has now been made in relation to the flexibility mechanisms, emissions trading, the clean development mechanism, and joint implementation, which will be essential if the Kyoto protocol is to take legal effect. A timetable has been set and a plan of action put in place to ensure those flexibility measures are resolved within two years. Also, progress has been made in that, finally, developing countries are now talking in terms of voluntary commitments. Argentina was one; Kazakhstan was another. Both publicly stated their voluntary commitment—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—What about Albania and Cuba?BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—It is very important, Senator Schacht, if you knew anything about this issue. Others are talking about it behind the scenes. That is important because it is necessary to get an effective global response. What is also interesting is that it is coming about because of the Australian principle of differentiation, which is allowing developing country emitters to come on board.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—But we've shot our target already.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The constant interjections on my left are totally unacceptable.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—Furthermore, honourable senators would have noted that the US has now signed the protocol. They would have noted the changes occurring within the US Congress, where there is now a lobby for ratification, and within US business, where there is also a business community move towards a positive response to this international challenge. Within that international environment, Australia is playing its part. The Australian Greenhouse Office is up and running. It was represented at Buenos Aires, and it is showing examples to other countries of what domestic actions can be taken to bring about effective outcomes—showing a lead. The Prime Minister's $180 million package has been implemented to bring positive responses across the board regarding emissions from power stations, the motor vehicle industry, fuel standards, compulsory purchase of renewables, et cetera.But what is ultimately important is the cooperative arrangement that brings the states on board as well because, as most senators will know, it will only be effectively answered by a response that includes both the Commonwealth and the states. I am pleased in that light that today we have launched the national greenhouse strategy—the second version from 1992—which is the commitment of all states and territories of Australia, along with the Commonwealth, to achieving the commitment that this government made at Kyoto last year—another step in the right direction. (Time expired)Distinguished Visitors76510000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I am pleased to draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's Gallery of former distinguished Western Australian senator, Pat Giles. We are pleased to have you revisit and we welcome you to Canberra.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice765765765Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—My question is to Senator Ian Macdonald, the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. Minister, I refer to your statement a short while ago that the cost of big trucks will fall in price by 22 per cent. Will the minister guarantee that a big truck which retails for approximately $250,000 will fall in price by 22 per cent, or about $55,000? Will you give this guarantee to Australia's truckies?766Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I invite Senator Hogg to get out his calculator—he can do the sums. I have said it before and I am not sure whether I should waste the time of the Senate again, but trucks currently attract a wholesale sales tax of 22 per cent. Under our tax reform package, all wholesale sales tax goes completely—gone, kaput, finished, whatever language you want. We then impose a 10 per cent GST. Are you with me? It is quite a clear part of our package—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Is that on big trucks—the real big trucks?YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—It is on big trucks—trucks over 3.5 tonnes; B-doubles and B-trebles—but it is even on fairly ordinary trucks that run around the street. We will impose a 10 per cent tax on those. Having done that, if those trucks are used for business—for example, if the truck was being used to deliver champagne to a Labor Party branch function on Melbourne Cup day—NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—You'd need a huge truck for that.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—You would need a huge truck for it? Who said that; was it the left or the right? Senator George Campbell—you think it should be a huge truck. I could say something, but I will restrain myself.UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—Oh!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The behaviour in the chamber is totally disorderly.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—It is true that if the truck was taking champagne to the Labor Party branch Melbourne Cup party, where several notable people were guests—Senator Faulkner interjecting—YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—There's Senator Faulkner going off. Have you framed that coffee pot you used when you got the great star recruit in from the Democrats? Was it your idea to have her featured on the champagne? Was it your idea, Senator Faulkner? You are trying to reprieve yourself.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Macdonald, you are not addressing the chair. Senator Faulkner, you have constantly been interject ing and are totally disorderly. There is a time to debate the issue later, if you wish.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Madam President, the way Senator Faulkner is going on, one would think he is—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, I ask you to stick to the question you are answering.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Yes. It is on the truck delivering champagne to the Labor Party function. Obviously, Senator Faulkner got the label going; he seems to be very sensitive about it. If that truck were taking champagne, it would be a truck used for business. If it is used for business, then all business tax inputs are rebated fully when the businesses put in their returns. So there we have it: 22 per cent gone, 10 per cent added on as a GST but, because it is a business, that comes off. You work out the figures.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Do you guarantee that?YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I am not in the business of guaranteeing calculations. You calculate it; it is pretty simple. And while you are at it, I emphasise that the big part of transport is not just the capital cost of trucks; it is the tyres and the spare parts. They are very expensive. Currently under the Labor regime, they have 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on them. We who live in the country have to pay for that by way of freight.It does not matter so much to those of you who live in the city, and that is most of you on the other side, including your shadow minister for regional development. You would not understand the impact of freight on those of us who live in the country. That is why it is such an important part of our program. I know I am repeating myself, Madam President, but they keep asking me the same question. Not only will the capital cost be reduced; as well, the running costs, the fuel on those B-doubles and B-trebles, the trucks over 3.5 tonnes, will fall by 25c a litre. (Time expired)766Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, in response to my question, you failed to give a guarantee that the price would fall by 22 per cent or, if it was a $250,000 truck, by $50,000. In the light of the claim that big trucks will fall in price by 22 per cent, how does this compare with the government's tax package which states that the price effect of the GST on the category of motor vehicles and parts, other transport and equipment will be an overall reduction of only 8.3 per cent?767Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Madam President, obviously the honourable senator has not read the report properly. He asks me to guarantee some calculations while on my feet in the chamber. That would be similar to me asking Senator Hogg whether he could guarantee that what the label says the champagne does actually happens. It is like asking me to guarantee those sorts of things; they are hypothetical. Senator Hogg, I would not ask you that, and you would understand that I am not in the business of selling trucks. Have a look at the package. It is all very clear. Then you will understand how it is such a good package for those of us who live in rural and regional Australia because it does reduce our costs. That is why rural and regional Australians, almost to an electorate, voted for the coalition at the last election.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous76776715:04:00767Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government (Senator Ian Macdonald) to questions without notice asked by Senator Mackay and Senator Hogg today, relating to the goods and services tax.This is probably the first time the minister has had a number of questions addressed to him. On the basis of that performance, he is going to get a whole lot more from this side of politics. I will leave it to others to talk about the issue of the big trucks, the little trucks, the medium sized trucks and the B-doubles. I will talk about the question which I asked in relation to local government. It was pretty specific. This is what local government wants to know: where will the GST apply to local government activities? They do not know. The Local Government Association does not have a clue. Unfortunately, after what has become very apparent today, neither does the minister.The minister does not have a clue how the GST will apply to council activities. He was unable to answer one question that we put up in relation to specific activities. He did not have an idea. In fact, what he said, quite frankly, was I thought disgraceful. He said, `They don't pay GST—hang on a second; they do pay it, but then they get it back.' You cannot have it both ways.The other thing he said which I thought was very interesting—and we have had this sort of response previously from Senator Kemp—was, `We will look at these matters over the next few months.' This is supposed to be a tax package which was taken to the election, in its entirety, with all the answers. This government said that there was no requirement for consultation, there was no requirement for the sort of Senate select committee that has been set up because the government had all the answers. But now we have ministers from this government saying, `We will look at these sorts of matters over the next few months.' That simply is not good enough.The minister's own council, the Burdekin Shire Council, identified 201 out of 402 of their charges—half—on which they did not know whether or not a GST would be applicable. It is not simply the Burdekin shire that is looking for an answer. All of local government—in fact, most of Australia—is anxiously waiting to find out whether or not the GST will apply to the charges which they use every day. The reason this is so important to local government is that they need to advise their ratepayers whether there will be any consequential impact on rates. It is not correct for the minister to say that local government is happy with the GST. They are not happy with the GST.When the minister made his fairly misleading comments about what was carried at the Australian Local Government Association meeting, he omitted to say that the reason the motion was withdrawn or lost was that it was not adequate to meet the concerns that local government had with the entirety of this government's tax package. In fact, the motion that they carried referred to the abolition of financial assistance grants. They wanted a guaranteed six per cent share in relation to any GST; they wanted to make sure that a GST applied to the scope of commercial activities; they wanted to have questions answered with regard to community service obligations; they wanted to know whether a GST applied when only a nominal charge was levied. And on it went.Local government want to know the answers. It is completely incorrect for the minister to come in here and say that local government support the GST and the tax package, because they do not. I will tell you what: the councillors that do not support it the most are from councils in Victoria. When Jeff Kennett gets his hands on local government, with the abolition of financial assistance grants, God help the councils. And they know that. It is not good enough for the minister to say, `We will look at it over the next few months. I don't have any of the answers.' The bottom line is that this government is supposed to have the answers, and it is absolutely outrageous that he was not able to answer one single question that we raised.15:09:00768Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—I must say that this is about the most pathetic line of questioning from the opposition that I have ever seen in my life. It seems as though you have sunk almost to a new low. Yesterday Senator Conroy tried to earn his spurs as a new shadow minister by trying to take note of an answer when, in fact, he was completely slaughtered by the minister in question time.Senator Mackay comes in here as a new shadow minister for regional services—I think she is the junior to a shadow minister in the other place, Ms Kernot—and suggests that what is planned by this government for local government is not accepted by them. That is not true. What she is saying is simply not true. Senator Mackay, you only need to go and talk to a different range of councils. If you are going to be Labor's shadow spokes person on rural and regional areas and dealing with people living in all those outlying areas, you want to start talking to some of the councils that are going to benefit from tax reform.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Name them.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Senator Macdonald started to name a few of them. Any council in regional Australia using heavy vehicles will get a rebate on the GST paid, plus a reduction by 22 per cent in the wholesale sales tax. Let me tell you that anybody who lives in those outlying regions cannot wait for tax reform to lower the costs that they are currently facing in order to run their councils on budgets that are as low as possible.Senator Mackay, you may live in a metropolitan area of Tasmania, but let me tell you that in all of the areas that I happen to visit in rural South Australia in particular, the councils cannot wait for tax reform. When the Local Government Association meeting was held in Canberra, I took the opportunity to meet with a number of CEOs and chairmen of councils from that area. All of them support tax reform. All of them support the introduction of a GST. When these reforms are put in place, those councils that are going to receive the benefits will be coming to the fore—once the details are understood.It is all very well for Senator Hogg and Senator Mackay to ask for detailed answers. The detail will be there. You cannot expect everybody to know everything right from the start. I can give you an example of one situation where I was questioned as to the effect of a GST in a certain area of council. The person who asked the question said, `I'm not really concerned about what is going to happen right now. When the final bill goes to the parliament, then will be the time that we will look at what the effect will be.' That is what most people are doing. Most people are prepared for the tax reform to take place. They will try to make sure that they understand how it will affect their own area, or that small part of their responsibility in their council, and they will be told.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Why don't you tell us?EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—The bill is coming into the House.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—When?EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Probably in the middle of next week. Once the bill has been passed, they will know. Once they do know these things, those sorts of questions and the petty things that you are raising will be—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Petty?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Ferguson, you might like to address the chair and Senator Mackay might like to cease interjecting.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Madam Deputy President, I apologise. I was provoked by Senator Mackay with her constant interjecting. I will address the chair. I go back to what I said originally. The line of questioning that was pursued by the Labor Party today shows that they have a dearth of policies throughout the whole of their shadow portfolios. In fact, they have not come up with anything constructive in any of their questions. They have not come up with anything constructive in any of the criticisms that they try to make about the comprehensive tax reform proposals that this government has brought forward and taken to the people at an election.That comprehensive tax reform, when taken in its overall package, will be of great benefit to all Australians, including those involved in local government, but particularly those people in local governments which are situated a long way from major population centres. In a country like Australia with the geography we have, there are a vast number of those areas. Those councils are getting larger and they have smaller populations and fewer ratepayers. Without the benefits coming from the reduction in costs for people in remote areas, they certainly would not be able to get the benefits that they would get from this comprehensive package. (Time expired)15:14:00769Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—I want to comment—I think that is the right way to phrase it—on answers given yesterday and today by Senator Macdonald in relation to the road transport industry. I preface my remarks by saying that I am still the president of an organisation that is an affiliate of the Road Transport Forum. I have a bit of an interest in and knowledge of the road transport industry. I can say that, from my own knowledge and from information I have received from my colleagues, the view of the Road Transport Forum is far from unanimous in accepting the government's GST package.I might add that the road transport industry over the last few years has experienced a lot of attention in relation to accidents and safety. One of my concerns in relation to the government's GST package is that, even though there may be pressure placed on the road transport industry to reduce costs to clients or customers, there is no legal device by which we can put pressure on those clients to pass that on to consumers. That is one of the great dangers that we have seen outlined by this GST package. Since the government has been in power, national road funding has been cut by $684 million. However, we are still expecting road transport to run on the bare bones it is running on now.What I am concerned about is that there is a lot of hope being pinned on the fact that by the introduction of this package there will be a reduction in costs passed on to consumers. In the end I believe the road transport industry will become the middlemen in this tug of war between producers and retailers and consumers. We already have an instance of the relationship in the deregulation of fuel. At the moment, in the City of Dubbo, Woolworths have been able to supply fuel through their retail outlet. They are able to purchase that bulk fuel 9c a litre cheaper than can any of the franchisees in Dubbo. Yet, they have a marketing strategy of reducing the price to consumers by only 2c a litre below the price at which franchisees make it available to the consumer. There is no device to make Woolworths look at their profits or to pass those reduced prices on to the consumers of a town like Dubbo.My concern is that if and when this new tax regime gets under way, we will have a situation where road transport will be further pressured to provide even more efficiencies and cost efficiencies and, at the same time, the government is going to institute a new police force through the ACCC to try to see that those prices are passed on to consumers. It will not be the road transport industry's fault if those reduced prices are not passed on to the consumer. You may well think that, by having the ACCC do that, that will reduce the costs. That will not occur because there is no legal device, as I said earlier, to make the retailers pass those savings on to the consumers.What will happen is that we will have so much pressure once again placed on the road transport industry that the only area at the edge and the margins is safety. My concern and, I am sure, the concern of a lot of Australians, particularly a lot of road transport users and workers, is that we will see this occur because of the pressure that will be placed on our people to make these deliveries. The savings will not be passed on to the clients as there is no mechanism whatsoever in any of the government's proposals to ensure that that occurs.15:18:00770Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—The GST will have a big impact in terms of reducing costs to rural and regional Australia. Australia indeed is a great country, with great distances, and the wholesale sales tax and other taxes keep adding to costs, particularly in decentralised areas. My state in particular, because of the costs of transport and in terms of bringing passengers to the state, is going to be one of the big beneficiaries. It is going to have a big impact, not only on the transport sector but also on other sectors like the rural sector, the mining sector and so many of those other important industries that have had a big impact in terms of Australia's competitiveness overseas.Let us take the mining industry as an example. The mining industry, like some of the transport industries, will no longer pay the hidden wholesale sales tax on so many of its business inputs. The mining industry will be able to claim tax input credits just as the transport industry will be able to claim that. I can recall that in Tasmania, when the Road Transport Forum conducted their seminars, they were wholly behind the coalition's goods and services tax because it will reduce the costs of road transportation, particularly for those heavy trucks that our good colleague from Queensland was referring to.7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—The big trucks.VJ4Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSON—The big trucks. They are the ones that are going to have savings. They are the ones that do not just run on four tyres, Senator. They are the ones that are going to benefit from the huge reduction in sales tax in terms of spare parts for the trucks, tyres, the rigs, tarpaulins and all those high input costs that just kept on escalating. These get added to the costs of the produce from rural and regional Australia, taking it to the ships, taking it overseas, et cetera. So this is good news.What we have to emphasise, and this is the hard thing, is that transport, mining, rural and regional industries—every business—will be able to claim input tax credits for the whole thing because the wholesale sales tax will go and in its place we will have tax debits and tax credits. If you are in business you get a credit in respect of all your input taxes for that period.It is not only the wholesale sales tax that will go; we will see lower costs of fuel and this is going to benefit our state because the fuel costs—the excise costs of the diesel which is used for the trains, the trucks, the ships and so on—will reduce quite considerably. Off-road use of diesel, particularly by the mining industry—and I emphasise that because the mining industry is important for Tasmania, just as it is important for Queensland, Western Australia and the other states—will be one of the big beneficiaries.In addition to the GST input tax credit on diesel, real benefits come to on-road businesses using vehicles of over 3.5 tonnes. Heavy trucks of a certain mass load weight and railways will get a GST credit equal to around half the excise paid on the fuel. The impact of that will be a reduction in the effective excise rate from 43c per litre to 18c. If you cannot tell me that is not going to reduce the cost of fuel, perhaps you need to go back to school again. This will have a big impact.The new tax system will see mining costs fall by something like 4.4 per cent. It will also mean lower industry costs. That is certainly good news. And my state is going to be one of the big beneficiaries in terms of the lower price of bringing goods into the state, transporting goods out of the state, and making Tasmania much more competitive.(Time expired)15:23:00771Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Having listened to the two government senators who have spoken in this debate, I wonder whether they were in the chamber yesterday and today. Senator Ferguson referred to the line of questioning today by our side in respect of big trucks. That was the issue: it was about big trucks—not little trucks, but big trucks. It was about the road transport industry.It should be no surprise to Senator Ferguson or anyone else on his side of the chamber that we took the issue up. Yesterday, in response to a question from Senator Ferguson—a dorothy dixer—Senator Ian Macdonald tumbled into the road transport area and started to tell us about big trucks. And that is all we heard about—big trucks. But what did we find out? Nothing.We were told in yesterday's answer that there was going to be a 22½ per cent reduction. In my question today I asked about this 22½ per cent reduction, and Senator Macdonald, without batting an eyelid, moved into 22 per cent mode. The fact is that when answering the question yesterday—the dorothy dixer—it was 22½ per cent. If you look at the Hansard it will show 22 per cent, but if you listen to the tape and look at the pink you will find that it was 22½ per cent. So, obviously, half a per cent disappeared in the correction process.It is legitimate for us to ask a question about the savings. One only has to look at the government's own documents. Today I also asked the government about the savings as per their own document. Page 169 of their tax package contains a table headed `Cost effects (by industry) of indirect tax reform'. In category 61.01, Road transport, the cost to the operator is down by 6.7 per cent. I do not know if that is an accurate figure. One can only assume that there will be cost reductions based on the tyres, the tarpaulins, the ropes, the chassis and everything else. But page 172 of the Taxpack contains a table headed `Price effects (by industry) of indirect tax reform'. Price effect is the price to the consumer. Under this heading, the same item—61.01 `Road transport'—shows an increase of 2.6 per cent.When I asked the minister today to explain the difference, the minister had no idea. He could not even grapple with it. We ended up going down the road of a champagne luncheon or something like that. What did we want from the minister? We wanted a clear, concise answer as to why the difference. We wanted to know whether the savings would be passed on. We were told the savings would be passed on. But—and this was raised by Senator Hutchins who spoke before me—there is no guarantee at all that the savings will be passed on. The minister did imply that the savings would be passed on. But when he was asked latterly, by me, about whether or not there would be a 22 per cent reduction in the cost of the big trucks, we found there was no guarantee at all. The minister was not able to give a guarantee.This was supposed to be an issue of no interest. The government could not see why it was of interest to us today although it was of interest to them yesterday as a dorothy dixer. Yesterday it was an issue with a real place in the sun. The government—as demonstrated by the minister—do not understand what they are talking about. Obviously, they do not understand what the impact will be, particularly in rural and regional Australia.According to their own documents, there is going to be a price impact on the consumer out there in rural and regional Australia. That is because it is these big trucks which take the building materials, the food, the clothing, the produce, the livestock, the grain, the feed and the agricultural needs into rural Australia. And in decentralised states like mine, it will undoubtedly have a real impact indeed. So the minister really botched it. He did not understand what the question was about and it is a shame that he did not stick around to participate in this debate.15:28:00771Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I do not rise very often to speak during debates to take note of answers, but in this case I believe I should say a few words, particularly in defence of our minister, Senator Macdonald. It is a joke to come in here and attack a person as Senator Mackay did. She attacked him about his lack of consultation with local government and she raved on about what happened in Tasmania. Well, for her information, Senator Macdonald was in Tasmania last week and he had consultations there with local government. I know for a fact he had a meeting with the chairman of the Local Government Association there, Tony Bisdee, and their director, Stewart Wardlaw. I spoke to both those people afterwards and they are very impressed with Senator Macdonald, I can tell you, because they know of his local government background—that he is a former local government member from Queensland.I do not recall Senator Mackay ever being involved in local government; yet I notice she is the spokesman here for ex-Senator Kernot. I believe she is also the go-between between ex-Senator Kernot and the Democrats. I do not think ex-Senator Kernot will discuss anything with you, John, so we have to have this two-way conversation. It must be very difficult for you to conduct negotiations—10000Calvert, Sen PaulThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Calvert, would you like to address the chair, please.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—Through you, Madam Deputy President—10000Calvert, Sen PaulThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—To me, thank you.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—It must be very difficult to conduct negotiations with Cheryl Kernot. So I feel very sorry for you about that.This all started back in 1993 when we first put up the Fightback package. Ever since then the Labor Party over there have not put up one iota of a policy. Perhaps they put up one: they were going to bring in a capital gains tax pre-1985—the granny frightener. That is about the only thing they have done since 1993. We are now in 1998 and all we have heard from that lot over there is their trying to pick to pieces what we are trying to do for Australia, and that is to reform taxation. They have been running around trying to frighten all the local government areas—before the election, during the election and since the election. They have been absolutely lying about what is going to happen as far as local government is concerned.Let me put this on the record: general rates are going to be GST-free. That was a great furphy the Labor Party put around—that there was going to be 10 per cent on rates. That is definitely not right. They said that there was going to be a 10 per cent charge on water and sewerage. That is not right. Charges for water and sewerage are going to be GST-free. Charges for zoning, planning fees and dog licences will be GST-free—not 10 per cent as people like Senator Mackay have been running around saying. Fines and penalties such as car parking will be GST-free.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Have you passed this on to Senator Macdonald?5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—Senator Macdonald is big enough to answer questions for himself. Senator Sherry, I think he answered the question very well.Apart from all this, my colleague Senator Watson pointed out some of the advantages to the transport industry in reply to Senator Hutchins. But he failed to mention a couple of other areas that are going to be of great benefit to Tasmania. You, Senator Sherry, would know the benefits there are going to be to the catamaran ferries across Bass Straight. It will be a big advantage to our tourism industry. Tourism in Tasmania is booming at the moment. Your state colleague Jim Bacon has forecast that tourism is going to be the big winner in Tasmania. The things that the Liberal government have done, the initiatives we have taken, such as the subsidy on passengers on Bass Strait and the proposed tax cuts in diesel will have a huge effect on tourism in Tasmania.Take your mind back to our train system in Tasmania. Senator Sherry and Senator O'Brien will have noticed that for the first time for a long time the railways in Tasmania actually showed a profit. What happened under your government and previous governments when they were government owned? They ran at huge losses every year. It just shows what can happen if you can change the regimes and get into privatisation, tax reform and the like.Another big winner for local government that has not been mentioned here today is that under our proposed tax reform package a lot of those employees are going to be heaps better off under the income tax system. A lot of people in local government in middle management are paying up to 50c in the dollar tax at the moment. They are going to be much better off under the tax reform package because they will be coming back to about 30c in the dollar. They cannot wait. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Matters of Urgency773773773The DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter from Senator Allison:Dear Madam PresidentPursuant to standing order 75 I give notice that today I propose to move that in the opinion of the Senate the following matter is a matter of urgency: the failure of the government to properly manage its World Heritage areas.Yours sincerelyLyn AllisonSenator for the State of VictoriaIs the proposal supported?More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—10000The DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly.15:34:00773Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I move:That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The government has failed to properly manage its World Heritage areas. Getting a world heritage listing is like getting a Nobel prize for the environment. It is only given in some cases to the places on our planet with the most outstanding cultural and natural values. It is a tribute to Australia that we have a disproportionately high number of places of world heritage value—13, in fact. This should not be taken lightly. These places must be treated and managed in a way that does justice to the very special places that they are.I am very sad to report that this government is unfit to manage world heritage. This government has no idea of the value of world heritage and little understanding of or interest in maintaining their outstanding characteristics. The government tries to tell us that they are doing good things for world heritage and that they are only allowing things to happen inside the borders that will not destroy or threaten world heritage values.The Democrats know that this is rubbish. The majority of the people of Australia know that this is rubbish and want the Jabiluka mine stopped. And now the highest international umpire of world heritage has been given a report by their investigating team saying that the government's spin is implausible. What is the response of the government when faced unequivocally with their evidence? The Minister for the Environment and Heritage wants to grab the ball and go home.According to the minister, the report is biased. This is surprising because the field mission was in fact informed by the very people the coalition government suggested. It was Senator Hill who wrote to the Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Humanities and asked them to make a submission on the Jabiluka mine and they said that, in their opinions, the mine was wrong and that it would wreck the values of the area. And now they are supposed to be biased. It is clearly the case that the government does not like the responses. The only thing that they can try to do is build up a case that everybody else in the world except the coalition government and the uranium company is wrong.There comes a time when even the most stubborn people must admit that they are wrong. I suggest that that time has come for this government. The minister must pull out of this mess now and proclaim Kakadu world heritage area and use that as the lever to stop this mine.It is not just Kakadu that is in deep trouble because of this coalition government. It must be clear to UNESCO by now that Australia is not protecting the areas it has listed. The feeling coming back from UNESCO is a complete exasperation with our government's attitude. There are, of course, other uranium mining leases in Kakadu ticking away like time bombs.The Great Barrier Reef is a vast area and no-one expects economic activity there to stop. However, the Bjelke-Petersen spectre of oil drilling still occasionally rears its head. A massive open-cut shale oil mining industry is about to take off on the coast of Queensland, with a mine and a processing plant coming into operation this week just north of Gladstone. At Gladstone and alongside the Whitsundays, huge shale oil deposits and mining tenements reach down into the intertidal zone well within the world heritage property. Propped up by public subsidies, this is a massive growth industry whose greenhouse gas emissions and potential to damage world heritage values have so far been totally ignored by the federal minister for the environment.There are the significant impacts of the Port Hinchinbrook development and the run-off of acid sulfate material on the edge of the Great Barrier Reef. Nearly the entire reef is open to heavy trawling, with by-catch devices to protect turtles and other marine life still not mandatory. Reef areas are supposedly protected but they are still subject to trawling.Significantly, today the National Greenhouse Strategy is released, in the same week as the international experts are saying that global warming is causing massive coral bleaching and coral die-off worldwide. I think this is particularly ironic for Australia, which has repeatedly upset international attempts to come to a unified position on climate change. The Western Australian government wants to excise 3,000 hectares of world heritage property at Shark Bay. This is the home of the famous Monkey Mia dolphins. Shark Bay is a stunning natural area which will pull in more tourist dollars as its popularity grows. But, inexplicably, it faces the proposed expansion of a salt mine into the world heritage area—as if salt was not a commodity available elsewhere. Oil exploration licences cover a very significant proportion of land and water, and there are mooted proposals to develop a very large mineral sands operation.In Queensland also, the Cape York nomination process goes on and off the agenda with every change of government. In Tasmania, forests along the buffer of the south-west world heritage area are being cleared for logging, and the coalition government refuses to nominate the Tarkine area. In Victoria, the magnificent East Gippsland forests, which are highly likely to pass the world heritage test should any government be wise enough to nominate them, are being pulped and exported to create milling jobs overseas. Overall core budget money for world heritage has declined significantly, despite Minister Hill using Natural Heritage Trust Fund money to mask this.The final insult is that taxpayers are paying to destroy or damage our world heritage. Subsidies given to loggers and miners are very high: more than $200 million in the case of shale oil mining and tens of millions in the case of forests. When the full economic arguments are presented, conservation and sympathetic use of world heritage areas would, I expect, come out way in front. This coalition government is destroying a number of our precious world heritage areas, and the Democrats submit it is a national and international disgrace.15:42:00774Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Rarely have I heard so many falsehoods, inaccuracies and prejudices in such a short contribution.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You were on the phone.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I can talk on the phone and listen to a speech in here at the same time, Senator. It is a skill you learn with time.I thought what I should do in my short time is to address briefly the report that has been put down by the UNESCO mission to Aus tralia on Kakadu. This was a mission that was sent out to look at the effect of the Jabiluka mine on the world heritage values of Kakadu. It was sent out basically at the request of protesters, principally those who protest against uranium mining per se but also, no doubt, some who have concern about mining in an area in a region that clearly has very important natural and cultural values. That is what the key to this is all about, because the easiest thing to do when faced with such a challenge as to whether an alternative use threatens particular environmental or cultural values is to say that it should not go ahead, to in effect answer no. The much harder task is to do a thorough analysis and make a fair and objective judgment on the facts.We were faced with a situation here where there is an existing mine, the Ranger mine, in the vicinity of the world heritage area. It has existed for 18 years. It is an open-cut mine supervised by the Supervising Scientist on behalf of the Commonwealth government and the Australian people. Basically, it has been found that it is operated in that very fragile region without any environmental damage whatsoever. The second prospect that we were faced with is the Jabiluka prospect, which has been around for a long time. It was specifically excluded from the world heritage area and from the park also, because it was a mining lease upon which a uranium mine was intended to take place. Not only was Jabiluka not included within the world heritage area but, at the time of the creation of the world heritage area, the Aboriginal people, the traditional owners, had given their consent for a mine at Jabiluka.We assessed that mining prospect with the challenge of determining whether it could be conducted in a way that was safe for both environmental and cultural purposes. We did that last year through an assessment of the mine itself, an assessment that involved periods of public consultation and analysis of public submissions. It was a very comprehensive process. We found that, subject to 77 conditions that were imposed, the mine could proceed without any threat to environmental values, consistent with the experience of the Ranger mine.This year we addressed what was, in some ways, a greater challenge—whether milling and disposal of waste could take place at the Jabiluka site, again without threat to environmental or cultural values. The preferred option was that it take place in the existing Ranger plant so it would add no significant extra challenge. If we erred in relation to addressing that task, we erred on the side of caution. Although the mining company suggested the use of new technology—which was cementing the waste into specifically created disposal pits—my department's view and some of the scientific observations were that there was some risk associated, based on both the new technologies and the geomorphology of the site.We erred on the side of caution by rejecting the mining company's preferred option, which I have just described, and said that we would only consent to the milling and disposal if the waste was disposed back into the regional mine void—in other words, put back from whence it originally came, where there is no doubt at all that it would be no threat to the environment or other values, basically forever at that depth. It is a very stable natural system, and I do not think anyone suggested that there could be any leakage of any waste element in the future. We chose the most cautious of all options.The advice that I had was that, on choosing that option, we could be absolutely confident that there would not be a detrimental consequence to the environment. After the assessment process this year—and bear in mind that this is the latest of a series of assessment processes over the year in relation to Jabiluka—we also reached that conclusion. This does not satisfy those who are opposed to uranium mining and it does not satisfy some who are opposed to uranium mining in that region. They have been agitating for the world heritage organisation to play a part and, ultimately, a mission was sent to look at this issue. That is what has been addressed in the last few days.To say the least, we were disappointed by that mission, basically because it came to the following conclusion:The mission seriously questions the compatibility of mining, and particularly uranium mining and milling, in such close proximity to a World Heritage property.On the basis of that, it said that the mine should not go ahead. It totally ignored the fact that there has been an existing mine there for 18 years and that it has been demonstrated that, important though the natural values are in the region, they can be properly preserved while mining takes place. Ultimately, the mining site will be rehabilitated and all that has come from it is the advantages of wealth—money to the Aboriginal community. It is worth noting in passing that over $2 million will go to indigenous interests from Jabiluka. A substantial amount of money—over $48 million—has gone to indigenous interests from Ranger, with jobs and all the other benefits that come from a prospect such as this. Jabiluka is big money. There is no doubt about that. It is a $14 billion resource, ultimately for the betterment of all Australians. Having said that, however, no matter what the money is, no matter what the material benefits are, if we believed that there was any threat to the environment or cultural values from it, then we would not have given it our consent.Without developing a case to oppose the mine, the inquiry simply found that it should not go ahead because it is hard to imagine that it could be compatible with those values. It ducked the difficult issue—the three years of detailed analysis that we undertook to test whether mining could be compatible with those other important values. The mission simply dropped in for four days in Kakadu, talked to some interests, and determined that it was incompatible and should not go ahead. That sort of shallow evaluation is what we particularly criticise. There will be major consequences from such a superficial evaluation, which we could not but help think, on the basis of looking at this document objectively, amounts to prejudice more than anything else.Apart from that, they talked about the scientific uncertainties. What were the scientific uncertainties? That was a submission from four scientists from the ANU who did not want the mine to go ahead. That is four scientists as against all the in-depth scientific evaluation that has gone through the assessment processes, and also the 18 years of scientific supervision of Ranger.The next factor they got onto was a concern about the cultural issues in relation to the indigenous people. The indigenous people in the region are divided on this issue. I table a letter from Jonathan Neidjie—the son of Kakadu Bill, a legend in the region—who speaks on behalf of the indigenous people as a whole and asks me and the Australian parliament, `Why is it taking so long to get this mining venture under way in order that we can get the material and other benefits from it? Why are we being prejudiced by one small group of Aborigines—traditional owners in relation to this site, but only a part of the total indigenous community that has a right to have a say in the development of this prospect?' (Time expired)15:52:00776Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I must say at the outset that that was a very disappointing intervention by the minister. It is disappointing because, once again, we have the minister trying to gloss over the truth. Once again we have the minister getting stuck into the UNESCO committee and, once again, we have the minister not being prepared to address point by point the concerns.We are not talking about just any matter here at all. We are talking about a matter that is of immense national importance to Australia. It is a matter which has and will affect our international standing. I have to say that after 2½ years of lobbying for Senator Hill to become foreign minister, I think the Prime Minister has made the right choice. Senator Hill, you are no diplomat. We have seen that in the last 24 hours from the way you have handled this committee. Your behaviour has affected our international standing, and it will continue to do so. It also affects our national priorities. Internationally, it will affect how we are treated and how we are respected. At every meeting an Australian minister goes to until this matter is cleared up, the issue of Kakadu will be raised. If Kakadu is not placed on the endangered list, this is an issue we will not be able to avoid in our international relations.Nationally, both economically and socially, we have to get this right. When you are talking about world heritage property areas, when you are talking about an area such as Kakadu, you have to recognise that this is one of the chief tourist magnets in Australia. If you jeopardise that, those jobs you are talking about in respect of uranium mining will be insignificant compared with the number of jobs we will lose in the tourist industry and related areas.This is not the only area that Senator Allison referred to in her urgency motion. She talked about the way this government handles our world heritage areas. It is no secret that the World Heritage Committee does have concerns, not just in relation to Jabiluka but also with the way we are proceeding with the Great Barrier Reef, Shark Bay, the Tasmanian wilderness world heritage areas, and so on. This is a government that is not meeting its national responsibilities or its international commitments, and the world community is starting to look at us.I must say that nowhere is this behaviour more demonstrated than in respect of the proposal for Jabiluka. We have had over the last almost 24 hours now a bizarre attack on UNESCO and on internationally respected personalities by a minister who has, over the last 12 months in respect of this issue, shown a mixture of, I must say—and I say so in sorrow—recklessness and ineptness.This issue of protecting Kakadu is of importance to all Australians. Poll after poll shows that some 70 per cent or more of Australians are concerned that we do protect this area. Seventy per cent or more are concerned that mining does not go ahead in Jabiluka. With that backdrop, it is quite amazing for the minister not to go through the adequate processes and not to go through a full defence of his position; rather, he has chosen to go through an attack on the other side. He said, `It was a hard decision for the government to make, but we erred on the side of caution.'This is a government that had a report from Environment Australia, the minister's own department, which was quite damning in the way it criticised quite a number of aspects of the proposal. It is a report that identifies some 77 conditions, most of which have been watered down by the minister, and particularly by other ministers in the government. It is a report that makes very clear the view of his department. On page 125 it says:There remains potential for significant adverse impacts upon World Heritage and National Estate values, especially indigenous values . . . This is what the minister's own department said. How do the government respond to that? How do they respond to concerns from their department? They responded in a quite cursory way. You would have thought, listening to the minister on television again today, that this would be a minister showing enormous care to make sure that habitat, environment and cultural values are being protected.The report of his own department on page 54 quite clearly says that they did a flora and fauna ecological assessment, but they did it in a way which did not please the minister's own department. This is a government acting contrary to its own department's advice. Environment Australia says, quite rightly and not with any sense of hysteria, on page 54 of its report to the minister:Environment Australia does not consider that the flora survey conducted by helicopter for the draft environmental impact statement (D 6-39) constitutes an appropriate study of vegetation potentially affected by the project.So careful are they that in terms of a critical aspect of this proposal, of the critical implications of it, of checking out the impact on fauna, flora and ecology, they do a study, and they do it by helicopter! Come on, Senator Hill, you do not expect us to believe your glib rhetoric when your own department exposes a lack of caution, care and concern in respect of this!The story so far is that we have had a committee come to Australia. We know that UNESCO's World Heritage Bureau is meeting in Kyoto in Japan this Friday and probably next week. We do know that the UNESCO mission came here. Before they came here we had the minister saying they were welcome to come here, that we wanted them here, that they will give us a chance to show off our assets, and that we are very proud of our management of world heritage in Australia. He went on to say further that the World Heritage Bureau has in fact commended Australia on its standards in protecting world heritage and that that was not surprising because we are up to the world's best standards. He was prepared to invoke them in support. But by the time they got here on 30 October, when he got a sense that the tide was running against him, this minister who wanted the bureau here said, `Oh, well, we've said that we believe that the mission is unnecessary.' Senator Hill, you did not believe that the mission was unnecessary at the start. It is only when you got wind of their concerns that you did not want them here. And it has only been in the last 24 hours since you have had access to a report that is quite damning in its nature that you have decided that you would not address the report, and you personally attacked members of the commission.I have to put on the record that, in its report, the mission said:The Mission noted the serious concerns and preoccupations expressed by some of Australia's most eminent scientists as to unacceptably high degree of scientific uncertainties relating to the Jabiluka mine design, tailings disposal and possible impacts on the catchment ecosystems.The mission shares these concerns and therefore recommends application of the Precautionary Principle which requires that mining operations at Jabiluka be ceased.It is a very clear statement, and the implications are very clear. Of some 552 world heritage sites listed on the World Heritage list, Kakadu may very well become only the 26th to be listed as `in danger'—and this in Australia, a developed nation with the economic resources to protect its World Heritage assets. If Kakadu is listed, then it will become a major and severe embarrassment to Australia.I have to say once again that the minister's behaviour in the last 24 hours of attacking the committee in the sense of trying to intimidate the committee will do nothing but backfire. The minister has maintained his cool for the last couple of years, but he has lost it on this issue. When you personally attack people of the status of Mr Francioni, the only reaction in the world community will be for them to wonder what sort of hick mentality is dominating this government and this parliament.The approach of the minister and the government is of concern. The minister raises a couple of points, but consistently, over the course of this process, there has been a systematic attempt by this government to keep vital and critical information away from the public—not only away from the Australian public, but also from this international commission that was in Australia.In this place we have tried to get released and to have produced all the relevant documentation in the lead-up to the approval. We know that the approval was made in haste before an election to placate rich and powerful industry friends. We know that. We know that there are major inadequacies in the process that the minister embarked upon.If the minister has nothing to fear in this respect, he should come into this place and table the documents. As I said, two weeks ago we tried to force disclosure in this place, but the government, together with their newfound lackey, Senator Colston, resisted that attempt.Senator Hill, if you believe in what you say, if your case can stand up, come in here and table the documents and let us see how it stands up after that. I have to say that every document that has been leaked against the government on this particular matter shows—in document after document in sequence—that this is a government that has not met its responsibilities in terms of the environment.The attack on the UNESCO body is extraordinary and bizarre. It ignores the fact that the mission to Australia was the highest level ever UNESCO mission to this country. In fact, it was the highest level UNESCO mission to anywhere in the world in terms of the expertise and seniority of its membership, so do not try and vilify the chairman by calling him just `a mere lawyer'. That was a strange comment to come from this government, which has so many `mere lawyers' on their front bench, not only in this place but in the House of Representatives.Do not try to belittle this committee, its status and reputation; recognise that this is one of the highest status committees of UNESCO to come here, and one of the most respected in terms of expertise and seniority of membership. In fact, it comprised representatives of the eminent US advisory bodies IUCN, ICOMOS, the World Heritage Bureau and the World Heritage Committee.Also, do not try to misrepresent the facts by saying the numbers on the committee were against protection on environmental grounds. The only two people on this committee who stuck with the government, the only two people on this committee of seven who did not advocate listing, were the two scientists hand-picked by the minister. Every other impartial member of this committee has gone against Senator Hill and the government. I think his performance on television last night, trying to manipulate the media into believing that the numbers were in fact stacked against the proposition that the mine should not go ahead on environmental grounds, was a misleading one.Let us face it: we have a government here that does not really care about international responsibilities. We have a government here which, in every case when the previous Labor government tried to protect property—whether it was the Franklin, Uluru, the Great Barrier Reef and so on—always resisted the use of national powers to protect those areas. It is a government that does not believe in the utilisation of those powers. It is no surprise that in this particular instance we have a government not prepared to meet its responsibilities.So what does Senator Hill say now? He has had the committee here: this process has been going for some time. He himself published the report. Now he says, `I want another six months; the Kyoto conference should not be ready to consider this because we have not had a chance to put Australia's case to the committee.' You have wined and dined the committee, Senator Hill. You had them within your care and responsibility for some time. It is only when they disagreed with you that relations blew up.To now come out, at this last moment, and say, `We want six more months', should be seen by Australians and the international community as Senator Hill trying to buy time to lock up the process. He wants to be able to come in here in six months time and say, `It's too late; the mine has gone ahead.' Once again, that really is a failure of responsibility by the minister.This is a minister who did not fight Senator Parer in the early processes but who now wants to be in a position to lock up the mine and lock international and national concern out of it. I remind the minister again that over 70 per cent of Australians want to protect Kakadu from this particular mine.The other line he runs is, `We've had another mine. We've had Ranger there for 18 years, and there have been no environmental impacts of concern in respect to or arising out of Ranger.' It has to be said that it is not only the view of the opposition, but also the view of eminent independent scientists, as well as the view of the minister's own department, that we are talking about two different propositions altogether here.Let us place on record that there have been problems with Ranger in terms of the release of waters and so on, and let us also put on record, from a document which the minister did not want to publish, what his department thinks in respect to Ranger and Jabiru. On page 128 of Environment Australia's assessment report, the department says:More importantly, however, is that there are a number of significant differences between the two projects.That is from the minister's own department. And the advice of scientists is the same.When you look at the advice of scientists like Dr Bob Wasson with respect to the Jabiluka mine, you find that they are talking about a mine which, in many respects, because of the physical configuration of the site, has enormous problems. It is a mine—particularly because of its proximity to important waterways—which has important problems that we need to take into account. For instance, it should be placed on the record that the Australian Academy of Science has nominated a group of prestigious scientists, led by Professor Bob Wasson, to present concerns to the inspection team.What did the Wasson report put to the inspection team? It noted:. . . the design of bunds and all other structures to contain tailings, water and other wastes at both Jabiluka and Ranger is based upon principles that are grossly inadequate. We simply do not know if the designed structures can withstand the major rainfall events of the future so the integrity of Kakadu National Park cannot be guaranteed with any probability.Let me repeat that: their view is that the integrity of Kakadu National Park cannot be guaranteed with any probability. The report is also highly critical of the waste management strategies and water analysis associated with the Jabiluka EIS. It states:The EIS consultants have underestimated the extreme rainfall and overestimated evaporation at the mine site and take no account of climate change.We are talking here of eminent Australian scientists. They are not just concerned about the two factors they mention; they are concerned that the assessment process for this mine has some fundamental flaws.Firstly, there was a desperate and hasty decision to permit the proponent to meet the requirements of tailings disposal by returning 100 per cent of tailings to the pit. There is enormous concern about that. Secondly, there is enormous concern that the original advice of Environment Australia to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage was not made public for many weeks; in fact, it was made public only after the visit by the mission. Thirdly, there is concern that the project should not have been commenced in the construction stage prior to the completion of the PER.The minister's own department is saying, `Look, this mine is too critical to allow it to go ahead unless conditions are met. But this government is giving approval for the mine to go ahead even before the preconditions laid down by the minister's own department were met. The minister comes in here and says, `We decided 77 conditions would have to apply to the mine.' What he did not say in his glib disregard for the truth is that his department put down 77 conditions and that those conditions were watered down substantially by his colleagues in cabinet—by Senator Parer. For instance, one of the conditions is that the Office of the Supervising Scientist be in control of supervision in the area and should have responsibility for the crucial aspects of the management of the mine. That condition has been watered down to read that ERA has a responsibility as far as is practicable to meet environmental concerns.We have here advice from a government department saying that there has got to be strict regulation, but the government is saying, `Oh, well. Self-regulation is good enough.' Self-regulation is not good enough in this area because the implications of damage to Kakadu, both nationally and internationally, are enormous. It is not good enough for the minister to come in here and glibly make references to those 77 conditions when he knows that the conditions set by the government are nothing like the conditions laid down by his own department.I have not even got to cultural values. We are talking about Jabiluka, we are talking about Kakadu—an area which was inscribed on the world heritage list as:. . . representing a masterpiece of human creative genius and for being `directly or tangibly associated with ideas or the beliefs with artistic or literary works of outstanding universal significance.'The Australian Academy of Humanities notes:The Jabiluka area is archaeologically rich. There are over 100 rock art sites within the lease. A site known as Malakunanja 11 is one of the most significant rock art sites in Australia and may be more than 50,000 years old.What did the government do to monitor and make sure that they had got a full appraisal before they went ahead and gave a licence? They checked out the area by helicopter.Senator Hill has not met his national responsibilities as environment minister on this particular issue for quite some time. In the last 24 hours he has lost the plot, he has lost his cool. As a consequence, he has ensured that this particular area of Kakadu will be on the endangered list. If that happens, then this government will stand condemned for not meeting its responsibilities.It is the responsibility of the Senate to pursue this matter. I give notice now that the best and most immediate way we can pursue it is to bring Senator Hill to task and make him produce documentation which is quite critical. That documentation has to be tabled. The opposition will keep pursuing that. (Time expired)16:12:00781Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The motion before us today is that, in the opinion of the Senate, the following matter is a matter of urgency:The failure of the government to properly manage its world heritage areas.Not surprisingly, that is the motion presented by the Australian Democrats on this occasion. I would contrast it very starkly with a motion that is today before the Northern Territory parliament which is so vitally affected by this issue, whether it is Kakadu or Jabiluka. The motion that will be passed in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly today reads:That this assembly reaffirms our commitment and support for uranium mining in the Northern Territory and the continuing development of the Jabiluka Mine.That motion will be passed, and I will be very surprised if it is not passed without the support of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory. So there is a conflict between the comments just made by Senator Bolkus and the actions that are so very important to the people of the Northern Territory, both in the wider community and specifically in the Aboriginal community.It is also important to look at the report that has been highlighted by Senator Allison—the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation report on this particular issue. As Senator Bolkus said, it has an important membership—seven members, including two Australians. The most important part of the report is annex 1—signed by Professor Jon Altman of the Australian National University in Canberra—which has been developed jointly with the other Australian on the team, Dr Roy Green. In his letter to Professor Francesco Francioni, Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Professor Altman highlighted the total dysfunctionality of the complete report. I draw the detail of that letter to the attention of everyone. There are two full pages that go into specific details.I emphasise that Professor Altman has in the past carried out work for the Northern Land Council, the Central Land Council and the Australian Labor Party. He is certainly no stooge of this Commonwealth government or the Northern Territory government. I will quote from what he says in that letter:We remain disappointed, however that our views on a number of major issues have been disregarded without an attempt to mediate our differences on whether the final report should have a no-mining statement.He further says:Recommendation 1: There was no recommendation from the majority calling for immediate halting of the Jabiluka mine.He also says:Recommendation 2: The treatment of scientific issues is selective, accepting evidence to support the position not to countenance Jabiluka and disregarding all other evidence, including the world-class work carried out at Ranger. We are concerned at the dismissal, without discussion or argument, of credible scientific evidence put forward by scientists with two decades experience in the region.Very obviously this UNESCO report is pre-written by a fundamentalist green team with no regard to local evidence, to evidence properly presented or to local knowledge. It is prepared, I would say, by impractical, interfering, international busybodies—sticking their noses into other areas.The economic benefits of Jabiluka include a capital investment of $70 million just to develop the mine. The earnings from Jabiluka and Ranger are estimated at more than $12 billion in revenue over the next 25 years; 87 per cent of this revenue, or almost $10.5 billion will remain in Australia. There will be a $6.2 billion increase in GDP. Jabiluka will increase Australia's wealth by $3.8 billion over the anticipated 28-year life of the mine.In the area of employment, there will be over 160 jobs in the construction phase. When the new mine becomes fully operational, 110 new permanent jobs will be available. Both Ranger and Jabiluka will generate 1,500 indirect jobs.The Aboriginal benefits include $210 million in royalties over the anticipated 28-year life of Jabiluka for the Aboriginal community. To date, Aboriginal landowners have received a total of $48.2 million in royalties, up-front payments and rent from Ranger. An additional $87 million in royalties has been distributed through Commonwealth agencies among Aboriginal communities across the Northern Territory.What else should we have regard to? We as a Senate should have regard to the Kakadu regional social impact statement, which was prepared, properly discussed and debated at various places. That report is now being implemented under the proper and appropriate chairmanship of former senator Bob Collins, who has a job looking after interests in that area. That report says at page 9:Traditional ownership is not a static construct and such issues can be, and are, fiercely contested in a region like Kakadu that has been depopulated and repopulated.It also says:There is no ready means to return to some pristine pre-uranium mining, pre-national park regional state that is independent of government.I also turn to a report of a committee that you chaired, Mr Acting Deputy President Chapman, the report of the Senate Select Committee on Uranium Mining and Milling that was tabled in this place in May 1997. This is the document we should be debating—not some document prepared by a mob of international tourists who flitted into the place with preconceived concepts and did not spend the time that your committee did, Mr Acting Deputy President. That important report is totally owned by and signed off by Senator Mark Bishop and Senator Margaret Reynolds of the Labor Party. I quote from it:The hazards of mining and milling uranium, if those activities are properly regulated and controlled, are not such as to justify a decision not to develop Australian uranium mines.The Senate select committee found that the principal findings of the Ranger uranium environmental inquiry, the Fox report, re mained valid as the foundation for policy on mining of uranium. I quote from page 35 of that report:The ERA mine at Ranger is widely regarded as the most regulated mine in the world. This observation is especially true of supervision and monitoring of Ranger's impacts on the environment.Sure, there is an impact of uranium mining on Aboriginal communities but employment is important. It certainly is one of the impacts. There are also issues relating to parks and tourism. Also, the draft environmental impact statement indicates the number of people who are looking at this area.The Territory ALP's position on uranium has been well documented. Senator Bob Collins is on the record in this place as having recognised the reality of uranium mining in the Territory. Mr Jonathan Nadji in a letter to Senator Hill has expressed his extreme disappointment.This whole issue of Aboriginal consent is vital. In 1982 and 1991 the people approved it. The next generation have now walked away from that. We cannot have this sort of inconsistent decision making. It is time the Mirrar people took seriously their obligation to use uranium resources to contribute to their own economic and social welfare—and also recognised their privileged right to contribute to other Aboriginal needs and to the wider Northern Territory community. It was their elder statesmen and generation, the parents and grandparents of Yvonne Margarula, who made these decisions, and the cultural values are not just a moving feast to be played with by the Democrats and the Labor Party. (Time expired)16:20:00782Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I agree with Senator Allison that the government has failed to manage its World Heritage areas properly, to manage the heirlooms and icons of this nation—the creme de la creme of the natural and cultural areas that this nation, together with the rest of the world, has placed on the World Heritage list, not only for the celebration of the world communities in our time but for the celebration of all future generations. That is so often forgotten in a close-up knockabout debate about such things as mining when it is undertaken in the way that the government has done.What is really at the centre of this debate this afternoon is the reprehensible behaviour of the minister `for the environment'. That is his title, in this government. Never before in all the history of people occupying that office has any minister not only disregarded his responsibility but time and time again gone against that responsibility to argue against the interests of the environment that he is supposed to be serving. That is why I would agree with the honourable Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kim Beazley, when he said in public that this is the worst performing environment minister this country has ever seen. The litany is very long. It goes through greenhouse gases to the protection of World Heritage properties to the awesome destruction by the logging industry which he has been the purveyor of in his years as minister.The current situation in New South Wales, where hundreds of thousands of high conservation value forests are going to be fed to the chainsaws by the Carr government, is compounded when you hear this minister for the environment stand in this chamber this afternoon and say, `That is not enough. I would feed more into the chainsaws.' I have here photographs of the trip the minister for the environment referred to, when he went to the Tasmanian World Heritage area vicinity after assuming the mantle of minister. Here he is, standing in a clear-felled area of World Heritage value forests—although they are not within the World Heritage area—looking at what is going on around him. Since he has been to those forests, he has personally sounded the death knell for the destruction of the very forests he was looking at, World Heritage value forests. Once again he has done this against the advice of his own department and against the advice of world authorities on those forests.When it comes to Kakadu, the best he and Senator Tambling can do this afternoon is try to emphasise the difference of opinion that can be found within the indigenous community in this country, which is no less valid, I guess, than the difference of opinion that can be found within the wider community. Sena tor Tambling began his contribution by referring to a motion which is naturally, by force of numbers, going to be passed in the Northern Territory assembly today. He said that this is where the real opinion should be. I submit that he is wrong. If he wants to bring it down to the fine point, the real arbiters of this decision ought to be the traditional owners, the Mirrar people, who are rock solid 100 per cent against this destructive mine being built in the Jabiluka valley under the auspices of this minister for the environment, who goes against the very name of his ministry.Those people are now being represented at this all-important World Heritage committee meeting in Kyoto. I do not know what the outcome of that will be but I do know this: this minister will be leading a political onslaught against the top environmental and World Heritage advice in the world which says that this mine, quite clearly, is a danger to the cultural and natural values of that magnificent Jabiluka valley. What a disgrace this minister is. What a disgrace this government is. What a reprehensible way to be letting down the environmental values which his office ought to be upholding, which this government ought to be upholding, not only on behalf of the Mirrar people and this nation but on behalf of the whole planet and all future generations. I totally support the motion.16:25:00783Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I do not totally support the motion. I think this motion completely misrepresents the government's position on this matter and the general issue of World Heritage listing. The real central issue of this is whether the indigenous people of the area have really suffered any loss or have gained any benefit from uranium mining at Ranger and the proposed mine at Jabiluka. Let us have a look at that. First of all, uranium mining in the Kakadu region has provided substantial benefits to Aboriginal people in the area for more than 18 years.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Ninety per cent of children in Jabiluka have scabies.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—I doubt very much whether that is anything to do with uranium mining. It is more a public health issue. While you may seek to tie scabies and all sorts of other things into the possible undesirable side-effects of uranium mining, I do not think that would really stand up to any sort of serious examination.The government has sought to maximise opportunities for traditional owners and other people in the Kakadu region in relation to mining in Jabiluka through a sound statutory network which provides mechanisms for representation, statutory royalty equivalents and negotiated benefits. Since the Ranger mine began back in 1981, a total of $48.2 million in benefits have flowed to the traditional owners. That is a lot of money and it has been of great benefit to that Aboriginal group.The money that has gone through to the Aboriginal community has been made up of $1.3 million in up-front payments, $3.4 million from rental payments and $43.5 million in royalty equivalent payments. That, as I said, has amounted to $48.2 million. The proposed Jabiluka mine, which has not yet commenced operation, has already generated $3.7 million in benefits for Aboriginal people under the 1982 Pancontinental agreement.These include $1 million in July 1982 distributed by the Northern Land Council. The Djabulukgu Association, which I think is the local Aboriginal group, received 80 per cent of that while the Gagudju Association received 10 per cent and the Kunwinjku Trading Association, which is now known as the Narbalek Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation, got 10 per cent. Eight hundred thousand dollars, comprising four annual payments of $200,000, went to the Northern Land Council for its administrative costs. Senator Allison, I think even you would agree that is a useful benefit to the entire Aboriginal community of the Northern Territory. A total of $1.2 million on commencement of construction is to be distributed by the Northern Land Council in the same proportions as in 1982. These funds are all held by the Northern Land Council.Under the 1998 deed poll, there is $0.1 million on commencement of construction for NLC administrative costs; $0.25 million on commencement of construction for a women's resource centre is to be distributed at the direction of the Bininj Working Committee; $0.315 million on commencement of construction will be used for social impact monitoring; and $0.7 million on commencement of construction will be used for the control of alcohol.Alcohol, drugs and glue sniffing are the serious problems which the Aboriginal communities in the north of Australia face. If Aboriginal communities can receive royalties from mining and minerals, which are under the ground already and over which they have walked for millions of years without any adverse effect, then I am all in favour of this for the benefit that it brings. These figures do not include various ad hoc payments to Aboriginal interests. Over its life, the Jabiluka mine will provide a further $210 million to Aboriginal interests. It is expected that these funds will be used to complement government programs and provide additional benefits in the areas of housing, community based education, cultural heritage and land management programs, development of a regional Aboriginal languages interpreting service—(Time expired) Question put: That the motion (Senator Allison's ) be agreed to.16:35:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)32Allison, 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.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. Lees, M. H.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. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. 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. *Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.Cook, P. F. S. Kemp, R.Evans, C. V. Parer, W. R.Lundy, K. Vanstone, A. E.Murphy, S. M. Hill, R. M.Sherry, N. Crane, W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Committees785785Motion (by Senator O'Chee)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be appointed to and discharged from committees as follows:Select Committee on the New Tax System—Appointed: Senators Cook, Conroy, Ferguson, Gibson, Murray, O'Chee and Sherry.Substitute members: Senators Chapman and Watson to substitute for Senators Gibson and Ferguson, and Senator Brownhill to substitute for Senator O'Chee, for any matter before the committee.Community Affairs References Committee—Participating members: Senators Allison, Bartlett, Bourne, Lees, Murray, Stott Despoja and Woodley for the committee's inquiry into the impacts of the Government's taxation reform legislation.Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee— Participating members: Senators Bartlett, Bourne, Lees, Murray, Stott Despoja and Woodley for the committee's inquiry into the employment incentive and education impacts of the Government's taxation reform legislation.Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee—Discharged: Senator Stott DespojaAppointed: Senators Allison, Bourne, Murray, Stott Despoja and Woodley for the committee's inquiry into the broad effects of the Government's taxation reform legislation proposals on the environment, the arts and information technology.Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—Discharged: Senator Stott Despoja as a full participating member.Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Participating members: Senators Chapman and Sandy Macdonald.Miscellaneous78516:38:00785Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I move: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.I would like to set the scene for this debate by reflecting on the state of Australia's banking sector—the big four: the Commonwealth, NAB, ANZ and Westpac. Collectively, they have just announced profits of $5.6 billion for this year. Over the 1990s, a period with low inflation and modest economic growth, these four banks have increased their profits by almost 440 per cent. The profit of these banks has increased by almost 440 per cent over the 1990s. To put this in perspective, the big bank profits have grown 3½ times faster than the economy as a whole. No other industry, no other sector, has been able to do as well or even come close to the banks in the last 10 years. This has been driven largely by the retail side of their activities.Each bank is currently earning a 20 per cent-plus return on its capital for its shareholders. It is unheard of to have a sustained 20 per cent on retail. Mums and dads, ordinary Australians, have seen their banks charging them and closing their branches. It is in the retail area that the banks have been really making their profits. A 20 per cent return on shareholders' funds in low inflationary times is a historic sustained high for banks. These levels have come from massive increases in the volume of home lending, despite the margins having fallen from mortgage originators providing direct competition. I will return to this point later because it is very important.The banks have also been able to achieve this level of returns on their retail sector. The accounts of the banks published in the last few weeks have made this clear. In 1997, the big four banks earned $3.2 billion more from fees and charges than at the start of the decade. That was a massive increase in their non-traditional income. The big four, before abnormals, increased their profits this year by seven per cent. The NAB in particular increased its profits by 13 per cent.What lies ahead for the sector? One analyst was quoted in the Financial Review recently as saying that margin pressures are abating and the threat of mortgage originators has been contained. This should send a shiver down the spine of all Australians. Banks are starting to say, `We've got the mortgage originators, Aussie Home Loans and all the people like that covered now. It has been a bit of a bulge, but we have got them covered.' This is very worrying. APRA, the new regulator for banks, has warned that banks' overall margins are going to be squeezed as the Asian crisis works its way through the economy, meaning reduced profits. So APRA is warning that the economic circumstances mean banks are not going to be able to grow in the way they have.Others are not so pessimistic, however. There are people in the markets who are forecasting average earnings per share growth of 10 per cent for banks, despite the contrac tion in the Australian economy—on the government's own forecasts, on the market's forecasts—dropping down to anywhere between two and 2½ per cent. What we are going to see is the economy starting to slow down. That is universally agreed. There is debate about how much. But what we are going to see is banks still maintaining, on average, across all their sectors—not just their retail sector—a level of 10 per cent.Cost cutting has been a part of the equation, but some believe that there is not much fat left. How in the absence of the easy cost cutting will banks keep delivering to their shareholders who have been enjoying a five-year bull-run of almost constantly rising share prices? A recent report by Rahoul Chowdry from Price Waterhouse Coopers pointed out that about $1.3 billion from banks' interest income has gone, because of the home loan originators. One point three billion has gone from banks' margins—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Who wrote that speech?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Are you allowed to speak in this debate? You have been dumped from this portfolio area. If I were you, I would sit there and be quiet. Your government has decided exactly what it thinks of you and your performance. You have been dumped from the treasury area. You have now been shoved off somewhere else. I would sit there and be quiet, if I were you. Rahoul Chowdry stated:Growth in income from non-interest income related sources and efficiency gains will be priorities.We are likely to see further staff layoffs and cost savings from centralisation of services, out-sourcing and from restructuring plans undertaken recently.. . . . . . . . .NAB has been the biggest fee hiker with an `impression' 35.9 per cent rise in its non-interest income from $2.9 billion to $3.9 billion.This was a 77 per cent increase in fees and commissions.That is why NAB are doing so well; that is why they are top of the tree. They are gouging their customers, their retail customers, their mums and dads, bigger and better than anybody else. But they are not alone. The Commonwealth reported a 23.7 per cent, or $361 million increase in its fees. Westpac had an increase of a mere 15.2 per cent, equating to $264 million. That is what banks have been doing over the last 12 months with fees and charges and the benefits they are getting. What has the NAB to say in the light of this? Mr Hadyn Park, their spokesperson, said there was no link between the bank's profits and branch closures. He said increases in fees were unavoidable as lending margins were squeezed by low interest rates and free services could no longer be subsidised by interest earnings. Compare this with the comments of Mr Hockey, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, in the other place on 24 November 1998—earlier this week. He said:There is a simple choice here: do you want lower interest rates, do you want competition in the provision of financial services—It is funny but I always thought interest rates were driven by inflationary expectations and other factors. The margins are meant to be driven by competition. Mr Hockey went on to say:The trade-off has been that people are starting to pay for some of the services that they are demanding of the bank—That is right—demanding of the bank. Pensioners are demanding to be able to walk into their bank and take their money out using a teller, and now they are being forced to pay. It is an absolutely unbelievable statement by the minister. But I guess the ultimate insult in the minister's speech came at the end, and this sums up the government's view. The minister, Mr Hockey, said:. . . we have the opportunity to get the full benefit of user pays.The full benefit! I am not sure how much more of the full benefit battling Australians can afford to get under this government. The government has recently introduced the brave new world of Wallis, something which the opposition supported in principle, as Senator Campbell knows, but we did raise some concerns over some of the issues in this area. Senator Campbell and I both spoke on it at the time the bill was being debated. What were the views of its author?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Before I got dumped.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Before you got dumped, that is right, Senator Campbell, dumped from your portfolio where you really wanted to be. What were the views of its author, Mr Wallis? He said:I think, at the end of the day, it does come back to the Government. If it's going to be part of the social welfare fabric of this country then it has to be recognised as (such).Earlier, Mr Wallis told journalists that cross-subsidisation would disappear as other areas of banking became more competitive, delivering overwhelming consumer benefits. He said:The overriding consideration (of the inquiry) is clearly to deliver the consumer a better deal.So Mr Wallis, the Wallis inquiry and the report that he brings down, say that the overriding consideration of the inquiry is to deliver the consumer a better deal. What was the view of Mr Costello when he introduced the government's response to the Wallis report on 2 September 1997? He said:The measures I have announced today will facilitate greater choice and competition in financial services. They will encourage more rapid innovation, providing wider access and enhanced levels of service. Australia will have a world class regulatory structure that ensures the highest standards of prudence and safety and consumer protection. Regulation will be more efficient, with greater consistency and less overlap. More openly contested markets will drive lower industry costs and prices.To drive lower industry costs and prices is the aim. That is what this government says it wants to come out of its regulation and what it wants to achieve for ordinary Australians. Mr Costello was asked a question on 20 June 1996. He replied:May I say in relation to fees as well, this government takes the view that red-hot competition is the best way of having continual surveillance of financial institutions on each other in relation to fees, just as it is the first and best port of call in relation to interest rates.Red-hot competition. What has been the result of the red-hot competition?O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Lower interest rates.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I will come to lower interest rates, Senator Tierney, don't you worry about that. What has been the result of this red-hot competition? The National Bank has led the changes, increasing its minimum balance applicable to fee-free transaction accounts from $500 to $1,000. The bank has also introduced a charge for customers failing to pay minimum monthly balance on credit cards within 30 days of the due date.The ANZ Banking Corporation will raise its monthly account keeping fees from $4 to $6, introduce a $15 charge on lost cards and raise the cost of stopping cheques from $7.50 to $15. It has also introduced a $6 monthly fee on pensioner deeming accounts for balances below $500, all to come into effect on 18 January.Westpac raised its annual fee on selected credit cards from $18 to $24 and is introducing a fee for overseas foreign currency purchases or cash advances by credit card, effective from 1 January. St George has already implemented similar types of things. From 1 December, as we saw last week, the cost of over the counter withdrawals at a Commonwealth Bank branch will go up from $1.50 to $2 and a fee on a cash withdrawal from an automatic teller machine, an ATM, will jump from 45c to 60c. But red-hot competition will have further benefits for battlers. Industry experts are predicting the changes by the Commonwealth Bank last week will trigger a new round of fees and charges, increasing over the next six months.A recent study by Marketfaxts of transaction account charges reveals that almost all fees levied by the major banks increased, and in some cases doubled, in the past year. Is it any wonder that the recently established Financial Services Consumer Policy Centre will investigate anti-competitive and unfair fees and charges, in particular the question of whether there is any collusion on fees. How much more of the benefits of red-hot competition can battlers take under this government? I would like to now turn to the issue of branch closures and the impact on the community. Banks are more than just a financial institution, they form the core of a community, particularly rural communities. Many small shopping centres depend on the proximity of a bank. It is obvious that you shop where you bank. If you close the bank, the shoppers will move and your shopping centres are going to die.A recent study by the University of Queensland concluded that when the last branch in an area is closed, 90 per cent of respondents are more pessimistic about the future of their community and 39 per cent say they would like to leave the town as well. That is the direct impact. This has been recognised by ANZ recently which announced they have allocated $10 million to support community banking initiatives in both rural and metropolitan areas. This has been partly in response to the outcry and partially due to Bendigo Bank's establishment of community branches and its criticism of the behaviour of the big four. The jury is out on ANZ but it is a welcome move and I wish them success.A recent survey of Sydney's branch network revealed some startling findings. More than 100 Sydney suburbs or localities have been left with reduced services or no branch. In the past three years—since the end of 1995—138 branches have closed in Sydney.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Tell us about the 1,600 branches under Labor. Tell us about that!3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—This is just one bank—one area in Sydney. A further 68 branches were lost due to the St George and Advance Bank mergers. But banks appear to have seen the light and now seem to have backed away from further closures. They have underestimated the public feeling on this issue. Where have the Nationals been on this issue? The Queensland Nationals are so rattled they passed a resolution supporting the formation of a new Australian bank at their conference recently.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—That is because you closed down QIDC!3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Where have the Nationals been? Where have you been, and where are you going to vote today, Senator O'Chee? One Nation has put you out of a job because you have allowed this to happen over the last three years. You have run, you have hidden and you have paid the price. Banks must recognise that they have an obligation to their customers to provide accessible services. Pushing some customers who are the most vulnerable in our community into electronic banking, either by removing face-to-face access or making it so expensive that you cannot afford to use it, is unacceptable. Some may say a $2 over-the-counter fee is trifling. When you realise that two over-the-counter transactions will wipe out the GST compensation that this government plans to give pensioners after it introduces the GST you begin to realise the unfairness of this behaviour.Then there is the attitude that Mr David Murray, the head of CBA, demonstrated so clearly at an American Chamber of Commerce lunch in Sydney a few weeks ago when he made his now famous quote:Instead of politically inspired letters that I get for closing a couple of branches, the people of Australia should be sending telegrams of congratulations to each of the major banks, and some of the others as well.This is from the bank which has closed 223 branches—just a few, he said—in the last three years and which voted just recently to give Mr Murray $15 million worth of options as part of his remuneration. As we all know, Mr Murray was forced onto national TV and had to apologise.I would like to return to the question of margins and interest rates. This is a critical area if a judgment is to be made about the banks and this government. This is the key decision. Much has been made about lower interest rates by the `big four' and the government, including the Treasurer, the Prime Minister, Senator Tierney and Senator O'Chee. They say the customers are the beneficiaries of lower interest rates.In the early 1990s there were many complaints about the great spread of rates—the level of real, as opposed to nominal, rates. The banks had made some disastrous loans to entrepreneurs in the 1980s—don't forget that. They lost the money. What did they do to fix it? They repaired their losses over time by maintaining some of the highest spreads of rates in the world for many years. Remember that? Do you remember the big differences—the comparisons made with banks around the world? We were the worst.You could argue that ordinary Australians were picking up the tab for the banks' poor lending practices to shonky entrepreneurs. This was the beginning of the anti-bank sentiment. You can pick it up from back then. It could be argued, if you wanted to be sympathetic to banks, that they made some massive losses and they had no choice—the parlous state of the balance sheets required some action.Today we have a very different world. Despite claims by the `big four', I say to them and to the government that you cannot hide behind this low interest rate argument. The London Economist has exposed the real story. The spread—that is, the difference between the lending and borrowing rates in Australia as measured by the prime overdraft rate and the 90-day bank bill rate—is still the highest in the world for the 15 OECD countries that they surveyed. That is right—it is still the highest. This proves the lie. This is damning evidence. The falling margins allowing cross-subsidies is the argument for increasing fees, but the spread is still the greatest.The banks point to the low interest rates and say, `Look, we're not making the money we used to,' but they are still trying to deceive ordinary Australians. It is not the five per cent or the six per cent rate that matters; it is the spread between what they are paying on the money that they are lending out and the money that they are receiving. It is the spread that matters. The government is facilitating this argument by allowing the banks to gouge huge fees while claiming they cannot afford to cross-subsidise. It is not the level of the interest rate that matters; it is the spread.This is the sort of deceit that causes the ALP to demand formal monitoring of bank fees and charges and to seek to have the ACCC conduct this monitoring and, if necessary, full price surveillance. Policies that seek to force the poor, the old and the disadvantaged out of banks is un-Australian. It is the behaviour that evokes sympathy for calls for banking licences to be made conditional on the provision of appropriate transaction accounts for all Australians.There has been much speculation in the markets following Don Argus's comments about the bank mergers. As Professor Tom Valentine and John Phillips, the former Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, agreed recently, the prime motivation for many takeovers was the megalomania of chief executives—bigger bank, greater status, bigger pay. That is from very senior individuals who have worked in the banking sector. That is not from some socialist left or Far Left Trotskyite; it is from Professor Valentine and a former Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank.Mergers are being driven purely and simply by the megalomania of chief executives and their egos. The NABs `national champion' line is a joke. Merge all four and you may get an internationally competitive bank, but allow two to merge and you will have no choice but to allow the other two to merge. Then what happens? Neither would actually make the top 20 of world banks and neither would fit the category of the national champion. So what is left? If this is the rationale, you are still short of your target. Do you allow the remaining two to merge? (Time expired).16:58:00790Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—The ALP has an absolute, colossal hide—moving a motion like this. What it completely overlooks is the ALP's appalling record on monitoring the evolution of the banking system. Senator Conroy, your ALP government was asleep for 13 years on this issue. What you have also completely overlooked in your contribution today is the transformation in banking created by modern telecommunications technology.We are in the midst of a banking revolution. The way we bank has changed incredibly rapidly, thanks to the technological advancements of the last few years. Today we can bank over the phone; today we can bank on the Internet. These changes are proceeding at an incredibly rapid pace and are going to make life easier for all of us. But, as we change, there is a transition period to be worked through. In the last few days we have heard about banks raising certain fees, and we understand why this has upset many people in Australia. Even the banks understand that they have upset their customers.Westpac's short form annual report for 1998, which I received today, says, `Because of the way banks are changing and charging for their services, perceptions of banks have not always been positive.' People's perceptions about banks are not always positive. We all hate standing in lines; we all hate paying bank charges. But we all tend to love the 24-hour access to our money that ATMs provide on virtually every street corner. We all love being able to buy our groceries with electronic transfer through the EFTPOS transaction points. We love being able to withdraw money at service stations and to conduct our banking over the phone 24 hours a day. We love being able to shop around at the different banks for better deals, and that bank lenders and advisers will visit us now in our homes at our convenience. This is a massive change from banking practice 20 years ago. What we love most of all—and this is a point that Senator Conroy tried to hide—is the fact that interest rates are now down around five and six per cent—levels we have not seen in this country since the 1950s.The banking industry is changing at an incredibly rapid pace and that is the change we are dealing with here today. According to the 1997 financial system inquiry report, people are also changing very much the way in which they bank and this has put pressure on the banks. The inquiry found that as more and more customers maintain transaction accounts with only working balances, net interest income declines forcing the institutions to rely more heavily on fee income. In the past banks covered these costs through higher interest rates on loans and lower interest rates on savings. Yet their real costs come from people's active transactions accounts and it is on these accounts that they have begun to levy charges. They are spreading their costs more fairly.The Commonwealth Bank, whose announcement of fee increases sparked this debate, is the perfect example. The other side is complaining that the Commonwealth Bank is increasing fees on their costly services but they conveniently ignore the fact that they have announced a drop in fees on EFTPOS transactions in supermarkets, shops and service stations. Over the last few years we have had a vast network of cash points created by the EFTPOS system—electronic funds transfer at point of sale—right across the country in service stations, supermarkets and other places, creating an enormous increase in convenience, particularly as shops are now staying open for much longer hours.This and phone banking are the way of the future. Now people can bank anywhere in Australia at the cost of a local call. They can pick up their phone and do their banking any time, day or night. When I rang the National Bank this morning I was told that this banking incurs no extra fees or charges. Already 30 per cent of Australians over 18 use phone banking. The banking industry is changing with this technology. Even as we speak, banking from your home or work through the Internet is becoming more and more common.The biggest and the best change to banking in recent years though has been the huge drop in housing interest rates. We all remember what happened with interest rates under the Labor government. That is another point that Senator Conroy was not to keen to dwell on. Who remembers the 17 per cent interest rates and the crushing burden this placed on individual families and businesses? Who remembers that at that time the banks were struggling to survive? They were writing off billions of dollars in bad debts caused by the high interest rate policies that were forced on this country by inappropriate economic policies designed by Paul Keating, the Prime Minister at that time.Since the coalition has come to power interest rates have fallen. They have fallen now from the high under Paul Keating of 17 per cent down to around 6.7 per cent. With competition banks are offering many home buyers rates even less than this. The Labor Party gets up here today and talks about this government monitoring bank fees. Under us housing interest rates are up to 10 per cent lower than what they were when you were in power. What did you do about monitoring bank fees in those 13 years you were in power? Four days before the 1996 federal election you said that you were going to write to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and request that the commission formally monitor fees and charges on bank retail transaction accounts. Before anything came out of that, you lost government. So your record in 13 years on monitoring bank fees was zilch. You did set up an inquiry about four years before you left government, but that just went around in circles. By the time you had finally lost government nothing had come of that process at all. You were the Rip Van Winkles of monitoring in relation to the banking industry. So again I repeat that you have a colossal hide getting up here today and moving a motion like this.Let us look at another area under the coalition government. Senator Conroy talks about bank closures. He very conveniently talks about bank closures in the last three years. He does not compare that with bank closures over Labor's term in government. He also overlooks two other points: the number of bank agencies has increased in recent years and the access to facilities through Australia Post, such as giroPost, which gives people banking access where there are post offices, has also increased dramatically over that time. This is in stark contrast to what happened under Labor. Between 1991 and 1996, 1,600 bank branches and agencies closed their doors. This has affected some rural communities very harshly. In contrast to this the coalition is committed to ensuring that rural Australians have access to this very basic provision. For this reason this government has been proactive in this area—unlike the Rip Van Winkles opposite for 13 years.With our policy at the last election we have created a program of rural transaction centres. Under this program there will be $70 million over the next five years to establish over 500 rural transaction centres. The great thing about the centres is that they are focused on smaller towns. If you go to the bigger centres in Australia such as Dubbo, Bathurst, Wagga and those sorts of places, you will find you have got a reasonable spread of banking facilities. Where there is a great lack of these facilities in Australia is in the towns of between 500 people and 3,000 people. They have always struggled to have adequate facilities.We are now moving towards a better system for people in these communities. Banks have indeed closed some major branches, but the program of transaction centres will open banking facilities in these towns. It will provide not only banking facilities but a wide range of other facilities. There will be fax and phone services at these centres. There will be postal services, personal banking and limited business transactions, automatic tellers and Medicare Easyclaim. These facilities have not been in these towns before. So, instead of a retreat of services from the bush, this initiative of this government, the Rural Transaction Centre program, will actually advance more centres into the bush.In addition, if we have a look at what has happened with the rural banking agencies, we find that that is also an improving trend. In 1995 there were 2,500 rural banking agencies; in 1998 there are 3,000. It has actually gone up by 500. On top of this there are the giroPost facilities that have been a recent phenomenon in Australia through Australia Post. There are now 2,720 of these. So, through what has happened with giroPost, through what has happened in expansion of agencies and through what we are going to do in rural transaction centres, there is an increase in banking services now and there will be more into the future. We are moving into the 21st century with the program that we have set in place to support banking facilities, particularly in the bush. And the banking industry is moving with us. What is important is that people are not left behind. The coalition's policies are making sure that this does not happen. We are making sure that the 21st century will start with low interest rates and banking that will be available to all Australians through the wonders of modern telecommunications technology.17:10:00792Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I heard what Senator Tierney had to say on this matter and I do not believe that the government are moving towards a better system. I think the only thing he has got right this afternoon is the fact that people are upset about what the Commonwealth Bank has done—to charge its customers $2 to withdraw money from over the counter.The West Australian is just one of the papers that reported this. It drew people's attention to the fact that the charge for withdrawing over the counter goes from $1.50 to $2. In my terms, that is a 33⅓ per cent increase, and that is a massive increase when you consider the inflation we are currently faced with—low inflation which this government wants to brag about. And here we have a bank raising its charges by 33⅓ per cent purely and simply because the customer wants to deal with a real person on the other side of the counter. What the Commonwealth Bank is doing there is really a disincentive to employment and a disincentive for people to go and deal with their fellow human beings.The West Australian article about the new charges says that the fee for ATM withdrawals with the same bank, the Commonwealth Bank, will go from 15c to 60c. That is a 300 per cent increase in the ATM charge from 1 December. One should note that that again is well in advance of the rate of inflation. On the other side of the ledger, though, they tell us that the EFTPOS charge will go from 45c down to 40c, a decrease of a mere 11 per cent. If you look at the strategy that is being used by the banks, you can clearly see that it is anti-employment, it is anti-job and it is anti-people. There is a clear disincentive to use the over-the-counter system where people are employed. What we see the banks doing is anti-employment, anti-people and anti-jobs.It is interesting to look further at what the banks are really doing. In the Sydney Morning Herald of 12 November this year there is a big headline `$5.5 billion profit but big four on the nose'. There is no wonder why. The average person in the community sees this headline and they understand clearly why the banks are on the nose: $5.5 billion profit. The article in the Sydney Morning Herald points out that the banks' result of $5.5 billion was saved by the fact that the banks had a big jump in their non-traditional income areas such as fees and charges. That was the thing that saved their combined profit and kept it at the $5.5 billion mark. The article goes on to say that the only reason the result was not higher than last year's $5.6 billion was that the banks were spending `hundreds of millions of dollars on restructuring their organisations'. That is nothing more than a euphemism for cutting jobs and cutting branches, and that is precisely what the article goes on to point out.The Sydney Morning Herald article says that during the past year the banks cut 6,000 jobs, despite several acquisitions. It says:ANZ has led the way in cutting its workforce—by close to 5,000 people.This, of course, is in an environment where we have unemployment as one of the worst cancers that our society can know. So what we have is a deliberate strategy on the part of the banks to be anti-employment, to get rid of and shed as many people as they can to take away the human face of banking.It is interesting to look at a simple article with a simple headline in the Courier-Mail of 17 November. The headline says `$1m bonus for NAB razor man'. It is worth while reading this into the record. It says:National Australia Bank's national managing director Don Argus scored a $1 million bonus last year as he culled more than 1200 jobs, shut 78 branches and increased bank fees.What a tribute. `Disgrace' is the only word that can be used for that. That was his reward, and that is the reality of the real commercial world. Banks are not about customer service; they are not about giving a benefit to the customer.It is interesting to look back in time at my own state. An article appeared in the Courier-Mail of Saturday, 1 June 1996. The article talked about bank branch closures in regional Queensland. It said:The National Australia Bank will close branches in Surat, Jandowae, Kalbar, Bollon, Goombungee and Leyburn in the grain belt of the Darling Downs and Western Darling Downs.This was the heart of National Party territory. Then—surprise, surprise—the then National Party minister responsible for rural communities, Di McCauley, was quoted as describing the NAB's move as `a kick in the teeth for the communities'. Mrs McCauley said that rural bank closures had become a worrying trend and she questioned the banks' decisions to put profit over service. That is the issue: profit over service. That is the only language that the banks know. McCauley, a National Party member and minister in the Queensland conservative government, went on to say:Both the Government and the private sector have a responsibility to provide and maintain services to rural communities.Rural communities have supported banks for many years during the good times and it is essential the banks reciprocate that support during the tough times.Clearly, there was outrage within the ranks of the National Party when it was in government in Queensland at the move to close a number of banks on the Darling Downs.It is also interesting that Wambo Shire Mayor, Robert Sparkes, a well-known member of the National Party in Queensland, said that his council had attempted to keep the bank in town by offering to transfer all its business to the branch. The article in the Courier-Mail said:Sir Robert said the offer was rejected and the bank which has been in the town almost since the turn of the century would go.He said the closure was part of a trend which would destroy Queensland's small towns.Coming from Sir Robert Sparkes, that is very strong language indeed, and it shows the callousness of the banks' approach to rural and regional areas. The article continues with a quote from the Warroo Shire Council chief executive officer, Vaughan Becker, who said that the closure of the Surat branch would drain finance out of the community into neighbouring Roma. He said:The council pays wages into a bank, Social Security does the same so when people go and get their cash in the nearest bank which is Roma, they will spend it there . . . Those were prophetic words because, in a more recent article on page 12 of the Sunday Mail of 25 October this year, the headline said `Fanning the fury'. The article is on the closure of banks in rural and regional areas. It refers to the closure of the Westpac branch at Dimbulah, which is 90 kilometres west of Cairns. The article reports:. . . shopowners' profits plummeted as residents, forced to make the 90km round trip to the nearest bank in Mareeba, took their daily business with them.One of the major consequences of the desertion of the rural and regional areas by Australia's banks is that small business is suffering badly.It was interesting to hear my colleague Senator Conroy refer to a statement by Mr Murray that people should send telegrams of congratulation rather than protest on bank closures. The article in the Sunday Mail refers specifically to the town of Mount Morgan where the Commonwealth Bank closed its branch. The article says:On Friday, the Commonwealth closed its Mt Morgan branch.Mr Murray's comments serve only to inflame the anger in rural Australia where the big four banks have close numerous branches in recent years sparking criticism they are bent on increasing profits at the expense of service and social obligations.In fact, Reserve Bank figures reveal more than 506 bank branches closed in Australia in the 12 months to June 30.That highlights what this issue is going to come to. It came to a head with the voting patterns in the recent federal election. Surprise, surprise—piggybacking on people's disenchantment with the federal government and its inability to protect the interests of people in rural communities, One Nation scored 18.83 per cent. Reality translates into electoral results.In the same booth at Mount Morgan, the National Party could only score 20 per cent of the vote—and that is in a seat it holds. Across the state in rural and regional Queensland in the latest federal election, the National Party lost a senator to One Nation because of disenchantment with this government. The disenchantment is obvious in the following seats when you look at the percentage of votes for One Nation: Leichhardt, 13.89 per cent; Hinkler, 18.99 per cent; Maranoa, 22.4 per cent; Kennedy, 18.84 per cent; Capricornia, 13.9 per cent; and Wide Bay 26.33 per cent. The closure of bank branches is one of the major issues that fuels the disenchantment of the voters with the current government. Across the state, the Liberal Party got 30.86 per cent of the vote, down 8.43 per cent, and the National Party got 9.99 per cent, down 5.93 per cent, while One Nation scored 14.35 per cent.Those figures highlight, in my view, the difficulties that this government has with issues like bank closures and the handling of bank charges. These matters sting the people who live in rural and regional areas and make them feel isolated and deserted. They feel no-one is concerned enough to take an interest in them at all.Looking briefly at the closure of banks, I want to mention an analysis by the Centre for Australian Financial Institutions of just some of the problems faced by smaller regional and rural communities. It examines problems such as cheque handling and finds that there is no facility for small businesses to put their deposits in the bank on a daily basis, so their deposits are delayed. This is a cost in itself. It affects the cash flow of those businesses. If one looks at the issue of change—coinage—it finds that many small businesses find themselves stuck with high denomination notes and a lack of coinage. As a result, they have to take steps to have higher floats, which means greater security risks. Ultimately, that is an impost on small business and a burden that they have to carry.The other issue I want to briefly address is credit, by retailers and the like, in the absence of banks. Their absence means that business is carrying a credit risk and also carrying a debt which is unserviced until the consumer pays—presumably at the end of the month, or whenever it might be. At the end of the day, wherever banks disappear in rural and regional areas—and there are no banks in many of these places now—it becomes an impost on the small business community.Banks have abrogated their social and community responsibility. One must not be too amused at the fact that Westpac circulated to members in this Senate a copy—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Did you get one too? It is an amazing document.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—It is an amazing document, as Senator Schacht interjects. It is their most recent report. It is very glossy and very expensive—but what does this report spend its time addressing? It spends its time addressing issues such as these: `Why shouldn't there be a bank branch in every town', then `But aren't all banks the same', `Why are bank fees going up', `Who says banks have a social responsibility' and `Is making money good for the bank?' No-one is denying that organisations such as banks need to make a profit. But, as I said in the first instance, the four major banks made $5.5 billion—not to be sneezed at—and most of that is made on the backs of battlers and on the backs of the poor.What we have had circulated by Westpac today could only be described at best as an embarrassment to both Westpac and the government—because neither of them is prepared to address the issues. Neither of them is prepared to take on a social and community responsibility. Senator Tierney referred to rural transaction centres: these are very nice, but people want proper financial services in the rural and regional areas; they do not want to talk to machines. They do not want to press buttons over telephones for telephone banking. They do not want to be forced into those means of transaction; they want to talk with people. It is when they talk with people that they can get some good common sense—hopefully—so that, the end of the day, they can feel as if they are still a part of the human race.This Westpac report does not serve as anything other than an embarrassment to that organisation and to the government. They are trying to explain away their antisocial behaviour while the government sits limply opposite and allows it to happen. The government has borne the consequences.Government senators interjecting—7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Well, you have lost a senator. Senator Patterson, you know that.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—And another one in New South Wales.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—That is right, in rural New South Wales as well.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Two National Party senators hit the fence.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Two from the National Party. The fact is that One Nation went out there and ran the campaign—and they ran it strongly—based on the fact that the government is seen to be inactive in this area. The government needs to show more concern for rural and regional Australia. It needs to show it, particularly, for pensioners, small business people, local councils and schoolchildren. School banking is being completely disrupted by the withdrawal of banks from these rural and regional communities. The government needs to jettison its wrongly held belief that the competitive market will provide cheaper, more effective services to the consumer—as the Assistant Treasurer said yesterday in response to a question. There is no doubt that the government is out of step and out of touch with reality. There is nothing to prove that the competitive market will provide cheaper and more effective services.Look at the situation in Dimbulah, in Surat, Jandowae, Goombundgeee and a number of other places—nothing is making their lives any better. There is no more effective service for those people and there is certainly nothing to guarantee that it is cheaper. All we see are these people being cut off from mainstream society. They are told they can go to GiroPost. They are told they can go to transaction centres. But, at the end of the day, they will make their decision at the ballot box. The government must take cognisance of this, for if they do not, then they will suffer the ongoing fate that awaits anyone who ignores the people. They started out by saying that they were going to be a government to govern for everyone. I think they have failed miserably on that account. Of course, this is only one major area where that is the case.17:30:00795Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I have heard some interesting speeches in my time in here—VW4HERRONSenator Herron—That wasn't one of them.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Thank you, Senator. The crocodile tears that the Labor Party are now crying are absolutely typical of the hypocrisy of people on the other side. Instead of heeding Mark Latham's advice and developing real policies for the future, Labor has come in here once again with a cynical, populist smear to attempt to gain points with the electorate. I do not think they have learnt anything from the last election. The Australian public saw through Labor—a policy free zone. Sorry, I should not say that; that is misrepresenting the situation. What policies they had they have just about jettisoned since the election.The community did not fall for the cynical ploys that passed for tax reform. All they could do with the ramshackle wholesale sales tax was to put a tax on caviar and take it off orange juice. This was a sales tax system under which frozen yoghurt was tax free but frozen yoghurt that tasted like ice-cream was taxable. One of the other classic ones was where you had strawberry Quik attracting a wholesale sales tax but chocolate Quik not attracting a wholesale sales tax. That is the sort of policy that Labor went to the last election with. All they were going to do to reform the mess in the taxation system was to put tax on caviar and take it off orange juice.The other thing they were going to do was to extend the capital gains tax to items that people had previously purchased. I think that was Jenny Macklin's idea. Two days after the election, Mr Beazley jettisoned that bit of their policy. So the policy that they did have is in tatters. The opposition will win nothing from the cynical motion put forward today by Senator Conroy. You cannot keep treating the Australian people with contempt. If you do, you will be warming those opposition benches for a very long time.Mr Hockey put it very well in the other place on 24 November when he gave us a bit of a history lesson on this issue of banks and bank closures. Between 1991 and 1996, over 1,600 bank branches and agencies were closed. Where were you all then? What were honourable senators on the other side doing about bank closures then?You would think that Australia had begun on the day after the election in March 1996. You would think that nothing had happened beforehand and that Labor had not done anything to create the problems that existed. There is evidence that 1,600 bank branches were closing, with nobody expressing concern—except the member for Dickson, Ms Kernot, before she deserted the Democrats. When she was Senator Kernot, she asked a question in the Senate of Senator Cook, and Mr Hockey referred to this on 24 November. He said:In the Senate on 31 May 1995, Senator Peter Cook was asked the following question without notice: `. . . what measures will the government take to ensure that banks fulfil their community service obligations by reforming practices your government—' that is, the Labor government—`has been carping about for five years, inquiring into for five years and also doing nothing about for five years?'That was a now Labor member accusing the then Labor government of knowing nothing about banking for five years. Mr Hockey went on:On 11 July 1995, the then Treasurer, Mr Ralph Willis, put out a press release with the following statement: `The Government agrees . . . on the need to supply better information to consumers so they can make the right choices about banking products that suit them. To spur this process, I will direct the new Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to formally monitor and regularly report on the financial services industry in relation to retail transaction accounts for a period of three years.' That was 11 July 1995. Nothing happened in the rest of July. Nothing happened in August. Nothing happened in September, October, November, December, January and February until we got to 26 February—four days before the federal election. Four days before the federal election, Ralph Willis put out another press release: `Labor to monitor fees and charges on retail transaction accounts'.I found this speech quite interesting reading. I had forgotten this had happened. Mr Hockey continued:It states: `A Labor Government will write to the Chairperson—' they are going to write to the chairperson—`of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission . . . requesting the Commission to formally monitor fees and charges on bank retail transaction accounts.'Mr Hockey was saying that, after 13 years, the Labor Party were going to do something about monitoring bank fees. They had 13 years to do something about it, but they did nothing. They come in here and have the gall to be critical of the coalition, yet they did nothing about it when they identified it as an issue.We recognised that there had been a problem associated with the closures of banks. Instead of just saying we were going to write to a committee, we actually are doing something about it, as my colleague Senator Tierney said. We are introducing rural transaction centres—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Paid for by selling Telstra. So you are sacking more Telstra workers to pay for it.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—in recognition that rural communities have been affected by a decline in service provisions, particularly in those population centres where there are 5,000 people. This government is committed to ensuring that rural Australians have access to basic service provisions.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Will you do it if you can't sell Telstra?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—In order to meet this commitment, the government has developed the rural transactions centre program. Senator Schacht is shouting from the other side of the chamber, `What are you going to do about it if you don't sell the next tranche of Telstra?' Senator, we can say to the people of Australia that we have a program and we have a policy to help people in rural Australia.The Labor Party cannot accept that we won the election and they are going to oppose everything we do. Out in the community people say to me, `How come the Democrats, Senator Harradine, the Independents and the Greens seem to have so much say in the Senate these days?' How come they have so much say? Because the Labor Party opposes every single thing—just about, although there was an exception yesterday on the migration bill. They oppose most of the major issues. They write themselves out of the equation and, by writing themselves out of the equation, they give the Democrats and the Independents all the say in the world.On major issues we used to say, `The world's going to fall in. The sky's going to fall in. It's going to be terrible. But you won the election. Let the people judge you on your performance.' We did not give the minority parties the same authority. We were much more cooperative. But if you want to go on like that we will go out to the people and say, `If you don't get your transaction centres, that is because Labor has failed to accept that we won the election and will not let us implement our policies.' The answer to the question that Senator Schacht asked is: `If you don't get your transaction centres, blame the Labor Party.' There is the answer, Senator Schacht. I will keep telling the people in rural Australia that, and so will all my colleagues.I also say to you that, when we were doing consultations around Australia for the International Year of Older Persons, older people indicated to us that banking was a concern. We heard that from a number of people. When Warwick Smith was minister he announced in the 1998-99 federal budget that there would be $13.4 million over four years for business and community partnership initiatives. The first initiative that was announced for that partnership money was a banking partnership between banks and community groups to help older Australians keep abreast of rapidly changing electronic banking and shopping.As Senator Cooney said while he was speaking, we may as well go back to pedal radios. Senator Hogg wants to take us back to the age of the dinosaurs—back to the Dark Ages. Older people are capable of learning new skills. They have demonstrated that to us. They did not say to us, `We don't want it.' They said, `We want safer ATMs, we want to know how to use them and we want assistance.' They were not being dinosaurs like Senator Hogg. They are saying, `We can adapt and we can learn if we are taught how to do it.' So the banking partnership has been set up. I commend the Australian Bankers Association for their commitment and involvement in this project to assist older Australians learn how to use electronic banking and ATMs. They will address issues such as the size of the pad, the size of the screen and whether or not there is light on it, and all the other things that might make it more difficult for an older person to use electronic banking.For Senator Hogg to assume that everyone has to go back to the Dark Ages is a very negative approach. I think it is a much more positive approach to say: `Yes, we'll work with you.' Older people have indicated that that is what they are prepared to do. This project brings together the Bankers Association and a number of important interest groups to represent the interests of older people. They will work in conjunction with the government, the banks and older people to address some of those concerns.Instead of sitting and carping as Labor did for 13 years, we have taken a positive approach. We have developed the concept of transaction centres. We have been working in partnership with the Australian Bankers Association to address problems—they have acknowledged there are problems. This is a much more positive, constructive approach than the negative, carping approach of the opposition. The reason we are sitting on this side and Labor is sitting on the other side is that the Australian people recognise that what they want is people who have answers and are going to do things rather than talk about it and set up yet another committee or write to another chairperson.I want to remind honourable senators that with the introduction of a GST—again, Labor sits over there and says, `Oh, we don't want to accept that you won the election and we're not going to let you implement your policies'—under the government's tax reform proposals financial services are input taxed. This means that there is no tax on outputs but the supplier cannot claim input tax credits. The financial service and the fee for the financial service are not subject to GST.The abolition of wholesale sales tax and other taxes and reductions in excise mean that input costs to banks are expected to fall by approximately $670 million. When a financial institution provides a service such as investment advice or insurance for which there is a readily identifiable separate fee that will be subject to GST. Bank customers will be winners from tax reform. They will no longer have to pay $2.4 billion worth of taxes on bank accounts. When you add up your taxation at the end of the year, when you add up all the FIDs and BADs you pay, you will realise how much difference that will make to the expense of running a bank account. Labor's policy is for customers to keep paying $2.4 billion worth of taxes on bank accounts—ours is not.The opposition comes in here and cries crocodile tears about banks closing when 1,600 bank branches closed in the last half of the Labor government. They did nothing. They talked about it and they talked about it until four days before the election when they issued a press release saying they were going to do something about it. No wonder the public are cynical about them. They sit here saying, `Oh, it's terrible.' They beat their breasts about there being charges and problems with the banks when they are pushing and supporting a policy that will mean that customers have to keep paying $2.4 billion worth of tax on bank accounts. I think that demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Labor Party. The fact is that they are a policy free zone. Labor needs policies. It is rare that I agree wholeheartedly with Lindsay Tanner, but he said, and I agree with him:History shows that the Labor Party needs to do two things to win government. One is to reform itself and the other is to build the new agenda.We have seen nothing on the part of the Labor Party to suggest anything about policies. All I can suggest is that the Labor Party develops a more constructive approach, a more constructive attitude and some real policies.17:44:00798Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I was glad to hear Senator Patterson draw the attention of the chamber to the policy record of the Australian Democrats on the issue of banking services and, in particular, our concern about banking fees.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—You are acknowledging the late Senator Kernot.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I acknowledge that one of our members may have left, but the policy remains the same.The issue of access to banking services is one which has received a great deal of attention, specifically over the past few years, definitely in the last few days, and rightly so. Over the past five years, bank fees and charges have increased, thousands of jobs have been cut within the sector, branches have been closed and bank profits have absolutely soared.The Australian Democrats have long subjected banks and the financial services sector to close scrutiny and have applied equally close scrutiny to relevant government policies. Unfortunately, the history of policy development in this area is littered with initiatives which have favoured banks and shareholders over customers, and the developments of the last week in particular can be attributed in many ways to the current government's enthusiasm for competition as a panacea for service deficiencies.In September 1997, the Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, announced financial deregulation reforms which would, as he put it, `deliver billions of dollars of benefits for Australian business and consumers.' Of course, such statements in the context of financial sector reform are not new and, in making such expansive claims, the Treasurer echoed the sentiments of at least one of his predecessors, Mr Paul Keating, from the deregulation heydays of the 1980s.The reforms of September 1997 sought to bring about greater competition within the banking sector by allowing building societies, credit unions, insurance companies, finance companies and superannuation funds to compete with banks. However, as the Australian Democrats said at the time, there are grave concerns in relation to the ability of smaller organisations to compete against the enormous market share of the big four banks.I reiterate some of those concerns today. A survey published in the March 1998 issue of Choice magazine found a number of highly disturbing trends in bank operations. Included in the survey were comments from a range of customers clearly disappointed with what they perceived as declining levels of services and access. For example, one person stated:I was happy with the personalised service that I received at my branch. Then they cut staff and I became just another number. Things that were done in hours now take days.Another stated:People shouldn't be penalised for using over-the-counter services, Not all of us are comfortable with new technology.Another said:It's time the banks were regulated again. It seems it's only since they were deregulated that they have become such bully boys.And another said:It's frustrating to hear about the major banks making huge profits, and then to be charged a fee for transactions.Since deregulation, rather than making banking cheaper and generally better for all, I see a system where the rich do well and those with middle to lower incomes finance this in costs and fees.When people were asked why they banked where they did, the results demonstrated why competition is an insufficient regulator of the banking industry. Forty-two per cent of those surveyed said they banked with a particular institution because they had always banked there. And 27 per cent of people banked with the institution where they had their home loan.These figures clearly show that an overwhelming majority of people do not choose their financial institution on the basis of satisfaction, but often because it is easier to remain where they are. Less than one-quarter of those surveyed had changed institutions for their main transaction account in the past five years, despite recording declining satisfaction.While consumers may be suffering from reduced access through branch closures, staff reductions and increased cost of services, the banks are certainly prospering. Over the past five years, bank profits have ballooned. In 1993, Westpac announced a profit of $39 million—a growth pattern replicated by the three other large banking institutions. This increased steadily to a profit of $1.29 billion in 1997. The big four banks reported profits over that five-year period of nearly $22 billion. These staggering profits were not achieved through traditional banking services such as home loans—which have become less profitable through competition and reduced interest rates—but through increased fees and charges and staffing cuts.The consequences have clearly been the prioritisation of shareholders over services and employment. The Democrats find this outcome unacceptable and indicative of a need for greater regulation of the sector, as competition is simply not bringing about the results promised by government last year. But we are not the only ones: 80 per cent of respondents to the Choice magazine survey believe that the government should play a more active role in monitoring bank charges.I note that the Australian banking sector compares poorly with overseas sectors. In Britain, most banks do not charge fees unless the account is overdrawn. Yet this government continues to allow banks—and I acknowledge the comments of Senator Patterson that it is not just this government but the former government as well—to continue practices which reduce access and increase unemployment.While the government may claim that low interest rates are evidence of its performance in this respect, the fact is that low interest rates have had the effect of reducing the profitability of the lending side of banking activities. But rather than absorb this lessened profitability, the banks are looking to customers to make up their profits—and that is usually through increased fees and charges.It is exactly this kind of activity which the Democrats argue requires greater regulation, and Australian consumers are clearly looking to the government to do this. Every time people go to the bank, to the supermarket, to pay an instalment on their home loan, or to an ATM, the often excessive fees remind them of the failure of the government's `red-hot' competition policy to protect them from bank profiteering. Of course, not only has the failure to adequately regulate banking activity resulted in increased costs to consumers; it has also resulted in massive job shedding in the sector. I note that since 1990 more than over 58,000 jobs have been lost.The Democrats support the general business motion before the chamber today, moved by Senator Conroy. We support part (a) which refers to: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 1997-98We support condemnation of job losses. I am keen to give a member of the government time to respond. I see Senator Payne looking keen to attack this issue. We do not have much time, however. Part (b), the failure of the government to formally monitor bank fees, is something we condemn. We have grave concerns with that aspect. But with regard to the second part of part (b), `rule out a goods and services tax being applied to bank service charges', I put this question to members on the opposite side: has the government clearly ruled out a goods and services tax being applied to bank service charges?4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You are going to take it out to 6 p.m., and then it will be stumps.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Senator Schacht, I am quite happy to allow time for a member of the government to answer my question which is: has the government ruled out a goods and services tax being applied to bank service charges?4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—No, they haven't.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I want to hear that from the government because there has been some suggestion that they are prepared to rule that out. I am prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt because I would like to have that part of the motion clarified. Senator Patterson was quite right in suggesting that the Democrats have a history of drawing attention to the matter of bank fees and services.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—I did not say that. You have misrepresented totally what I said.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I thought I was complimenting Senator Patterson on her speech. In that case, independent of Senator Patterson's comments, the Democrats have often scrutinised government policy on this matter and have certainly drawn attention to the issue of job losses in the sector. Indeed, I asked the Assistant Treasurer two questions this week about the issue of bank fees and competition. I was keen to find out what criteria were considered appropriate for the banking sector to meet before competition was believed to be considered appropriate so that mergers could take place. The Prime Minister has said that no more mergers should necessarily be agreed to unless a level of competition that is adequate has been reached. But we are still not quite sure of the detailed criteria to which the Prime Minister was referring when he made his statement the night before last. So I am still very keen to have that detailed criteria clarified by the government—what constitutes appropriate or adequate competition—before mergers are allowed to proceed.I really believe we have a do-nothing Treasurer on this issue. We have heard the other Assistant Treasurer, Mr Joe Hockey—again I note that the web site still has not specified what his duties are—give a spirited defence of the banking sector. I thought it would be very interesting to see whether or not his views and those of Senator Rod Kemp—the Treasurer's right-hand man, as I like to think of him—were the same. But we were unable to get an exact answer to that question from Senator Kemp. He was not sure what competition was appropriate. We were not sure whether he agreed with Mr Joseph Hockey and his comments in the House.Certainly I disagree that those people who dare to speak up and challenge the notion that increased banking fees, reduced services, staffing cuts and other job losses are necessarily subsidising an old banking system. In fact those people are just ensuring that customers have their rights respected and have access to banking services in all areas—not just in urban areas but also in remote and regional areas—and that people do not have to face prohibitive fees and charges in order to use those basic banking services.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—Senator Schacht, in calling you I remind you that there are fewer than four minutes left in this debate.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—He is getting succinct.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—And to the point.17:56:00801Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Absolutely, and to the point. I am always to the point when I am attacking the Liberal Party. In rising to support this motion by Senator Conroy, I agree with Senator Stott Despoja that this government should answer the simple question: will the GST apply to loan application fees, loan establishment fees, mortgage insurance fees and real estate valuation fees? It was an answer that the Treasurer could not give yesterday in the House of Representatives, so that is going to be a major issue; they obviously cannot work it out. If the GST does apply, it will be an additional impost on all Australians in the banking system and will, I suspect, further encourage the banks to close their retail outlets around Australia.In Australia at the moment we have the banks arguing that they should be allowed to merge. We have the NAB making it quite clear that they want to take over the ANZ bank. I saw only two days ago that they have called on the services of Mr Michael Kroger, a former President of the Liberal Party in Victoria, to be an adviser. He is to be paid a success fee, apparently, if the merger goes through. What is Mr Kroger's skill in being employed by the NAB? He has only one: he apparently is a close friend of Mr Costello, the Treasurer.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Has he got any friends?4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—That is the one we do know he has, Senator Quirke. We do know that Mr Kroger was instrumental in getting Mr Costello his preselection when the Liberal Party dumped Roger Shipton as the member for Higgins in 1990 at a time when Mr Kroger was getting rid of all the small `l' Liberals in the Victorian Liberal Party. We know that only 18 months ago Mr Kroger was on a success fee from Mr Packer to get the cross-media ownership rules changed. I said in the Senate at that time that I had been given information that the success fee was $7 million. So you can imagine what the success fee would be if he was able to get Mr Costello to change his mind and allow these two very large banks to merge. It would run into tens of millions of dollars, not $7 million.Of course Mr Kroger, who runs this merchant bank called J T Campbell, as I understand is the name of it, which does not seem to be a genuine merchant bank. It is about making political deals—providing services to the Liberal Party and its allies to achieve political deals. This is the way you do business in the Liberal Party and Mr Kroger has hung his shingle out accordingly. That is why there is great cynicism among the Australian public about the role of banks and the Liberal Party in Australia. The ordinary people of Australia know that when the banks are allowed to merge, if Mr Costello agrees to Mr Kroger's blandishments, it will be the ordinary Australians who lose services through the further closure of regional banks and retail banking services around Australia.Debate interrupted.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—Order! It being 6 p.m., the Senate will proceed to consideration of government documents.Documents80210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—There are 114 government documents and an audit report listed for consideration on today's Notice Paper and there is a limit of one hour for their consideration. To expedite the consideration of the documents, I propose, with the concurrence of honourable senators, to call the documents in groups of 10. Documents called in each group to which no senator rises will be taken to be discharged from the Notice Paper . Documents not called on today will remain on the Notice Paper .802Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator Bartlett:That the Senate take note of the documents.18:01:00802Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I would like to talk to documents 1 and 2, the report Parental child abduction, January 1998 and the report Child contact orders: Enforcement and penalties, June 1998 . These documents deal with one of those areas of law that encompass some of the most tragic incidents that occur in the community; that is, in the area of family relationships as between spouses, as between parents and children. It is an area where there have been very tragic incidents taking place over the years and where such incidents will take place in years to come because it is an area that you can never get right. You have a breakup of an intimate relationship and you have children subject to awful pressure. These problems are society's problems and society has set up the Family Court to accommodate them.I notice in today's Australian that Evan Whitton, who writes much about the law and raises great issues that ought be discussed more than they are—I think the issues of how the law confronts people in society and how society accommodates its relationships through the courts are matters of great moment and should be discussed more often than they are, particular in this place—says there is a need to change the law, and there is a need for that to happen. The Family Court is one area where change could occur, and the Chief Justice of that court and his fellow judges are very intent on that happening.One way the court can change would be to have available to it means other than simply adjudication to settle problems that come before it. For example, mediation is an instrument that the court looks to as a means of resolving these great personal issues which come before the court. It is a pity therefore that the court does not get the support it should from government. There should be two things done. First of all, there should be encouragement for the court to take mediation within its jurisdiction, in preference to mediation being done outside the court. There is no doubt that there are some great people doing great work outside the court in the area of mediation but, fundamentally, the best work is going to be done within the court because that is where the authority is. People come and see the court as a place where there is authority to decide the disputes that lay between the them. Governments should finance and give resources to the courts in greater amounts than presently is the case.Secondly, the government, particularly the Attorney, should encourage the court to undertake this process of mediation, it being one of a number of means that might otherwise be available. Counsel settles most of the cases; the court adjudicates on others. Mediation ought to be another way of doing it. If the court were able to pursue the course that it wants, a lot of the problems that we have with families breaking up—and I notice document 1 talks a lot about parental child abduction—would be solved.18:06:00803O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—There is a fair degree of wisdom in some of the things that Senator Cooney has just said. He is in fact a very distinguished chairman of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and is also a very experienced member of the bar. But I think sometimes we overlook part of the problem and that is we try to fix people's matrimonial difficulties after they become almost irretrievable. I think much more effort needs to be put into ensuring that people go into marriage understanding that it is a commitment. They also have to be supported through the marriage before they get to a situation where you have to call in a mediator in the court. Everybody is going to have arguments in their marriages, some more than others. We need to have a system in place that prevents the breakdown because, once the relationship has broken down, it is very difficult to retrieve the situation.I think all honourable senators would know, from their own experience, the experience of having constituents come to them, that once you get to the point where people are in court, the attitude is not one of compromise, it is one of vindictiveness and bitterness and frequently, tragically, it is one in which the children of the marriage are used as negotiating pawns or victory tokens in the vindictive battle between husband and wife. Not always do the parents understand that they are using the children as negotiating pawns or victory tokens but, in fact, subconsciously that is what is happening.Yes, we have to work very hard on repairing family breakdowns, because the cost of family breakdowns is great, but we also have to work very hard at ensuring that we prevent those family difficulties becoming irretrievable breakdowns because that substantially reduces the cost. Let me explain what I mean by that. First of all, if we prevent a marriage becoming irretrievably broken, we reduce all of the court costs to which these reports and Senator Cooney in his learned contribution have referred. If people patch up their marital difficulties before they get to court, none of these expenses are incurred. That is a big saving of their money and the government's money.Secondly, there is a huge social cost from not sorting out marital problems. Senator Cooney might correct me if I am wrong, but evidence was presented to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee several years ago that in 60 per cent of cases of divorce with children, the parent who has care of the children moves more than 600 kilometres from the matrimonial home within the first six months. Living in Cairns, I frequently see cases where people have moved to Cairns to get away from their partner because Cairns is as far as you can reasonably go along the bitumen. I know many people who will go from Perth to Cairns, because Cairns is the furthest city from Perth, to get away from their former spouse and to take the children with them.What is the social cost if that continues to occur? First of all, there is a social cost because people's lives are scarred. I am not talking about the parents; I am talking about the children. These people's lives are scarred. To make it worse, it is a statistical fact that a child is more likely to be abused by a step-parent than by their own parent. It is a tragic thing and that is no aspersion on many good step-parents, but it is a statistical fact. Secondly, the incidence of crime amongst children from broken families is tragically higher. If this country is to eliminate those costs and those difficulties, we have to work at repairing marital difficulties before they become breakdowns, because in that way the long-term benefit to Australia is quite enormous.18:11:00803Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.803Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator Sandy Macdonald:That the Senate take note of the document.18:12:00803Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I believe this annual report will be the last report of Wool International, although obviously there will be one dealing with the remainder of this year. Rather than looking at the unfortunate circumstances that have occurred in recent times and the disrepute that Wool International has fallen into, I want to take a broader look at what has occurred since 1990, when the wool industry was confronted with a 4.8 million bale stockpile and a $2.8 billion debt. We must recognise that it has been no mean achievement since then to reduce that stockpile to 1.1 million bales and to reduce the debt to about $230 million, which is where it stands today.We must also recognise the incredible contribution that has been made by the growers in the industry itself in picking up the mistakes that were made during the previous 10 years, particularly the late 1980s when the reserve price ran amuck. In fact, it went very close to destroying what is generally recognised as the founding industry and one of the most important industries in this country. It is still one of the most important industries in this country. It contributes close to $4 billion of export income a year, despite the difficulties. It is an industry which I am confident will grow back.I want to get a theme through the events of this period, if only it can be seen as a lesson. We started off with the debt reduction scheme. That worked relatively well for about 18 months. It then fell foul because of certain circumstances. The industry took 18 months while it argued about what to do next, taking millions of dollars out of growers' pockets. We then had the Garnaut report. We switched from the debt reduction scheme to the fixed schedule. Once again, from 1993 onwards that worked reasonably well for about 18 months before falling into disrepair because it was no longer suitable.The industry then argued for another 18 months until we came into government. In 1996 we went to the flexible schedule. Once again, that worked well until December 1997 when things changed. We had the Asian meltdown. Again, the industry got itself into a terrible bind, arguing about what to do next rather than putting its own prejudices aside and dealing with the particular issue, and that was the loss, once again, of an enormous amount of dollars and cents out of growers' pockets. I make the point that, up until this government implemented its first freeze, there had been a bipartisan approach in this parliament to dealing with the issues and the industry.When it became obvious we had to have a freeze, for whatever inexplicable reason, the Labor Party took a different course and opposed that. In that process I believe they have delayed unnecessarily the process of adjustment that was required at this time. From December 1997 through to August we saw wool go into free fall. We saw it drop some 160c. We saw $200 million wiped off the value of the stockpile. We saw over $100 million wiped off the value of the growers' stockpile. None of this would have happened if we had had strong leadership in the wool industry and people who had the leadership ability to show some flexibility and deal with the problem when it arose. It should have been very obvious to people involved in the industry that with the Asian meltdown if you take one hundred million kilos out of the marketplace there is going to be price damage and unnecessary oversupply of wool. Virtual mayhem was created in people's homes in terms of the reductions in their income.The basic message I want to give is that the next part of the process—the freeze, the legislation we have coming up shortly in this place, privatising the wool industry and putting it on a true commercial basis—must happen quickly. It must not be delayed in this place. People cannot treat wool growers as pawns any longer. I declare an interest in this, which I should have done at the start, as a wool grower. I am sick and tired of being played for a dummy by the leadership aspirants in our industry who have chosen to put their own personal gains in front of the gains and rights of individual growers. (Time expired)18:17:00804O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I was not intending to speak on this matter, particularly as a debate on the bill the government has before the Senate is imminent and, indeed, there is a legislation committee inquiry on this matter commencing at 8 o'clock tomorrow morning. However, I could not allow the comments of Senator Crane on this matter, particularly with regard to the ALP not sharing the government's position on the legislation currently before the Senate. Indeed, our position is taken by a great many people in the industry.I do not seek to make a judgment that those people who are opposed to the freeze are wrong or are taking that decision based solely on particular personal advantage considerations. But I do say that we are quite well aware that the then minister responsible for this area, Mr Anderson, when the matter went to cabinet did not propose the course of action the government is now taking. He proposed other measures, not the freeze which is the subject of this legislation. As I said before, we saw the almost unprecedented event of a National Party minister, for what is a National Party constituency predominantly—and certainly a rural constituency in New South Wales and Victoria, and I would have thought in Queensland—go to the cabinet with a proposal not for a freeze but for other measures and have his position overturned, and a position proposed by Liberal Party members of the coalition for a freeze succeed.That situation is almost unprecedented in relation to this type of legislation. But the question of what should happen to this legislation is in the hands of the Senate now and the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee will conduct a hearing tomorrow and will hear the views of industry participants and representatives. I know from having looked at submissions which are before that inquiry that there is far from unanimity on the question of whether there should be a freeze or not.I can say that the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers, the organisation that represents I believe 80 per cent or more of wool growers in my state, have presented a submission in which they are very clearly opposed to this legislation. So for Senator Crane to attempt in some way to represent the Labor Party on this issue as being unrepresentative or as taking a position which is somehow detrimental to the industry because we do not agree with the government is a position I reject. Having said that, I understand from comments Senator Woodley has made that it is likely that the Democrats will support the government in this legislation. If that is the case—and everyone can count—the legislation will succeed, but I have to say that Senator Crane's suggestion that we have somehow delayed the process is wrong.UW4CRANESenator Crane—I didn't say that either. Read Hansard .8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I think you may, when you see the Hansard , Senator, find that that is the implication of what you said. We will find that the delay has been caused because the government acted without proper legal advice, because it purported to direct a freeze on Wool International when that was not an activity that could take place without a change in legislation and that, because of the timing of the decision and the fact that the parliament did not sit following the cabinet decision until the election, it was impossible for that to be implemented. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Senator O'Chee) adjourned.805Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator Bartlett:That the Senate take note of the document.18:23:00805Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—This report deals with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal for 1997-98. This is quite an outstanding body which reviews decisions made within certain departments. It deals in a generic sense with what its title indicates; that is, with people who rely on funds paid by the state to sustain life. It is for government and parliament to set policy and it is for administrators to make decisions about particular matters. But, when matters as fundamental as whether people have the wherewithal to sustain life are concerned, it is proper that there ought to be a review. This review system is a good one.Much is made in this chamber about the amount of money that has been saved by establishing that people who are receiving social security should not get it and, if people do not fit within the description provided by the law, that is right. But on many occasions people lose their income because of wrong decisions, and this body is set up to review those. Therefore it is a most important and essential body.From page 39 to 47 of the report a number of names are listed. I want to pay tribute to those people because, although they certainly are paid, they do give of their time to do some outstanding work that brings justice to people who otherwise would not get it. I notice, for example, that under `Canberra' Helen Watchirs's name appears amongst those who are legal members of the tribunal. She is a woman of quite outstanding ability and of great disposition.I note too that Deirdre FitzGerald has ceased to be the senior member in Melbourne. I notice that she was appointed from 22 February 1989 to 31 March 1997 and from 16 April 1997 to 31 December 1997. She is another woman of quite outstanding ability. I should perhaps indicate something of a remote interest in this. Many years ago, she was a partner of my wife. I think that, way back when they started, they were the only women partners of a firm situated in the city of Melbourne. It is good to see that she has gone to this tribunal and done great work on it.I will return to the main theme that I want to take up in this speech. When we are reviewing decisions of government, it is important to remember what is appropriate for judicial review. Decisions made in respect of particular people should be very much subject to judicial review. Policy, of course, should not; it is for politicians to make policy. It would be a shame to see the judicial review system, as it has been set up over the years in this parliament and in state parliaments, disappear or be prejudiced to the point where people are not getting the sort of justice they are entitled to.18:28:00806Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.806Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator Bartlett:That the Senate take note of the document.18:30:00806Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—Once again, I declare an interest in this as a member of a family partnership growing wool. The report relates to the Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation, otherwise known as AWRP and the development, in recent times, of the Woolmark company, which had its origins in the International Wool Secretariat.This coming Monday—I will not dwell on it—we have what will be, I believe, a very important annual general meeting of wool growers in Goulburn to deal with the functions and operations of AWRP. Whatever comes out of that meeting—whether or not the no-confidence motion is carried and whether the accounts are received—I believe that we will see the beginning of very major changes in the way wool research, development, promotion and marketing is carried out in this country.There is a mood, if I can put it that way, in the bush where growers, who have put some $8.5 billion over the last 20 years into research, promotion, marketing and development, are saying that they have had enough of funding that operation when they do not seem to be getting the results they should be getting out of it. I believe that we will see very quickly this organisation run to a totally commercial operation. I believe that we will see it move to becoming a corporate company where directors will be elected by the growers or shareholders who provide the money. They will have to contest elections on an annual or three-year basis, depending on the structure that comes out of it.As a senator from Western Australia in particular—but I think I can also speak for those across Australia—the sooner that happens to the structure and all the funding becomes contestable and accountability is treated as though that operation were a normal corporation or company, the better. Bearing in mind that this year is a difficult year—wool prices have been down; there has been much less money available and AWRP has had to dig into reserves—AWRP will still have a budget well in excess of $100 million, which is much greater than the cotton industry, which is run on much more commercial lines.The wool industry at this time, and the aspect of it that I have referred to, faces what I would call a commercial revolution. Growers will demand that each dollar and cent they put in be totally accountable. The spending of that money will become contestable. They will get private operators into the promotion field. They will spread their arms wider in terms of the dollars they spend on research and development. They will develop a focus that looks very carefully at the organisation if they are going to continue to have four per cent or thereabouts of their proceeds taken out of their cheques before they get them. They want to see results. They want to see dollars and cents back in their pockets. They want to see the industry start to grow again. They want to rebuild their farming structures. They want to deal with the infrastructure on their properties. They want to make sure that those people who have served the industry well for a long time are not forgotten. Those people who seem to have been forgotten—particularly by some people on the opposite side of the chamber—are the shearers, rouseabouts, wool classers and transport operators. I have listened to much of the debate on this. I have not once heard the spokespeople who represent the Labor opposition talk about the people who service the industry. They are the most valuable asset we have in the wool industry. They make it tick. Look at the figures for the multiplier effect on employment. There is no industry in Australia that generates employment like the wool industry. We must make sure that what occurs after Monday results in a much stronger, more focused market, research and promotion effort. (Time expired)I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.807Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator O'Chee:That the Senate take note of the document.18:37:00807Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—This report is a very instructive one, as with many of the other documents here. It is probably worth pointing out, by way of introduction, the purpose and mission of the Australian War Memorial. Its purpose, as stated in the report, is to commemorate the sacrifice of those Australians who have died in war. Its mission is to assist Australians to remember, interpret and understand the Australian experience of war and its enduring impact on Australian society. Whatever philosophy and approach one takes to defence issues and to issues of armed conflict, I think that purpose and that mission are very laudable.The War Memorial performs a very important and significant service to the Australian community, and I believe it performs it very well. Some of the details in the report highlight the number of people that are involved on a daily basis with the activities of the Australian War Memorial. According to the report, the current staff totals 220-odd people and overall operating expenses in the last year were about $24.5 million. It is interesting in looking at some aspects of the report to see the huge range of activities that the War Memorial facilitates or sponsors. It is obviously well known in terms of the building itself and the various displays and information within it, but there has been quite a huge number of publications, papers and presentations at conferences, seminars and lectures that have been facilitated by the War Memorial for a wide range of people on an enormous number of topics.There have also been a large number of gallery talks in the War Memorial throughout the course of the year from many people with actual experiences of war, giving details of the impact of war on people, on families and on whole societies and nations. Many scholarships and fellowships are provided by the War Memorial for various activities, whether it is purely historical documentation of people's experiences or whether it is technical stuff, such as one item here, to do with preventing the deterioration of rubber and rubber like products and materials and generally preserving items. As a memorial, it is also a place that is visited many times by people from overseas, dignitaries and official parties from overseas, and obviously it provides a quick, readily accessible but very comprehensive window to people from overseas about the Australian perspective on war.I would like to mention briefly one issue in relation to the War Memorial which has had a little bit of coverage in the last week or two, which is whether or not the War Memorial should be involved in recognising and commemorating the wars or conflicts within Australia between the original inhabitants of this country and the invaders. I should say that there are other words that people might like to choose that are less confronting, but certainly people from Europe and other areas came in and clearly took that land away from the original inhabitants. On many occasions during that period that resulted in armed conflict and resistance, and obviously death, suffering and hardship as a result.It is widely recognised that those conflicts have not had a lot of attention in our concept of our history, and it is an interesting and important issue as to how that might be built into the ongoing framework of the Australian War Memorial. I do not pass an opinion one way or the other on it other than to say that it is important that these conflicts are recognised and it would be worthwhile for the War Memorial to turn its attention to it. Coming back to its original purpose of commemorating the sacrifice of those Australians who have died in war and in armed conflict, it does seem to me that it is an important topic that the War Memorial and the people involved in it, who clearly take their responsibilities seriously, would do well to give some thought to.18:42:00808O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—I will declare an interest, which is that I, like a number of other members of this chamber and also the other place, have been a contributor to the War Memorial in the past, and I expect I shall be so in the future. I know that there are many honourable senators, like Senator Hogg, I suspect, who are in that capacity. He is not the only one on the other side; I know that there are many supporters of the War Memorial on both sides of the chamber.There are many things that the War Memorial staff do which go unnoticed. We notice the exhibits, we notice the tanks, we notice the planes and we notice the cenotaph. But what is often unnoticed is the immense care and attention given by staff of the Australian War Memorial to the needs and wishes of visiting veterans. Recently I had the great honour to accompany a group of veterans from an organisation with which I am associated, the Australian-Chinese Ex-services National Reunion, to the War Memorial to lay a wreath in respect of their former comrades. We were met by the Director of the War Memorial and a number of members of the staff. There was a wreath which was attended to by a member of the staff, who was the bearer of the wreath. There were members of staff assigned to be at the War Memorial to care for the veterans and their families, to attend to any requests that they had and to stand as an escort for those veterans until such time as they left the memorial.I think this is a very fine thing that the Australian War Memorial does. It extends to our veterans the sort of respect which they deserve but which they would probably not ask for themselves. It is a fact that this respect is given without asking, which shows that the staff of the War Memorial treat their role as more than a job—in fact consider themselves, I would suspect, as the sacred guardians of the memories of the thousands of Australians whose lives have been lost in conflicts throughout the years. I do believe that we should remember the wars, we should remember and preserve the artefacts and the records, we should continue the research work, but we should not forget the role which is played by the staff of the Australian War Memorial in attending to our veterans when they visit, because it is a very important part of ensuring that we do not forget.18:45:00808Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I concur with the comments of Senator Bartlett and Senator O'Chee on the Australian War Memorial. It is unfortunate that so many reports tabled in this place fly through without being given much care or attention. Since I have been here, I have tried to speak on this particular report on each occasion. The War Memorial is a significant place for Australians, and it is a significant place in this capital. There is no doubt that the work of the War Memorial is not given by many people the recognition it deserves. I hope this shrine does not lose its significance as time goes by.To pick up a point made by Senator O'Chee, flicking through the report I noted on page 30 a photograph of a group of voluntary guides celebrating Volunteers Week at the memorial. That picture alone says a lot about the dedication, time, effort and energy which is put in by a number of voluntary guides who take their work at the memorial very seriously and who are very well received by the public.In the director's corporate overview on pages 4 and 5, Steve Gower gives a succinct but clear view of the work undertaken over the last 12 months, and of the work which will take place in the future. He refers to the fact that the largest and most complex activity during the year was undoubtedly the refurbishment of the memorial's galleries. One of the features of the War Memorial at this stage is that it is undergoing a great deal of refurbishment. This will benefit the younger generations well into the future.The director also refers to the restoration of the main building and to the first stage of the development of the memorial sculpture garden, which was completed during the year. He draws attention to a couple of significant events. The first was the central feature of the Merchant Navy memorial—the Dennis Adams sculpture called `Survivors'. It is fitting that members of the Merchant Navy have now been acknowledged for their role in the various wars that we have been involved in.Another initiative is the establishment of a servicewomen's memorial, which will be incorporated into the next stage of the garden's development. The role that women played in wartime is sometimes overlooked. The women who served this country so admirably will now get proper recognition. I also note that another group which has sometimes felt left out—the British Commonwealth occupation force in Japan—is also going to be recognised for its service to the nation. That group has also felt isolated on some occasions.One of the most pleasing aspects of Steve Gower's report is that, as he says, it was a successful year for the travelling exhibition program which is run by the War Memorial. The map on page 37 of the report shows that the travelling exhibition went far and wide throughout Australia. This can only serve our nation well. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.809Debate resumed from 12 November 1998, on motion by Senator Hogg:That the Senate take note of the reports.18:51:00809Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Document No. 11 is the reports for 1997-98 of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and the Australian Industrial Registry. I want to go through the significant part of the report which is on the termination of employment matters. Clearly, there is still a heavy workload for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and the registry. That, of itself, is good. But on the issue of termination of employment, the report is quite specific. It tells us very clearly of the large number of people who felt disadvantaged by the termination of their employment and who have sought redress through the processes available through the commission.Interestingly, the bulk of the applications—61 per cent—were made in Victoria. In New South Wales, there were 1,291; the Northern Territory, 260; Queensland, 644; South Australia, 284; Tasmania, 112; Western Australia, 287; and the Australian Capital Territory, 253. It is interesting to note also that there were a number of appeals against decisions of the commission on the matter of jurisdiction—10 upheld; 23 dismissed. Whilst there were 33 cases in total, nearly one-third of those based on a jurisdictional argument were able to be brought forward before the tribunal.On the matter of merit, six were upheld as opposed to 20 being dismissed. One appeal under `Other', which concerns costs, and one concerned with remedy, were both dismissed. It is interesting though that there is still a need for people to seek redress where they feel they have been wrongly done by in their dismissal. Table 5 gives us a fairly reasonable picture of why these cases were either settled or withdrawn—or whatever may well have happened to them.Of the 7,341 cases totally finalised, 4,094 were settled by conciliation. That shows that in over 50 per cent of the cases conciliation, which should underpin the industrial relations system, worked. Whilst there may well have been a substantial disagreement which caused termination—the outcome is not evident there—at least they were able to resolve the problems.A total of 1,257 cases were withdrawn, settled or otherwise discontinued. Only 231 were dismissed at a preliminary stage on the threshold jurisdiction grounds, including `out of time'. One could not, by any stretch of the imagination, imply from what one sees in this report that these matters taken by the complainants were in any way trivial. There were a number, of course, that were unable to be settled by conciliation, and they totalled 1,731.There are further charts throughout the document which, again, give a better insight as to what happened to those cases. For example, there were 619 substantive arbitrations, which represented 27.8 per cent of the cases. When one considers the number of dismissals that took place, that is a relatively low frequency. It shows that the protection afforded by the act is undoubtedly accessed and is warranted in this day and age. (Time expired)18:56:00810Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I would like to address the same report from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, a body which, along with its predecessors, has been a central part of business life, industrial life and working life in Australia for almost all of the history since Federation, and it is important that this body be maintained. I say that not only because of the great history and the great tradition that the body has and the great work it presently does but because of some research that has come out of America. I mentioned this earlier in the day. It is research that I have been referred to by Max Ogden, an eminent member of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He referred me to an article in the Scientific American , a very eminent and respected magazine from the United States which deals with research in the area of unions and enterprises. It is important because not enough research is done in this area. This research shows some very interesting things.The opening paragraph of the article, which was in the August 1998 edition of Scientific American, states:After nearly a century of union management warfare in the U.S., a series of nationwide surveys showing that union shops dominate the ranks of the country's most productive workplaces may come as a surprise. In fact, according to Lisa M. Lynch of Tufts University and Sandra Black of the New York Federal Reserve, economic Darwinism—the survival of the fittest championed by generations of hard-nosed tycoons—may be doing what legions of organizers could not: putting an end to autocratic bosses and regimented workplaces.This research shows that the most productive workers are those who are highly motivated, who are in a good relationship with the employer and who are unionised. They are more productive than people in a similar position but who are not unionised.The relevance of all of that to this annual report is that, if the idea is to encourage good relationships between employer and employee, that is best done—in the sense of being most productive—if done through the unions. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission is a body that is very well placed to introduce into the workplace that proper, happy relationship between the unions and the enterprises. (Time expired)810The following orders of the day relating to government documents were considered and not debated:Australian National Training Authority—Australia's vocational education and training system—Report for 1997—Volumes 1, 2 and 3. Motion of Senator Hogg to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator Denman debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.Social Security Appeals Tribunal—Report for 1997-98. Motion of Senator Bartlett to take note of document called on and debated. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bartlett in continuation.Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies—Report for 1997-98. Motion of Senator Hogg to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator Crossin debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.Veterans' Review Board—Report for 1997-98. Motion of Senator Bartlett to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bartlett in continuation.Australian Sports Drug Agency—Operational plan 1998-99. Motion of Senator West to take note of document agreed to.Private Health Insurance Administration Council—Report for 1997-98. Motion of Senator West to take note of document agreed to.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare—Report for 1997-98. Motion of Senator West to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator O'Chee debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.Australia New Zealand Food Authority—Report for 1997-98. Motion of Senator Conroy to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator O'Chee debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.Repatriation Commission, Department of Veterans' Affairs and the National Treatment Monitoring Committee—Reports for 1997-98, including reports pursuant to the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 and the War Graves Act 1980 . Motion of Senator Hogg to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator O'Chee debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.Public Service and Merit Protection Commission and Merit Protection and Review Agency—Reports for 1997-98. Motion of Senator West to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator O'Chee debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.Department of Primary Industries and Energy—Report for 1997-98. Motion of Senator West to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator O'Chee debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.Affirmative Action Agency—Report for 1 June 1997 to 31 May 1998. Motion of Senator Crossin to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator O'Chee debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.Australian Industrial Relations Commission and Australian Industrial Registry—Reports for 1997-98. Motion of Senator Hogg to take note of document called on and debated. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Cooney in continuation. Committees811811The following orders of the day relating to committee reports and government responses were considered and not debated:Information Technologies—Select Committee—Report—The need for the committee in the thirty-ninth Parliament. Motion of Senator Stott Despoja to take note of report agreed to.Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Interim report—The effects of pricing and slot management arrangements at Kingsford Smith Airport on regional airlines and communities. Motion of Senator Forshaw to take note of report agreed to.Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Interim report—Matters relating to Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and Integrity Rural Products Pty Ltd (Messrs D & H Hewett). Motion of Senator Forshaw to take note of report agreed to.Employment, Education and Training References Committee—Interim report—Inquiry into the effectiveness of education and training programs for Indigenous Australians. Motion of Senator Bartlett to take note of report agreed to.Employment, Education and Training Legislation Committee—Report—Provisions of the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Amendment Bill 1998. Motion of Senator Bartlett to take note of report agreed to.Legal and Constitutional References Committee—Interim report—Commonwealth privacy legislation. Motion of Senator Bartlett to take note of report agreed to.Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee—Interim report—Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998. Motion of Senator Bartlett to take note of report agreed to.Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee—Report 363—Asset management by Commonwealth agencies. Motion of Senator Hogg to take note of report agreed to.Adjournment81110000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! It being 7.00 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.81119:01:00811Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Earlier today the Senate was told about the corrupt research practices of the Country Liberal Party and the defrauding of Northern Territory taxpayers. The Senate was told that the CLP deliberately misled the Northern Territory Public Service into funding political research under the guidance of the Prime Minister's pollster, Mark Textor, and the current Chief Minister, Shane Stone.I have looked closely at the two reports of the corrupt research by Brian Sweeney and Associates, and I want to highlight the disturbing racial aspects of the methodology and findings. These documents reveal a willingness, even an eagerness, to pit black and white Territorians against each other for political gain—to appeal to the very worst aspects of human nature. The first and most damning fact, the focus group research carried out by Brian Sweeney and Associates and paid for by the Territory government, involved only white participants. A full one-third of the Territory's population was excluded from the survey, surely rendering its conclusions meaningless from the government's standpoint.According to its title, the report was to be an `Insight into the Northern Territory'—but the findings are based on a survey sample which is chronically unrepresentative. Why then would Mark Textor see fit to exclude the Aboriginal population from the focus groups? The answer is simple: they did not fit the target market. Why would he want to include Aboriginals when they rarely vote CLP and their very presence may have inhibited the ability of his moderators to elicit the types of responses he wanted on the question of race?Aboriginal issues and the attitudes of the selected `white Territorians' to them appear time and time again through the research report prepared by Ron Klein of Brian Sweeney and Associates. He offers the explanation that, while it was never his intention to focus so extensively on race matters:Aboriginals emerged in the course of the conversation as a very big issue indeed.It just sort of happened. How disingenuous is that? This is patent nonsense. For a start, focus groups are not therapy sessions, where participants are given the chance to pontificate on matters of their choice. Moderators are trained to ensure that discussions stay within the ambit of the brief and they would never allow such a wide-ranging diversion.We also know that Mr Klein's defence of the Aboriginal component of his research—`it was an accident'—can be proven to be false by a letter from Mark Textor to Andrew Coward three years after the research was completed. In this letter to Andrew Coward, Mark Textor advised him on approaches to future research, as follows:If your interest is to have a Klein style `fresh', `new' view of the political landscape, I would remind you that Klein told us `nothing new' but, for example, put the Aboriginal Issue in its `Two sets of laws' context . . . that sort of finding is a natural outcome of the qualitative research method (where feeling and language is explored in depth).This tells us three things. Firstly, the material on Aboriginal matters was the direct result of a deliberate line of questioning from the moderator, Klein. Secondly, this methodology was of the sort designed to elicit in-depth emotional responses on race—designed, as Mark Textor explains in the 1993 letter to Coward, to add `flavour' to a political strategy. Thirdly and most revealingly, this letter establishes the connection between the 1994 push polling question and the 1990 research. The notorious `two sets of laws' question resulted directly from this unethically obtained research. And Mark Textor is the common factor.The report from Brian Sweeney and Associates places a political interpretation on the research findings, which speaks for itself. Consider these words, found on page 33 of the CLP version of the report:The extent to which the Aboriginal issue is capable of evoking anger should not be underestimated.If there is any doubt about the vile intent that lies behind those words, it is rammed home unequivocally when Klein later states:The Aboriginal issue . . . shows the potential to be a major election issue. Handled correctly, we feel the Aboriginal issue could ensure the return of the CLP.If in politics the price of success is the exploitation of prejudice, then surely that price is too high.We know, beyond any doubt, that not only was the research in 1990 illegally obtained by the Country Liberal Party but also it was specifically designed to develop a negative race campaign. We know that methodology was employed to elicit emotive responses on race to assist the CLP in maximising their capacity to exploit the issue. We know that, in the eyes of the operatives involved, resentment, intolerance and prejudice is campaign artillery to be ruthlessly exploited in the pursuit of power. We know that behind all of this, at every point in the process, is the man entrusted by the Liberal Party to conduct their research.The campaign operatives—all still active in Liberal Party politics—engaged in this research with the intention of developing campaign messages to divide the community. In doing so, they excluded the Aboriginal population, preferring instead to limit their research to white swinging voters who would best respond to the race card. They interpreted antagonism toward the Aboriginal community as political manna from heaven and they saw it as the way to election victory.Our Prime Minister is proud to proclaim his belief that the things that unite us are more enduring than the things that divide us, yet his pollsters and apparatchiks develop campaigns which seek to inflame and exploit division. It should be a matter of very real concern—EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: we are quite happy for Senator Crossin to develop whatever argument she wants, and that is why we have listened to her in silence. But I think that at this point she is getting to the stage where she is going to contravene standing order 193 in that she is now trying to develop an argument which impugns an improper motive to the Prime Minister. What Senator Crossin is trying to do is quite outside the standing orders. I would suggest that you at this stage just warn her that she should not seek to impute improper motives to any member of this chamber or the other but especially to the Prime Minister.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I suggest you not warn Senator Crossin of anything because her speech is totally within the standing orders. I think it is an excellent speech and I for one would like to hear it without interruption by spurious points of order by Senator O'Chee.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—I was in the chair when this debate came on this morning. I am aware of the strong feelings on both sides in this debate. I will listen very closely to what the senator has to say and take into account what Senator O'Chee has raised as a point of order. Senator Crossin, will you please continue?7Y6Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN—I will just repeat, for the sake of the record, the reference to the Prime Minister. You will probably find it is a belief of us all that our Prime Minister is proud to proclaim his belief that the things that unite us are more enduring than the things that divide us. It should though be a matter of very real concern to the Australian people and the Prime Minister that it is Mark Textor, the Prime Minister's own pollster and regular government contractor, who is its foremost practitioner.81319:11:00813Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I rise today to speak about the logging of old-growth forests in Western Australia and the impending Regional Forest Agreement.The Regional Forest Agreement public consultation paper has been on the table for some time now, but the battle is far from over. During the RFA review period, some 30,000 submissions were received by the government from concerned Western Australians, and it is to be hoped their concerns will be addressed in the final RFA document. Of those received, an estimated 25,000 submissions directly opposed the logging of the remaining 10 percent of WA's old-growth forests.In the Western Australian state parliament, the Standing Committee on Ecologically Sustainable Development inquired into the management of, and planning for, the use of state forests in Western Australia. This cross party committee unanimously agreed—that is an important point to note: unanimously agreed—that the Regional Forest Agreement has fallen far short of its intended purpose. There are major discrepancies over the criteria on which the RFA is based. This in turn renders all projections and plans of dubious value. To quote the committee's report:A pre-requisite for arriving at good solutions about forest use and management, is that figures about existing areas of forest, production forest and reserve forest are available and are accurately and objectively compiled.This has not been done. The correct data has not been included, which means that the Regional Forest Agreement for Western Australia as proposed is currently based on flawed information. If you add to this the Court government's plan to sign the final agreement without Environmental Protection Authority assessment and with no further public scrutiny, you have a situation of grave concern to me and to hundreds of thousands of Western Australians.As I speak, a small group of committed conservationists are standing firm in the forests of Wattle Block, near Northcliffe in the south-west of Western Australia—an area listed on the Commonwealth Register of the National Estate. We may see photographs or television footage of these protesters, some with dreadlocks or bare feet, hoisting themselves up into the treetops or chaining themselves to forest machinery, and we may decide we have little in common with these people. But what we must realise is that for every protester in the forest there are thousands and thousands—in fact, hundreds of thousands—of others from what is called `mainstream Australia'—doctors, schoolteachers, lawyers, academics, public servants, truck drivers, scientists, secretaries and gravediggers—mainstream Australians who want the clear-felling of old-growth forests to stop.You may wonder why I have used the term `hundreds of thousands are opposed'. A survey by AMR Quantum Harris Research conducted earlier this year shows that 87 per cent of Western Australians do not want the timber industry to clear-fell old-growth forests. Eighty-three per cent are opposed to old-growth forests being used for woodchips. That amounts to hundreds of thousands of Western Australians.Time is running out for our old-growth forests. Every day, hectare upon hectare of jarrah, karri, marri and she-oak trees, many hundreds of years old, are being clear-felled in the south-west of Western Australia.The Western Australian government must take the utmost care when signing the proposed regional forest agreement. This agreement will determine the future of what little old-growth forest we now have left in Western Australia. Future generations will either applaud them—or despise them—for their actions over the RFA.On 25 May this year, I rose in this House to speak about a logging coupe known as Dombakup 24. D24 consists of less than 200 hectares of karri, jarrah, she-oak and tingle wood situated some 11 kilometres west of the Northcliffe township in the south-west of our state, and surrounded by private landowners. I remind you that 200 hectares of old-growth forest like that take hundreds of years to grow and would take two weeks to clear-fell.I am pleased to advise the Senate of a positive outcome for Dombakup 24. Early in 1998, the Department of Conservation and Land Management—whom I have often described as `Genghis CALM' because they are both pillagers and conservers—had earmarked Dombakup 24 for clear-felling but, on 4 August 1998, CALM announced an indefinite moratorium on logging this forest because of its significance to the Aboriginal people.Unfortunately, CALM had constructed 8½ kilometres of log road through Dombakup 24 before completing the necessary roading checklist. Had that been done, CALM would have discovered the existence of significant Aboriginal places within the forest of Dombakup 24. CALM only needed to contact the Manjimup Aboriginal Corporation to have been told of the significance of that forest to Aboriginal people.To its credit, CALM acted swiftly when it finally acknowledged the seriousness of its mistake and authorised an archaeological study to be undertaken in the D24 region. That study—by Dortch, Gardos and O'Reilly from the Centre for Archaeology at the University of Western Australia—was conse quently completed and the report was released.I take this opportunity to applaud CALM for declaring a moratorium on logging at Dombakup 24, but this moratorium should be upgraded from indefinite to permanent. For those 200 hectares, it is a little bit like being on death row. They can at some stage be logged by CALM. I remind the Senate that the Western Australian government have put CALM in the extraordinary situation of being reliant on clear-felling and woodchipping for income for their current expenditure. The result is a massive conflict of interest. The Dortch archaeological report clearly states:The entire area of Dombakup 24 is highly likely to contain many undisturbed archaeological sites and is archaeologically significant because:1. It contains the only archaeological sites so far located in Karri tall open forest,2. These sites are probably the last undisturbed sites associated with Aboriginal exploitation of the Northcliffe Silcrete Quarry, which is an important site in south-western Australia.The report went on:Our findings also suggest that the existence of other Aboriginal sites in Karri and other forests is a reasonable proposition.The events surrounding Dombakup 24 highlight a serious anomaly between the mining and timber industries. Before being granted a mining licence, all prospectors—be they large multinationals or fossickers with metal detectors—are advised that they must comply with the provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act before proceeding with excavation of any kind. Those provisions include a search for areas of Aboriginal significance. According to the WA Department of Minerals and Energy:Damage to a site under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1990 carries a penalty of up to $10,000 and two years imprisonment.That is pretty substantial, and the mining industry takes note of it. The fact that CALM, on the other hand, a government agency, undertook to construct log roads right through an area of major significance without having done a search—under their own criteria—of the most basic kind is a matter of serious concern. It must never happen again. If the mining industry can conform to strict guidelines set by the Aboriginal Heritage Act, then so too should CALM and the timber industry. I encourage this Senate to not be sanguine about this RFA process, despite its complexity and the politics that surround it, and really to start to adopt it with the same passion and understanding with which we have adopted other preservation campaigns.81519:20:00815Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Tonight I wish to bring to the Senate's attention a matter of some significance to my state of Tasmania. It is a project to bring HMAS Hobart back to the home port of Hobart. As you well know, Mr Acting Deputy President Sherry, the Royal Australian Navy plan to decommission HMAS Hobart in the year 2000. A specially convened committee of the Naval Association of Australia, Tasmania Section, aim to bring HMAS Hobart from her home port of Sydney, after her decommissioning.The committee plans to acquire the HMAS Hobart and to set up a naval museum and permanent display of HMAS Hobart in the port of Hobart. The committee has a strong interest in preserving Tasmania's naval heritage—indeed it is a rich heritage, Tasmania being an island state—particularly with the declining Royal Australian Navy presence in Hobart.Apart from the ship being a memorial and museum, the committee envisages the ship as an important tourist facility along the lines of HMAS Castlemaine at Williamstown in Victoria, HMAS Diamantina in Brisbane, and HMAS Vampire at Darling Harbour in Sydney.It could also be used, if need be, for overnight accommodation, cocktail parties, meetings of specialist small groups. It could be used as a Naval Reserve cadet facility. The options for the siting of the ship vary from tying up alongside, to placing it in a concrete cradle. A concrete cradle is the preferred option.The committee hopes that HMAS Hobart can be located at one of the wharves in Sullivans Cove or, possibly, near the botanical gardens. The preferred site is at Ross Bay on the Derwent River, just along from the exist ing Naval Reserve cadet facilities and close to the old HMAS Huon naval depot. The ship would be maintained and run by Naval Association volunteers. Planning is certainly in the early stages, but the project involves significant cost implications and will require meticulous long-term planning to succeed. We all wish the project well.The committee is now seeking public and corporate sponsorship—as well as the cooperation of federal and state politicians and the Hobart City Council. Already, considerable support has been received from the Tasmanian state government and opposition, the Hobart City Council, Tasmanian senators—both Liberal and Labor—Tasmanian members of the House of Representatives, the Hobart Ports Corporation, Admiral Don Chalmers, Chief of Navy, Admiral Mike Hudson, National President of the Naval Association of Australia, the HMAS Hobart Association, the Returned Services League of Australia Inc., Tasmanian Branch, and the Navy League of Australia, Tasmanian Division.HMAS Hobart is a Charles F. Adams class guided missile destroyer, built by the Defoe Shipbuilding Co. in Michigan in the United States. She is an interesting vessel. She was launched on 9 January 1964 and commissioned on 18 December 1965. In the year of decommissioning—year 2000—she will have been in service for Australia for 35 years.She has a displacement of 4,500 tons, a length of 437 feet and a beam of 47 feet. She has a speed in excess of 30 knots with a complement of 20 officers and 313 sailors. Her armament includes two 5-inch automatic rapid fire guns, antiaircraft guided missiles, anti-submarine missiles and antisubmarine homing torpedoes.HMAS Hobart was the first Australian destroyer to be sent to Vietnam, leaving Sydney on 7 March 1967 for attachment to the US Seventh Fleet and returning home for the final time on 11 October 1968. In her first deployment to Vietnam, HMAS Hobart steamed 52,529 miles and came under enemy fire on nine occasions. She fired something like 9,204 rounds at 1,050 targets while in Vietnamese waters. In her second deployment, HMAS Hobart steamed some 44,579 miles and came under fire on three occasions.Guided missile destroyer ships Perth, Brisbane and Hobart have been so successful that they have continued to be useful well beyond their normal life expectation. They have all been extensively modernised over the years. The primary objective in disposing of any public asset is to maximise the return to the Commonwealth. The Minister for Defence in the first Howard government, the Hon. Ian McLachlan, promised, however, to assess any proposal where it can be demonstrated that substantial benefits will accrue to a local economy by re-utilising an obsolete platform.Since we are being broadcast, I will take this occasion to pass on to Mr Ian McLachlan, the former Minister for Defence, my sincere sympathy in the recent passing of his father, a distinguished South Australian.Precedents have been set for the gifting of ships to other states, and the government must give very serious consideration to the gifting of HMAS Hobart to Tasmania. As this class of ship was phased out by the United States navy some years ago, continuing support is difficult and, therefore, removal of some systems and equipment will be required for ongoing support of HMAS Hobart's sister ship, HMAS Brisbane. The committee does, nevertheless, retain the hope that the ship will be as near as possible to her present condition on decommissioning.The project's goal is significant to the whole of Tasmania—it is certainly advantageous to the city of Hobart—and presents a perfect opportunity to capture significant naval heritage whilst providing a unique state headquarters for the Naval Association in Tasmania.I therefore take the opportunity afforded by this adjournment debate to urge the new Minister for Defence, the Hon. John Moore, to give favourable consideration to locating the HMAS Hobart in the port of Hobart after her decommissioning in the year 2000. I commend this project to the Senate, and look forward to the support of all senators for this important project.81619:28:00816Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—On 14 August 1998, Derek Leon Rees was killed when struck by a train in Richmond. At the time of his death, Derek was about a month short of his 79th birthday. The incident brought to an end the life of a remarkable man.Mr Acting Deputy President, may I send my sympathy to Cynthia, his partner, and his four daughters Diana, Philippa, Biddy and Kim. Derek was born in England on 19 September 1919. In the mid-1930s, when 17 years of age, he came to Australia and began working as a jackaroo. When the Second World War broke out, he enlisted in the Australian Army. He did his duty as a soldier in Palestine, North Africa, India and, later on, the Kokoda Trail. While in New Guinea, he was seriously wounded and thereby affected for the rest of his days. This did not stop his full engagement in life, as all those who knew him can attest.Derek was a tall man and confident in his stature. Because of his big feet which were attached to a pair of very long legs, he was called `Boots' by all those who knew him well.A number of his former military comrades attended his funeral and held the customary ceremony at the conclusion of the main service. When Derek left the army in 1946, he joined the Australian Labor Party. In 1949 he left the ALP and joined the Communist Party. This was when the government of the day sent troops into the coal mines. Fortunately, his departure was not a permanent one and he returned to the true faith. He went back to England for some years and worked in England for the ALP while living there. He then returned to Western Australia where he was highly active in the party and served on its state executive. He made many friends there. Senator Evans and Senator McKiernan knew him in the state they both represent so well.Seven years ago, Derek came to Melbourne to be with Cynthia Mountstephen who was recovering from an operation. She was a longstanding family friend. They both resided at the Old Colonist in North Fitzroy at the time of his death. I would like to quote some words from Cynthia which she spoke after Derek's death. She said:He was the most loving and generous man, so full of kindness to everybody. I would describe him as charmingly eccentric. I know it sounds ridiculous, because he was nearly 79 and I'm 82, but we had a wonderfully romantic relationship. While in Melbourne, Derek did an amazing amount of voluntary work. When he died he was the President of the Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Policy Committee of the ALP and I often spoke with him in that context. I had many a discussion with Derek. He came up in conversations I had with others. His reputation was high. He was a selfless man, of joyful disposition, keen to work to the limits of his injured body and dedicated to the causes he espoused.Derek served Australia in peace and in war, not for reward and status, but because it was in his nature to do so. He is typical of many people who see the interests of others as of fundamental importance and who seek to further them regardless of personal benefit. Their membership of political parties like the ALP gives those parties the best of their spirit and culture. They are the sorts of people who make up the fabric of a good society. Derek was amongst the best of them.19:32:00817Senate adjourned at 7.32 p.m.Documents817817The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Exemption No. CASA 42/1998.Superannuation Guarantee Determination SGD 98/2.Taxation Determination— TD 93/223 (Addendum). TD 98/26.Taxation Ruling— SST 14. TR 98/17.817The following document was tabled pursuant to standing order 139(2):Unproclaimed legislation—Document providing details of all provisions of Acts which come into effect on proclamation and which have not been proclaimed, including statements of reasons for their non-proclamation and information relating to the timetable for their operation, as at 23 October 1998.