1998-11-303911SENATE81901998-11-30The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Business819819Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed: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 1998.12:31:00819Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I wish to speak to this motion. I believe that it ought not go through without some debate. We are dealing with the cut-off motion in relation to the National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill 1997 [1998] . While this bill was included in the list of legislation to be introduced during the spring sittings, the government did not indicate that it would be debated during these sittings. Consequently, my staff and the community groups and specialist advisers that we would normally consult on these issues are not prepared to debate the bill at this time.While the bill was examined by the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee, it was a fairly speedy process. Submissions were called for before Christmas last year, and the closing date was just after the New Year. Not surprisingly, only three submissions were received by the closing date and, consequently, there were no public hearings.This is an important bill which establishes part of the framework for handling environmental issues in this country. It would be preferable if this bill could be delayed until the broader framework in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 (No. 2) was considered in the Senate. I will not be supporting this motion by the government.12:33:00819Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—This objection by the Greens (WA) is really quite remarkable. Bear in mind that it is only for what could be described as a technical reason that the cut-off clause comes into effect at all in this instance. The technical reason is that, as a result of the election and the standing orders of the House of Representatives, the bill has to be reintroduced into the House of Representatives before it comes here. The purpose of the cut-off provision was to enable senators to have adequate time to prepare themselves for debate so that there were no surprises.This bill was introduced into this chamber on 21 October 1997. It then went before a committee of the Senate, which reported on 12 March 1998. It was given category T status by the government then, demonstrating its urgency. Unfortunately, it did not get to be debated because of other bills that were regarded as even more urgent—so be it. The opportunity was lost when the election was called.The history of this bill goes back to 1992 when the previous Labor government agreed on a national system for coordinating environment protection in Australia. The concept is a good one. My only criticism of the Labor Party is that, although it set up the council to administer it—and the Commonwealth chairs it—it did not get around to holding any meetings. So the scheme was put in place but it did not achieve outcomes.Under this government, we have got the process moving and we have introduced a number of measures through the cooperative state-Commonwealth arrangement which will provide for consistent environmental protection standards across the country. We have done it in relation to the national pollutant inventory. We have done it in relation to ambient air quality. And, as I recall, we have done it in relation to transfer of hazardous wastes across state boundaries. We are working on a number of others at the moment, including one in relation to packaging waste. It is a good concept. It was approved in 1992. The apparatus was basically set up, but to be implemented it required—apart from having a Commonwealth minister who was prepared to do the job—complementary state and Commonwealth legislation. Every state has passed its legislation. It is the Commonwealth that is now holding back the capacity to enforce, at both state and Commonwealth levels, these consistent national environmental standards.It is extraordinary that the Greens come in here, claiming the constituency that they do, and argue that it should be even further delayed. If it was introduced into this place on 21 October 1997, that should be enough time for even the Australian Greens. There is no reason to delay further debate and, hopefully, passage of this bill so that the Commonwealth can meet its responsibility to the states and put into effect national standards of environment protection, which has to be in the interests of all Australians.12:36:00820Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—What a mess the minister has got himself into yet again. He says that he did not consider that this was an urgent piece of legislation before the election. He did not get it the priority before the election that he now says it has. He failed to get it in amongst the jostling for bills before the election, but suddenly it is the end of the year and he says that it is important. He goes back as far as 1992 to put his case.He is an inconsistent, vacillating minister who cannot make up his mind. He indicated to the Senate just a few weeks ago that this bill would be coming on next year—at least his office did—and suddenly he thinks it is urgent. I suppose somebody has given him a kick in the rump somewhere along the line and said, `Hey, we want this through. It is a piece of environmental legislation and we want it to get up.'The problem for the minister is that it is an ancillary piece of legislation, if you like, to his general push to divest himself, this government and the Commonwealth of their national environmental responsibilities. It is generally part of the push to move to the lowest common denominator as far as the environment is concerned, to say that the only things that this government is interested in are those things where it can achieve agreement with all the states and territories.We ought to be taking the other tack. The real debate here, which is not going to be entertained in this process, is how the government is going to implement its powers under the constitution to protect the environment of this nation. Pushing through under these circumstances this sort of change to the rules to allow this piece of legislation to get through under the covers before Christmas is not something I am going to entertain as well. The minister has made a hash of his program. He has not been able to get it in order. What was not urgent a month or so ago is suddenly very urgent now. He is totally inconsistent. He does not know what he is doing. It is because he does not have a shred of reputation as far as the environment is concerned. Coming in here this morning and saying suddenly that this is urgent, that he wants the rules of the Senate to be changed and that on this occasion he sees it only as a technicality is not good enough. The minister has got to do better than that, and I will be joining Senator Margetts in voting against this.12:39:00820Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The opposition does have considerable criticisms of the way in which the government has handled its legislative program. However, I do note that the minister outlined the time lines on this particular measure. My understanding is that this bill was introduced into the parliament on 21 October 1997. It was referred to the Standing Committee on the Selection of Bills on 19 November 1997 and the committee reported on 12 March 1998.Nonetheless, there are considerable concerns about the way in which this bill has been developed. A number of interest groups and state governments have expressed significant concerns about the deficiencies and inconsistencies of the bill, in particular on the means by which the Commonwealth has sought to exempt the Commonwealth from the application of certain territory laws and on the particular measures of compliance.There have also been concerns expressed about the degree to which this minister would be able to attract unfettered discretion in the consideration of environmental matters and at the way in which this bill seeks to concentrate on the enforcement mechanisms without necessarily seeking to ensure that there is actual compliance with environmental protec tion measures. So there is a range of matters that the opposition has concerns about, and the way in which this bill has been structured is part of those concerns. We are concerned about questions of accountability and the degree to which transparency tests will apply to Commonwealth actions in this regard. However, we do not support the use of the cut-off motion in this regard for this particular bill, and therefore we will be supporting the exemption from the cut-off motion.12:41:00821Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise on behalf of the Democrats to echo some of the concerns and criticisms that have been put forward in response to the government's motion today. The Democrats do not support this bill being exempt. We have policy concerns about this bill, but we also seriously question some of the processes that have led up to the motion before us today. We certainly support the Greens in their comments before the chair. Question put: That the motion (Senator Ian Campbell's ) be agreed to.12:45:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)52Abetz, E. Bishop, T. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Coonan, H. *Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V.Ferguson, A. B. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. Minchin, N. H.Murphy, S. M. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bills821s177821Consideration resumed from 26 November.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering the Space Activities Bill 1998 and the amendment moved by Senator Stott Despoja on behalf of the Australian Democrats. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.12:50:00821Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—During the committee stage of the debate on the Space Activities Bill 1998 on Thursday I set out the reasons behind this amendment, namely, that we seek to include a safety as well as an accountability provision in the bill. It is in relation to the powers to grant a launch permit and the criteria that should be taken into account by the minister when making that particular grant. The Democrats consider the amendment before the chair to be a compromise amendment. It is adding a requirement that space objects should not contain radioactive or toxic materials if certain reporting arrangements or special considerations have not been satisfied.So this amendment does not prevent the granting of a launch permit to someone who seeks to put these substances into space, even though the Democrats have said repeatedly now that we would prefer a blanket ban on such substances. We are saying that it is up to the minister but we would like to see certain accountability provisions in place, and that is that the minister has to table a risk and a hazard assessment. We think that that is the least that can be asked under such serious circumstances.12:52:00822Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The government is not inclined to accept this amendment. We believe that it involves an excessive degree of regulation that is unnecessary. The Space Activities Bill 1998 clearly provides in 26(3)(e) that, in relation to a launch permit, the minister must be:. . . 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 . . . The minister has to be satisfied of all those things before the permit can be granted. That clause will require the new Space Licensing and Safety Office to approve the payload and the launch vehicle fuel as part of the approval process for each launch. The launch permit will specify the nature of the payload.I note that the fuels to be used in the launch vehicle will be part of the environmental impact statement process, which is the case with Kistler. We have difficulty with using the word `toxic' in relation to this, given the fact that the definition is so wide. `Toxic material' in the definition in the Democrats amendment is:. . . any material which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death or harm to life forms.What does `harm to life forms' mean? If an insect is harmed, is it toxic material when this thing is activated? It is incredibly wide in its scope. Kerosene and liquid oxygen, which are the main fuels, could, under this definition, come within it. That could mean that every single launch is caught up by this particular amendment.We have, as other parties know, agreed to accept an opposition amendment providing that the space object:. . . must not contain any fissionable material unless the Minister's written approval has first been obtained . . . That is an additional safety measure which we are prepared to accept. So on that basis we do not believe there is any basis for introducing this Democrats amendment.12:53:00822Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—There are a number of issues in relation to safety in space and, of course, for launch procedures. We are finding that over time space is being seen to be, as the air and water are often seen to be, a commodity that can be used and abused to an endless extent. As we are going further into the satellite age, we are putting more and more satellites into the atmosphere. I believe there are something like 25,000 objects currently in orbit. I also believe that when there are explosions in the atmosphere a lot of those bodies can break up into something like 800 or so pieces.Putting satellites into space is actually getting to be a relatively dangerous thing. This harks back to the original proposal by the Australian Democrats in relation to liability. We actually have to consider, on a case-by-case basis, the toxicity of what we are putting into space, and what the growing likelihood might be of a collision in space. We have to consider what the likelihood is of the items on board, which might be toxic, radio-toxic or otherwise, somehow either getting into the atmosphere or causing a collision which will affect other satellites or objects in space.We have to have a cumulative risk assessment. You probably have to adjust this risk assessment, based on the nature of each launch and the area into which it is launched. There was an explosion within about 25 kilometres of the Hubble space platform, and in space terms that is not very far away.Like everyone else, we are impressed by what can be done with technology but we, as Australians, ought to be taking some responsibility for the potential problems that exist with the technology. We should consider what our responsibilities might be. I think that the Democrats amendment is worthy of support. I am concerned and disappointed that the government is not prepared to support it.Amendment not agreed to.12:56:00823Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—by leave—I move Democrats amendments (3) and (4):(3) Clause 26, page 19 (line 6), omit "of mass destruction".(4) Clause 29, page 20 (line 24), omit "of mass destruction".These amendments relate to the clause which provides the criteria which must be satisfied for the grant of a launch permit. From the Democrats' perspective, as I have outlined, radioactive material should not be sent into space, either where the material heads off into deep space beyond the Earth's orbit or where it orbits the Earth. In the latter circumstance the orbit decay means that the material will return to Earth. For low orbits this can be a matter of days and for very high orbits this can be over a thousand years.The Democrats are particularly concerned that space should not be used as a place of war and that weapons should be excluded from space, so these amendments remove the words `of mass destruction' from both clauses (26) and (29) to exclude all weaponry. Although these amendments will not stop all defence space objects, they should at least stop Australia's commercial use of space for weapons. This is where our concern lies with this bill in general. We are not addressing the Commonwealth's powers to involve itself in defence; we are concerned here only with the commercial use of space.The Democrats do not think a launch permit should be granted to launch weaponry into space commercially. For example, a private sector company in the United States can deliver, through a launch into space, what is called an `exo-atmospheric kill vehicle'—or EKV—weapon. It says that in space the `the EKVs will separate from their boosters, immediately detect attacking missiles, distinguish real targets from decoys and destroy them by hit-to-kill intercepts'. These are part of United States government contracts. My concern would be that a private sector company should not be allowed to launch such devices.Under the present legislation it is possible such devices might be granted a launch permit. These amendments would prevent this. The government would need to rely on other powers to launch such devices. The increasing power of the private sector—and its capacity to resource undertakings in space—means this is a valid concern for many Australians. All we are asking is that the private sector not be allowed to launch weapons into space without government involvement. Where the private sector is involved in defence, that should be outside the scope of this bill.12:59:00823Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I believe that we should not be setting up a new frontier for conflict and weapons. According to Reuters Business Briefing of 26 August this year, entitled `USA—new space race', the US Department of Defense, despite paying out hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade its own satellite capabilities, is still only able to pass one-third of the data required to meet projected demand. With plans to spend a further $7.8 billion on refurbishing and on leasing commercial satellite time over the next years, it is under pressure to make more use of commercial satellites and commercial launch facilities.Is this why Australia's space industry is going to be relied on? Are we to be the United States military's low cost, offshore option? We believe the United States are our allies in many ways, but just how closely do we want to be integrated into the global military industrial network? Where has it gone in recent years? We have seen the Gulf War. Where now? In the aftermath of the Gulf War, we do not have the guts to stand up to America and say, `Enough is enough.' With regard to Iraq, where the Iraqi people are starving, we still have a situation where I believe, for commercial reasons in relation to oil, the United States are keeping up the blockade. It is not because of famine or drought or some other natural disaster but because of politics and the politics of a boycott.The more we tie ourselves into this commercial military machine, which is building a multimillion dollar industry based on the needs of this military machine, the more difficult it will be for us to assert an independent position on issues like Iraq or on any other issues for that matter. It is time for us in Australia to assert our real independence, to take a principled stand and to say no to war, no to the military uses of space and no to weapons of any kind in space. We are not talking about nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction but about all weapons. Who would we be shooting at in space?This is an opportunity similar to the position taken by New Zealand in banning nuclear armed ships. It is a bit like that for us today. We could say that we are a small nation, one that could make a lot of money by joining in the war game. And, besides, someone else would do it if we did not. But we are prepared to give that up for a more important principle—the principle of space as a no-go area for weapons and space as a zone of peace.The notion to take the ban on weapons one step further is one that recognises that we are not just part of the global military overkill—and I use that word advisedly—if we participate in a whole range of military activities in space, including targeting systems, command communications in the event of military strikes and military intelligence gathering. We do not necessarily want to stop Australian troops from using mobile phones or geopositioning technology, but there are other exemption conditions in this bill for defence and national security. It does not specify what it is to be used for.Section 16 excludes the Commonwealth or a member of the Defence Force. We want to ban the use of Australia's commercial facilities for launches for other people's military purposes, such as spying by friendly nations, positioning of weapons and all other military uses. This again would send an important signal to the international community about Australia's determination to make space a weapons free zone and a zone of peace.I urge the Senate to support this amendment. The amendments by the Greens (WA) seek to achieve the same end as those of the Democrats. Obviously we are fully supporting amendments which have a similar basis to our own. We do believe that we leave ourselves open to being involved in the commercial use of military technologies of quite unspecified types as a result of the passing of this legislation.13:03:00824Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—The opposition is not going to support amendments (3) and (4) moved by the Democrats or similar amendments moved by the Greens (WA) and Senator Margetts, Nos (2) and (5) on their sheet. There are a couple of things I want to raise. Nowhere can I see in these sheets from the Democrats or the Greens (WA) their definition of what a weapon is. If you had a monkey wrench in your hand inside a spaceship and you were going to belt someone with it, you would probably say that was a weapon. That might be a trite example—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Yes.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—That is what I said. But legalistically if you are putting this in and the minister is giving a declaration, unless you put a definition of what a weapon is then the minister or whoever it may be in the future is always going to be hung out to dry over an argument of what a weapon is.Both Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Margetts gave an extraordinarily broad interpretation of weapons. Senator Margetts even got down to satellites that are spying or collecting intelligence. These satellites are a part of the accepted verification systems that operate in the world today to ensure that we do not blow each other up. Senator Margetts spoke as though those satellites from all sides—not just the Americans but the Russians, the British, the Europeans and more to come—could be considered to be weapons if they were spying or carrying out surveillance or verification.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—But it's not covered in this bill. It should be done properly, through legislation.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I believe that it has turned out in a pragmatic way over the evolution of the last few decades. Such intelligence gathering satellites have actually made the world a safer place. No matter what the leader of a country may have said, the leader of the other country that is potentially in conflict would know that what had been said could only be taken at face value, because they would both know what they were really doing. Both sides would know in the end that they could not hide what they were doing. That made the world a safer place. Intelligence gathering satellites carried out the verification programs. To imply that these would be covered by the definition of weapons is of extreme concern. It is something I do not think we should embark upon in this particular bill. Our colleague, the shadow foreign affairs minister, would have a much bigger interest in this bill if that were the case in terms of the definition.On the next area of weaponry I would have liked to have heard from Senator Stott Despoja in particular. Apart from nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, what are the other weapons that could be put on a satellite or in a space vehicle that would possibly be a threat? There may be some—I am not a technical person in this area—but I would like to have heard some examples of other weapons. I do not think having a revolver inside a space capsule is a great threat to Australia or to other citizens on the face of the earth, although it may be a threat to the other astronaut or cosmonaut inside the space station. I am not sure that you can operate many traditional and conventional weapons, machine guns and so on in existing satellites and with the technology we have at the moment. I may be wrong; I would be more than happy to hear some of that evidence.As I said in the debate last week, this bill is our first attempt to regulate our involvement in space activities. I said the opposition does not see this as the ultimate end, as a perfect bill in any way, but experience will dictate to us what further amendments may be needed. Also, we have on the record, which I think is most important—and I raised this with the minister—that publicity given to any approval will be made public. He quite rightly said that he as a minister, and probably any other minister, to make political capital for the government of the day would be up there with drums beating saying that he had approved a rocket launch from Australia. I accept that completely.If there is publicity and public debate about the approval, we are satisfied. If there is some attempt to hide it we may have to come back and amend this bill to say, `Before the approval is given, you have to have a 30-day or two-month or whatever period when anybody can object and put evidence to the minister to say why he should reject the approval.' If it turns out that that is needed, let experience dictate it, but I do not want to tie it down at the moment. Though no-one wants to see development of weapons in space or space be turned into a new cold war or hot war field, I have to say I think the lack of definition, by both the Democrats and the Greens, means that on balance we certainly will not be supporting the amendment.13:10:00825Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I think Senator Schacht has very usefully and succinctly put the arguments against this amendment. Like Senator Schacht and the Greens and Democrats, the government has no interest in seeing space become a theatre of war; but this amendment simply goes too far. We have, in recognition of that sentiment, put in the two clauses (e) and (f) requirements for the minister to grant a launch permit: that he has to be satisfied that it is not going to cause substantial harm to the public health or public safety and that it does not contain a nuclear weapon or weapon of mass destruction of any other kind, which would include biological and chemical weapons. Just to say that if the object concerned contained a weapon then the minister must automatically deny the permit is ridiculous and unworkable, given, as Senator Schacht said, `What is a weapon?' I took the trouble of having my office look up just how weapon is defined. It includes, according to the Oxford Dictionary, `a thing designed or used or useable for inflicting bodily harm, e.g. a gun, rifle, sword, spear, stick, hammer, poker, horn or claw'. I could throw this glass at Senator Schacht and cause him considerable harm and that could be considered a weapon. I appreciate where the Greens and Democrats are coming from, but we believe 26(3)(e) and (f) cover all reasonable contingencies and will prevent any real weapons going into space, but does so in a way that is workable.13:11:00826Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank the minister and the opposition spokesperson for outlining their concerns with the amendment. I am glad to hear that neither of the old parties wants to see space as a war zone or see inappropriate weaponry launched in a space.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—We signed all the treaties.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Thank you for mentioning treaties. I acknowledge schedule 3, which is entitled, `Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies,' and note that it says:Recognizing the common interest of all mankind in the progress of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes.I hope we are all committed to that worthy objective. I state for the record one of the examples that I gave in my comments in relation to the amendment and weaponry was the EKV weapon, which is not, Senator Schacht, considered a weapon of mass destruction. So I did not provide simply an example of a weapon of mass destruction. Rather, it was the opposite.Amendments not agreed to10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—We will now move on to Greens (WA) amendments (2) and (5).13:13:00826Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Greens (WA) amendments (2) and (5) are of the same nature as Democrats (3) and (4), so I will not be proceeding with my amendments. I seek leave to move Greens (WA) amendments (3), (4) and (6) together.Leave granted.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I thank the Senate. I move:(3) Clause 29, page 20 (lines 17 and 18), omit ", except to the extent that the permit otherwise specifies".(4) Clause 29, page 20 (lines 19 to 22), omit "substantial" (wherever occurring).(6) Clause 29, page 20 (after line 24), after paragraph (b), insert: (ba) the space object or objects must not be used for any military purpose;We are talking here about the standard conditions of launch. What we are hoping to do with these amendments is set up the standard launch conditions. It is important in determining the culture of the industry. We want to delete `except to the extent that the permit otherwise specifies'. There is no way a permit should ever specify that a launch or return can be conducted in a way that is likely to cause substantial harm. No exception should ever be allowed to the rule banning nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, and no exception should be allowed on insurance issues either. We were concerned at the standard expression represented by the words `must not be conducted in a way that is likely to cause substantial harm'. Surely it is so obvious as not to be worth saying `if it is likely to cause substantial harm'. I certainly hope not.It is the word `likely' that leads to the concern. What does it mean? Does it mean `more likely than not'? That is just not sufficient protection from substantial harm. We tried to address this by a form of words similar to those used elsewhere in the bill which refer to the probability of substantial harm being sufficiently low. We were advised of problems with this and instead tried to achieve the same aim of encouraging a culture of safety in this industry by deleting the word `substantial'. With our amendment, it will read: `the launch or launches, and any connected return, must not be conducted in a way that is likely to cause harm to public health or public safety or to cause damage to property'. I urge support from the Senate.13:15:00826Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Senator Margetts has now moved 3, 4 and 6 together, but I think she has spoken only to amendment 3. Senator Margetts, are you going to move them separately or will they be moved as a lot, because I want to speak on another one?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Leave was sought that they would be taken together. Senator Margetts was granted leave and we are now proceeding down that path.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I would like to raise some points in addition to the issues Senator Margetts has raised. We do not support the amendments to clause 29 moved by the Greens. We believe that the first amendment, where she is deleting `except to the extent that the permit otherwise specifies', is a standard technical arrangement made in many regulations. Of course, the minister, if he were to use that clause, would have to publicise the fact and it would become a matter of public debate if he tried to rort it or overwhelmingly use it to get around other matters contained in the legislation, but you cannot be totally prescriptive in all the regulations you draw up in a piece of legislation. We believe that it is unnecessary and is not conducive to the good workings of the regime to remove that clause—to remove that ability of the government. Again, the proof will be in the eating of the pudding and, if it were rorted, the people and the parliament would expect it to be amended.I would like to hear what the minister has to say about Senator Margetts's amendment to clause 29, which deletes the word `substantial'. I believe that if you remove `substantial' then you have to provide a definition of what is `harm'. Someone could claim that when the rocket went off and lit up Tarcoola in the middle of night, they lost their sleep and suffered some harm, but I am not sure that that is real harm if the people of Tarcoola, which is a fair way still from Woomera launch site, were given fair warning that the launch would be taking place. If you remove the word `substantial', some people could get litigious about a few things, and you could find anything related to the launch could cause harm to somebody somewhere and make it very difficult for the launch to take place.The final amendment is to insert after (b) a new clause:(ba) the space object or objects must not be used for any military purpose;I turn to the verification role of satellites. Satellites, which all sides use, could be claimed to be for a military purpose, yet they have been very successful in ensuring that for the last 50 years we have not had a nuclear war in the world. They have also been used extensively at a conventional level for monitoring of military activity in Bosnia, which has helped the NATO forces try to conclude peace or a cease-fire. It has been published that the Americans used their satellites to identify the mass graves where war crimes had been committed in Bosnia. I suspect that it is a military satellite that provided that information, but it is also information that hopefully may lead one day to the people who perpetrated that awful atrocity—that massacre—being brought to justice and suffering the penalty accordingly. So to say that you cannot use—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—That is not what we said.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Your amendment says `must not be used for any military purpose'. What is the definition of `military purpose'? I can understand the Greens and the Democrats moving these amendments in the general principle that no-one has any argument at all with, but if someone vexatiously were to use this amendment, if it were carried and adopted, this regulatory regime would be hung out to dry again and again in the courts as people argued, often for malevolent reasons—for negative reasons—to stop any launch ever taking place, and I do not think that that is what the Australian people want and I do not think it is what the parliament wants.I think the Australian people would be happy to have a modest space program operating in Australia with reasonable and proper regulation but not regulation designed to stop it happening at all. Until I can get a better definition of `military purpose'—and it is not provided in the amendment—the opposition will oppose these amendments.13:21:00827Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—It was a very nice speech from Senator Schacht, except that he did not get very good advice. He did not look at where it is in the bill. It is under `standard launch permit conditions', and all that it is asking is that that be part of the permits so that those issues—that the space object or objects be used for any military purpose—be written in the permit conditions and so the reality is that it has some oversight. Senator Schacht has been representing this part of the chamber to a certain extent as space Luddites and in this particular instance unfortunately did not look at the context in which the amendment was placed. The bill says:The following are conditions of each launch permit (called standard launch permit conditions), except to the extent that the permit otherwise specifies.Basically, all it says is that, if it is to be used for military purposes, that should be part of the permit. Then at least when we are looking at what a satellite is going to be used for, we will have an idea what Australia's liability is, what we are going to be involved in, what we can reasonably say is covered and what is reasonably regulated. If there is a possibility that certain satellites will be used or leased for military purposes, I do not think it is unreasonable that that should be part of the permit conditions.13:23:00828Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats support the Greens (WA) amendments and also the comments made by Senator Margetts. She has pointed out the error of Senator Schacht's ways—there are too many to go into, I know. In this particular circumstance, no-one was doubting the potential and maybe beneficial—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You have been watching The Empire Strikes Back too much, Princess Leia!3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—If Senator Schacht wants Star Wars jokes, we can go right ahead.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—That is a compliment.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—It's okay; I'll take Princess Leia.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Address your comments through the chair, Senator Stott Despoja.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—As Senator Margetts pointed out, Senator Schacht missed the point. No-one was doubting the potential and maybe beneficial aspects of some of the military equipment or devices to which he was referring. No-one was denying a modest space program. No-one was stopping such an enterprise. Senator Margetts pointed out that it was just making sure that this was specified in the clause that deals with standard launch and permit conditions.I also wish to refer to Senator Schacht's comments regarding definitions and his continual concern and claim that the words in the amendments being put forward are not clearly or appropriately defined for the benefit of this bill. I found it interesting to listen to Senator Schacht refer to `substantial' as if that were somehow more real in relation to harm. I apologise if, at any stage, I misrepresent him. He was talking about how to define harm. `Harm' can be so open ended and difficult to define, but I am wondering what makes `substantial harm' any easier to define. According to the dictionary definition, `substantial' can be both real or actual. So the implication of some of Senator Schacht's comments is, if it is substantial harm, that it is real; it is not just peripheral.On the general issue of definitions, I think `harm' is just as easy or hard to define as is `substantial harm'. As we have outlined, our concern is that, if any harm results or eventuates as a consequence of the launch or certain materials, this section, in particular, does not seek to prevent such launches. It is just specifying the conditions under which a permit will be granted.13:26:00828Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I do not want to be seen to be provoked by my good colleagues from the Greens and the Democrats, but I have to say to Senator Margetts that when she responded to the point I made, she proved my point. Yes, this is a condition that you are putting there for any military purposes. If the minister provides a permit—and this is in there—someone could be vexatious or just difficult and say, `You have a screwdriver, you have a wrench inside it, or you have some other thing that could be considered a weapon,' or `We don't trust what you have done,' et cetera. The definition is so broad that anybody with a reasonable lawyer will start saying that they are going to try to stop it.In the commercial world of space launches, the competition is red hot between the various consortiums. If the Kistler Corporation decid ed to use Australia—from which we would get some social and economic benefits, jobs, et cetera—and the French were launching from Guyana, it would not be beyond the French, on my knowledge of some of these matters, to have a lawyer turn up in Australia and use your amendments to delay and make it commercially more difficult for Kistler or anybody else to launch rockets with satellites that may be in competition with the French. That is just the way the commercial world is.I do not think that is your intent, but until you get your definitions much more firmly written out and defined, that will be the way this will be applied. We will suffer commercially. Our opponents will use the opportunity to say, `We don't have any of these restrictions, but your definitions, as proposed by the Greens and the Democrats, will restrict our space activity and make us less commercially competitive.' I do not think that is the intent which, overwhelmingly, Australians want.13:28:00829Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am horrified at the concept that this is a race to the bottom to be as competitive as possible to attract space launches.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Whenever you try to use a commercial argument with the Greens, it goes down like a lead balloon.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—Maybe Senator Boswell would like to take the floor.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Margetts has the call.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I do not know whether too many members of the opposition have studied for higher degrees in economics, but I have. It has been an ongoing interest of mine to see benefits for the community and not wide-scale community subsidies. If we have a race to the bottom for liability, which we have talked about already, or a race to the bottom for standards, let us not put these companies off because of the commercial implications. We saw another situation on the TV on the weekend, another seabird island—I do not know whether you heard it; ironic, wasn't it—in another part of the world; and I have even forgotten what part of the world it was. There were terns, other endangered species, breeding colonies of seabirds, and so on. Also, the same arguments were being used against the communities who were concerned about this particular ecosystem. `If we don't do it, other people will and we've got to have the money.' In the end, we are going to use this commercial argument against any reasonable control and regulation.We have talked about weapons, and that amendment on weaponry has gone down already, but the situation exists that a satellite or satellite system could be, and is, used as part of weapons systems. They are not weapons themselves, but they could have a military use. Australia may not be engaged in Star Wars per se, but another commercial operation engaged in some future version of Star Wars may use the satellite system as a means of space war of some sort. I would like to think that this parliament has enough responsibility for Australia not to be dragged in by its own legislation with no means of refusing these kinds of situations. It is ridiculous.I do not think we should get into a situation of a race to the bottom to attract space technology. We should be taking our duty of care seriously here. That means that, if there is a necessity to use satellites for military purposes, (a) the minister is advised of it—I think that is reasonable—and (b) it is written into the basis upon which that satellite can or cannot be used. If it is felt that there is a necessity in the public interest to change that at any stage, there should be an ability to change that. It does not need legislation for the minister to change the nature of that permit, so it is not immutable.The issue is that the public—the Australian public or any other public—should be protected. There should be a reasonable duty of care so that the Australian legislation does not see us dragged into something that we should not be involved in simply because our legislation will not allow us to take action at some later stage.13:31:00829Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Senator Margetts has talked about the reasonableness of this amendment, but I have a query for the minister. I am wondering if military purposes should be included in a framework regime for commercial operations in space. Is it appropriate that, if it is for a military purpose, it be done under different or other powers? Is that appropriate?13:32:00830Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—In general terms, it does distress me to see parties on the left arguing so vociferously about government legislation. But in this case—again, for the reasons so well put by Senator Schacht—we are opposed to these amendments, particularly in relation to military purposes, for the reasons set out by Senator Schacht. To say that the condition applies to every launch permit that it cannot be issued if there is any possibility of it being used for any military purpose would mean huge definitional problems.I do not know, but the Australian Defence Force may well, for the defence of Australia—which I would have thought we are all interested in—and for national security reasons want to use a commercial launch to put up a defensive satellite of some kind. It may be the military that actually commissions the launch for purposes that relate to the security of every single one of us and for the defence of Australia. To put this clause in means that could never ever occur—that would be completely and utterly prohibited. So there is a question there about national security. There is also the verification issue that I think Senator Schacht very sensibly raised. There are a whole lot of reasons this clause would be a ridiculous limitation on the regime.As we have said before, the minister can only grant the permit if he is satisfied that there is no risk of substantial harm to public safety and it does not contain weapons of mass destruction. We think there are enough protections in the system as it is. If it appears that a problem is emerging, there may well, as Senator Schacht has said, be a need for the parliament to reconsider the regime. But we see no purpose in these amendments, particularly that amendment in relation to `any military purpose'. It may be that anything relating to communication satellites, global positioning systems and things like that would get caught up in that and severely hinder the development of the space industry in this country for no purpose, particularly given, as I say, there are adequate safeguards already in the legislation to ward against any reasonable risks associated with the emergence of a space industry.13:36:00830Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Just a month ago—that is, at the end of October—a draft United Nations resolution on international cooperation and the peaceful uses of outer space was approved by the United Nations Fourth Committee. We should note, particularly in light of my comments in my speech in the debate at the second reading stage, that the Fourth Committee, that is, the one responsible for space cooperation, is the Special Political and Decolonisation Committee.The text of the draft resolution approved by the committee requires the General Assembly to urge all states, particularly those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the goal of preventing an arms race in outer space as an essential condition for the promotion of international cooperation in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes.Given that the minister has argued on commercial considerations, I wonder how the government is planning to abide by this United Nations resolution, or is the government ignoring on a blanket basis United Nations resolutions of late that they cannot control?Amendments not agreed to.13:37:00830Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I understand the government is sympathetic to opposition amendment (2) on sheet 1178. The amendment takes into account, quite rightly, some of the general concern about fissionable material. The amendment states, as one of the conditions, that the space object or objects must not contain any fissionable material unless the minister's written approval has first been obtained. If the minister approves fissionable material being in a satellite or in a rocket and it is publicised, then I am sure there will be a pretty robust debate in the Australian community about why fissionable material would be allowed in a particular launch or in a satellite as part of that launch. Any minister worth their salt, who wants to be around for a while, will not take such a sensitive issue as fissionable material lightly unless they have very strong and justifiable grounds for doing so. We think, at this stage of developing our space regulatory regime, that this is the appropriate level needed. Again, we will see how it develops. But I think this is a balance between unnecessary regulation and knowing that the minister of the day has to accept the responsibility to argue the case why fissionable material should be allowed in a space launch. I move:(2) Clause 29, page 20 (after line 24), after paragraph (b), insert:(ba) the space object or objects must not contain any fissionable material unless the Minister's written approval has first been obtained;13:39:00831Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats believe that this amendment is an improvement on the existing provision, although we do not believe, of course, that it goes far enough—because it refers only to fissionable material; it does not refer to all radioactive material. I wonder if Senator Schacht would clarify the position of the opposition on this question: I am assuming the ALP supports nuclear material in space which is not fissionable?13:39:00831Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—You said nuclear—3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—Non-fissionable.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—We accept the fact that in some areas of technology, for quite peaceful purposes, there may well be a case for the energy source within a satellite, for a long deep space probe, to be powered by nuclear material—fissionable material. That would be an example. There may even be a case to say a small nuclear reactor. I have to say I would have considerable concerns about the safety aspects of launching a nuclear reactor on top of a rocket, but the Russians have done that in the past, as I understand it, and have created some problems in doing so.Again, we believe that the minister would have to approve such an activity from areas within Australia. I also point out that over many years Labor in government and in opposition have always supported the signing of the appropriate international space treaties proposed by the United Nations. We think that is the appropriate body to draw up the international regulatory regime dealing with such issues, not only of nuclear weapons in space, but the safety regime and the issue of fissionable material. As I understand it, those treaties do not ban fissionable material being used in space launches and space satellites. They have been used, apparently quite safely, over the recent past. But, until you give me a specific example, we believe the particular international regime is satisfactory.13:41:00831Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank Senator Schacht for that answer and I note that you did say that there may even be cases for, say, a small nuclear reactor—so you would consider there are some examples where fissionable material might be appropriate. In relation to non-fissionable material, would you have any concerns if that kind of material was to come from Jabiluka?13:42:00831Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—The Labor Party policy is quite clear on the extension of the existing uranium mine at Jabiluka. If the contracts are signed and in place when we get back into government, we will not break the contracts so long as—and we make this clear—all of that uranium is sold, exported or treated, in accordance with the policy we have laid down about the safe use of such material. We certainly clearly prohibit any of it being used in any nuclear weapons anywhere. That has been our policy for over 30 years.13:42:00831Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Perhaps the minister or Senator Schacht—who is acting as the minister in a few of these discussions—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I have got to shut up and give it back to the minister.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—and who is defending the indefensible on behalf of the opposition—could explain the difference. Nuclear reactors on land are subject to very specific conditions—I won't say adequate condi tions—in relation to encasement in lead and concrete and so on. We are told that nuclear reactors on board ships are subject to different conditions. Because ships have to be lighter, it would be too difficult to have a nuclear reactor on board with the same level of safeguards—encasement and so on—as would be the case with a land-based reactor. Then of course, we have nuclear reactors which, the indications are, the opposition would be prepared to hurl into space under Australian commercial conditions, providing the minister gives a tick—and I have never seen the coalition mention too many problems about nuclear reactors so far.However, I just wonder what the actual safeguards are on board a spacecraft or a satellite? Could the minister let us know what the current situation is with the retired Russian powered rorsats which, according to the US `Haystack' long-range imaging radar, are leaking liquid metal coolants at the rate of some 70,000 droplets every 90,000 to 100,000 kilometres?13:44:00832Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—In response to that, as Senator Schacht indicated, we are happy to accept this amendment. It is probably not absolutely necessary but we think it is reasonable. Again, with regard to safeguards, I come back to the requirements in 26(3)(e) and (f) in relation to public safety and weapons. A permit cannot be granted unless those conditions are satisfied—unless the minister, whoever that may be, is satisfied of those requirements. So we have built in those safeguards. We believe they are adequate and appropriate—there is no evidence they will not be. If we are all wrong and that proves to be the case, of course parliament can amend the bill in due course. We think that with those measures and this additional measure these are reasonable, sensible and appropriate safeguards against the circumstances to which the Greens and Democrats point.13:45:00832Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The minister says, `If we are all wrong'—and of course we would all like to hope we are not wrong—but it once again highlights the reasons why both the Greens and the Democrats were specific about the need for liability. We know that there have been problems in relation to nuclear reactors on land. We know that there are leaking monstrosities of nuclear reactors from the former Soviet Union. We know there are nuclear reactors leaking under the sea. We also know—as I have just given the example, and the minister did not bother to reply to that—that there are nuclear reactors leaking in space. Considering the Christmas Island example is actually using Russian space technology, if we are ticking off the potential for hurtling nuclear reactors into space, I wonder whether the Australian government is so confident with the technology that we are actually prepared to provide full liability. The answer from the earlier debate was no. So if we cannot provide that full liability, then we should not be sending enough fissionable material into space to form an independent explosion if something else happened to it. We should not be sending it into space with or without a minister's approval.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—The question is that opposition amendment (2) on sheet 1178 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Amendments (by Senator Schacht)—by leave—agreed to:(3) Clause 44, page 29 (after line 31), after paragraph (b), insert:(ba) the space object contains any fissionable material and the Minister's written approval for this has not first been obtained; or(5) Clause 108, page 66 (after line 30), after paragraph (b), insert:(ba) the space object contains any fissionable material and the Minister's written approval for this has not first been obtained; or13:48:00832Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I propose to move Democrat amendment 5 on behalf of the Democrats. This amendment proposes a mechanism for reporting to the parliament where an exemption certificate has been granted according to sections 11, 13 or 15—that is, for return certificates and licences for launch facilities. I would not expect that there would be a huge number of these licences and certificates and, because the safety issues involved in launching and operating space vehicles are significant, it is reasonable to require reporting to parliament. Further, the possibility that the requirements for certificates and licences might be exempted suggests that increased parliamentary scrutiny is required.The safety issues here are central to this amendment, but I am also concerned that the opportunities for development and jobs may encourage the government of the day to be tempted to take some shortcuts. So I asked the minister—and I acknowledge once again the excellent assistance I have had from him, particularly his office and the department—in what circumstances the minister might issue exemption certificates. In the response the minister suggested that the circumstances were those where the risk to public health and safety were minimal and the launch was in the national interest or conferred a significant public benefit. This might include the acquisition of valuable scientific or meteorological data. The minister also suggested that a launch of an experimental project by an educational institution was another circumstance. This amendment would meet my concerns and would be unlikely to impede in any way the operations of the bill.I seek clarification through you, Mr Chairman. I understand that the government is prepared to support this amendment if I remove subclauses (4) to (6). I am happy to do this because the purpose of the Democrat amendment is to have a reporting requirement. I seek clarification from the minister before moving the amendment or amending the amendment.13:50:00833Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—When I read this amendment, subclause (3) of amendment (5) seemed to me to have some attraction, because it requires tabling the exemption notice in the parliament. When I read (4), (5) and (6), I dropped off, because this should not be made a disallowable instrument. There would be mayhem arguing commercially over a disallowable instrument. You would never get any launches at all if somebody said, `Oh, by the way, you could be hung to dry for 15 days while someone thinks of moving for a debate before allowing your exemption', even though these are special cases. So (3) by itself, which is just the notice given and tabled in the parliament, is not unreasonable. If the Democrats drop off (4), (5) and (6), we would think that (3) by itself is a reasonable outcome.13:51:00833Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—There seems to be at least near unanimity. We are prepared to accept clause (3). It is probably not necessary, but we have nothing to hide and I do not see any reason why an exemption certificate should not be tabled. I think, as one of the participants said, it would be a rare occasion that an exemption was granted. In those circumstances there is no objection to it being tabled. But, as Senator Schacht has said, to then subject it to the possibility of disallowance would cause havoc.An example that has been drawn to my attention where a government or a minister may wish to grant an exemption may be where the Commonwealth itself wishes to waive the insurance requirements and carry the liability itself for a launch that was seen as being in the national interest. Under the current conventions, in the absence of this law, all the liability does fall on the Commonwealth. Part of the purpose of this bill is to share the liability, but there may be occasions when the Commonwealth believes it is appropriate to take on the liability. Or there could be emergency situations—for example, if for any particular reason the space shuttle had to be brought down in Australia and immediate action was required to ensure that that could occur under this regime.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Landing at Adelaide airport.JX4Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHIN—Exactly; it is now long enough to take the space shuttle. I am sure it would be a matter of considerable public notice in any event and, for that reason, given that it is not going to be a secret, we have no difficulty with clause (3). But we would appreciate it if the Democrats were prepared to consider dropping clauses (4) to (6).13:53:00834Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens (WA) are happy to support the Democrats' amendment No. 5. I am a little concerned that if there were to be an exemption that would waive insurance requirements, as the minister has suggested, that would appear to be something that does not necessarily need to be an emergency issue. It is not that he said it needed to be, but it seems to me that if there is going to be the potential for public money to be spent it ought to have the scrutiny of parliament, otherwise we might end up with something at a Senate estimates committee for which there is no actual announcement ahead of time—the money is spent and then basically we have no say in it because it has already happened.Some of these insurance requirements may involve a lot more than the government thinks. We believe the risks may be wider than what the government has admitted may exist. I am not sure that the government saying it has not put in a liability for other issues will, in the final analysis, protect it from further liabilities. I think I would be concerned if we had exemptions on insurance requirements simply to make a launch more commercially viable, because that means the taxpayers of Australia will be put up to a commercial risk which in other circumstances would not be considered acceptable.I can see that there might be issues in relation to some emergencies, but I also see that we need to have an open process in relation to exemptions. Minister, apart from the issues you have mentioned: insurance, emergencies for getting Skylab down—everyone seems to look at the so-called deserts of Australia as a suitable place; sometimes it is for radioactive waste and at other times it is for other objectionable activities—could you give a brief outline as to what kinds of activities might be subject to this kind of exemption?13:55:00834Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Again, I think we are allowing some flexibility in this new regime on space regulation to ensure there is some flexibility for the government. I outlined to you two instances where it may be that the minister of the day wishes to grant an exemption to what are otherwise binding requirements. I gather my office has talked with the Democrats about other instances; I do not have any others off the top of my head. We can get further research on that if you like, but it is really just to ensure that there is a mechanism by which, if circumstances arise that dictate the need for an exemption, that can occur. We think it appropriate; the minister is still bearing a considerable burden of responsibility and, in so doing, I would not have thought it would be done lightly at all. But we think it is important in developing this regulatory framework that there be some flexibility to allow for unexpected circumstances to arise where an exemption may be required.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Senator Stott Despoja, you should move amendment No. 5 (3) and not proceed with the others. We do not have a record of you moving that amendment at this stage.13:57:00834Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move Australian Democrats amendment (5):(5) Clause 46, page 31 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add:(3) Within 7 sitting days of issuing an exemption certificate under this section, the Minister must cause a copy of the exemption certificate to be tabled in each House of the Parliament.Amendment agreed to.13:58:00834Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move Australian Democrats amendment (6):(6) Clause 48, page 33 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add:(4) As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, the Minister must cause a report to be prepared, setting out details of insurance cover for each launch conducted during that financial year.(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report mentioned in subsection (4) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament before the expiration of 6 months after the end of the financial year to which the report relates.Amendment No. 6 is in relation to insurance requirements. The provision we are seeking to amend sets out the insurance requirements for launches and returns. This amendment merely adds to the existing provision a reporting requirement of the amount of insurance. We believe that this is a necessary addition for the purposes of accountability. The mechanisms for determining the amount of a maximum probable loss are presently quite vague because the method of this calculation is to be set out in regulations.Of course, we have yet to see the regulations, and we have no clear guidance on how this figure would be achieved. I am particularly concerned that this insurance sum should be adequate and the means of ensuring this is to include a reporting requirement. Like many of the amendments that the Democrats have moved to the bill so far, this is to seek a reporting requirement and some degree of accountability in this bill.I am also happy to say something about leaving out key elements of legislation to be set down later in regulations. We have seen that this is an increasing practice in the Senate. We are told not to worry, that we will have an opportunity to deal with the regulations and the issues when we see the regulations, or that it will all be sorted in the regulations. The Democrats, and I suggest others in this place, do not particularly regard that as appropriate. Legislation before the Senate is here to be considered as a whole. We are debating a particularly complex package, and this includes essential elements which have to be sorted out in the regulations. We have seen the same response to other legislation, such as the fees structures in the Australia New Zealand Food Authority amendment bills, to name just one glaring example.Progress reported.Questions Without Notice835835835Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Hill, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Can the minister confirm that Australia's representatives at the UNESCO meeting in Kyoto discussed with Mexico's representatives a deal whereby Australia would support Mexico in its attempt to allow a salt extraction project near a world heritage whale breeding ground, in return for Mexico's support for the minister's attempts to allow a uranium mine at Jabiluka?835Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—That is the first time I have ever heard that suggested.835Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister make inquiries of Australia's delegates at the Kyoto meeting to establish whether or not such discussions took place? Will he undertake to report back to the Senate on this matter? I would also like an assurance to the Senate from the minister that the government would never contemplate such a tawdry and unprincipled deal.835Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—It is offensive to Mr Beale and the other Australian public servants, who are up there trying to protect Australia's interests in circumstances where they are being undermined by the Labor Party and the Democrats back in Australia. I have no doubt at all that they would not seek to negotiate in the terms that you have put to the Senate. I will speak to them, if you wish me to.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Well, rule it out.BH4Senator HILL—I have not spoken to them, but knowing these people and knowing that they are not under any instructions, I would be confident that they would not seek to deal in that way. I actually find it quite offensive, Madam President.835835Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. The Howard government was re-elected on a platform of sound economic management, delivering record low interest rates, record low inflation and strong business investment. Will the minister inform the Senate of recent positive economic figures for the Australian economy? What are the benefits for small business as a result of the government's continuing responsible economic management?836Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Australian people decided at the recent election that it was only the coalition that they could trust with management of the economy. That is not surprising, because the Australian people can remember Labor's term. They can remember home interest rates of 17 per cent. They can remember when small business was paying interest rates of over 20 per cent. They can remember credit card interest rates of 25 per cent under Labor. They can remember one million people being unemployed. They can remember that Labor left a massive domestic deficit of $10.3 billion. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Australian people decided to return a government with a demonstrated record of sound economic management, with all the benefits which flow from that to all Australians.What a contrast between what I have just said was the legacy of Labor and what the Australian people are getting under the coalition: record low inflation, so people keep the value of the dollar in their pockets; and record low interest rates of 6.7 per cent on a housing loan, down from 17 per cent under Labor. That is a saving of $320 a month on a $100,000 loan. People know that under the coalition there has been massive business investment, which translates into jobs for the future. In fact, 393,500 new jobs have been created since this government first came to office in March 1996. Notwithstanding the difficulties in Asia, the record of the Howard government in maintaining sound economic management is leading to material benefits for all Australians.It is good that this continues to be seen today as we move into this new term. The Yellow Pages survey—which we remember Senator Schacht used to like to quote—last week said that 62 per cent of people surveyed are expecting an increase in sales, 60 per cent are expecting an increase in profitability, 63 per cent are confident about their prospects in 1999, and jobs growth was the strongest reported in two years. Interestingly, only 16 per cent of these people voted for Labor. Look at the employment surveys: the unemployment rate has now dropped to 7.7 per cent, the lowest since 1990; and skilled vacancies rose again in November, which means they are 18½ per cent higher than they were in November 1997—the highest level since January 1990. So there is greater hope for the unemployed under the Howard government.New private capital investment for the September quarter is 6.3 per cent higher than the 1997 figure. The estimate for private capital expenditure in 1998-99 is still strong at $45.4 billion. Profits are still coming in at good figures. Mining sector profits are up by six per cent to $18.5 billion in the last reports. The construction industry is again reporting strong figures. It is time that the Labor Party faced the reality that they were thrown out of government because they failed the Australian people on economic management. The coalition government is showing that you can take tough but fair decisions, get the fundamentals right, and give all these benefits back to Australians in more jobs, lower home interest rates, more chances for employment and benefits for small business. (Time expired)836Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of any alternative economic policies which could threaten the sound economic management that has been provided to the people of Australia by the coalition?836Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—It is very vague. We have Mr Beazley talking about a new way—yet to be defined, but a new way. Mr Latham is talking about a third way. Senator Carr last week was suggesting that we look at the German and the French way. German unemployment is just under 10 per cent and the French rate is about 12 per cent. That is Senator Carr's contribution to the debate. The people of Australia might ask of the Labor Party: which way? I thought it was summed up well last week by a former Labor minister, Mr Johns. What did he say? He said that the opposition had better get used to the idea that they are not running the country. He said that Beazley's statement after the election that Howard had no mandate smacked of a sore loser. That is what the Labor Party is all about—it is a sore loser. It does not face up to the fact that it failed the Australian people and that when it went back to them again they had not forgotten.837837Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Hill, the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that during the 1996 election the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, stated at the launch of the coalition's health policy that by the year 2000 under a coalition government 40 per cent of Australians would be covered by private health insurance? It is now the end of November 1998: how are we going?837Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—If we made a mistake, it was to underestimate the damage done to private health in this country by the Labor Party—13 years of Labor. Just remember that in 1983 when they came to government 70 per cent of Australians had private health insurance. When they went out of government it had been reduced to 35 per cent. So they succeeded in halving the number of Australians in private health care. The cost of premiums under Labor went up by 12 per cent. Over a hundred thousand people were left on waiting lists. This was the legacy that the coalition government inherited and sought to do something about. It is a big job, and it is true that we brought in in the last term initiatives to try and support those who were in private health care and to encourage others to join. Why did we do that? Because we on this side of the chamber believe that private health care is an essential part of the total health package in this country. People are entitled to choice and are entitled to best quality care, and they are most likely to achieve that if you have both a strong public sector health system and a strong private health sector.Labor really succeeded in many ways, because they talked down the private health care sector as well. Remember Prime Minister Keating saying, `It is not necessary. They can go to the public health sector.' That is totally misunderstanding that Australians actually want choice and totally misunderstanding that if you have a healthy private health sector it takes pressure off the public health sector as well. It helps achieve the maximum outcome for any set number of dollars. That is what the coalition is about. If Senator Faulkner wants us to apologise for coming in here and saying that we will introduce policies and seek to pass legislation to strengthen the private health sector and to strengthen the capacity of Australians to take out private health care, we are certainly not going to do so.We have further initiatives that we announced in the last election to give a 30 per cent rebate to help support Australians in private health care, and to help encourage others to join, to start to redress the damage that Labor had done over 13 years. It is a policy that is sensible in the interest of a strong health care sector in Australia and the capacity of all Australians to benefit from that. So we make no apology about that. If anything, as I said, our mistake was that we underestimated the damage that Labor had done and we underestimated how much it would cost to get it right again. But that is our commitment, and we will achieve that commitment if we get a bit of cooperation in this place. But what is the response of the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats and so forth to our proposal, which reduces the cost of private health care for Australians? They say that they will vote against it. Why? They say that it is exclusive. Exclusivity and elitism—somebody wanting to take out private health care is elitist. That is what you say. We say that they are entitled to it and they are entitled to it at reasonable cost, and that is what we are seeking to give them. All the Labor Party is willing to do is to vote it down.837Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the minister has admitted that Mr Howard made a `mistake' when he gave the commitment that under a coalition government by the year 2000 40 per cent of Australians would be covered by private health insurance, can you also indicate, Minister, whether the Prime Minister made a mistake when he decided that he would get involved in the approval of health insurance premium increases, and last week he made an announcement that he would review his responsibility for this? Why did he signal that backflip, Minister, or was it just another mistake?838Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Senator Faulkner would do better to remember the comments of his former colleague former Senator Richardson. What did he say the other day?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I asked Senator Hill a very clear supplementary question about Mr Howard's backflip in relation to the approval of health insurance premium increases. I don't think I referred to former Senator Richardson in my question. I believe I did not. Would you direct Senator Hill to answer the question about Mr Howard's actions or non-actions in relation to this important issue?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill is at this stage eight seconds into his answer, and I am sure he is aware of the question.BH4Senator HILL—What I am seeking to demonstrate from within the very heart of Labor is that Labor acknowledges that Mr Howard is right and Mr Beazley is wrong on this issue. Former Senator Richardson said:On Labor's side, of course, they simply don't want to acknowledge that private health care matters. There is an ideological bent there that says that Medicare is perfect—which is ridiculous—and therefore can't be changed, and therefore nothing should be done about private health care.That is Labor.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise another point of order. Could you now direct Senator Hill to answer the supplementary question asked in relation to the Prime Minister's involvement in the approval process for private health insurance premium increases? That was the supplementary question, and the minister ought to be directed to answer it.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—On the point of order, Madam President: the question is simply an opportunity for Senator Hill to explain the background to the pressures placed on the government in reaching sensible policy decisions. Senator Faulkner is obviously exquisitely embarrassed about what former Senator Richardson has to say, but that does not mean for a moment that it is not relevant. Senator Hill is perfectly entitled to draw on whomever might assist his case in arguing why it is that the Prime Minister takes the position he does.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is for Senator Hill to determine what he thinks is appropriate in answering as long as his answer is relevant to the question.BH4Senator HILL—What Graham Richardson said is, `I wish Labor would stop this silly notion that it doesn't matter if private health care collapses.' That is Labor—they do not care if private health care collapses. Half the number of Australians were on private health care when they finished their demolition job over 13 years of government. Now, what is worse, when we bring legislative change into this place to make it more affordable for Australians to stay in private health insurance they want to vote it down.838838Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Senator Alston. Given that unemployment is at its lowest level in eight years, will the minister outline how the government will continue to achieve the strong and sustained jobs growth achieved during the first term of the Howard government? In particular, what workplace relations reforms and initiatives does the government propose to support small business to grow and create more real jobs? Is the minister aware of any threats to these vital initiatives?838Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Senator Brownhill puts his finger on the real issue here, and that is that small business is the jobs generator in this country. If we are to assist that process then we need to remove the unnecessary burdens that are placed on it. This dramatic change in the taxation system that we successfully took to the last election will remove a raft of taxation imposts on the small business sector. Just as importantly, there are other burdens that do make a very significant difference. The unfair dismissals legislation is a classic example. I simply do not understand why their latest shadow minister will not take notice of his own wife, who has told him that this is a very significant impediment to small business—she is a small business person—being able to employ new people. She complained about the level of red tape and regulation. We all know that it is there, and so do they. But they are not prepared to do anything about it.The Yellow Pages Small Business Index survey of October last found that Australia's small businesses still find it very difficult to hire new people because of Labor's unfair dismissal laws. Seventy-nine per cent of respondents thought they would be better off if exempted from unfair dismissal laws, 33 per cent would have been more likely in the past to recruit new employees, and 38 per cent would be more likely in the future to recruit new employees. COSBOA has estimated that some 50,000 jobs would be created if a small business exemption were introduced. So why is it that the Labor Party is opposed to these overwhelmingly sensible changes? We know from that same survey that only 16 per cent of Australia's small business proprietors voted for the ALP at the last election. According to that same survey, 61 per cent were very pleased at the election of a coalition government.Why is it that Labor has got itself so fundamentally offside? Why is it not prepared to do anything about it? The answer lies in the usual place, and that is that Labor does not govern for small business, Labor does not govern for improving the economy and Labor does not govern to try to improve the level of employment in this country. Labor governments govern at the behest of the trade union movement.Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—I know you hate it. What did we get from the Victorian State Secretary of the Electrical Trades Union recently? He said, `The reason unions affiliated with the ALP was to have the ability to influence political outcomes in the interests of members.' And he is opposed to any reduction from 60 per cent to 50 per cent. Madam President, that tells you what it is all about. Labor is not in the slightest bit interested in doing anything other than protecting its power base. We all know that this is not just a retirement village for hack trade union officials; this is a closed shop. Of the 20 most recently arrived senators on the other side, 17 were paid trade union officials. It is an absolute disgrace. They are not interested in good government. They are simply interested in making sure that they get a slice of the action and that they get the rewards. That is why they gave over $100 million to the trade union movement when they were in office.It ought to be clear that taxation reform is long overdue and that the unfair dismissal laws ought to go. But no, they are not only opposed to those; they also want to reintroduce secondary boycotts. In other words, when the unions say they want something, Labor says, `How high do we jump?' It is quite clear that if you are to get employment levels down in this country you have to focus on small business—not in the job destructing way that the Labor Party is proposing to do but in the sensible way that our taxation policy does, removing a whole raft of imposts. If we go down that path then we will have sensible rules for small business in this country.839Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister elaborate on a few more of the things that the Labor Party are doing to jeopardise this job growth?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! That supplementary question is out of order.839839Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Herron. Minister, can you confirm that the government anticipates that private health insurance premiums will rise four per cent per year? Can the minister also confirm that such an increase would be twice the current inflation rate? Has the minister's attention been drawn to research from the Australian Consumers Association that indicates that much steeper increases have occurred over the past two years? What is the government's estimate for the anticipated increase in private health insurance take-up following the introduction of the proposed 30 per cent rebate if premiums increase by four per cent per year?839Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Evans for that question. It is another example of the failure of the Labor Party to understand in any way the various parameters that occur in relation to private health care or health care in general in this country. I point out that there are various models put forward and various prognostications given as to what increases might or might not occur. In the whole 13 years that the Labor Party were in power they never predicted it accurately at any stage.I mentioned the other day the then health minister, Carmen Lawrence, making predictions about how health insurance premiums would come down as a result of the measures that she put in place. In fact, they went up. It is inevitable that health insurance premiums will increase because there is an ageing population, there is new technology coming in, and there is a disproportionate membership of older people in the group carrying private health insurance. As is well known, two-thirds of health care costs are incurred by people over the age of 65. So it is inevitable that premiums will increase given that, as a result of the measures that the Labor Party put in place, we had that precipitous fall from 70 per cent to 35 per cent and the fact that we have a community rating principle whereby the premiums are equal for young people and old people. The four per cent figure has come forward; other figures have come forward.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You don't know.VW4Senator HERRON—I don't know, Senator Faulkner, what the figure is, nor does anybody else, including you. Madam President, does Senator Faulkner have any idea? The Labor Party has no idea. It is impossible to predict what will occur, because there is a lag period. Dr Lawrence, when she was minister, predicted that it would be a couple of years—Senator Evans is probably not aware of that—before measures that were taken would have an effect in relation to health insurance premiums. So I am not in a position to prognosticate as to what it might be. I would be happy to know whether anybody could actually give an accurate figure.840Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, I appreciate your conceding that the premiums will increase, whatever the level of support for private health insurance. You mentioned the question of modelling, which the last part of my question dealt with. Given that you are calling on the parliament, by way of legislation, to invest $1.4 billion of taxpayers' funds into a new scheme, will you table the modelling that the government has done to justify its assumptions and the expenditure of such a large amount of public funds?840Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am happy to tell Senator Chris Evans what the modelling is. The government has estimated that the rebate will cost $1.38 billion in the first full year of operation. This figure includes an estimated $380 million for the current scheme. The rebate will not simply increase government expenditure on health. The department has estimated that the cost to the Commonwealth of health services, on average, for every uninsured person is around $1,041, whereas the average cost to the Commonwealth of insured persons is around $628 with the current incentive scheme and $814 with the new rebate. It should be fairly obvious to anybody on the other side that it is beneficial to have people in the private health insurance system because of the difference between $1,041 and $814. That is a $200 difference between those in the public hospital system and those in the private hospital system.840840Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I refer to the many reports by Australian scientists about the threat to Kakadu world heritage values of the Jabiluka uranium mine. Minister, is it correct that public servants in Environment Australia have been asked to examine the background of Australian scientists who have criticised uranium mining at Jabiluka, looking for something which could discredit those scientists? Did you, your staff or the department's Secretary give those instructions? Do you endorse those instructions? Do you understand that directed or threatened science is no science at all? Will you now instruct your office and your department to stop this attempt to suppress science?840Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—This is the latest nonsense from the Australian Democrats. They started off by saying there were reports from many scientists. In actual fact, the overwhelming scientific evidence is that the Jabiluka mine can be conducted in an environmentally safe way and a culturally safe way. Why? Because science has monitored the Ranger mine for the last 18 years and has found that there has been no environmental damage whatsoever. That is the reality.Yes, we were critical of one submission last week which is now referred to by the Australian Democrats. This was from a group of scientists, some of whom, as I think we might have said last week, had never visited the site; scientists who made no submission on the environmental impact study on the site, and if they were genuinely interested in the issue one would have thought that would have been the time that they would have made such a submission; scientists who raised in their submission concern about the stability of the tailings dam, but there is to be no tailings dam. These were scientists who raised concerns about water being extracted from the Ja-Ja billabong, but they are not aware that no water is to be extracted from the billabong; scientists who complain that the water management system will only handle a one in 10 years rainfall event but the water retention pond at Jabiluka is actually designed to contain all the run-off—1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Madam President, I raise a point of order. It is one of relevance. The minister has not addressed the question I asked, which was: did he, his staff or the department's Secretary give instructions along the lines that I mentioned?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill is dealing with the topic. He may deal with it in the manner in which he chooses.BH4Senator HILL—Madam President, I was talking about scientists who say that the water management system would only handle a one in 10 years rainfall event, when it is designed to handle a one in 10,000 years rainfall event. Just because a small group of scientists produce an argument, it does not mean they are right. The honourable senator should look at the balance of scientific advice. She will find that this proposal has been thoroughly evaluated over a period of almost three years. It has been found that it can be conducted in an environmentally safe way.Whilst I am on my feet, I want to add that I thought the submission that Senator Allison sent to the new chairman of the bureau in Kyoto was a national disgrace.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Madam President, I raise a point of order in relation to relevance. I asked the minister a direct question and I have still not heard an answer to it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, I draw your attention to the question that has been asked of you.BH4Senator HILL—To the extent that she bases her letter upon false science, I say to her that it is a national disgrace to write to an international body to seek to undermine the Australian national interest.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Again my point of order is one of relevance. The minister has still not answered my question. I did not ask about my letter; I did ask about his instructions to staff in terms of the scientists.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, I draw your attention to the question.BH4Senator HILL—She says to the commission, `Don't let the pressure of a few angry Australians—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. You made a ruling in relation to a point of order taken by Senator Allison. I believe Senator Hill is flouting your ruling. I ask you to draw his attention to the correct ruling you made in relation to the extraneous material he is bringing into this answer.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have drawn Senator Hill's attention to the question that was asked.BH4Senator HILL—This offensive communication was only bettered by the Australian Labor Party. I understand why Senator Bolkus is too embarrassed to be here today, because the Labor Party writing to Kyoto saying that this mine should be put on the endangered list is a demonstration of hypocrisy beyond anything I have ever heard. For 18 years they mined the Ranger mine. That did not threaten environmental values. Now there is a new underground mine, a much smaller footprint using much less intrusive new technology, and Labor writes to an international body to undermine Australia's interests, saying it should now be put on an endangered list. Forget the Australian tourist industry, forget the Australian mining industry—they will undermine any Australian interest if they think it will win them a short-term political point. Labor's behaviour in this matter is a national disgrace.842Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I think we must assume that the minister has in fact issued those instructions to try and discredit scientists. I refer to the six-month stay of execution recommended by UNESCO and ask: if the World Heritage Bureau finds that there are still problems with the effects of the Jabiluka mine on world heritage values after that six-month period, will your government stop the mine? Has the government advised ERA that they are proceeding with the mine entirely at their own risk?842Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—This mining proposal has been thoroughly evaluated over a period of almost three years. It has been found that it can be conducted in an environmentally and culturally safe way. It has all necessary Commonwealth consents to proceed. As far as the interests of the Australian government are concerned, it has every right to proceed.842842West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that the private health insurance industry has just recorded its best financial year result in three years, with an extra $300 million from higher premiums and an extra $26 million paid out in benefits? Can he confirm that this translates to an increase in the average cost of health insurance of $60 and an increase in average benefits of only $11? What action will the government take to ensure that the benefits of the proposed rebate do not serve to further boost industry profits rather than increase member benefits?842Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Here we go again. It is easy to take a snapshot of time and take three years out of it. What Senator West should have asked was: what was the profitability over the previous 15 years? There would have been an interesting answer to that. The reality in relation to business, which the other side would not understand, is that there are periods of time when profits are made and there are periods of time when losses are made. These balance out. Otherwise the private health insurance industry would go broke, which is what the Labor Party wants in any case. They have deliberately attempted to produce a system where there is no private health insurance available. They are obstructing what we are trying to do in giving people freedom of choice by bolstering the private health system.The Private Health Insurance Administration Council has recently released its annual report on the operations of the registered health funds for 1997-98. As usual, the Labor Party has focused on the increase in premium income collected and the fact that benefits paid have not increased by the same amount. It is disappointing that the media did not report what has occurred in the previous years. What needs to be said and understood is that over the past 15 years premiums collected have increased by 213 per cent, but during the same period benefits paid have risen by 235 per cent. Over the last five years, the relativities have been the same. Premiums collected have increased by 15.6 per cent and benefits paid have increased by 18.9 per cent. Even Senator Faulkner would understand the difference between 15.6 per cent and 18.9 per cent. If this is not pessimistic enough in terms of the future of the industry, let us also look at the industry reserves in 1997-98. They fell by 2.5 per cent. Net operating profit for the industry actually showed there was a loss of $6.6 million.It is obvious that on the one hand we have superficial media reporting on the state of the private health insurance industry and on the other we have fact after fact showing that the industry has been performing so poorly that it has little chance for a long-term future. No industry can sustain falling reserves, net operating losses and outgoings exceeding income.843West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Given that the government is proposing to pump $1.5 billion into the private health insurance industry, why doesn't it insist on a guarantee from the industry that premiums will not rise?843Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Again, there is a complete failure of understanding from the other side about guaranteeing premiums. I have already said that premiums will rise. You cannot guarantee that they will not rise, because we have an ageing population, people dropping out of private health insurance and the cost of the public sector patient is higher than the cost of the private sector patient. It is only for ideological reasons that the Labor Party is not supporting our proposal. We have to bolster the private health insurance industry. A parallel would be to close all the private schools of Australia and then dump the children on the public education system. That is what they are proposing to do; the similarities are there. I ask those opposite to use their brains instead of another part of their anatomy which they seem to be using in this regard.843843Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question goes to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to a particularly alarming situation which has arisen in West Papua. I ask the minister whether he is aware that in the wake of the massacre in Biak in July, where more than 100 West Papuans were murdered, there is a proposal to raise the Morning Star, the West Papuan flag, tomorrow in West Papua? Is the government monitoring the situation whereby last Thursday two naval ships dropped members of the special mobile police force from the Indonesian Police, the army's second level special forces, navy special forces and 16 trucks at Manokwari? Are the Indonesian authorities confiscating the Morning Star flag as well as farm implements? Is a massacre possible tomorrow with the raising of this flag? The important question is: will the Australian government urgently contact Indonesian authorities to avert tomorrow any repeat of the Biak massacre? 843Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Senator Brown asked a question on 23 November about the Biak incident and I think I said on that occasion that we were concerned by the reports and that the foreign minister had raised the issue with both President Habibie and General Wiranto. If I did not say it on that occasion, I certainly advise Senator Brown of it now. We have been seeking, through our embassy, to ascertain the truth of the reports. There is no doubt that there has been civil protest and some violence. I did understand—I am afraid I cannot find it just at the moment—that there was an independent examination that very much questioned whether in fact the level of violence that Senator Brown refers to did occur. I will see whether I can get that information for him by the end of question time. In relation to the other matters, I have no information on them.843Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I find that answer totally unsatisfactory. I put to the minister and I warn the minister by way of question that, with the flag raising ceremony, there could be a repeat tomorrow of the earlier massacre in West Papua. Will the minister investigate the matter and urgently contact the Indonesian government to try to ward off that potential for a further massacre in our nearest neighbour, West Papua, specifically in Manokwari tomorrow when this flag raising ceremony occurs?843Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I will refer the matters to Mr Downer.843843Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Given that Senator Hill made the statement today that a healthy private system will take pressure off the public system, could you inform the Senate how many patients the minister estimates will no longer seek treatment in public hospitals as a result of the proposed 30 per cent private health insurance rebate? What will be the level of patient transfer from the public to the private system? What percentage of total government expenditure on health is the rebate expected to be?844Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—A number of questions were put by Senator Ray. I will seek information from the minister as to the numbers that are expected. I would think that it is impossible to quantify, but if there is a figure then I will get it from the minister and let Senator Ray know.844Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Are you saying, Minister, that you personally do not know the facts here, but they may exist, or that they do not exist at all? If they do not exist at all, on what basis can you make rational calculations and projections for the proposed scheme?844Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I did not say that there were no estimates; I said that I personally did not know them. If they are available then I would be happy to produce them for Senator Ray. As I mentioned in the previous answer, various projections have been put forward and percentages used. If they are available I will provide them.844844Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, are you aware of the letter from the Australian Woolgrowers Association to members of the government accusing the Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation of push polling during the period beginning 4 November 1998? Has AWRAP engaged in push polling in order to bolster its support and to try to defeat the motion of no confidence due to be moved by wool growers against the organisation in Goulburn today?844Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I have a recollection of reading about some allegations of push polling. I do not have any instructions on the matter, but I think it is fair to say that agri-politics are being played at their hardest at the present time in relation to the annual general meeting of the Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation. That has been confirmed from one of the highest levels of government. There are, in fact, three no confidence motions being considered by the meeting in Goulburn today. Many of the proponents of those no confidence motions would seem to be pursuing a broader agenda of asserting greater roles for growers, and even perhaps individuals, in the control of AWRAP and the Woolmark company.There may be some superficial logic in seeking greater accountability to levy taxpayers through this route, but most of what is being suggested is in direct contrast to the rules of corporate governance laid down by the Corporations Law. I think we have to be very careful to ensure that the demarcation line between legitimate agri-political activity and industry service delivery responsibilities is properly drawn. Certainly in a private company there can be no claim to a board position on the basis of representation and, generally speaking, it is not a desirable approach to take to simply argue that, because you have got a vested interest, that vested interest ought to be represented irrespective of the merits or other commercial considerations.Madam President, I know it is very easy for those who might disagree with some of the lobbying tactics that are going on to characterise them in the way at least one newspaper article has done, but I simply say that you need to have a bit of a look below the surface to see what games are really being played here. Having said all that, I make it plain that the government does view these developments with concern, and we are aware of a level of significant frustration in the industry regarding the role of industry bodies in general, particularly in relation to the wool sector. We do not think, however, that the passing of motions of no confidence is likely to take the matter much further, particularly given that most of the proponents have not advocated alternative specific approaches to actually improve the situation; they have simply tried to somehow cast aspersions on the current process. But if there are matters that are of legitimate concern and that do indicate high levels of discontent within the industry then the government will certainly take those matters seriously.844Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Arising out of the question, Minister, are you aware of the Australian Woolgrowers Association's very detailed plan to replace AWRAP if the motion succeeds? What will the government replace AWRAP with, if the no-confidence motion succeeds, in order to restore confidence in wool industry representative bodies?845Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am not aware of any detailed proposal, but I can say this: if a no-confidence motion were supported by a majority of those in attendance at the AGM, it would mean that the existing board would be stood down until the government could appoint a new board, and we certainly would be concerned that that might send negative signals to customers both in Australia and overseas and to Woolmark licensees, who currently contribute more than $20 million a year. Whilst I think there may well be legitimate matters to be explored, I would hope that it does not get to the point where these frustrations are reflected in motions that might be somewhat premature, to say the least.845845Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that the government, and the Minister for Trade in particular, has been lobbying the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council to water down its proposal for mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods? Does the minister recognise that consumers are entitled to information on which they can base decisions about their choice of foods?845Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I have a brief supplied which I believe answers the majority of the question. Under current food legislation in Australia and New Zealand, new foods and food ingredients are not required to be assessed by regulatory authorities before they may be sold. This situation applies equally to foods produced using, for example, gene technology. In February 1997, the Australia New Zealand Food Authority produced a draft standard for foods produced using gene technology, which was released for public comment. The latter part of the question I will have to refer to the minister as it is not in the brief that has been provided.845Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister undertake to inform the Senate of the position the government will be taking on this issue at the December meeting of the Australia New Zealand Food Council?845Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—As I say, I will check with the minister to see whether that can be provided.845845Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—My question is to Senator Herron. Will the minister outline what the government is doing to encourage small business development for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people?845Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Eggleston for the question.UNKNOWNSenator George CampbellSenator George Campbell—Have you got a brief on this one?VW4Senator HERRON—Not only do I have a brief; I have prepared it. The government is committed to economic development in the indigenous community and has actively promoted the growth of small businesses. This is the only way forward. Under the Labor Party we had the development of welfare dependency. There is only one alternative to welfare dependency, and that is to have genuine employment and self-sufficiency. In fact, that has been a cornerstone of my approach to the portfolio—that we must address the fundamentals. Indigenous people have an unemployment rate that is over four times higher than that of the general population. The complete failure of Labor's approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs during its 13 year in government is highlighted by the fact that, despite its expenditure of $16,000 million, 60 per cent of indigenous Australians remain dependent on welfare. It is vital for the economic and social wellbeing of indigenous Australians that they be given opportunities to overcome the great disadvantage that they face, and it is also critical in the reconciliation process.Last year I established the Indigenous Business Incentive Program to assist in the development of small business. In its first year of operation, the Indigenous Business Incentive Program provided establishment grants to 151 individuals and organisations totalling $17.4 million. I announced during the election campaign that the government will establish a new organisation under the ATSIC umbrella, called Indigenous Business Australia, by amalgamating the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development Corporation and the business programs administered by ATSIC.Local and overseas experience clearly demonstrates that to be successful economic programs must operate on a purely commercial basis distinct from social considerations. The Commercial Development Corporation, with its present capital base of $61 million, has directly invested in 18 joint ventures, including property, mining, manufacturing and retail, agriculture, tourism and financial services. It provides employment opportunities for indigenous people as well as the opportunity of good returns to indigenous joint venture partners. The government is working with ATSIC to improve outcomes in the start-up of businesses and their long term success. I am pleased that ATSIC is presently looking at innovative ways of delivering business support services such as outsourcing programs to utilise the best possible business expertise.There is only one way forward. The government supports ATSIC in its aim to achieve economic, social and cultural empowerment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The government has proved itself to be a good economic manager. This in turn benefits indigenous people in the same way as it assists the wider community. Interest rates for businesses and home loans are at record lows of around 30 years ago. We have low inflation, a budget surplus and solid growth which, as Senator Kemp points out, makes Australia the strongman of Asia. The Australian people were given a choice on 3 October: more of the same economic sunshine, or a return to Labor's mishmash of high taxation, high inflation and high unemployment which dragged Australia down for 13 years.846846Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Hill, Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the Prime Minister stand by the critical comments he made in 1996 about the growing levels of private executive remuneration packages? Has the minister's attention been drawn to recent reports on the salary packages of leading banking executives, for example the 44 per cent increase since 1997 in the salary package of National Australia Bank CEO Mr Don Argus, who now has a pay packet of $2.7 million? Is the minister aware that NAB's net profit fell by 9.4 per cent in the financial year 1997-98? What message does the minister believe this conveys to those Australians currently engaged in enterprise bargaining where pay increases are substantially linked to productivity improvements?846Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—My recall is that the Prime Minister was somewhat concerned by advice that was being given to the government on labour relations matters at a time when very high salaries were being reported in the press. I have no reason to believe the Prime Minister does not now hold the views that he held at the time. In relation to the engagement of the head of the National Australia Bank, I do not hold any shares but I would like to have invested in the National Bank a long time ago. In other words, I am saying that I suspect most shareholders in the National Bank would believe that it has been very well governed and very well managed.846Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of customer anger at the burgeoning levels of executive salaries at a time when bank fees are rising at many times the inflation rate and when branch service levels are constantly being slashed? When will the government insist on real customer service and productivity improvements being the basis for increasing executive salaries in the banking sector, as applies in workplace bargaining for the rest of the community, or does the government agree with the chief executive of the Commonwealth Bank that the community should be praising these highly paid bank executives?846Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Most depositors, if they are annoyed, are annoyed with the margins on loans rather than the salaries of the executives of the bank. The answer is to provide a competitive banking system so that you get pres sures upon the bank which will give a best return to those who deposit and to those who invest. All of our reforms in the banking system have been designed to provide that competition, to provide a strong, competitive sector in response to market pressure that respects the interests of Australians in the bush and elsewhere who have special needs and who need to be serviced by a productive banking sector.847847Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald. How is the government assisting small business and rural and regional communities to maintain better services through the introduction of rural transaction centres? How does the government's record in the provision of services to the bush compare with that of the previous government?847Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Tierney will be pleased to know that the rural transaction centres will do a lot of things for business in the bush and a lot of things for people in the bush generally. What Senator Tierney might also be interested in, as someone who spends most of his time out in regional Australia, is what we will not be doing that the previous government did. For example, we will not be imposing on small business in the regions interest rates that exceed 20 per cent, as in Labor Party days. We will not be giving small business in the regions inflation rates into double digit figures. We will not be allowing wages to gallop ahead, as they did in Labor years when they ruined many small businesses which could not afford to pay them. Very importantly, we will not be increasing the cost of transport to the regions, as happened quite dramatically under Labor. And we will not be allowing the post offices to run down. Over 277 post offices closed down in regional Australia under Labor and Labor, did absolutely nothing about it.We will be providing some $70 million over five years to initiate rural transaction centres. That will come out of the sale of a further 16 per cent of Telstra. It is absolutely vital that we get the support for the sale of the further 16 per cent of Telstra so that people in regional Australia can have access to these transaction centres. These transaction centres will add to the work that the government has done with their Credit Care initiative and will provide small businesses in those areas of regional Australia which do not have business banking with some elements of business banking. The rural transaction centres will help small business in regional Australia at a later stage by including videoconferencing, the Job Network, the Internet, private health insurance claims and Centrelink, and there will also be a range of federal, state and local government initiatives. These centres will be run by the local community or by small business in many of the very small centres. They will allow the pharmacy, the newsagent and the local corner store to add this range of services to their facilities.Under Labor, banks closed down in the bush. Under Labor, many of the services that we in the regions used to accept as normal dissipated. We intend to encourage the banks and the credit unions to work with us, with local communities and, in many instances, with local government organisations to make sure that these services are available in rural and regional areas.There will be benefits for small business. We are very keen to ensure that small business, particularly in rural and regional Australia, prospers because, as one of my colleagues mentioned earlier on, it is small business that provides all of the jobs in, and the bulk of exports from, rural and regional Australia. So we are very determined to make sure that they have the most appropriate form of assistance that is possible. The improved services will boost small business. Local business will be enabled to stay in the towns and will generate employment in rural industries. So it is a good news story for rural and regional business. (Time expired)847Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that, with the rural transaction centres, Minister, we are spending $70 million on putting real services into regional Australia. Minister, would you care to comment on Senator Forshaw's interjection about regional development organisations and the window-dressing approach to regional services undertaken by the last Labor government?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator, you should not in a supplementary question be asking the minister to comment on interjection across the chamber.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, have you ruled it out of order?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Yes.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous848848The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—On Thursday, 26 November, during debate on the business of the Senate notice of motion for a reference to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, the Acting Deputy President, Senator Reynolds, undertook to refer to me the matter of senators referring to copious notes.The prohibition on reading of speeches under standing order 187 and the practices relating to the use of notes have been considered by presidents and the Procedure Committee over many years.It has been ruled that senators referring to intricate or technical matters may read part of their speeches and, particularly in that circumstance, may refer to copious notes. It has also been ruled that it is for the chair to determine whether the prohibition is breached and when these practices apply.Senator Faulkner indicated that he was referring to matters of detail, and I consider that Senator Reynolds's ruling allowing him to proceed was correct.Questions Without Notice84884815:02:00848Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have some further information in answer to a question from Senator Harradine on intercountry adoptions with China, which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The information read as follows—INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION AGREEMENT WITH CHINASenator Hill : On 24 November 1998 Senator Harradine asked whether I, as Minister Representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, was aware that the Department of Human Services in Victoria had quoted an estimated cost of $A17000 for adopting a child under the proposed intercountry adoption agreement with China. This cost purportedly includes approximately $A8000 for immigration fees and court costs Senator Harradine asked whether these costs are prohibitive.RESPONSE:. The Victorian Department of Human Services advises the estimated cost of adopting a child from China under the agreement will be approximately $A16000. (This may vary according to exchange rate fluctuations.). The cost may vary according to the individual circumstances of a particular case, but may generally be broken down as follows:- application fee for assessment of prospective adoptive parents by Australian state/territory child welfare authorities—approximately $A5500 (may vary from state to state)- administrative costs in China—approximately $A6000- certification of documents by the PRC embassy in Australia- currently being negotiated with the embassy- cost of travel to PRC by the adoptive parents to collect the child and finalise the adoption approximately $A4000- visa application charge—$A1060- migration health check—approximately $A150 (dependent on the child's health status). as a comparison, an American couple resident in the USA and adopting a child from China would expect to pay costs ranging from approximately $A23000 to 32000. compared with administrative costs in China of approximately $A6000 Australian couples wishing to adopt a child from other countries with which Australia has intercountry adoption agreements, may expect to incur administrative costs in the overseas country ranging from:- Guatemala—approximately $A17700 to $A19300- Romania—approximately $A7250 to $A15300- Korea—approximately $A10500 - Thailand—voluntary contribution $A500- Taiwan—approximately $A14000 to $A24000BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I want to add my own personal comment. Despite the fact that this answer demonstrates that the anticipated fees will be lower than for a couple adopting from the United States and that the fees are comparable to adoptions from a number of other countries, they still do strike me as extraordinarily high.84915:03:00849Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have an answer to a question from Senator Bourne on reported killings in Alas in East Timor. The answer is that representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Jakarta and East Timor are investigating the reported killings. The ICRC is the competent international organisation which has standing to do so and has the necessary personnel on the ground.Ultimately, responsibility for clarification of the facts relating to incidents within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia lies with the Indonesian government.84915:04:00849Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—During question time we sought information from our delegation in Kyoto regarding the allegations made by Senator Faulkner in his question today in which he alleged some sort of deal with Mexican delegates. The answer that I have got back is that no such deal has been discussed.84915:05:00849Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Crossin asked me a question on 25 November 1998 on fringe benefits and the proposed goods and services tax. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard responses to those questions.Leave granted.The responses read as follows—What will be the FBT impact under the GST regime for an employer who pays, or reimburses employees, for GST-free activities such as health, education or child care? Will there be a different FBT impact under the GST regime for an employer who reimburses employees for a GST input-taxed activity, such as an employee who pays, or receives reimbursement for the payment of private rent?The answer read as followsWhere goods or services are provided to employees as fringe benefits, the GST credit will be allowed but Fringe Benefits Tax will be adjusted so that there will be no advantage for the employer in providing benefits rather than providing salary.Goods or services that are GST-free or input-taxed that are provided as fringe benefits will be subject to FBT in the same way as other fringe benefits.84915:05:00849Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron), to questions without notice asked today, relating to the Government's proposed private health insurance rebate.In doing so, I include the dorothy dixer asked of him by Senator Eggleston because I think, if anything, it was his most revealing answer on the health issue today.In response to that question he referred to welfare dependency and his concern about it. What was revealed today in his answers was the creation of welfare dependency by private health insurance providers. That will be the impact of the government's measures as described by Senator Herron in response to the questions today.The government's proposal to pour $1.4 billion of public funding into propping up private health insurance is a disgrace. It is welfare dependency at its worst. This private health insurance issue is a classic example of a government throwing money at a problem when it cannot come to grips with the problem. We have had a history in recent times of support measures for private health insurance, but numbers are continuing to fall and premiums are rising. The government has no idea how to control these increases in costs and the fall in private health insurance membership. So the answer is: throw more money at the problem. Throw $1.4 billion of taxpayer funds to the 30 per cent of the population who still take out private health insurance.When asked to justify this the government can provide no modelling, no performance indicators—nothing to justify this, other than that it will be very popular with the 30 per cent of private health insurance members in this country.I accept that those people struggling to pay quite expensive premiums will regard the measure as being of assistance. They will, in the short term. But—as they well know—what happened with the last rebate and what has happened in the history of private health insurance is that any support they receive will get eaten up in higher premiums.There is nothing in this measure about capping of fees. There is nothing in the measure about dealing with the increasing administrative costs of private health insurance funds. Last year, their income went up by seven per cent and the payment of benefits went up by one per cent—they had a $300 million bonanza. This is the problem the government is seeking to fix by throwing another $1.4 billion of public money at it—it just does not make any sense.My opposition to this measure is not ideological, it is economic. There is no basis for throwing $1.4 billion of public funds at what they perceive to be the problem. Even the government cannot provide any rational answer as to why they think that might solve the issue.They claim, on their own figures, that it might increase private health insurance membership from 30.3 per cent of the population to 33 per cent—a very meagre increase in the percentage of people taking out private health insurance. So there is no pretence that this is going to solve the problem. It is a complete waste of money.Today, in answer to my question, the minister provided figures which indicated that by providing this rebate the government will, in fact, narrow the difference between the cost to the government of those who are insured versus those who are not. He now says that the cost to the government of someone who is not insured is about $1,041 per annum, whereas with the rebate it will be only $814 for those who are insured. So the government is going to save $227 on costs per person if they are insured. But, on the government's own figures of the increased membership they expect to occur as a result of this measure, that will cost them $3,000 per head in government funds—to save $227. That is the economics of this measure—$3,000 per head of public funds wasted on a scheme to save the government $227 per annum per head, being the difference in cost between those who are insured and those who are not.Those are the figures given by the minister today in response to my question. These are not my figures; they are his. As I say, this is not about the opposition's ideology; this is about the government's ideology. It is throwing public funds at a problem that they cannot define with a solution that they cannot explain. It is an absolute economic nonsense.On top of that, the government seeks to maintain the effective one per cent less tax payable by high income earners who are insured. So they are going to provide a third subsidy by funding private health insurance for high income earners, who are also going to be given a one per cent tax concession at the other end. The effect of that measure is that the government is subsidising two-thirds of high income earners' private health insurance costs. The addition of the effective tax discount with the insurance rebate means that people on over $100,000 a year will have two-thirds of the cost of their private health insurance met by the government. This is social policy? (Time expired)15:10:00850Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—I think there are some fundamental questions that need to be asked of the other side of this chamber. The first is: what is the Labor Party planning to do about private health insurance? Is it simply opposing the government's measures with no plan in mind? Is it simply hoping that private health insurance will die? I know the shadow minister for health, Jenny Macklin, has absolutely no plan whatsoever other than a zero private health insurance policy. I think that is very sad because, on top of what the shadow minister has done, there is a scaremongering process being undertaken today by the Labor Party, which is not at all healthy for the future of private health insurance.There is already talk about the funds increasing their premiums. The fact is that the Labor Party in government for over 13 years did not reject one request for a premium increase made by the funds. The difference is that when we came to government, we set up a formula and a procedure under which the funds had to apply for increases. At the moment, no fund has applied for a future premium increase. No premium adjustments will be considered before 1 May next year. If premium adjustments are necessary to maintain individual fund solvency—which is an equation that happens to be overlooked by the Labor Party—for the first time, they will be announced on a common day with no further increases for 12 months. As I said, the fact still remains that the Labor Party did not reject one request for a premium increase in their entire 13 years in government.The fact of the matter remains also that funds will in future face a tougher regime for premium applications and the coalition is strengthening the power of the industry regulator and prudential supervisor, PHIAC.The question still remains—what is the Labor Party policy? Do they simply want to abolish private health insurance? Do they want to make sure that it is tougher for the pensioners and low income earners to pay for their private health insurance? Because that is clearly what is going to be the result if the Labor Party and the minor parties oppose the legislation which will come before the Senate in the near future.If the Senate rejects the rebate legislation, the funds will have to redraw their business plans and they will virtually have to increase their premiums. That would be as a direct consequence of the Labor Party policy. They do not seem to worry about that. They do not seem to worry that there are many low income earners who take out private health insurance.Last week, we had the farce of the shadow minister suggesting some weird and wonderful way of calculating what would have to be reimbursed to the states. She made a comment that it was only going to cost the Commonwealth an extra $830 million if there was no rebate available. We currently have just over 30 per cent of people insured and it is a recognised fact, even by the Labor Party, that in five years time there would only be 20 per cent of people insured if there is no rebate. And yet the shadow minister said that it would only cost the Commonwealth government an extra $830 million. Heavens above!: she cannot even do her maths. She does not understand the Commonwealth Medicare agreement with the states. If what she is forecasting were to be the case, the cost to the Commonwealth would be close on $2.5 billion—not $830 million.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—How much?TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—It would be $2.5 billion, Senator Calvert—that is how much it would cost the Commonwealth. They do not understand that there are many low income people out there who desperately want this measure. For them to deny that measure, which the people voted for at the last election, would be, simply, to once again deny them the opportunity to make provision for themselves.It would be interesting to also ask how many of the higher earners in this place have private health insurance. It was interesting that Senator Lees declared on television yesterday that as a higher income earner she does not bother to take out private health insurance. It would be fascinating to know how many Labor Party senators and members have private health insurance where they bear the brunt of the responsibility themselves and do not share it among the other taxpayers and lower income earners of Australia. (Time expired)15:15:00851Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Senator Knowles was talking about the Labor Party not understanding how tough it is on pensioners and low income earners when they are paying private health insurance. Well, we do understand how tough it is. For a low income family the cost of private health insurance ranges from $900 to over $3,000, Senator Knowles.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—Why do they take it out?852Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Do you know why pensioners have health insurance that they cannot afford? They know the waiting lists are so long, they are scared and they need assurance, so they take out health insurance that they cannot afford. Your government wants to put in $1.4 billion to prop up private health insurance—throwing buckets of money at them, and for what? Senator Herron said today that it is inevitable that private health insurance will rise, so each year we pay more for private health insurance—TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—Do you have private health insurance?6L6Senator GIBBS—Yes I do, Senator Knowles. I do have private health insurance.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Gibbs, would you please address the chair and ignore the interjections, which are disorderly.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—She is in a trade union as well.6L6Senator GIBBS—Absolutely—5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—She got one thing right anyhow.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—You're trying to force people—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Forshaw, Senator Knowles, Senator Calvert.6L6Senator GIBBS—People are paying into private health insurance when they cannot afford it, because they are terrified. Allocating $1.4 billion to prop up the private health insurance scheme is absolutely outrageous. Senator Herron said that it is inevitable that these fees will rise, so a family with an income of less than $70,000 will be paying, within less than two years, exactly what they are paying now. So it is not going to benefit those people. Putting $1.4 billion into the public health system in this country would be far wiser than propping up private health insurance companies. After all, even if you have private health insurance, if something diabolical happens to you, such as a heart attack or a stroke, you do not get taken to a private hospital. The ambulance person does not say, `Are you paying massive private health insurance fees? I'll take you to a private hospital.' No, you are taken to the public hospital because the public hospital has the facilities to cater for those things. The cost of the medicines and the equipment in the public hospitals is enormous. We need far more money in the public hospital system for the benefit of everybody in Australia.Senator Herron today just could not answer most of the questions—absolutely not. He obviously does not know what he is talking about. I have a media release here from the Australian Consumers Association, which says:A 30 per cent rebate won't get rid of the medical gap. For a total hip replacement, a private patient could face a gap payment of up to $890 for the surgeon's fee alone.This is correct. If you go into a private hospital, the surgeon charges exactly what he likes. He does not charge you the Medicare schedule fee. You could be paying much more than the paltry sum your private health insurance makes up. In some operations you can pay $1,000 or $2,000 more because they charge exactly what they like and you have to cop it, and that is wrong.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—That was under your system. That was brought in under Labor.6L6Senator GIBBS—No, if the surgeons have that problem, maybe you should look at that; maybe you should look at the details of the medical system in this country and start addressing them instead of trying to prop up private health insurance with $1.4 billion. That is absolutely outrageous and pathetic. The 30 per cent rebate will not address the rise in private health insurance either. (Time expired)15:20:00852Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I must say that Senator Gibbs's admission that she has private health insurance is really telling, because it means that Senator Gibbs as a Labor senator knows how inadequate the Medicare public hospital system is. She has just said that it is all about freedom of choice. In other words, if we take the case Senator Gibbs has just mentioned of somebody who needs a hip replacement, Senator Gibbs knows that that poor person who might need a hip replacement might have to wait 18 months or two years to get it done in a public hospital. Being a sensible person, Senator Gibbs—Senator Gibbs interjecting—4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—Because of the failures of your public hospital system under Medicare. Senator Gibbs knows that if somebody has private health insurance they will get their hip replacement done in a short time in a private hospital, they will get most of the fee back through the private health insurance system, and the person concerned will be up and about very quickly, rather than suffering through the 18-month or two-year waiting list for anything to be done in the public hospital system. That is the problem, you see. We used to have a very good hospital system in Australia where we had a nice balance of public and private hospitals. In 1983 the Labor Party, on an ideological high, introduced the Medicare system and set out to destroy the private hospital system and the private hospital industry.So what we have today is a situation where we have imported to Australia a system very much like the British National Health Service, with all its failures. Whereas before people were able to be treated quickly and easily, today in Australia we have a situation where we have overcrowded public hospital waiting rooms and enormous waiting lists in public hospitals because people have dropped out of the private health system, and the public hospital system has shown that it is not able to cope with the workload.Even Graham Richardson, the former Labor health minister, said that if private health membership dropped below a critical level there would be a crisis in the Australian health system. We face that crisis now: private health insurance membership is down to some 30 per cent, the public hospital system cannot cope and waiting lists are growing day by day. So the government has decided to take a measure which will take the pressure off the public hospitals and see the underutilised private hospital system reactivated and working more smoothly again.The benefits of this 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance will mean that some six million Australians will have an incentive to rejoin private health insurance funds. That will mean that public hospitals will have a lot of pressure taken off them, and the whole situation will improve considerably. It has been said that people on low incomes will be disadvantaged by this proposal.6L6GIBBSSenator Gibbs—Freedom of choice, Senator.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—Senator Gibbs, I believe that some two million people in this country with incomes of less than $30,000—which I am sure you on your income of $80,000 would not consider to be a high income at all—have private health insurance. So private health insurance is not just for the wealthy; it is for people who are concerned to ensure they get treated quickly in our hospital system. The Medicare system certainly does not provide any access to quick treatment.The question has been raised today about whether or not this 30 per cent incentive will draw many people back into private health insurance. The AMA believes that it will increase participation rates to some 45 per cent. They are currently on 30 per cent.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—It is going to cost $2½ billion instead.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—It is $2½ billion well spent if it means that Australians get better and quicker health care.Senator Forshaw interjecting—4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—Senator Forshaw, I cannot imagine you would like to be waiting around for a knee or hip replacement, or any other kind of elective surgery, in a public hospital when, if you were privately insured, you could get it done quickly in a private hospital. That is the benefit this measure will bring. (Time expired)15:25:00853Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Minister Herron is fond of referring to history when he stands up in this place. He never answers questions. It is interesting to look at a few historical facts. Firstly, which current political leader was a member of a government that abolished universal health coverage in this country? Of course, it was the present Prime Minister, John Howard, when he was a member of the Fraser government, which abolished Medibank.Medibank was established many years ago by a Labor government to provide universal coverage for all Australians so that they had an entitlement to decent health care in the public hospital system, but a coalition government abolished it. Which current political leader, when he was in opposition in the 1980s, swore that if he ever got back into power he would abolish Medicare? It was John Howard, of course, the current Prime Minister. He swore to abolish Medicare.About two years prior to the 1996 election, John Howard, realising the error of his ways, said to the people, `I've changed my mind; I now support Medicare and I will do nothing to dismantle it.' But what happened after that election? Within 12 months his government brought in a budget that stripped $1.5 billion out of the public health system. They starved the states of vital health funds to run the public hospitals. We had the situation last year where every state premier and every state and territory health minister in this country was telling Dr Wooldridge and Mr Howard, `You are not putting enough money into the public health system.' They were telling this government, in the words of Jeff Kennett, that their private health insurance rebate scheme was a joke, that it was a mickey mouse scheme. That is what this government has done to health in this country.When they were elected in 1996 they said they had the solution for private health insurance. They said they would bring in a scheme, take money out of the public hospitals—$1.5 billion—and pay an amount to private health fund members of about $450 a year and that that would increase the level of private health insurance. What happened? Membership went down by three per cent—and it is still going down.These are the people who said they had the solution. What was Senator Herron's solution? It was to throw money at the problem. This is the same minister who says that the worst thing you could ever do to solve a problem in health in this country is to throw money at it. He lectures us time and time again. But that is what this government is proposing to do now: throw more money at the problem. They are proposing to throw more vitally necessary public health funds at the problem by taking it out of the public health system and giving it as a subsidy, basically, to private health funds.When you ask what impact this is going to have, they say, `We do not really know—who can tell?' Senator Herron said that today. Senator Herron could not answer any questions. In response to the interjections, Senator Herron was only able to say one thing about what will happen after they give this $1.4 billion subsidy to private health insurance: premiums will still rise. They are going to rise by the order of four per cent. This government accuses the Labor Party of having an ideological objection to private health insurance. That is not the case.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—You want to destroy the private health system; you want to destroy choice.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—We do not want to destroy choice, but we do have an ideological commitment to providing universal health cover for all Australians through the public health system. That is the priority of government. While we believe that there is clearly a place for a private health system in this country—and I acknowledge that I am, and always have been, a member of a private health fund—our obligation in parliament and in government is to put the funds into the public health system for all Australians. We should not take those funds out of the public health system and give them as a subsidy to private health insurance.If we do that, we will end up with a dual system like the one in the United States. People in the United States have access to a very basic level of care in the public hospital system at a much lower standard than in this country, and if you want to get decent health care in the United States you have to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars. That is the big difference between us and the coalition on this issue. (Time expired)15:30:00854McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—If ever we doubted that this debate was ideological, we only had to listen to the speakers on the other side. Senator Evans opened his speech by saying that this is not an ideological debate and that he has economic grounds for his point of view. We never heard what his point of view was. I notice that Senator Ray is in the chamber. For the first time in the three years that we have been in government, Senator Ray has actually asked a policy question and tackled this issue.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Do you want to bet that I have asked other ones?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—No, very rarely in this chamber have you asked policy questions.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator, please address the chair and ignore the interjections. All interjections on my left are unruly.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—If this were not an ideological matter for the Labor Party, they would have come up with an alternative public policy, and we saw none of that. That is known by all Australians. A number one issue for all Australian family households is the pressures and strains they are feeling in regard to health policy, and many are obviously at breaking point. Therefore, we went to the election with the policy of a 30 per cent rebate on private health cover. That policy was supported.I think the Labor Party must have a death wish not to support this tax rebate. What party other than the Labor Party in this parliament does not support tax rebates? They have an ideological bent against the private health insurance system. Senator Gibbs—who, by the way, is a self-confessed holder of private health insurance—talked about choice, yet she would deny that choice of access to private health to many other Australians.As was said, over two million Australians who are in the private health system earn less than $30,000. They are under the greatest pressure to keep hold of their health insurance. They are the first to drop out of the system and be forced into the public health system, thus putting more pressures and strains on that system. The fall in participation in the private health system began in the Labor Party's term in 1983 when the private health system was at a healthy 60 per cent. By the time we got into office, it was around 34 per cent. We have halted that decline, but more must be done.The first thing the Howard government implemented was the private health insurance scheme, which was the first genuine attempt in decades by any federal government to encourage people to go into the private health insurance system, giving them a greater freedom of choice between the private and public health systems. We followed that up with the extra one per cent Medicare levy for incomes over $50,000. I would say that that was about the only reason why the Senator Gibbs of this world took up private health cover.We have put in place two initiatives to halt the collapse of the private health system. We now wish to bring in another initiative. It is calculated that for every one per cent of people who drop out of the private health system, some $83 million extra goes onto the states and territories to meet their health budgets. If the decline in private health insurance membership continues, it is calculated that by the turn of the century the federal government will have to find an extra $500 million for the states and territories each and every year just to keep the status quo.Since we have been in government, we have increased spending on the public health system by over 18 per cent. We have not ripped the money out of the public health system; we have put more money into it, but we cannot continue putting money into it. It is far more economic and efficient to attend to the private health system.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Notices855855Senator Robert Ray to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) endorse the findings contained in paragraph 2.29; and(b) adopt the recommendation contained in paragraph 2.31,of the 72nd report of the Committee of Privileges, presented to the Senate on 30 June 1998. Senator Robert Ray, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) endorse the findings contained in paragraph 2.32; and(b) adopt the recommendations contained in paragraphs 2.36 and 2.42,of the 73rd report of the Committee of Privileges, presented to the Senate on 30 June 1998.856Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—by leave—These two notices I have given relate to two reports of the Committee of Privileges which were tabled in the last parliament. The Senate did not have the opportunity to deal with the reports before the election was called. The committee's reasons for making the recommendations and findings in both reports are included in my tabling statement on 30 June 1998, see Hansard pages 4436-38.Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes, with approval, the recommendations of the World Heritage Committee high level mission to the Kakadu World Heritage Area; and(b) urges the World Heritage Committee to list the Kakadu World Heritage Area without delay as `in danger' from the Jabiluka uranium mine.Senator Chapman to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) strongly condemns the recent grave attacks on the Iranian Baha'i community, including the brutal execution of Mr Ruhallah Rawhani in July 1998 in the absence of due legal process, raids on 500 Baha'i homes in an orchestrated nation-wide attempt to prevent Baha'i youth from receiving an education, confirmation of death sentences against two Baha'i men and the imprisonment of 16 other Baha'is for practising their faith;(b) calls on the Government of Iran to end its oppression of the Baha'i community, ensure the safety and early release of all those Baha'is imprisoned in Iran, immediately take steps to implement United Nations resolutions defining steps required of the Iranian Government and calling for the emancipation of the Baha'is, and respect the principles of the International Covenants on Human Rights to which Iran is a party; and (c) expresses its deep disappointment that, despite the consideration of this matter by both Houses of the Australian Parliament in 1997, the Iranian Government, far from taking action to remedy the situation, has intensified its persecution of Baha'is.Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) Monday, 30 November 1998, is Ocean Care Day, (ii) on Sunday, 29 November 1998, more than one thousand people attended a protest rally at the Gunnamatta beach on the Mornington Peninsula to draw attention to the 500 000 litres of partly-treated sewage which is discharged there every day, (iii) in the 22 years since the ocean outfall was constructed, there has been a massive deterioration of the marine life for some kilometres along the adjacent coast, (iv) heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, Mercury and arsenic, organic toxicants such as dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls, chlorinated hydrocarbons, petroleum and nutrients such as phosphates and nitrogen are contained in effluent discharged, (v) industries holding licences to discharge toxic waste are self-regulating and the Environmental Protection Authority does not have the resources to check the concentrations data supplied by industry, and (vi) more than 60 per cent of Australia's sewage is still discharged to sea; and(b) urges the Government to adopt and fund national measures through its Coasts and Clean Seas Program which would: (i) remove toxic industrial waste material from the sewage stream, and (ii) phase out completely the discharge of effluent to the marine environment.Business856856Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, be postponed till 7 December 1998. 857Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 23 standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, relating to the national competition policy, be postponed till the next day of sitting.857Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, be postponed till 7 December 1998.857Motion (by Senator Allison, at the request of Senator Bartlett) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 10 standing in the name of Senator Bartlett for today, relating to sexuality discrimination, be postponed till 2 December 1998.857Motion (by Senator O'Brien) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 (relating to the reference of matters to the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee) and general business notice of motion no. 27 (the Australian pork industry) standing in the name of Senator O'Brien for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.857Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Mackay) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 38 standing in the name of Senator Mackay for today, relating to the closure of certain Telstra operations in Tasmania, be postponed till 7 December 1998.857Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Lundy) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 19 standing in the name of Senator Lundy for today, relating to year 2000 (Y2K) compliance, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees857857857Motion (by Senator Eggleston)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee on the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill 1998 be extended to 8 December 1998.857857Motion (by Senator Hogg) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous857Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to: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. Miscellaneous858Motion (by Senator Brown) put: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.15:50:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)32Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. 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.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Alston, R. K. R.Crowley, R. A. Crane, W.Forshaw, M. G. Ferris, J.Gibbs, B. Macdonald, S.Reynolds, M. MacGibbon, D. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous858Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Hill) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous858Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) not agreed to: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.Miscellaneous859Motion (by Senator Allison)—as amended by leave—put: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) a number of other mines are poised to go ahead inside world heritage boundaries, and (x) 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.15:58:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)31Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.*Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.31Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H.*Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Brownhill, D. G. C.Crowley, R. A. Crane, W.Faulkner, J. P. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Macdonald, I.Gibbs, B. Macdonald, S.Reynolds, M. MacGibbon, D. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative. Miscellaneous860Motion (by Senator Margetts) put: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.16:05:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)31Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.*Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H.*Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Brownhill, D. G. C.Crowley, R. A. Crane, W.Faulkner, J. P. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Macdonald, I.Gibbs, B. Macdonald, S.Reynolds, M. MacGibbon, D. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Business860860Motion (by Senator Lundy) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 31 standing in the name of Senator Lundy for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston), be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous86016:08:00860Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I seek leave to have the vote on notice of motion No. 37, standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja, recommitted.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Could you explain the reason?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—The coalition would like to vote for the motion.Leave granted.Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to: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.Business861861Motion (by Senator Margetts, Senator Bolkus and Senator Murray) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 39 standing in the name of Senator Margetts, Senator Bolkus and Senator Murray for today, relating to the Western Australia Regional Forest Agreement, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous861Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) not agreed to: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. Committees86186110000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Pursuant to standing orders 38 and 166, I present the following documents listed on today's order of business at item 11 which were presented to a Temporary Chairman of Committees, Senator Sherry, on 26 November 1998:. Committee report presented to the President since the last sitting of the Senate:Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—Report on the provisions of the Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 and the Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed Investment Company) Bill 1998.. Government responses presented to the President since the last sitting of the Senate:Community Affairs References Committee—Report on housing assistance.Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee—Report on marine and coastal pollution.Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Second report on contracting out of government services.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—In accordance with the terms of the standing orders, the publication of the documents was authorised. In accordance with the usual practice and with the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the government responses be incorporated in Hansard .The documents read as follows—Government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee Report on Housing AssistanceRecommendation 1 :The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government continue to support the expansion of research and data collection in all areas of housing, particularly those relating to the private rental market.In particular, the committee recommends that additional funds be allocated to develop consistency, uniformity, standards (including a definition of `housing need') and benchmarks for analysis and evaluation purposes in all areas of research concerning public housing.Response :The Government notes the committee's recommendation. The Commonwealth provides a significant level of funding for housing research, including:. 100,000 per annum under the Australian Housing Research Fund; . 320,000 per annum to the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute; and. 3.3m in 1997-98 and $1.7m in 1998-99 under the National Housing Priorities Appropriation.The Commonwealth has worked to improve the availability of housing related data. There now exists a range of important measures of the effectiveness of housing assistance. For example, the CSHA has in place a range of performance indicators covering program outcomes and efficiency measures and this information is published in the Report on Government Service Provision.Moreover, the previous and forthcoming ABS Housing Surveys will continue to yield important data on the public and private rental tenures, including levels of crowding, dwelling condition, and other satisfaction measures. The data available to DSS on the income support population is comprehensive and includes housing affordability outcomes of people on income support.In relation to housing for indigenous peoples, the Commonwealth (ATSIC) provides funds to the Centre for Appropriate Technology for research into housing and housing related infrastructure for rural and remote communities.In conjunction with States and Territories, the Commonwealth is in the process of updating the national data on indigenous housing and infrastructure needs previously collected under the ATSIC Housing and Community Infrastructure Needs Survey (1992). An analysis of the 1996 ABS Census data is also being undertaken to identify the housing needs of indigenous peoples throughout Australia.Recommendation 2 :The committee recommends that the Commonwealth and the States negotiate to reach agreement on affordability and adequacy benchmarks to be used in setting the common goals to be reached under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement.Response :The Government notes the committee's recommendation. At the meeting of Housing Ministers held in June 1997, State and Territory Housing Ministers agreed to examine their pricing policies. Most States and Territories are treating as a priority the redevelopment and upgrade of housing stock which is no longer appropriate or of an acceptable community standard. The committee's recommendation will be drawn to the attention of State and Territory Governments and Housing Authorities.Recommendation 3 :The committee recommends that the provision of public and community housing remain a joint Commonwealth State responsibility. Response :The Government notes the committee's recommendation. The future of Commonwealth and State roles and responsibilities in public and community housing assistance will be the subject of negotiation on arrangements to follow the expiry of the current CSHA in 1999.Recommendation 4 :The committee recommends that maximum rent levels and the rebated rent scales for public housing be included in future Commonwealth State Housing Agreements.Response :The Government notes the committee's recommendation. The recommendation will be drawn to the attention of State and Territory Governments and Housing Authorities.Recommendation 5 :The committee recommends that on its expiration on 30 June 1999, the 1996 Commonwealth State Housing Agreement be replaced by a new Agreement which retains the specification of performance and the strategic planning processes which are in the existing Agreement measures and addresses the issue of State accountability.Response :The Government notes the committee's recommendation. The issue of performance information and strategic planning processes will be the subject of negotiation between the Commonwealth and the States on arrangements to follow the expiry of the CSHA in 1999.Recommendation 6 :The committee recommends that the Commonwealth provide capital funding for public housing at levels sufficient to ensure that the public housing stock is at least 6 per cent of total housing stock.Response :The Government notes the committee's recommendation. Public housing stock levels and associated funding will be the subject of negotiation between the Commonwealth and the States on arrangements to follow the expiry of the CSHA in 1999.Recommendation 7 :The committee recommends that the Department of Social Security investigate ways of reducing disincentives to work inherent in the current system of housing assistance payments.Response :The Government supports the committee's recommendation. The subject of the interaction of public housing rental subsidy systems and social security income testing arrangements and effects on workforce incentives will be considered further by the Department of Social Security. The committee's recommendation will be drawn to the attention of State and Territory Governments and Housing Authorities.Recommendation 8 :The committee recommends that the Commonwealth negotiate with the States for security of tenure for public tenants to be included in the negotiations for the next CSHAResponse :The Government notes the committee's recommendation. While it is clear that security of tenure can be important for some groups, such as the aged and those with long term needs, this must be weighed against the ongoing capacity to provide public housing for those who most need it, and the need to provide appropriate workforce incentives to those who are able to work.Recommendation 9 :The committee recommends that the States and Territories continue to address the issue of redevelopment and improvement of public housing estates as a matter of priority.Response :The Government notes the committee's recommendation. The Commonwealth supports State and Territory efforts to redevelop public housing estates within the CSHA strategic planning process. The Commonwealth also recognises that the improved targeting of public housing may require a different approach to tenancy and property management.Recommendation 10 :The committee recommends that the Commonwealth reviews its 1997 Budget decision to reduce rent assistance for people in share households.Response :The Government notes the committee's recommendation. The 1996 Budget initiative to reduce the maximum rate of Rent Assistance for some single sharers has improved the equity of treatment of singles sharing accommodation and couples. The Rent Assistance program, including the sharers initiative, will continue to be monitored and assessed by the Department of Social Security. In recognition of the special circumstances faced by some sharers, the government announced in the 1998 Budget its decision to exempt people living in boarding houses, private hotels and hostels from the reduced rate of Rent Assistance.Recommendation 11 :The committee recommends that the Commonwealth consider the possibility of using a region based formula for Rent Assistance payments.ResponseThe Government notes the committee's recommendation. The Rent Assistance program, including the issue of a region-based formula, will continue to be monitored and assessed by the Department of Social Security.Recommendation 12 :The committee recommends that the Department of Social Security investigate ways of improving affordability for low income renters in private rental.Response :The Government notes the committee's recommendation. Expenditure on Rent Assistance has increased significantly in recent years, and as noted by the committee, there has been a commensurate improvement in the affordability outcomes for many private renters. The Government will continue to seek to provide an appropriate level of assistance to those most in need. However, proposals to provide additional assistance to private renters must be considered in the context of competing Budget priorities.Recommendation 13 :The committee recommends:(i) that the Department of Social Security make use of the Internet and other on-line services to ensure that tenants and community groups are better informed about tenants' rights.(ii) that State and Territory governments provide better support for tenancy services, especially in rural areas.ResponseResidential tenancy law falls within the legal jurisdiction of State and Territory governments. Similarly, the provision of advocacy and information services in relation to tenancy law is the responsibility of the States and Territories. The recommendation will be drawn to the attention of State and Territory Governments and Housing Authorities.Recommendation 14 :The committee recommends that, as part of the COAG process, the Commonwealth negotiate agreed standards of consumer protection for tenants with the States with the objective of having adequate legislation in each State.Response :The committee's recommendation will be drawn to the attention of State and Territory Governments and Housing Authorities.Recommendation 15 :The committee recommends that the States and Territories consider introducing regulatory measures in relation to bad tenants databases to protect the privacy rights of tenants and that any extension of the Commonwealth to the private sector should contemplate including the above circumstances. Response :The Government notes the committee's recommendation. The Government does not consider that a patchwork of privacy regimes serves the interests of either consumers or business. In April 1997 the Prime Minister announced that the services of the Privacy Commissioner would be available to assist business to develop privacy codes and meet privacy standards. On 20 February 1998 the Privacy Commissioner issued her "National Principles for the Fair Handling of Personal Information". These principles, developed specifically for the private sector by the Privacy Commissioner through consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, provide a benchmark for all businesses which handle personal information. As such, they form the basis for the development of a coherent national self-regulatory approach to privacy protection.Recommendation 16 :The committee recommends that the Commonwealth investigate the reasons why participants in ATSIC's Community Development Employment Scheme (CDEP) program are not eligible for Rent Assistance and whether the current rules should be amended to make them eligible.Response :The Government supports the committee's recommendation. Following the completion of the Spicer review, the Independent Review of the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Scheme (December 1997), the Government has decided to allow participants in the CDEP Scheme access to certain `add-on' Social Security benefits, including Rent Assistance. These changes will take effect from March.Recommendation 17 :The committee recommends that the Commonwealth, States and Territories continue efforts towards coordination of services between all levels of government to facilitate access by indigenous peoples to both mainstream and specific programs that are designed to alleviate their housing problems.Response :The Government supports the committee's recommendation. The Commonwealth and State and Territory Housing Ministers held a special indigenous housing meeting in April 1997. The Ministers made a commitment at this meeting to an agenda of work that would result in better coordination and more effective provision of both targeted and mainstream housing services for indigenous people.The Northern Territory and Western Australian governments have entered into agreements with the Commonwealth which commit the parties to coordinated and cooperative planning and reporting on the provision of indigenous housing. Discussions on models for the provision of indigenous housing in other States and Territories are continuing.Recommendation 18 :The committee recommends that the Commonwealth, States and Territories continue efforts towards:. regular reviews of the areas of greatest housing need for indigenous peoples;. better coordination of services between all levels of government to facilitate access to existing programs at Commonwealth and State level; and. regular assessments of whether additional funding is needed and in what areas.Response :The Government supports the committee's recommendation. Through the indigenous housing reform agenda agreed by Housing Ministers in April 1997, the Commonwealth and States have made a commitment to ensuring that funding for indigenous housing is allocated on the basis of greatest need and in a way that will respond most effectively to the backlog of need in indigenous housing.The Commonwealth recognises the importance of an accurate and updated national data base on indigenous housing, and in conjunction with States and Territories is working towards implementing further data collection and benchmarking to monitor changes in indigenous housing and progress against identified performance criteria.Recommendation 19 :The committee recommends that the Commonwealth ensure that the State and Territory governments provide sufficient public housing stock which is appropriately designed and well located near specialised health and other services to meet the needs of people with special needs who need to access such services.Response :The Government notes the committee's recommendation. Reprofiling of public housing to meet current needs is a major challenge that cannot be achieved at once. The committee's recommendation will be drawn to the attention of State and Territory Governments and Housing Authorities.Recommendation 20 :The committee recommends better coordination between the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) and other community services to assist SAAP clients to move from short-term accommodation into long term accommodation either in public housing or the lower end of the private rental market.Response :The Government notes the committee's recommendation. As stated in the SAAP National Strategic Plan, the need for improved access to key programs such as housing, income support, health services, labour market participation and life skills training continues to be a priority and a challenge for the Program. The imperative for other key program areas to acknowledge and respond to the special issues associated with homelessness and marginalisation is a difficult but critical area to address. Understanding access issues, targeting key programs and ensuring improved linkages at policy, program and service delivery levels will receive further attention in 1997-98. It is acknowledged that this is intrinsically linked to improved outcomes for people using SAAP services.Recommendation 21 :The committee recommends that in negotiating the next CSHA, the Commonwealth continue funding for national community housing organisations which provide support for the development of community housing.Response :The Government notes the committee's recommendation. The development of community housing is a current priority for Commonwealth, State and Territory Housing Ministers. The current focus on the development of community housing infrastructure aims to promote the future viability of community housing.Recommendation 22 :The committee recommends that in negotiating the next CSHA, the Commonwealth examine methods of providing funding guarantees of more than three years to the States and Territories in order to facilitate private sector involvement in the provision of low cost housing.Response :The Government supports the committee's recommendation in principle. Options to facilitate private sector involvement are being considered, including discussions with the finance industry on how to maximise the potential for private sector investment in community housing.Recommendation 23 :The committee recommends that the Commonwealth and the States:. explore different community housing models to suit the needs of different groups;. explore ways of raising private finance for low cost and community housing;. increase the size of the community housing sector; and. develop model head leases for community housing organisations which are applicable to their relationships with the various State and Territory housing authorities. Response :The Government supports the committee's recommendation. A priority of current CSHA strategic planning with States and Territories is the development of a strong, viable community housing sector.With regard to indigenous communities, the community housing sector plays a major role in providing housing. The Commonwealth and States are working to improve the effectiveness and sustainability of community housing for indigenous people, particularly in rural and remote areasRecommendation 24 :The committee recommends that the Commonwealth commission a study into the factors that constitute a barrier to private investment into low cost housing. Such a study should have regard to overseas developments referred to in the earlier discussion.Response :The Government supports the committee's recommendation. Part of the Housing Reform Funding for 1997-98 has been allocated for two major research projects. The first, Financing Arrangements for Social Housing in England, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany has been finalised. The second, Financing Community Housing: Options for Private Sector Involvement reviews existing research.Minority Report by Australian Democrat Senator Lyn AllisonRecommendation 1 :The Democrats recommend that a housing task force be established to assist with the development of a National Housing Strategy and that local government has a role in both its policy development and implementation.Response :The Government does not support this recommendation. The Government does not believe that a housing taskforce is necessary at this time. The Government welcomes the efforts and involvement of local government in the provision of housing assistance.Recommendation 2 :That the Commonwealth resume funding arrangements for National Shelter, Australia's peak housing organisation, and encourage the participation of other national peak organisations representing a variety of interests into the planning of national housing policy.Response :The decision on National Shelter's funding was made to avoid duplication of Government funding in the area of housing assistance advocacy. For some years, National Shelter's grant conditions have included the requirement for them to plan for financial self-sufficiency. National Shelter has since secured non-Government funding.Recommendation 3 :That the allocation of funding for the SAAP program be increased by 10% to make up for the current shortfall in crisis accommodation and a specific strategy to reduce homelessness be incorporated into the National Housing Strategy.Response :The Government notes Senator Allison's recommendation. The issue of funding for SAAP, and for the Crisis Accommodation Program (CAP) which provides the funding for accommodation for people who are homeless or in crisis, will be considered in the context of:. the negotiation of the next Commonwealth State Housing Agreement, to be implemented from July 1999; and. the national evaluation of SAAP being conducted later in 1998, which may affect future program delivery arrangements (the current bilateral SAAP agreements expire in December 1999WHOLE OF COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE INQUIRY INTO MARINE AND COASTAL POLLUTION BY THE SENATE ENVIRONMENT, RECREATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS REFERENCES COMMITTEEGOVERNMENT RESPONSERecommendation 1The committee recommends that the government consider the establishment of a central authority to coordinate coastal and marine affairs. Such an authority would consult all spheres of government to facilitate the development of coherent policies across different jurisdictions for the management of Australia's coasts and oceans and of activities which affect Australia's EEZ including consideration of land based issues.ResponseThe problems identified in the report relating to a lack of integrated coastal zone management are well known and well documented. The 1996 national State of the Environment Report concluded that a main obstacle to achieving the goals of Ecologically Sustainable Development is structural impediments to the management of complex ecological systems across jurisdictional boundaries. This is particularly true of marine and coastal environments. To be effective, policy, management strategies and responses must occur at the level of catchment and biophysical regions and have a cross-sectoral (multiple-use) approach. Most importantly there is a need for a unified approach from Commonwealth, State, Territory, and Local governments on environmental issues, standards and management.In general, many of the issues covered by the recommendations of this Inquiry, including institutional arrangements for Australia's marine jurisdictions, are being considered in the context of the development of Australia's Oceans Policy and the Marine Science and Technology Plan. The Policy and the Plan will be finalised in mid-1998. As the policy development process is yet to be completed, including substantial consultation with stakeholders, any decision now on institutional arrangements or other mechanisms for improving cross-sectoral management will be premature. Broadly speaking, specific responses to committee's recommendations that will be addressed through the Oceans Policy and the Marine Science and Technology Plan cannot be detailed at this time. That said, the relevant recommendations of the committee will be taken into account in developing the Oceans Policy and the Marine Science and Technology Plan.Recommendation 2The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with State and/or local authorities, as appropriate to make marine affairs a standing item on the agenda of COAG meetings.ResponseThe Council of Australian governments (COAG) would be unlikely to establish a specific area of policy as a standing agenda item. COAG's charter is aimed at a range of specific national reform issues requiring leadership by Heads of government. While, for example, COAG may choose to address reform of oceans management arrangements as a specific agenda item, general oversight of marine issues would not be an appropriate role for COAG.Recommendation 3The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with State and/or local authorities, as appropriate to develop clear, enforceable guidelines based on appropriate research for the quality of discharges into the marine environment, through sewerage systems or direct to water, and to develop the necessary legislation to make such guidelines legally binding.ResponseThe Commonwealth government is working closely with State and Territory governments on the development of the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS). The NWQMS is a joint initiative of the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) and the Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ). Its aim is `to achieve sustainable use of the nation's water resources by protecting and enhancing their quality while maintaining economic and social development'. The COAG Water Reform Framework recognises the role of the NWQMS in promoting improved water quality and requires State and Territory governments to support the development of the NWQMS through the adoption of a package of market-based and regulatory measures, including the establishment of appropriate water quality monitoring and catchment management policies and community consultation and awareness.The NWQMS has published Guidelines for Sewerage Systems—Effluent Management, and Guidelines for Sewerage Systems—Acceptance of Trade Waste (Industrial Waste). It is also developing Guidelines for Sewerage Systems—Sludge (Biosolids) Management, and Guidelines for Sewerage Systems—Sewerage Systems Overflows. This series of Guidelines will address the quality of discharges into the marine environment through sewerage systems. These Guidelines provide a framework for a nationally consistent approach to the management of sewerage systems, including marine discharges, but are not legally enforceable.It is the responsibility of State and Territory governments to implement the NWQMS Guidelines within their respective jurisdiction, for example as a basis for their own guidelines, or as a requirement of licence conditions. The Commonwealth government encourages the use of the Guidelines and notes that the implementation of the NWQMS is one of the COAG Water Reform Framework performance milestones linked to competition policy payments to State and Territory governments.With respect to the development of clear, enforceable guidelines it is noted that Schedule 4 of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE) defines a guideline as providing "guidance on possible means of meeting desired environmental outcomes". Consequently, the nature of guidelines would suggest that it is inappropriate to make them legally enforceable. However a standard, defined by the IGAE as "a quantifiable characteristic of the environment against which environment quality is assessed" can be made legally enforceable.The development of National Environment Protection Measures (NEPMs) by the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) is a mechanism which allows the Commonwealth to participate in the development of legally enforceable standards for the protection of the environment. The Commonwealth National Environment Protection Council Act (1994), and the corresponding State and Territory acts, enables NEPMs (which may include national environment protection standards, guidelines, goals and protocols) to be made. Measures are implemented by means of laws and other arrangements of the Commonwealth and the participating States and Territories. Thus it is through laws enacted by the participating jurisdictions, and not by means of NEPMs themselves, that national environment protection standards may be given legal force.The government notes that the National Environment Protection Council can make NEPMs that relate to ambient marine, estuarine and fresh water quality. A proposal for a NEPM for ambient marine and estuarine water quality is to be considered by the NEPC in the second half of 1998. This will be an opportunity to consider whether a mandatory national environment protection standard for marine and estuarine ambient water quality should be developed, the enforcement of which will mean the quality of discharges into the marine environment will need to be addressed.Recommendation 4The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with State and/or local authorities, as appropriate to amend the National Environment Protection Council legislation in order to give the Council wider powers to make National Environment Protection measures, and to pass the necessary legislation in each jurisdiction.ResponseThe government does not believe it would be appropriate to amend the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) legislation at this stage, particularly given that only one National Environment Protection Measure has been finalised. Any expansion of NEPC's role would need the agreement of the State and Territory governments.Recommendation 5The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with State and/or local authorities, as appropriate to develop coherent and effective policies and management practices at local level which protect the coastal and marine environments including clear guidelines and enforceable environmental standards for residential, commercial and industrial developments.ResponseIt is inappropriate for the Commonwealth to consider imposing enforceable environmental standards at the local level for residential, commercial and industrial developments unless there is a specific Commonwealth interest involved. The government is of the view that this is the legitimate role of State, Territory and Local governments. The Commonwealth prefers to work with State and Territory governments to develop regionally and locally agreed actions designed to ensure the best possible combination of ecologically sustainable and economically viable outcomes.However, the Commonwealth government, in conjunction with all State and Territory governments, has made an unequivocal commitment to achieving ecologically sustainable management of Australia's coastal and marine environments, as is evident in several national policy documents, including the National Policy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity, and the National Water Quality Management Strategy. This is part of the government's commitment to developing coherent and effective policies and promoting the adoption of best management practices at local level which protect coastal and marine environments.The Commonwealth government's Coasts and Clean Seas initiative provides $125 million for the conservation, sustainable use and repair of Australia's coastal and marine environments. This package, principally funded through the Natural Heritage Trust, provides the Commonwealth government with an unprecedented opportunity to protect, conserve and manage Australia's coastal and marine environments. Coasts and Clean Seas represents the largest financial contribution ever made by the Commonwealth government towards protecting our coasts and oceans. The focus of Coasts and Clean Seas is on protecting the marine environment from the negative impacts of human activities. It is tackling pollution problems, addressing threats to marine biodiversity and habitat degradation, and promoting the sustainable use of Australia's coastal and marine areas. Coasts and Clean Seas is based on partnerships between the Commonwealth, the community, state and local governments and industry. Coasts and Clean Seas involves a number of programs, including Coastcare, the Coastal and Marine Planning Program, the Fisheries Action Program, the Capacity Building Program, the Australian Coastal Atlas, the Coastal Monitoring Program, the Marine Species Protection Program, the Introduced Marine Pests Program and the Marine Protected Areas Program.The Coastal and Marine Planning Program aims to put quality planning in place along the entire Australian coastline. It will stimulate coastal and marine planning that combines social, economic and environmental factors. Multiple use management plans, arising out of the program, will be based on partnerships between communities, government, and the private sector. They will take into account and link with existing regional management strategies, including catchment management plans. This Commonwealth government initiative will fund the development of coherent and effective policies by regional and local authorities, whose statutory planning should include clear guidelines and enforceable environmental standards for residential, commercial and industrial development. The key objectives of this program are to minimise the impacts of uncoordinated development in the coastal zone and minimise the impacts of land-based marine pollutants, particularly those arising from ad hoc development, stormwater, and sewage discharges on coastal and marine environments. The Coastal and Marine Planning Program will also contribute to Australia's international coastal and marine environmental obligations, including the implementation of the United Nations Environment Program's Global Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities.Coastcare is a community-based program that is a cornerstone of the Commonwealth's commitment to working with the coastal community. Coastcare encourages communities to become stewards of their local coastal areas as they are frequently the first to identify problems and often the best placed to identify solutions. The program promotes community and local government partnerships to undertake works principally on public land. The emphasis is on-ground works, including revegetation of dunes and wetlands, control of weeds and feral animals, protection and rehabilitation of coastal habitats and access control.The Clean Seas Program assists better water management in coastal areas by supporting projects which have a direct effect on reducing pollution and degradation of the marine environment, particularly projects tackling discharges directly into estuaries or the sea. The program targets on-ground action and reform through promoting innovative management of wastewater and stormwater, including increased reuse and recycling, the development of new Australian technologies, the rehabilitation of polluted areas, the reduction of erosion and sediment discharge in runoff, as well as coastal urban design and development incorporating sustainable water management. Examples of projects that will be supported include innovative side entry pit collectors, stormwater pipe interceptors, constructed wetlands and package stormwater treatment devices for removing pollutants from stormwater, techniques for reducing sewage overflow contamination of stormwater systems or coastal waters from septic tanks and other on-site systems, and projects improving the removal of nutrients from sewage effluent, as well as strategies to increase water reuse and recharge of aquifers.The Fisheries Action Program acts to protect fish habitats and ensure that commercial and recreational fishing practices are sustainable. It provides an opportunity for community groups, government and industry to make Australia's fisheries more productive while protecting the surrounding aquatic environment. Community and industry groups will be able to replace depleted fish stocks, compile inventories of fish fauna and habitats, develop local education centres and programs and provide information on endangered species and ecologically sustainable fishing practices.The well-being of the coast ultimately lies in the quality of the decisions made by a wide range of coastal managers in government, industry and the community. The Capacity Building Program provides opportunities for coastal and marine education, information exchange through the internet, the development of industry codes of practices and professional development and training. The Australian Coastal Atlas is being developed to provide up-to-date and interactive electronic information on the coastal and marine environments. This information is essential to allow coastal managers to make effective decisions and increase their own environmental awareness by providing information that can be manipulated for their own particular management needs.The Coastal Monitoring Program aims to assist coastal managers and the wider community in identifying significant threats to key coastal environments and habitats and, over time, in assessing the effectiveness of policies designed to protect them. A regional monitoring network is being developed with pilot sites established in the Alligator Rivers region and at Jervis Bay. Further sites may be added as suitable locations are identified. A directory of Coastal and Marine Monitoring is being developed on the internet to provide coastal managers with information on what and who is doing monitoring in Australia. The major focus in 1998-99 will be to expand the range of information available in the directory and make it accessible to all internet users. The Coastal Monitoring Program will also fund a range of other projects through both a publicly advertised and Commonwealth component grant process. Indicative priorities for 1998-99 for the publicly advertised grants include seagrass loss, water quality in estuaries and coastal lakes, mangrove and saltmarsh loss in developed areas, eutrophication and coastal reefs.The Marine Species Protection Program aids on-ground activities which identify and reduce threats to vulnerable marine mammals, seabirds, turtles and fish species (including sharks). It funds activities which address the adverse environmental impacts of commercial and recreational fishing, control the impact from other commercial and recreational activities, reduce the impact caused by habitat degradation, and address the effects of environmental changes on marine species and habitats from a whole-of-ecosystem perspective. The aim of the program is to ensure that community and industry groups, fisheries managers, marine management and research agencies, and governments work together for the conservation and sustainable use of living marine resources.The Introduced Marine Pests Program supports measures that either reduce the likelihood of exotic marine pests being introduced into or spread through Australian waters, or measures that reduce, manage and/or locally eradicate exotic marine pests that have already been introduced. The focus of the program is on evaluating and reducing the impacts on the marine environment of exotic pest species that have breached existing quarantine barriers. The program funds projects on activities such as the systematic detection of, and rapid response to, new exotic pest incursions, impact assessment programs of existing introduced marine pests, removal and eradication techniques for threatening exotic marine species and raising public and industry awareness to help prevent the introduction and spread of harmful exotic marine species.The Marine Protected Areas Program supports the development of a National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA) and sustainable multiple use of the marine environment in addition to declaration work to develop marine protected areas within Commonwealth Waters established under Commonwealth legislation. This program will support relevant State and Territory projects, including scientific research, to determine the basis for protected areas, public awareness and community consultation programs, as well as the development and implementation of strategic projects to help expand the existing system of marine parks and reserves. A bioregional planning framework has been established to help guide the identification of areas for inclusion in the NRSMPA and ensure that it is representative of the full range of Australia's marine environments.The Commonwealth, States and the Northern Territory have been working together to develop automated databases—electronic coastal resource atlases—to identify what is most at risk from oil spills and maritime accidents. These atlases provide information on such things as biological resources, environmentally significant and sensitive areas, and ownership of potentially affected sites and infrastructure. The atlases will greatly assist in planning for contaminant spills, installing the most effective protection for our foreshores and deploying the most appropriate control and clean-up equipment for specific marine environments.Recommendation 6The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with State and/or local authorities, as appropriate to oversee catchment management policies from the perspective of their eventual impact on the marine environment, and to develop strategies to ensure that catchment management committees are genuinely representative of catchment communities. ResponseThe government recognises and supports the adoption of an integrated approach to the conservation and ecologically sustainable management of Australia's land, water and biodiversity. The adoption of an integrated catchment management approach to water resource management is a key guiding principle of both the 1994 COAG Water Reform Framework and the National Landcare Plan. In addition, a key finding of the 1996 State of the Environment Report was the urgent need for integrated management approach for marine environments and catchment areas. The government, in partnership with State and Territory governments, is developing integrated catchment management policies through participation in such bodies as the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and the Lake Eyre Basin Catchment Management Committee. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is engaged in providing integrated management for the particularly sensitive marine environment of the Reef.However, the primary responsibility for land and water management lies with the State and Territory governments. In its report to COAG of February 1994, the Working Group on Water Resource Policy noted that in some jurisdictions, integrated catchment management has not been introduced to the extent that it has elsewhere, and that there is a requirement for those jurisdictions where institutional arrangements of this nature have not yet been fully implemented, to consider doing so. (It should be noted that COAG does not include the Norfolk Island government.) Nevertheless, the Commonwealth recognises that it has a role in encouraging State, Territory and Local governments to develop catchment management policies which address potential impacts on the marine environment, (through the Coastal and Marine Planning Program, for instance) and to ensure that their catchment management committees genuinely represent the catchment community, including marine industries likely to be affected by decisions taken by the committee.Recommendation 7The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with State and/or local authorities, as appropriate to address the issues of acid sulphate soils and their impact on the marine environment including the development of legislation and management strategies to control activities on areas affected and to rehabilitate those areas already disturbed.ResponseThe National Working Party on Acid Sulfate Soils has been established by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management (SCARM) to develop a national strategy for the management of acid sulfate soils. Representation on the Working Party has been drawn from SCARM, the Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council, the Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture, the National Farmers' Federation, the Australian Seafood Industry Council, the Cane Growers Association, CSIRO and DPIE. The Working Party has finalised a draft strategy, which is expected to be released for public comment in the near future.In addition, the Coastcare Program aims to raise the awareness of land managers of the potential threats to the marine environment of various land management practices and the National Landcare Program has been funding projects aimed at improving knowledge about the occurrence of acid sulfate soils and their management.Recommendation 8The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with State and/or local authorities, as appropriate to set uniform target dates for the elimination of discharges of untreated sewage to the sea, and to explore land based treatment strategies wherever environmentally possible.ResponseThe government supports the elimination of discharges of untreated sewage to the sea. As part of the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS), Draft Guidelines for Urban Stormwater Management , and Draft Guidelines for Sewerage Systems—Use of Reclaimed Water have been developed. These draft Guidelines have been released for public comment and are currently being finalised. These Guidelines aim to highlight the limitations of many existing stormwater management practices and promote organisational structures, procedures and best management practices which address currently fragmented jurisdictional and functional arrangements. The NWQMS's Guidelines for Sewerage Systems: Effluent Management establish national guidelines for effluent discharges to land, inland waters, and ocean and marine waters. The Guidelines also promote effluent reuse where appropriate. While implementation of these Guidelines is a matter for individual jurisdictions, the Commonwealth government encourages their use and notes that the implementation of the NWQMS is one of the COAG Water Reform Framework performance milestones linked to competition policy payments to State and Territory governments.A number of existing initiatives for reclaimed water use involving vegetation and forests are being developed through catalytic funding from the Natural Heritage Trust through the National Landcare Program. In addition, Coasts and Clean Seas aims to assist State and Local governments to improve the performance of ocean outfalls in environmentally sensitive areas, and to develop water-use efficiency and effluent reuse projects.The government notes, however, that any land based treatment strategies need to be environmentally sound to avoid possible land degradation and contamination of ground and surface water resources through infiltration or surface runoff.Recommendation 9The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with State and/or local authorities, as appropriate to develop integrated strategies for dealing with stormwater, including sewerage overflows into stormwater systems, and to develop clear enforceable guidelines assigning responsibility for the management of stormwater and the maintenance of the relevant infrastructure.ResponseThe Commonwealth does not have the power to enforce guidelines in jurisdictions other than its own. As part of the Council of Australian governments' (COAG) Water Reform Framework a report on Wastewater Reuse and Stormwater Management, and a consequent Policy Position Paper entitled Wastewater and Stormwater Management—A National Framework for Improved Wastewater Reuse and Stormwater Management in Australia , have been prepared that support integrated strategies for stormwater management. On the basis of these reports, the government supports the evaluation of the economics of the urban water life cycle so as to identify opportunities for improving the ecologically sustainable management of water resources and the health of inland and coastal waters in cost effective ways.As part of the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS), Draft Guidelines for Urban Stormwater Management , and Draft Guidelines for Sewerage Systems—Use of Reclaimed Water have been developed. These draft guidelines have been released for public comment and are currently being finalised. These Guidelines aim to highlight the limitations of many existing stormwater management practices and promote organisational structures and procedures which address currently fragmented jurisdictional and functional arrangements.Recommendation 10The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with State and/or local authorities, as appropriate to encourage the development of effective on-site wastewater technologies, and the necessary standards, and the treatment and reuse of urban stormwater and household effluent in new housing developments; and the modification of existing systems to the maximum extent possible. Response The Commonwealth's role is limited by the fact that the legislative basis for planning and land management of the terrestrial area of the coastal zone is primarily provided by the States, with Local government generally responsible for day-to-day decision making. The principal responsibility for the management of land based sources of marine pollution also rests with State and Local governments. However, several Commonwealth initiatives are underway to address the issues raised in this recommendation.The Commonwealth is currently working with State and Local governments through the Council of Australian governments (COAG) Water Reform Framework Agreement to improve the management of stormwater and wastewater. COAG has requested that the Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ), the Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC) and the Ministerial Council for Planning, Housing and Local government examine the management and ramifications of making greater use of wastewater in urban areas and develop strategies for handling stormwater, including its use. A policy position paper on wastewater and stormwater management was prepared and has since been adopted by COAG.The National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) also promotes better and innovative management of stormwater and wastewater. The COAG Water Reform Framework recognises the role of the NWQMS and requires the State and Territory governments to support the development of the NWQMS through the adoption of a package of market-based and regulatory measures, including the establishment of appropriate water quality monitoring and catchment management policies and community consultation and awareness. This is particularly applicable to the increasing adoption of wastewater reuse and stormwater management.As part of the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS), Draft Guidelines for Urban Stormwater Management , and Draft Guidelines for Sewerage Systems—Use of Reclaimed Water have been developed. These draft guidelines have been released for public comment and are currently being finalised.The Commonwealth government, through the Natural Heritage Trust's National Landcare, Rivercare and Coasts and Clean Seas programs has been contributing to the improvement of water management for marine and coastal areas by part-funding project activities that find ecologically sustainable and economically viable re-use options for treated effluent and the demonstration of new, low cost or innovative approaches to water management and delivery of water services. Recommendation 11The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with State and/or local authorities, as appropriate to explore the desirability of large-scale reuse of treated effluent and stormwater for industrial and agricultural purposes.ResponseOn the fundamental premise that improved management of stormwater and wastewater is integral to the Council of Australian governments (COAG) Water Reform Framework Agreement, COAG requested that the Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ), the Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC) and the Ministerial Council for Planning, Housing and Local government examine the management and ramifications of making greater use of wastewater in urban areas and strategies for handling stormwater, including its use. A policy position paper on wastewater and stormwater management was prepared and has since been adopted by COAG.The paper makes it clear that improving the overall efficiency of the use of water resources while maintaining appropriate environmental values, the fundamental guiding objective in resource management, should serve to minimise the impact of the effects of stormwater runoff and the return of treated effluent to urban waterways, estuaries and coastal waters. An important tool in the efficient use of water is to price water at its true environmental cost, which is as important as reusing water after it has been used inefficiently. The paper also contains recommendations aimed at minimising the impediments to wastewater reuse and stormwater management, and encouraging and publicising the use of wastewater and improved management of stormwater as a resource rather than as waste stream.The COAG water reform framework recognises the role of the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) in promoting improved water quality and requires the State and Territory governments to support the development of the NWQMS through the adoption of a package of market-based and regulatory measures, including the establishment of appropriate water quality monitoring and catchment management policies and community consultation and awareness. This is particularly applicable to the increasing adoption of wastewater reuse and stormwater management. As part of the NWQMS, Draft Guidelines for Urban Stormwater Management , and Draft Guidelines for Sewerage Systems—Use of Reclaimed Water have been developed. These draft guidelines have been released for public comment and are currently being finalised. The Commonwealth government, through the Natural Heritage Trust's National Landcare Program has been contributing to the improvement of water management for rural areas and small country towns by part-funding project activities such as ecologically sustainable and economically viable re-use options for treated effluents and the demonstration of new, low cost or innovative approaches to water management and delivery of water services. Both of these are to be undertaken in a catchment management context.However, it needs to be recognised that the reuse of treated effluent and stormwater will not be a universal panacea as both sources represent quite considerable amounts of water. Physical factors which have limited the use of wastewater and stormwater have included the temporal variability of flow (for example, this could mean that large quantities of urban stormwater are generated at times when demands for second class water are minimal), limitation on available storage, and water quality. Moreover, the collection of sewage into a few centralised locations for treatment creates large localised volumes of effluent which often exceed any local demands for second class water.Recommendation 12The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with State and/or local authorities, as appropriate to extend the protection of mangrove and wetland areas, especially in areas under threat from coastal development and harmful discharges, and to rehabilitate degraded areas wherever possible.ResponseThe Commonwealth has indicated that it aims to provide leadership in the conservation and wise use of wetlands through the Wetlands Policy of the Commonwealth government of Australia. Funding of activities through the National Wetlands Program of the Natural Heritage Trust has provided an opportunity to take a national approach to wetland conservation activities.It is a guiding principle of the Wetlands Policy of the Commonwealth government of Australia that the repair of degraded wetlands should be undertaken where ecologically beneficial, feasible and cost effective. The Commonwealth released its Wetlands Policy in February 1997, and is currently developing an implementation plan for the Policy. The Commonwealth will promote this by funding appropriate projects from the Natural Heritage Trust and Coast and Clean Seas . Wetland protection and rehabilitation are also identified as priorities in the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity. Further, the Coastal and Marine Planning Program seeks to manage pressures on key habitats, including wetlands and mangroves through improved regional strategic planning.In addition, nomination of sites as Ramsar wetlands or as East Asian-Australasian Shorebird Reserves, and development of management plans for those sites are being encouraged through the Commonwealth—State/Territory partnership agreements. The partnership agreements also reflect commitment on the part of State and Territory governments to develop a strategic approach to conservation and management of wetlands and coastal habitats through the development of wetland management policy statements.Recommendation 13The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with State and/or local authorities, as appropriate to develop strategies to prevent further damage to seagrass beds from the effects of coastal development, sewerage and stormwater outfalls and diffuse run-off from agricultural activities.ResponseAustralia has the world's largest number of seagrass species (over 30 species) and some of the largest and most diverse seagrass beds. Seagrass provides essential or important habitat for significant marine species such as western rock lobsters, tiger and endeavour prawns, green turtle, leafy sea dragons and dugongs. Australian seagrasses are highly endemic, particularly those found in the temperate regions below about 25-30 degrees south. Losses of temperate seagrasses through human-induced changes has been particularly severe due partly to the intense development pressures existing in the southern regions.The Council of Australian governments (COAG) has initiated a variety of strategies and policies which will have the effect of reducing threats of damage to seagrass beds. The Water Reform Framework Agreement aims to improve the management of stormwater and wastewater. A policy paper on wastewater and stormwater management, prepared by the Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ), the Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC) and the Ministerial Council for Planning, Housing and Local government, has been adopted by COAG.The National Water Quality Management Strategy is recognised under the COAG Water Reform Framework Agreement and its development supported by COAG. The NWQMS has developed a variety of packages of market-based and regulatory measures that establish appropriate water quality monitoring and catchment management policies, community consultation and increase community awareness. The issue of diffuse run-off from agricultural activity is being addressed through the development of principles and high level national Guidelines through the NWQMS. These Guidelines include the draft Guidelines for Urban Stormwater Management, (released for public comment and currently being finalised); the draft Guidelines for Sewerage Systems—Use of Reclaimed Water (released for public comment and currently being finalised); Rural Landuses and Water Quality—A Community Resource Document ; Effluent Management Guidelines for Dairy Sheds; Effluent Management Guidelines for Dairy Processing Plants; EffluentManagement Guidelines for Intensive Piggeries; Effluent Management Guidelines for Aqueous Wool Scouring and Carbonising; and Effluent Management Guidelines for Tanning and Related Industries.The issue of diffuse run-off from agricultural activity is also being addressed through program activities of the National Landcare Program and the National Rivercare Initiative funded by the Natural Heritage Trust (NATURAL HERITAGE TRUST) which focus on the causes of the problem through improving the management of natural resources, rather than addressing the symptoms. The NATURAL HERITAGE TRUST is aimed at stimulating significant improvement and greater integration of biodiversity conservation, land, water and vegetation management on public and private land.The Commonwealth's approach to natural resource management through the NATURAL HERITAGE TRUST is to continuously improve the decision making practices of land and water managers. This has involved a number of elements including improving the awareness of managers of problems about the complex relationships involved and the management practices these require, assisting them to access information on the causes of problems, and encouraging them to acquire, as an ongoing process, the skills required to implement ecologically sustainable management practices.The NATURAL HERITAGE TRUST's Landcare, Rivercare and Coasts and Clean Seas Programs have been contributing to the improvement of water management for marine and coastal areas by part-funding project activities such as ecologically sustainable and economically viable re-use options for treated effluent and the demonstration of new, low cost or innovative approaches to water management and delivery of water services, as well as strategic and regional management, planning and monitoring.Through the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority, the Commonwealth has supported a range of initiatives in partnership with State and Local governments to monitor and reduce the input of land based pollutants which are destroying seagrass beds. These include a flood monitoring program which investigates the impact of catchment management practices on the spatial and temporal dynamics of flood plumes and their entrained contaminant loads to reef waters; an agricultural research and extension program which will document and demonstrate the impact of variable stocking rates of beef cattle in dryland savannah country on reducing soil and nutrient loss from grazing lands; and a long term water quality monitoring program which monitors chlorophyll concentrations at key sites along the length of the Great Barrier Reef to assess long term changes in the nutrient status of reef waters.In addition, there is a research program which is developing nutrient and sediment budgets for reef waters from the major catchments draining into Great Barrier Reef waters; a monitoring program which investigates the concentrations of heavy metals and organochlorine compounds in nearshore sediments and seagrasses and in marine mammal populations; and a research program which investigates the impact of increased nutrient on coral reproduction.Other initiatives include policy documents written in consultation with the Queensland Department of Environment to provide minimum standards for effluent and wastewaters discharged into World Heritage Area waters. In addition, broadscale and finescale surveys of the distribution of Great Barrier Reef seagrass beds (including recently discovered deep water meadows) have been funded for key areas of the Great Barrier Reef. Future surveys will target dugong protection areas (DPAs) will be conducted in conjunction with the Queensland Department of Primary Industry.The Coasts and Clean Seas Monitoring Program is tackling this issue via a series of state workshops, culminating in a national workshop held in late 1997. Follow-up of the outcomes of this national workshop is underway.The Commonwealth has also provided funding to address more general issues. For example, the National Landcare Program has provided funding assistance since 1997 to the Australian Fertiliser Services Industry Association to develop a set of Guidelines and Code of Practice for the fertiliser services industry. The principal aim is to ensure that the practices of the fertiliser industry are ecologically sustainable and economically viable by the year 2000. The project aims to minimise the impact of the industry's activities on Australia's land, water and air resources while guaranteeing a sustainable future for the agricultural industry.Recommendation 14The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with State and/or local authorities, as appropriate to develop and review standards and procedures relating to the prevention and control of oil spills in Australian waters, in consultation with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and other relevant bodies, including the develop ment of management plans for fishing vessels and small pleasure craft in the nearshore zone.ResponseThe majority of fishing vessels and small pleasure craft are subject to State and Territory jurisdiction in respect of legislative requirements and management plans. That said, standards and procedures relating to the control of oil spills are contained in the National Plan to Combat Oil Pollution of the Sea by Oil (NatPlan). NatPlan, administered by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), brings together the resources of the States, Northern Territory, the Commonwealth and industry to respond to oil pollution incidents in the marine environment including incidents caused by fishing vessels and small pleasure craft. Improvements to NatPlan over the last few years have enhanced Australia's preparation for a major spill by addressing review and reassessment of contingency plans, including coastal resource atlases, preparedness of equipment, the identification and appropriate training of personnel and the sourcing of additional personnel, equipment and resources.The NatPlan has been regularly reviewed through both internal and external processes, including the High Level National Plan Review (1993), the Australian National Audit Office Performance Audit (1994); the 1995 Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure; the Iron Baron Review (1995); the recommendations arising from the major exercise George Bass in Victoria (1996); and the Strategic Directions meeting of the National Plan Advisory Committee (1997).A review of NatPlan training conducted by both government and industry is currently under way. The effectiveness of the plan is also reviewed automatically following exercises every two years and every major incident. Australia, through the International Maritime Organization, is coordinating many initiatives aimed at the prevention of oil spills. For example, Australia took an active part in the IMO developing draft regulations to improve the safety of new and existing bulk carriers. Australia is also a leading proponent of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code which is intended to provide an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for pollution prevention by providing for safe practices in ship operation and a safe working environment; establishing safeguards against all identified risks; and continuously improving the safety management skills of personnel ashore and on-board ships, including preparing for emergencies relating both to safety and environmental protection.Australia also seeks to prevent oil spills by promoting greater understanding and awareness of maritime issues within the general community and industry, particularly for small vessels, as they relate to the marine environment. This area is a major focus in the National Marine Education Program and Coasts and Clean Seas . In 1997, the National Plan Advisory Committee completed a two year education program. The primary focus of this program was the development of an education resource kit and its circulation to several thousand schools, universities and libraries around Australia. Following a decision by the National Plan Advisory Committee in November 1997, a new three year program has commenced.As previously mentioned, under Coasts and Clean Seas , the Commonwealth, States and the Northern Territory have been working together to develop automated databases—electronic coastal resource atlases—to identify what is most at risk from oil spills and maritime accidents. These atlases provide information on such things as biological resources, environmentally significant and sensitive areas, and ownership of potentially affected sites and infrastructure. The atlases will greatly assist in planning for contaminant spills, installing the most effective protection for our foreshores and deploying the most appropriate control and clean-up equipment for specific marine environments.Recommendation 15The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with State and/or local authorities, as appropriate to develop uniform national standards and fee structures for the disposal of ships' waste and to incorporate waste reception fees into general port duties in order to discourage dumping of waste at sea to avoid waste reception fees.ResponseStandards for the disposal of ships' wastes in Australia are based upon standards developed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). These standards must be consistent with Australian quarantine measures and the requirements of our trading partners, as the majority of vessels using Australian ports operate in the international arena. IMO standards are effected through national, State and Territory legislation. This legislation provides for penalties to be levied if dumping of ships' wastes occurs.The Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council's (ANZECC) National Strategy on Maritime Accidents and Pollution (the Seagull Report) is currently being implemented. ANZECC has developed a report providing information on mandatory and recommended approaches to improving waste reception facilities at ports, marinas and boat harbours, contained in the recently completed Best Practice Guidelines for the Provision of Waste Reception Facilities at Ports, Marinas and Boat Harbours in Australia and New Zealand . The Guidelines aim to achieve best practice with regard to management of wastes in ports, marinas and boat harbours in Australia and New Zealand and to reduce marine pollution from shipping of all sizes. The Guidelines will be implemented by State and Local governments through licensing and approval processes for ports, boat harbours and marinas, and other measures for ensuring effective environmental management of these facilities. The Commonwealth government is also developing an auditing strategy for waste reception facilities. Under the MARPOL (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships) 73/78 Convention, regulations, all vessels of over 400 grt must keep a garbage record book to record all waste disposal from 1 July 1998. These regulations will be implemented by State and Territory governments. The management of marine debris will be improved through a waste recording and audit system for small commercial coastal vessels not covered by current MARPOL regulations. A national monitoring program for marine debris and a community and industry awareness and needs survey is being developed to assist with the education of the community and industry about maritime and shipping issues, including the dumping of waste.State and Territory governments are responsible for ports and have been moving to privatise or commercialise their ports and fully recover costs. Incorporating waste disposal costs into general port dues would not be consistent with port users' expectations that charges made by ports be transparent and reflect the nature of the business. Port authorities have responsibility for ensuring adequate waste reception facilities are available, but the provision of such services is usually provided by the waste disposal industry on a competitive commercial basis. Costs of waste disposal vary significantly from port to port depending on the waste disposal facilities available, on the vessel and cargo types handled and many other factors. A uniform national fee structure for ships' waste disposal would lead to cross subsidisation in some ports and would be inconsistent with competitive commercial practices.Currently, quarantine requirements for disposal of galley refuse from vessels is by means of incineration, deep burial at marked sites or by heat treatment. In most ports this is undertaken by contractors who are monitored and audited by AQIS. The recent Nairn Report on quarantine, Australian Quarantine—A Shared Responsibility , recommended that auditing of this disposal be intensified. As these quality assurance arrangements for vessel waste are cost-recovered by AQIS, any review of waste reception fees and fee structures should take the AQIS requirements into account. It should be noted that some jurisdictions have recently reclassified quarantine waste to the level of hazardous waste. As a result of this reclassification, there has been a steep rise in the costs of quarantine waste disposal. This issue should also be considered in the fee structure for waste disposal.Recommendation 16The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with State and/or local authorities, as appropriate to negotiate an agreement on the domestic movement of ballast water and to explore with industry and other stakeholders the potential for legislation to implement the Australian Ballast Water Management Guidelines.ResponseThe issues of agreement on domestic movement of ballast water and mandatory observation of the Australian Ballast Water Management Guidelines are addressed by the current priorities within the Australian Ballast Water Management Strategy. The Strategy encompasses a range of management and research measures to be undertaken cooperatively by all relevant levels of government, industries and other non-government interests aimed at improving environmental protection.In relation to coastal ballast water translocations, initiatives have already been taken towards an inter-governmental agreement on the domestic movement of ballast water. The Australian Ballast Water Management Advisory Council (ABWMAC), which includes representatives from each State, the Northern Territory and Commonwealth government agencies, finalised Guidelines for managing the domestic movement of ballast water in November 1996. The Council is administered by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) and advises the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy on ballast water issues. At its last meeting on 18 November 1997 the Council agreed to trial the Guidelines between three ports (Melbourne, Adelaide, Devonport) to develop nationally consistent procedures for the application of the Guidelines around Australia. The trial is being funded under Coasts and Clean Seas . The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy wrote to State and Northern Territory Ministers responsible for ballast water issues on 2 December 1997 seeking their agreement to the introduction of Coastal Guidelines and in reply the States and Northern Territory have agreed. Resourcing the management of Coastal Guidelines is an issue still under consideration.In relation to legislation for implementation of the Australian Ballast Water Management Guidelines for international shipping visiting an Australian first port of call, initiatives are already underway to secure mandatory regulatory arrangements through the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The Australian Ballast Water Management Guidelines for international shipping were introduced in 1990 and are currently implemented on a voluntary basis, in line with a Resolution of the IMO. Legislation for ballast water management is likely following the adoption by the IMO of a mandatory ballast water Annex to MARPOL (the International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships), which is expected in the year 2000. Unilateral action to introduce legislation before this would be inconsistent with Australia's current approach to IMO conventions, and with Australia's stated position in the IMO. In addition, it is unlikely that it would be an effective or practical approach as mandatory management procedures and ballast exchange validation methodologies are still being developed.Recommendation 17The committee recommends continuing Commonwealth support for strategic ballast water research and for specific programs such as research conducted by the National Seastar Task Force.ResponseThe Commonwealth is providing continuing support for the Strategic Ballast Water Research and Development Program, developed by the Australian Ballast Water Management Advisory Council (ABWMAC). It is administered by AQIS, and commenced implementation in 1996/97 when it was funded by the shipping industry and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA). Funding for 1997/98 will be provided under Coasts and Clean Seas and for 1998/99 to 1999/2000, funding will be derived from a levy on both international and coastal shipping.The National Seastar Task Force has not met for almost two years. The coordinating role undertaken in the past by the National Seastar Task Force in relation to the marine pest, the Northern Pacific Seastar (Asterias amurensis ), has to a large degree been subsumed by the CSIRO Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP). Continuation of funding for research on introduced marine pests should therefore relate to other research organisations, including CRIMP. The Introduced Marine Pests Program under Coasts and Clean Seas will be an important source of support over 4 years from 1997-98 for targeted research and management programs to both assess and reduce the impact of harmful exotic species introduced to the Australian marine environment.The establishment of an incursion response capability for new outbreaks of introduced marine pests is a priority under the Introduced Marine Pests Program. The Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC), through its Standing Committee on Conservation, is currently working with the Ministerial Council on Forests, Fisheries and Agriculture's (MCFFA) Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA) to establish joint Commonwealth and State arrangements to support a ready response capability for incursions of exotic marine pests.Recommendation 18The committee recommends the replacement of discharge standards based on concentration of pollutants by stronger standards based on scientific understanding of particular marine ecosystems, and the negotiation of uniform standards, where appropriate to avoid competitive undermining of standards in different jurisdictions.ResponseThe Commonwealth, on behalf of the Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC) and the Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ), is coordinating the revision of the ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters, as part of the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS).The Guidelines address ambient (environmental) water quality rather than discharge water quality, and through the revision process are moving away from single number guidelines to a risk based approach that takes into account site specific factors that modify the effects of a pollutant. Hence, it comprises a standard national approach that takes into account an ecosystem's unique characteristics to derive meaningful ecosystem specific guidelines (for example ambient nutrient concentrations in estuaries). This approach has been able to be progressed furthest for the natural physical and chemical stressors (such as Ph, salinity, turbidity and nutrients) and toxicants listed in the chapter on aquatic ecosystem protection.The approach requires a greater understanding of the ecosystems being managed than the previous Guidelines and emphasises the need for efficient and effective monitoring programs that will enable environmental/ecosystem modelling approaches to be developed (including load based models). The Guidelines will therefore focus on managing issues and problems rather than individual water quality parameters, and promote a cooperative management approach involving all stakeholders. As part of this new approach, there is a greater emphasis on the use of biological indicators for the assessment of water quality within the wider context of ecosystem integrity, and environmental quality objectives that must be maintained or attained if the values of the water resource are to be protected. More attention has been given to nutrients and algal blooms in the revised guidelines and sediment quality guidelines have been included for the first time.While implementation of these Guidelines is a matter for individual jurisdictions, the Commonwealth government encourages their use and notes that the implementation of the NWQMS is one of the COAG Water Reform Framework performance milestones linked to competition policy payments to State and Territory governments.The development of national environment protection measures (NEPM) by the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) is a mechanism for achieving mandatory natural ambient marine and estuarine water quality standards. It is noted that a proposal for a NEPM for ambient marine and estuarine water quality is likely to be considered by the NEPC in the second half of 1998.Recommendation 19The committee recommends the provision in the National Marine Science and Technology Plan of secure, long-term funding to support taxonomic research and museum collections.Recommendation 20The committee recommends the establishment of a system of Commonwealth funded scholarships and research fellowships attached to particular museums, and to ensure the supply of appropriately trained marine scientists .Recommendation 21The committee recommends a Commonwealth funded group of scientists attached to an existing museum or university to undertake study of Australia's southern waters.Response to Recommendations 19, 20 & 21Several submissions made in response to the Scoping Paper for the Marine Science and Technology Plan highlighted the need to build our taxonomic skills base, to introduce a marine science scholarships program, and to improve our understanding of marine species, introduced marine pests, and ecosystems in southern temperate waters. These issues will be addressed in the drafting of the Marine Science and Technology Plan. The Plan will recognise the importance of increasing our understanding of our marine environment and its resources, and will consider means of achieving these objectives.The Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS) is a Federal government project structured to facilitate Recommendations 19 and 20, and thus, indirectly, Recommendation 21. The ABRS is well placed to implement, and is already involved in, many components of these recommendations. It has a long-established grants program for taxonomists, catering for those attached to particular institutions or unattached personnel, and has a PhD scholarship award scheme.The government recognises that Australia's southern temperate waters have not been the arch in the way that large areas of our tropical northern waters have. Given the level of endemism in our southern waters, this disparity needs to be corrected over time.Recommendation 22The committee recommends the coordination and standardisation of the collection and management of information relating to the marine environment, and ease of access to that information.ResponseThe Commonwealth government, through the Environmental Resources Information Network (ERIN), a technical group within Environment Australia, is leading the coordination and standardisation of the collection, management and dissemination of information relating to Australia's marine and coastal environment. It has specialised in providing Internet-based access tools and World Wide Web sites that allow easy access to the derived information. Coordination across all spheres of government, industry, academia and the general user community is progressing through the adoption of distributed Internet technologies as one of the major delivery mechanisms. The Commonwealth has a national leadership role to play in the long term dynamic assessment of the marine and coastal environment through the collection of the primary data, its analysis, the production of useable interpreted products, the provision of advice and the establishment of technical monitoring networks which specifically focus on biological indicators as well as water and sediment quality as indicators of environmental health. The national State of Environment (SoE) Reporting Program is also run by Environment Australia.Recent efforts in the Commonwealth sphere have been directed to Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), the Marine Science & Technology Plan, Oceans Policy, UNCLOS Law of the Sea boundary definitions, the Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure (ASDI) and the scoping of the creation of a National Marine Data Group (NMDG).There are a number of Commonwealth government initiatives designed to further organise the collection, collation and distribution of coastal and marine information. The Heads of Marine Agencies (HOMA) and the Commonwealth Spatial Data Committee (CSDC) provide information on a voluntary basis about the status of marine & coastal data/ information management and dissemination. This includes custodial arrangements for the long term storage and maintenance of nationally significant core datasets within Australia across all marine disciplines.The Australian Coastal Atlas (ACA) Project is a major national initiative currently underway which allows users to customise a map with several spatial information layers using a distributed World Wide Web architecture. This project involves collaboration with State and the Northern Territory governments to establish a series of State Nodes to the Australian Coastal Atlas. The basic premise of such distributed systems is that the organisations or people who are best able to update and maintain the information are encouraged to do so in their role as primary custodians. The ACA specifically focuses on the coastal realm (200m isobath—100 km inland). It is envisaged that coastal monitoring programs will feed directly into the ACA.The National Marine Information System (NatMIS) has helped establish a national network of marine and coastal agencies making their information available via a series of agency marine and coastal World Wide Web sites in a mutually supportive way via the Internet. CoastNet is a forum on the Internet for communicating about coastal management issues that allows ideas, initiatives and solutions to marine and coastal problems to be openly discussed. It has a series of topical discussion groups (List Servers), information on conferences and workshops, on-line manuals and reports and details on community monitoring programs. The Marine and Coastal Data Directory of Australia (Blue Pages) Project is a distributed directory of ANZLIC-compliant marine and coastal dataset descriptions (metadata) held in Australia that allows users to enter and edit their dataset or monitoring information directly using the Internet from anywhere in Australia. There are currently 3,500 entries on the Blue Pages from 35 Agencies, 10 of which host the information on their own site. Commonwealth datasets for the Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation for Australia (IMCRA) Project have been provided to ERIN for loading into the NatMIS. In addition, several national workshops addressing the coordination and standardisation of marine and coastal data have been organised by the ERIN Marine and Coasts Team in the last four years and have resulted in several products being distributed and on-line manuals being released.Recommendation 23The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with State and/or local authorities, as appropriate to develop uniform legislation requiring local councils to provide information relating to the health of the marine environment and impact of proposed developments, waste disposal practices and licence conditions, on request.ResponseThe government supports this recommendation in principle, but notes that local councils only hold a portion of the information about the health of the marine environment and impacts of proposed developments, waste disposal practices and licence conditions. Substantial information is held by State and Territory governments, Commonwealth bodies such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Auth ority (GBRMPA) and CSIRO, research bodies and industry. The community sector also has some information. An exclusive focus on local councils to the exclusion of other bodies will not fully address the perceived problem.Recommendation 24The committee recommends the development of models for community participation in local authority processes, and uniform legislation requiring local councils to provide opportunities for the community to be involved in the decision making process relating to proposed developments and their impact on the marine environment.ResponseThis recommendation needs to be considered by individual States and Territories in recognition of their legislative responsibilities with regard to local councils. The Commonwealth has no jurisdiction relevant to this recommendation. That said, Coasts and Clean Seas will be delivered through the tripartite Coastal Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) between State/Territory governments, State/Territory Local government Associations and the Commonwealth. These MOUs will maximise the potential for cooperative Commonwealth, State/Territory and Local government program delivery and policy development, recognising the extensive interests of all three spheres of government in coastal management and encouraging active ownership by all parties of the issues associated with coastal and marine environmental protection and remediation. This recommendation could be addressed through the consultative mechanisms set up under the Coasts and Clean Seas MOUs.Recommendation 25The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with State and/or local authorities, as appropriate to the provision of opportunities, such as those offered by Coastcare, for members of the community to participate in monitoring and management of the marine environment and in the formulation of policies and programs relating to such activities.ResponseCoasts and Clean Seas is a major component of the Natural Heritage Trust (NATURAL HERITAGE TRUST) designed to help tackle coastal and marine pollution problems, threats to marine biodiversity and habitat degradation, and to promote ecologically sustainable use of Australia's coastal and marine areas, including estuarine areas.The Coast and Clean Seas Coastcare program, through State Assessment Panels, provides funding for community groups to participate in monitoring and management of the marine environment. For example, the North-East Albert Landcare Group have been funded to monitor the impacts of acid sulfate soils in the Hotham Creek and Pimpama River, two important designated fish habitats of Moreton Bay that are periodically affected by acid discharges. The data generated will provide a platform for the local management of acid sulfate soils and their impacts.The Coast and Clean Seas Coastal Monitoring Program aims to assist coastal and marine managers and the wider community in identifying significant threats to the coastal and marine environments and, over time, in assessing the effectiveness of policies designed to protect the environment. For example, the Commonwealth is funding the Jervis Bay Marine Ecological Study, where community groups are taking an active role in monitoring aspects of the environment which are relevant to the management of Jervis Bay.The Commonwealth, in conjunction with the CSIRO Centre for Introduced Marine Pests, is funding a $100,000 twelve month pilot project in 1997_98, to facilitate awareness and support community monitoring of introduced marine pests. The community monitoring pilot will provide an important detection and identification mechanism to pursue incursion management activities under the Introduced Marine Pests Program of Coasts and Clean Seas .Recommendation 26The committee recommends the development of strategies to assist indigenous communities in the management of their parts of the coastal zone.ResponseAustralia's Oceans Policy is being developed in cooperation with the States and Northern Territory government. The policy recognises that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples occupy significant coastal areas of Australia, that there is continued strong cultural association with the coastal area and that indigenous communities have an important role to play in the development of integrated approaches to management of coastal resources. There are a number of processes in train to identify and agree upon indigenous interests in the ocean, including those relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander marine management and conservation aspirations and responsibilities, indigenous fishing and the maintenance of continued access to traditional marine resources. Consideration will be given to indigenous participation and co-management at all levels of planning and management.The Commonwealth, in partnership with the States and Territories, is developing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Fisheries Strategy (ATSIFS), which aims to address concerns and issues raised by indigenous groups about the management of fisheries. ATSIFS objectives include the establishment of structures and processes within each jurisdiction for effective consultation with, and involvement of, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples on the shared use of coastal aquatic resources; the development of principles and mechanisms for identifying understanding and recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; cultural associations with, and traditional use of, coastal aquatic resources to assist in management processes and the development of arrangements for promoting greater involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in sustainable fishing and fishing related activities.The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Coastal Reference Group was established to provide advice to the Commonwealth on the development and implementation of initiatives to involve Indigenous peoples in coastal resource management in the various program elements of Coasts and Clean Seas. An Indigenous Communities Component of Coastcare has been established to provide support for the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and organisations in coastal management providing funds specifically designated for projects undertaken by indigenous communities and organisations.Commonwealth initiatives underway in the Torres Strait will assist ongoing fulfilment of environmental obligations by parties to the Torres Strait Treaty while helping the Torres Strait Islanders to sustainably manage their marine and coastal environment. The Commonwealth is working on these initiatives in cooperation with the Queensland government, the Torres Strait Regional Authority and the Torres Strait Island Coordinating Council.A Strategy for the Planning of Resource Integration in the Torres Strait (SPRITS) is being developed to ensure that decisions on activities in and around the Torres Strait Protected Zone, designated under the Torres Strait Treaty, support the sustainable use of the region's natural resources. SPRITS is taking an integrated approach to the management of a broad range of activities in the Torres Strait such as conservation, shipping, fisheries and cultural resource management. SPRITS will draw together other complementary activities in the Torres Strait.One such activity is the Marine Study for Torres Strait Environment Resources Strategy (MaSTERS) which provides a mechanism for Torres Strait Islanders to participate in developing and delivering environmental management initiatives at a local level. Among other things, MaSTERS has collected cultural and environmental information through fieldwork and collaborative work with other agencies.The Commonwealth and Queensland governments are also working together to develop a Multiple Use Strategic Plan (MUSP) for the Southern Gulf of Carpentaria. The MUSP will guide stakeholders on the future sustainable use of the waters and ad joining coastal areas of the region while helping to secure social and economic benefits for the Gulf community.Recommendation 27The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with State and/or local authorities, as appropriate to the consideration of establishing marine science courses, with equal status to other tertiary entrance subjects, in all States, and to provide funding for marine resource centres at strategically located schools.ResponseCoastcare has helped establish the Star of the Sea Marine Discovery Centre, which will include an aquaria, a touch tank, internet access, a video microscope and displays. This school will also act as a research centre for other schools. Funding will also be provided for a Curriculum Development Officer. Another Coastcare project assists a consultant making school visits around Tasmania to increase awareness of Tasmania's marine and coastal environment. Further, the Commonwealth has supported TAFE, University and Professional Associations to deliver coast and marine educational courses in regional locations around Australia. A Coastal and Marine Short Course program is underway within each State for middle managers and operational staff in a wide range of coastal management disciplines.The Commonwealth government works with State and Territory governments on issues relating to schools through the Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). However, the establishment of marine science courses or marine resource centres in strategically located schools, is primarily the responsibility of individual State and Territory governments.Recommendation 28The committee recommends the provision of funds to relevant peak industry bodies, including the tourism sector, to develop educational materials for use within particular industries, in schools and in the general community.ResponseThe Commonwealth has supported the development of a number of Codes of Practice and Guidelines with peak industry and professional associations under the Coasts and Clean Seas Capacity Building Program. Improved coastal management is being pursued through joint ventures with professional associations and peak industry groups to develop codes of practice that promote enhanced coastal management through the identification and dissemination of best practice. Codes of practice or guidelines are currently being, or have been developed for the aquaculture industry, the recrea tional fishing industry, Surf Lifesaving Association, the coastal planning sector, the commercial fishing sector, the engineering sector and the tourism industry.The Commonwealth has encouraged the further uptake of coastal and marine studies by schools, field studies centres and preservice universities through the Coast and Marine School Project. The first stages of the project focused on a needs analysis to determine the status of marine education in educational facilities in each state, the extent to which coast and marine subjects are taught in the curriculum and what resources are available to support this. The second and third stages have developed a training manual which is currently being utilised with a select number of educators in a train the trainer model'. It is hoped that by utilising this model a wide variety and number of educators (university lecturers, teachers, field studies and interpretive staff) will be provided with professional development in coast and marine studies.In addition, Coastcare has provided funding for Tasmanian teachers to gain a better understanding of coastal and marine issues and the roles of community groups in maintaining ecosystems as a means of enhancing the teaching of marine and coastal issues within appropriate learning areas. The Commonwealth government works with State and Territory governments on issues relating to schools through the Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). However, the adoption or use of education materials in schools is primarily the responsibility of individual State and Territory governments.Recommendation 29The committee recommends the development of a general media campaign, such as the Do the Right Thing campaign to raise community awareness of marine pollution issues and the effect of everyday activities, including those in the home, on the marine environment.ResponseMedia activities are being undertaken to promote special events during the year. For example, Seaweek is an Australia-wide, public education campaign conducted each year to provide information, focus community awareness and encourage the appreciation of the sea and marine habitats. Other media campaigns that are raise community awareness of marine issues and the effect of human activities are included in programs such as Coastcare, International Year of the Ocean and Ocean Care Day.Ocean Care Day is an annual event that promotes the achievements of community and user groups and individuals actively pursuing conservation of Australia's marine and coastal ecosystems at a national, regional and local level. The underlying philosophy of Ocean Care Day (held on the first Sunday in December) is that every Australian has a responsibility to care for Australia's marine and coastal zone. Facilitated by the National Marine and Coastal Community Network (MCCN), Ocean Care Day aims to catalyse and coordinate a broad variety of locally based activities, linking them under a common theme. To this extent, activities are organised by community groups themselves, with the MCCN acting to encourage involvement, with a subsequent role to promote events and community participation in coastal and marine management. In addition, it is anticipated that the launch of the Oceans Policy and Marine Science and Technology Plan in mid-1998 will provide a further opportunity to raise the profile of marine issues.GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO SENATE FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFERENCES COMMITTEE REPORT—CONTRACTING OUT OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES—MAY 1998Recommendation 1The committee recommends, as a bare minimum, that standard contract clauses, tailored as necessary to reflect the particular circumstances of each contract, be used as the means of providing audit access to the relevant third party information and records.The Department of Finance and Administration will collaborate with the Australian National Audit Office to develop guidance material on standard contract clauses. Agencies will need to consider audit access on a case by case basis to ensure an optimal mix of accountability measures which protects the interests of relevant stakeholders and takes account of existing legislative arrangements.The Government notes that the committee's recommendation reflects the Australian National Audit Office's preference for the use of standard contract clauses.Recommendation 2As an interim measure, the committee recommends an extension of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis for sensitive areas of service delivery. It will monitor carefully the usage of the Ombudsman's services and revisit the question at a later stage as to whether a legislative extension of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to cover all contracted out government services is warranted. The Government notes the committee's recommendation concerning an extension of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's jurisdiction.The question whether the Ombudsman should have jurisdiction in relation to contracted out services and functions will be further considered by the Government following the report by the Administrative Review Council at the conclusion of its inquiry into the contracting out of Government services.Contracting agencies will be referred to the March 1998 Department of Finance and Administration guidance document, "Competitive Tendering and Contracting: Guidance for managers" which canvasses accountability arrangements in the context of competitive tendering and contracting.Ordered that the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee be printed.Miscellaneous882882Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Payne, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the reports of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on:(a) its examination of annual reports be extended to 3 December 1998; and(b) the provisions of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 be extended to 8 December 1998.Miscellaneous88210000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I present the 1997 annual report of the Association of Former Members of the Parliament of Australia.Committees88288288216:12:00882Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I present the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee on matters referred to the committee during the previous parliament, and seek leave to incorporate the report in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—Australian Content Paragraph 160 (d) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992Report by the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation CommitteeNovember 1998ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS LEGISLATION COMMITTEEMEMBERSHIP1. MembersSenator A Eggleston, Chair (LP, WA)Senator M Bishop, Deputy Chair (ALP, WA)Senator L Allison (AD, VIC)Senator the Hon N Bolkus (ALP, SA)Senator R Lightfoot (LP, WA)Senator M Payne (LP, NSW)2. Substitute MembersSenator J Tierney (LP, NSW) to substitute for Senator Lightfoot for matters relating to Communications and the ArtsSenator N Stott Despoja (AD, SA) to substitute for Senator Allison for matters relating to Information Technology3. Participating MembersSenator A Bartlett (AD, QLD)Senator V Bourne (AD, NSW)Senator B Brown (AG, TAS)Senator G Campbell (ALP, NSW)Senator K Carr (ALP, VIC)Senator M Colston (IND, QLD)Senator B Harradine (IND, TAS)Senator M Lees (AD, SA)Senator D Margetts (GWA, WA)Senator N Stott Despoja (AD, SA)Re-adoption of InquiryAustralian Content—Paragraph 160 (d) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992The 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:Australian Content—Paragraph 160 (d) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 with a reporting date of 18 December 1998.Senator Alan EgglestonChair30 November 1998 Motion (by Senator Eggleston)—by leave—proposed:That the report be adopted.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Normally the motion is that the Senate take note of the report, is it not?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is a motion for the adoption of the report, a reference coming from the previous parliament. Were you wishing to speak to it?DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—I have not seen the report and I do not know what the recommendations are. Can I double check what it is I am agreeing to.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is readopting the reference from the previous parliament.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—It is not a final report of the committee.Question resolved in the affirmative.Delegation Reports88388316:15:00883Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—by leave—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 19th ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation Conference held between 24 and 28 August inclusively in Kuala Lumpur. ASEAN, as senators would know, is an organisation with great potential to foster economic and political development in the South-East Asian region and it would be of greater benefit to those nations if indeed Australia was part of that organisation. It was my first trip overseas to attend any conference, and I was pleased that it was to attend the Inter-Parliamentary Organisation Conference in Kuala Lumpur.This meeting was of major benefit to me because of its potential, particularly, for those nations which have suffered in the Asian meltdown—Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and others that are caught up in the recession. It also was of great interest that I was able to meet during the conference with both a group of businessmen from Malaysia and, later, an expanded group of people from the eight or so countries that form ASEAN. Just why Australia should not be a member of the organisation and, say, Burma—or Myanmar— should is a question that ought to be directed to some of the senior members of ASEAN. I think that the organisation would be much better served if the economic powerhouse of the region—that is, Australia—was a full member, and I look forward to the day that that happens.I also had a valuable meeting with the Indonesian delegation. They have delegated a minister to handle applications for investment in Indonesia and that vast archipelago. Of particular concern—seeing that Australia now spends most of its mining exploration dollars outside of Australia—was the effect that that may have on the mining industry in Australia. I have contacted the umbrella organisations in Australia and alerted them to that fact. I have also exchanged correspondence and telephone calls with the minister in Indonesia responsible for that. It is an indictment of the land tenure in Australia, as it exists at the moment, that exploration dollars are spent outside of the nation.I also had meetings with the businessmen of Kuala Lumpur and with others that comprised most of the nations that attended AIPO. I was pleased to be able to reconfirm Australia's commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, particularly in light of the fact that India and Pakistan had recently exploded several nuclear devices within their respective boundaries.By entering into a dialogue, and through the free exchange of information and ideas, our region will obviously be richer, but it will only be richer when Australia is able to take up a full and equitable membership of ASEAN. I think for this reason it is essential that Australia reaffirm its involvement and commitment to the region, even if we can only have observer status while we are at the conference. Notwithstanding all that, I think that the important role that forums such as the AIPO conference serve in this endeavour cannot be understated.I will finish by making the point of expressing my sincere gratitude to those staff who made it possible, in particular staff at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Parliamentary Liaison Office, the Parlia mentary Library and all our outposts in Kuala Lumpur and Port Moresby.16:19:00884Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—by leave—I was also a member of this particular delegation that went to the AIPO conference in Kuala Lumpur, and I think a number of issues need to be raised. Firstly, I think it is appropriate to thank those staff members from the Parliamentary Liaison Office who organised the delegation and managed to achieve a number of very difficult tasks, including the organisation of the next leg of the delegation, a bilateral visit to Papua New Guinea which was terminated on the day that the election was called which just happened to be the day that we arrived. No doubt that delegation will take place in the near future—I am not sure what the arrangement will be.I thank those members of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade who came down here to brief the various members of the delegation. I thank the High Commissioner and his staff in KL for their assistance to the delegation and for also hosting a very important meeting there with Australian trade and business representatives. I found it particularly useful. It provided me with a great deal of information about what was going on in Malaysia at that time, and it gave me a pretty good insight into the economy of Malaysia.I have had a look at this report. The only real deficiency—and I guess I should have picked this out somewhat earlier—is that, if I were an observer reading this report, I would want to know if our representatives actually said anything about East Timor. One of our delegates—I think it might have been Mr Nugent—made the comment to the Indonesian delegates that East Timor was the cancer—I think was the word he used in the meeting we had with them—that was causing all sorts of problems with the relationship between Australia and Indonesia. In fact, I can confirm that our delegates and the Indonesian delegates had a fairly frank and open discussion about the problems associated with East Timor. I made the point myself that we were the only country, I believe, in the world that had recognised the inclusion of East Timor into the Indonesian republic and, as such, we had a special interest in ensuring that, at least where East Timor is concerned, some of the problems which have emerged, particularly the recent movements there, are allowed to continue so that in fact we can see a lasting peace in that part of the world.When I look through the report, I do not see a lot of talk of East Timor. That is something which I should have drawn to the attention of staff earlier in the piece because I think it would be wrong for anybody reading this report to come away with the conclusion that we had not addressed East Timor. In fact, we had. I would suggest it was one of the centrepieces of the discussions that we had with the Indonesian delegates—a position, I would say, which they understood quite clearly. They came back to us and made clear that they also harboured a desire for peace in East Timor, a just peace on a basis with which the East Timorese would be happy.The rest of the conference came at a very interesting time in Malaysia. The media that week were being hyped up with a whole series of raids and things like that on friends of Anwar Ibrahim. It was not hard to see—and we picked up the intelligence as a group—that Anwar was on the ropes. In fact, quite clearly on the Monday when Anwar, as Deputy Prime Minister, opened the conference he read out a speech which, I presume, was the product of Dr Mahathir, or somebody close to him in that regime. That speech basically blamed the Jews for the problems of Malaysia—and I do not think we should walk away from that; that is exactly the proposition that was put to us—and said that Malaysia's problems were not of its own making, that they were everyone else's fault except their own. Anwar Ibrahim read that speech out quite dutifully. I do not know whether he agreed with it, but that is the nature of that particular regime. I want to make a few comments about that this afternoon because I think the events of the next 10 days leading to the arrest of Anwar Ibrahim were rather interesting.Indeed, it was not hard to see why Malaysia had got itself into economic problems. I do not think it had much to do with international money lenders, only that maybe some of them had been the instruments of providing free and loose cash to fund a property development the likes of which I could only see on television. If I were to turn on the Buck Rogers program and see the new Chicago four centuries from now, I would see the sorts of buildings that were being put up in Kuala Lumpur. In fact, commercial real estate in KL would obviously be well beyond the means of First World countries to develop. Quite frankly, in the last 10 to 12 years, KL has become addicted to large amounts of foreign money that has come in and bid up a commercial real estate market in that country which is just unsustainable.From where the IPO proceedings were held, you could see some of the most expensive buildings in the world, some of which were unfinished—it would have been nice if they had been finished. The Hyatt Hotel was a clear example of that. The shell of the building was not even complete. On one day, one person would be walking around kicking the tyres on a truck; on another day there would be 200 blokes walking around kicking tyres on however many trucks were there, but not much was happening. It was obvious that it had come to a standstill.A great amount of expenditure had been spent in KL in the lead-up to the Commonwealth Games, which happened two to three weeks after we were there. A great deal of public infrastructure was built and when you see this I guess you can say that there will be some benefits to the Malaysian community through that infrastructure. But at the end of the day, there was a lot of expenditure on things there which did nothing more than just bid up to an unsustainably high level the price of commercial real estate in that country. I would suggest that a very large part of the problem that Malaysia finds itself in is exactly the same as that in Thailand, that is, there has been a binge on commercial real estate bid up by easy amounts of money that have flowed into that country but have suddenly terminated and, as they terminated, have caused all sorts of readjustment problems and all the rest of it.Finally, I want to make a few remarks about the Mahathir regime. I think it has been too long in this country that politicians and political parties have treated this regime with anything more than the most basic or base appeasement. That quite clearly shows through. This is a vicious and brutal regime and the way it is dealing with the former Deputy Prime Minister there, who had outlived his usefulness to Dr Mahathir, is a clear example of what we are dealing with. Australia will only hold its head up in this end of the world, not as my colleague Senator Lightfoot says when we get into ASEAN—I do not know whether or not that is a good idea; I acknowledge that that was an issue he pushed over in KL—but when we call a spade a spade, sort out a few of these problems and make clear our displeasure at some of the antics of the Mahathir regime, which, make no bones about it, are aimed directly at us and through us to the rest of the Western word.Our relationship with the ordinary Malay authorities and the Malay government is pretty good. I met a large number of people over there who were educated in Australian institutions. We had a lot in common. I believe 159,000 Malaysians were educated in Australia and the strength of the relationship at that level shows through. Unfortunately, at the top end it certainly does not.Committees88588588516:29:00885Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I seek leave to move a motion in respect of the second report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee.Leave granted.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.The second report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee on contracting out of government services is particularly important for the Senate to take note of, and indeed for the government to take note of, not only because of the growing concern with the detrimental effects of contracting out—we know what some of the good effects are—but because of the recent problems emerging in the New South Wales parliament which are essentially a contest between the executive and the sovereign parliament over the right of the sovereign parliament to demand accountability.The Democrats are not alone in this chamber in wishing to enforce appropriate accountability standards in the use by governments of private sector bodies and, in fact, in wishing to know as much about those matters as possible. With regard to that, the committee came up with a large number of very sound recommendations which I hope the government will not only take on board but respond to relatively quickly.In general, the committee recommended a phased introduction of contracting out to allow government agencies to draw on their own and others' experience. It was recognised that initial contracts carry the highest degree of risk and that time for progressive improvement through experience must be allowed. I think we are starting to see signs in government of ministers who early on were a bit afraid of criticism and took a fairly brittle line on these matters starting to accept that there are opportunities for progressive improvement.Given the amount of public money at stake in the contracting out of services, the efficient and accountable conduct of the same should take clear priority over zeal to contract out as much as possible as quickly as possible. Further, we note that government agencies should seek information on the experience of other government agencies with a view to deciding not merely whether it could be done better but if it should be done at all. That is, substantial attention should be given to the question of whether contracting out is the most desirable option available in the light of the positives and the negatives of other agencies' experiences.The committee focused on the tendering process which is absolutely core to proper accountability in contracting out. The committee recognised three objectives of the tendering process. Those were: continuing measurable benefits in value for money obtained on a whole of life basis, benefits in industry development and in support of other specified policy objectives, and satisfaction in the supplier community with the operation of the Commonwealth's procurement system overall. The committee generally supported the use of in-house bids, provided that a successful in-house bidder is subject to the same accountability requirements as other bidders and, indeed, the same opportunities as other bidders.The Australian Democrats agreed with the committee's recommendations, as did all other parties. They were unanimous. We advocate standard clauses in government procurement contracts ensuring contractors comply with good Australian government standards and policies regarding, for example, the promotion of Australian business, protecting the Australian environment, advancing the cause of indigenous peoples, affirmative action where appropriate, and general trade, foreign policy and Commonwealth-state priorities. Those provisions should, we believe, be incorporated in a government procurement act establishing and ensuring compliance by government agencies with process standards for the tendering stage.In terms of the World Trade Organisation's agreement on government procurement, the Democrats felt that we should advocate Australia becoming a party to the agreement and/or bringing Australian government procurement practices into line with international agreement. But that implementation should be codified via a government procurement act laying out standards and requirements.The Finance and Public Administration References Committee also focused on managing contracts. The committee recognised that the success or otherwise of a contract will depend on its efficient and effective management. That may seem an ordinary thing to say but, really, unless there is focus on the enforceability of contracts, the capacity of the Public Service to manage contracts effectively and the need to recognise the importance of process as well as outcomes, then contracting out will be fatally flawed and fatally harmed.The Democrats agree that we should advocate standard contract clauses providing for liquidated damages or structured payments linked to performance. Standard clauses tailored to a particular contract should specify certain targets which have to be met by the contractor before the government agency is obliged to make any payment. The Democrats also emphasise the necessity for training the staff of government agencies in contract management, for the recruitment of new, experienced staff, and we believe that there should be adequate funding with government to ensure effective training and/or recruitment.In terms of accountability, the committee recommended that portfolio agencies on behalf of the minister should monitor the operations of the outsourced services so that all reasonable parliamentary questions on process or outcomes can be handled. In the early stages of this government's tenure in the last parliament, it was occasionally the case that government ministers were very defensive about their outsourced services without acknowledging that the Senate as a whole has a right—indeed, a duty—to pursue accountability in these matters. The Finance and Public Administration References Committee also recommended the use of probity auditors and/or acquisition councils for contracts over a certain monetary figure so that the process is fully documented and responsibility for the decision is unequivocal.The committee emphasised that reporting by government agencies is vital and that current annual reporting requirements may need to be modified to ensure that reporting of contracted out services to ministers provides sufficient information to the parliament as well.The committee noted that no provision has been made in the Auditor-General Act 1997 for access to the records of contractors by the Auditor-General, and recommended that standard contract clauses be used to provide audit access to relevant third party information and records. That is a particularly important recommendation because, unless the Auditor-General is actively involved in contracting out agreements, he or she cannot appropriately fulfil the accountability duty that is laid upon him or her by this parliament. The Auditor-General's office is our watchdog in these matters.The Finance and Public Administration References Committee recommended that, as an interim measure, the Commonwealth Ombudsman's jurisdiction should be extended to private sector contracts on a case by case basis for sensitive areas of service delivery. The committee asserted that the Freedom of Information Act 1982 should not be weakened in an outsourced environment. Service recipients should be able to access sufficient information to ascertain whether contractors were acting within the terms of their contract in dealing with them, or to obtain evidence of service delivery problems. The committee recommended that there be an amendment to the FOI Act deeming documents in the possession of the contractor, that relate directly to the performance of the contractor's contractual operations, to be in the possession of a government agency and hence FOIable, if that is not too strange a word—able to be accessed under the Freedom of Information regime.The committee also recommended that, if parliament insisted on a right to know legitimately commercially confidential information, the most appropriate course to achieve this would be the appointment of an independent arbiter, such as the Auditor-General, to look on its behalf. This means that, where the government is saying material is commercially in confidence, the Auditor-General would at least have access in cases where ministers were able to prove that it was legitimate for them to withhold the material from the Senate. At the moment, there is no such right by the Senate or the Auditor-General.The Democrats believe that a government procurement act, such as we outlined earlier, should require government agencies to report to parliament about contracted out services. Current reporting requirements need to be made more onerous to ensure that parliament has the information it requires to satisfy itself that public money has been properly expended. The Democrats recognise that contracting out distances the parliament from oversight of the service to be provided by government. The task of this Senate, in relation to the contracting out of government services, should be to neither oppose nor advocate the practice, but to ensure that each proposal is subject to an adequate accountability regime and is evaluated for its positives and its negatives relative to the particular contract concerned. This will require government agencies to properly justify any decision to contract out a service and govern the fundamental terms upon which contractual relations are entered into. (Time expired)Bills888r640Billsr639Billsr638Billsr603Billsr602888Bills received from the House of Representatives.888Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—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 two of 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.88816:42:00888Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I table a correction relating to the explanatory memorandum for the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE INCENTIVES BILL 1998This is an important bill for it proposes a measure that will prove to be of enduring benefit to the Australian health system, and to the Australian public, namely to cut the cost of private health insurance by 30 per cent through a rebate outlined in this bill. What this effectively means is that for the majority of Australians, private health insurance will once again become tax deductible.This is one of the simplest, most effective and most important changes that could be made to restore balance in our health system by working to slow the drop-out from private health insurance.The proposed cut in the cost of private health insurance will help the private sector, take pressure off public hospitals and help restore much needed balance to our health care system.For the last two and a half years, my office has been virtually deluged with letters from people saying they wanted to maintain their private health insurance but couldn't afford to keep it. Particularly from older Australians, the comments I have heard time and time again is we can't afford to have it but we can't afford to be without it.We set about tackling this virtual haemorrhaging of the private sector in health by spending about one-twentieth of what we spend in the Commonwealth's annual health budget and about one thirtieth of overall health spending in Australia in the Private Health Insurances Incentives Scheme.It was an investment that did achieve some important successes in slowing down the drop out rate for people who have private health insuranceAccording to the Australian Health Insurance Association, there are now some 200,000 Australians with private health insurance who would otherwise have dropped out without the help of the Incentives scheme.It's certainly better than doing nothing—which is the only solution proposed by the Opposition. If anything, the continued but slower drop out is proof of need for further action.Making private health insurance 30 per cent cheaper for the 700,000 or so policy-holders on annual incomes of less than $20,000 is a policy of which I am proud.The rebate upholds people's choice and will relieve some of the burden of their financial sacrifice as they pay extra for a doctor of their choosing, a hospital of their choice and an operation when they need it. The Government's 30 per cent rebate is both entirely reasonable and necessary, when you consider that one third of total health finding one third of total health funding comes from health funds and from individuals.More than one in every three operations—and one in four bed-days—are provided in private sector.In recent years private hospitals have been shouldering more of the burden as public hospitals—mostly consciously—have treated fewer people who are privately insured. In 1991 27 per cent of privately-insured people were treated in public hospitals; this is now around 15 per cent.In some specialties—for example, complex knee surgery—more than half of all operations conducted in any one year are provided in private sector.These services are mostly financed by private health insurance funds—that is, by pooled contribution income from almost six million Australians who, despite the significant cost, choose to be privately insured.Each year the premiums paid by these people to their health funds, and paid from the funds to hospitals and other providers, makes a larger contribution to our overall health bill in Australia than the Medicare levy funded by almost every Australian taxpayer. Health funds contribute $4.5 billion; the Medicare levy about $3.6 billion.Although the public and private sectors are sometimes seen as competing foes, notably on the left of politics, it is important to note that private health funds contribute around $400 million a year into our public hospital budgets.People who ignore or disregard this major contribution by the private sector will find that the pressure on the public purse and public hospitals will only increase.Supporting private health insurance restores some much needed equilibrium in Australia's health system.To do this is to put balance back into the health system and help relieve the greatest source of pressure on the public sector in health.Certainly, I believe that high quality health care should be provided to every Australian and am fully committed to Medicare as a universal health care system and to our public hospital system.A record $31.34 billion dollars of funding for public hospitals—which represents a 17.6 per cent increase in funding in the next five years compared to the last five years—is a clear sign that the Commonwealth is more than playing its part in supporting the public hospital system. That is a substantially greater increase than what was achieved under the last negotiation by the previous Labor Health Minister, Graham Richardson. Yet, this additional funding for public hospitals will only be stop gap if nothing further is done to support the viability of the private health sector and to address the reasons for dropout from private health insurance in the first place.The truth is we know the principal reason why people are dropping private health cover and that is the overwhelming problem of cost.In fact, to fail to do anything to address these crucial issues would be unreasonable—and simply short sighted.To do nothing could well spell the end of the private sector and only lead to increasing and intolerable strains on the public sector.That's why it would be a serious mistake if this legislation were blocked or delayed.It would also be a serious miscalculation to assume that the same amount of money would be spent elsewhere in the public hospital system.Australians value a mixed system of public and private health care. The balance has contributed to the high quality system that we have in place today. Australians value choice, and this Government recognises the contribution Australians wish to make to their own health care.We don't believe this choice is in any way "contentious", as the Member for Jagajaga wrote some years ago in her National Health Strategy.Those views are flawed because they haven't taken into account that, in fact, in the latest health care agreements recently signed, every time health insurance levels drop one percent, the extra cost on the States, at a marginal rate, is estimated to be $83 million. This is what the Commonwealth has undertaken to pay the states for continuing to decline private health Insurance.Given that those who argue against this rebate are not proposing to do anything and will simply put private health insurance on the back-burner, we can safely assume that the dropout rate from private health insurance will follow the long term trend of two percent a year.So by July 2001, if we do nothing, the Government would have to find exactly $500 million extra to the states each and every year correspondingly just to stay standing still.In other brilliant words, in three years time, we will be where we are now—possibly even worse, will have failed to address one of the root causes of the problem.This 30 per cent cut in the cost of private health insurance will make a genuine and lasting difference and will preserve the integrity of our health care system, of Medicare and of the public hospitals. This bill and the accompanying bills—the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 and the Taxation Laws Amendment (Private Health Insurance) Bill 1998—introduce the private health insurance initiative announced in the Government's tax reform package, Not a New Tax, a New Tax System.The benefit will assist families and individuals with the cost of private health insurance by providing a 30 per cent cut in that cost of premiums from 1 January 1999. It will not be means tested and will cover premiums for all hospital and ancillary cover.Those with health cover will be able to collect the benefit in one of three ways—either as a tax rebate, or as a direct payment or as a premium reduction from their health fund. Thisapproach provides maximum flexibility for those who pay health insurance premiums and those who are, therefore, able to collect the benefit. They will be able to choose which of the methods best suits their needs.This initiative builds on and replaces the existing private health insurance incentives scheme.It is a welcome move as is evidence from recent comments of AMA Federal President, Dr David Brand, coming from an organisation that is not always complimentary of the Government.It is clear from those comments that the AMA understands that this measure is critical to the future of both public and private health in Australia.In a submission to non-government parliamentarians, the AMA has also referred to the strong support from the community for this initiative.According to a Morgan Research, that submission quotes, nearly 70 per cent of Australians support the idea of a rebate for private health insurance.Another point made in the submission is the claim that there are more than 180,000 jobs directly involved in the private health sector and many more in related services.These jobs are at risk if the Labor Party allows private insurance to collapse or if we continue to merely put it on the back-burner.The viability of our public hospital system is very seriously threatened by the continuing decline of private cover. At worst, the submission claims, governments would have to provide an additional 25,000 hospital beds in the public system at a current cost of $3 billion a year.It is clear that those who understand the health care system, as Dr Brand does, also understand this 30 per cent cut in the cost of private health insurance is critical to the private health sector, and is critical to the future of the public system.PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE INCENTIVES AMENDMENT BILL 1998This bill amends the Private Health Insurance Incentives Act 1997.The amendments provide for the transition arrangements for the move from the existing incentives scheme to the Government's private health insurance benefit. This new benefit is introduced in the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 which I have just given in the second reading speech.The new arrangements will provide a benefit of 30 per cent of health insurance premiums to all Australians who have private health cover.The incentives scheme will be repealed on 1 July 1999.TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE) BILL 1998This bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide for a tax offset, otherwise known as a tax rebate, to encourage people to take out or maintain private health insurance.The tax offset is complementary to the benefits available under the Private Health Insurance Incentive Bill 1998 which can be obtained either as a direct payment from the Government or a premium reduction.ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES CONVENTION BILL 1998The Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 will give effect to Australia's obligations as a party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (the Ottawa Convention) and will provide a legislative basis for the Convention's national implementation.I take great personal pleasure in introducing a bill which represents an important step towards a goal this Government is committed to: that is, a future world without landmines.The scourge of landmines—the senseless, random taking and blighting of innocent lives—is a peculiarly vicious, late twentieth century form of terror which all responsible peoples and governments must strive to end—everywhere and forever. The appalling dimensions of the humanitarian and economic crisis being faced by so many countries, including in Australia's region, require this.It was for this reason—because we understood that bold steps were required to address the global landmines problem—that this Government as one of its first acts on assuming office announced its support for a global ban on landmines and—pending the achievement of this—declared an indefinite national moratorium on the use of landmines by the Australian Defence Force—notwithstanding the fact that the ADF has had no association with the indiscriminate or irresponsible use of landmines. This was a significant break with the caveated policies of the past and underlined our absolute determination to end the human suffering caused by a weapon incapable of distinguishing soldier from civilian.Since that time, Australia has played a leading role in international efforts to find a comprehensive and lasting solution to the global landmines crisis. Indeed, building international support for an effective, global landmines ban has been—and remains—one of the Government's key arms control objectives.It was therefore with considerable pleasure and great pride that I signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention) on behalf of Australia when it was opened for signature in Ottawa on 3 December last year. In so doing, Australia joined over 120 other countries—well over half the community of nations—forswearing the use, production and transfer of anti-personnel landmines and undertook to destroy its stockpile of anti-personnel mines, consistent with the provisions of the Convention.Signing the Ottawa Convention was the quickest, most absolute way for a government to commit itself to this objective, and it was right that Australia, with its strong humanitarian record, took this stand in support of a global landmines ban. For us, the bottom line was that because landmines are so commonplace, so deadly, and have been so widely and insidiously misused over recent decades, the only sane, humane response is to eliminate them.I am proud of that decision.Of course, the global battle against landmines is not yet over and now is certainly not the time for complacency. The international community must now build on the norm established by the Ottawa Convention. We owe it to the victims of landmines past, present and future to continue working through all possible avenues to ensure that major traditional producers and exporters of landmines which remain outside the Ottawa Convention are brought into the process of finding a lasting, effective solution to the landmines problem. The next step will be to get negotiations underway as soon as possible in the Conference on Disarmament on an agreement to ban transfers of landmines as a way of complementing the Ottawa Treaty and tightening the clamps on the global supply of landmines. Australia is leading the way on this front and we will continue to work hard on this long after the issue has left the media headlines.Neither will we lose sight of the ongoing urgent need to do something concrete and compassionate about the millions of landmines which are already in the ground and which continue to claim innocent victims on a daily basis. We will continue to lead the way in assisting countries such as Cambodia to rid themselves of the continuing deadly legacy of landmines, drawing not only on our financial resources but also on the experience and courage of our deminers and the talent and innovative thought which our scientists and our engineers have applied to the technological challenge which these silent killers continue to pose.The bill before the House gives life to Australia's obligations under the Convention. Part 2 of the bill makes it an offence to engage in activities prohibited under the Convention and provides appropriately severe penalties of ten years imprisonment for offences committed under clause 8 relating to the Convention prohibitions.Part 2 of the bill creates offences relating to placement, possession, development, production, acquisition, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel mines by Australian citizens or members of the Australian Defence Force or on territory under Australian jurisdiction or control. The offence would be punishable by either imprisonment for 10 years or a fine of $66 000 (or both) for an individual; or a fine of $1 100 000 for a corporation.Part 2 of the bill also provides a specific exemption to this obligation, namely for the retention or transfer of a minimum number of anti-personnel mines necessary for the development of, and training in, mine detection, mine clearance, or mine destruction techniques. The bill authorises the Minister for Defence to grant permission to place, possess, produce or acquire, stockpile or move anti-personnel mines for the purposes of the development of, or training in, mine detection, mine clearance, mine destruction or mine deactivation. This is fully consistent with the Convention (Article 3) and would ensure that Australia's skills base in mine detection, mine clearance and mine destruction techniques is not inadvertently compromised.Part 3 of the bill deals with the powers of fact-finding missions which may be mandated under the Convention to assess whether Australia is in compliance with provisions of the Convention.Part 4 of the bill provides for information gathering necessary to ensure full compliance with the obligations and reporting responsibilities contained in the Convention.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 1998The bill is being reintroduced with amendments to the bill that was debated and passed by the House of Representatives on 1 December 1997.The bill gives effect to a number of important measures previously announced by the Government to protect the integrity of the income tax base, to make some technical changes and to seek to act on the recommendations of the Small Business Deregulation Taskforce to reduce the compliance burdens faced by small business across Australia.Base Protection and Technical ChangesDenial of certain capital lossesUnder the existing law, corporate groups may multiply capital losses through manipulation of the capital gains tax provisions. The bill amends the tax law to remove the benefit of such losses, where the loss was created by the rolling over of an asset before 3pm on 29 April 1997. However, losses already used prior to the announcement of the measure at 3pm on 29 April 1997 will not be affected. These provisions will not apply to small businesses, nor to certain assets used in manufacturing.The bill also amends the anti-avoidance provisions of the income tax law to apply those provisions to capital loss creation schemes in the year in which the losses are created. The amendments apply to capital losses resulting from schemes entered into after 3pm on 29 April 1997.Deductible expenditure and CGT cost basesThe bill gives effect to changes to the capital gains cost base provisions, announced as part of the Government's 1997-98 Budget.The bill will ensure that taxpayers will no longer be able to include amounts of expenditure as part of the cost base or indexed cost base of an asset to the extent that the expenditure is deductible or is eligible for a heritage conservation rebate or a landcare and water facility tax offset.The amendments are consistent with the principle that an item of expenditure should either be deductible for income tax purposes or included in the CGT cost base of an underlying asset, but not both.The amendments will apply to assets acquired after 7.30 pm on 13 May 1997. However, expenditure incurred before 1 July 1999 in respect of underlying land or buildings acquired on or before 13 May 1997 will not be subject to the measure.The amendments in respect of the heritage conservation rebate and the landcare and water facility tax offset only apply to expenditure incurred on or after the day these measures are introduced into the Parliament. DepreciationAs announced in the 1997-98 Budget, the bill will amend the income tax law to ensure that, for tax exempt entities that became subject to taxation before 3 July 1995, depreciation deductions and balancing adjustments are based on the notional written down values of their depreciable assets as if the entity had always been subject to taxation.Average calculated liabilities of life insurance companiesThe bill will amend the income tax law to require life companies to use average calculated liabilities, rather than calculated liabilities at the end of the year of income, as the basis for determining income associated with immediate annuity policies, policies issued by overseas branches and the income and capital gains to be allocated to each class of assessable income.The amendments apply from the first year of income on or after 29th April 1997. However, the amendments will apply to the preceding year of income if a significant event occurred in one of the insurance funds of a life company in the period from 29th April 1997 to the end of that year of income.Passive income of insurance companiesThe bill also contains amendments announced in the 1997-98 Budget to correct a deficiency in the formulae used to calculate the passive income of controlled foreign insurance companies that are subject to accruals taxation and derived on or after 1st July 1997.Dividend imputation and RSAsThe bill will amend the income tax law to ensure that no franking credit or debit arises from the payment or refund of tax where those amounts are attributable to the Retirement Savings Account business of a life assurance company.Effect of bankruptcy on carrying forward tax offsetsThe bill will amend the income tax law for the 1997-98 and later income years to prevent a taxpayer who has become bankrupt from using a carried forward landcare and water facility tax offset in certain circumstances.Company tax instalmentsThe bill will amend the income tax law from the 1995-96 income year to exclude superannuation funds, approved deposit funds, and pooled superannuation trusts from the grouping provisions contained in the company tax instalment system.Changes To Assist Small BusinessFringe Benefits TaxThe bill will amend the fringe benefits tax law to, amongst other things, give effect to changes foreshadowed by the Prime Minister in his statement on 24th March.The amendments will:. extend and simplify the exemption for taxi travel;. exempt certain small businesses from fringe benefits tax on certain car parking benefits;. simplify the `arranger' provisions;. remove the burden of keeping records in certain circumstances for small business; and. exempt benefits arising from an employer's participation in an approved student exchange program.Details of the commencement of these changes are outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum.All of the measures demonstrate the Government's commitment to reducing FBT compliance costs for employers and, in particular, for small businesses.Payments of tax by small companiesThe bill will amend the company tax instalment provisions of the income tax law to allow entities classified as small to pay their tax obligations later than currently required. Consequential changes to the date for determining classification are also being made.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Quirke) adjourned.Ordered that the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 and the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Committees89389310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! The President has received a letter requesting changes in the membership of various committees.Motion (by Senator Minchin)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Community Affairs Legislation Committee— Participating member: Senator Crowley.New Tax System—Select Committee— Substitute members: In the event of Senators Cook, Conroy or Sherry being unable to attend any committee hearings or meetings, Senators George Campbell, Mackay or Murphy replace them.Bills893r637Billsr635Billsr633Billsr636Billsr634893Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Minchin) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.89316:44:00893Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—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—TELSTRA (TRANSITION TO FULL PRIVATE OWNERSHIP) BILL 1998As foreshadowed during the election campaign, this bill facilitates the further transition of Telstra Corporation to private ownership. It repeals the provisions of the Telstra Corporation Act 1991 which require the Commonwealth to retain two thirds of the equity in the company. The bill provides for the transition to full private ownership to occur in stages and incorporates significant social bonus benefits flowing from the next sale of Commonwealth equity.This bill is part of a legislative package which will clearly separate regulation of the telecommunications industry from ownership of Telstra. This bill contains most of the provisions of the Telstra (Transition to Full Public Ownership) Bill 1998 which was introduced into the previous Parliament. However, there are some significant variations which reflect the Government's response to issues raised during public and Parliamentary discussion of the previous bill.The bill now provides that Telstra must meet prescribed criteria for service performance for a designated period of at least six months before the Commonwealth can relinquish majority ownership. The evaluation of Telstra's performance in metropolitan, rural and remote areas will be undertaken by an independent inquiry. The inquiry must issue a certificate confirming that Telstra has met the prescribed service standards and provide it to the Minister. The Minister must arrange for the certificate to be published in the Commonwealth Gazette, with the publication date—called the Inquiry Certificate Day—being the trigger mechanism that permits the Commonwealth's sale of the majority of the Commonwealth's equity.The Telstra Corporation Act is amended by the bill to require Telstra to ensure that at least 2 of its directors have knowledge of, or experience in, the communications needs of regional areas of Australia.Social BonusThe Government has included in the bill its election commitments regarding the social bonus from the first tranche of the further sale. The social bonus funding is automatically allocated from the proceeds of the next partial sale when those proceeds reach $671 million, which is the total cost of the social bonus elements. The individual components which are being legislated are as follow.The Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 is amended by the bill to increase the Trust's Reserve fund by $250 million. Enhancement of the Natural Heritage Trust's funding base builds further on what is already the largest environment fund in Commonwealth history.Up to $70 million is made available over 5 years to establish Rural Transaction Centres in country towns to provide services such as personal banking, postal services, Medicare Easyclaim facilities and telephone and facsimile services.Up to $150 million is to be allocated over 3 years for the abolition of Telstra's pastoral call rate and to provide access to untimed local calls in extended zones. The funds will be used to upgrade the telecommunications network in remote Australia.An additional $81 million over three years will be provided to the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund, which was established from the proceeds of the one third sale of Telstra. $20 million of these additional funds are for enhancing telecommunications in remote and isolated island communities such as the Torres Strait, the Cocos (Keeling) group; Christmas, King, Norfolk, Flinders, Kangaroo and other Islands; and the Australian Antarctic Territories. $36 million is for Internet service delivery in regional and rural Australia, with the aim of providing all Australians with local call access to the Internet. The remaining $25 million will provide 100 per cent continuous mobile phone coverage on key major national highways.$120 million is to be allocated over 5 years to establish a Television Fund. The Television Fund will be used to extend SBS Television to transmission areas with more than 10,000 people and to eradicate up to 250 television reception "black spots". $2 million of the Fund will be used to establish a New Media Unit within the SBS.These measures will deliver real and lasting benefits to the community.Sale ProvisionsThe sale provisions of the bill are substantially the same as those which proved effective and robust for the sale of one third of Telstra. The sale process is, however, subject to the Inquiry Certificate Day trigger mechanism before the Commonwealth can relinquish majority ownership.Shareholder OversightThe bill retains the special provisions which permit the Government to obtain financial and other information from Telstra because of its shareholding, for as long as the Commonwealth holds a majority interest in the company.The Ministerial power to direct Telstra in section 9 of the Telstra Corporation Act will be retained until the Commonwealth relinquishes its majority interest. This direction power is inappropriate for a privately owned company. Telstra will be subject to a range of appropriate regulatory powers, including Ministerial direction powers, under other legislation, to protect consumers and competitors. This will complete the proper separation of regulation from ownership of the company.Australian Control AssuredThe bill amends the foreign ownership provisions of the Telstra Corporation Act to ensure that the existing 35 per cent total and 5 per cent individual foreign ownership limits continue to apply to the proportion of non-Commonwealth shares following the sale of each tranche. That is, the limits will continue to apply no matter how subsequent share sales are structured.The requirement for Telstra's headquarters, Chairman and majority of directors to be Australian will be retained irrespective of the ownership of Telstra. Transitional Provisions—Telstra EmployeesThe accrued rights of Telstra employees under Commonwealth legislation, such as long service leave, maternity leave and certain retirement benefits, are preserved under the bill's transitional provisions when Telstra ceases to be Commonwealth controlled.ConclusionThis bill provides an opportunity for Australians to invest further in Telstra, building on the enthusiasm and interest demonstrated by the public during the one third sale.It ensures that service quality is a precondition for relinquishment of Government majority ownership.And it guarantees that the social bonus will be delivered, while also enabling further retirement of public debt.TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1998The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill is the third of five bills which the Government is introducing to improve the operation of the Australian telecommunications industry.The focus of this bill is the enhancement of the existing pro-competitive regulatory regime for telecommunications. The bill also makes amendments to ACCC and industry requirements to improve two safeguards for consumers.In introducing legislation in relation to the further privatisation of Telstra, the Government is taking the opportunity to enhance the pro-competitive arrangements. The amendments respond to recommendations in the report of the Senate Committee inquiry into the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill and other issues identified through our monitoring of the operation of the regime and consultation with industry and consumers.These are sensible enhancements to the competition regime in their own right and are appropriate regardless of the ownership arrangements applying to Telstra.Main provisions of the BillThe Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 will enhance competition regulation by enabling the ACCC to codify certain carrier information and consultation requirements; giving a private right of injunctive action for breach of the Part XIB competition rule; enabling the disclosure of specific carrier information, including costs; quarantining specified information acquired from competitors; broadening the ACCC's powers to direct parties to negotiate in good faith; and empowering the ACCC to mediate in access negotiations. Consistent with the Government's election commitments, the bill contains new provisions requiring the ACCC to provide regular, impartial, public reports on pricing, market share and other competition-related data across a range of specified services. Publicly available data will better inform the market, make competition more transparent and be of clear value in evaluating and promoting the Government's telecommunications reforms and further developing policy. Details of the reporting regime will be set out in Ministerial determinations.The bill also improves safeguards for consumers by:. requiring the ACCC to monitor and report on compliance by Telstra and universal service providers with price controls applying to them under the proposed Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act; and. requiring the Australian Communications Authority to make a determination about the extent to which carriage service providers must inform consumers about the terms and conditions governing the supply of goods and services under standard forms of agreement.The bill contains amendments consequential upon the enactment of the proposed Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act, principally changing references to the Telecommunications Act to references to the proposed new act.The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill will make valuable enhancements to the competition and consumer safeguards in telecommunications.TELECOMMUNICATIONS (UNIVERSAL SERVICE LEVY) AMENDMENT BILL 1998The Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Act 1997 imposes a levy on telecommunications carriers with a view to funding losses incurred by universal service providers in fulfilling the Universal Service Obligation.This bill amends the Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Act to replace references to several provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1997 with references to the corresponding provisions of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1998 consequential upon the enactment of that act.TELECOMMUNICATIONS (CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SERVICE STANDARDS) BILL 1998The Legislation packageIn 1997 the Government introduced a new regulatory regime which introduced full and open competition and reinforced and reinvigorated consumer protection arrangements. In general this regime has been working well.However, the Government acknowledges that in response to its previously announced intention to move to full privatisation of Telstra there was concern in the community about the possible effect of privatisation on service levels.Public ownership of Telstra will not, of itself, ensure reasonable service levels across Australia. However, in view of the concerns, and to strengthen the customer safeguards available, the Government has decided to adopt a staged approach to the further sale of its shares in Telstra. This package of legislation gives effect to that approach.The Government is bringing together in this Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998, the consumer and service safeguards so that Australians can readily know what protections are available to them.The legislation will also strengthen these safeguards where necessary and will provide a Ministerial power of direction over Telstra with regard to compliance with the service standards specified under the legislation.In a competitive market Government ownership is not an effective means to influence behaviour. The Government's role is to ensure that it has in place a comprehensive telecommunications regulatory regime which contains safeguards in relation to service to customers and measures to ensure that consumers gain the benefits of an open competitive market. The regime the Government currently has in place provides regulation that is transparent and applies to all industry players, not just the one that is Government-owned. The regime also provides greater certainty to the Australian community that its interests are clearly established in law.In summary, the Government does not need to own Telstra to achieve the desired outcomes for society and consumers. In fact, contemporary experience indicates that government pursuit of competitive and consumer benefits can be hindered by ownership responsibilities and obligations.Major provisions of the BillThe legislative package will continue to provide a world class consumer protection framework. The Government recognises that, while competition will, in most cases, provide a good outcome for consumers, there is a need for safety nets to ensure that in all cases consumers have a guarantee of certain basic levels of service.I now turn to the major provisions of this bill.The Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards Bill 1998 brings together the consumer protection measures that were contained in the Telecommunications Act 1997 to provide greater visibility and clarity. It is essentially a transparency measure drawing together the full range of consumer safeguards in a single bill making it easier for consumers to access information about their rights. It does not diminish the substance of any of these obligations and indeed, some minor amendments and additions are proposed which clarify and enhance certain existing provisions.At the core of the community obligations of the telecommunications industry is the universal service obligation (USO). The Government continues to be firmly committed to maintaining a general obligation on the industry to ensure that all people in Australia have reasonable access to the standard telephone service (including customer equipment), payphones, and prescribed additional carriage services on an equitable basis, wherever they reside or carry on business—and a supporting obligation to supply those services on request. The universal service provisions in this bill maintain those protections previously provided in the Telecommunications Act 1997.The measures currently included in the Telecommunications Act 1997 to be incorporated into this bill are those relating to:. the universal service regime and the national relay service (including funding provisions);. the right to continued access to untimed local voice calls for business, charity and residential customers, and the right to untimed data calls for residential and charity customers;. the Customer Service Guarantee (CSG) which ensures that phone users are compensated for inadequate service;. protection for residential consumers against failure of service providers to provide services;. provision of direct access, free of charge, to emergency call services;. the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Scheme (TIO) for investigation of service complaints; and. the price control arrangements on Telstra to ensure that the benefits of competition and technological change are shared by all Australians.The bill also includes amendments to some of these provisions to strengthen them. In addition, it includes a new provision giving the Minister the power to direct Telstra in relation to matters contained in this bill.An amendment will give the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) the power to direct a telephone company to redress systemic problems in relation to the Customer Service Guarantee. This will enable the ACA to look proactively into systemic problems (eg consistent faults in a certain geographic area) and direct a carriage service provider about the things it should do to ensure those problems do not recur. The objective of the proposed amendment is to provide a substantial incentive to the carriage service providers to identify and solve recurring problems which have resulted in their not being able to meet the CSG Standards on a regular basis. The threat of a substantial fine, up to $10 million for failure to comply with an ACA direction, will place a significant incentive on the carriage service provider concerned to improve its performance.The bill continues the existing obligation that all carriage service providers must enter into the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) scheme. A minor amendment is intended to remove any perceived ambiguity in the Telecommunications Act 1997 and ensure that there is only one TIO scheme.In addition to the retention of the price controls currently incorporated in the Telstra Corporation Act 1991 applying to Telstra there are two minor amendments to the price control arrangements. These amendments are the insertion of:. a provision making it clear that Telstra-specific price cap arrangements and other price control arrangements may relate to charges for untimed local calls in particular areas; and. a provision making it clear that Telstra must comply with any determination setting out price control arrangements.There is also an amendment to the Trade Practices Act 1974 making it explicit that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is responsible for monitoring and reporting each financial year to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts on Telstra's compliance with its price control arrangements, and the Universal Service Provider's (USP) compliance with any price controls in relation to the provision of the universal service.These amendments will reduce regulatory uncertainty and provide Telstra and any other USPs in the future with appropriate incentives to comply with the price control arrangements.The price cap arrangements are currently under review. However, the Government has indicated that price controls will continue.This bill contains a new provision which provides that the Minister may direct Telstra to comply with this new consumer act. This will provide a targeted Ministerial power of direction over Telstra that relates specifically to the safeguards in the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998. It is a specific power of direction which will address community concerns by targeting the service standards and consumer safeguards which are clearly related to the Minister's regulatory responsibilities and in no way related to ownership. This provision adds to the existing powers of the regulators to seek compli ance and further strengthens the consumer safeguards regime.NRS LEVY IMPOSITION AMENDMENT BILL 1998The NRS Levy Imposition Act 1998 imposes a levy on participating telecommunications carriers which is used to fund the National Relay Service.This bill amends the NRS Levy Imposition Act to replace a reference to a provision of the Telecommunications Act 1997 with a reference to the corresponding provision of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1998 consequential upon the enactment of that act.Debate (on motion by Senator Quirke) adjourned.Bills897r632897Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Minchin) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.89716:45:00897Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—This bill makes amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 to address the implications of a recent decision of the Federal Court in Foster v Attorney-General 12 October 1998, which has serious implications for government administration.In that case the Court found that section 19 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 does not enable the Attorney-General to authorise the Minister for Justice to exercise statutory powers for and on his behalf. This decision has significant ramifications for other authorisations made under section 19 of the act.The result of the case is that section 19 cannot be used to authorise junior portfolio Ministers, or another Minister, to exercise statutory powers vested in the holder of a specific ministerial office. Decisions by portfolio Ministers in relation to statutory powers conferred upon the `Minister' are not affected as section 19A of the Acts Interpretation Act provides that such references are effectively taken to mean all Ministers appointed to administer the relevant department. The decision also means that section 19 cannot be used to authorise Parliamentary Secretaries to exercise statutory ministerial powers.The proposed amendments will provide for a Minister to authorise a non-portfolio Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary to act on his or her behalf.The Government has taken note of concerns raised that if oral authorisations were permitted the paper trail of government decisions may be difficult to follow. In light of these concerns the bill provides that authorisations given to both Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must be in writing. This will ensure that it is easier to ascertain the decision maker when seeking to review or challenge an administrative decision.The amendments also validate past authorisations that have been made in reliance on section 19 to the extent that they may be invalid. The amendments provide that any purported past authorisation, whether in writing or oral, is taken to have been validly given. This ensures that decisions made in reliance on those authorisations are not subject of further legal challenge.The bill also amends section 19A to ensure that all Ministers within a portfolio, where appropriate, can exercise the statutory powers of the portfolio Minister.The bill also makes related amendments to section 19BA to ensure that an order can be made by the Governor-General under that section whenever there is any change to the administration of government business and validates past orders made under section 19BA to the extent that they may be invalid.In the Foster decision Spender J recognised that both Cabinet and the Prime Minister have traditionally been able to appoint a Minister or member of the Executive Council to exercise a statutory power vested in another Minister for and on behalf of that other Minister. In particular, His Honour noted that Cabinet or the Prime Minister may make an appointment of that kind where the other Minister is unable to exercise the relevant power through illness, absence or more generally. Section 19 of the act is being retained to ensure that Cabinet and the Prime Minister retain the powers of appointment recognised in the Foster decision.An appeal has been lodged in the Foster case. However, because of the implications of the decision it is appropriate that urgent legislative action be taken to clarify the position and to validate past authorisations made in reliance of section 19 of the act. The validation provisions restore the law to the position that was reasonably thought to have existed prior to the decision in the Foster case.The bill will not have a significant financial impact.Debate (on motion by Senator Quirke) adjourned.Bills898s177898Debate resumed.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! The committee is considering the Space Activities Bill 1998 and the Australian Democrat amendment No. 6 on sheets 1176. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.16:45:00898Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—When progress was reported prior to question time, I was discussing Democrat amendment No. 6 that dealt with clause 48 on insurance requirements. My particular concern, firstly, was the amount of information that we put into delegated legislation—the amount of information we leave out of legislation and put into regulations. I note that this is an increasing practice before the Senate. The Democrats do not believe it is necessarily an appropriate practice. We believe that legislation should be considered as a whole. We are debating the complete package, including some essential elements which are to be set aside and put into regulations. I gave an example before question time of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority amendment bills, to name just one legislation package. But I think there are a couple of others, even this morning, Senator Margetts, that we have been made aware of in a committee hearing.More importantly, it is the consequences of this practice which my colleagues and I find most unsatisfactory. Legislation before the Senate in the form of a bill can be debated and amended. We can seek clarification and, in many instances, resolve and improve the bills. Regulations, on the other hand, are before us for 15 days, and we only have the opportunity to accept or reject the whole package. Where the regulations deal with incidental issues in the executive, this is appropriate. However, when they deal with substantive issues this is not appropriate. We should not be forced to either accept or reject the package—and in many instances our review function is being undermined.Having said this, I do not consider this bill a major offender, although I do believe a number of provisions referring are not entirely satisfactory. In the provisions we are now considering, I would like to have known how the maximum probable loss was to be calculated. In clause 46, I would like to have known what sorts of factors the minister was taking into account when issuing exemption certificates for launches, launch facilities and returns. In clause 18, which deals with the grant of space licences covering a particular facility and launch vehicle, I would like to have known what the criteria are in the minister's determination. In both these clauses, those criteria which are left to regulations are central to our review of whether the minister is in fact taking relevant matters into account. For example, will the ministers seek appropriate consultation with relevant industry and community groups? Without a complete package before us, we are not fulfilling our function of review as best we might.Finally, I understand some of this insurance information may be considered to be commercial-in-confidence. I do accept this argument in a number of cases. However, where there is need to be accountable to the parliament, in the remote possibility of an accident and even the even more remote possibility of damage, I think we as a parliament have responsibility to make sure that the insurance coverage is adequate. This is particularly important here, because the consequences of the minister's decision will otherwise be unaccountable until there has been a terrible accident. And we do not consider that good enough.16:49:00899Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I rise to support the amendment moved by Senator Stott Despoja—that is, amendment No. 6. I agree that there is a growing list of legislation, the majority of which is being handled by delegated legislation—that is, there is no real means of parliamentary scrutiny. The Senate has the chance of an all-or-nothing approach. I guess we are well aware of that, having been in a public hearing this morning where the very same thing is happening in relation to the ARPANSA proposed legislation. We have seen it happen in this chamber with child-care legislation. We have seen it happen with the common youth allowance. We have seen it happen with a number of major and important pieces of legislation—that the guts of the legislation is actually coming through by way of unaccountable delegated legislation. That is not a good sign. It means that the government and its departments are gradually looking for ways of hiding from parliamentary scrutiny—and in that sense hiding from public scrutiny. I will be supporting the amendment as moved.16:50:00899Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The government cannot accept this amendment. I point out that the bill already covers the question of insurance in two respects. In relation to the granting of a launch permit, the minister can do so only if satisfied that the insurance financial requirements in division 7 will be satisfied for the launch or launcher and any connected return. Clause 29 says that standard launch permit conditions include that `the holder of the permit must satisfy the insurance/financial requirements in division 7 for each launch and each return, conducted under the permit.' This amendment would require the minister at the end of each financial year to cause a report to be prepared setting out details of insurance cover for each launch conducted during that financial year.What you are really asking is that the detailed insurance contract between the insurance company and the launcher be required to be tabled in the parliament—that is for every instance of a launch in the previous financial year. As far as I can tell, that is an absolutely unprecedented imposition on industry. I do not know of any instance where any other industry in this country is required to have tabled in this parliament what would otherwise be commercial arrangements between an insurance company and a private company. I do not see the basis on which such an unprecedented action should be taken or why this industry should be singled out for such extraordinary behaviour. I am not aware that, for example, we require the tabling in this parliament of insurance arrangements entered into by Qantas or Ansett in relation to their coverage of the millions of people they fly around this country every year; therefore, to impose such a requirement in this first attempt by this nation to set up a framework for a commercial space industry seems to me quite unnecessary, quite unreasonable, and unprecedented.16:52:00900Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—The opposition opposes this amendment, very much for the reasons that the minister has outlined. But I will take this opportunity, Minister, to ask you about a broader issue rather than specifically this clause. In my time as minister responsible for space activities—you might want to say they were non-existent, but we tried hard—I went to a conference for people interested in space-related activities. One of the most activist people there was from the insurance industry, who saw an opportunity for the development of space insurance as a general commercial business to cover launches not only in Australia but generally.I ask you as industry minister to take on board the opportunities to discuss with the industry, because it is a skill that comes with the industry—actuarially judging losses, et cetera; it is obviously going to be a very big, expanding industry—whether we can establish a financial centre for insurance in space-related activities in Australia. That will actually bring jobs. Not only will it bring the capacity to insure, but also I suspect the skill level will grow in our financial institutions in one form or another to actually be willing to invest in Australian companies that may be wanting to get involved in space-related activities.I cannot remember the name of the person or the organisation, but they said the opportunities were considerable. I ask you to take that on board and maybe when we come to the estimates committee next year, when you are at the desk and we get to the space pro gram, you will be able to show how more interventionist you are in your new cap of encouraging the development of the space insurance industry with a base in Australia.16:55:00900Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I take note of Senator Schacht's comments. The insurance industry does not actually come within my portfolio, but obviously I am very keen to encourage and promote an outward-looking, successful Australian insurance industry.The Australian insurance industry has had international success in Asia and the subcontinent. I am advised that GIO has developed some expertise in the international space launch industry in relation to insurance and has achieved a level of business of around $150 million per annum, which is just terrific. I think that is one of the spin-offs. This is the whole point: if you get an industry like the space industry going, there are spin-offs you are not even conscious of before you start. So I think that is a terrific side benefit for ordinary Australian workers of developing such an industry. I would be pleased to take that matter further.Amendment not agreed to.16:56:00900Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move Greens amendment No 7:(7) Clause 53, page 35 (line 30), omit "100 penalty units", substitute "2000 penalty units".This amendment relates to the penalty units associated with a breach of a requirement from a launch safety officer. The penalties that apply in the bill for failure to comply with the instructions of the launch safety officer are quite inadequate for the range of possible adverse affects of failure to comply. They do not actually fill us with confidence that the government is serious about giving the community confidence that it is serious about what it is doing.For example, if you have instructions relating to the storage of fuel—and I can think of quite substantial examples that we have seen in the oil industry in Australia, where instructions have to be followed to the letter because they are just so important—the potential for enormous worker safety issues and environmental damage exists out of proportion to the available fine. The instructions relating to access to computer programs on hypothetical accident scenarios, for instance, are that at present the launch safety officer has to ask permission to get access to a launch facility. There is no capacity for the launch safety officer to get a warrant if access is refused.The LSO can always call off a launch, but this is a drastic measure, with enormous pressure involved. Imagine the minister giving instructions to proceed when the launch safety officer's only reason for holding up the launch is not having had access to a computer program. If the launch safety officer's direction to the licence holder carries the weight of a substantial penalty, that problem may be averted. So we are hogtying the launch safety officer. We are saying that if the company—that is, the individual—decide they are going to thumb their nose at the instructions of the launch safety officer, the penalty will be $1,100. We have heard a lot from the minister in relation to the money the government hopes to make in relation to launches, but it is not going to help as much if the companies, the individuals, involved can thumb their nose at instructions and be prepared simply to cop the fine at the end, leaving the community with little or no confidence in the process.As I say, 100 penalty units equal $1,100. That is a relatively small amount for a corporation to pay for an offence that could have serious consequences. We would like it to be a more serious figure for a more serious offence—that is, $220,000—because it more accurately reflects the sorts of risks involved in a refusal or failure to comply with the instructions of a launch safety officer. Suppose the launch safety officer ordered an additional safety measure to be taken and was ignored and the launch went ahead. The potential for injury and damage to property is enormous. You should not be leaving a community with just the necessity to take civil action; it should be built in.Remember, we are dealing with dangerous fuels, mixed payloads, high-technology equipment and stuff that hurtles through the sky at a great speed. We have to create a culture of safety around this industry. The government has to be seen to be serious and not to have a gung-ho approach to making money as fast as it can. Anyone guilty of an offence should be aware that the penalties will fit the offence. That $1,100 is only a rap over the knuckles for people who have put that much money into it and want things to go their way rather than, perhaps, in a safer way. That might be appropriate for minor matters but, where major safety issues are concerned, it needs to be much more realistic. I urge the Senate to support this amendment.17:00:00901Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I respect Senator Margetts's skills in economics, but I am advised that 100 penalty units is 100 times $110, which is $11,000, not $1,100.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Plus a rocket blown up in your face!JX4Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHIN—True! That is only the penalty for individuals. The penalty for corporations is five times that amount—$55,000. You are proposing to increase the penalty for failing to comply with the direction of a safety officer from $11,000 to $220,000 for a person, and from $55,000 to $1.1 million for a corporation. That is completely out of proportion. What is prescribed is a criminal not a civil offence—you are guilty of a criminal offence if you fail to comply. Those penalties are at the top end of criminal penalties in Commonwealth legislation. They are way in excess of what is provided for in other legislation relating to public safety.For example, if you do not assist an authorised officer in relation to the Imported Food Control Act—and that is a pretty serious act—the penalty is $3,000. If you do not obey the directions of a superintendent relating to vessels under the Control of Naval Waters Act 1918—and that is pretty important stuff—the penalty is $1,000. Under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, if you fail to comply with the power of an inspector to give directions, it is only 10 penalty units compared with the 100 we are prescribing here.You may say that we should be increasing the penalties across the board, but my point is that these penalties are at the very top end of the penalties prescribed under Commonwealth legislation. You were out by a factor of 10 in what you thought they were. I hope that, now that you are aware of what is involved and that we are talking about criminal penalties, you will be inclined to support the government's bill as it is.17:02:00902Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats support this amendment which increases the penalty units for failure to comply with directions. I was advised, I believe by Senator Margetts's office, that the effect of her amendment was to bring these penalties into line with similar penalties.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—In line with similar penalties for what?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Let us take the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act in terms of killing an employee. The minimum penalty is, as I understand it, $110,000. Senator Schacht has raised an interesting point on comparable laws. Why is a corporation looking at around $55,000 in penalties under this act, when we know that under some other acts, like the one I just cited, if you were responsible for the death of an employee you would be looking at a $110,000 penalty? Perhaps the minister could outline what he considers comparable penalty units in law. I am assuming that this is not just an arbitrary figure that has been plucked out of the air for the purposes of this act.17:04:00902Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I am advised that these penalties were determined, in consultation with the Criminal Law Division of the Attorney-General's Department, in accordance with Commonwealth criminal law policy. We are not talking about killing people; we are talking about failing to comply with the directions of a launch safety officer. While it may be appropriate when people have been killed to have significant penalties of the kind you are talking about, that is not what we are dealing with here.As I said, in the example that we gave we have drawn out what we believe to be comparable instances of offences for failure to comply with directions of relevant officers under a variety of acts of the Commonwealth parliament. Those penalties are considerably less than the penalty we have prescribed, but you want to multiply that by 20. We think that is a little over the top and inappropriate. We believe these penalties are appropriate.17:05:00902Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I hate to be the one to remind the minister, but not long ago we had a debate about how the government and the opposition think it is appropriate for space vehicles to carry fissionable material and be nuclear powered. We are talking about a maximum penalty, and we could be in a situation where failure to comply with a specific direction from a launch safety officer may not kill people directly, but may put at risk the lives and future health of a great number of people in the wider community.These are very important issues. The issues and the importance relate to the danger that might occur as a result of the seriousness of an action in ignoring the directions of a safety officer. For instance, we know from this legislation that there could be a major issue in relation to weapons systems, as weapons systems will not be banned from these; or it could be dealing with fissionable material, because we know that that can be carried if the minister has given it a tick.If we do not have maximum penalty units, we are saying that the worst that can happen to a person—and that can also be a company—is that they will get 100 penalty units, even if their actions were to involve, for instance, fissionable material that has been given a tick by the minister. That is not good enough. It is certainly not showing that either the government or the opposition is aware of or is putting together all the information we have talked about in relation to what could take place at these launches.17:07:00902Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—The opposition does not support this amendment. I want to ask for information for the record, which the minister perhaps can supply from his advisers. The rate of the penalty units at the moment is what?JX4MINCHINSenator Minchin—It is $110.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Who determines the rate per penalty unit? Is that in A-G's, and can it be adjusted from time to time by regulation?17:08:00903Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—My advisers are not entirely sure where the decision making process occurs. We think it is administrative. But the fee is indexed. The $110 is certainly indexed, so it increases.17:08:00903Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I thought that was the case, and this is nothing unusual, to use penalty units as such. The thing that I cannot agree with the Democrats and the Greens about is confusing this issue about an approval, that failing to comply with the direction of a launch safety officer for a licence is equated with actually killing somebody.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—No, it is a maximum unit. Over time, it could do.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—We have a penalty here where a person who fails to comply with a direction that the launch safety officer or licensed launch facility gives under paragraph 52(2)(c) is guilty of an offence. A person who fails to comply, even if the launch is still perfectly okay and it all works out okay, is still guilty of an offence because they have not complied. I want to ask the minister about what happens if the rocket goes wrong or something happens and something catastrophic does occur. Is remedy open to the government under the Crimes Act or other general legislation to take action against the person? Where people not only broke this rule but consciously took decisions that put people at risk, could the government take action under the laws relating to manslaughter? I would have thought that somewhere else in the Commonwealth law you would be subject to some prosecution, or at least the Director of Public Prosecutions would say, `You are not just being fined 100 penalty units here. You actually took part in a series of activities that led to serious loss of life or property and therefore, under either the Crimes Act or something else, we're going to charge you with manslaughter or some other serious offence.' Then, after something terrible has happened, they will suffer some heavier penalty under that legislation rather than under this. I also have to say that, if the minister had approved of it, he has got a political problem on his hands.17:11:00903Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Obviously that is correct. What we are talking about here is a specific penalty in this act for failing to comply with the direction of a launch safety officer. Obviously the general criminal law, whether at state or federal level, would apply to everything that goes on. There is no immunity; there is no line drawn around a space facility to say that no other laws apply. All other laws apply and, if a criminal action takes place, they will be prosecuted for it. That is an important point to note.17:12:00903Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—One of the questions that Senator Schacht shot across the chamber to the minister was on what exists now. We do not have the Space Activities Bill as law at the moment but we do have some potential space launches that are going to occur in the absence of the Space Activities Act. What I would like to ask the minister is this: in the absence of this legislation coming into effect, what is the current situation? For instance, who would be overseeing a Christmas Island launch and is there anyone to give safety instructions in relation to a Christmas Island launch, if that facility gets the go-ahead? What would be the penalties for an individual failing to comply with a safety instruction if the approval for the Christmas Island launch facility goes ahead, which obviously does not need this legislation?17:12:00903Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I point out that we have specifically provided in clause 104 that nothing in this act limits or excludes the operation of other laws of the Commonwealth to the extent, if any, that they are inconsistent with this act, so obviously the criminal code of the Commonwealth applies, as would any state laws. In relation to any prospective launches, as we said at the outset, one of the reasons for bringing this bill on now and trying to get it passed in this session is so that it will operate to regulate prospective launches. We want this legislation in place for the launch at Woomera and for any launch that may take place at Christmas Island. We can reach contractual arrangements with prospective launchers, but there is no power to impose criminal penalties, except by legislative fiat, except to the extent that the general criminal law applies. If you want to put in specific criminal penalties then you need specific legislation to do so. That is one of the reasons we want this bill passed.17:14:00904Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Can I clarify that. I was under the impression, when we got briefings, that this legislation would not apply to prospective launch facilities at Christmas Island simply because the arrangements were made prior to that. Is it the case that this legislation will apply if the Christmas Island launch facility goes ahead?17:14:00904Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—There is no agreement in relation to any launch at Christmas Island. There is speculation that that may be a potential launch site. The only agreement the Commonwealth has entered into with relation to launches is with Kistler for the use of the Woomera rocket range. We have said from the outset, and quite openly, that, while that agreement covers all the commercial arrangements, insurance and things like that, we want this legislation in place and Kistler want this legislation in place so that there is a proper regulatory framework to cover matters that cannot be covered by the agreement. But we did not want to hold up proceeding to get Kistler to the point they are in the absence of any legislation, so agreements have been entered into.We need this legislation to ensure that there is a full regulatory framework in place and so that, for example, there can be criminal penalties for such things as failing to comply with the directions of a launch safety officer. You are under a misapprehension if you think there is any agreement in relation to Christmas Island. The potential for Christmas Island to develop will be enhanced if we get this regulatory framework in place. But there is no agreement outside this legislation.Amendment not agreed to.17:16:00904Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move Greens (WA) amendment (8):(8) Clause 55, page 36 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add:(3) Within 15 sitting days of giving an instruction to a Launch Safety Officer the Minister must cause a copy of the instruction to be tabled in each House of the Parliament.This amendment relates to the instructions by the launch safety officers. We believe that it is important that any instructions to a launch safety officer from the minister be tabled in Parliament. We need to know what happens if an instruction from a launch safety officer is ignored. It is also important know what they have actually been told or if any instructions have been given to them by a minister. We are assuming that the launch safety officer is the expert in launch safety matters. If their decisions are overruled by the minister there must be, in our opinion, some serious reason for doing so. It is not the kind of thing we are going to get easily from freedom of information—or freedom from information, as some people unkindly put it.In order to ensure that the decision is not one that will compromise launch safety, we believe it must be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is similar to the requirements of other parts of the legislation relating to matters of which the minister must give notice. If the minister has to notify over some action taken in relation to other matters, then he or she should have to also notify parliament when giving instructions to the launch safety officer. It is very important. We believe it should be transparent in the process.17:17:00904Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats support the amendment, which adds a reporting requirement for instructions given to a launch safety officer. We are happy to support it because we think it does add to the accountability and transparency of the bill.17:18:00905Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—We are prepared to accept this amendment on the basis that it is not a disallowable instrument. That would make the thing unworkable. But if it is on the basis of the thing being made public, and in the interests of transparency, we have no objection. We would not have thought that instructions from the minister would occur very often, but it may be that a minister has access to information not available to a launch safety officer which could lead the minister to instruct the launch safety officer to hold the launch, for some reason. It is very important to have this power in clause 55. On the basis that it is not proposed it be disallowable, we have no objection to the amendment.Amendment agreed to.17:19:00905Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I understand that the government is willing to accept this amendment with a suggested further minor amendment. In the first line it says, `If the Minister varies, revokes, suspends or transfers . . . ' The amendment is as follows: after the word `suspends' put a comma and the word `reinstates'. It then goes on to read `or transfers'. I understand that in discussions with the shadow minister that agreement has been reached. Therefore, I move the amendment in the amended form. I move opposition amendment (4):(4) Page 39 (after line 20), at the end of Division 9, add: 61A Notice of decisions If the Minister varies, revokes, suspends, reinstates or transfers a space licence, launch permit, overseas launch certificate, exemption certificate or authorisation under section 43, the Minister must publish in the Gazette a notice that this has happened.17:19:00905Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—As indicated, the government is prepared to accept this amendment with that qualification. Because we are potentially dealing with major corporations whose public reputations could be affected by these matters, it is important that, where a reinstatement occurs, it should also be published. If we are going to make public any information in relation to a suspension, then it is also important that we do so for any reinstatement. On that basis we are happy to accept the amendment.Amendment agreed to.17:20:00905Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move Democrats amendment (7):(7) Clause 72, page 45 (line 9), omit "one year", substitute "6 years".The clause provides for a limit on the period within which an action for damages may be brought. This provision limits that period to one year and one day from when the damage occurred. We find this a surprising provision, as limitations periods in Australia are well characterised beyond one year and one day. I am advised that the usual term of a limitations period is six years, so the amendment proposes to insert the period of six years.In response to my questions to the minister, I am informed that the 12-month rule reflects the terms of the liability convention. This is not consistent with our national laws and we believe that it is a significant undermining of the rights of individuals in Australia who may seek to make claims under the bill or take other actions.17:21:00905Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—We have had various elements of this debate during the entire committee stage of this bill. The government and the opposition seem to be quite keen to restrict the liability. We have given plenty of examples where the potential harm from what you have put into the atmosphere by way a space launch may be there for perhaps a long time. I have spoken about potentially hundreds of thousands of items floating around. In the end it may be that `you pays your money and you takes your chances', but you are not taking just your chances, you are taking other people's chances as well. So we will support this Democrats amendment.17:22:00906Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The government does not support this amendment. A lot of thought has gone into setting the period. As indicated by the Australian Democrats, the period does reflect the provision in the Convention on the International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects. That is an international convention. The parties to that convention clearly think that one year is an appropriate period and so does the government.I would point out that clause 72 of the bill makes it clear that if a third party was unaware that damage had occurred, the period of one year would commence on the day the person `became aware of the damage' or `would have become aware of the damage' if due diligence had been exercised. On that basis and on the basis of the established convention, we think that one year is appropriate.Amendment not agreed to.17:23:00906Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—by leave—I move:Clause 75, page 47 (line 6), omit "may", substitute "must".Clause 75, page 47 (line 7), after "beyond", insert "under an authorisation provided under this Act".These amendment relates to clause 75 which sets out the requirements for a register the minister must keep. This register is a requirement of the United Nations Registration Convention and in this bill sets out particulars about the vehicle launched into space.Firstly, I would like to point out that there is a conflict in terminology. This clause refers to `Earth orbit and beyond' in reference to the term `launch', which is defined in clause 8 to mean `outer space'. This reflects the hazy nature of the term `space' and the inability of the international agreements to decide what this term means. The hesitation that I have here is that there is the possibility for confusion where a vehicle is launched but returns to Earth before entering an Earth orbit. This may seem pedantic.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Is it like trying to define a black hole or something?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—Oh?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Mr Temporary Chairman, you missed the earlier debates when there were so many Star Wars references waiting to be made in this debate.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—A black hole is a scientific term these days.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—It is pedantic, but it does impact on the role of regulation in this area and may have consequences for objects which are launched outside the atmosphere and within the range of Earth orbits; for example, an object fired to a height of a thousand kilometres which does not enter an orbit. The point is that international agreements which form the basis of this bill do not necessarily have clear guides as to what space is and where it starts.Secondly, and taking this concern into consideration, the Democrats believe the requirement set out in clause 75 should be obligatory. The term `may' in subclause 75(2) should be replaced by the term `shall'. The effect of this amendment will make the information contained in the register a complete record of our space ventures. This is a measure of accountability and disclosure.I understand that the minister's office has discussed this with our office and has pointed out a problem with the amendment because it could be interpreted to mean that every launch anywhere must be registered. To overcome this, it is perhaps appropriate to add the words `under an authorisation provided under this act' after the words `Earth orbit or beyond'.17:25:00906Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—On the basis of the caveat by Senator Stott Despoja—that is, the addition of those extra words in subclause 75(2) so that we are talking only about space objects launched under this act—we are happy to accept the amendment.Amendments agreed to.17:26:00907Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 3:(1) Clause 90, page 53 (line 24), omit `or gives a thing'.(2) Clause 90, page 53 (line 25), omit `or thing' (first occurring).(3) Clause 90, page 53 (after line 28), after subclause (5), insert:(5A) If a person gives a thing in accordance with subsection (1), the thing, and any information or thing obtained directly or indirectly as a result, is not admissible in evidence against the person in a criminal proceeding or in a proceeding for the recovery of a penalty.At present, no information or thing given to an investigator of an accident by a person under clause 90(1) is admissible as evidence in proceedings of any kind. The purpose of these provisions is to encourage cooperation with the investigator by persons who may possess information or material items relevant to an investigation. Ensuring that such persons bring forward information or items, rather than withhold them through fear of implication in legal proceedings, has assisted investigators of aircraft accidents in determining their causes and in developing strategies for their future prevention.The object of the amendments is to provide that anything given to the investigator of an accident may be admitted as evidence in civil proceedings which do not involve the recovery of a penalty. For example, in the unlikely event that there was a civil proceeding in which it was necessary to establish liability for damage caused by the launch or return of a space object, anything relevant to the determination of liability—for example, a piece of space object which might be used to determine the cause of mechanical failure—could be tendered in evidence. The proposed amendments do not prejudice the intention of the act to protect persons who give information, documentation or an object to an investigator from penalty through legal proceedings.17:28:00907Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will be supporting these amendments. I thank the minister's office for their explanations as to the purpose of these amendments. On balance, they seem quite reasonable, even if my colleagues have been coming into the chamber, looking at one particular amendment and saying, `What is this "thing" amendment?'4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Wasn't there something in a movie called `Thing'?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—That's it. We had to have a reference to The Addams Family , didn't we? So we have the `thing' amendment. The amendments extend the operation of the investigations powers to protect any person who assists in the conduct of the investigation. There is always a balance between making sure that those at fault accept responsibility and, of course, gathering enough information to make sure the investigation is fruitful. The Democrats believe that the balance in these circumstances appears to be reasonable. For that reason we will be supporting the `thing' amendment and the others.17:29:00907Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I have a couple of questions to ask about things. Australia is credited with having six items, or six things, of payload objects in orbit and two debris items. What are they? What risks do these items pose to other space traffic?17:29:00907Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I am lost. Where are we?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You have been asked a question about the six things.JX4Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHIN—What? Six things in space?4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—We've had six things in space and we're now down to the black hole and the blob.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We request a determination about the six things and clarification as to what they are.JX4Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHIN—I am advised that six things have been launched into space from Australia, but I am not sure what the context is or what the question is exactly seeking to find out. I gather that we have moved off the particular amendment onto a general discussion. Is that so?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No, Minister. Senator Margetts might like to re-ask her question.17:29:00908Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Certainly, and perhaps the minister could pay attention this time. Australia is credited with having six items of payload objects in orbit and two debris items. What are they? I gather there are also two items of payload described as being decayed objects. What are they?17:30:00908Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—My advisers inform me that these are communications satellites that have been launched here for the benefit of all Australians, so that we can communicate and can talk to each other.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Optus satellites A and B.JX4Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHIN—Yes, that's right. To the extent that any such satellite becomes unserviceable or is past its life expectancy, it becomes `debris' once it is no longer usable. I am not aware of any difficulty or concern being caused to anybody by their presence in space, but I am happy to seek further information on the matter.Amendments agreed to.17:31:00908Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I really think what we have seen, especially in this last response, would indicate that the minister is not taking a lot of these concerns terribly seriously. Australia is already involved in the space industry. We have indicated that there is actually a growing amount of debris and objects within space. It would not be the first time space debris has hit space objects with someone on board. Apparently in 1988 the Russian Mir space station was damaged by a high velocity particle. Collisions are accepted as inevitable.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—That's the risk you take in having a space station up there.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I do not really know why Senator Schacht has seen in this whole debate the necessity to try to poke fun at or to put nonsense on those people from the Greens and the Democrats who are seeking to express real concerns. These things are real, they are not just in our imagination. There are space objects there. We have liabilities. Australia should be operating as a responsible international citizen. The only kind of response Senator Schacht can come up with is to make silly jokes and to support and act like the minister.This is your responsibility, Senator Schacht, not just the government's. You think those things that the community is concerned about are a joke. Fine! But this is not really a joke, it is serious. The liabilities are serious. The community health concerns are serious. Putting this kind of stuff, including fissionable material, into space and accepting no real liability or implementing no real checks and balances is not funny. We have to not just follow on the tails of those people who want to make lots of money in the United States; we have to, on one thing in this universe, act as responsible international citizens. But, no, it is a joke according to Senator Schacht. That is the way he has conducted this debate. Unfortunately, the consequences are no joke. He is playing with people's lives and with people's futures. As long as someone can make money out of that, that is fine by him.17:33:00908Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—On one of the issues we were debating before—penalty units—I made an off the cuff reference to a safety and rehabilitation act. I also wanted to draw the committee's attention to the occupational health and safety act which states, in reference to the duty of an employer in relation to third parties, that an employer must take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that persons at or near a workplace under the employer's control who are not the employer's employees or contractors are not exposed to risk to their health or safety arising from the conduct of an employer's undertaking. The penalty in that case is $100,000.Even though I mentioned in the debate some of the minimum penalties in relation to death in a workplace, as well as the penalty that would be faced by that corporation or workplace or employer, in the case of the occupational health and safety act it is $100,000 for a government business enterprise if it fails to ensure that third parties are free from risk. I think that is perhaps comparable to some of the penalty units to which we referred in the debate.17:34:00909Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Senator Margetts has said that I have treated this debate with levity and without seriousness. Since I was elected to this place in 1987, I have been involved in the issue of Australia's involvement in space related activities as a minister, as a backbencher and as a member of various committees, including Senate committees going right back to 1987. I will plead guilty to the fact that I am a dedicated supporter of Australia having a space industry, because not only is it in our national interest to have it but it will also provide good jobs and add to the wealth of this country in the long term. I do not think we can be a modern society, a First World country, in the next century without having a viable opportunity to be involved in space related activities.It is true that I made some asides and interjections about black holes and Star Wars and so on. I have always thought in this place that occasionally, even though we oppose each other, interjections of some humour often do not go amiss. We may philosophically disagree with being involved in space related activities, but I am extremely serious about why Australia should have a space industry and undertake space related activities. I always will be. I have argued for that since I came to this place in 1987 and I will continue to do so. If you say that I acted like the minister, it is only because I am committed to having a space industry in Australia. As a South Australian I will be delighted to see rockets launched from Woomera in the near future.17:37:00909Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Just before we close, can I point out that the Commonwealth Crimes Act, on this question of penalty points, sets out the amount of a penalty unit. It is for the parlia ment to amend that act to revise the value of the penalty. By government initiative it is amended at regular intervals to keep it current. I conclude by acknowledging and thanking the opposition, Senator Schacht in particular, for their support for our taking up their good work in ensuring that Australia can develop a good space industry and be part of the space industry. I think it is very appropriate as we enter a new millennium that we do.I acknowledge where Senator Margetts is coming from and acknowledge the concerns she has, but this is an industry which essentially is developing in rural and regional Australia, in areas of low employment opportunities, and I think it gives people in some very remote parts of Australia considerable hope. I point out in relation to the Kistler project at Woomera that very satisfactory and amicable agreements have been reached with the local Aboriginal people which do provide them with jobs and training and some future. They welcome this development.17:39:00909Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank the minister for his reference to how penalty acts and points are determined. I think it is necessary for the record to point out that while the minister does thank the opposition for their assistance in facilitating this bill—and I echo some of the comments of Senator Margetts—there is a difference between commending people for their role and their work in a committee stage of a bill such as this and the implication that the people who do not necessarily support amendments moved by government—or the bill in its entirety—are somehow Luddites or do not support initiatives in space.Senator Schacht is smiling yet again. I acknowledge that there is room for levity in the debate, Senator Schacht, but I do resent the inference, because people down this end of the chamber have sought to value add to this bill. When I say value add I mean do some of the things that I would have anticipated to be the role not only of an opposition but of the government, such as looking through this bill to ensure that things like liability and health and safety concerns are covered; that we are not sending weaponry into space; and that we are giving due consideration not to whether or not radioactive substances go into space but to whether a risk and hazard assessment, for example, is prepared and tabled in the parliament beforehand.I think many people at this end of the chamber are very much committed to space related activities and certainly advances in technology. In fact, I suggest that we down this end have probably discussed industry and science policy more in the course of the last parliament than just about anyone else in this place. For that reason I resent any implication that we were not furthering the cause. We were just doing what we thought would have been the role of a responsible government, that is, to make sure that it was done appropriately and with health and safety considerations at the fore.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.910Bill (on motion by Senator Minchin) read a third time.Bills910r631910Consideration resumed from 23 November.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Before I call on this bill, I would just like to make a statement in relation to the fact that some of these amendments are down as requests. There is no reason for them being framed as requests. The amendments would not lead to any increase in expenditure under the bill. On the contrary, the explanatory memorandum accompanying the amendments indicates that their financial impact is a total saving of $39.148 billion to the year ending 30 June 2004. The amendments therefore will not be treated as requests but as amendments.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I table the supplementary memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 30 November.17:42:00910Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I want to take the opportunity to ask the minister whether the government has considered the Californian alternative to the approach to custodianship of children, that the first effort and the aim predicating the whole resolution of child support and therefore child guardianship—and I am talking about general law here not just child support, but the child support comes out of custodianship—must be that both parents be given equal custodian rights when these matters are being determined. This is quite different from the Australian approach, which is that one parent be given the primary custodian role and the other one be a supporter with access rights and so on.17:44:00910Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I do not know whether the senator is aware that reforms to the Family Court were introduced in 1996 along the lines he is talking about. That meant that the court was to encourage couples to try to reach an agreement that both parents would remain intimately involved in the child's life, in making the important decisions in the child's life and in sharing the care. I personally am very keen to see that happen for the good of Australia's children. That is part of the portfolio of the Attorney-General and I do not know whether I can take you usefully down that path much further, Senator. We believe that some of the amendments that have been moved in this child support legislation do go to ensuring that both parents have a greater involvement in their child's life. It certainly supports parents who wish to achieve greater sharing of the care and sharing of the decision making—I hope you would agree with that—and that is my purpose in anything that I do in this area.17:45:00910Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I will not delay the committee beyond one more submission, and I thank the minister for that. The difference between the Californian system, as I understand it, and the Australian system is that we encourage the court, with the parents, to come to a dual custodian arrangement, whereas Californian law directs the court to make every effort to see that that is the outcome.I did speak with the Attorney-General last week about this matter, and I want to take this opportunity to draw the difference to the minister's attention. Would the minister be good enough to ascertain the difference between the Californian situation and the Australian situation, as far as outcomes are concerned, since Australia moved to the encouragement model in 1996? I would be very pleased to know what the difference is, because it is a situation where there is always grounds for improvement. I think it would be excellent for the government to consider the Californian situation if it could be seen that it is working well there and is leading to an arrangement where, more often than in the Australian circumstance, both parents have a joint and equal role in the upbringing of their children.17:46:00911Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I will certainly follow up the suggestion. Although it is perhaps not kindly towards my own profession, I would also suggest that, at least in this country, the administration of the Family Law Act has become so legalistic, so adversarial in many cases—which it was not intended to be—that I think it makes it harder for parents, at a time of emotional turmoil, to come to the best decisions about their children's future. They are not always getting advice which goes to the long-term good of all the parties, and particularly the children. That may be a harsh judgment on my profession, but I fear that it has become very, very far away from what was originally intended by the government of Gough Whitlam. As I said, I will follow up what you have suggested.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—Minister, we have two government amendments which remain. As I understand it, there is agreement on the part of the opposition for them to be dealt with together.17:48:00911Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—by leave—I move: Clause 2, page 1 (line 8), omit "subsections (2) to (10)", substitute "this section".Clause 2, page 2 (after line 20), at the end of the clause, add:(11) Schedule 22 (except Part 2) commences immediately after the commencement of Schedule 16.(12) Part 9 of Schedule 22 commences on the day after the day on which the A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Act 1999 receives the Royal Assent. However. if this Act receives the Royal Assent after the day on which that Act receives the Royal Assent, that Part commences on the day after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.Clause 2, page 2 (after line 20), at the end of the clause, add:(13) Schedule 23 (except Part 2) commences immediately after the commencement of Part 1 of Schedule 22.(14) Part 2 of Schedule 23 commences when Part 2 of Schedule 22 commences.Clause 4, page 3 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add:(5) The amendments of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 made by Schedule 22 do not apply in relation to an assessment for a child support year, or a child support period starting before 1 July 2000.Clause 4, page 3 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add:(6) The amendments of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 made by Schedule 23 do not apply in relation to an assessment for a child support year, or a child support period, starting before 1 July 2000.Page 149 (after line 7), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 22—Liable parents' reportable fringe benefits totalsPart 1—Amendment of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989Section 5Insert:reportable fringe benefits total has the meaning given by subsection 158A(3).2 At the end of subsection 38A(1) lAdd:; and (c) the liable parent's reportable fringe benefits total (if any) for the year of income.3 After section 158Insert:158A Disclosure of reportable fringe benefits total(1) This section applies if one or more fringe benefits are provided in relation to a year of tax in respect of the employment by an employer of an employee who is a liable parent.(2) The liable parent must notify the Registrar, in accordance with the regulations. of the reportable fringe benefits total of the liable parent for the year of income ending on the first 30 June after the end of the year of tax.(3) The reportable fringe benefits total of the liable parent for the year of income is the amount worked out in accordance with the regulations taking account of the value (worked out in accordance with the regulations) of the fringe benefit or fringe benefits (other than a fringe benefit of a kind that is prescribed by the regulations).(4) An expression used in this section and in the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 has the same meaning in this section as it has in that Act.(5) This section applies in relation to a liable parent who is an employee of the Commonwealth, or of an authority of the Commonwealth described in paragraph (e) of the definition of employer in subsection 136(1) of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 , as if the Commonwealth or the authority were an employer for the purposes of that Act.(6) This section applies in relation to a benefit that is an exempt benefit because of section 57A or 58 of the Fringe Benefit Tax Assessment Act 1986 and would be a fringe benefit apart from those Sections as if it were a fringe benefit for the purposes of that Act.(7) This section does not require notification of a reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income before the 1999-2000 year of income.158B Penalty for failure to notify reportable fringe benefits total accurately(1) A person must pay the Registrar a penalty of the amount worked out under subsection (2) if: (a) section 158A requires the person to notify the Registrar of the person's reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income; and (b) the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income is at least 10 per cent greater than the amount that the person notified the Registrar under section 158A was the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income. (2) The amount of the penalty is 10 per cent of the difference between: (a) the administrative assessment of child support based on the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income; and (b) the amount that was or would have been the administrative assessment of child support based on the amount that the person notified the Registrar under Section 158A was the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income.(3) if a person is required by section 158A to notify the Registrar of the person's reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income and docs not do so as required by that section, this section operates as if the person had notified the Registrar under that section that the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income was a nil amount.(4) The penalty is a debt due to the Commonwealths payable when the administrative assessment mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) is made.(5) The Registrar may make an administrative assessment of child support for the purposes of this section at any time.(6) The Registrar may remit penalty payable under this section if he or she thinks it is fair and reasonable to do so.Part 2—Amendment dependent on fringe benefits reporting legislationChild Support (Assessment) Act 19894 Section 5 (definition of reportable fringe benefits total) Repeal the definition, substitute; reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income for a person who is an employee (for the purposes of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 , whether it applies of its own force or because of the Fringe Benefits Tax (Application to the Commonwealth) Act 1986 ) means the employee's reportable fringe benefits total (as defined in the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 ) for the year of income.5 Section 158A Repeal the section. Page 149 (after line 7), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 23-Entitled carers' reportable fringe benefits totalsPart 1—Amendment of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 19891 At the end of subsection 45A(1)Add;; and (c) the entitled carer's reportable fringe benefits total (if any) for the year of income.2 At the end of subsection 158A(1) Add "or an entitled carer (within the meaning of Subdivision D of Division 2 of Part 5)".3 Subsection 158A(2)After "liable parent" (first occurring), insert "or entitled carer".4 Subsection 158A(2) After "liable parent" (second occurring), insert "or entitled Carer (as appropriate)".5 Subsections 158A(3) and (5) After "liable parent", insert "or entitled Carer".Part 2—Amendment dependent on fringe benefits reporting legislationChild Support (Assessment) Act 19896 Section 158B Repeal the section.17:49:00913Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I indicate that we will be supporting these amendments. For those who followed the debate, they would realise that they were the result of a discussion that evolved from the opposition moving amendments to seek to insert fringe benefits as part of assessable income for both custodial and non-custodial parents into the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 .We had some resistance from the government initially on the grounds that they sought to deal with that matter as part of the tax package and did not want it inserted in the child support legislation at this stage. But, following a debate around the chamber, there seemed to be a deal of support for our legislative thrust, which was to include fringe benefits for both custodial and non-custodial parents in their assessable income.I am pleased to say that, as a result of that debate being adjourned, the government has gone away and drafted the amendments before us today, which reflect the view that emerged around the chamber. It was our hope that fringe benefits would be included in the assessable income from next year, but the government has maintained that for a range of administrative reasons it would be better that it not occur until 1 July 2000. While I still have some doubts about that issue, the opposition is prepared, in the spirit of compromise and a good public policy outcome, to accept that approach. So we think, and we hope, that the government's amendments accurately reflect the expressed objective of including fringe benefits in the child support legislation for the purposes of defining income. We are pleased to support them.I might also say that we are very pleased to see that it might be possible to choose which aspects of the tax package we wish to support and which aspects we cannot. We hope this is a precedent for when we deal with the tax package later on, because the opposition will wish to support some aspects of it and to oppose other aspects—the GST being the primary one. We are pleased with and we appreciate the minister's efforts to better draft the amendments that reflect the legislative intent we are seeking and we will be supporting those amendments.17:51:00913Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I presume then from the senator's words that we shall expect to see the opposition supporting the GST on the grounds that it is going to the premiers, all of whom are very keen to receive their money under the GST. So presumably the opposition will be having some second thoughts.I thank the Senate for the support for these amendments. As the committee would know, the government was always keen to see that the true financial position of both parents was included in any calculation of the child support formula and the implications for any particular family. We were concerned, however, that the amendments put up by the opposition would have been somewhat difficult to implement as drafted and would certainly have made for an administrative burden on the parents and also made it difficult for the agency to ensure that it had a good compliance system as part of the administration.I do not want to take the time of the committee any longer except to say that this is something which clearly all parties around the chamber want to see happen so that nobody evades their proper responsibility in support ing their children. It is an example of the Senate at its best, working together to achieve a good outcome. I thank those who have been involved in that process.17:53:00914Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—The Democrats support the amendments as a very sensible compromise between opinions which were really heading in the same direction but had not quite come together. So certainly we are happy to support them and were encouraged by the opposition's indication that maybe compromise can be achieved in some of the other bills that we have before us.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.914Bill (on motion by Senator Newman) read a third time.Bills914r622Billsr629914Debate resumed from 23 November, on motion by Senator Newman:That these bills be now read a second time.17:54:00914Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—In discussing the Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed Investment Company) Bill 1998 , I wish to address the current status of the Australian film industry, the government's approaches in recent times, reservations expressed by the ALP in the lower house and several of the matters raised in the recent Senate report as tabled last week in this chamber.Turning to the Australian film industry, it is clear there has been significant growth and great strength in this industry in recent years. Investment over the last 30 years appears to be bearing fruit in a number of states. Growth is apparent in New South Wales, as evidenced by Fox Studios investment and the location of major work into that state. I am advised that studios recently built and expanded in New South Wales are booked out until the year 2002. There has been ongoing investment in Queensland in major films with large budgets using the many facilities also built in recent times in that state.A number of Australian films are having both critical and commercial success in offshore markets, to mention but a few topical films of recent days: LA Confidential, Shine, and Babe. More importantly for our own purposes, a lot of the higher value work is being sourced these days in Australia: technicians, animators, trades persons, computer operators, graphic and design people, script writers, directors and producers. These are all pleasing developments. When one looks at the bare statistics, they show a similar story or confirm the anecdotal reports from industry and press reports. The ABS shows audiovisual production worth $1.3 billion in the last financial year. Employment figures show over 40,000 persons are employed in the industry.Films and allied entertainment are industries of the future, based on intellectual property and creativity, requiring education, training and the ongoing development of skills, industries that are developing, which we welcome, and offer long-term and rewarding career prospects to those persons who choose to enter the relevant areas. The government's attitude in recent times has been, not to appear too churlish, somewhat disappointing. In light of the above growth and success, it is difficult to understand the government's actions in recent years. Last year's budget reduced government assistance from $97 million to $70 million. A 30 per cent cut in the outyear forecasts shows no improvement. There have been massive cuts in government support for the ABC, a critical institution for innovation, creativity and training in Australia. It has always been an important source of film and TV production and the capacity to continue that incubator role is restricted by more recent budget cuts.When this bill was being discussed in the lower house, the ALP mentioned a number of reservations. In particular, the member for Denison expressed reservations. Basically, he criticised the government for withdrawing a substantial amount of support for the film industry in recent years. Mr Kerr went on to make a number of points. Firstly, he sought an ongoing commitment to the Film Finance Corporation which, forward estimates show, is not funded past the current triennium. We repeat our support on the basis that it is a trial supplement to current funding arrangements which should remain undisturbed. We will ask the minister to formally respond to that issue in due course.Secondly, Mr Kerr entered a caveat concerning the Senate's report. The Senate report has been down for some days now and fundamentally addresses three issues: the adequacy of the level of the proposed tax deduction, whether the capital gains tax provisions could act as a disincentive to investment and whether the scheme would be effective in attracting more investment in Australian films.Turning to the adequacy of the level of the proposed tax deduction, most submissions to the Senate inquiry made the following points. The Gonski recommendation was for a tax deduction of 120 per cent and anything less than that was not adequate because of the high risk nature of this industry. Doubts were expressed about investment being attracted if the figure was set at no more than 100 per cent. In this context, the submission was repeated on a number of occasions that the changes being introduced by this bill were not an improvement in that context.In respect of the capital gains tax, most submissions argued that a zero cost base of 100 per cent of sale price of shares which would be subject to CGT would also be a disincentive to investors. Many industries, one should note in passing, make the same point. In the recent industry policy inquiry conducted by the Senate Economics References Committee, many investors made the point that the capital gains tax regime in Australia appeared to inhibit investment and needed review.The Senate report addressed whether the scheme would be effective in attracting more investment. Submissions argued that the cap of $20 million tax concession per year limited the potential for the film industry to expand. FACTS argued against clause 25 of the bill which prevents FLIC from investing in a film developed or produced by commercial broadcasters. Both these objections were discussed by the Senate committee at pages 5 and 6.I have two minor points to make in concluding. The first point I wish to address concerns clause 3.33—extending the end date of the scheme from 30 June 2002 to 30 June 2003. It is not necessarily a bad thing, and it is probably caused by delay in the passage of the bill occasioned by the recent election. This, however, should not necessarily extend the time before the scheme can be reviewed. It would be beneficial to all parties, particularly industry participants and investors, to understand the progress of the trial scheme and any potential problems or abuses foreseen or unforeseen. So we would commend to the government an earlier assessment of the scheme at 30 June 2002.The second point I wish to address is that when the bill was first introduced in May 1998 it was thought necessary to allow up to two years to raise the total amount of concession or capital. Apparently, that is not the case now. To significantly reduce the time in which capital may be raised could have two consequences. Firstly, the failure to raise a target amount could save the government some tax concessions and moneys otherwise allocated. Secondly, there could be a rush by investors to throw money at projects without proper consideration. Either development would be unwelcome and would defeat the purpose of the bill and the government's stated intention. If the pilot scheme opportunity to trial is based upon a more diverse set of investors, a higher level of investment and a broader base of private investment in this film industry, narrow time lines should not get in the way of its eventual success.In summary, in the lower house the opposition did not oppose the legislation. We cooperated with the Senate inquiry process and, now that the Senate report is delivered, we voice no objection of any great substance, subject to my earlier comments about dates and time lines. The opposition will watch the progress of this trial scheme with interest and look forward to the review documents in due course. As this industry appears to be developing well, we support this scheme as a vehicle to raise additional finance, to develop new projects and to expand the horizon of this influential industry in Australia. The opposition does not oppose passage of this bill.18:03:00916Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—The Democrats welcome the FLIC Scheme, albeit with some reservations. There are, I think, many unanswered questions about how it will operate. It is, I am told, without precedent. The Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 falls well short of the recommendations of the Gonski report, and I think that raises concerns about the scheme's viability.The Democrats are committed to the idea of numerous doors to funding, and we concur with the organisations which made submissions to the committee on this issue. FLIC should not replace either direct funding through the Film Corporation or 10BA. Twenty-seven million dollars has been cut from the industry over the last three years and our industry would, I think, be in dire trouble if this occurred. The last thing we need is an industry which is even more beholden than it currently is to the bean counters.We are particularly concerned that the number of licences to be awarded is not stipulated in the legislation. We are extremely wary of one player dominating the scheme. Cultural diversity and risk taking are never served by a monopoly. We also believe that putting all our eggs in one basket will give a distorted picture of the success or lack thereof of the scheme. The Democrats will urge the minister to allocate more than one FLIC should there be a number of companies each demonstrating an ability to fulfil the criteria. We are aware that the viability of the scheme is reduced as the number of licences increases. The $40 million cap has been a major impediment to what we would see as a primary aim of ensuring diversity.Industry groups are worried about a vertically integrated company or companies dominating the process to the point that independent and emerging film makers are locked out. So FLIC, as the legislation cur rently stands, looks like an improbable vehicle if we have that goal of diversity in mind.The exclusion of projects developed or produced by the television networks is, the Democrats think, a good start. However, this does not mean that independents and new film makers will get a look-in. At present, we do not see how the government intends to address this issue, and we eagerly await raising this during the committee stage. As usual, the government has hidden in regulations the most important information about what it intends to do.If this means we see the same old actors and the same old formulas, then I think it will have failed. We need to see more films like Shine, Head On, Priscilla and The Boys—films that buck the complacent myths about ourselves as Australians.As I said, we support the bill, but with some reservations, and we will seek to amend it during the committee stage.18:06:00916Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 , together with the Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed Investment Company) Bill 1998 , essentially provide a trial mechanism to encourage investment in the Australian film industry by providing tax deductions as an incentive. The bills authorise the minister to approve film licence investment companies that will be able to offer tax deductions for investors who acquire shares in film licence investment companies or FLIC. The scheme is to run for two years until 30 June 2000. This initiative sprang from the Gonski report that reviewed funding to the film industry and which was released in January 1997.I guess we can only wonder what would happen if we did sign up to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. Maybe it would mean that the same tax deduction cannot distinguish between Australian films and films made overseas.The Greens position is to support the general thrust of the initiative. As the Gonski report recognised, there are significant benefits that can be gained. They include: administrative simplicity; providing a foundation for funding by moving away from project-oriented funding; certainty as to the amount of loss of revenue; the amalgamation of film production experts and experts in risk capital management; and transparency in monitoring outcomes and abuse minimisation.The Greens are supportive of trialling creative initiatives to provide additional financial support to this vibrant industry. Film and television have become an integral part of Australian life at the end of this century. As the Gonski report noted, film and television are probably the most accessible of all cultural activities for all types of people in all parts of the world.The film industry makes a significant economic contribution to the economy of around $1.2 billion a year, as well as employing around 40,000 people. But all Australians are winners when the film industry is on a high. Making films in Australia is not just an excellent way of showcasing the country to the world; it has a vast array of spin off benefits for our film industry, our tourism industry and for all Australians. Home-grown films make a huge contribution to expressing Australia's diverse cultural identity and engendering debate around cultural issues and current issues. It is an accessible medium for exploring diversity and promoting a more imaginative, inquiring and thoughtful society. Aussie films carry these diverse messages both domestically and internationally, and often provide springboards for young aspiring actors to break into the international scene. And, of course, there is a sense of pride generated when our films and actors win international awards.Let us look at the elements of the Greens (WA) position on this bill. First, we are supportive of trialling initiatives. We note that the government has taken on board concerns expressed in the industry, and fashioned this initiative as a trial running parallel with current tax concessions provided for in divisions 1OBA and lOB of part III of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. This is a positive measure that will ensure this initiative achieves desired outcomes without undercutting current funding processesSecondly, the Greens (WA) are supportive of additional funding support for the film industry. We do not support a shift in funding responsibility from the public to the private purse. We recognise that there is significant scope for private funding in this industry. However, it is crucial to be mindful of the importance of retaining a mix of both public and private funding sources for the purposes of diversity.The Gonski review made this point very clearly. Gonski was unambiguously in favour of continuing direct government assistance to provide a solid production slate and to counteract the capricious nature of the industry. The Gonski report stated:The Review believes that the Commonwealth assistance has been critical to the building and development of the industry to this current level of expertise and quality.The Gonski review quite clearly did not advocate replacement of direct government funding with indirect assistance available through tax concessions. In fact, the Gonski report quite specifically advocated direct funding to continue to be the principal mechanism for funding. One of the Gonski recommendations was:that the Government recognise that to achieve its cultural objectives within a commercially driven Australian film and television industry, there will be a continuing need for Government assistance and non-commercial rates of return.This view has been echoed in the submissions by Southern Star Entertainment to the Senate standing committee on environment, recreation and the arts.The Greens (WA) have some significant concerns about the government's long-term intentions for public funding in this industry. The record of the last term in government shows that the coalitions commitment to properly funding the film industry is questionable. It is consistent with the governments short-term slash and burn budgetary behaviour that they have withdrawn substantial support from the Australian film industry.The government provides substantial assistance to the industry through the Australian Film Finance Corporation Limited. The FFC has made a substantial contribution to the industry. Although it has not had a 100 per cent success rate, it has invested in many successful productions. The government has not shown a very serious commitment to the continuing success of this dynamic industry. Since coming to office, the coalition has made budget cuts of $27 million. Funding has gone from $97 million to just $70 million. That is a huge chunk of funding that the government has retracted from the industry—nearly 30 per cent. And that is only the money directly allocated to the film industry.Of course, there have also been enormous cuts to the ABC. The ABC has proved to be a creative birthplace for innovative and informative film and television production. However, their ability to continue the volume and quality has been seriously undermined by the government pulling on the purse strings.In light of these slashes in funding, the Greens (WA) share the concerns of the Australian Writers Guild that this initiative may give the impression that large additional benefits have been bestowed on the film industry. Clearly this is not the case. The estimated cost of this trial is around $20 million, which does not even replace the money ripped directly out of the film budget.While the Greens (WA) will be supporting this bill, there have been a number of concerns expressed by the industry and I would like to put them on the record. The first concern relates to the adequacy of the measure. Amongst others, the Screen Producers Association, the Australian Writers Guild, the New South Wales Film and Television Office, Southern Star Entertainment and the Australian Screen Directors Association have questioned whether the FLIC proposal is sufficiently attractive to be a viable basis for private funding. There is concern the initiative falls too far short of the original Gonski proposal that gave allowances and consideration for the inherently risky and volatile nature of the investment in the film industry.Firstly, the 100 per cent tax concession falls short of the suggested l20 per cent in the Gonksi report. The Gonski report specifically envisaged that the deduction would be over 100 per cent to provide appropriate incentives; and secondly, the capital gains tax treatment of the resale of shares is significantly more harsh than that recommended by Mr Gonski. He recommended that there be an adjustment on capital gains so that the gains are not taxed from the first dollar.There are also important concerns expressed that the measure would not be of benefit to film-makers outside Sydney and Melbourne and, in particular, small independent film-makers. The aim is that FLIC would benefit investors by enabling investors to invest in a FLIC and minimise their risks, as they would be spread over a number of projects rather than a single investment.However, this enables the FLIC to control the investment in films, and there is an anxiety that they would favour the large established film makers in Sydney and Melbourne who have an advantage in attracting investors—they are obviously making a number of films all together.Government or targeted funding is even more important in South Australia, Queensland and my own state of Western Australia, because the bulk of production is centralised in Victoria and New South Wales. More funding in these other areas would give a lot more film makers opportunities they would not normally get unless they are moved to Sydney or Melbourne. Good films do come out of these areas. Shine is an obvious example—its production was based in Adelaide.So the possible reduction in diversity is a huge concern, and I hope this is one which the government has a clear eye on when the two-year trial is up for evaluation. Certainly, the Greens will keep an eye on the government budgetary allocation, along with the other valid concerns expressed by the industry, to ensure that this initiative is not a mere smokescreen to reduce further public spending for the film industry in the future.18:15:00918Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I thank all honourable senators who have contributed to this debate. Even though I was not able to pay full attention to Senator Margetts's contribution, because we were working out how to deal with some amend ments that may come up in the committee stage—I apologise to Senator Margetts for that—I understand from the bits I heard of Senator Bishop's and Senator Allison's speeches that they were in support of the legislation. I welcome that support and commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.919FILM LICENSED INVESTMENT COMPANY BILL 1998The bill.18:17:00919Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—There have been a couple of discussions with both the opposition's adviser and—just recently, totally against standing orders—Senator Allison in the chamber. In relation to section 22 where the Democrats have proposed an amendment on sheet 1182—and I am sure the opposition and the Democrats would like this clarification—in the provision I am referring to, section 22 headed `Conditions in a disallowable instrument', it is quite clear in (1) that:The Minister may determine in writing conditions that are to apply to all FLICS under the scheme.Then there is a note saying:A determination is a disallowable instrument.It then refers you to section 43. Part (2) gives the minister power to make a revocation or a variation to these conditions. I think that the Democrat amendment seeks to ensure that action by the minister under part (2) of 22 is also a disallowable instrument. My advice is—and I assure the Senate—that action by the minister under part (2), a revocation or a variation, needs to be done by way of a determination and is therefore a disallowable instrument. I know that might put the Labor Party's minds at rest, and I would certainly hope it might put the Democrats' minds at rest.Since we had discussions with your adviser, Senator Bishop, we have had a look at parts (2) and (3) of the Democrats' amendment, and I think that they were probably drawn up on the basis of the explanation I have just made and are probably unnecessary as well. They are certainly—to anticipate a question I will probably get—in conflict with the Acts Interpretation Act.They are also contradictory in some parts. For example, under one provision a determination would not have effect until the day after tabling of the determination, but part (6) at the bottom of the second page of the circulated amendments would say that `a determination takes effect immediately following the last day on which a resolution disallowing the determination could have been passed.' So there is actually a quite clear conflict there. The government wants to ensure that these determinations, revocations and variations are disallowable. We believe that the bill as currently drafted achieves that. We commend the bill in its current form without amendment.18:20:00919Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I am happy to take that advice. If our amendment does not have the intention as was proposed, then I am happy to withdraw it. Minister, having established that anything can take effect prior to the parliament having the opportunity to disallow the instrument, is it possible then to go ahead for some period of time and therefore implement this scheme without giving that opportunity to the parliament?18:21:00919Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—My advice and my understanding of these things is that it does allow the scheme to commence immediately but it also immediately gives the parliament the opportunity to disallow it. Under the Acts Interpretation Act, there are 15 sitting days on which to action that. So it has merit in two ways. The government is keen to have these schemes up and running in this financial year. This scheme would allow that to occur but it also gives the parliament the power to disallow it from the time it is tabled.18:21:00919Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I would like to follow that up. I imagine that this scheme would allow a decision to be made quite quickly. Is it not likely that the determinations would be made and in effect the scheme come into effect in its totality in a very short period of time—that is, within a day or so of the regulation coming into effect? My real question is: what real power does the parliament have to disallow this instrument? Could it be that the funds are committed in a very short period of time?18:22:00920Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Senator Allison, I am getting advice on that point. Is your concern with the immediate future? Are you talking about what happens after the proclamation of this bill, assuming it gets passed in its current form, or are you more interested in what might happen in six months time?1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—In the immediate period.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I have some information that might assist honourable senators, particularly Senator Allison. I have a proposed timetable that commences with thepassage of this legislation, which we are hoping will be in either late November or early December. In early December advertisements for expressions of interest will be placed. Also in December will be the tabling of ministerial guidelines—applications rules, selection criteria and reporting requirements—and circulation of advance information on the scheme to interested parties. In January the scheme would be advertised nationally, calling for formal applications. In March 1999 the selection advisory panel would consider applications and make recommendations to the minister, and the minister would then announce the successful FLIC. Capital raising, which I think goes to the nub of your question, Senator Allison, would not commence until April 1999. In fact, as we all know from our discussions last week, the parliament will be sitting from 19 April 1999. In 1999-2000 investment in film and television projects will commence. On 30 June the capital raising period ends. It then goes on into the new millennium. I seek leave to have the document incorporated.Leave granted.The document read as follows—Film Licensed Investment Company pilot schemeProposed timetable November—December 1998Introduction and passage of FLIC legislation through the House of Representatives and the SenateAdvertise for expressions of interest in obtaining a license to operate a FLIC December 1998Tabling of Ministerial Guidelines (applications rules, selection criteria, reporting requirements)Circulate advance information on the scheme to interested parties January 1999FLIC scheme advertised nationally calling for formal applications March 1999Selection Advisory Panel considers applications and makes recommendation to MinisterMinister announces successful FLIC April 1999Capital raising commences 1999-2000Investment in film and television projects commences 30 June 2000Capital raising period ends 30 June 2002Period for investment in film and television projects ends 30 April 2003All projects invested in must be completed 30 June 2003Pilot FLIC scheme ends18:25:00921Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I have one further question: when is it anticipated that the regulations would be written and come into force?18:25:00921Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I am informed that there is consultation going on, but the hope is that the regulations will be in this session.18:26:00921Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—In respect of the explanation given by the Manager of Government Business in relation to subclauses 22 (1) and (2) and its proper interpretation that subclause (2) is expressly a disallowable instrument, the opposition acknowledges the comments of the government and thanks them for making that clear.In respect of the remainder of the amendments to be moved by the Democrats, the opposition was only provided with a copy of them immediately prior to or shortly after question time. We are advised that the Democrats want an exception to the normal operation of the Acts Interpretation Act. We have not had the opportunity to consider properly and thoroughly the utility of that request and that amendment, and we will seek it in the future.At this stage we are not disposed to support the amendment if the Democrats should proceed. That is an unfortunate position to have because we would be interested to hear argument based on serious merit concerning the amendments proposed by the Australian Democrats. As I said earlier, we have had these amendments for only three to four hours, and we have not had the opportunity to consider them thoroughly. At this stage we are disposed to oppose them.18:27:00921Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Given the hour of the day and the level of confusion surrounding the Democrats' amendments, I suggest that this be considered after the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6.28 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—The committee is considering the Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998.19:30:00921Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—An amended Democrats amendment has been circulated.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— No-one has seen the amended amendment.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—It does not matter, as I do not intend to proceed with the amendment. Some assurances have been given by the minister's office and I will ask the minister to outline them before we proceed. When we have that on the record, we will withdraw that amendment.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Are you pursuing your amendment but not the amendment to the amendment?1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I am not pursuing any amendments.19:31:00921Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—In discussions during the dinner suspension, Senator Allison expressed the Democrats concerns in relation to parliament having an opportunity to disallow instruments before they are implemented. We are happy to ensure that the capability for the parliament to do so is accommodated. On behalf of the government, I undertake to table the two disallowable instruments—that is, the application rules and the selection criteria—and to do so on Tuesday, 8 December, which will give the Democrats at least two days in which to look at the instruments and the opportunity to disallow if they choose to do so.As I said prior to the dinner suspension, the government consulted widely and extensively with industry in the preparation of the instruments and is, therefore, confident that the Democrats will see no reason to disallow. We are happy to accommodate that, and we are pleased that an accommodation was found during the dinner break.19:32:00921Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I will just put on the record that the reason for our concern was the lack of understanding about how, in particular, the criteria would work. Since the criteria will be in one of the two instruments which will be tabled on Tuesday next week, that alleviates our concern and enables us to examine the criteria and, if necessary, to disallow. I am happy to receive the minister's assurances that we will find that regulation in order.Bill agreed to.TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (FILM LICENSED INVESTMENT COMPANY) BILL 1998Bill agreed to.Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 and Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed Investment Company) Bill 1998 reported without amendment; report adopted.922Bills (on motion by Senator Ian Campbell) read a third time.Bills922s183922Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator Kemp:That this bill be now read a second time.(Quorum formed)19:37:00922McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—The wheels of government move inexorably slowly, and this bill that we are debating now, the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 , is a classic example of how slowly things do move in this legislature. On 20 March last year, 1997, with great fanfare, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, announced a range of what he called significant changes that government would make to refugee and immigration decision making and the review systems. Here we are tonight, some 18 months later, dealing with what was then described as urgent legislation. With the fanfare that accompanied the minister's legislation at the time, an uninformed person in the community would have thought that the wheels of government were standing still in order for this legislation to pass. Of course, they did not. The legislation was hastily prepared and the government itself had to make some very significant changes to its own legislation. The bill, introduced as No. 4 of 1997, contained a privative clause that we, the Labor Party, in opposition bitterly opposed and will continue to oppose. The minister, in his wisdom—one has to commend him for this—accepted that that opposition was in existence and agreed to remove that particular clause from No. 4 bill and put it in a separate bill, No. 5, so that No. 4 bill could proceed.No. 4 bill, dealing with the amalgamation of the various review tribunals, the Immigration Review Tribunal and the Migration Internal Review Office, was referred by the Senate Standing Committee on the Selection of Bills on 4 September 1997 to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 October 1997. A very short reporting period was given to the committee to conduct its inquiry, but the committee did proceed with its inquiry and held hearings in Melbourne on 16 September 1997 and on 9 October 1997. The committee also received some 20 submissions from organisations and members of the community.The majority of the committee put in a report on the bill with conclusions that the bill essentially should be passed in its current form. I may be misrepresenting the committee slightly. They did have some conclusions, but the recommendation that the majority of the committee put forward was that the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 5) be passed without amendments. Earlier in the report there was also a recommendation about bill No. 4. It was exactly the same recommendation on bill No. 4 that I have just read out dealing with bill No. 5.The bill did not pass. The legislation actually sat on the Senate Notice Paper all through the first half of this year. It was in the government's control to press the bill forward should it choose to do so, but the government chose not to do so. Part of the reason that the government chose not to proceed with its own bill was the minority report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, a minority report that was put in by Senator Bolkus and me on behalf of the Australian Labor Party and Senator Andrew Murray on behalf of the Australian Democrats.May I take the opportunity to praise the processes of the Senate committee system. We are witnessing here, as we debate this bill, the merits of such a committee system. Despite the very short period of time that the committee had to scrutinise the bill and take evidence from the community, from the public, the minority of the committee did come up with very reasoned and very considered recommendations. I am very pleased to report that the government has taken these into account. It has taken them into account in the new bill, the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998, that is before the chamber tonight. That is a classic example of how a committee can contribute to good legislation in this country. It is a credit to the minister and to the department that that should happen. Indeed, some credit has to be given on this side of the parliament as well, that we in turn put in the effort in a very considered way to arrive where we are today. I am dealing with bill No. 4 and not what was bill No. 5.The changes that are proposed in the merging of MIRO with the Immigration Review Tribunal were not something that we in the opposition, in the Labor Party, supported, but we did recognise that the government had a brief for this particular merger. We are not convinced at this time that merging them into the Migration Review Tribunal will better serve the community than the current system does. There are some problems, admittedly, with the current system as MIRO stands and as it moves on to the Immigration Review Tribunal, but they are not insurmountable. But I do not want to go back and revisit that debate and the informal dialogue that took place between the parties on this matter. It is the will of the government that the merger take place and the MRT be established, and we will now go along with that, but we will be watching its progress very carefully as it pans through.The new structure, the new system, might serve the minister's ideals, though we have some doubts that it will meet all of the ideals. But the more important question that one has to ask oneself in this matter is: will it serve the community interest? That is what we will be particularly watching as the new system comes into play.I put on the record the gratitude of those on this side of the Senate to the minister for the fruitful negotiations that have led to a more reasoned starting time for the new tribunal. There are persons currently holding office on the present Immigration Review Tribunal who, if the new tribunal had been set up in the time frame that the minister first announced last year, would have found themselves in some difficult circumstances because the life plan they had knocked out for themselves had taken into account their appointment period. That could have been thrown into some jeopardy. With the flexibility in the start-up time of this Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) that problem will be alleviated in the main for those members, most of whom have given long and very dedicated service to the Immigration Review Tribunal and the Migration Internal Review Office. It is less of a problem for the officers of the MIRO than it is for the officers of the Immigration Review Tribunal.We still have some concerns about where the offices of the new MRT will be located. During the committee hearings the difficulties for somebody living in Perth, for example, on the other side of the continent, were stressed. The concern was over how available the tribunal would be to them were they wishing to have a personal hearing in front of the tribunal. There is a fear, and it is probably going to be confirmed during the committee stage of this bill, that the IRT office in Perth will not be continued under the new regime of the MRT. And that is probably the case with some of the other MRT offices—if those decisions have yet been made. They had not been made at the time the department appeared before the committee at its first hearing in Melbourne last year. One would hope that those decisions have now been made and the community can be informed.We are aware that it is not always necessary to have a tribunal member placed in the capital cities. As travel has become more accessible and widespread and even cheaper there is a flexibility for tribunal members, as is the case with the Refugee Review Tribunal, which has offices only in Sydney and Melbourne. They quite frequently travel to Perth and further afield—even as far as Port Headland from time to time—to hold their hearings. So we do understand that a certain degree of flexibility is available.In the minority report, we expressed some concerns about the matter of videoconferencing. I am pleased to see that the minister has read that minority report. In a number of speeches he has given since the report was delivered he has made reference to the fact that we are seen to be in opposition to video conferencing. It is something that is much more widespread than it used to be. We still have some concerns about video conferencing. There will be cases before the tribunal where it will not be appropriate for a whole host of reasons, be they cultural or the personality of the individual. With a camera put in front of them, a person may not necessarily be able to respond during a video conference. One would hope that the department and the tribunal, when this matter is put to them, will treat it with a great deal of caution and will make decisions that will be to the ease of the applicant who is appearing before the tribunal.Although the IRT in its present form tries to be as user-friendly as possible—and I commend the tribunal members for that effort—there is, nevertheless, and has to be, a certain degree of formality about tribunal proceedings. That can be and is daunting to many of the applicants before it. However, individuals are as relaxed as they can be when they appear before the tribunal. But it is not going to be so easy to bring about that relaxation while a television camera is pointed at them and their voice is being recorded. So whilst we do not have an outright objection to the use of videoconferencing in these matters, we do have some concerns that it should be taken into account.I have been very guarded in my comments tonight on this particular bill, after the events of last week. I digress very briefly from the bill. Mr Acting Deputy President, you will recall that, together with my colleagues Senator Schacht and the previous speaker, Senator Cooney, I made impassioned pleas that a visa ought to be granted to Mr Gerry Adams MP so he could visit Australia. My speech was made on the Wednesday afternoon and within 48 hours the minister, Mr Ruddock, granted that visa. I do not want to take all the credit for that. I would like to give some of the credit to Senator Patterson, who was sitting in the minister's chair when other senators and I made the plea.In her response in the second reading debate she said that she would make representations to the minister. So we have to give Senator Patterson some credit for bringing this matter to a very speedy and sensible conclusion. I am grateful. I am also grateful to the minister himself. He was the one who signed the visa. For that reason we are all grateful. It is a good decision and I do not have a problem, standing here in opposition, commending good decisions when they are made. It is not the first time—I am not breaking the ice in doing this—and hopefully it will not be the last time. This may be in one particular portfolio area. I do not see it happening in other portfolio areas. Certainly with some of the speeches that I am currently preparing I cannot see it happening. But that is a digression from the particular bill before us at the moment.I now return to it and conclude with comments about credit being given to the scrutiny that bills are subjected to by the Senate committee system. Again we see in this particular set of legislation the merits of such a scrutiny. One of the drawbacks in this instance was that the committee had a very short reporting date, an unrealistic reporting date, with something like six weeks from the initial reference to reporting back. With the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, it seems the committee could have been allowed a lot more time to undertake its inquiry and perhaps even taken evidence in parts of Australia other than Sydney and Melbourne. That might have helped the process even more than the short, sharp inquiry that the bill was subjected to.The second creditable thing is the fact that a report and a minority report were submitted to the parliament, because the minority report has proved to be of value. It has only been of value to the government because the government, in turn, has studied the content of the minority report, seen sense, and taken account of the objections raised by the minority when drafting and preparing the new bill that is before us tonight. With those words I commend the processes that I have spoken about. I again express my gratitude to my colleagues, Senator Patterson and the minister, for the very good decision to grant a visa to Mr Gerry Adams.19:54:00925Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Senate is addressing the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 which follows through on the government's decision of early 1997 to merge the Immigration Review Tribunal and the Migration Internal Review Office, within the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, to form a new tribunal. This legislation is, as Senator McKiernan said, a slightly improved version of what was known as the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) from the previous parliament. It is probably worth noting, from my perspective, that that bill has actually been around in this chamber longer than I have. That gives some indication of how long it has languished.A Senate committee reported on the bill on 20 October last year, a few days before my entry into this chamber. It is probably worth mentioning the frequent problem that Senate legislation committees have with the very tight time frames that they have to operate within. If we are having to rush through inquiries into legislation and then those bills hang around for 12 months or more, that does make one wonder whether or not it might be appropriate to enable the Senate committees to have a little bit more time to look into legislation. This is particularly so, given that this case is an example where some of the suggestions from the minority report and some of the evidence that came forth during the course of the inquiry have been taken on board by the government and have produced improved legislation, which—as Senator McKiernan quite rightly said—is one of the major benefits of the Senate performing its role as a mechanism for parliamentary scrutiny of legislation proposed by the government.The Democrats recognise the improvements made to this bill compared with the original version. The concerns that we had with the original, the then No. 4 amendment bill, were outlined in the minority report from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, which was done by my colleague Senator Andrew Murray on behalf of the Democrats. One of the concerns which we highlighted in that minority report is an ongoing issue. It does not impact one way or the other, in a sense, on the content of this bill but it impacts on the implementation of, and the operation of, the new tribunal in the same way as it is a concern in relation to existing tribunals and courts.I refer to the ongoing attacks and expressions of concern by the government and the minister, which can certainly be perceived as trying to influence the independence of these tribunals. There was another piece in the Australian today, by Fiona Carruthers and Bernard Lane, reporting an attack by the immigration minister on judges for `allowing their personal views to interfere with legal decisions on migration matters'. I know that similar concerns and annoyance have been expressed by the immigration minister in relation to the actions and the decisions of various tribunal members.There have been concerns from the point of view of people dealing with tribunals—from the consumer end—that the independence of those tribunal members who are appointed through the minister can be impacted if they feel that they need to bring down decisions that are more in favour with what the minister believes is appropriate. That is an ongoing concern which applies to all tribunals and to the courts, to a lesser extent in general, and the Democrats will be keeping an eye on it. We highlighted that concern in the minority report.The crucial aspect of tribunals such as these is their ability to deliver justice and a fair outcome to the Australian public and to the people that appeal to these tribunals. Other issues involved are accessibility, which is another concern that was raised by Senator McKiernan, particularly in terms of whether people outside the major capital cities will be able to access tribunal services readily. There are also the cost of appealing to tribunals, which is another ongoing concern, and the speediness of decisions.For elaboration, I will highlight a little of the actual work of the existing Immigration Review Tribunal which will be merged with the MIRO into the new Migration Review Tribunal. Its most recent annual report highlights the importance of the work of the tribunal. The amount of government appropriations that went into the tribunal last year was over $6 million. Nearly 2,700 separate cases were lodged in the last financial year.The major issue, which is one that needs ongoing examination, is the age of the various cases and the amount of time that it takes for cases to be finalised. The annual report from last year highlights 16 per cent of cases that were more than one year old. There are a range of other statistics in there, which I will not go into in detail, but certainly getting those times down is an issue of great importance whether you are speaking from the point of view of the people who are applying to the tribunal or who are appealing, or from the point of view of the government in terms of ensuring that determinations are made one way or the other as speedily as possible.Whilst it is not specifically in this bill, it is also worth mentioning, as the previous speaker outlined, that in the early stages of the initial No. 4 legislation the government's proposal was to restrict access of people to appeal to the courts via a privative clause. This was also considered by the Senate legislation committee over 12 months ago in what was known as the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 5). Thankfully that was not brought on by the government, although in some ways it might have been better if it had because they would have seen it voted down and given the fate it deserved.It is a matter of great concern to the Democrats that the Prime Minister has again raised his intention to reintroduce this legislation. I cannot understand why the government seems to want to continue to pursue that measure. The Senate committee of inquiry not only showed that this was an unfair measure, which may or may not be of concern to the government, but it also showed it was quite clearly unworkable and quite probably unconstitutional. It seems a strange thing for the government to put any effort at all into trying to reintroduce such completely unacceptable legislation on all of those grounds. Whilst I guess it is always a very dangerous practice to predict Senate decisions on particular legislation, I would be extremely surprised if that one were to be passed by this chamber. I would suggest it would be highly irresponsible of the Senate to do so.I note the Prime Minister's remarks when he did formally announce that he was planning to reintroduce legislation to restrict access to the judicial review in all but `exceptional circumstances', which was part of his keynote address to the Federation of Ethnic Community Councils of Australia, held in Brisbane on 20 November this year. It does seem puzzling why the Prime Minister (1) is still going down this path and (2) why he seemed to think it would be helpful to announce that at a Federation of Ethnic Community Councils conference, given the outcome of the federal election and the clear rejection by the Australian electorate of the unfair and discriminatory policies put forward by parties such as One Nation. Why the Prime Minister still feels the need to highlight legislation which can really only be seen as an unfair attack on potential migrants is puzzling to me. I do wonder what the motivation is behind it.I also note that, when the Prime Minister made those remarks, he talked about reintroducing this legislation and said that it had been `delayed in the Senate'. I think this is part of an ongoing campaign, and quite a dishonest one, on the part of at least some in the government to try to paint the Senate as a house of obstruction—as something that holds up legislation and that unnecessarily obstructs and obfuscates just for the hell of it. Clearly, in this case, this is a piece of legislation that was not delayed by the Senate; it was delayed by the government, for what reasons I do not know. It was clearly most misleading on the part of the Prime Minister in that speech to accuse the Senate of being the body responsible for this legislation taking so long to pass.As we can see from the speeches already made, this legislation will not be opposed by this chamber. It will not be opposed by the ALP and it will not be opposed by the Democrats. When there is such a widespread degree of support or at least a willingness to pass this legislation, it is completely unacceptable to try to blame the Senate for holding up this legislation.In conclusion I would like to reinforce the remarks of the previous speaker by indicating how pleasing it is to see a minister who is willing to take on board concerns that arise from Senate inquiry processes and concerns expressed by various parties when they are considering legislation. I hope it is something that is taken on board by a larger number of ministers. Nonetheless, the Democrats will be watching the operations of the new Migration Review Tribunal with interest to make sure that it does deliver more fully on those key issues of providing a fair mechanism to people who are appealing to the tribunal, as well as an inexpensive, an accessible and a quick mechanism for providing determinations. It is on those key issues that the success or otherwise of this particular government initiative will be judged.20:06:00927Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise on behalf of the opposition. As has already been indicated by the previous speaker, my colleague Senator McKiernan, the opposition supports this Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . I want to pay tribute to Senator McKiernan and to my colleague Senator Bolkus for the work they put in on the Senate committee when it dealt with this in the last parliament. Also, my colleague Senator Barney Cooney, who will speak shortly, has always had a very strong interest in what you would call the human rights arrangement issues relating to anything to do with the right of people to appeal in the judicial process. Senator Cooney's views on this matter are extremely consistent and have been for all the time he has been in this parliament.The opposition has no objection to this bill as it is now proposed although we would point out that we did have some objections which were indicated in the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee report of October last year, now 13 months ago. The issues we raised in there, we are pleased to say, generally have been picked up by the government in the amendments they have now accepted in the bill they have introduced back into the parliament since the election.There are three areas in which the bill has been changed and which the opposition finds acceptable, and as a result we will support the bill. The first change the government has adopted will allow the Migration Review Tribunal to commence operation at a time to be set by proclamation. This will allow time for administrative arrangements to be put in place. The government indicates that, nevertheless, the new tribunal will be in operation within six months of the bill receiving royal assent. The second change provides that the migration refugee review tribunals are to formally hand down the decisions in cases where there has not been an oral decision and the applicant is not in immigration detention. Finally, there are further changes for certainty in relation to the dispatch of documents from the tribunals.The thrust of the government's proposal is that the present two-tiered structure of review is cumbersome, time consuming and expensive. I have to say from the evidence before the committee and in the government's own second reading speech that by any normal judgment of commonsense by ordinary citizens the delay in the handling of these review matters—it can be up to nearly two years—is too great. The cost, as indicated in the committee's report on evidence from the department, I think was $15 million for the Refugee Review Tribunal per annum and the Migration Independent Review Tribunal was running at around $3 million or $4 million. Whichever way you look at it that is a large whack of money.The cost of justice is high but, as one who has argued that the cost of justice in Australia has been far too high for far too long, I do accept that that argument cannot be ignored, and $15 million for the Refugee Review Tribunal is a very large amount of money. So I do accept that is a legitimate reason for the government to look at this. I can imagine the finance minister driving Mr Ruddock, as the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, mad at what are called the preliminary discussions in the ERC and the face to face discussions—and I can imagine there is some bureaucrat in the finance department saying $15 million is too much and we are going to slash $3 million or $4 million off it. I will bet you that was put on the document somewhere. The officials are smiling—they should not smile, I know—but I suspect that is somewhere close to the mark. I have had some experience of that myself.Finance says it is expensive but, on the humanitarian side, we have to be very careful for the sake of our international reputation as well as for ethical reasons and the international arrangements we have to handle refugees. In one sense we might say $15 million is cheap at the price if we get it right about people having the right to come to Australia as refugees and having their appeals heard because, as we all know, if we get the decision wrong and send someone back who told us at the appeal that they had a justifiable fear of persecution if they returned home, if we reject that and they do go home and are persecuted, detained, beaten up, tortured or, in extreme cases, lose their lives, that is a decision that weighs heavily in any of these matters. No-one wants to see that happen to any citizen, particularly from a country like ours where we hold the issues of democracy and human rights so very highly.I have to say that on this matter I give the present minister top marks for being a consistent proponent of human rights in this parliament since I have been here—and he has been here a lot longer than I have. I accept that he is genuine in his support for human rights. As a backbencher, long before he was a minister, he was consistently arguing those cases as an active member of Amnesty International. I have to say I suspect that on a number of occasions he was out of step with the majority view of his own coalition parties. But he has always held those views. As the first person to invite me to go to Cambodia, way back in 1988, I accept that Phil Ruddock is genuine about this. On balance, I do not think he would be moving these proposals without weighing up his own experience, not to say that he would not have been under some pressure from the finance department, Treasury and a few other recalcitrants who do not want anything to do with migrants or refugees in Australia.The issue that he raises is whether the new proposals—and this is the centre of the debate—do afford protection under the review arrangements for somebody to claim they are being harshly treated and should be allowed to stay in Australia, particularly in the refugee case. I think that the proposals here—and the opposition has this view—on balance seem to be able to work. However, as I said only last week on another bill, no-one is ever going to get it 100 per cent perfectly correct about the review procedures in immigration or tribunal matters. They are dealing with so many different cases there will always be arguments about someone who has been harshly dealt with.The balance here again between the right of the individual and the collective right of society to establish its own rules to ensure that it is protected as well and is not open to abuse by individuals using legal devices to get around the collective view of the society is always a fine balance. We give the benefit of the doubt here. We believe the amendments the government has accepted from the opposition as a result of the committee's work have meant that we can support this bill. It will be a different matter when the next the bill, which in the old parliament was called Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 5), comes up. I suppose in this parliament it will be called Migration Legislation Amendment Bill No. 2.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—Or No. 10.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Or No. 10. Whenever it does, under whatever chronological number it is given, there will be a different view expressed by the opposition at that time. But we will support this bill and we have no amendments to move. We believe the bill, after all the work done by my colleagues over 13 months or more, is a reasonable bill that overwhelmingly the parliament can support.20:15:00929Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I am pleased to follow Senator Schacht, who talks about the cost adjusters. Years ago, he was the person that suggested that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee undertake that task of looking at the cost adjusters, and I think much has flowed from that, not only through the Senate but generally throughout the law. As was said in the second reading speech and indeed in the explanatory memorandum, the idea is to get justice at as reasonable a price as possible. That is an important matter that has been weighed in the balance now for quite some time, going back to those times when Senator Schacht suggested we undertake an examination of this area.The opposition supports this Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 , but there are some problems with it which I want to talk about—not so much about the bill but more about the attitude that is adopted by those presenting the bill. Under `Financial impact statement', paragraph 5 of the overview of the explanatory memorandum illustrates what I mean. It says:The primary aim of the changes being introduced to the RRT is to produce faster decision making.That sends out a message that what this is all about is to expeditiously get some sort of decision. I am sure the parliamentary secretary, who is in the chamber, would not go along with what might follow from that because she is a person who is dedicated—as indeed is the minister—to the issue of justice, but the message that comes out from that statement is a worrying one. I will repeat it:The primary aim of the changes being introduced to the RRT is to produce faster decision making.I would have hoped that the primary aim of the changes was to ensure that—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Justice was done.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—That justice was done, as the shadow minister said. There are some other signs that the approach taken by those preparing this legislation is not so much concerned with giving people a fair hearing but concerned more with saving money or having some sort of hearing—whether that hearing has substance or not being an irrelevant issue. In other words, you can have a situation where you have an illusion of justice, where what is applied is a form rather than a substance, with the person presiding over the hearing being directed and being under all sorts of restraints and not able, therefore, to bring forth justice in the way that is needed. The second reading speech says:Taken together, these changes mean that people with bona fide review applications will be given a decision more quickly and a better decision if the initial decision is wrong. Those persons intent on fraud, deception or delay will not have the benefits of a delayed decision.What is the point of saying that? What is the point of making that sort of statement about a process? If a person has a reason for delay—and courts are delayed at times—that is legitimate, why should that person be a person who is intent on fraud or deception? Why does it follow? Where is the evidence for making what is quite a vicious statement, without the evidence being put forward in the second reading speech?Another statement in the second reading speech says:Migration Review Tribunal members will be independent decision makers, able to reach their own conclusions on a decision under review, in accordance with the law. However, this independence does not amount to non-accountability.What does that mean, and how does that fit with the sorts of things that the Chief Justice of the High Court says? At a colloquium about courts in the future, held at Surfers Paradise on 8 November, the Chief Justice gave a talk called `The future state of the judicature'. He said:The development and enforcement of standards of competence and diligence is a difficult issue with which courts and legislatures have to grapple. The requirements of independence and accountability are not mutually inconsistent but they can, in some circumstances, conflict. The resolution of such conflict will be a pre-occupation of those concerned with the governance of the courts over the next decade.You have the Chief Justice of the High Court struggling with this concept of measuring accountability against the issue of the way the courts ought to go about their business, yet the people who wrote this second reading speech seem to have had no difficulty in saying that that is a fairly simple issue to resolve. The other thing that worries me about this second reading speech is that in the paragraph immediately above the one I have just read, it has this to say:The Tribunal's Principal Member will have clear authority to apply efficient processing practices. This may include the introduction of a case management system where much of the preliminary research and investigative work would be undertaken by administrative staff of the Tribunal. Tribunal members would be responsible for directing any further investigation be undertaken, and for the final decision.You have people who are not even legally qualified, but are administrative people, doing preliminary research. What is going to be the quality of the decision if we are going to have people who have no general idea of how the law should run making decisions that determine people's lives. These are big decisions that are being made in this matter. His Honour, in that speech I was talking about, also has this to say:Litigants are frequently unrepresented by lawyers and conduct their cases in person, and an over enthusiastic or unthinking application of some of the principles of modern case management to disputes of this kind can be counter productive.This second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum seem to have been written without taking into account these high principles of justice. What the second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum seem to be intent upon is getting the form of a hearing despatched with as cheaply as possible. That is the language that is used, compared with the language that the Chief Justice is talking about. Again, the thrust of what is put forward in the second reading speech and in the explanatory memorandum is that there has to be efficiency—indeed, I think the act talks about efficiency—and the need to get things done—the language of the economist, the language of the economic theorist who says that the big thing is to produce decisions as quickly as possible and as cheaply as possible. What about a bit of justice in there? Again in this speech, His Honour says:It is impossible to measure the effectiveness of the judiciary as an institution, or to attempt to predict the extent to which such effectiveness may, in the future, wax or wane, without having a reasonably clear idea of the functions historically, and currently, performed by the judiciary as an institution.But in the way this bill has been presented to this chamber, there is no flavour of the historical background to the judiciary as an institution. Indeed, one of the great problems about this legislation—of course, it is not confined to this legislation; it is a problem which more and more legislation has—is this: people are appointed for a limited time. Under this legislation you can have part-time people and you can have full-time people who are appointed on a time basis, and that provides a very dangerous basis upon which these people can make decisions against government.One of the flaws in more and more legislation coming before more and more parliaments is the fact that these tribunals are set up to decide issues between people and governments and the decision makers are in a very precarious position. It would be interesting to go through—perhaps the minister at the table can do this—the number of people who have not been reappointed over the years, to see what sort of decisions they made in the terms of the act that they administered. Again in this context, I will quote what His Honour Justice Gleeson has to say about that:In this area also, the way in which the courts go about their business reflects, and affects, society's values. For example, the amenability of governments to civil process, the capacity of the courts to intervene in disputes between citizens and governments, the power of judges to make orders binding governments, and the way in which courts handle cases involving claims against government, reflect an ideal of equality before the law which is relatively modern, and which is certainly not universal. It is not an ideal which is likely to be displaced in the foreseeable future. Governments will continue to be active litigants, frequently as defendants. The functions of the courts in dealing with complaints against governments is likely to expand rather than contract, and that function, in turn, will constantly remind the public of the need for an independent judiciary. The expectations and assumptions made by the public that a citizen engaged in a civil or criminal dispute with the government will receive even-handed justice constitute a vital, but often neglected test of what is sometimes called satisfac tion with the performance of the courts. In fact, I can think of no more important test.I ask: was that test applied when this legislation was being drawn up? It certainly does not appear from the second reading speech or from the explanatory memorandum that it was. Perhaps that is an illustration of where we should stop having tribunals that are appointed for a limited time and go to a magistracy.I know one of the things the present Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams, has been advocating is that we have a federal magistracy that can handle matters like this and that will be protected from the onslaughts that governments might make upon it by two things: firstly, the magistracy would have tenure—they would have their positions until they are 70—and, secondly, the magistracy would have a pension. The present situation where decisions in the migration area are reviewed by people who have not got permanency of position, who have insecurity of tenure, is a real problem. It is a problem that is growing, and it is a problem that we ought to do something about.The issue is this: is this legislation and the legislation which came before it—this idea of a tribunal of limited tenure is not new—sufficient to give justice to people who come before this new tribunal? Will it be sufficient to stand up against government and give the decisions it ought to, particularly when you look at the sorts of words that have been written in the explanatory memorandum and the sorts of words that have been used in the second reading speech? Will it be able to stand up against government when we have a department whose disposition is to treat people that appeal its decisions as suspect or as fraudulent? The words used are very interesting: `Intent upon fraud, deception or delay'.This is not the right sort of attitude, you would have thought, to bring to legislation like this. This is a department which thinks in terms of economy rather than in terms of justice, fairness and full hearings. It wants to get this thing up and away rather than allow the culture of the judiciary, the culture of the fair go, to carry the day. Rather, the culture of the economy, the culture of getting things done quickly, is what prevails here.This is a piece of legislation that will go through—it has been agreed upon—but it comes to this chamber in a context which is in many respects unattractive. Perhaps it is not so much that the legislation ought to change, but that the people who will administer it ought to realise that not only are they enforcing legislation, not only are they regulators, but also they should be facilitators, in the proper circumstances. The people they deal with—migrants and people who have, say, made claims for refugee status which have been refused—are nevertheless people with the sorts of feelings and emotions that we all have.20:33:00931Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—To start with, I would like to point out the fact that the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 is amongst those that should not necessarily be on the list for debate right now. It is not one of the ones on the list that was asterisked; that is, it is not one of the bills the government said was urgent in this session of parliament. Perhaps the government wants to keep talking about recalcitrants in the Senate and, at the same time, bring on bills that have not been notified to the Senate but are urgent for this session. We had a debate this morning about the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill (No. 2) 1998. It looks like that bill is going to be rushed on as well. Perhaps the general idea is that you bring on a bill so that the rest of the chamber is not able to give its full attention to it because you have not told them it is coming on in this particular session of parliament.Essentially, the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 does two major things. Firstly, the bill merges the two-tier review process for non-refugee visa decisions—departmental review and review by the independent Immigration Review Tribunal—into a single review by the newly created external review body, the Migration Review Tribunal. Secondly, it provides a range of new procedures for the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal, including empowering the principal member of the Refugee Review Tribunal to issue general directions to tribunal members granting both principal members the power to reconstitute a tribunal during a hearing in specific circumstances.Let us look at the background and ideology of this bill. The bill was introduced in May 1997 as the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1997 by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. Philip Ruddock. That bill, as it was introduced, reflected the majority of the provisions of the current bill. However, it also provided for a privative clause in relation to immigration decisions aimed at narrowing the possibility of judicial review of relevant tribunal decisions by the Federal Court and the High Court.We have seen that part of this has been split off. The ideology behind this privative clause was that there was a huge number of rorts in the immigration sector. The Bills Digest outlines the immense flaws in this argument. While considerable media and other attention is given to people who arrive in Australia in boats without any authorisation—that is, boat people—the actual effects such people have on overall programs is relatively minor. Between the start of 1989-90 and the end of 1995-96, 2,508 boat people arrived in Australia without authorisation. Of these, 1,755 have been removed from Australia—and you can only wonder with what justice all of them were removed. During 1995-96, 589 boat people arrived in 14 boats. Of these, 413 have been removed—once again, with what justice?—with an average time before removal of 17 days. In 1997-98, 13 boats carrying 159 people arrived in Australia without authorisation.In this ideological context, we can see that we are blaming refugees for just about everything. This bill is problematic and represents further erosions for refugees. We can only wonder whether it is another attempt to appeal to the populist scapegoating mentality, that is, there are lots of things happening, the government and the opposition have been involved in quite a lot of them, but let us draw attention away from the real issues in Australia—economic rationalism and the impacts of massive economic and social changes—concentrate on refugees and see if we can get some populist support for doing so, perhaps through talkback radio and so on.The Greens have some serious concerns about this Bill. Primarily, we share the concerns that were identified during the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee consideration of this bill. Unfortunately, these issues have not been adequately addressed by the government's amendments, and the Greens are extremely disappointed that the ALP are not moving amendments to deal with the substantive issues that they themselves have raised. I notice Senator Cooney mentioned a number of them.These concerns include: the erosion of the independence of the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal and the lack of requirements to provide adverse information to applicants—that is, the concern that adverse information is to be based on the individual alone and not the group. Often the situational plight faced by the group is crucial information and it is often impossible to appreciate the risk without taking into account evidence that relates to the group—but here we have left it to the individual.Personal appearances before the Refugee Review Tribunal by telephone or television are possibly the thin edge of the wedge—the beginning of an `efficiency dividend' to actually reduce the number of tribunals and problems. There was evidence that there are problems here in relation to legal representation and language, if this results in people not getting equal access under the law.There are also concerns with the changed discretion regarding the publication of decisions—that is, it may lead to problems in transparency, in general development of jurisprudence in this area and in scrutiny of decisions, especially those which may be criticised. You may have a situation where controversial decisions are not publicised.We had a situation where two Refugee Review Tribunal members were subjected to pressure by the principal member to not consider specific refugee cases dealing with East Timorese asylum seekers. Consequently, we have a minister's office requesting a halt on such cases, pending formulation of government policy. We can but wonder whether or not this is one of the driving forces in that area. Also, in December 1996, the minister publicly criticised members of a tribunal that granted refugee status to a woman on the ground of domestic violence. This may be seen by some to be another ideological reason in relation to refugee status.In relation to the adverse information, it may well be, as Mr Robert Gotterson QC said, in his submission to the committee, that:information before the tribunal about an association's or group's conduct, practices etc. is slanted, biased or quite wrong in fact. If the exception in paragraph (a) stands—there will not be a balance, if I can paraphrase the end of the sentence. There are situations where people are judged on the activities of a group and they should also be able to give evidence on their own behalf.In relation to personal appearances, I am certainly one of those in favour of the ability to attend hearings by telephone—although I have to say there is a lot of work still to be done in Parliament House to get a decent reception from the telephone. We often get a better reception in a country hall in Northern Queensland than we do in Parliament House.But in the case of the law and equality before the law, it may be that the chase for the lowest dollars means that there is not equal representation before the law. Trying to deal with applications by telephone—given the court system and a difficult and emotional situation—may mean that people who are subject to that situation may not receive equal justice. It is considered by Mr Robyn Creyke, a lecturer in law at the Australian National University, to be:not ideal when veracity is at issue, where there are language difficulties, or interpreters need to be employed.That is obviously an issue that needs to be taken into consideration before cost cutting considerations come to the fore.In relation to the ability of the principal member to publish a decision, it could well be that publication of all decisions is the right thing to do, unless there is a specific, very good reason under law why something does not get published. But equality under the law would indicate that all decisions should be published so that people know the basis upon which decisions were made.There was a minority report issued by Senators Bolkus, McKiernan and Murray with five key concerns. As far as we can see, those concerns have not necessarily been taken up. Evidence in the minority report also stated that the proposals to cancel visas in relation to possible non-compliance with specifications on a previous visa may be harsh and unwarranted, because non-intentional errors by third parties were not taken into proper consideration.There is a lot that is problematic in this bill. The rush to put it through to fill the gap in the legislation program is likely to result in people's rights unavoidably and, I think, unfairly being cut—simply by dint of rush, and that is not the way we should be pursuing a legislation program.20:43:00933Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I would like to thank honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. Before turning to some of the specific issues raised, I would like to remind all senators of the government's policy objectives for this bill. Maybe I should say, before I actually get on to those comments, that we really ought to be looking at this bill in the context of it being a bill which amends a whole Act. I will speak about that in a moment when I talk about Senator Cooney's contribution.The bill continues the government's work in restoring community credibility in the management of immigration matters. The major change is a streamlining of the current two-tier review process for non-refugee visa decisions into a single review by the Migration Review Tribunal. The new Migration Review Tribunal will be an independent review agency. It will provide fair, impartial, expeditious and efficient review of migration.This will be done through the introduction of more streamlined and flexible review decision making processes. The bill provides enhanced powers for principal members of both the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal to apply efficient review processing practices. I want to discuss that in more detail later too. The changes provided for by this bill will give principal members the power to ensure that the tribunals meet their statutory obligations, and these obligations are to provide review processes which are fair, just, informal, economical and quick. Again, I will refer to that later.Principal members will not, however, be able to influence other members on the merits of particular cases, and these enhanced powers relate only—and I emphasis only—to review procedures. The principal members will be the chief executive officers of the tribunals and will be responsible to the parliament through the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Again, I would like to point out to all senators that the bill is a part of the continuing process adopted by this government to ensure the integrity of the migration program. This and others—the one that has just been before the parliament and others before the parliament—are designed to restore community confidence in immigration decision making.I wish to now comment on a couple of the comments made by various senators who have contributed to the debate. I regret that sometimes these debates are not the sorts of debates that are on television, that we have question time on television and that the general public cannot see the sorts of comments that were made by honourable senators in the opposition about the minister, about his commitment to human rights over a very long period of time, and also about his integrity in those issues. If we said those sorts of things about each other from time to time—maybe more often than time to time—the general public would not have such a poor opinion of us. I appreciate the generosity of spirit that was shown tonight by members of the opposition in making those comments, because I think the minister has made a very great attempt to address those issues and has had a history of doing that.I would also like to say that maybe we ought to exercise our minds a little about why this bill is able to go through the Senate a little faster than might otherwise have been the case. The committee addressed issues in this bill and in the one we heard the other night, but then an election intervened, so the minister was able to take into account the comments of the committee and to address those in the bill. Amendments are often made on the run—sometimes by an opposition that has very limited resources and with assistance from clerks who are equally under stress. Maybe that is not the best way to make law. Honourable senators should address the issue of why this has been an opportunity for the bill to be amended, given the contribution made by all members of the committee, and think about ways and means that that could be replicated to assist the procedures of this house.I want to also address the issue of concern about the location of offices. That of course will be the decision of the minister, and he will no doubt take into account the issues that people raised. One of the reasons for having a provision to allow for teleconferencing is to try to address that issue. I know some honourable senators raised concerns about it, but for as many concerns that can be raised there are positive points—that people in rural or remote areas will have more easy access, or it may be the case that some members may specialise. Currently, we have members dealing with approximately 30 visa classes. It means that they have to be on top of all of that. If some members were able to specialise, you may in fact get a more consistent decision making process within a visa class and across the country. Also, you may get a more timely response because the person is more familiar. There are advantages in that process of videoconferencing. I am sure the minister, in deciding where those offices will be located, will take into account the need for people to have access but also the need for decisions to be as uniform as possible, and as consistent and speedy as possible.Senator Bartlett mentioned the non-reviewability of conclusive certificates. The government of Australia has the right and responsibility to exclude or remove from Australia persons whose presence would be prejudicial to Australia's security, defence or international relations. In some circumstances, merits review may need to be excluded for the same reasons. The Migration Act currently provides the minister with the power to exclude merits review by the IRT, RRT and AAT to safeguard Australia's security, defence and international obligations.This power has been rarely used. I have been advised that you can count on one hand the decisions made by ministers of both sides of politics using this power. But it remains an essential power. The proposed section 339 merely recognises that this power should continue to be available if needed in relation to MRT reviews. The circumstances in which the power is available are very specific and limited. In such circumstances, Australia's national interest must be placed above the merits review rights of one person. From the evidence I have just given about how rarely it has been used, I think that that speaks for itself.Senator Schacht again tonight mentioned the fine balance between the rights of the individual and rights of the collective view of society. I think that there is also an issue of balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of individuals who are in the legitimate stream waiting to be processed as refugees. If somebody is not playing the game, if somebody is using means which are less than legitimate, they are denying the rights of those individuals who are waiting to be processed in the correct way in the normal course of events. So it is not only a balance between the right of the individual and the right of society, it is also the rights of different individuals to be considered for refugee status in Australia.Senator Cooney commented that the EM took primarily an economic approach. He mentioned that at No. 5 in the overview of the EM the primary aim of the changes being introduced to the RRT is to produce faster decision making. In all fairness, that was in the financial impact statement section. Also in all fairness, as I mentioned earlier, it should be taken in the context of the whole act. Section 353 (1) of the act states:The Tribunal shall, in carrying out its functions under this Act, pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick.We need to take in context that what we are looking at with this bill in particular is the emphasis on the `economical' and the `quick'. That is not to downplay or disregard the aspect of the act that refers to being `fair' and `just'. I think Senator Cooney was a little harsh in saying that the EM and the bill were emphasising that particular aspect. In fact if there are delays associated with the administration and delays based on members not making decisions, that is not fair and just. So, again, there is a balance in making sure that people do not have to wait for decisions to be made.Senator Cooney also raised the question of the independence of tribunals. The new provisions in relation to the MRT and RRT do not alter the independence of the tribunals in any way. All existing review rights for applicants are preserved. The changes are about reducing the time taken to finalise review applications. Migration is one of the few areas of administrative law where there is a positive advantage to applicants delaying proceedings as long as possible. The delays allow some applicants to prolong their stay in Australia, regardless of the merits of their case.The new provisions provide a statutory obligation that reviews conducted by the tribunals be, as I said before, fair, just, economical, informal and quick. Speedier decision making will benefit all genuine applicants and discourage those who do not have any legitimate claims. The new Migration Review Tribunal is expected to be able to complete most reviews in at least half the time of that currently taken in the existing two-tier system. The average processing time will be cut from 16 months in 1996-97 to something like six to eight months.The bill demonstrates a clear intention that the enhanced powers of principal members are not to be used to attempt to issue directions on merit related issues. Senator Cooney referred to the role of the principal member. I again reiterate that the principal member cannot direct the members, but some of the delay has been associated with administrative issues, and the principal member is able to direct staff. That is why it is appropriate that some of these administrative matters be dealt with by staff so that they can be facilitated and expedited more efficiently. Anything that can actually speed up that process and reduce delay is important. I think that needed to be clarified.Senator Margetts talked about the boat people. I think there was an implication in what she said that all of these people are legitimate refugees. We all know that is not the case, that there are some people who arrive who are not legitimate refugees. There is a process for assessing whether these people are refugees. If they are refused, they have access to the current process. I think that was an important point that should have been made. I feel that Senator Margetts did not hit the spot with her comment.I would like to thank all honourable senators for their contributions. The debate has taken place over a long period of time. I commend the work of the committee and the suggestions they have made. I also thank honourable senators for their positive comments about the minister.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.936The bill.20:57:00936McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I have only one question, and I preface it by saying that I am disappointed we are not being given the information as to the geographical locations of the MRT offices. To a certain extent I can understand why the decision has not yet been made, because the bill, as it is passed into amending the act, will not come into effect until promulgation, and there is some flexibility on that.However, let me just stress that, apart from what I said in my second reading contribution about the accessibility by applicants to the tribunal, I also have concerns about the employment aspects of this merger. There are MIRO offices in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth. These of course will be amalgamated with IRT offices to form the MRT. The MRT, as at 30 June 1996, had 35 members, one principal member, five senior members, 12 full-time members and 17 part-time members. There are also 40 administrative staff and eight temporary staff. They are also located at registries across Australia. Apart from the principal location here in Canberra, there are registries situated in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth.I would hope that an early decision can be made on the geographical location of the MRT so that individuals whose lives and livelihoods depend upon their continued employment within the tribunal, be it as tribunal members on a full- or part-time basis or as administrative staff, can be advised at the earliest possible opportunity so that they can organise their lives.20:59:00936Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Senator McKiernan asked a question about the current staff. Currently, approximately 100 APS staff are employed in IRT and MIRO offices. The government anticipates that around the same number of staff will be employed in the MRT. It is therefore expected that the majority of the IRT and MIRO staff will find employment with the MRT. In the case of any such officers not employed by the MRT, the department has indicated that it will endeavour to find them employment in other areas. The department has an excellent record of placing officers in suitable positions after a major change of function. I think those issues have been taken into consideration. I asked questions about it in a briefing and I was given what I thought was a very adequate response.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.936Bill (on motion by Senator Patterson) read a third time.Notices9369365F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—by leave—at the request of Senator Knowles , to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 and 2 related bills be extended to 2 December 1998.Address in Reply937937Debate resumed from 26 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.21:02:00937Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I might have been better able to make this last part of my contribution if I had had time to go to my office to get my copious notes. If the Senate will give me some leeway—which I am sure it will—I would like to pick up on the point I was making the last time I was speaking in the address-in-reply. I was highlighting the problems confronting the Australian community with the total fiasco of the Job Network. I think I was at the point of reminding people that the government fails to publicly admit that the Job Network is a disaster.It is curious that if it is not a disaster you would bother finding $50 million in the weeks just before an election to fix it. You said, `It's just to help; it's just to assist people to get out of difficulty.' Fifty million dollars is a fairly large chunk of money to find at short notice to assist with something that is not problematic.It is important for the government to face up to the significant difficulties in the Job Network. As I have already said, the mistakes in the tendering process, the way Centrelink failed for some eight weeks to pass across any referrals to many of the network providers, and the fact that the Employment Network was charging employers $250 for people coming to find work in their organisations were disastrous things which were a very big negative. If we are serious about helping the unemployed, firstly, we will not do it by creating a situation where half the providers—dedicated and wonderful people working in the community, many with long years of experience—have gone to the wall. Some are going to close and some have already closed. What kind of situation is that? Secondly, you do not help unemployed people by having Job Network provisions which require them to register with Centrelink but then front up to a Job Network organisation.They can nominate some, but many people who came before our committee of inquiry into regional unemployment pointed out that the Job Network office available to them was nowhere near where they lived. Having registered with Centrelink, they then had the cost of travel, which for many was almost a make or break problem. If you are trying to manage on unemployment benefits or a pension, it is very difficult to find $7 each way for transport costs—as we were told at a number of hearings. Finally, when employers have to pay for a service that was previously free, they are not amused. As I pointed out, a lot of people were putting signs in their windows saying `Vacancy: inquire within'. Many had also advertised jobs, and that was one of the contributing factors to the large increase in the number of advertisements of job vacancies.It will be interesting to see what the new ministerial duo do with Job Network. I understand that Mr Reith and Mr Abbott are working away assiduously to come up with some way to address the monstrous failure that is Job Network. It has let down employers, providers and, in particular, the unemployed. It has to be rearranged. It has already been allocated a $50 million bonus issue in the run-up to the election. It will be interesting to see how that is spent. I believe that with better arrangements in the tendering process, a lot of that extra money would not have been necessary and a lot of the organisations that are going to the wall would not have gone to the wall.My closing remarks on the Job Network are that I am very concerned that much of this is now regarded as commercial-in-confidence and we are therefore denied a lot of access to the data through the estimates process. I have sought information and advice from the clerks and from previous Senate inquiries as to what constitutes commercial-in-confidence. I think it is very important to note that much of what is sometimes claimed as commercial-in-confidence—`we can say no more'—is not justified. It is necessary, I believe, for the Senate to make it clear to people who want to give that sort of answer that they are going to have to justify which, if any, parts of the answer are able to be legitimately restrained under commercial-in-confidence, and the rest must be provided to the parliament. These are, after all, precious taxpayers' dollars, and it is proper that the parliament follows exactly where they go and how they are spent.I do believe that, if we are not going to see that made clear in the committees, that kind of argument and debate will have to be brought into this place. A thorough clarification of what is allowed to be withheld under commercial-in-confidence needs to put this beyond doubt for the whole parliament. We cannot have the process that we have had up to this point in some of the committees. In our own committee at the last estimates we had a farcical answer from the head of Employment National, who refused to say what his salary was with the response, `I'm not going to tell you. I don't have to tell you, and anyway it will be made public in the annual report that is coming out in a month's time.' What an absolute farce. Of course he should have told the committee; he had no right not to tell the committee.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—When we were trying to find out the relationship between Mr Keating and the Commonwealth Bank, they wouldn't tell us either.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—I don't know about that at all, Senator. I don't know what relevance it has but I am very pleased to note that Senator Calvert actually agrees with Senator Crowley that the Director of Employment National should have given the answer. I did not hear the content of your interjection, Senator, but from the smile on your face I think you are feeling satisfied, so it is probably just as well I did not hear it all.In the few minutes remaining to me, I would like to turn to the debate currently raging about the best way to assist with health in this country and the cost of private health insurance. We have had some very strange contributions to the health debate. I think it is absolutely critical, in the address-in-reply, to say that this government plans to legislate for a 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance for those people above $70,000 income because that is the cut-off for the means test. As this 30 per cent rebate, as I understand it, builds on the previous rebate, which was means tested, what this new allocation of some $1.4 billion means is that the people at the top end of town will be getting a full 30 per cent of their $2,000 or $3,000 a year health premiums. For some families that will be a $1,000 rebate on their health insurance premium, while people on low incomes will be getting only a top up. They will be getting $50 to $150, not up to $1,000. That is the first injustice, that the people who are at the lower end of the scale will get much less out of this than the people on the top incomes.Secondly, if any government had $1.4 billion to spend in health, you would not spend it by giving a tax rebate to people whose health premiums are only going to rise as a result of this handout, precisely as has happened before with the first round of rebate handouts. It has done absolutely nothing to restrain health costs, it has done absolutely nothing to provide increased services and it has done absolutely nothing to reduce the health bills that people get when they finally make a claim against their private health insurance. If the government were serious about the best way to spend that money and to assist people in this community with their health costs, that money would be allocated directly to the provision of services, in particular through our public hospitals.One of my staff had occasion, on behalf of a constituent, just the other day to discover that there are, I think, 98,000 people waiting for acute dental services in South Australia through the dental hospital there. Many of them will wait up to two years. The government had money to assist with the rebate for dental insurance premiums, that is, under extras. It was prepared to spend $200 million assisting with the premiums for extras to help people at the top end of town cope. But why wouldn't it, instead of that, spend only $100 million to restore the dental services to what they were before and dramatically reduce the waiting times for the provision of urgent services for those people, particularly those on low incomes, who have to queue up at the dental health services? It is an extraordinary argument from the so-called whiz-kid economists opposite that you would want to chase $200 million, after pushing up the cost of dental health services, rather than spending $100 million, a restrained cost amount, to dramatically reduce the waiting lists and the waiting times for very necessary dental services.In both employment services and health services we have got a government which have got it completely wrong. They are not here to help strengthen community, they are not here to assist the people across the income scale—they are here to make sure that people who are very well off get even more assistance. People who don't need it are being assisted, and the cost of that is that people across the community pay, particularly people on the low income end of the scale. Costs of services and waiting times go up and the provision of those services goes down, and the people who suffer most are those people on low incomes. How anyone could justify this rebate for private health insurance, I do not know. It is a joke. It is very bad economics and it is very bad health care. (Time expired)21:14:00939Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I rise to speak tonight in the address-in-reply and seek to put on the public record my response to a number of issues that were raised in the Governor-General's speech. I want to highlight the implications for the federal government from the result of the recent election as seen from the Northern Territory's point of view. One thing is evident about the result on 3 October, and that is that the people of the Northern Territory have clearly rejected the policies of the Liberal and National parties. Voters returned the Northern Territory electorate to the Australian Labor Party representative. For those who may not know, Northern Territory voters had the opportunity in the recent election to elect two senators and one member for the House of Representatives. Out of three parliamentary representatives, Territory voters have sent two ALP members, one senator and one House of Representatives member, to represent their interests.So let me place on record that I am very pleased that my ALP colleague Warren Snowdon has once again been returned to Canberra. Voters for both houses realised that the coalition policies offered nothing for people living in the Northern Territory. My colleagues opposite stand up and talk about having won back the heart of rural and regional Australia. They did not win back people in the Northern Territory. They could not convince people in the Northern Territory that what they had to offer was going to provide them with any substantial benefits. The outcome proves that people living in rural and remote Australia have little faith in the policies of this government.It has to be said that the Northern Territory is an expensive place to live. Voters rejected the coalition's proposed GST. They know that the high prices they already pay for essentials will increase. There was nothing offered by the coalition during the election campaign which was going to reassure them. For example, we know that in the last quarter the cost of an average basket of goods in the Northern Territory, particularly in places like Darwin and Alice Springs, was 40 per cent higher than what you would pay for a similar shopping basket of goods if you shopped in Melbourne or Sydney.When you consider the 40 per cent higher cost of goods in the rural and remote Territory, people did not have any of their concerns allayed by coalition counterparts campaigning in the Territory that Territorians were going to be better off under these policies. A lot of people, many of whom would probably have normally been supporters of the coalition's policies, indicated that while they may well have voted for the coalition in the House of Representatives they certainly were not going to vote that way in the Senate, because they wanted to ensure that the Senate conducted an inquiry into the impact of the GST, particularly as it affected them.In the last seven days we have seen the GST Senate committees established. In the coming weeks we will develop their itinerary to travel around this country to talk to, consult with and hear from people. I have a concern, which the Labor Party will be addressing, and it is the so-called `northern line'—the line that you might draw from the top of Brisbane to the top of Perth. The Labor Party will guarantee to the people of Australia that this will not be an eastern seaboard inquiry. It will be an inquiry that endeavours to send the committees around the country, out to rural and regional Australia, so that those people can also have their voices heard and their concerns addressed.The full privatisation of Telstra is another issue of concern to the people of the Northern Territory. It is no secret that access to reliable and affordable telecommunications services is becoming increasingly important in overcoming some of the tyrannies of distance faced by people living in remote and regional areas of Australia. This access to technology in the information age is vital for education, business and often health purposes. During the Territory's wet season many people in remote communities are cut off for weeks at a time by flood or stormwaters, making them even more reliant on telecommunications services. In places like Port Keats, there are limited telephone lines into houses. We still have places in this country where people are waiting for telephones to be put into their homes. We still have places in this country where it takes 20 minutes to download a page from the Internet. Telstra's community service obligation is essential to ensure that people in regional Australia have access to telecommunications at an affordable price.Telstra is also an important employer in communities outside Darwin. The reduction of Telstra staff now living in small communities will have a major economic impact on those communities. People living in remote parts of Australia have already noticed a drop in the quality of service delivery. The Territory is no different. Proper provision for the ongoing maintenance of telecommunications services is essential if people are to have reliable service delivery.In referring to our future generation, the government has said that it will support a quality teacher program to improve teacher skills and lift the status of teaching in schools. In part of his speech, the Governor-General made specific reference to the quality teacher program and to improving the quality of teachers in our schools. Is the response in the Governor-General's speech finally the government's response to the inquiry into the status of the teaching profession, A Class Act? Is there finally recognition that the status of teachers needs improving, although only given a cursory mention in the address? The Northern Territory government has recently acknowledged the low morale of teachers and the need for the bureaucracy to change to support better teaching and learning.But this commitment is just not good enough, and still does not address the crisis facing the education system in this country—the crucial shortage of teachers for our education system. This government needs to give a commitment to recognise this and to fund a national recruitment campaign designed to attract high quality applicants to the teaching profession, but more importantly to ensure that they stay there and that there are adequate incentives to keep them in the profession. The government statement does not go far enough and still implies that the low status amongst the profession is linked to the skills of these people rather than to the inadequacies of the system and its lack of recognition to address related problems.The most important area in reply to the Governor-General's speech relates to the issue of our indigenous Australians, in particular our Aboriginal people. The election result in the Northern Territory sends an important and vital message that the coalition government needs to come to terms with and recognise. It is important that this comment is put on the public record: Aboriginal people living in remote communities in the Northern Territory overwhelmingly oppose the coalition's policies on Aboriginal issues. In the Senate, Aboriginal voters in Northern Territory remote communities voted eight to one for the Australian Labor Party. Of 11,790 votes that were cast in remote communities where the population is overwhelmingly Aboriginal, 8,056 gave their first preference vote to the Australian Labor Party. The coalition received only 1,891 votes. Aboriginal people voted overwhelmingly for the Australian Labor Party.In an article in the Australian on Wednesday, 4 November, Maria Ceresa explains:. . . results in the seats of the Northern Territory, Kalgoorlie in Western Australia, Leichhardt on Queensland's Cape York and Grey in South Australia provide some indication of how bush Aborigines feel.Taking in isolation the remote booths with a high percentage of indigenous voters, this is what happened:In the Territory, successful ALP candidate Warren Snowdon won an 8 per cent swing—this is out bush—and 80 per cent of the vote on a two-party preferred basis.. . . . . . . . .In his new spirit of reconciliation, John Howard claims that Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Herron has the support of "grassroots" indigenous people.. . . . . . . . .However, there is little evidence to support the claim of broad-based support for the Government from ordinary Aborigines. Indeed, the election result graphically demonstrates the shallowness of such a contention.Who can blame Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory for not trusting this federal government? The Reeves review of the land rights act is perceived by many Aboriginal people as being a means of undermining the power of the two mainland councils. The proposal to break up the land councils by establishing 18 regional land councils is seen by many to be the land councils' punishment for being too effective an opposition to the federal and territory governments on a wide range of issues of concern to their constituents. It is not unexpected that the CLP government has waged war against the land councils; they have proven themselves to be a vindictive lot.It should be remembered that land councils are statutory authorities given their powers under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Section 23 of the act lists the functions of the land councils. Under the act, the land councils have a legal responsibility to protect the interests of Aboriginal traditional owners. They should not be punished for doing their job properly.In fact, in the weeks leading up to the election I travelled out bush to remote communities. As you would be aware, voting started one week before 3 October, the date of the federal election. When we went to remote booths, particularly along the top of north-east Arnhem Land, we saw signs that had been put up by the Country Liberal Party that said, `If you vote for Nick Dondas, we will give you your own land council.' That was absolutely deceptive and misleading, but Aboriginal people knew that. Aboriginal people were not to be deceived; they understood exactly what this government was on about and they did not fall for it.I should turn to the matter of reconciliation. The Prime Minister has nominated this as one of the priorities for his second term. On that Tuesday, the day of the Governor-General's speech, there was little more than two sentences on the matter and only an undertaking that the government would work to achieve the goal of reconciliation over the next two years. Where is the apology to the stolen generation, evidence that this government has really changed? Where is that one word from the Prime Minister that would usher in an apology to the many Aboriginal people in this country who have been emotionally affected and hurt by the policies of previous governments? All the Prime Minister needs to do is apologise and move on, but it seems to be too big an ask.It is true that David Buckingham, the Executive Director of the Business Council of Australia, has recently delivered a statement about reconciliation that goes much further than any member of the government has committed to. I refer to a summary of his article in the Australian Financial Review on Tuesday, 10 November. He said it was vital to understand what reconciliation was, that it was not just a matter of granting Aborigines full citizenship rights such as adequate health, education and other services, and that, ultimately, reconciliation was about indigenous rights and issues of indigenous laws and customs. Until the community embraced the meaning and existence of indigenous rights, the reconciliation process would not be complete.Gatjil Djerrkura, a personal friend and somebody whom I lived with on the Gove Peninsula, went on to declare that he cannot see how the government will advance the Prime Minister's agenda if it has Minister Ruddock moving around the country, talking about reconciliation, with Senator Herron travelling behind him preaching recrimination. We should remember that Senator Herron recently said that a generation of indigenous leaders `who had been around forever' should hand on leadership to people more interested in getting on with promoting the future. That is the greatest indictment I have heard coming from a minister for Aboriginal affairs.You must understand that the traditional owners and indigenous leaders hold the knowledge and hold the power in their communities. They do not, in fact, move on when they get tired to make way for people who are more interested in getting on with promoting the future. That is not Aboriginal custom, that is not Aboriginal law, and it is a sad indictment that the federal minister for Aboriginal affairs does not understand that basic tenet of the way in which Aboriginal people operate. The Executive Director of the Kimberley Land Council, Peter Yu, called for the Prime Minister to give an indication of direction on indigenous affairs policies. He went on to say that reconciliation must be about maintaining their law and their culture.It is clear that the election result has sent a message to the federal government that it has much work to do if reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australia is to move beyond simple platitudes. Constantly trying to undermine the work of the land councils is not the way to go about the change that is needed. Nor is changing the joint management arrangements for the Kakadu and Uluru Kata Tjuta national parks without the support of Aboriginal traditional owners the way to develop good relationships between the federal government and Aboriginal Territorians. The way in which the government intends to do that has yet to be announced.Territory voters in the recent federal election made an informed choice in returning the territory to the Australian Labor Party. In doing so, they sent a very clear message to the federal government. But the statements and sentiments mentioned in the Governor-General's speech on that Tuesday show that the government has really not got it, and that very little is likely to change in the next few years.In closing, I would like to make a few remarks about the proposed 30 per cent health rebate system. Something that I have not heard espoused by the federal government in the last week in either the House of Representatives or this chamber is a knowledge and understanding of private health in relation to people who live in rural, regional and, more particularly, remote Australia. There are 51,000 people in the Northern Territory who take out private health insurance. I do not know the figures as to how many are Aboriginal people, but I guess there would not be too many. In fact, I would say there are probably none.If you live in any of the five regional centres outside of Darwin, there is no private hospital. There is no access to private doctors or to private services. In Darwin there is one private hospital, which offers a limited range of specialist services and a limited range of facilities. Most times you find that if you need any elective surgery or you need emergency surgery, despite the fact that you pay private health insurance, the private hospital does not provide it. So you have no choice; you end up in the public hospital anyway.The Governor-General's speech talks about addressing the huge disparity in the health of our indigenous people and how it will continue to be a priority for the government. Where is the disparity in offering people a 30 per cent Medicare rebate? If you are an Aboriginal person living at Milingimbi, the disparity is widened. This government should be looking at putting that money into providing better services in those communities and providing those people with better primary health care services at a level that is more commensurate with their high level of health need. There will be very few Aboriginal people in the Territory—probably none—who will benefit from this proposal. If the proposal were not successful and if it were not pursued by this federal government, there would be many Aboriginal people in the Territory who would benefit from an injection of over $1 billion worth of funds into the health system.Most people in the Northern Territory that I speak to about their private health insurance say that it is not that they want more of a tax rebate; they want the problems in the system fixed up. They do not want to go to a physiotherapist and pay $40 and only get $15 back. They do not want to be told that they can only claim $600 a year back for orthodontist fees for their kids' teeth when it cost them $2,000. They want to be told that the gap is lessened and that they are not wasting their money on private health insurance. I think many people in the Territory do a few basic sums and work out that the money they could save on private health insurance would be better put in their own pocket, and they could just pay for whatever services they could not get in the public system.There are many disadvantages in terms of a 30 per cent rebate in the tax system for people in the Northern Territory. In particular this government has failed to recognise that there is probably little access to private services in the Territory when it comes to health. There is little benefit in having private health insurance in the Northern Territory and there is little that these policies will do for people who live in the Northern Territory. Even though this government has been returned, people in the Northern Territory, in particular Aboriginal voters, have overwhelmingly not supported this government. The result clearly shows that. I do not think this government can stand on a mandate of having won back rural and regional Australia, certainly not when it comes to the Northern Territory. If the policies and legislation that we have seen in the last couple of weeks continue to unfold in the next three years, we are certain to enjoy the return of Warren Snowdon after the next election as well.21:33:00943Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—I came down as a rather impromptu fill-in tonight, but I am rather glad that I have after listening to Senator Crossin's contribution to the address-in-reply.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—That's how you got here.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Because I was speaking I did not hear what would normally be a very good interjection by Senator Forshaw, who I learnt quite recently was a man of letters. He studied literature at one of the universities in Australia. I always thought that English was his second language. So there you go; you can be quite mistaken about different people. I do appreciate your contribution by way of interjection, Senator Forshaw.I was going to offer, in my contribution to the address in reply, the subject of health and those matters that are peripheral to that. Having lived in and worked in an environment very similar to what Senator Crossin spoke about, I think that I am reasonably equipped with both the experience and the theory of having lived there to reply to and rebut in the course of my delivery some of those things that she said.Senator Crossin said that there is little benefit in having private health insurance. That may suit the Northern Territory but the fact is that the more that people take out private health insurance, the less pressure there is on public hospitals. And the less pressure there is on public hospitals, the less there are the queues that people on this other side so often speak about.What they do not speak about on the other side is the fact that $16 billion was poured into Aboriginal health, among other things, during the 13 years of Labor. What have we seen with respect to the health of Aboriginal people? Have we seen the longevity of male or female rise? No. Have we seen the appalling child mortality rate decrease after the spending of that $16,000 million on Aboriginal people? No, the child mortality rate is excessively high. Have we seen generally the health of Aboriginal people improve? No. Have we seen the rate of alcoholism and other health problems associated with Aboriginal people—they apply as well to other Australians, but I am talking specifically about Aboriginal people—reduce after the spending of that $16 billion? No, we have not seen it reduce.The Labor Party want to play the part of the spoiler with respect to the 30 per cent rebate that was, as part of the Howard government mandate, to come in on 1 January 1999—just a few weeks away if this bill had been passed. It is not designed for wealthy people. In fact, 700,000 Australians are figured to have private health cover, yet earn $20,000 per annum or less.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—It is designed for the Aborigines, is it?WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Yes, of course it is designed for the Aborigines. What I am saying, Senator Forshaw—I do thank you for that interjection to allow me to clear that point up—is that, if you alleviate the pressure on the public system, you make the queues shorter and you have waiting times reduced whether for elective or non-elective surgery. That is the whole point about it. You should not act as the spoiler in health; health is far too important for Australian people. It is not up to you to act as the spoiler. If you had a genuine case, yes.What we are saying is that you can reduce the queue. You do help Aboriginal people if more people take out private health cover. You would be aware, Mr Acting Deputy President, that for every one per cent of people who drop out of the private health system there is an increase in the collective states responsibilities of $82 million. We can make a mathematical equation of this: by next year, when it is expected that our 30 per cent rebate would come in, that would be 20 per cent that have dropped out of the private health system since 1990.Quite obviously, that cannot be allowed to continue. Anyone who uses this Senate to spoil something as beneficial to Australians that impacts upon their health deserves some sort of punishment. I am not suggesting anything other than that the polls should punish them. I guess the people of Australia will remember that the people on the other side had the opportunity to reduce those waiting queues in the public sector and they chose to play the part of the spoiler, to play with the health of Australians and to put at risk the young, old, rich and poor.Let me get back to what I intended to speak about and that is health in the state of Western Australia. Western Australia—an area of 2.6 million square kilometres or one million square miles in the old system, which is still used largely across rural Australia—has special needs with respect to health. Not only do we have a large indigenous population, or people who choose to call themselves indigenous, but we also have a large outback population that obviously has, because of its geographical isolation, special health problems. We have people in rural areas who have special health problems. You heard Senator Crossin talk about the special needs of people where there are no hospitals, where there is no first aid. They must be catered for. Every Australian, regardless of where that person lives, deserves and must have adequate health cover and a system that is allowed to serve them.In Western Australia we do have an excellent Royal Flying Doctor service, one that was initiated I think by Flynn of the Inland, who was born at Moliagul in Victoria. I remember reading about the first operation that was conducted over the old pedalsets in the early part of this century. A jackaroo on one of the Kimberley stations where I have spent some time had a ruptured appendix. He was operated on with a pocket knife with the assistance of the RFDS over a pedalset. History records that it was not only painful for this poor devil but also unsuccessful and he died some days later.That has gone, but what has not gone is the tyranny of distance with respect to health in Western Australia. If health is worked out on a per capita grant basis across the states, then Western Australia is left wanting, and I think unreasonably so. There must be some assistance for the Northern Territory, Western Australia and the northern part of Queensland, because of the isolation.The area where I have spent most of my life, in the eastern and northern goldfields and the southern part of the Pilbara, does not have hospitals that one could describe as general hospitals. Fairly rich towns like Leonora, Leinster, Laverton, Meekatharra, Mt Magnet, Cue, Mt Newman and many of the mining towns such as Telfer do not have general hospitals, yet, in aggregate, they have a lot of people. Very little consideration is given to those towns with respect to their health needs. Most of those towns, with very few exceptions that I mentioned, have large Aboriginal populations. They do at least have an Aboriginal health system that caters for Aboriginal people, and others use it from time to time in emergencies. They do have the RFDS that can call on them, but Western Australia has special and particular needs with respect to health.It is not as if Western Australia does not contribute to the financial wellbeing and financial health, if I could use that term, of the rest of Australia. We are, by any measure, the greatest contributor per capita of funds of any state in the nation. It has been figured that Western Australians contribute about double the average of people in the eastern states. Last year, for instance, there was a $5 billion record sale of gold, up from under $4 billion the previous fiscal year. It is these things that make me put a special case for Western Australia. The tyranny of distance that Aeneas Gunn wrote about many years ago in her famous book We of the Never Never describes that.Western Australians in some areas are still going through this—38 per cent of that 2.6 million square kilometres that I spoke about is, in fact, pastoral leases. Those people, and any people in areas of isolation, have special causes that I would hope everyone in this room would think about and give some consideration to when the tripartite bills on health and the 30 per cent rebate come here shortly from the other place.There is no question that the government was re-elected on a mandate, amongst other things, for a 30 per cent rebate in private health cover contributions. We know now that that will give a return to an average family of $750 a year. We also know that that will alleviate the pressure on the public hospital system. We also know that there are people on that side of the chamber who want to act as spoilers, just as they want to act as spoilers with respect to the goods and services tax that everyone who is honest knows will alleviate and make workable what is unworkable at the moment. Everyone knows that we have an unworkable tax act. Everyone knows that it is so complex that not even the most specialist of accountants will give you a clear and concise answer to some questions.Everyone knows that the sale of Telstra would have a great social benefit to people of Australia but, once again, that side of the chamber—the Labor Party and others—are acting as spoilers and are not going to let Australian people participate in that vast social benefit.But we have something very special with respect to health. Health and education flow on and have the effect of uplifting every other area in the state or in the nation. It is no good wanting to destroy the health system in order to rebuild it—the phoenix will not rise out of the ashes like you think it will. If this 30 per cent rebate is not passed—for which a mandate was given at the election on 3 October—you will destroy the private health system. As one of your own—the former Senator Richardson, who was a former Minister for Health—said, the private health system will not function below 30 per cent.We know now that it is there—or beyond that. We also know that it is falling two per cent per year, and we also know that the states cannot pick up that significant area of shortfall every time one per cent of the people drop out of private health. In Western Australia we pick up nearly $9 million a year. Over 10 years that is $90 million. It does not take too much of a mathematical genius to work out that over the ensuing period it will be significantly more than that and increasing at a greater rate.I want to read into Hansard a letter from the Australian Medical Association which, I assume, has been delivered to all members in this place. The letter is over the signature of Dr Sandra Hacker, Vice President of that august body. In a salient part of the letter to me, she says on behalf of her association:We believe the rebate will be an effective method of attracting additional people into private cover. Some 30% of lapsed health fund members said the rebate would encourage them to resume their cover and 32% of those who have never had private cover said they would be encouraged to take it out.The Australian electorate is strongly in favour of the proposal. A Morgan Research survey showed that nearly 70% of Australians support the idea of a rebate for private health insurance.The AMA is the peak body of doctors and general practitioners in Australia. Their figures are not manufactured, like some of those from the other side often are when quoted in statistics. They are figures that clearly support the coalition's mandate, given on 3 October, for a 30 per cent rebate in private health cover.21:50:00946Senate adjourned at 9.50 p.m.Documents946946The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Exemption No. CASA 43/1998.Corporations Act—Accounting Standard AASB 1038—Life Insurance Business.Currency Act—Currency Determination No. 7 of 1998.Fishing Levy Act and Fisheries Management Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 314.