1998-12-013911SENATE94701998-12-01The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Ministerial Arrangements947947Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—by leave—Regrettably Senator Kemp is ill and will not be able to attend question time. He is suffering from food poisoning. In his absence Senator Ellison will take his questions.Questions Without Notice947947947Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, Senator Ellison. Can the minister confirm that the government has already sought expressions of interest from stockbrokers for the sale of the second tranche of Telstra, and that global coordinators for the second tranche sale are expecting to reap a windfall of up to $1.1 billion for the sale of the rest of Telstra, totally funded from the current Australian majority public ownership of this asset? How can the minister justify handing $1 billion to the finance industry when the social bonus, or return to the current shareholders, will amount to no more than $670 million?947Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I can advise the Senate that total Telstra 2 sale costs are likely to be in the order of $200 million to $250 million based on expected proceeds implied by Telstra's current share value of around $10 billion to $15 billion. I daresay Senator Murphy has seen that article in the AFR which speculated on sale costs in relation to Telstra 2. That article fails to take into account the fact that the total sale costs include payments made in relation to the business adviser, the selling syndicate, legal and accounting advisers and other associated matters. As to the question of who the brokers are, I will get back to Senator Murphy.947Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, shouldn't the government be spending less time talking to stockbrokers and more time talking to the Auditor-General, given the failings he found in the first sale? How will the government ensure that the current shareholders are not again short-changed through unrealistic pricing, improper accountability for marketing costs and lack of foreign currency hedging? And given Minister Vanstone's conspicuous failure last week, will the minister assure the Senate that the Auditor-General's findings will be referred for a comprehensive investigation by appropriate law enforcement authorities before those stockbrokers are allowed to bid for work on the second tranche?947Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The ANAO report which looked into this matter noted that the sale was done in accordance with the government's sale timetable in a period of significant equity market volatility. That report stated, `This sale represents a significant achievement given the unprecedented scale of the offer.' I reject Senator Murphy's premise that the ANAO is critical of this sale. In fact, it is not. The sale of Telstra was a successful one which paid rich dividends to ordinary Australians.947947Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin. Will the minister outline the economic and social benefits which will flow from the Jabiluka mine, in particular the benefits to local indigenous communities?947Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator Parer for his question and I congratulate him as my predecessor on the tremendous work he did in relation to the Jabiluka mine. In the welter of emotion in relation to the views of a few foreign bureaucrats about this particular mine, the real benefits for Australia and in particular the local Aboriginal communities have been ignored. These build on the tremendous benefits that have flowed from the neighbouring Ranger uranium mine, which has operated for 18 years without causing any environmental issues at all. The Ranger uranium mine has contributed some $48 million in benefits to traditional owners. In fact, the Jabiluka mine, which has not actually com menced operation, has already provided benefits to the local Aboriginal people of $3.7 million. Aboriginal communities are estimated to receive some $210 million in royalties from the Jabiluka mine.We see many crocodile tears being shed by the opposition parties over how we should be providing additional benefits to Aboriginal people and improving their standards of living. But when it comes to a project like this, which, as I say, is going to provide $210 million, where are the opposition? In addition to that, there will be employment and training opportunities for the local Aboriginal people, new housing for about 65 Aboriginal families, assistance for Aboriginal businesses, funding of a women's resource centre, a bridging education unit for local Aboriginal children and traineeships and university scholarships for Aboriginal students and for adult education.In addition to those tremendous benefits for the local Aboriginal people, the mine itself is going to support about 350 jobs—we hear that the opposition is concerned about jobs; they say `No' whenever you want to put up a job creation proposal—and 1,500 indirect jobs. It is estimated that the project will deliver export revenue of some $12 billion to the Australian community. It is also worth reminding the Senate that the traditional owners gave consent to uranium mining at Jabiluka in 1982 under the land rights act and consented to the transfer of mining rights to ERA in 1991.Under the supervision of Senator Hill, this mine has been through the most rigorous environmental impact assessment imaginable—probably the severest in the world. It should be noted that the mining lease for the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine has never been part of the Kakadu National Park and has never been part of the Kakadu world heritage area—something that is forgotten in the welter of emotion we hear from those opposite. The Australian editorialised on this matter just recently. It said:To suggest that Jabiluka with an area of 20.5 hectares threatens the world heritage values of the park's 1.98 million hectares verges on the absurd. I would also like to quote Jonathan Nadji, who wrote to Senator Hill on behalf of his family as traditional owners of land in the Kakadu National Park. He said:I am concerned that without Jabiluka there will be limited economic opportunities for Aboriginal people in the region. I am concerned because my country is in this region, and I want my children to be educated here, to have employment opportunities within the region and to carry out their responsibilities to look after our country when I am too old. If there is no economic development, we will have to continue to rely on what the government considers is good enough to suit the needs of Aboriginal people who look after their traditional lands.This mine has been through the strictest assessments possible. It will provide enormous benefits to Aboriginal people and to the Australian nation. The opposition ought to support it, not try and stop it.948948Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My question is to Senator Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Is the minister aware of the recent report commissioned by the Australian Research Council titled Information Technology: Sink or Swim ? If so, does the minister agree with the finding of that report that the amount of IT research currently being conducted in Australia is well below comparable countries, and that we are going backwards rapidly in IT research compared with our Asian neighbours? Does the minister accept that this situation is a direct consequence of the government's short-sighted decisions in its first two budgets to dramatically cut research and development assistance to industry? Furthermore, does he accept that a GST will simply add to the damage to an important service based industry which is crucial to Australia's future prosperity?948Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am sorry that Senator Lundy only comes to question time occasionally, otherwise she would have heard me spelling out chapter and verse the benefits of the GST to the IT industry. A 10 per cent GST will replace a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on everything from computers to modems to printers to playstations. In other words, the whole range of IT equipment and hardware is going to be dramatically cheaper as a result of the new tax reform that we are proposing to introduce.It is very sad indeed that Senator Lundy seems to demonstrate such an abysmal ignorance of what is driving this industry. There she was out there today saying that it was sad that the government had signed up to the US agenda on e-commerce. What are we talking about here? Who is the world leader? Talk about putting blind ideological prejudice ahead of an awareness of what is really happening out there! Senator Lundy thinks that there are a few cheap votes in pandering to the left wing of the Labor Party. Presumably the good old union that you come from thinks that is very good stuff. No doubt they stand up at branch meetings and say, `We want you to get out there and bag the US. We want you to get out there and say, "That's the devil." We don't like the idea of the US having anything to do with Australia in terms of trade.'Face up to the facts. The facts are that the US dominates electronic commerce; it dominates the IT world. You have to have regard to what is going on in those places. The great bulk of research is being done in the US because it just happens to be a market of 260 million people compared with our population of about 18 million, so it is not altogether surprising that most of the R&D would be done there.It is also driven very much by the military establishment, as you well know, and the spin-off effects from that research. What we are doing in this country is not affected by the changes to the R&D tax incentives because, as you well know, those changes were driven by the need to ensure that we had more equality of treatment. But we did also provide a number of taxation incentives through R&D Start—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Nonsense!LD4Senator ALSTON—You wouldn't know the difference!7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Nonsense!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There are too many interjections. Senator Alston, address your remarks to the chair.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You're selling out Australia.LD4Senator ALSTON—Why didn't you take that job as a cleaner with the ILO when it was offered to you?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, there is an appropriate time to debate this.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Will you draw the minister's attention to the fact that he is supposed to direct his answers to you and not to me?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have drawn his attention, but you were shouting at the time and probably did not hear it. I said that there is an appropriate time for you to debate it and the minister should direct his remarks to the chair.LD4Senator ALSTON—I certainly will, Madam President. But you cannot hide behind the chair, my friend, quite as easily as that. If you don't want to cop it, don't interject, and you will be quite safe. The fact is that we have taken a number of decisions—particularly the industry innovation program which provides a two to one subsidy for investment in this area, and the pooled development funds. There are a whole range of areas and ways in which R&D in this country is being encouraged. We want to ensure that seed capital is available.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—You seem to think that has nothing to do with you.LD4Senator ALSTON—You seem to think that the government has got to do all this. You want the government to get out there and identify the particular project, then you want the government to fund it. Then, presumably, when it falls over, you will say it had nothing to do with you. We are very encouraged by the fact that increasingly there are a number of companies which are prepared to put their money on the table. If you read about Intel the other day, they said, `We're not so keen on being remorselessly lobbied to put a fad plant in almost every place that moves.' I see that Hendy Cowan now wants it in Western Australia. They are more interested in having $100 million available for venture capital projects. So all of these things go to assisting R&D. It is not just a matter of government hand-outs. The sooner Senator Lundy takes off those ideological blinkers, understands that the US is where most of the action is, understands that Australia can have a place in the sun if it works closely with the major players, the sooner she will have a better idea of where we are going. (Time expired)950Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—The minister's evasion of the question is a reflection on their neglect of R&D over the last 2½ years. Does the minister, then, disagree with the public comments of Mr Peter Upton, the Executive Director of the Australian Information Industry Association, who said the drop in tax deductibility for R&D has led to a noticeable dip in business investment, and the President of the Australian Computer Society, Mr Prins Ralston, who said if the GST affects spending on essential IT projects, Australia faces potentially disastrous consequences?950Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Do I agree with a hypothetical? He said `if'. He did not make the assertion that any such thing had happened, so what is the point of asking me a hypothetical? More importantly, you ought to look at what is happening in the real world. There is a whole range of reasons why there might be ups and downs in terms of investment. It depends very much upon the world view of a lot of these major companies, and if they had thought for a moment that Labor was going to get into office—as you thought you might sneak in a few months ago—they may well have held back on their investment decisions. They may well have been saying, `There's no point investing in this country anymore. If Labor is likely to get into government, we had better take all these investments offshore.' Understandably, you get a number of variations in their business plans, but at the end of the day they will continue to invest here because they know that we have all the necessary preconditions, we have addressed the economic fundamentals, and we have a very stable—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Nonsense!LD4Senator ALSTON—It might not be for you, but it is for them. (Time expired)950950Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. Given the importance of health insurance to families, could the minister outline the impact that the passage of the government's health insurance rebate legislation will have on low income Australians? These families currently scrimp and save to maintain private health insurance—to maintain their choice of doctor, their access to health care, and their peace of mind.950Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Ferris. She, like me, comes from a state where families are unemployed—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Where there are no coalition members in the Reps.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Obviously, the Labor Party does not care about them. They are prepared to shout like a rabble while I am talking about something that is of such importance to Australians. Elderly people, both pensioners and retirees, and families with children give up everything else they possibly can to hold on to their private health insurance. It is necessary, because of the claims that have been made by the opposition, to debunk the myth that only well-to-do people take out private health insurance. Anybody who is really representing their electorate would know, as I do, that people struggle massively to retain private health insurance. Something like 700,000 Australians with incomes of less than $20,000 a year are struggling to maintain their private health insurance. That is a fact; it is not political rhetoric. Many of them are pensioners and retirees, and many of them are families with children. They want the peace of mind that private health insurance gives them.The Australian Association of Independent Retirees have made their views on this matter very clear. They say that more than 800,000 people aged over 65 have private health insurance, and they are generally not wealthy at all. In fact, 847,000 over-65s have health insurance. They want it, they want to keep it, and they want the government to help them keep it affordable.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is an appropriate time to debate the issues, and that is after question time, not during it. Senators should cease interjecting.BE4Senator NEWMAN—For pensioners or retiree couples, a $600 rebate on a $2,000 premium is important. Perhaps the Labor Party is still dealing with the elites of Australia as they were when they were the government. They have no contact with reality. People have to decide whether they are going to maintain their homes, whether they are going to replace the spouting, or whether they are going to pay for their health insurance. Perhaps Labor does not understand those things anymore. For some people there are catastrophic consequences if they drop out of private health insurance.Members of private health insurance funds are dropping out of health insurance by two to three percentage points a year. That is not good for the public health sector; it is not good for people who want to have an alternative. If the numbers fall to 20 per cent at the expiry of the current health care agreement, the rich will not be disadvantaged, but the poor and the needy will be. They are already standing in queues, side by side with an ex-Prime Minister, his wife and his four children, all of whom are entitled to take a place in the queue despite having the means to provide for their own health care. And they have stood in queues, and we know it. The trouble is that they got an advantage in the queues.Let us recognise that two people in the Labor Party recognised the need. Back in the 1970s, when private health insurance and the health scheme were introduced, Bill Hayden recognised that to have a healthy public sector you had to have a strong private sector. We are now seeing that that is true. We are having problems with the public sector because of the reduction in the strength of the private sector. Graham Richardson, as health minister, recognised exactly the same thing. The only trouble was that he was succeeded by Carmen Lawrence, who took pride in not having private health insurance, and her Prime Minister did not have it either and gloried in the fact. What does that do for the poor and needy that some people in this chamber purport to represent? It cuts them out of decent, timely and efficient health care because the wealthy have taken their place. (Time expired)951Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister further explain the importance of maintaining a vital private health insurance system?951Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Ferris for the opportunity to say more about this subject, because clearly a number of senators on the other side of this chamber are ideologically opposed to giving people a choice in health care. They do not understand the realities any more of looking after the long-term interests of the poor and the needy. Something like 200,000 people have been helped to maintain their health insurance by the existing health insurance rebate. These are people who would otherwise have dropped out and joined the queues in public hospitals. We want to build on this and help more people. Our commitment is to Medicare and the public system, but it is also to helping the public system by making sure that the private system does not expire from the lack of care that it got over all those years of Labor government. It is amazing how they are so upset about our assisting in the private health area and giving people a choice. (Time expired)951951Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Ellison, the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration. I refer the minister to the government's statement, which was tabled in the Senate on 26 November, that it would respond to the call from the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee for an extension of the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to cover contracted-out services when the Administrative Review Council had completed its inquiry into the same matter. Is the minister aware that the ARC handed its report to the Attorney-General last August? Is the minister further aware that the ARC recommended an extension of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to cover action by a contractor under a government contract? When will the government stop inventing excuses and commit itself to action to ensure that there are adequate safeguards and scrutiny of government services and functions contracted out to the private sector?952Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Administrative Review Council's report is with the Attorney-General at the moment. There is no delay in that regard. In relation to the response to that report, perhaps Senator Schacht ought to address his questions to the Attorney-General. In relation to the question of outsourcing, we require agencies to be fully accountable for services that they are responsible for delivering, including those services that are provided through an outsourced arrangement. Through these contractual arrangements severe sanctions can apply if contractors breach accountability requirements such as privacy and service levels. The type and appropriateness of these measures will vary between contracts and the responsibility rests with the individual agency to determine what accountability measures are required in each contract. This approach is fully consistent with the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. In relation to the specific response to the Administrative Review Council's report, I suggest that Senator Schacht take it up with the Attorney-General.952Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Madam President, I have a supplementary question. I appreciate that advice, but I have to say, Minister, that you are all part of the same government and one would have thought that the minister you represent and the Attorney-General have had three months to tick-tack on the same report. My supplementary question is as follows: does the minister agree that the government's response to the Senate committee's report was at the very least ill-informed and that, given the recommendations of the ARC, there is simply no excuse for delaying action on this matter any longer?952Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I deny outright that there is any delay as outlined by Senator Schacht. The ARC report is one which is currently with the Attorney-General and being looked at. That will be considered by the Attorney-General and then in an overall government context. That is where the matter lies.952952Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. I refer the minister to the promotional video from Pangea Resources which states that Australia is the best country to store much of the world's high level nuclear waste, and the company's assertions that they have met with Australian ministers and officials about their plans for a nuclear waste dump in Australia. I ask the minister just two things. Firstly, does he agree with this claim that Australia is the best place to store high level nuclear waste? Secondly, will the minister rule out completely the importation and storage of nuclear waste? In other words, will he rule out completely any involvement of his government in setting up an international nuclear waste depository in Australia?952Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator Lees for the question. I must say that until this morning I had not heard of Pangea and I certainly have not seen the video, but I notice that the ABC is in a welter over this issue. My advice is that it was in fact our predecessors, the Labor government, that decided that we should find a suitable site in Australia for a national radioactive waste depository. That was announced by none other than Simon Crean as the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy back in 1992.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Low level waste, and you agreed to it.JX4Senator MINCHIN—That was in order to allow for the disposal of Australia's low level and short-lived intermediate level waste, and we agreed with that. Coming into government, we support the previous Labor government's proposition.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—This is about high level waste.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, cease interjecting.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I'm just giving him a hand. JX4Senator MINCHIN—Thanks, Senator Schacht, but I'll be fine. A preferred site for the depository will be recommended to the government we hope by the middle of next year. As I am sure Senator Schacht and Senator Bolkus would agree, we hope that that will be in South Australia, because that would be good for our state. Can I say that no high level radioactive waste facility is planned for Australia and the government has absolutely no intention of accepting the radioactive waste of other countries. The policy is clear and absolute and will not be changed. We will not be accepting radioactive waste from other countries, and this repository is not for high level radioactive waste.953Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister prepared to seek advice from Pangea Resources as to whom it was that they did spend time with in Australia, and in particular to pass on to that company Australia's displeasure at being marketed internationally as a good place to store high level radioactive waste?953Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—In relation to the press reports this morning, I can confirm that as far as this government is concerned there have been absolutely no ministerial level discussions with that company, Pangea Resources. I am advised that representatives of Pangea have had discussions with government officials over the years—I think going back before we came into government—on the general issue of radioactive waste management, but those discussions have always been clearly on the premise that it is not government policy and will not be government policy to accept radioactive waste from other countries nor to accept high level radioactive waste.953953Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—My question is to Senator Vanstone representing the Attorney-General. Can the minister confirm that the government is reconsidering its decision not to introduce a privacy regime for the private sector? Isn't it true that the government has been embarrassed into this position by the decision of the Victorian government to introduce its own privacy regime? When will the government complete its backflip and give the Australian people the privacy protection they deserve?953Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Denman for the question. The Attorney advises me that he does not propose to respond to speculation that has been circulating in the media about the government's approach to privacy protection. The facts are that the government has been and remains committed to ensuring good standards. I am sure Senator Denman agrees with that. We have a disagreement about how to do it but not a disagreement that it needs to be done. We want to ensure good standards of personal data protection across both the public and private sectors.The government's election policy platform committed it to reviewing the implementation of the self-regulatory privacy protection to ensure that businesses are protecting and properly handling personal information. The government is very pleased that some industry sectors have moved to adopt the Privacy Commissioner's national principles for the fair handling of personal information, which were issued in February this year after extensive consultation and as a benchmark set of privacy standards for the private sector.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my left, I would remind you there is an appropriate time to debate issues, and shouting constantly during an answer to a question is in breach of the standing orders.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Thank you, Madam President. In line with that election promise, the government is reviewing the initiatives so far taken by industry to adopt privacy standards and how best to support self-regulation in the light of those initiatives. We are committed to ensuring that the development of any privacy scheme does not unreasonably increase the regulatory burden on business, particularly on small business.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—What are the sanctions if they breach it? There is no public accountability.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Madam President, thank you for your support. Perhaps we need a scream room here so Senator Lundy can go and get it all out of her lungs instead of trying to interrupt everybody when they are giving an answer.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Vanstone, your remarks should not be directed across the chamber.954Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, are you prepared to tell us where you stand on this issue? Do you support the introduction of a legislated privacy regime for the private sector?954Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Thank you, Senator Denman. I am sorry you wasted a supplementary question. You would well understand that I would, of course, support the Attorney and the government's position in this matter.954954Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Hill. I refer the minister to media reports today about an industry proposal to establish an international nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia or Western Australia. Is it the case that the government is under international pressure to establish a facility of this type in Australia so that we can have a greater influence and involvement in the debate on nuclear issues? Is it also the case that such a move would also improve our prospects for the sale of Australian uranium?954Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Madam President, I am not sure whether Senator Margetts excused herself from the chamber for a minute or two, but a question on that subject has been asked of Senator Minchin and well answered.954Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, obviously the minister was not listening to the question. I will have to ask it again as a supplementary question. Isn't it the case that the government is under international pressure to establish a facility and that the argument is that we can have a greater influence and involvement in the debate on nuclear issues, including the non-proliferation treaty? I was asking him in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I just wonder what advice the minister has got from the foreign affairs department as to the implications for Australia in this instance.954Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I am sure the Minister for Foreign Affairs would say that the government is under no pressure; furthermore, it is not intending to build a facility for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste. The question in relation to low level and intermediate level short-lived waste has been answered by Senator Minchin.954954Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. Is it true that the cuts the government has made to the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence have resulted in the bureau advising the minister that it may be forced to pull out of joint operations involving the Olympics, paedophile networks and the National Crime Authority? In particular, can the minister confirm that the ABCI has warned her that, because of its `current financial dilemma', it may have to choose between maintaining its criminal intelligence database and `focusing solely' on the `analytical side' of its operations, which includes Olympic security?954Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Collins for the question. It is nice to see she is reading the papers of yesterday and has caught up with them by today. I read that article yesterday. Senator Collins may not understand, since she clearly does not have a close interest in these matters and gets her titbits of information out of the newspapers, that the ABCI is, in fact, funded partially by the Commonwealth and partially by the states. The ABCI has raised its concern that it does not, in its view, have as much money as it would like. I think that has probably been the case under previous governments as well. That matter, as I am advised, has been handled at officer level.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You don't care—ministers aren't involved in this?7E4Senator VANSTONE—The Senior Officers Group of the Australian Police Ministers Council discussed this matter recently.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Why don't you care about this?7E4Senator VANSTONE—Thank you, Senator Bolkus, for your constant interjections. It's about the most useful contribution you ever make in this place.Senator Bolkus interjecting—7E4Senator VANSTONE—You just sit there and chatter away, indicating to the world what a useless creature you are. Chatter, chatter, chatter! You're like a canary in a cage.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, stop interjecting.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Thank you, Madam President. I am sorry to be distracted by that mindless chattering opposite. Senator Collins, back to your question: it is being looked at by the Senior Officers Group of the Australian Police Ministers Council.955Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. When did the ABCI first write to the minister setting out its concerns about the `financial crisis' that it is facing? Why hasn't the minister, rather than the Senior Officers Group, responded to its letter seeking additional financial support, given the very important issues I highlighted in my first question that are at stake?955Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Thank you, Senator Collins. I do not have the specific date of the letter with me but I will get that for you. But don't underestimate the value of the Senior Officers Group of the Australian Police Ministers Council. It does very valuable work. It allows a significant amount of work to go on between APMC meetings—something you may get to understand if you ever get back into government.955955Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—My question is also addressed to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. In light of recent calls for legalisation of heroin, would the minister please advise the Senate what the government's response is to the results of the Swiss referendum on legalisation of heroin?Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left will cease interjecting.955Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Payne for her question.Senator Schacht interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, you have been interjecting persistently.7E4Senator VANSTONE—If there is one thing to be learned from international experience it is that there are no quick fixes on the question of drug abuse. The three to one vote in the Swiss referendum on the legislation of narcotics demonstrates that Swiss voters see that legalising drugs alone is not the answer. The fight against drugs must involve a partnership between supply reduction strategies, demand reduction strategies and harm minimisation strategies, just as the government's Tough on Drugs program does. Demand reduction strategies are far less likely to be effective where there are no supply reduction strategies in place at the same time.Under the national illicit drugs strategy, this government has committed over $200 million to a very balanced approach to the drug problem. Our approach attacks the drug problem on three fronts. Firstly, the government's Tough on Drugs strategy includes funding for a range of treatment programs. Secondly, we are also committed to anti-drug education and community awareness programs and, finally, we are taking action to stop the importation of illegal drugs—and, if I may say, being far more successful than the previous government ever was.The new shadow minister for justice and customs seems to have a complete lack of understanding about what the government is doing because he calls for harm minimisation and education strategies when that is exactly what this government is implementing. He says, `First we need effective measures to be put in place to help reduce the amount of drugs coming into Australia.' That is our supply reduction measure. I do not know that Senator Gibbs or Senator Stott Despoja agree with that but, nonetheless, the shadow minister does. Secondly, he says we have to reduce demand by educating Australians. That is part of the Tough on Drugs strategy, too. Thirdly, he says, `We have to accept the reality that illicit drugs are out there and we need harm minimisation programs'—exactly what this government is providing. I am at a loss sometimes to understand exactly what non-government senators do think.Senator Gibbs, however, appears to think we are putting too much effort into the fight against drugs, as does Senator Stott Despoja. So I give Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Gibbs the opportunity to nominate those law enforcement issues that they do not want us to proceed with. What law enforcement money do you want cut? Where else would you put that money?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, your remarks should be directed through the chair, not across the table.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Gibbs say the emphasis is too much on law enforcement; they want the emphasis to go to the other parts of the program. So it is incumbent on them to put their money where their mouth is and tell Australians what law enforcement programs they would cut. That is what we want to know—what would you cut? Equally, we have to understand that we cannot afford to treat people after they have been caught in the cycle. We need to try to stop some people getting on drugs and we do that by education programs and by limiting supply.A balanced approach has to do something about drugs coming into the country. It is naive to think that we can help Australia's young people without also fighting the drug criminals who profit very substantially from the sale of illegal drugs to young Australians. That is why we have given so much more to the Australian Federal Police recently. In November 1997 we gave them an additional $20 million for mobile strike teams, for witness protection and for the National Heroin Signature Program. And there is a lot more, Senator Payne, you might be interested to hear. In March 1998 we provided an additional $23 million over four years for additional mobile strike teams. The overseas liaison officer network has been increased to get better cooperation in projects in the Asia- Pacific region. In the election campaign we made a commitment to provide an additional $23 million over four years. (Time expired)956Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. In terms of demand reduction, supply reduction and harm minimisation, is there any further information you can offer the Senate on these issues?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—How humiliating to ask a dopey question like that.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, stop shouting.956Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—There is. We have also provided additional resources to Customs. More than $34 million has been allocated to Customs under the Tough on Drugs strategy. In the election campaign we made an additional commitment for a further $32 million over four years for X-ray equipment, ships and aircraft search teams, and extra marine crews. The bottom line is that reducing the harm from drug abuse is one of the most important issues facing our community. That is why this government is spending so much more money on it. Last but not least, Senator Stott Despoja apparently told a conference that young people enjoyed recreational experiences of using illegal drugs and that it is one of the reasons why drugs are often celebrated in the youth culture. I invite her to say whether she endorses the recreational use of illegal drugs. If so, which ones, how often and how much?956956Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Hill. Can the minister explain to the Senate precisely what public rationale there is for the recent transfer of the Office of Government Information and Advertising from the finance and administration portfolio to the Prime Minister's own department? Can the minister also confirm that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet prepared advice on this matter, and will he table that advice? Can he confirm that OGIA will now report directly to an official in the Prime Minister's office?957Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—We obviously devise our administrative arrangements to result in efficient public administration. We decided in this instance that the office would function more effectively under the Prime Minister, and so we have restructured.957Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that only a very small number of OGIA staff have been invited to transfer to the PM&C portfolio, and even fewer have accepted the offer? Isn't this just another re-run of the DAS exercise where public servants were blamed for the inadequacies of the government, losing jobs in the process?957Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—No blame is being attached to any public servant.957957Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister, Senator Hill. Minister, are you aware of the positive comments about Aboriginal reconciliation made by the Prime Minister at the weekend? Are officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs lobbying to remove the clause on self-determination from the draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? Has there been a formal cabinet resolution to withdraw Australia's commitment to self-determination for Aboriginal Australians, and won't this undermine the Prime Minister's stated commitment to reconciliation just a few days ago?957Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I am pleased the honourable senator noted the comments by the Prime Minister on reconciliation, a concept which this government strongly supports. I have some information on the specific issue that was raised in relation to the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and in particular the article on self-determination. My advice is that Australia is not seeking to have the article deleted from the draft declaration. What we are seeking is more appropriate language.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left should not be shouting.BH4Senator HILL—I am just trying to be helpful, Madam President. I am told that the meaning of several references to self-determination and its application to indigenous people in the draft is far from clear to most governments in the working group, including Australia. Part of the purpose of participating in the working group is obviously to understand and influence debate on this particular issue. The government believes that alternative language such as `self-management' or `self-empowerment' would better reflect Australia's national interest and circumstance and would be more useful than the existing language in advancing the debate.957Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I thank the minister for his answer. Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, is your government aware of the historical meaning of self-determination, established for over 15 years in this country?Senator Ferguson interjecting—HX5Senator WOODLEY—You want an education too, do you, Senator Ferguson?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Ferguson, cease interjecting.HX5Senator WOODLEY—Does your government understand that the policy of Aboriginal self-determination is one which is well established? Also, do you understand that reconciliation is tied very much to self-determination within this country?Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my right will cease talking across the chamber.957Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I think Senator Woodley is getting it right in that there has been a long development of the concept of self-determination in international law. There is considerable jurisprudence on the issue. It is because of that that it is the view of this government that language such as `self-management' and `self-empowerment' in relation to indigenous affairs in this country would be more appropriate expressions. It would more appropriately express the rights that are seeking to be confirmed by the declaration. It is in fact as a result of the development of that meaning, the complexity of that meaning, that we have chosen to move in this particular direction.958958Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Is the minister aware of the anti-competitive practices sanctioned by the South Australian Premier, John Olsen, in his granting of exclusive exploration rights to Santos Gas over the Cooper Basin after the exploration leases expire next February? Will the minister intervene in an attempt to reverse Santos's monopoly and allow other players into the Cooper Basin?958Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—It does appear that Senator Schacht has been reading the Business Review Weekly , for which I commend him. The allocation of petroleum exploration licences in South Australia is of course a matter for the South Australian government. The Commonwealth's responsibility is, as he would know, for allocating petroleum acreage in offshore Commonwealth waters. The transparency of the processes for the allocation of exploration acreage was an issue addressed by officials of the Australia and New Zealand Minerals and Energy Council in 1997.A number of jurisdictions, including South Australia, are implementing reviews of their petroleum legislation, partly as a result of ANZMEC's consideration of these issues. The allocation of acreage can also affect the level of competition at the producer end of the gas supply chain and impact on competition in gas retail natural gas markets. In this regard, a joint COAG and ANZMEC upstream issues working group is examining issues in the upstream petroleum sector, including acreage management, which impact on the growth, diversity and level of competition in downstream natural gas markets. The working group's report to ANZMEC ministers and COAG is expected by 31 December this year.958Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The federal government has adopted a competition policy to create, supposedly, a more competitive and economically efficient economy. Therefore, have you spoken to Mr Olsen about this matter—as the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources—and urged him to take on board the recommendation of his former energy minister, Mr Stephen Baker, to open up competition in the Cooper Basin?958Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Yes, this government is very committed to competition policy and we have done an enormous amount in the 33 months that we have been in government to introduce competition in the electricity market, the gas market et cetera. No, I have not spoken to Premier Olsen about that matter. I have given you the answer to the question about acreage. We have every confidence in the processes employed by the South Australian government. I refer you to the discussions going on at the COAG and ANZMEC ministers level.958958Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—My question is addressed to Senator Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. In September 1995 the then minister, Senator Collins, told the Senate that Telstra costs amounted to $5.2 million for the fast track, non-legalistic arbitration process against the CoT cases. By June 1997, estimates committees were being told that they had risen to $18.7 million. A year later, the fast track arbitration process is not resolved. Telstra is still denying CoT members essential network documents for their arbitrations, and Telstra has incurred further costs, including for eminent lawyers and accountants permanently vetting their process. Could the minister advise the Senate of the total cost, to date, incurred by Telstra in relation to the CoT cases arbitration appeal and processes? Does the government regard the process as an effective means of resolving community concerns about quality of service?958Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I think Senator Boswell's figures are pretty accurate. Certainly for the 1996-97 financial year the total cost to Telstra for internal and external contractors and the external legal and external accounting costs amounted to $14.285 million. The total cost paid in the arbitration process to the independent arbitrators was $4.446 million. My information is that Telstra costs are now likely to be higher as a result of there being further litigation between Telstra and one of the CoT cases that has been on foot in the Victorian Supreme Court since July 1997. So it is not possible at this point to give a definitive answer, but I hope to be in a position to advise the Senate tomorrow when I have received that information.I have on other occasions made it clear that I do not believe that the arbitration process worked as effectively as it was intended to. Clearly, to the extent that it was regarded as a fast-track approach, it certainly did not deliver the goods in that respect. It has to be remembered of course that these are extraordinarily complex issues that are under arbitration, and indeed in some instances litigation, and it is not possible for amateur bodies such as the Senate committee, for example, that has been examining this issue—AW5CARRSenator Carr—You called for a select committee when you were in opposition.LD4Senator ALSTON—I certainly did not. Senator Boswell was quite assiduous in pressing for a Senate inquiry. I can well understand why there was that level of concern, because, with the costs rising to the extent that Senator Boswell indicates and the time that was being taken to arrive at ultimate judgments, it was quite clear that it was nothing like a fast-track process. There are more effective ways of resolving community concerns about quality of service issues. The customer service guarantee that we introduced, a world first, and which we have subsequently improved over time—no thanks of course to the other side of the chamber, which bitterly opposed any of these initiatives in wanting to vote down the entire Telstra legislation—requires carriers to compensate customers when standards are not met in terms of installations and fault repairs.The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Scheme has also been very effective, and I congratulate those involved in it, particularly Mr Pinnock, because it has had a very difficult job in reconciling a number of disputes related to billing and to quality of service and other issues. At the end of the day that is a better path to go down than to embark on some of these disputes which are, essentially, not susceptible to any quick resolution be cause they involve claims of loss of business profits by small business operators who have complaints about the telephone system and who attribute, of course, any failure of the business to the fault of the telephone system. I simply say to Senator Boswell that I will get him the figure in due course—hopefully tomorrow—but we certainly hope that it will not be necessary to go down that particular track in the future.959959Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Ellison, representing the Minister for Finance and Administration. Is the minister aware that, since outsourcing the IT functions of the Department of Finance and Administration to IBM-GSA, DOFA's mainframe function, which is housed in Canberra, is to be shifted to Sydney between 24 and 29 December? How many jobs have already been lost due to this shift of function, and how many jobs will be lost?959Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I do not have that detail to hand. I will take it on notice and get back to you, Senator Faulkner.959Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—How can he ask a supplementary question on that?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease interjecting.5K4Senator FAULKNER—I do not think it is a silly question, particularly for those people in the Canberra community who are about to get a nasty Christmas present courtesy of your government. We know you don't care about jobs. Perhaps the minister could also establish how many other IT mainframe functions are currently being shifted, or are planned to be shifted, by other government departments to Sydney and Melbourne through the outsourcing process?959Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Madam President, I fail to see how that arose out of the last answer, but I will take it on notice and get back to Senator Faulkner.960960Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question without notice is to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. The government was re-elected with a mandate to implement its 30 per cent tax rebate for people who take out private health insurance. This is equivalent to a substantial tax break for average Australians. Will the minister outline the benefits of this initiative and the consequences for the public health system of the Senate rejecting this bill.960Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Coonan for the question and for her interest in this very vital matter. A key initiative of the government's tax package was the introduction of a 30 per cent tax rebate for people who take out private health insurance. This initiative will strengthen the Australian health care system by encouraging people to take up or keep their private health insurance by putting, on average, $750 into each of their pockets. It will also take pressure off the public health system. Maintaining a strong balance between the public and private health sectors is vital for a robust health system for all Australians.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left are in breach of the standing orders.VW4Senator HERRON—The opposition knows this, but they continue to oppose the initiative because of their ideological stubbornness. Former Labor health minister, Graham Richardson, knew this when he was minister, and he is still saying it today. They mock on the other side, but last week Graham Richardson said that the Labor Party's opposition to the 30 per cent health insurance rebate was `ridiculous'. This is what he said:They—the Labor Party—simply don't want to acknowledge that private health care matters. There is an ideological bent here that says Medicare is perfect . . . and therefore nothing should be done to private health . . . This is the same man who in 1990 said:If you allow the critical mass of about 40 per cent of people in private health insurance to be lost, then you run the risk of a threat to the entire system.He said that as health minister, he said it again today, yet it is being ignored by the other side. Labor's intractability will result in serious consequences for the public health system. Firstly, the Commonwealth budget would be cut by $2.5 billion over the life of the existing health care agreement to compensate the states for every one per cent of people who dropped out of private health insurance. Secondly, under present trends 1.9 million Australians would leave the private system. This would mean an estimated 1.2 million extra bed days—that is, 3,300 extra hospital beds would be required in five years. That is the equivalent of building five to six extra public hospitals. Those figures are incontrovertible. They have not been responded to either by the Democrats or by the Labor Party.The government has slowed the massive decline in private health insurance which it inherited from Labor. We are giving people what they want. It is about fairness and freedom of choice. The government has shown its commitment to a better health care system for all Australians. It is now up to the Senate to pass the legislation and make a difference.Madam President, I heard some laughter the other day when I think Senator Crowley was saying that the Labor Party never intended that there should be a viable private system. I have a long memory. I was present at a meeting 25 years ago, and I quote from the then Minister for Social Security, Mr Bill Hayden, on 2 May 1973 when he said about the introduction of Medicare:In this range of issues, there is absolutely no change at all. We have always postulated our schemes—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—What did Disraeli say?VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Robert Ray should listen; he was probably not around then. The quote continues:We have always postulated our schemes based on private medical practice, on private medical practice based on fee for service and in turn it will always be guaranteed, the freedom of choice between doctor and patient, the patient can choose his doctor and the doctor could make the decision whether he could bear the workload or not.That is conveniently ignored. We are maintaining Medicare, basing it on freedom of choice for all Australians, no matter what their level of cover. We believe that Australians want freedom of choice—choice of doctor and choice of hospital, whether it be public or private. We intend maintaining that. The people with ideological blinkers on have turned around the other way. They do not recognise the basis of Medicare—and that is from the originator, the man who brought it in.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice96196115:02:00961Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Yesterday, I was asked a question by by Senator Robert Ray. I seek leave to incorporate the answer to the question in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—The following answers are provided for Senator Robert Ray following his questions to the Minister for Health and Aged Care which were asked in the Senate on 30 November 1998.How many patients will no longer seek treatment in public hospitals as a result of the 30 per cent rebate?It is estimated that the level of health insurance participation will go up by approximately 2.5 per cent. These people will then be able to be treated in private hospitals.What will be the level of patient transfer from the public to the private system?It is assumed that the rebate will result in an increase in participation of approximately 2.5 per cent to a level of about 33 per cent. This represents approximately 500,000 more people with private cover who will then have the choice to use the private system. For every one of these 500,000 people who do not take out health cover, 322,000 more bed days would be required in the public sector. It would take 3,300 extra hospital beds to accommodate them. That's about 6 more extra public hospitalsWhat percentage of total government expenditure on health is the rebate expected to be?In percentage terms the rebate will be about 4 per cent of total Commonwealth health expenditure.96115:02:00961Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Yesterday I was asked a question by Senator Gibbs. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—SENATOR GIBBS asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care on 30 November 1998(1) Can the Minister confirm that the Government, and the Minister for Trade in particular, have been lobbying the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council to water down its proposal for mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods?(2) Does the minister recognise that consumers are entitled to information on which they can base decisions about their food choices(3) 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 CouncilSENATOR HERRON—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) No, the Minister for Trade wrote to all members of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council (ANZFSC) on 12 November 1998 supporting the decision of the Council at its 30 July meeting to adopt the recommendation of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) to require labelling of genetically modified foods where these are not substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts in his letter the Minister for Trade also addressed the implications of the Council imposing mandatory labelling for substantially equivalent foods, beyond that recommended by ANZFA. In this regard the Minister drew Council members' attention to the potential undesirable impacts such a requirement could have on Australia's international competitiveness in the processed foods sector and obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization.The Minister for Trade also supported the need for consumers to be provided with useful infor mation on which they can base their decisions relating to food choices but suggested that alternatives to mandatory labelling exist which would be consistent with Australia's international obligations and avoid unnecessary adverse impacts on industry(2) The Minister fully recognises that consumers require accurate information on which to base their decisions about food. Where such information may be considered necessary to protect public health and safety, the use of mandatory labelling is appropriate. As the ANZFSC decision of 30 July 1998 also imposed pre-market safety testing for all genetically modified foods, there is no safety issue in this case. It is important to recognises that there are many ways in which consumers are currently provided with information without a mandatory labelling requirement. Furthermore there is sufficient doubt as to whether a simplistic statement of the type implied by a mandatory labelling requirement would achieve the objective of providing useful information to consumers.In view of the costs to industry of such a requirement, which would inevitably be passed onto consumers, it is appropriate to examine alternative ways of meeting consumer expectations for information about gene technology which are supportive of the development of Australia's food industries and consistent with our international obligations, before imposing a mandatory requirement.(3) At its meeting, on 30 July 1998, ANZFSC requested ANZFA to provide an additional briefing on developments internationally and within the major trading blocs concerning the labelling of genetically modified foods. The briefing will be provided to ANZFSC at its meeting scheduled for 17 December 1998 at which members, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, will discuss the labelling of substantially equivalent foods and reach a conclusion about whether further measures are required.96215:02:00962Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Yesterday, I was asked a question by Senator Brown in relation to civil protest in Irian Jaya. I seek leave to have that answer incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Senator Brown asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on 30 November 1998 1. 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?2. Are the Indonesian authorities confiscating the Morning Star flag as well as farm implements?3. Is a massacre possible tomorrow with the raising of this flag?4. Will the Australian Government urgently contact the Indonesian authorities to avert tomorrow any repeat of the Biak massacre?Supplementary question:5. Will the Minister investigate the matter and urgently contact the Indonesian Government to try to ward off the potential for a further massacre in our nearest neighbour, West Papua, specifically in Manokwari tomorrow when this flag-raising ceremony occurs?Senator Hill—The answer to the Senator's question is as follows:1. The Australian Embassy in Jakarta has received reports of troop build-ups in a number of towns in Irian Jaya, including Manokwari. This activity is apparently in anticipation of separatist demonstrations marking the 1 December anniversary of the 1961 declaration of independence in Irian Jaya.2. The Australian Embassy in Jakarta has not been able to confirm whether the authorities have confiscated Morning Star flags or farming implements.3. Civil disturbances are a possibility in such a scenario, but the local authorities appear to be working to avoid violent confrontations The Embassy's contacts have reported that the local government and military have urged people not to demonstrate on 1 December, and have approached ex-Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM) and church leaders to discourage demonstrations. A Jayapura newspaper reported on 28 November that an Irianese leader had postponed his plans to hold demonstrations on 1 December, calling instead for a day of prayer. This decision was reportedly welcomed by the Governor of Irian Jaya. In the interest of avoiding violence, the Australian Government urges all sides to exercise such restraint.4. On 30 November the Australian Embassy in Jakarta conveyed its concerns to ABRI about the possibility of an over-reaction by authorities to separatist demonstrations in Irian Jaya. The Embassy emphasised the importance of avoiding a situation similar to that which took place in Biak in July this year. The Embassy's ABRI contacts advised that they would contact military authorities in Jayapura regarding this issue.5. The Government has already made its concerns about the possibility of civil disturbances in Irian Jaya known to the Indonesian authorities. The Government has no information to indicate that the situation in Manokwari should be of greater concern than anywhere else in Irian Jaya.96315:03:00963Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Family and Community Services (Senator Newman), to a question without notice asked by Senator Ferris today, relating to the Government's proposed private health insurance rebate.Today, we have seen poor taste plummet to greater depths in Senator Newman's answer to the question that Senator Ferris asked her in question time. This was a prepared dorothy dixer answer to a question which she had ample knowledge of. Obviously for Senator Newman, in order to make some sort of cheap political point about the purported benefits of the government's $1.4 billion give away to taxpayers who have private health insurance, Senator Newman felt obliged to drag into her answer the former Prime Minister Mr Keating and his family. What an inappropriate day for her to do so. It was disgusting and tasteless on Senator Newman's part. It is typical of the modern Liberal Party and very typical of Senator Newman. It says more about Senator Newman's lack of judgment than it says about anything else.We have seen yet again from Senator Newman in this chamber today that the Howard government is all at sea on the question of funding of the health system in this country. In the past 24 hours we have had the spectacle of the government trying to defend its position that the Australian taxpayer should be subsidising tennis racquets, gym memberships and hydrotherapy for yuppies. The Howard government has attempted to bribe the holders of private health insurance by rebating them 30 per cent of the cost of their ancillary cover for sports goods and membership. You have to ask yourself: how has this issue been received by the Australian public? We have seen a very interesting reaction in the newspaper this morning and on talkback radio. In fact, yet again in the chamber today not only have we had Senator Newman in answer to the question from Senator Ferris but also, in answer to a dorothy dixer, Senator Herron quoted the former health minister Graham Richardson. I got a transcript of what Graham Richardson actually said this morning. To put the record straight, let me quote it into Hansard so that we can have a debate about what he really said, instead of the words put into his mouth by Senator Herron and by Senator Newman. This is a direct quote from Graham Richardson this morning on Sydney Radio 2GB:I've been telling you that the 30 per cent health insurance rebate is stupid policy. But the thing that's more stupid than even I thought, apparently $300 million of our money will go on all sorts of things we never realised, such as: $139 million for subsidised dental care for people with private health . . . . teeth, it gets even worse. Apparently we're also going to be paying out for them to have hypnotherapy, natural therapies, and even optical care. More importantly, we're to pay out nearly $9 million for fitness and lifestyle courses and equipment—gym equipment. That's what was paid out in the last financial year. I just can't believe that they're doing all of this and why are they doing it? It was explained . . . by the Government by Dr Wooldridge as a philosophical statement.Let us be clear that the Howard government is pushing ahead with a massive transfer of public resources from the public health system directly into the private health system. Dental health care is a terrific example of this resources transfer. The government slashed public dental health funding in its first budget and it is now proposing to directly subsidise the dental treatment of the elites in this country to the tune of 30 per cent of the $600 million spent on dental care each year. This is the way in which this government has operated. We say that money should be put into the public health system immediately, before it dies the lingering death which this government wants to see. The elites of Australia are the big winners under this government's policy. (Time expired)15:08:00964Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—It is quite easy to understand why the Labor Party is so embarrassed about having locked themselves into the position of opposing an initiative which received the overwhelming support of the Australian people at the last election and which the Australian people are very supportive of in general.Senator Newman quite correctly pointed out in her answer that over 700,000 Australians who have private health insurance have an income of less than $20,000 per annum—hardly the rich and the glitterati that Senator Faulkner seeks to portray as the people who have private health insurance. Indeed, these are your average Australians who are very concerned to ensure that they have a choice in health care.If we do not assist them, what is going to happen? All these people will be flung into the public hospital system and the system at the moment cannot cope. The lines are far too long already. The waiting lists are there. Everybody knows the difficulties that public hospitals right around this nation are facing. The Labor Party, because of their ideological bent—in fact, I would call it an ideological warp—cannot see their way clear to assisting the public health system by getting more and more people who can afford it, or who want it, back into the private health system.Coming from the state of Tasmania, Madam Deputy President, I can tell you that the people of Tasmania have the highest rate of private health insurance in this country, combined with the lowest average income in the nation, the worst health outcomes in the nation and the most aged population in the nation. All of those factors combined should surely mean that at least the Labor senators from Tasmania would support this government initiative, because their failure to do so would be a betrayal of the people of Tasmania, just as the federal member for Bass betrayed the 26,000 people in her electorate who have private health insurance. And take the tip: the people of Bass will be reminded of the betrayal by the member for Bass of those 26,000 people come the next election.Senator Faulkner feigns a degree of sensitivity in relation to the Keating family. The announcement that was made today was most unfortunate and I do not want to canvass it. Suffice to say that Senator Faulkner's harassment of the Baillieu family, members of whom were dead, for whom we have still not received an apology—2M6COONANSenator Coonan—How long ago was that?N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—For many years, Senator Coonan. Senator Faulkner came into this chamber having sought to vilify, incorrectly, the Crane family, without apology—2M6COONANSenator Coonan—And the Panizza family.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—And the Panizza family, that is quite correct. So it is hardly appropriate for Senator Faulkner to pretend that he has some degree of sensitivity to families that are involved in, or indeed are out of, politics. He was more than happy to drag the Baillieu family, the Crane family and the Panizza family through the public arena. Today, all of a sudden, he says, `Oh, but you can't do it to people associated with the Labor Party.' If it is good enough for Senator Faulkner to vilify people on our side of politics, I think it is appropriate for Senator Newman, not to vilify, but simply to refer to the facts that are on the public record in relation to Mr Keating, who said that he did not want private health insurance.But take the tip: if Mr Keating ever lined up for medical attention in a public hospital, do you think he would have to wait for hours and hours on end with all the other people or do you think he might be able to manipulate his way through and get served virtually immediately? We know how the system works and that is why people who are able to afford private health insurance ought to have health insurance and, more importantly, they ought to be encouraged to do so in order that the pressure is taken off the public hospital system. The government's initiative is a fantastic one. It has the overwhelming support of the Australian people and I look forward to its carriage shortly.15:13:00964Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—The Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman, today attempted to provide a defence for what is a highly regressive measure. She tried to pretend that this measure was directed at low income earners when the facts quite clearly show that this measure is largely directed at middle and upper income earners and that there is no defence on equity grounds for this measure. Part of the $1.4 billion of taxpayers' money that will be expended in this rebate will go to those high income earners who choose to rejoin private health insurance funds, but most of it will go to those who are already insured, who are already in the system.This is very bad public policy. The government has not come to grips with defining the problem, which is the escalating cost of health care. They have got no solution. They made an election promise to throw money at the problem. They threw money at the problem last year. It did not work. They are now going to throw a larger bucket of money—$1.4 billion—at the problem.The government clearly cannot make up their minds as to whether or not they want to support means testing of this measure. I am not clear from Dr Wooldridge's statements where he stands on the issue today. But what is clear is that the majority of this assistance will go to those who do not need it, and it will not solve the major public health issues in this country.Only 23 per cent of families who earn $20,000 or less a year are in private health insurance. Seventy-seven per cent of families who earn $20,000 or less are not in private insurance; and they do not get anything of the $1.4 billion. They have to deal with the fact that the government pulls money out of public hospitals to pay a private health insurance subsidy to people who are better off. So, first of all, the government is not helping people on low incomes, because most of them do not have private health insurance.But 72 per cent of people who earn $70,000 or more are in private health insurance and they will get the subsidies; all taxpayers will help pay their private health insurance rebates. I do not think that is equitable. It is highly regressive. It is not fair and it is not good public policy.Twenty-five per cent of all those currently insured earn $70,000 or more. They will be getting the lion's share of the public funds that go to subsidise this measure. The government's own recent report said that the likelihood of having health insurance increased markedly as income increased. There is no defence for the proposed rebate on equity grounds.Seventy-seven per cent of those with income under $20,000 are not insured. They get no help. They have to deal with a public health system in crisis that is not getting enough funds. But it is worse than that because the government is going to subsidise ancillary cover for the high income earners as well. The more you spend on health insurance, the more subsidy the government is going to pay you. Only 16½ per cent of those earning under $20,000 have ancillary cover. But of those who earn $70,000 or more, 64 per cent have got ancillary cover—the sort of cover that will give them dental care and sporting aids such as gym shoes and tennis racquets.Again, the measure is not directed at those most in need—those on low incomes. The benefit, the majority of this $1.4 billion, goes to those on higher incomes—those who do not need the assistance. The classic example of this government's priorities is the abolition of the dental scheme. In the last budget, the government took $100 million out of the dental scheme and abolished it. The scheme had provided essential dental treatment for those who could not afford to pay—particularly old people who could not afford to get their teeth fixed. The government took $100 million out of the scheme and said, `That is just tough; that is how tight the budget is.' But with this measure the government will subsidise private insurance ancillary cover—50 per cent of which is for dental treatment. They will put over $200 million of public money into subsidising dental care for largely higher income earners.The government cannot afford to pay for the dental care of those who cannot pay for it themselves. We cannot afford a public dental scheme so that the poor can have dental treatment but we can subsidise the ancillary cover of those on $100,000 to $200,000 a year so that they can get the best dental treatment available. We are going to pay for the dental care of the rich, while the poor will be left with bad teeth and unable to get any treatment at all.(Time expired)15:18:00966Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—It is about time that the nonsense from the honourable senator was stopped. Madam Deputy President, I should not say this while you are in the chair but you made the same sorts of claims yesterday or the day before when you were speaking about the dental health program.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I hope you are not reflecting on the chair.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I have to remind honourable senators that the dental health program is a program that has been run by the states for years and years. But the state Labor governments ran their schemes so badly and those schemes were in such a state of decay that just before the 1993 election Labor had to promise a Commonwealth dental health scheme to try to assist the states to prop up their poorly administered health schemes. According to the budget papers, the money was not to continue. In fact, we stopped it only about six months earlier than would have been the case.To talk about abolishing the health scheme is a nonsense. When you look at the facts and the figures you will see that we have increased the provision of funding to the states by 17.6 per cent—a real increase and a record level of spending. We are providing almost $32 billion over the next five years to public hospitals through the Australian health care agreements. There is increased funding for the states to address the issue of dental care, which has always been a state responsibility. As I said, the Labor Party had to step in at a Commonwealth level and give some assistance to state Labor governments, which had let dental health care go into decay. To come in here and say that we have stopped funding is an absolute nonsense. The Labor Party offered one-off funding to try to prop up the scheme. I want to refer to the myths that are floating around with regard to health. Jenny Macklin is off again with her Macklin myths. I have got a book full of them now. Here is another one—`Macklin's Millionaires'. Dr Wooldridge put out a press release which said:Labor support no means-test on rebates to self-insured millionaires, but opposes a 30 per cent rebate for families on $70,000 combined income.Labor's health spokesperson, Ms Jenny Macklin, has been running around the country claiming that the Government's 30% rebate for private health insurance will be a windfall for the wealthy.`Macklin's Millionaires'. The press release continues:As the Prime Minister said yesterday—this was on 24 November, so it was 23 November—it's almost as if Labor has created "a new species of elite Australians" called Macklin's Millionaires.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Would you care to refer to the honourable member by her correct title, please?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—No, I am referring to the name of the group of people. I have referred to Ms Jenny Macklin, but `Macklin's Millionaires' is a group of people. This has nothing to do with Ms Macklin's name in the sense that I am not going to call them `Ms Macklin's Millionaires.' If you want me to do that, I will—but, really, it is being a bit pedantic.On Neil Mitchell's radio program on 3AW, Ms Macklin revealed that the millionaires she is complaining about are actually families earning $70,000 a year. Mitchell asked her, `What is a high income family?' She said, `Over $70,000.'So they have redefined `wealthy' to include dual income families with an income less than average weekly earnings. Male average weekly ordinary time earnings are $783.60 a week—an annual income of $40,747. And female average weekly earnings are $653.90 a week—an annual income of $34,080. So a dual income family where both partners can earn an average wage with combined income of $74,000 would be denied any assistance towards their private health insurance by Labor. These are the millionaires that Ms Macklin talks about.So we are seeing Labor's former Senator Richardson saying Labor's health policy is wrong. He has been saying for years and years that if private health insurance drops below 30 per cent the system is virtually not viable. The problem is that—and Senator Crowley used to deny this when she was on this side of the chamber—when people leave private health insurance they are potential customers for the public system. More than one in every two operations, one in every three admissions and one in every four bed days are provided in the private sector. Health fund contributors pay today for six million bed days each year out of a total 22 million bed days. That is an enormous contribution by those 30 per cent of people who are contributing to private health insurance. Every privately insured patient who occupies a private hospital bed frees up a public bed for Medicare patients. (Time expired)15:23:00967Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I must be missing something here, but it seems to me that when you talk about private health in this country there are a number of problems with it, the most significant of which is the gap. If a person shells out the fifty bucks or so a week for a family—O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—That was the way the Labor Party let it run down.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Senator, you can join this later, and I am sure you will. At the end of the day, if somebody paid fifty bucks per week to be privately insured and that were the end of the matter then I think private health in this country would be a lot healthier. But that is not the case at all. What happens is that when a person reports to a hospital for some medical service or other they are asked if they are privately insured—that is one of the first questions. I can tell you that most people who are privately insured take a while to answer that question, because they know what it is going to lead to. They know that unfortunately there is going to be in some instances no lid whatsoever on the charging regime that they are going to be subjected to. They know that if they are going in for a simple surgical procedure the probability is that they will be a couple of hundred bucks out of pocket, depending on what state they live in. I know that in my state if you have some simple surgical procedure and you are privately insured it will cost you a couple of hundred bucks. But if you want to get a hip replacement or if you want to get some of the other bits of medical gear that is around these days—it was not around 20 years ago, leastwise nowhere near to the same extent it is today—then you can multiply that couple of hundred dollars by 10 to 20.In fact, when I was a state member a fellow who had been to see the local orthopaedic surgeon came to see me. He was told, `I'm sorry, but you are not privately insured. Come back in 12 months time.' I took it up with the surgeon, who took the trouble to write to every state member of parliament, saying, `You did this wrong. You should have sent this bloke back to the doctor. The doctor could have written to me and said that he was in pain and maybe I could have looked at it a bit sooner instead of demanding the excessive charge that was going to be there.' I pointed out that it was the GP that had sent him to me, because the GP could not get through the system himself.Unfortunately, a lot of people are very frustrated with the health of private health in this country. A lot of them are the officials involved in it, because they know that the lack of government and industry attention to this problem of the gap is what is really killing private health. That is what is doing it. How can you possibly shell out fifty bucks a week and then get a bill for $5,000 or $10,000 for a hip replacement? Let me make this crystal clear to those people who are arguing that this measure now before the Senate, this bill, this 30 per cent rebate, is going to solve all the problems. It is not. All it is going to do is transfer money, probably out of the public system, and hand it over—virtually saying to private health in this country, `It's okay. You don't have to address the issue of the gap. You don't have to address the issue of rising medical costs. All you have to do is go cap in hand to the government and they will give you a bit more tax deductibility.' That will help you too, because you are in the income bracket where it is going to make the world of difference.'The reality is that private health in this country needs a lot of attention. Private health in this country needs some of the fundamental questions addressed. It does not need another bucket of leeches that these people are prepared to throw all over a dying patient who unfortunately is dying because of a blood loss.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Why didn't you ask about it in question time? There wasn't one question about this.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—At the end of the day, a third of this money, $500 million, would fix up public health in this country. I see Senator McGauran over there wanting to join in on it. I hope he is going to get on his feet. From the way he and his friends over there have been jumping in on this, you can see what the game really is. This is nothing more than just a tax dodge for them.15:28:00968Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I am afraid that Senator Faulkner has left his whole team in the lurch here today by picking up on this issue, because they really have not had very much to defend in terms of ALP policy. The ALP line in this matter absolutely amazes me. If you ask the community what they think of this issue, two-thirds of the community support a 30 per cent rebate. Let us go and listen to what one of the fading stars of the ALP, a former health minister, Graham Richardson, had to say about this. He cannot really understand why the ALP does not support this 30 per cent rebate. If we go back to why he is saying that, we see that he realised starkly what ALP policy was doing to the health system in this country.Because of their blind ideological adherence to things being totally public they have let the health system run down over 13 years. We had a terrific system when they took over government in 1983. It was a system that was duel in nature, and 70 per cent of Australians took out private health insurance. Under their stewardship over 13 years this was run down from 70 per cent to 30 per cent. What did Graham Richardson say about it getting to 30 per cent? He said, `The whole system would be on the verge of collapse if it ever got to 40 per cent.' It is now 30 per cent. It is one minute to midnight.What is this government going to do about it? This government is taking the radical measures needed to fix the system. Under Labor there was no assistance to fix the system. What would have happened if it had been allowed to continue? What happens if the private health system in this country collapses? All those patients go on to the public system. And what is in the public system now? Very long waiting lists, overcrowded public hospitals and lack of choice. That is the legacy of the Labor government. You want to add to that now. By letting the private system collapse you are going to add to all those problems.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—It won't collapse. It's a furphy.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Three-quarters of this country think you are wrong and they support our policy on this. The largest group of people who take out private health insurance are not—as those on the other side say—rich. The vast majority of people in private insurance earn less than $30,000. And they support the system. They want to stay in the system. We want to encourage more people to get into the system. The way you do that is with a 30 per cent rebate.In the other place last week, Mr Horne, who is the re-elected member for Paterson, actually voted against 52 per cent of his constituents who are in private health insurance. Fifty-two per cent of the people in Paterson—41,000 people—have private health insurance. What did Bob Horne do? Bob Horne voted against them. People in the Hunter Valley were outraged that their local member would not only vote against their best interests but would deprive them of $750 a year rebate. So 41,000 people out there in Paterson are going to be $750 worse off next year and again the year after and again the year after because of Mr Horne's blind ideological adherence to the Labor policy of knocking down private hospitals in this country.Our government is determined to restore the dual system to a healthy system of hospitals in this country. We are supported in that by recent research by the AMA, which believes that the turnaround in membership of the private health insurance system that will be created has been conservatively estimated by our government. Their estimate is a lot higher. They think this is the key measure. It is like restoring the old tax rebate system and that is the key to turning this whole issue around. If we restore that, the 30 per cent will grow to 35 per cent, 40 per cent and beyond and we will have a viable system again. I cannot understand why the member for Paterson, Mr Horne, and the ALP in general are voting against the best interests of the battlers in this country—the ones who earn under $30,000. They are the ones who are the main adherents to this system. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.96910001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:96959TW4Bourne Sen VickiThe Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate Indonesia's continued denial of human rights to the people of East Timor.Your Petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian government to:(1) actively support all United Nations resolutions and initiatives on East Timor;(2) actively support the right to self-determination of the people of East Timor;(3) work for the immediate release of all Timorese political prisoners;(4) repeal the Timor Gap Treaty; and(5) stop all military cooperation and commercial military activity with Indonesia.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 59 citizens)96979TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled:The Petition of the Undersigned strongly opposes any attempts by the Australian Government to permit the mining and export of uranium in Australia.(1) Your petitioners ask that the Senate oppose any intentions by the Australian Government to support the nuclear industry via any mining, enrichment and sale of uranium.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 79 citizens)96965TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned recognises the vital role of a strong and comprehensive Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and asks that:(1) Coalition Senators honour their 1996 election promise, namely that `The Coalition will maintain existing levels of Commonwealth funding to the ABC'.(2) The Senate votes to maintain the existing role of the ABC as a fully independent, publicly funded and publicly owned organisation.(3) The Senate oppose any weakening of the Charter of the ABC.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 65 citizens)9691DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows: That Australian citizens oppose social, legal and economic discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality or transgender identity and that such discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society.Your petitioners request that the Senate should: pass the Australian Democrats Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate or vilify on the basis of sexuality or transgender identity so that such discrimination or vilification be open to redress at a national level.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from one citizen)969145F4Calvert Sen PaulTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the Senate the fact that members of the Royal Australian Navy who served in Malaya between 1955 and 1960 are still the only Australians, sent overseas on active service, whose service has not been recognised in three important areas:1. R.A.N. casualties are not yet included on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial alongside Army and R.A.A.F. casualties;2. R.A.N. service has not yet been recognised with the visible signs of service to Australia; the Returned from Active Service Badge and the Naval campaign medal; and3. R.A.N. service is still not acknowledged as eligible service for the Australian Service Pension, while service by Commonwealth and allied veterans from 55 other countries is.Members of the Army and R.A.A.F. who served during the same period in Malaya had their service fully recognised 24 hours after arriving in Malaya.In the 1997 Budget the Government partly recognised that R.A.N. service was `operational' and accepted responsibility for disabilities resulting from that service. Those affected appreciate the belated, partial recognition. However, government departments are still resorting to old, and inventing new excuses, to deny the above 3 points.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate acts to help remove the injustice of 40 years and fully recognise R.A.N. service by providing the same recognition and benefits for that service. The cost will be minuscule, being mainly a transfer of pensions from `age' as paid by the Department of Social Security, to `service' pensions, paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.Senator Calvert5F4Senator Calvert(from 14 citizens)97016TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned shows:(a) a proposal has been made by the Department of Transport to build a major no-curfew international airport in Sydney's western suburbs;(b) airports and attendant infrastructure are a major source of air and noise pollution;(c) Western Sydney already suffers from the worst air pollution in Australia;(d) an additional airport in the Sydney airshed will only serve to greatly increase such pollution; and(e) an airport in Sydney's west will harm the lifestyle and wellbeing of citizens living and working within the Sydney airshed.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate not pass any bill which would lead to the construction of any new airport within the Sydney airshed.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 16 citizens)9705710000 5F4The PRESIDENT; Calvert Sen PaulTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia draws the attention of the Senate to the need to encourage participation in private health insurance both to allow individuals freedom of choice and to maintain a viable health system.Your petitioners note with satisfaction the Government's proposal to provide a 30 per cent rebate on all private health insurance premiums, without means test, from January 1, 1999. This is necessary to allow those persons who are prepared to take responsibility for their own health care to be able to afford to do so.We believe that health insurance is an essential part of our health care system.Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to ensure that the legislation providing this rebate is passed without delay.the PresidentUNKNOWNthe President(from 24 citizens)Senator Calvert5F4Senator Calvert(from 33 citizens)970351DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned draws attention to the potentially damaging affects of National Competition Policy on small business such as newsagents.Your petitioners ask the Senate, in Parliament to call on the federal government to review the decisions of the Australian Consumer and Competition Tribunal which threaten the viability of newsagents and introduce legislation to override these decisions and preserve the current system of distribution for magazines and newspapers through Australian newsagents.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 351 citizens)970200TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:But for a High Court decision narrowly favouring the Federal Government, 20,000 years old archaeological cave sites near the Franklin River, Tasmania, would have been destroyed, like a United Kingdom Government unable to stop a Wiltshire authority from clearing Stonehenge for a freeway. Constitutional protection for historical and environmental assets is needed.Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should request the Government to hold a referendum to amend the constitution so that:The Federal Government has the bounden constitutional duty, which any citizen may legally require it to perform and a right superior to state and local governments, to set above the commercial advantage of one generation, protect and restore all we hold in trust for the future—including relics, sites, features, areas, wildlife, buildings or things of Aboriginal and other historical, cultural, architectural, scientific, aesthetic, ecological or environmental importance and—To care for the maintenance of the balance of nature, manage land, marine and atmospheric use so as to avoid their degradation and act nationally and internationally in any matter seen as related to these including—To prevent military and commercial use or uranium and derivatives, beach and related mining; to preserve Heritage Areas—The Great Barrier Reef region at least as originally defined in the 1975 Act and extended into Torres Strait.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 200 citizens)Petitions received.Notices971971The following notices were given:Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Migration Act 1958 , and for related purposes.Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 .Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate supports self-determination for the world's indigenous peoples.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate shall meet on Tuesday, 8 December 1998, from 2.30 pm till 8 pm.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the report from the office of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston), reported in the Australian of 1 December 1998, that the Government will announce a legislative framework for privacy, and (ii) the Australian Democrats' long commitment to private sector privacy laws, which were defeated by the old parties voting against Australian Democrats' amendments 10 years ago, on 14 December 1988; and (b) welcomes the Government's `frontflip' and recognition of the need for nationally consistent and enforceable privacy laws.Senator Lundy to move, on Monday, 7 December:That the Senate notes:(a) the important role Online Australia Day played in raising community awareness of the internet;(b) that 82 per cent of Australian households are still without internet connection, most citing cost as the prohibitive factor in internet connection; and(c) the important role that government must play in ensuring that internet connection becomes more accessible to Australian households.Senator Bartlett to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) 1 December 1998 is World AIDS Day, and (ii) a recently released study by the United Nations and World Health Organisation reported that Australia has rates of HIV and AIDS which are among the lowest in the world;(b) expresses support for ongoing government policies which assist in reducing levels of HIV and AIDS, especially those which involve working closely with at-risk groups to provide education about safe behaviours;(c) encourages further assistance and support for people who are living with HIV and AIDS; and(d) notes that rates of HIV infection are still increasing dramatically in many parts of the world, particularly in developing countries.971971Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provision of standing order 111(6) which prevents the continuation or resumption of second reading debate on a bill within 14 days of its first introduction in either House not apply to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Resolution of Complaints) Bill 1998 .I now table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered within that 14-day period and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Resolution of Complaints) Bill 1998Purpose- To amend the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (SRC Act) as a result of the Federal Court decisions of Neil Wilkinson & Ors v Clerical Administrative and Related Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd & Ors and Daniel Nathan Breckler & Ors v Leshem which found that provisions of the SRC Act are invalid; and- amend the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to make consequential amendments.The Bill will provide members of superannuation funds and retirement savings account holders with an alternative dispute resolution mechanism to the courts for the resolution of superannuation complaints. The Bill will enable the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal to arbitrate disputes by consent.Reason for priorityWithout the amendments, superannuation fund members will not have access to an alternative dispute mechanism for the resolution of complaints. The only recourse for superannuation fund members is to take their complaints to the courts.Effect if the Bill is not dealt with in one SittingSince 12 February 1998, superannuation fund members and retirement savings account holders have not had access to an alternative dispute resolution mechanism to the courts for the resolution of superannuation complaints. The longer amendments to rectify this situation take, the longer the period that such persons are deprived of such a mechanism.Circulated with the authority of the Treasurer972Senator Tierney to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) Australia's commitment to the Co-operation on Electronic Commerce agreement, and (ii) that Steve Lewis and Grant Butler in the Australian Financial Review of 1 December 1998 said that this bilateral agreement, `places Australia at the fore of global development of online regulation and shows the confidence of the US in Australia's ability to drive the e-commerce market throughout the Asia-Pacific';(b) congratulates the Federal Government for recognising the potential of `e-commerce' and working to ensure that Australia plays a major part in the electronic commerce revolution; and(c) notes that the chief information technology (IT) adviser to the President of the United States of America, Mr Ira Magaziner, has praised the Howard Government for its role in international e-commerce policy development, telling the Australian Financial Review that, `Australia punched above its weight' on IT issues, adding that he believed in, `giving credit where credit's due'.Business972972Motion (by Senator O'Brien) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 27, standing in the name of Senator O'Brien for today, relating to the Australian pork industry, be postponed till the next day of sitting.972Motion (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.972Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Chapman) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 46 standing in the name of Senator Chapman for today, relating to the Baha'i community in Iran, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees972972972Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to: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 1998.973973Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) endorse the finding 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 1998.973973Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Knowles) agreed to: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 two related bills be extended to 2 December 1998.973973Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Payne) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous973Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) a motion expressing concern about the implementation of national competition policy was agreed to by all parties in the Queensland Parliament on 11 November 1998, (ii) the motion supports: (a) a commitment to applying a rigorous public benefit test in any application of national competition policy in Australia and considers that the public benefit test must give full weight to issues including jobs and job security, social welfare and equity considerations, health and safety, and regional development, as well as the interests of consumers, and (b) the use of community service payments to ensure the maintenance of quality services to people in regional areas and the crucial importance of community service obligations, and (iii) the motion calls on both federal and state governments to negotiate changes to the administration of the national competition policy to take into greater account the adverse social implications of these policies and that, furthermore, it calls for responsibility for the administration of the national competition policy to be transferred from the National Competition Council to the Council of Australian Governments as originally envisaged in 1995;(b) supports the concerns expressed by the Queensland Parliament and its call for action by the federal and state governments in relation to: (i) a commitment to apply a toughened public benefit test in any application of national competition policy in Australia, (ii) the need for the public benefit test to give full weight to issues including jobs and job security, social welfare and equity considerations, health and safety, and regional development as well as the interests of consumers, and (iii) negotiating any changes necessary to the administration of the national competition policy to take into greater account any adverse social impacts of the policy; and(c) supports giving full weight to the principle of ecological sustainability in the application of the public benefit test.Business973973Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Kemp), be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous974Motion (by Senator Margetts, at the request of Senator Bolkus and Senator Murray) put:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the all-party Standing Committee on Ecologically Sustainable Development in the Western Australian Legislative Council recently released a report on the Western Australia Regional Forest Agreement (WA RFA) which, inter alia , called for the replacement of the Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) as lead agency for the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA), the finalisation of the RFA through an accord process and the release of the draft RFA for public comment and Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) assessment, (ii) the terms of the WA RFA Scoping Agreement, signed by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) in July 1996, state that the draft RFA will be released for EPA assessment and notes that the Western Australia Minister for the Environment (Ms Edwardes) has denied that such an obligation exists, (iii) the state and Commonwealth governments are refusing to release details and the analysis of the approximately 30 000 public submissions to the RFA until the RFA has been completed, and (iv) the 1992 National Forest Policy Statement called for a moratorium on logging high conservation value old-growth forests until the RFA is complete and that, despite the fact that the WA RFA has again been deferred, high conservation value and heritage listed old-growth forests, such as those in Wattle block, continue to be destroyed; and(b) calls for: (i) the immediate release of details of the public submissions to the WA RFA, (ii) the removal of CALM as the lead agency for the WA RFA, (iii) the establishment of a genuinely consultative process to finalise the WA RFA, including the preparation of a draft RFA, (iv) a commitment by the Federal Government to honour its promise to release the draft RFA for EPA assessment and also for public comment and tabling in the Parliament, and (v) a moratorium on the continued logging of high conservation value old-growth forests that may be required for Western Australia's comprehensive, adequate and representative forest conservation reserve system.15:47:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Carr, K. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. 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.34Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Campbell, G. Tambling, G. E. J.Collins, J. M. A. Parer, W. R.McKiernan, J. P. Kemp, R.Reynolds, M. Crane, W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous975Motion (by Senator Brown) put: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.15:55:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. 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.34Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Cooney, B. Kemp, R.Forshaw, M. G. Crane, W.McKiernan, J. P. Parer, W. R.Reynolds, M. Tambling, G. E. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Delegation Reports97597510000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I present the report of the Parliamentary Delegation to the United Kingdom, especially Wales, and Germany, which was undertaken between 5 and 19 June 1998. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the President's tabling statement be incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—I am pleased to table the report of the Parliamentary Delegation to the United Kingdom (especially Wales) and Germany, which was undertaken between 5-19 June 1998.The objective of Parliamentary delegations is twofold. Firstly, to maintain and develop relationships with other parliaments, and, secondly, and equally importantly, to present the views of Australia to parliaments, governments, industry, and educational and other institutions.Changes in GovernmentThis delegation was in the fortunate position of visiting the United Kingdom at a time when many of the most important changes in parliamentary institutions in the country's history were developing. Of particular interest were the issues of devolution, and the gradual establishment of a new structure of government in Northern Ireland.One of the reasons the delegation visited Wales was to obtain information on the implementation process of devolution. Although the public response to the issue of devolution in Wales had been far less decisive than that in Scotland, and there is by no means unqualified support by all political parties, the machinery for change was being developed. The Delegation members received detailed information on the ways in which responsi bilities were to be transferred and on the proposed role of the National Assembly.In later discussions and briefings in London from members of Parliament and from Ms Judith Mayhew of the London Corporation, the Delegation heard of major government changes in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, including proposals for changes to the House of Lords and parliamentary representation. In particular, the Delegation was fortunate enough to meet the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr Marjorie Mowlam, who discussed the political and social changes occurring at that time, and the detailed plans for the change of government in Northern Ireland. Other meetings and discussions were held with:. the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg;. Lord Clinton-Davis, then Minister of State for Trade and Industry. Mr Derek Fatchett, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Mr George Foulkes, Under Secretary of State for International Development. Mr Michael Ancram, then Opposition spokesman for Constitutional matters, now leader of the Conservative party;On 10 June, the Delegation attended Question Time in the House of Commons.In Germany the Delegation noted that the major issues in government were the then upcoming Federal elections, the effects of the reunification of Germany, and the impact on Germany of changes in Eastern Europe. Although changes were occurring in some of the Federal State governments—for example, the change to a unicameral system in Bavaria—there was no process equivalent to devolution. Much of the discussion about elections related to the concern expressed about the effect on Germany of changes to Eastern Europe and the problems of refugees and crime.Delegation members were fortunate to meet the then Premier of Lower Saxony, and President of the Bundesrat, Gerhard Schroeder, now Chancellor of Germany who hosted two events for the Delegation. The Delegation also had the opportunity of meeting the then President of the Bundestag, Dr Rita Sussmuth, and of attending sessions of the Bundestag and Bundesrat.In meetings held with politicians and officials at both State and Federal levels, the Delegation heard of the substantial economic and social changes that had occurred in Germany through the process of reunification. Delegation members saw evidence of the changes in Berlin in particular, and in a visit to the Berlin Adlershof also saw some of the extensive planning for industrial and infrastructure change. Trade and InvestmentAs I noted at the beginning, it is important for Parliamentary delegations to raise issues relating to Australia's needs in their meetings with a wide range of groups and organisations. At the time of the Delegation's visit, issues of particular concern were the crisis in Asia, and the effects of this on Australia; the need for new investment in Australia and in the role Australia might play in being a base for investment into Asia; and the need Australia had for new trade markets.These issues were raised in several forums in both the United Kingdom and Germany. In general, although understanding was expressed of Australia's difficult situation in being excluded from European markets, the Delegation felt that change was not likely and that access, particularly for agricultural products, would not improve.Several discussions were held on the need for investment and the development of new areas for trade and investment. In Germany the Delegation visited industrial sites and discussed the expanding market, including Asia, for environmental technology. This is a field where Germany has made considerable progress and exported technology to countries including Russia and China. Also in Germany, the Delegation participated in a very useful panel discussion at the Australia Centre at the University of Potsdam. The discussion covered several issues including the capacity of Australia to identify its needs and to establish itself in new areas. Members of the panel included a representative from Krupp and senior Potsdam and Berlin University staff.In the United Kingdom the Delegation discussed similar issues with members of Parliament and officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Delegation also discussed the effect of changes in Eastern Europe in both the United Kingdom and Germany, and the likely effects of major changes in finance such as the transition to a common currency from the beginning of 1999. In both the United Kingdom and in Germany there were extensive discussions on the situation in Kosovo.It appeared to members of the Delegation that the potential for growth in both the United Kingdom and Germany was very strong. The United Kingdom in particular appeared to be in a commanding position in the financial market, although there was concern about the strength of the pound in relation to exports and labour costs. The favourable situation of the United Kingdom was evident not only in the discussions held with government bodies and ministers but also in those discussions held with the London Corporation. The Corporation, which operates both as an ordinary council and as a major resource for investment for the City of London, was seen as providing a valuable guide to the ways in which government could assist in attracting investment.The Delegation also found that the short trip to Wales was valuable in providing an understanding of the ways in which substantial investment can lead to major change in a relatively short period. Although there is a belief that the south of Wales has been the major beneficiary of inward investment—with the Welsh Development Agency having attracted some £11 billion since 1983—Wales is a case study of quite substantial economic and industrial change. Formerly heavily dependent on mining and related activities, it has established diversified industrial activity and undertaken re-development of many degraded areas, most notably Cardiff Bay. The development of new industry and of tourism has also affected other areas of Wales.The effect of devolution on the development of Wales will be important; from the Delegation's perspective, the effectiveness of existing institutions (many of which will be retained in some form with devolution) and the involvement of Cardiff County Council in rapid growth of the immediate area, suggests that devolution will not adversely affect this expansion.Social changeThe major emphasis in the United Kingdom was on change in government, and adaptation to major political changes in Europe and further afield. Nonetheless, the Delegation noted that there was a clear direction on social change as an integral part of restructuring of government arrangements. This was perceived, for example, in the new emphasis on foreign aid, with a cancellation of debt to Commonwealth countries and the use of aid as a means of growth and self-management.It was also seen in the emphasis which was placed on social regeneration in both Wales and, to a greater degree, in Northern Ireland. Greater involvement in government was seen as an important part of meeting the needs of communities for peace, for improved employment opportunities, for housing, and for hope for a better life. Similarly, the changes to government in London include the mayor having responsibility for dealing with social issues including the very extensive areas of poverty in the city. The enthusiasm for change in the United Kingdom and the substantial achievements made by the Government have not led to an ignoring of the considerable problems of many communities both at home and abroad.In Germany the Delegation also saw the extent to which both the Federal states and the Federal Government dealing with massive problems in terms of unemployment, housing, crime and immigration and refugee issues. Although many of these will remain for a considerable period, these have to be seen in a context of achievements. Germany has spent substantial sums in the process of reunification, a task which we perhaps are unable to appreciate. It affected every aspect of life, from the political, the economic, the social and the cultural, and it has been a notable achievement that so much has been done.In addition to this ten year program, Germany has also had a substantial growth in its refugee population both from eastern Europe and from other parts of the world. This has placed a considerable strain on finances, and on broader social and economic adjustment. Much of the dissatisfaction in the community was reflected in the pre-election discussions, but clearly many of these issues are not amenable to simple solutions. The Delegation considered that Germany was dealing well with these issues considering the size of the refugee population and the other pressures experienced through reunification.In conclusion, I believe the Delegation worked very well as a team and achieved a great deal in a short time. I would like to thank Delegation members for their informed and thorough contributions to meetings and discussions. I would also like to thank all those involved in arranging the extensive series of meetings and briefings, including :Australian Embassy staff in both countries, especially H.E. the High Commissioner Phillip Flood in the United Kingdom and H.E the Ambassador Max Hughes in Germany.The German Federal government and the states governments;The United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, especially Andrew Pearson and Chris Jones;The British High Commission in Australia, especially H.E. the High Commissioner Alex Allan.The German Embassy, Australia, especially H.E. Dr. Klaus Zeller and Minister-Counsellor, Volker Fink.The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.Committees977977977977Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of the respective chairs, I present the following reports of legislation committees on annual reports: Community Affairs; Economics; Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education; Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts; Finance and Public Administration; Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; and Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport.Ordered that the reports be printed.978978978Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I present the report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee on matters referred to the committee during the previous parliament.Ordered that the report be adopted.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—Report on Matters Referred to the Committee in the Previous ParliamentThe Committee met and considered references not disposed of at the end of the 38th Parliament. It resolved to recommend to the Senate that-The following inquiries of the 38th Parliament be re-adopted:Tabling of indexed lists of files of departments and agencies (referred 21 August 1996 pursuant to the order of 30 May 1996 )The necessity for public accountability of all government services provided by government contractors (referred 4 November 1996; amended 27 May 1996 ).97810000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of committees.Motion (by Senator Heffernan)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Community Affairs References Committee— Appointed: Senator Tierney on completion of the committee's inquiry into the impact of government child care funding cuts on families, children and child care services Discharged: Senator Payne on completion of the committee's inquiry into the impact of government child care funding cuts on families, children and child care services Participating members: Senators Brownhill and Crane. Economics Legislation Committee— Participating member: Senator Parer.Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee— Participating member: Senator Crane.Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator Tierney to replace Senator Lightfoot for matters relating to the environment and information technology.Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee— Discharged: Senator Stott Despoja as a substitute member Participating members: Senators Crane and Stott Despoja.Finance and Public Administration References Committee— Appointed: Senator Gibson Discharged: Senator Watson.Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee— Substitute member: Senator Bourne to replace Senator Woodley for the committee's inquiry into the economic, social and political conditions in East Timor.Bills978r610978Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Heffernan) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.97816:02:00978Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—This amendment to the Aged Care Act 1997 continues to reflect the Government's commitment to not unduly burden small business with administrative red tape under the new aged care funding arrangements while, at the same time, providing quality aged care services with built in protections for older Australians.The Government has established the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency (the Agency) to manage the accreditation of aged care services. The Agency will play a leading role in ensuring that residential aged care facilities achieve and maintain high standards of care and accommodation.This amendment clarifies the Government's intention that the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency would charge appropriate fees for accrediting aged care services.From January 2001 all aged care services must be accredited in order to receive Commonwealth subsidy for the provision of aged care. The level of accreditation fee is expected to reflect the cost of the service and be comparable with other commercial accreditation arrangements in similar industries.Therefore the impact on aged care services of paying an "accreditation fee" every one or three years, depending on the quality of the service, will be minimal and the financial advantage of becoming accredited will far outweigh the requirement to pay fees.The Government consulted widely during the development of the Aged Care Act 1997 and associated Principles, and has listened to the concerns of service providers since the implementation of the Government's aged care reforms. The establishment and operation of the Agency were an outcome of this process.This amendment clarifies the current Agency arrangements set out in the Aged Care Act—the legislation that has seen the most significant reform to the provision of aged care in Australia over the last decade. The legislation that encourages innovation, flexibility and creativity in service delivery and planning.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Committees97997997916:03:00979O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I move:That the following matters be referred to the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 June 1999:(a) the development and implementation of the tendering process followed in the establishment of the privatised Job Network in 1998 and options to improve the process in future tender rounds;(b) the effectiveness of the Flex 3 component of the Job Network in providing skills, training and work experience to the long-term unemployed;(c) options to improve the quality and effectiveness of the delivery of employment services to the long-term unemployed, with particular reference to the young, the middle-aged, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, migrants and ex-offenders;(d) the impact on the quality of the delivery of the Job Network services to all unemployed people by the concentration of Flex 3 services in only four organisations and the implications of concentrating these services among four organisations for future Job Network tenders;(e) the effectiveness of the Job Network in delivering services to regional Australia and other areas of disadvantage and options to improve service delivery in these areas in future tender rounds;(f) the impact on unemployment numbers in both job poor areas and job rich areas of the Government's performance-based strategy; and(g) the effectiveness of the current regulation of the new competitive employment services market, to ensure fairness and quality and options to improve the regulation of the employment services market with the introduction of a new tender round.This motion essentially seeks to refer aspects of the government's employment services market arrangements to the committee, as outlined in the Notice Paper today.The question of the government's employment services market has had a rather chequered career in this place. Senators will recall that when Senator Vanstone was the minister she introduced legislation into the Senate seeking support for the arrangements the government proposed to put into place to replace the CES with its employment services market arrangements. Indeed, that legislation was the subject of an inquiry by this committee's predecessor—the legislation committee, not the references committee.Following that inquiry, there was a report from the majority government members and a report from the opposition minority members of the committee. Arising from those proceedings, the opposition and the Democrats moved certain amendments in this place to the government's legislation. Upon considering that matter and agreement to, I think, one of those amendments, Senator Vanstone announced that the government would not proceed with the passage of its legislation to underpin the establishment of the new employment services market arrangements but would proceed by administrative action, and proceeded to put into place the arrangements which have caused so much controversy, so much consternation, so much angst and so much disadvantage to the unemployed in the Australian community.I remind the Senate that one important aspect of the measures put in place was the restriction of the available services—as paid for by the Commonwealth through these new arrangements—to those of the unemployed who are entitled to benefits under the relevant social security act.So there was a set of arrangements which the government initially sought to put in place by legislative action. When the government could not get precisely the form of legislation that it desired, it told this Senate, the parliament and the Australian people, `We can achieve exactly what we want by putting in place, purely by administrative action, an arrangement relying upon existing laws of the parliament. No other correspondence will be entered into so far as legislative change is concerned.'It is well known that the arrangements the former minister Senator Vanstone put in place—before she was demoted and her place taken by Dr Kemp of the House of Representatives—have failed. Not only have they failed, they have failed miserably, to the extent that there have been a number of attempts, particularly by Dr Kemp, to patch up the arrangements which are now in place to try and deal with the haemorrhaging of this system, a system which is a matter of public policy. Its failure is so notable, so notorious, that the government has tried on two occasions to rectify what it has done.Apparently, from what I understand to have been comments by the minister in the other place yesterday, further changes will need to be made to the employment service market area, but they will require legislative change. So, in some way at least, this matter will come back to the Senate at some stage—next year, I suspect. To replace the CES, we have had a marketplace put in place by this government—they have spent in the vicinity of $1.7 billion, I think, of Commonwealth funds—which is a total failure and which has been the subject of notable attempts to rectify it. Again, these have been total failures.We now see a proposal by the opposition to inquire into the deficiencies of the system. Bear in mind that this, as I indicated, is a very large area of government expenditure. The government's position, as I am advised, is that they oppose the reference of this matter to a committee. Indeed, what they are telling other members of the committee is that they have the numbers to defeat this matter. I will be very interested to see whether that means they have Senator Colston's vote to effectively negate this motion in a tie or whether they claim also to have Senator Harradine's vote. We shall see. It would be very interesting if the government were to succeed in thwarting this request for a Senate references inquiry.May I say I have heard a number of reasons put by the government as to why we should not proceed at this stage. One of the reasons was that there had been an inquiry into unemployment, that that inquiry had touched upon the question of the employment services market and some questions had been asked. The terms of reference in this proposal, as proposed in my motion, will go far beyond any of the terms of reference which were before the committee which was conducting its work prior to the last election. More importantly, we are looking at a system which has been the subject of constant change and comment, even following the commencement of that inquiry and the conclusion of hearings prior to the last election. We have also heard comments, as I indicated yesterday, which talk of further change.This, as I said, is an area where an extraordinary amount of public money is being expended and—arguably—wasted. I think the question has to be asked: given that there are many questions which committees of this Senate inquire into, why is the government not prepared to agree that there be an inquiry into what is essentially one of the most critical aspects of public policy affecting a very large number of Australians who are unemployed or may become unemployed in the future and which has been put in place not by legislative action but by the administrative decision of this government?I think the only matter that would come to the public's mind when they thought of that was that the government was trying to hide the mistakes that it had made, the total shambles it created in the creation of this new employment services market; that it would be trying to hide some of the contractual arrangements it had entered into and that it would purport to hide behind so-called commercial-in-confidence arrangements which had been entered into on its behalf by the agency. Nevertheless, let me say we are persisting with the motion today on the basis that we think that thinking senators will not thwart the work of this place of inquiring into a great disaster implemented not by the Senate, but by this government—in fact, in defiance of this Senate.Let me remind Senator Harradine of his disgust at the actions of this government when it became clear they could not get their own way on every aspect of the legislative package. They did not pursue the package they put before the Senate: when it was amended, they withdrew it. I remind Senator Harradine that he was extremely critical of the government at that time. I urge Senator Harradine and all non-government senators to support the motion now before the Senate to initiate the inquiry. The timetable allows it to be completed in a period between the end of the so-called GST reference inquiry that this committee will undertake and 30 June. Let me say that if somehow the government succeed in thwarting this proposed inquiry at this stage, the matter will not go away; we will pursue this matter further when the new Senate takes its place after 30 June.I would have thought it to be pretty clear to the government that the outcome they might secure now will differ then, and it will not differ in terms of what this committee does. I suggest to the government that the appropriate course of action is to agree to this motion, to allow the committee to plan an appropriate way of pursuing this inquiry and of taking into account, as the motion before the Senate allows, any evidence which has been taken by the previous committee, to take any new evidence that is relevant and to bring down a report expeditiously by 30 June. This is a matter which concerns the Australian people and which involves great expenditure of money. This is an area which will be the subject of expenditure into the future.I call on the government to stop hiding behind their arrangements and allow an inquiry to take place. Perhaps we can assist the government, in a way that we were not allowed to do in relation to the legislation that was before this place, and get at least something good to come out of their shambles of the arrangements for the employment services market. Let me say that there have been other pieces of legislation that this government have brought into this place, for example, the aged care legislation, which have had problems. When we told the government all of the problems that would arise, the government chose to ignore them, used numbers in this place, passed the legislation and then found they had to backtrack. Let's deal with this matter properly. Let's get the inquiry under way, ascertain what the problems are and perhaps we will get them solved in time to help a few people.16:15:00981Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—The government will be opposing the proposed inquiry into the Job Network on two basic grounds—one being procedural and the other substantive. The procedural reason for not having an inquiry at this time is that the education committee that would be going to undertake such an inquiry has a number of things in train at the moment. It has a program that will take it through to the end of September next year. Its inquiries include one into Aboriginal education, which is about halfway through; a proposed inquiry into GST aspects of educational services, which will take up a large part of the first part of next year; and the inquiry currently before it into regional employment and unemployment. The terms of reference for that inquiry were put down almost a year ago, and the committee has spent virtually a whole year on it so far and looks like going into another year before it reports.That inquiry started in 1997 and will report in 1999. Despite Senator O'Brien's assurances, I am not convinced that the inquiry that he is proposing would be in such a narrow time frame as that suggested, given the legislative program next year and given the GST inquiries and Easter. I cannot quite see how you would fit it into such a time frame, particularly given the history of the other inquiry over the past year.The main procedural reason that it should not proceed at this point is that we are actually currently inquiring into the Job Network. Right around Australia, in all capital cities and in a lot of regional centres, when we undertook inquiries into regional employment and unemployment there was on each occasion—and, as the whole inquiry progressed, even more so—a percentage of time devoted to questions about the Job Network. The reason was that members of the opposition thought that they could have a good bash at the government before the election and could try to highlight issues relating to the Job Network in their local press. This was not a particularly successful strategy, and the Hansard record shows that over that period of time nearly 300 questions were asked by opposition members, in all parts of Australia and to a wide range of witnesses, about the Job Network. We still have not finished that inquiry. We have an inquiry date in a week or two in Canberra, where we will be talking to other groups of people and peak bodies, and then we will report.One of the problems about how long the whole process has taken is that the Job Network has evolved over that time, and so I am not too sure exactly what we are reporting on. We have actually taken evidence at different points in time as the Job Network system bedded down. So, if we give a historical perspective, some of the problems that people saw in the early part of the inquiry have been fixed by revisions by this government. I suppose that in our next hearing in Canberra we can manage to get an update on the Job Network—where it is up to at that time and what any perceived problems are—and then report in February. I would have thought that that covered the issue of the Job Network to this point in time.If members of the opposition want to bring the matter back later when the committee has finished its work on Aboriginal education, regional employment and unemployment, and the GST aspects that relate to education—which, as I said, will take us through to September next year—the government would look at it again at that point. But I would suspect that the program we have introduced with the Job Network would have been well and truly bedded down by that time and there would probably not be the need for such an inquiry, particularly as the political imperatives would have disappeared by that point in time.Senator O'Brien said a number of things about the Job Network, things which I would like to put a government perspective on. He said it was introduced by administrative arrangement and not by legislation. The government did legitimately have the power to do that, although that was not really its preferred course of action. It would have liked to have legislated for it; but, of course, members of the opposition, I would like to make plain, are the ones that prevented that happening. That was the only way that it could be done.When the system was introduced, it was introduced in place of a failed system known as the CES, the Commonwealth Employment Service, which was not providing properly for the unemployed in this country. Under the old system, about 11 per cent of all jobs were placed through the CES. Most other people made other arrangements for finding employment. The system was set up in a time of low unemployment and it managed to do its job reasonably effectively in times of low unemployment—and I am talking about after it was set up in the late forties, through into the fifties, sixties and early seventies. But it never quite coped with the difficulties created by a larger level of unemployment. So there has been an evolution over the years of governments that have tried with varying degrees of success to grapple with the problem.Probably the most spectacular failure of the last Labor government was its so-called Working Nation program. Senator O'Brien, in his criticism of Job Network, claimed that the government was wasting money. It is very well documented how much money the last Labor government wasted on Working Nation, where the placement rate was only about one-third. Two-thirds of the people under Working Nation, having gone through various programs at great expense to the taxpayer, ended up back on the unemployment queue, often greatly disillusioned. As a fellow said to us in one of the inquiries, it would have been better to have been left in the gutter than to have been picked up out of it and then dropped back in it again. That was his reaction to it.We had the situation of churning dole queues, where people were trained but there was no job for them and so they were retrained but there was still no job and so they were retrained again. As a matter of fact, in Wollongong they said they had the best-trained dole queues in the world. It was a program that failed spectacularly, and the Australian people showed their view of that—along with their view of a number of the other failures of the previous Labor government—in 1996, when they threw it out.A very different approach was needed, and that is what this government has brought in. The community sector has often taken a role in helping the unemployed, sometimes informally and sometimes with government assistance. The business sector—groups like Drake Personnel and others—has always been involved in the employment market and, of course, the government, through the CES, has been involved in the employment market. Under Job Network, this government created a more flexible and more formal arrangement where those various sectors could compete in providing job services.The broad approach was actually founded on the very sound principle that people who were trying to get people employed were to be funded based on success of placement. The feeling was that this should turn around the rate of success so that it was better than the failed Working Nation program. As the minister at the time, Dr Kemp, said on many occasions, very early on Job Network was outperforming the old CES and had the potential, after some of the teething problems had been solved, to do quite a lot better.As I mentioned before, the whole system has been bedding down since 1 May this year. It has been in a process of evolution over that time. It has got a particularly bad press, aided and abetted by the ALP, and Senator O'Brien made some rather strange statements today. He talked about `great angst in the community', and `great disaster' was another phrase he used. These things do not become a reality by opposition members constantly saying them. You really have to ask the job providers what their view of it is, and that certainly is not their view at all. The vast majority of them think the system is working quite successfully, and have said so—and in terms of their own operations the vast majority of them are.A number of providers in the new system had never been in the system before. It is understandable that they would make some commercial mistakes in the way in which they undertook the tendering process, assuming that in the FLEX 1, FLEX 2 and FLEX 3 system they might pick up two of those types of programs and be able to cross-subsidise. Of course, when they picked up only one type, particularly FLEX 1, they did not have that opportunity and a number of them got into some difficulty because of that. We are about to move into the second tendering round, and I think as we move into this process the realities of how this system works will be a lot more apparent to people in business and they will make much wiser judgments this time around in their tendering.The important thing is that we have a flexible system which has, compared with the old CES, a much wider range of providers and many more locations where people can come and access the service. The very important point that is at the centre of this is that it must work through success of the end product. No matter how much money we put into the support of job services, the key measuring variable at the end of the day is: do people get a job at the end of the process?The Labor government's approach, despite the enormous amount of money it put into that approach over the years, was demonstrably a failure. This system provides greater flexibility and provides market forces to determine who gets what services, which businesses set up what services and where those services are located. It is a much better opportunity to have a system that is more robust and more successful and, at the end of the day, doing what these work support systems must do, that is, get people through and, finally, place them in a job.16:27:00984Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will be supporting the motion to refer Job Network to a Senate inquiry for consideration of its operation and design. We have repeatedly called for such a review.I will tackle a couple of points put forward this afternoon by Senator Tierney on both policy and process grounds. I acknowledge the many terms of reference before Senate committees in this place. I also acknowledge the workload of the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee. For those reasons it is sad that the government did not take the initiative and establish an independent and wide-ranging inquiry into the design and operation of Job Network.On many occasions this government has had the opportunity. In fact, with a new minister in place, a minister specifically responsible for employment services, there was a wonderful opportunity for the government to say, `We acknowledge that there has been a number of faults and flaws in this system.' I do not think anyone in their right mind can deny that there has been confusion and at times administrative chaos in the system and, yes, there will also be examples where it may be working well. It would have been a wonderful opportunity to examine, right across the board, what was going right and what was going wrong for precisely the reason put forward by Senator Tierney: that we are approaching that second tendering round, and let us get it right now. The unemployed in this country, not to mention private providers with a stake in the system and not to mention the government, deserve no less, and that is a system that is functioning well.Yes, there is a heavy workload on most Senate committees, but this is a matter of urgency. This is a particularly important issue. I am sure many people on the other side of the chamber would join me in suggesting that employment is perhaps one of the most crucial issues—if not the number one issue—facing Australians today. Therefore this government has an incredible responsibility to those Australians—job seekers, Centrelink employees and Job Network providers alike—to get this system functioning well.Senator Tierney also mentioned the issue of jobs more generally and the role in job creation of making sure that we are not just putting people onto cyclical training schemes or failing to provide job opportunities for Australians. I do not think anyone in this chamber would disagree with that notion, but I suspect that some of us are more conscious than others that we should be looking to create opportunities for employment that are full-time, sustainable, meaningful and ongoing. I have not seen from this government any particular job creation strategies that result in those kinds of job opportunities, not just for young Australians, who I suggest have, in many respects, borne the brunt of structural change in our work force, but right across the board; specifically, the record number of long-term unemployed in our society today. I would like to see some job creation policies coming forward from the government.I recognise that a plank of theirs is supposedly the Job Network system, so let us get it right. We have an opportunity before the Senate today to get it right. The Democrats understand that this system is not going away. This competitive model has been adopted by the government. I heard in the House yesterday the shadow minister offering bipartisan support, making a plea to get it right. It is not going to change. We are not going to see a radical overhaul of this competitive model. Some of us, the Democrats in particular, are not committed to this competitive model, but we are realistic. It is not going away, so let's get it right. That is why we have called repeatedly for a review of the Job Network. There are some fundamental things that could be done tomorrow to get it right.There is also a unique opportunity at this stage of its development to call on and consult with some of those key players. I note, unfortunately, that even the new minister with his huge responsibility for employment services has not consulted as widely and as broadly as he should have. I note again with disappointment that I hear Senator Tierney referring to the views of some of the providers. I did not see Senator Tierney, with all due respect, I did not see Dr Kemp, with all due respect, and I did not see the new minister, with all due respect, front up to the National Employment Services Association's meeting of all the private providers who could possibly fit in one room at one time in Melbourne a couple of months ago.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—They didn't invite me.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I wish they had. Dr Kemp, as I understand, originally accepted the invitation, but the excuse he gave for not turning up was that government was in caretaker mode. Presumably that meant that everything shut down for a couple of weeks while everyone decided their new portfolios—an amazing luxury. Martin Ferguson, the shadow minister, turned up. I was very happy to be there. I think I spoke in Dr Kemp's spot, actually.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Was he invited?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—He was invited but no-one fronted up. I have made the political point and I have made the procedural point, just to answer the process grounds that Senator Tierney put forward about the role of the committee. Yes, it would have been great if an independent, well resourced committee, at the initiative of the government, not just with bipartisan but with tripartisan support, had been constructed, but that is not happening. This is an urgent issue, so procedurally we must do it in the form of a Senate committee.Senator Tierney raised some issues on policy grounds. Overwhelmingly, we have seen difficulties in this system since its implementation in May this year. The scheme is not piloted. It is one of the most radical experiments with employment services in the world, if not unprecedented. It was called `a bold gamble' by the government. This gamble has produced widespread confusion as its dividend. Since May this year, my office—and I suggest all offices—with the responsibility of employment and a number of other issues for the Democrats, has been deluged with calls, emails and letters from individuals begging for reform, from job seekers right through to private providers and organisations, some of which have been badly affected, with suggestions as to how it could be improved. The new minister has met with some employment agencies but has not consulted as broadly as he should have. The Democrats have always maintained that Job Network must be subject to a comprehensive and fully inclusive review, and that means everyone. Everyone who is involved in this system must be given an opportunity to point out not just the defects but some of the parts that are working well.The Democrats will seek to amend the terms of reference put forward by Senator O'Brien. In our amended terms of reference, we would see the inquiry examine all areas of design and operation of the Job Network, from the consequences of delivering employment services on a competitive model to the operation of the job seeker classification instrument. Only in this way do we believe that the problems within the system can be acknowledged, addressed and hopefully fixed by the commencement of the next tender round. I really believe that all the players in this system deserve no less.Job Network was a bold gamble implemented by government not only in a radical fashion but at a time when agencies like Centrelink were dealing with a number of other so-called bold initiatives—the imple mentation of the common youth allowance, expansion of work for the dole. There have been other stresses and strains on the system—not the least of which have been resources. There have been strains on Centrelink staff when it has come to training and other service provision, not to mention the stresses they are currently experiencing with the threat of 5,000 jobs to be lost by the end of the next financial year.The Democrats believe, under this competitive model, that Job Network is flawed in its conception, design and indeed in its implementation. Since it was first announced, the Democrats have called for a review just so that we can ensure, if we going to use this system, that we get it right. We believe that the very ideology that underpins this system is wholly inappropriate. I find something quite bizarre in the application of market forces to the provision of employment services for unemployed people. Many of these people have found themselves out of work as a consequence of the very operation of these market services.We have seen as a consequence of the application of these market forces a fundamentally flawed tendering process. I defy anyone in the chamber to suggest that the tender process was without flaws. I think a flawed process has produced a flawed outcome. Instead of rewarding commitment and proven records of expertise, the government rewarded size and low cost tenders. We saw the closure of long established, dedicated community organisations. This represents an incalculable loss to the community as a whole. The links with local communities and the specialised skill and knowledge which this engendered cannot be replicated by organisations which are new to the area or to the industry altogether.On 25 August this year, an announcement was made by the minister at the time, Dr David Kemp, who no longer has responsibility for employment. Senator O'Brien referred to his demotion. I am not sure whether it was a demotion or whether it was so that he could focus more on higher education institutions. The notion that he can play full-time with universities, with all due respect, scares me. On 25 August, the minister made an announcement that there should be changes; that there should be an injection of funds into the Job Network. An amount of $55 million was put into the new system and there was a widening of the eligibility criteria.These are not gestures by a government that is not nervous about the operation of its system. This is not a move by a government that is confident in the lead-up to an election that this system will withstand any criticism. It was clearly a stop-gap pre-election measure designed to stop criticism. In many cases this measure of a widening of the eligibility criteria—long overdue—will increase the strain on agencies. We believe that further reform should have been undertaken at that time and, indeed, now as a matter of urgency.We have long supported a fully comprehensive investigation into and review of the system. As a result, we would prefer that such a review would analyse all aspects of design and operation, with recommendations coming down in time for inclusion in the 1999 budget, with changes to be implemented at the end of the first contractual term in November 1999.The changes that the Democrats would seek to make, in the form of our amendments, add in most cases to the terms of reference. We seek to include the competitive model. As I have said, unlike the opposition and the government, the Democrats do not believe we should retain the competitive model of service delivery. We acknowledge that it is most likely to be retained, but it is worth examining some of the concerns of welfare organisations and some providers that the competitive model militates against appropriate service delivery.We are also keen to examine the issue of fee charging arrangements. I understand that many of these amendments are supported by members of the opposition. The practice of fee charging arrangements continues. We would like to ascertain the extent to which fee charging is occurring and to which it operates as a disincentive to employers to use the Job Network and to create new jobs.We also want to look at the classes of job seekers. The Democrats would like to broaden the scope of this term to include job seekers with disabilities and those from non-English speaking backgrounds. I understand that is agreeable to Senator O'Brien. Further, we believe that mature age people should be a focus of this inquiry—the mature age unemployed as well as the long-term unemployed.With reference to the number of organisations, the original tender round actually resulted in the concentration of 66 per cent of the FLEX 3 market in five organisations, with 80 per cent being concentrated in the top 20—another area for examination.We would also seek to include the examination of the effect of the abolition of the Employment Services Regulatory Authority and look at options for the development of a regulatory process or body to protect consumers, regions and social equity. So we would seek to broaden the terms of reference to include a regional and job seeker oriented focus.We want to look at some of the guidelines that can be adopted to ensure that all job seekers receive appropriate levels of training to enable them to become work ready. We seek to look at the job seeker classification instrument, which has been criticised for excluding job seekers from assistance which they would have automatically been entitled to under the old system. Of particular concern are the reports that young people are especially disadvantaged under this new system. And, of course, there is Centrelink: examining the effect of staff and resource cuts, the continued imposition of the efficiency dividend and the anticipated effects of the recently announced Centrelink business plan. These are all crucial issues which not only on policy grounds but also from the process perspective—to use Senator Tierney's terminology—deserve examination as a matter of urgency.If we had any reason to believe that there were no changes taking place in the area of Job Network that we had further cause to be concerned about, we had only to listen to the comment by the relevant minister, the Minister for Employment Services, Mr Abbott, in the House of Representatives the day before yesterday that the unemployed may be forced to use Job Network or risk losing their income support. I look forward to hearing clarification of that notion in this place because certainly the Australian Democrats found it a contemptible notion. We already acknowledge that unemployed people are subject to quite stringent activity testing arrangements to ensure that they are engaged in some kind of job search activity. If they are currently complying with the criteria by searching through the jobs classifieds or, through their own initiative, investigating work options, why should they be penalised? That was certainly the logical conclusion to be drawn from the minister's comments in the House of Representatives the other day.We believe that the reason why many of these job seekers and employers at both ends of the spectrum are shunning the new system is that it just simply is not working adequately. So instead of getting angry or penalising people for not utilising the new system, why not examine why they are not using the system in the first place? Again, it is another example by this government of deflecting blame or denying that there may be a crisis in confidence within its own system, that its own system may be flawed in its operation and in its very design. Instead, they say, `Let's move the focus to the unemployed,' and suggest that maybe they should be penalised or treated in some punitive fashion for not using Job Network when they may very well be—and I suspect in most cases—undertaking the necessary investigations for work that they are expected to. It should be remembered that they can get breached under the current criteria and that they are subject to those activity testing arrangements.Claims by the government, and they have been repeated here today by Senator Tierney, that it is bad publicity are unjustified. The claims that the bad publicity itself is unjustified are extraordinary, because they ignore the very real concerns that have been publicly expressed by a number of groups. This is not just a political point scoring exercise. These concerns have been brought forward by a number of political parties now, but they have also been echoed by those representatives involved in the private provision of employment services—those people who attended that very wide-ranging National Employment Services conference in Melbourne. I cannot say that they were all of one mind. There was a range of groups—welfare organisations, organisations such as Drake Personnel, and new and old private providers—yet they all had some concerns about this system.So claims that these groups have some kind of axe to grind are completely unfair, because it is in their interest for this system to work well. It is in their interest to ensure that their businesses and their job agencies do not go to the wall—certainly before the end of this year, as has been predicted. We have already seen closures, yet these groups—welfare organisations, unions—have not been able to get a look-in on the minister's so-called current consultations with providers. We believe that the flawed reforms are a result of this lack of consultation and a denial and an unwillingness to recognise that there may be some flaws in the system. The Democrats believe that the government should look first to fixing Job Network rather than placing further burdens on the unemployed.I seek leave to move the Democrats amendments standing in my name.Leave granted.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I move:(1) Before paragraph (a), insert:(aa) the operation and performance of the competitive model of employment services delivery, comparative to that of the CES and contracted case management system;(2) After paragraph (a), insert:(ab) the impact of fee charging by employment service providers on unemployment levels and job creation;(3) Paragraph (c), omit "middle-aged", substitute "mature-aged, people with disabilities".(4) Paragraph (c), after "migrants", insert "and those from Non-English Speaking Backgrounds,".(5) Paragraph (d), omit "four" (wherever occurring), substitute "five".(6) Omit paragraph (g), substitute:(g) the impact of the abolition of the Employment Services Regulatory Authority and options for the incorporation of a qualitative monitoring process into the system to enforce appropriate guidelines protecting consumers, regions and social equity; (h) options for development and enforcement of appropriate guidelines on how training is to be delivered by providers, including minimum standards;(i) the design and operation of the Job Seeker Classification Instrument; and(j) the levels of Centrelink staff and funding relative to the demands placed on the agency, and the effect of further staff cuts and moves to assigning clients to named officers.16:46:00988Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I stand to briefly support the referral by Senator O'Brien of matters to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee. There are a number of reasons for this. I am constantly amazed by the fact that representatives of the government will use whatever public statements job providers may or may not have made as an indication of how well they are doing on the issue of job provision.You only have to look at various aspects of government policy to see what happens when public statements are made by groups which rely on government for funding. For instance, migrant women's groups during the debate on the industrial relations legislation happened to mention that there were problems for migrant women in the changes to industrial relations to deregulate the work force, leaving them without support. What happened to the Australian Youth Policy Alliance when they wanted to engage the government and the public in discussions on youth policy?Who is going to speak up on these issues? Will private providers speak up? As I said, they may in a closed conference, but when it comes to the public what have they got at stake? I keep thinking of the cartoon, the Wizard of Id. What happens when the peasant says, `The King is a fink'? The King may well be a fink, and the fink might basically suggest that they have policies that are good and would like everyone to continue to say that. But if, as in the Wizard of Id, the peasant says, `The King is a fink,' what happens? The peasant or Sir Rodney find themselves upside down in the torture chamber in shackles. I think that is the image of what we have in this community. It is not valid for the government to ask, `What have these groups said publicly in relation to our policies?' when their very process is to gag or to cut out the tongues—in a theoretical sense—of any groups who dare to speak up.In Western Australia during the election campaign I am aware that any time there was a forum, whether it was on education, employment, youth or so on, that the coalition representatives who were invited considered to be a `political forum'—and I do not know how this was in other states—they chose not to turn up. There were some that coalition people attended, but in many cases—I attended three or four fora during the election campaign—the coalition representatives chose not to turn up because, they said, it was a political forum. I do not think they wanted to be in a situation where, in public, there were criticisms of government policy and they would be in a situation where they had to respond to them.It is like the three monkeys: `We can't see, we can't hear and we can't speak about the criticisms of our policy.' That does not make for a strong democracy and it does not make for strong government. It does not allow the government to come into this chamber and say, `Listen, we're not hearing any responses.' They do not want to hear. They are not going to the fora. They were not listening during the election campaign, and they do not want to hear community groups, support groups or lobby groups who have legitimate concerns and who would like to express them. Therefore, I think it is quite proper for the Senate to conduct the inquiry. It is quite proper for the government to have the opportunity to hear from a range of community groups—community providers, private providers, the government sector, unemployed people, and those lobby groups still in existence that have not yet been gagged or destroyed by the government.It is certainly no way to run the country and no way to run major changes in policy. In the end there will, of course, be ongoing disasters for any government that does not want to hear the truth about the impacts of its policies and does not want to make the changes that are necessary before it is too late.16:51:00989Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—In supporting this motion I intend to refer to some of the more recent history about the Job Network debacle, building on the comments of my colleague Senator O'Brien. However, before I do that, I think I should respond to the arguments put forward for the government by Senator Tierney. He dealt with this reference in relation to both procedural and substantive issues. Dealing firstly with the procedural issues: as chair of the new Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Committee—Senator Tierney referred to education, but of course it is much broader than that—I would like to respond to his claims that the current business before the committee would preclude us dealing appropriately with this reference.With respect to the matters currently before the committee, Senator Tierney referred to the regional employment inquiry, which the committee now plans to conclude before it engages in the GST inquiry. There are two levels of the argument in relation to the regional employment inquiry, but let us just deal with the issue of timing at this stage. Senator Tierney then also mentioned that apart from the GST inquiry there is the indigenous education inquiry, which we plan to continue to conduct up until about September next year.A general rule of thumb I have been given as a chair of committees—and I expect that after the workplace relations inquiry I am reasonably well-known for a fair degree of stamina; and there was no time blow-out in that one—is that a committee should not deal with more than two inquiries at the one time. The planning we looked at today would allow this committee to deal with this reference during the months of April and May next year. At that stage, by about February, we would have concluded the regional employment inquiry, we would then be conducting the GST inquiry, which would be concluded by the end of March. That would then leave April and May to deal with both this reference and the one which has existed, as Senator Tierney said, for quite some time, in relation to indigenous education. Although, in relation to potential hearings for indigenous education, the times proposed were actually in the break in July, so again that leaves the April and May period fairly much open.I am surprised that the government does not actually look favourably at this reference as an indicator that the committee has no intention of seeking to blow out the GST inquiry, because if we have any hope of dealing with these issues through April and May, as proposed in this reference, then obviously we are not wanting to be continuing to deal with the GST and would be reporting on time to the select committee on that. But again it is in a planned process that would allow the committee to occupy itself with no more than two inquiries at the one time.Now I deal with Senator Tierney's comments with respect to the regional employment inquiry and how in its next hearings it might hear more in relation to the Job Network. The evidence collected by the regional employment inquiry relates predominantly to Job Network mark I. We have experienced Job Network mark II, and the one hearing day that is being allowed to wind up the regional employment inquiry and hear from the government department and peak organisations before the end of this year is obviously not going to put us in a position to be focusing on Job Network issues in any substance—certainly not in a position to make any evaluation of the issues with respect to the impact of Job Network mark II. Obviously the committee is definitely not going to be in the position to analyse the effects of Job Network mark III, which will obviously be under investigation by the reference that is proposed here.Senator Tierney referred to how the Job Network issues have evolved. Of course they have evolved in a much broader sense than just regional employment issues. Were we solely to rely on the regional employment inquiry, it would be pointed out that the scope of that is to focus on regional employment issues and that there are much broader issues and much broader problems that need to be investigated than those which were examined by the regional employment committee. That is not to say that the evidence collected by that committee is not significant. There will probably be about a full chapter in the report relating to Job Network, but again that is the evidence that was collected in the context of an inquiry into regional employment, not in terms of the context of an inquiry into the problems—as Senator Stott Despoja said, the urgent problems—associated with employment and the Job Network. Perhaps that is the time to go back to referring to issues of substance at stake in relation to this reference.More recent history has been referred to by both Senator O'Brien and Senator Stott Despoja in relation to a motion moved by Senator Stott Despoja highlighting the new proposed changes to deflect attention onto the unemployed by indicating that the government was looking at tightening up access to income support on the basis of whether people had referred themselves to the Job Network. Senator Stott Despoja in this motion rightly points out that not only is this blame shifting but also that the government needs to look at the design and operation flaws in the system—and again that is what this reference is proposing.But the most recent example of the problems involved in this area came from the minister's response to the issue in question time yesterday. I want to take one point there, because it highlights a fairly large contradiction between what the government or the minister is saying, what the general public seems to understand—or certainly what the media seems to understand—and what the figures seem to highlight. I read a brief section of what Mr Abbot put to the House of Representatives in question time yesterday:Any idea that this government is scapegoating jobs seekers is completely wrong. This government is determined to ensure that people on newsearch take jobsearch seriously.That's probably newstart. He says:A small minority who do not take it seriously taint—I don't know why we have to use that word with respect to the unemployed but anyway—a much larger number who do.Yet in the Australian today there is a report in relation to the same issue which says that the changes which will be introduced before the end of the year come as more than half of 260,000 short-term unemployed are still refusing to use the Job Network to find work. So we have the minister saying it is a small minority, and we have the Australian indicating that more than half of the 260,000 short-term unemployed are refusing to use the Job Network.The language here is very interesting too. The word `refusing', I think, helps us highlight where the real issues actually lie. I went searching on the Centrelink and Job Network home pages today. I have new portfolio responsibilities in this area, and I was astounded by what I found. I found that the home page for the Job Network refers to a number of things in relation to the Job Network. I will read a section from the home page:When you register for Newstart or Youth Allowance, you will be asked to do a number of things, including: completing a claim form, sign a looking for work from—that should be `form'; that is an error on the home page—. . . provide proof of your identity, and make an appointment for an interview. When you are handed to claim—That should the `the claim'. That is another error on the home page. I hope these are not the people helping people with CVs. To continue:. . . form you will be advised of all the documents you will need to bring along to the interview to have your claim processed.The Job Network home page also says:The new arrangements eliminate duplication—previously job seekers had to go to Department of Social Security offices as well as the CES. Now you will only need to go to your local Centrelink office to register as unemployed, or use the Job Network Access facilities to get information on Job Network Members.Nowhere here does it recommend to new job seekers that they actually seek to enrol with a Job Network member. So we are shifting blame onto these unemployed people and the information that they are given when they register with Centrelink does not even encourage them to register with one of these providers. So let us look at fixing the system.But, of course, we have the problems in the system that we were debating in the last sitting week. The original problem of Job Network, particularly with the providers staying viable in business, was the slow Centrelink referrals. We had hoped that that had been fixed. But now we have the extreme Centrelink service and staff cuts, and obvious errors such as this one, which show that when the unemployed turn up to Centrelink they are not even being encouraged, before they are being compelled, to register with Job Network providers. So we have an overreaction by the government, which is saying, `We are going to force these people to do these things,' when they have not even been trying to encourage them. Centrelink does not have the staffing resources to sit down with people and suggest to them properly, on most occasions, that that it is the next obvious step that they should be taking.The other issue which needs to be highlighted in relation to the real problems of employment services is, as was briefly mentioned by Senator Stott Despoja, the issue of real and fair competition and real diversity in services for the unemployed. One of the issues raised in the estimates hearings some time ago concerned the capacity of the unemployed to make an informed choice. Despite assurances from the minister at the time, there is still no information available to help the unemployed determine whether their choice is overresourced or underresourced or to offer them the assistance they need to make any real value assessments in terms of which agency they choose to provide them with the service. So that deals with the diversity problem at the moment.The other problem has been alluded to in some of the comments today, and that is in relation to real and fair competition. That is the part of the system that is not really working. That is one of the big parts that we need to investigate by picking up Senator Tierney's point and asking job providers how the system is working. We need to do that in an open consultative forum rather than in the recent new minister's consultations, which have been very closed and have not provided information to help deal with the obvious problems of public confidence in the Job Network system.Public confidence is a very big issue. You are not going to encourage new job seekers to use the system if everybody they talk to says that it is not working. If the agencies say that the system is not working, you are not going to encourage them. You are not going to encourage them if employers are saying that they will not use the thing, as in the example of Woolworths. So what does this government do? It takes the next step and says, `Now we are going to compel them. The system doesn't work, but we're going to compel the people to use it.' This is the most recent example of how ludicrous is the government's plan of dealing with this issue. A real investigation is both procedurally possible and urgently required. We cannot continue with responses such as victim blaming.Senator Stott Despoja has also indicated the issue of employment generation. We also need to look at the problems involved with FLEX 3 and how well that fits in with permanent employment generation so that people are not being recycled through the system. We have a chronic problem with long-term unemployed. It is a problem that is getting worse. We have a system where many of our employment service providers are focusing more on surviving in the competitive system against the big players than on providing services to the unemployed.Let me go back to Senator Tierney's comments on the substantive issue that we needed a different approach. Perhaps we did need a different approach—I am not going to concede that point—but we certainly need to review what has gone on in that change of approach. Given the amount of public debate on this issue, the review needs to be much broader than a closed ministerial consideration.Senator Tierney referred to balancing the community sector, the business sector and the government sector. The community sector is being killed by this system. Not only did we knock out many of the service providers that had been providing valuable services to the unemployed for years—through the debacle of the tender process, to the extent that many of them will not be around for the next tender process—but we also now have the current providers unable to compete with the big business providers. The focus of the big business providers will be on their accounting and their bottom line, not on the unemployed.We need an inquiry that will not only talk to the Job Network providers but will also talk to the unemployed. It will deal with the various interest groups who are experiencing problems with the system. Consultation by the minister has been relatively limited. It certainly has not been broad enough to encompass all of the problems that continue to come forward, on a day by day basis, with the Job Network. This is not an election inquiry—we are well out from a future election. This is about a cross-partisan approach to fixing the problems being identified with respect to Job Network and the unemployed.There is no other issue, at this point of time, that should be of more concern to a Senate committee whose purview is employment, workplace relations, small business and education. I cannot think of a more significant issue than the problems being experienced by the unemployed in a system that has completely turned on its head services to the unemployed—and problems are coming up day by day.I would like to conclude my comments by returning to the point that Senator Tierney raised. As a matter of procedure, this inquiry is certainly possible. As the new chair of the committee, I believe the programming that has been discussed allows, quite feasibly, for this inquiry to be conducted during the months of April and May next year.If we deal with this reference now, before we conclude this session, then obviously those involved in this sector will have significant time to prepare the information we need to gather and will be in the position to focus on this issue at that time. That is why it is important that we deal with it now. If we delay this until July when the new Senate will commence, the problems will just continue. The potential is there for us to achieve cross-party support to fix this system. Given the government's concern with ensuring that the GST inquiries are concluded by March, I am absolutely astounded that they are not prepared to support an inquiry such as this which would immediately follow those inquiries. They know that the opposition and the other parties are focused on wanting to deal with this issue and we will make sure that we do so.17:10:00993O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I am indebted to my colleague Senator Collins for outlining the argument against not endorsing this inquiry on the basis that the committee is unable to logistically fit the inquiry's business into its timetable. I might say that I was required to leave the chamber during part of the government's deliberations on this matter, due to a commitment with the Selection of Bills Committee.It is clear that the committee has the opportunity and the time to give this inquiry proper consideration; to allow members of the public and providers to make their submissions under parliamentary privilege; and to have their submissions considered and a report presented to the Senate—this Senate, as it is now constituted—before 30 June.Indeed, given that it is self-evident that there is the time, the question must be asked why the government is so vehemently opposed to the conducting of this inquiry. The government has just as much opportunity as anybody else to put a point of view and, in the absence of a unanimous committee position, to present that view of the evidence to the Senate and to the public. The only reason remaining for the government to seek to avoid this inquiry is the fact that it gives members of the public and providers the opportunity to put their view under the protection of parliamentary privilege.Some mention was made of organisations such as APAC, for example, who found that their funding was removed because they were critical of this government. I cannot think of any group of people who are more at risk in terms of their ongoing viability than the contracted providers who might be looking at being contracted in another round under the so-called Job Network. The ability to present their views, under parliamentary privilege, would ensure that they had some come back if they were not dealt with properly in the second round. Having reflected upon the reason for the government opposing and not wanting this inquiry, it seems to me that that is the only reason that is logically available. The only conclusion is that this government is intent on obscuring from the public all of the warts, all of the pitfalls, and all of the problems of the Job Network system; and that this government is not concerned that there is a possibility we might actually find something which assists in rectifying the problem.The rectification of the problems is, at least initially, in the hands of the government, this being a system which was established by administrative decision and not by the legislation of this parliament. It is clear, however, that the government will need to legislate in relation to this matter and in relation to some of the announcements which have been made recently.The amendment proposed by Senator Stott Despoja on behalf of the Democrats will be supported by the opposition. We are happy to broaden, to the extent that the amendment proposes, the scope of the inquiry. Notwithstanding that, we believe it is still possible to complete the inquiry according to the timetable which we have sought. We would not be seeking to deny any relevant person or organisation an opportunity to put their submission to the inquiry. To the extent that the amendment broadens that opportunity, we would support it.We look forward, when the inquiry is on the road and hearing its evidence, to the presence of Senator Stott Despoja—and also members of the government—to assist us in the conduct of the inquiry around the country. However, if individual members of the committee have doubts about whether they will be available at the times so provided, this matter is so important that I think it is incumbent upon them to arrange for a replacement if they are not available. A number of senators in this place would, I think, look forward to the opportunity to participate in an inquiry of this nature. It is one of the duties of senators to make themselves available to do the business of the Senate in accordance with the timetables laid down by the Senate.I was disappointed to hear Senator Margetts's comments about the non-attendance of certain members of the committee at hearings during the last election campaign, but we note that it is possible for a committee to continue its business provided a majority of members are present, even though members of the particular parties that constitute—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—That was not about hearings, that was about public meetings.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—It was public meetings, I apologise. Nevertheless, it is possible for the committee to conduct its hearings with a majority of its members, even though members—be they opposition, government or Democrats—choose not to be there. It is possible for the Senate to conduct its business and it is not possible for a single party to frustrate the business of the committee. Having said that, I commend the motion to the Senate. I indicate, as I have previously, that the opposition will be supporting the Democrats amendment and will treat this matter very seriously. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Stott Despoja's ) be agreed to.17:21:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)32Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. Lees, M. H.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H. *Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Carr, K. Alston, R. K. R.Cook, P. F. S. Minchin, N. H.Faulkner, J. P. Hill, R. M.Lundy, K. Kemp, R.Ray, R. F. Macdonald, I.West, S. M. Tambling, G. E. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative. Original question put: That the motion (Senator O'Brien's ) be agreed to.17:27:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)32Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. Lees, M. H.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H. *Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Carr, K. Alston, R. K. R.Cook, P. F. S. Minchin, N. H.Faulkner, J. P. Hill, R. M.Lundy, K. Kemp, R.Ray, R. F. Macdonald, I.West, S. M. Tambling, G. E. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous99599517:30:00995Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I move:That regulation 7.6 of the Migration Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 210 and made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed.For the benefit of those listening to the debate, this regulation imposes a mandatory condition on bridging visas granted to applicants for judicial review or persons seeking ministerial intervention in a decision of a review officer, the Immigration Review Tribunal, the Refugee Review Tribunal or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that the holder of that bridging visa must not engage in employment in Australia.Before addressing why I believe this regulation should be disallowed, I would like to address one technical matter first. A number of people in the community have raised concerns with me about whether or not it is valid to disallow regulation 7.6, and I have sought a range of advice on this. For the benefit of the Senate, I seek leave to table written advice from the Clerk on this matter, which says that it is as certain as anything can be that the disallowance motion would be effective if passed.Leave granted.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—Whilst not wanting in any way to imply that the Clerk or any of his advisers might ever be wrong on any matter such as this, given the way the law is, it was also suggested that it might be appropriate to seek a commitment from the minister that, if the disallowance motion were passed, the government would accept it as valid. I have had a number of conversations with the minister and his office to that effect and they have given that assurance. Given that a similar disallowance has occurred in the past, it is not surprising but, to ensure that there is absolutely no confusion, I record that commitment from the minister. If the minister's representative is able to acknowledge that in their comments, that would be of assistance.Moving on to the substance of why I think it would be a good thing for this to be disallowed, I acknowledge at the start that matters such as these are difficult matters. The job of Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs would be one of the more difficult in government, and I do not envy him his job in trying to wrestle with the very real and different competing issues. Basically, the government's argument about why it is necessary to prevent people from being able to work whilst they are on bridging visas seeking appeal or consideration of their case is that too many people are abusing the existing law to delay deportation. Whilst I do not doubt that there are some who are abusing the current circumstances, it is fairly debatable whether that is a majority of people. I would also suggest that one of the important aspects of good law-making or good regulation-making is ensuring as much as is humanly and legally possible that innocent people are not also punished via mechanisms that aim to catch people that are abusing the system or abusing the law, and I think very clearly that this is a case where that is occurring.It is important to emphasise that the situation prior to this regulation coming into effect was not that of an automatic right to work. People were granted the right to work as part of their bridging visa conditions only at the discretion of the minister or the department on grounds of need. It is important at a time when refugees and migrants have been under attack—especially from, but not limited to, the One Nation party and by others in the community in recent times—that we do look at the signals that we send out to the community about how we treat and how we perceive people who are seeking to get humanitarian visas or are seeking to migrate here. This is an issue where I believe some unfortunate signals are being sent.However, far more important than signals is the real effect and the real impact on many people—people who are not rorters but who are simply trying to exercise their rights. It is worth emphasising again that people who seek to get access to a humanitarian visa may well be asylum seekers who might not fit the criteria—the criteria is not exactly the broadest criteria that you can think of—but that does not mean that because they are unsuccessful they are automatically trying to rort the system.This regulation has been in effect since 1 July this year, so some of the impacts are already clear. We can already see what the effect is; it is not just speculation. I am sure that those senators who are participating in the debate today would have heard and received representations from a number of organisations who work on the ground—out in the community—on a daily basis with people who are seeking asylum. I would suggest, without wanting to speak on behalf of those groups, that they as much as anyone would like to see people who are abusing the system weeded out, because they have scarce resources. They know the difficulty and the time delays in getting applications determined, and they would be as keen as anyone to explore and to assist in the development of mechanisms that would weed out people who are abusing the system.It seems to me—and it is the message I have been getting from those groups—that prior to these regulations being brought in there was very little consultation with those groups by the minister or by his department. Perhaps some other mechanisms, which may have as much effect in discouraging people who are trying to abuse the system, could have been developed which would not have had the side effects or the collateral damage of affecting those people who were just seeking their legitimate rights.The National Immigration Forum, a coalition of organisations which aims to promote just and accountable immigration law and policy for Australia, stated that the regulations were made without any consultation with organisations that represent asylum seekers. I think that is unfortunate. The effects of the new regulations are many. Many people are waiting determination of their appeals and they are going to be, or already are being, forced into destitution. Already they are not eligible for any social security, so being able to work is the only mechanism they have to try to support themselves and their families.A further burden is going to be put on charities and community organisations, which, it is widely acknowledged, are already under a fair bit of stress, particularly in this sort of area. People who lose their right to work, their right to pay taxes and their access to the Medicare system will lose their access to health care as well. This can have major effects on the health of people who often, because of past experiences, are not in the best of health already. This impact is being compounded.Many asylum seekers have been part of the Australian community for some time. They have Australian citizen children or are married to Australians. In many cases the applicant, regardless of whether they are married to an Australian or not, is the breadwinner of the family. Removing any opportunity for these people to work often affects not just the person but their family, forcing them into poverty. There is also the danger of people being forced into the black economy to support themselves and their families, obviously exposing them to exploitation by unscrupulous employers and to less favourable consideration of their applications if they are detected by the department of immigration. All those impacts are already occurring as a result of this regulation.As well as outlining some of the theoretical or policy reasons why the Democrats believe this measure is not a good one, it is also important to look at some of the case studies, some of the actual impacts that are already occurring that have been identified by organisations that work with people out in the real world. I will mention a few of the case studies that have been provided by the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre.One case is that of an asylum seeker who arrived in Australia in March 1995. He claimed refugee status from Iran on the basis of persecution he had suffered due to his political activities and religious beliefs. He alleges that in Iran he had been detained and severely tortured on three occasions. When this person arrived in Australia, not surprisingly he was somewhat distrustful and suspicious of people in authority. He did not disclose the totality of the mistreatment he had suffered in Iran and his case therefore was not believed and was rejected.The Refugee Review Tribunal also rejected his case, basically disbelieving it. He is now awaiting the outcome of a request for the minister to intervene on humanitarian grounds. He has developed quite severe mental illness, which has been diagnosed as severe depression, and he has symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder. This person is on a bridging visa and is caught by the new provisions. He has no income and no eligibility for Medicare and hence is not able to afford the medication he requires for his mental illness. The hospital he attends has exhausted its ability to continue providing him for free with the necessary medication.This person basically survives through the ad hoc provision of food parcels, food vouchers and transport tickets he obtains from a variety of welfare organisations. He is currently eating only one meal a day because he cannot afford to eat more regularly and, due to his mental illness and inability to afford transport, finds it difficult to access soup kitchens and some of the other limited assistance available. Whether or not that person's application is legitimate is something for the minister or the courts to determine, but I suggest that it would be very unlikely that that person is simply someone trying to rort the system.Another case is of a woman in Australia seeking asylum from persecution on the basis of her ethnicity in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Refugee Review Tribunal agreed that this woman's case presented very strong humanitarian reasons. However, it was unable to find that she faced treatment amounting to persecution for a convention reason. Hence, her refugee case was rejected quite legitimately, one assumes, on legal grounds. This person then sought humanitarian intervention from the minister and in July was granted a bridging visa without work rights, in accordance with this new regulation. She was thus forced to resign from her job. She faced complete destitution whilst awaiting the minister's response to her request.After a month of struggle in early August the person returned to Bosnia-Herzegovina because she was unable to survive or support herself without permission to work. Again, if one is to go on the findings of the refugee tribunal, this person, who does have strong humanitarian reasons backing their case—regardless of whether or not it was a situation in which the minister may have found it appropriate to exercise his discretion on humanitarian grounds—has basically been forced back to their country of origin purely because they could not afford to survive here.I will cite just one more case out of many; I will not go through too long a litany. A person arrived in Australia nearly 10 years ago and sought asylum in Australia from ethnic discrimination he suffered at home in Sri Lanka. He has since married an Australian citizen and the couple now have three children. His protection visa application was refused and by that stage he was barred by a section of the act from applying for a spouse visa. He had asked the minister to grant him a visa on humanitarian and public interest grounds and had, until this regulation changed, been the sole breadwinner for his family. Two of his children also suffer from chronic illness, requiring daily monitoring and medication. His wife also has serious health problems rendering her unable to work. This man has had to cease work since his latest bridging visa expired, plunging the family into financial crisis.My purpose is not to read out a litany of heart-rending cases, but simply to give a real picture of the situation that some families are facing. Those families and those people, it would seem to me, are very unlikely to be people who are simply trying to rort the system.One other organisation that works with asylum seekers in my home state of Queensland, particularly in the Brisbane area, is the Asylum Seekers Centre. I think it is significant in terms of the perceptions they have—going back to what I said earlier about the signals and the messages that we are sending out to the broader community—that I draw attention to a briefing done by the Australian Council for Overseas Aid on the treatment of refugees in Australia in general.The briefing identifies the increasing prevalence of restrictive measures and practices against asylum seekers as an issue of ongoing concern. Over the last three years, the rights and entitlements of asylum seekers have been significantly eroded. This has placed an increasing burden on community welfare and legal agencies to provide assistance for which they are not compensated. Perhaps one of those most worth noting is the 45-day limit for granting work permission, which was the subject of an unsuccessful disallowance motion in this place over 12 months ago.I emphasise again that asylum seekers are denied access to most mainstream social services, including employment assistance and income support, English language classes, and health and education services. Often their ability to participate in community life in general is limited as a result of long periods of uncertainty about their status and, in many cases, because of regulations such as these which deny them permission to work.I will briefly highlight why it should not be an automatic assumption that people are appealing just to delay things. Often the argument is put forward that the various appeals are very unlikely to be successful and that therefore it is just a delaying mechanism. Again, I am not denying that that is the case in some circumstances, but to tar everyone with that brush is, I believe, most unjust.Only a small proportion of refugee cases are appealed to the higher courts. Since July 1993—according to figures provided to me—7.5 per cent of tribunal decisions have been appealed to the courts. Whilst the government may claim that such appeals have no merit, Refugee Review Tribunal decisions were set aside in a significant 18 per cent of cases; 81 per cent of these were remitted, by consent, to the RRT for reconsideration and the remainder were determined by the court, that is, in almost one-fifth of appeals to the Federal Court the court or the parties agreed that the RRT's decisions were unlawfully made or needed to be revisited. Given the high stakes in refugee decisions—let us not forget that this is a major thing for the people involved in terms of the direction of their entire lives—these figures demonstrate how essential it is that the safeguard of judicial review remains.I would also like to mention an article by Fiona Carruthers in the Australian on 23 November of this year which highlighted concerns about what is called `compassion fatigue', with members of the five-year-old Refugee Review Tribunal placing increasing pressure on applicants to prove their cases. The tribunal itself is also under pressure from the government to speed up the amount of time it spends assessing appeals. Last financial year, according to the article, the department granted protection visas to 52 per cent of Iraqi asylum seekers. However, on appeal, the RRT found that 93 per cent of Iraqi asylum seekers were refugees. Again, this demonstrates that just because a person has their case knocked back—at whatever level in the process—it does not automatically mean that there is no validity to their case or that they are somehow or other deliberately rorting the system.I think it is probably illustrative to also look at the Prime Minister's recent insistence on once again pursuing the unconscionable mechanism of the privative clause, which the government tried to put through last year via Migration Amendment Bill (No. 5), which aims to remove the Federal Court's jurisdiction to review refugee and immigration decisions. Certainly, I would suggest it is not unreasonable to put a construction on this particular regulation—in the absence of that privative clause going through the Senate, which I suggest is unlikely—that this rule is just another backdoor attempt to make it difficult or impossible for applicants to exercise review rights, because they cannot survive during the appeal process. It basically has the effect, if not the intent, of trying to starve people out.In conclusion, I urge all senators to give support to this motion. I acknowledge that refugee law in particular is not easy but there has to be a better way than permitting—indeed, in this case, almost ensuring—that such hardship occurs.17:50:00999Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate that we will be supporting the motion by Senator Bartlett that regulation 7.6 of the Migration Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 210 and made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed. We will do so because we believe this is an unjustifiable and unnecessary change to procedures which in the end, if allowed to go through, are more likely to create injustice and exacerbate the possibility for injustices to be perpetrated against people in Australia applying for or waiting for their application for review to be considered by the appropriate bodies.In the last week or so in this parliament, the opposition have supported the government. Only yesterday we supported them in Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 , which was previously called Migration Bill No. 4. It was passed yesterday with the opposition support. It dealt with changing and restructuring the judicial review processes so that they are speeded up and so that there is one review process rather than two committees, et cetera.We took in good faith that, on balance, what the government was proposing was a reasonable process to support. We did not automatically believe it would solve all the problems. I do not think any process in this area will be perfectly agreeable or will work perfectly; there are too many variables and too many occasions—on either side of the fence—for dispute. Matters of judgment, et cetera, will always have to be relied upon, no matter how carefully you structure these review processes.But yesterday we gave the benefit of the doubt to the government and we supported that legislation. I took the opportunity to make a positive comment about the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock. He has a long history of support for human rights in this parliament, both as a member of the Parliamentary Amnesty International Group and in his role outside the parliament in supporting Amnesty International. I have to say that, on some occasions, he has been a very small minority in the Liberal Party in promoting those views over many years.But one thing you would have to say is that Mr Ruddock has been a consistent supporter of human rights, without equivocation and without fear or favour. Some people are in favour of human rights only in those countries that have regimes that they are ideologically opposed to. They may go a bit soft on human rights in a regime that they think might be a bit more romantically attached to their view. Phil Ruddock is one of those who, without fear or favour in the past, has consistently argued that, no matter where you are, if it is a totalitarian regime of the left or of the right abusing human rights, that regime is to be tackled and argued against.I would give Phil Ruddock the benefit of the doubt in many of these cases, but not on this one. This is a try-on that is just too rich to support. I do not know whether he got rolled in cabinet or whether the demons in the Department of Finance and Administration or in Treasury decided to try and find a way of reducing costs and said, `This is one way we are going to do it.' I would not put it past the Treasury officials and Finance officials to put this sort of thing on and have the cabinet direct the minister accordingly, because it does not fit with Phil Ruddock's long history of supporting human rights and refugee issues in this country and worldwide. I am a little surprised that the bill has his name as minister on it.I have been thinking about some of the issues involved in this government proposing changes to supposedly tighten up and make more efficient the provisions of judicial review, applications for refugee status et cetera. I wonder if, unfortunately, some elements of the present coalition government are pushing these as a way to curry favour with the supporters of One Nation, people that have drifted away from the coalition to One Nation particularly in rural areas. We know what One Nation has been on about: they have been attacking migration, immigration levels and migrants—including refugees. If I remember correctly, the former leader of the One Nation Party made some comment before the last election about people who had been granted refugee status. It was said that once the particular problem had been resolved in their country the refugees, although they had been granted refugee status and had become citizens of Australia, would have to be sent back. That is a ludicrous proposition, but that is the level of thinking in One Nation.I just hope that the coalition cabinet has not been cynically working out ways in which they can show that they have been rather tougher on refugees, migration, immigrants and migration intake levels so as to curry favour with some of those former coalition voters and supporters and get them back. I am not saying that did happen, but one cannot help but be a little cynical. Some of the material before us is unusual for someone with Phil Ruddock's long history to be proposing.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—Senator Schacht, it would be appropriate if you would refer to the minister by his proper name or as the minister.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Phil Ruddock is his proper name, as I understood it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—He is still Minister Ruddock.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I have known him as Phil Ruddock so I don't think he'd be offended by my calling him Phil Ruddock. I wasn't bagging him. I wasn't calling him `desperate' or `a dope'—the usual phrases I use for my political enemies. Anyway, so it is the honourable minister for immigration et cetera, Phil Ruddock. Is that okay?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Please proceed, Senator Schacht.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I am sure that, if we had proposed this when in government, the honourable minister would have been leading the charge publicly to attack us, saying that this was an attack on the human rights of people appealing et cetera. We would have been given by him and others a fair belting around the head. So all I can say is that we will oppose this.Senator Bartlett has eloquently explained the details and has given eloquence to examples where people would be disadvantaged—and are being disadvantaged—if this regulation were allowed to stand. If only two or three of the examples that he gave stand, it is still disadvantaging innocent people. If it is true that someone has to go back to Bosnia to make a living, that is an appalling outcome. We might say that Bosnia has calmed down a bit. But the atrocities that have gone on in Bosnia over the last half-decade would indicate that, if someone has been forced back to Bosnia before their appeal has been completed because they cannot afford to live in Australia, that is appalling.What happens if, unfortunately, there is an outbreak of fighting again—ethnic cleansing, communal fighting—and that person loses their life or suffers injury? What do we say? Do we say, `Oops, sorry, posthumously we will give your application approval and give you a nice wreath at the local cemetery'? What will the minister do then? I say that it is better for a hundred guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to go to gaol. I think we have always got to balance that in a democracy. Even if a couple of people rort the system and get away with it, I will put up with that if it means that we give the benefit of the doubt to a person who would otherwise have to go back to Bosnia to live—and earn a living—and run the risk of losing their life.We are not asking that such people be given permanent residence in Australia. All we are asking is that, until the appeal process is completed, they have the right to work. They are not eligible for any social security payment while they are here. We have knocked that off them—they cannot have that. So what are they going to do waiting for the appeal?If the bureaucracy is slow or the minister does not want to deal with it and shuffles it off his desk or asks for more information, this could go on for weeks, months or years. What are they supposed to do? Borrow money from some crook moneylenders, or put themselves at the mercy of some charity, charities already being overextended? That is just unfair. In a human society with some quality of life and civilisation about it, you would say that this example is unreasonable.We believe that this regulation should be rejected strongly by the Senate and by the Australian parliament, therefore giving the government a very strong message. The legislation carried only a day or so ago makes the review process more expeditious and efficient. We have given the government an opportunity to reduce the time, to make it more efficient. Therefore, we do not think we need this regulation. If we do need it, give us more examples.I do not know how many examples have been given of people who have been rorting. You can make the assertion that they are rorting, but let us get some examples on the record. We have had examples from Senator Bartlett of people who have, in our view and in his view, been unnecessarily and harshly treated and maybe have had their life put at risk. The phrase applicable to refugee status is `a justifiable fear of persecution'. That phrase, to me, always has a ring about it. It has a sting in it and should not be treated lightly. Just the same, in our country I think we would want to say that we have not been forcing people back. I know there will be some people who claim it, wrongly. They are probably economic refugees rather than political refugees, and we will have that debate as well.Mr Acting Deputy President, knowing your knowledge in this area, I think that this Senate should strongly reject this regulation. The opposition will be voting that way. Until the government can come back with a much more detailed explanation of apparently why the system is being rorted—so far they have not—this should be rejected. I commend Senator Bartlett's motion to the Senate.18:02:001001Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Subregulation 7.6 has been introduced as a way of discouraging certain people from abusing the protection visa system in order to stay in Australia as long as possible with `permission to work' stamped in their passport, people who are lodging applications for appeal, knowing full well that they have no valid claim to stay in Australia permanently but relishing the opportunity to make money while they are here. I cannot deny these concerns. Australians already face enough difficulty finding employment without having to compete with individuals who have no legitimate right to be working in Australia.The problem with subregulation 7.6 is that, in the process of deterring non-genuine applicants, the department is also deterring those who are genuine and in real need of an income while they await a decision. It is asylum seekers who are primarily affected by these changes. Asylum seekers with a valid case for residency will be stretched to the financial and emotional limit in order to survive in this country without an income, a legal one that is.I heard Senator Schacht's good character reference for Minister Ruddock, but I wish his concerns in relation to fairness had also been here the other day when we dealt with character tests. We heard examples of people who are imprisoned as a means of torture and as a means of creating political pressure in their society. We would automatically have to argue that they have good character. We have already dealt with asylum seekers who have had their situation made more difficult even before they made their application for asylum in Australia.What does this regulation look like for someone on the receiving end? It means that they are immediately placed in a bind. Either they pursue their legal right for review and suffer the consequences of not being able to support themselves or their family, in which case, they will have to rely instead on already overburdened charities just to meet their basic needs, or they may choose to work illegally, despite all of the incumbent risks—exploitation by employers, possible cancellation of their bridging visa and mandatory detention by the department. Can you imagine the black mark saying `This person has broken the rules.' It could be used against them again and again to stop them accessing justice. Also, they could abandon their legal rights, regardless of the strength of their case. Senator Bartlett gave an example of a person who went back to Bosnia-Herzegovina basically because she had no ability to stay here any more. Is that the kind of country we aspire to?It seems that somewhere along the way in these two scenarios basic human rights and justice have been lost. We do not have to hypothesise either that these scenarios, both of which act to the detriment of asylum seekers, will be the eventual outcome of subregulation 7.6. Those who deal with applicants on a daily basis are already seeing the heartache and destitution that is being caused right now. This is not a hypothetical argument.The reality is that these changes do not affect only those who are denied the right to work; they affect members of the Australian community who will be forced to support those applicants. They affect charitable organisations, community groups, church groups, family members and compassionate individuals who recognise that, without any form of income, these people will become destitute. Perhaps part of the purpose is to try to deter the community from taking action on basic human rights issues.The reality also is that the majority of asylum seekers have enormous difficulties finding work anyway. Even if work permission were granted to all asylum seekers, this would mean an income for only a minority. It should be remembered that only a bit more than a year ago, on 1 July 1997, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs introduced harsh new regulations in this area. These regulations denied work permission to asylum seekers who had not lodged their application for a protection visa within 45 days of arriving in Australia. We know that there are a number of reasons why people do not feel comfortable in the system. They do not feel confident enough to give the truthful reason why they had to come to Australia.Already, a large number of those with bridging visas are denied the right to work during the departmental and tribunal stages of their case. If permission to work is going to be denied for the entirety of the decision making process, one wonders how any applicant could survive.To work in Australia is not a luxury for genuine refugee applicants. It is not a luxury that they can take or leave. Being ineligible for social security, asylum seekers and others in possession of a bridging visa E depend on the opportunity to work in order to survive, to meet their basic needs until a final decision is made on their application. We cannot categorically deny them this right because opportunistic applicants may choose to ride the system. But as has been mentioned by other speakers, we have not had overwhelming evidence from the department that what is happening is opportunistic.All of this is not to deny the numerous responsibilities we have to these applicants under international agreements—responsibilities which, we believe, are being severely compromised by the proposed subregulation. The provision of a basic standard of living is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol confer an obligation on the Australian government to ensure that asylum seekers, in particular, enjoy a basic standard of living whilst waiting for a decision on their application.Subregulation 7.6 is already proving a cruel and widespread contravention of these basic principles in the daily lives of asylum seekers. How could we continue with legislation that is so blatantly unjust? In how many other areas is Australia prepared to act as the international pariah in human rights?So what is an alternative to introducing this non- discriminating and unjust regulation? An alternative is to retain what the department had before 1 July 1998, which was to keep open the possibility of applicants being able to work based on their individual circumstances; to leave discretionary power in the hands of departmental officers, to grant work permission on a needs basis. This has proven an effective means so far of identifying and dealing with those considered to be non-genuine applicants in their search for money making. The National Immigration Forum, in its submission of 14 July 1998, concluded:The removal of the discretion to grant permission to work is inhumane and does not appear to meet any legitimate policy objective. Rather, it will operate to deter people from pursuing a course of action ("ministerial appeals") which the Minister himself encourages people to use as an alternative to judicial review.I add that it would also deter people from pursuing their legal right to appeal through the courts. If a person is genuinely fearing the prospect of returning to their country, it is understandable that they will exhaust all avenues for remaining in Australia. We should not be placing insurmountable barriers to their efforts to do this. I urge the Senate to support Senator Bartlett's motion. I commend him for putting it to the Senate and I would like the government to rethink this unfair and unjust regulation.18:11:001003Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I rise to indicate that the government opposes the motion to disallow regulation 7.6 of Statutory Rules 1998 No. 210. Before these changes came into effect on 1 July 1998, a bridging visa E included a permission to work entitlement for those people who had an unfinalised request for ministerial intervention or application for judicial review.This regulation is trying to overcome the problem of an entitlement to work encouraging abuse of the protection visa and ministerial intervention processes. It is not a small problem. Requests for ministerial intervention are averaging about 400 cases a month, whilst there may be as many as 30 or more judicial review applications made each week.The government believes that some of these applicants simply want to delay their departure for as long as possible in order to maximise their opportunity to work here. They seem to expect that they should continue to be allowed to work in order to fund their litigation against the Australian government, which itself is instigated only to delay their departure.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Some; what about the others?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Mr Acting Deputy President, I sat in absolute silence while Senator Margetts was speaking. It is important to recognise that by the time people reach the stage of seeking ministerial intervention or judicial review, applicants will already have had their claims thoroughly considered three times.Some of the speakers today intimated that they are concerned that these people are being denied merits review. That is not the case. People will have had their claims thoroughly considered three times. The department will have considered their substantive visa application, an independent review tribunal will have considered their application for review and the department will have again considered whether any special circumstances exist that could justify ministerial intervention. This is done whether or not the applicant requests the minister's intervention.I repeat: there are three processes. The people affected by these changes will have failed to demonstrate the merits of their claims at all of these three stages. I point out to the Senate that this is not a small problem. In the last financial year, there were over 8,000 applications for protection visas. About 90 per cent of those 8,000 applications were unsuccessful at both the primary and the review stages. The government is therefore assessing and addressing a very significant issue with these regulations. We are saying to these applicants, `By all means pursue your cases on their merits,' but at the same time we are attempting to reduce the incentive for abuse of the system.I will comment on two of the things that Senator Schacht said when he talked again about Minister Ruddock's commitment to human rights. Every time we discuss these issues—this is the third time in the last two sitting weeks—we discuss the merits of the individual against Australian society or the merits of individual against individual. We must always remember that there are tens of thousands of legitimate refugees who have been identified by the UNHCR as eligible for resettlement, including refugees from Iran, whom Senator Bartlett mentioned. We take 4,000 refugees out of a total humanitarian program of 10,000.Every person who comes via this method, who is not legitimate, denies a person who is legitimately applying as a UNHCR-assessed refugee. Again, we have the problem that Senator Schacht referred to before of balancing one right against another. In this case, it is the rights of one individual against those of another. Senator Bartlett referred to a case of someone having been here for 10 years. Yes, there are cases of people who have overstayed a visitor's visa and have had a family here. I do not know the details of the case that Senator Bartlett was referring to, but if a person has overstayed a visa and may be an illegal resident, what rights do they have compared with the rights of someone who is legitimately in a UNHCR queue? They are some of the decisions that have to be made. I also found incredibly offensive, appalling and disgraceful Senator Schacht's imputation that this was an attempt to curry favour with One Nation voters. That was totally unacceptable and uncalled for, and it does not need any more comment.The government believes that many people who seek judicial review of migration decisions are simply abusing the judicial process. This is evidenced by the large number of people who withdraw from, or discontinue, their court applications. Over the last few years, the rate at which applicants have withdrawn from immigration cases prior to a substantive hearing has been over 30 per cent. At times that number has been almost 50 per cent. A smaller number simply failed to appear before the court. The effect of this is that people with legitimate grievances are disadvantaged by the growing queue of cases to be heard in the courts. Again there is this balance between the rights of those who are legitimately applying for review and those who are using it as a mechanism to stay in Australia longer.In addition the large number of frivolous judicial review applications also delays the ability of the minister to intervene in meritorious cases. These amendments are about removing some of the main incentives for people to use judicial review and requests for ministerial intervention merely as devices to prolong their stay in Australia. Of course the government does recognise that there are legitimate entitlements for individuals to take their grievances before the courts; however, we also know that there is a growing and lucrative business for some legal practitioners.The most recent development in migration law has been the launching of class actions in the Federal Court. These are becoming an increasingly attractive and relatively inexpensive avenue for people determined to stay here by any means. The minister described one of the latest scams during question time in the House of Representatives on 11 November. The scams involve solicitors and migration agents signing up individuals to a class action for a small fee and encouraging those people to lodge repeat section 417 requests for ministerial intervention. So you find them putting in repeat after repeat section 417 requests. These people are then able to remain lawful on a bridging visa until such time as the court proceedings are finalised. In one class action 670 people paid $500 each to legal advisers, which amounts to $300,000 to pursue one legal case over a couple of days in court. The department is aware of six immigration class actions involving a total of about 5,000 people. If each of these people is being charged a similar amount, then millions of dollars are involved.If Senator Bartlett's motion is successful, the organisers of these scams and their not-so-innocent clients will be given a very encouraging message. To address these abuses of process, these amendments introduce the `no-work condition' for bridging visa Es granted to people seeking judicial review or ministerial intervention. This also leads to a loss of access to medicare benefits in most instances. Despite the loss of medicare benefits, there is no prospect of state hospitals refusing treatment in emergency cases. Payment for the cost of such treatment would be a private matter between the person and the hospital involved.This amendment therefore removes both of the main incentives for people to try to rort the system merely to prolong their stay in Australia. As I said before, if this regulation is disallowed, the Senate will be sending an encouraging message to those people who want to abuse the system by, for example, organising or joining class actions with little or no legal merit. Again I make the point that these bridging visa holders have already had three bites of the cherry. They have had three processes of review. They are people who have had their cases assessed on a merit basis on at least three occasions.A further point is that the vast majority of these people came to Australia on tourist visas with the no-work condition. Seventy-seven per cent of these people arrived as visitors, six per cent arrived as students and the rest were other means. A significant number had already overstayed their visas before they even bothered to seek permission to remain in this country. Thirteen per cent were overstayers at the time of original application and nearly a quarter had overstayed for more than 12 months. These people really should have no expectation that work or Medicare entitlements will be available to them in Australia, particularly after the merits of their case have been considered three times.On a final note, these regulations have now been in force for close on six months. Only a small number of complaints about the mandatory imposition of the no-work condition were received initially, and very few complaints are now being received. If there were a large number of very genuine cases I would imagine that, given the hundreds we are dealing with, there would have been more. I have been advised that regional offices of the department that have a ministerial intervention caseload initially reported dissatisfaction about the amendments from clients and employers. However, when the regulations were explained there was a general acceptance of the government's position. If the community has a problem with these amendments, it would appear to be one more of perception than of reality. I urge all senators not to support Senator Bartlett's motion.18:22:001005McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—It is probably worth while making the point at this juncture in the debate that the Senate is not discussing the merits review procedures for people seeking protection in Australia or seeking the advantage of a ministerial discretion. We are actually looking at something much narrower than that, but I will address my remarks to both aspects, because both aspects have been raised by various speakers in the debate—not the least of whom was the parliamentary secretary who just concluded.We are discussing a motion of Senator Bartlett relating to:the disallowance of regulation 7.6 of the migration regulations amendment as contained in statutory rules 1998 No. 210 and made under the Migration Act 1958.It is a very narrow aspect of the whole debate on the humanitarian entry of people into this country and of the ability of people to remain in this country. It is really the matter of whether or not an individual who is awaiting a decision on their application for protection in Australia—be it from the judiciary or from the exercise of a ministerial discretion—ought to be able to work. And I join with my colleague Senator Schacht who outlined the opposition's case when he spoke this afternoon to support the motion by Senator Bartlett.I think this is another indication of where the government has gone too far in the regulations. The parliamentary secretary raised the very recent two debates that we have had on migration in this parliament—yesterday and on Wednesday last week when we discussed conduct and character. At the time the minister announced what was going to happen on character and conduct, we said, `You are going too far.' It was proved here on Wednesday of last week when the government themselves admitted they were going too far by adopting the proposition that had been put forward by the opposition. They had acted in opposition to what their own committee members had put forward in the Senate committee report. That procedure was repeat ed here again yesterday. I am saying to the Senate that there are times when the government can get it wrong. There are times when even a minister, Minister Philip Ruddock, can get it wrong, as was proved on two occasions. I put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I put it to the parliament, that we are actually going too far on this regulation.I accept—and I think the opposition accepts—that there is a difficulty and a problem. There are those who seek to enter our community who seek to exploit our generosity. More importantly, there are those who seek to exploit people who are vulnerable in our community. The parliamentary secretary mentioned the matter of the class actions that are going on. I am not going to talk about the merits of the class actions; it is for another body to discuss whether or not they are valid. But if there is a difficulty with the class actions and the behaviour of lawyers in that process, there are legal bodies whom we ought to take that matter up with: the law societies around this country. We should be addressing them if the lawyers are behaving inappropriately. We do not crack the nut with a sledgehammer. Let us address the issue. If it is migration agents that are the problem in the class actions, if they are behaving inappropriately, if they are breaking, stretching, or abusing the law, we have set up an authority to deal with them too: MARA, the Migration Agents Regulation Authority. And that is where that one should go to.In speaking to this disallowance motion this evening, my objection is not the fact that people who are seeking to exploit our generosity ought to be given automatic work rights; I think that there ought to be the ability for some individuals to have the right to work in genuine cases.I have confidence in the decision making process within the department and within the tribunals—be it the IRT or the Refugee Review Tribunal. In saying that I have confidence in those decision makers, I also accept that sometimes they get it wrong. I do that on a professional basis where, as a public representative, as a member of parliament, I assist clients to take cases before the various tribunals. Sometimes one offers them advice that they need to contact a lawyer if they are taking a case to the judiciary. Sometimes the department makes mistakes and the review body overturns those decisions. It does not happen very often—Senator Patterson has just outlined the statistic to us. I think 10 per cent was a success rate in the tribunals.But even with the 90 per cent that are set aside, some go on for the minister to exercise his discretion. I know, I am sure the parliamentary secretary knows, I am sure the departmental representatives know—that there are occasions when the minister accepts the case being put before him and exercises his discretion to overturn previous cases, be it for new information or whatever reason the case came forward. What concerns me, as my colleague Senator Schacht outlined earlier in the debate, is what is happening to the genuine people who are in the process. What is happening to them if this regulation is allowed to stand? There is no social security available to them. In many cases, they do not have family members whom they can rely on for support. In some instances, with some of the newer communities in Australia, there is no community support, or very little community support, as was outlined in one of the cases histories that Senator Bartlett put to the chamber.One thing they have been able to do in the past—and that is up until July this year—is to work. And that will enable some of them to keep body and soul together. When we are talking about work, we are not talking about them moving into the top professional jobs at $100,000 a year or whatever; generally it is menial manual labour that the people have been involved in, and probably even exploited in as well. It is a discretionary thing that is available to them. If their case is not seen to be genuine, they do not have an automatic entitlement, as I understand—and I may be corrected on that—to be granted a work visa, to be granted the $30 visa. That is where I think we need to address the problem. We need to have the ability—and I think our decision makers, whom I have great confidence in, ought to have the ability—to make a discretionary decision as to whether or not an individual should have the right to work if there is no other means by which they can support themselves.I say that for a number of reasons—I have outlined the reasons for the individual. But I say it also for the sake of our community. What happens to an individual when they are starving? One of the inherent human traits is that we all wish to survive. If someone is not eating they will resort to other means in order to be able to eat. Senator Schacht referred to the black economy and there are proven instances where people have moved into that area. But there are others who might be encouraged to move into a life of crime. And that crime will be against lawful Australian citizens. We should not be pushing people that far. I have faith in the discretion and the expertise of the officers in the department and the various tribunals. We can work this through in a different way for the protection of everybody.It is a problem but we can correct the problem. Let us look directly at the problem. If the problem is people abusing the system, let us take steps to avoid the abuse. Let us tackle it directly. I do not think we need to take a sledgehammer, as I said before, to crack the nut. This is going too far. We do need to be cognisant of the difficulties that individuals are faced with in our community.I do agree with the comments of the parliamentary secretary when she said that we should be looking out for the genuine asylum seeker. I know, and this parliament knows, that there have been people in the past who have sought to exploit our generosity in this area. That is unforgivable. It is how you measure it. A merits review system in which we have faith is the way to go. That is the track to go down in order to resolve the problem. If there are people who seek to exploit it, let us have a go at them. Let us get the MIRA operating. Let it examine what some migration agents are doing. Let us make a formal complaint to the law councils of Australia about lawyers encouraging individuals to take part in migration scams in this country. I have seen the adverts, as well.If there are scams let us directly attack them. Let us not hide behind them and perhaps force individuals and dependants of individuals into lives of destitution or possibly even crime in this country. This is not a good regulation. It is going too far and I hope that the Senate, when it votes on this matter very shortly, will disallow it.18:33:001007Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—in reply—I thank all senators for their contributions. I do recognise most of the problems and concerns that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs outlined in her contribution as issues that the government is trying to address by this regulation. But I do say again that surely there must be a better way of addressing those problems than through this regulation.It is worth repeating, to remind the Senate and those listening, that under the set-up that applied prior to 1 July when this regulation came into force people did not have the automatic right to work when they were on bridging visas. They could only work on bridging visas at the discretion of the minister or the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. This operated and was applied only to those who could demonstrate a compelling need to work—which basically meant financial hardship. So it was not an open door or an open slather operation.It is also worth emphasising again that, even under the previous situation, that did not apply to everybody. There is already a number of asylum seekers without any income or access to health care, and that will not change if this motion to disallow is supported. Protection visa applicants who do not apply within 45 days of arrival already have the no-work condition automatically imposed whatever kind of bridging visa they have.Whilst the parliamentary secretary drew attention to that as a way of saying that people come here on tourist visas and just cannot be bothered to apply for 45 days or more—and I do not want to revisit the debate the Senate had on this over 12 months ago—there are clearly circumstances in individual situations where there are quite legitimate reasons why people do not apply within those first 45 days. Nonetheless, the point I make is that, in the absence of this regulation, there is no open door or automatic right for people to get work rights and access to Medicare just by applying for refugee status, seeking to appeal to the courts or seeking ministerial discretion. Surely the existing set-up provided some scope for the minister to minimise abuse of the system.Amongst other things, this measure is against the spirit, if not the legality, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child because it clearly denies basic health care to a number of children who, through no fault of their own, are put in a situation where they are not able to access basic health care or their family is not able to afford basic health care or even in some cases adequate nutrition.Returning to the issue of balance and the sorts of things that all of us have to wrestle with in trying to act as responsible members of parliament, it is somewhat ironic that this motion seeks to protect the rights of the individual, which are clearly being significantly reduced by this measure, and it is a Liberal government that is seeking to reduce the rights of the individual and justify it as being necessary for society as a whole. Be that as it may, clearly the evidence that has been produced already from the community is that a number of those individuals are being very severely impacted and quite unjustly so.It is true, of course, that in this difficult area we cannot simply take a bleeding heart approach. Given the number of potential legitimate refugees around the globe, we cannot simply open our doors to every single person who may be legitimate. People may often be in a situation where they do have to go back to Bosnia, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Iran or wherever—often in circumstances of great hardship and great sadness. These are very hard decisions which often have to be made. The very least that those people should be able to expect is that they can exercise their legal rights, as they apply, in Australia.If the government wants to remove or alter those rights, then surely they should introduce direct legislation to alter those rights, rather than a back door method such as this. Those rights exist under current legislation that the parliament has agreed to, which was put forward by whatever government of the day. If this government wants to alter those rights, they should do so via the direct route of introducing legislation and allowing the parliament to consider it.In many ways, this legislation subverts the intention of the parliament when it developed the existing rights under the Migration Act 1958 and related acts. If, as the parliamentary secretary said, the government is happy to allow all people to appeal and exercise their legal rights, I ask why the Prime Minister is saying that he will once again seek to reintroduce legislation which—assuming that it is constitutionally valid—will dramatically remove the rights of many people to appeal their case to the court.As the parliamentary secretary said, when people get to the stage of appealing to the court or seeking ministerial discretion, it is already after a number of reviews have been conducted—three bites of the cherry, as she said. But clearly the fact is that a not insignificant number of people do succeed on appeal to the courts—or, for that matter, in asking the minister to exercise his discretion—so it is not just a futile process. Clearly, there are a number of people—not 100 per cent of those who appeal; far from it—whose exercise of those rights is successful and who are legally entitled to stay in Australia. Those people were obviously very wise to pursue their legal rights and entitlements because they were proven right in the end. I repeat that the use of a back door measure of this kind to prevent people exercising their rights—whether by simply starving them out of the country or by denying them access to adequate resources—discriminates against poorer people and is clearly inappropriate.The parliamentary secretary made the point that most asylum seekers originally come to Australia on visitor visas. It is true that many do. But for most genuine asylum seekers, as well as those who are seeking to rort the system, a visitor visa is the only way that they can get into Australia to apply for asylum. To suggest that somehow the use of that mechanism is an indication of ill intent or illegitimacy of their asylum claim is, I think, a bit mistaken.As Senator Patterson said, this regulation is aimed at trying to overcome the problem of abuse. I do not doubt that, at least to a large extent, it is a genuine intent of the government and the minister in this regard. But, surely, given all the ability, talent and resources available in the government and the department, and—I remind the minister and the government—the great degree of talented people out in the community as well who work with asylum seekers and who would also be very keen to have the system rid of people who are trying to rort it, there must be a better way of trying to address this problem.Senator Patterson also said that some applicants want to delay their departure via these means simply so they can get work. That is clearly the case and no-one denies it. But, again, surely an equal—if not much larger—number of people are not delaying their departure for that purpose; they are delaying their departure—if we must use that phrase—because they are trying to pursue their legal rights to seek asylum in Australia.Regardless of the outcome of this motion, I would urge the government to consult with groups out in the community more widely than, perhaps, may have occurred in this case; to try to work with them a bit more to meet that common aim we all have of reducing misuse of the system; but to try to minimise the hardship of innocent individuals in that process.There is much about life that is random chance. I think all of us in Australia, and particularly those of us in this parliament, have had a pretty good roll of the dice in life compared to a lot of other people in many other parts of the world. Not being satisfied with that, this parliament often seeks to rewrite the rule book even further in our favour.In the case of this regulation, we are not even satisfied with doing that—we want to give the losers even fewer avenues and rights of appeal. We need to keep that in mind when we are looking at balancing rights and opportunities. Perhaps we need to try to err a little on the side of humanity in the balance we give to the rights and entitlements of various people.In conclusion, I once again urge all senators to support this motion. I recognise that the government is seeking to address a real problem. It is an issue of balance but I think, clearly, in this case they have got the balance wrong. Question put: That the motion (Senator Bartlett's ) be agreed to.18:48:00The Senate divided. (The Acting Deputy President—Senator J.O.W. Watson)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S.Lees, M. H. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N.33Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G. *Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Cook, P. F. S. Macdonald, I.Faulkner, J. P. Ellison, C.Lundy, K. Kemp, R.West, S. M. Reid, M. E.Woodley, J. Calvert, P. H.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Documents1010101018:52:001010Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This second report of the Medical Training Review Panel deals with the situation that has occurred since legislation was passed in this place stopping certain medical practitioners from obtaining their provider numbers. The idea was that they had to have more training before they were provided with those numbers. So they can still practise, but they have to undertake further training before they are recognised as medical practitioners of such skill as to entitle them to have provider numbers.Senator Eggleston would know all about this. I think he is going to speak on this report. The report tells the public how many places are open for training. On page 19, at table 1, it sets out the current number of recognised vocational training positions/programs and likely numbers of vocational training places to be offered for commencement in 1999 by discipline in a medical college. It goes down the various colleges, including the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. What worries me is that the numbers that are provided for seem to be quite moderate, given the fact that there is a shortage of doctors, particularly in rural Australia. In another part of the report you can see the number of female doctors who are advanced surgical trainees, and it sets out numbers by surgical specialty. I notice that in cardiothoracic surgery, for example, there are 29 trainees and one of those is a female trainee.The interesting thing about these numbers is that they are simply put forward as numbers that describe a situation without there being any analysis of what all this means in terms of the medical treatment given to Australians. What I would like to have seen, and I am sure people around Australia would like to have seen, from this report is some analysis as to whether or not the needs that Australians have for medical practitioners are being met, particularly in the country. For example, Tasmania, your state, Mr Acting Deputy President Watson, is one of the great states of this Commonwealth. It is often neglected, but it was one of the early states to be settled and is one of the outstanding states of this Commonwealth. It would be interesting to know whether Tasmanian people are well provided for in terms of doctors in the country—down the west coast, for example. Again, are there enough doctors in the Northern Territory, particularly in the regions away from the main cities? Even in Victoria, the state that I represent, are there enough doctors around the various parts of that state, in the north-west, in the south-east down through Gippsland or in the Mallee?That is what this report should be talking about. Though it has set out tables, it has not set them out in such a way as to enable us as a Senate and to enable the people of Australia to see whether or not all parts of Australia have been properly provided with doctors. When we have the third report next year, let us hope that the panel gives us a greater analysis than it has on this occasion.18:57:001010Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I am interested in this report because the Medical Training Review Panel came out of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry at the end of 1996 into Medicare provider code numbers. Some of the senators on that committee found it very difficult to determine exactly the number of people in training. There were all sorts of vague ideas but nobody really seemed to have any hard data. One of the motivations for establishing this Medical Training Review Panel was the view of some members of the Community Affairs Committee that there was a need for there to be a Commonwealth body which had a supervisory or overview role on medical training in Australia so that some estimation could be made of whether or not the medical manpower needs of Australia were being met. Senator Cooney has referred to whether or not there are enough doctors in training in various specialties, and in general practice, to meet the medical needs of Australia.I am very pleased to see that this Medical Training Review Panel is progressing in the way that it has. As Senator Cooney says, it does provide very accurate data on the number of people in training, especially in specialties. It had been a problem to determine the number of people in specialist training. Specialist training tends to be a responsibility of the states through the state hospital systems, whereas general practitioner training has been very much an area that the federal government has an interest in through funding the Family Medicine program.It is now possible, by looking at the data in this report, to see how many people are being trained and where they are being trained. That provides, as I said, very important information in terms of medical manpower requirements around Australia. Compared with other countries like the United Kingdom and European countries, Australia has for some time lacked the kind of data which those countries have had as a matter of course on medical manpower needs. I think it is very important that we do address the requirement to place specialists in various areas according to need and population requirement rather than proceeding in the rather ad hoc fashion that we have in the past.One of the other functions of the Medical Training Review Panel is to provide an appeal mechanism for people who have reason to feel some disquiet or concern about their non-inclusion in specialist training programs or about being dropped from specialist training programs—after doing several years of specialist training—and not being able to complete their training. There had been some suggestion that some of these specialist colleges, which are the examining bodies, acted to some extent as closed shops and that they restricted the number of people who came through the system. It is interesting that a chapter in the report is concerned with appeals from people who are undergoing training in the Australian training system run by the royal colleges.It is interesting that in the United States, while people may train under, say, the Ameri can college of physicians or surgeons or gynaecologists or dermatologists, they do State Board exams in specialties as well as National Board exams, and these exams are conducted independently of the colleges concerned. This means that there is an independent body providing accreditation and examinations for persons to qualify as specialists in the United States. There had been some discussion in some quarters that a system like that might be a good thing in Australia. Our tradition has been to work through these royal colleges, but it is probably appropriate that those colleges and their examination systems be subject to review by this Medical Review Training Panel.Question resolved in the affirmative.101119:01:001011Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.In rising, I draw attention to the size of this annual report more than anything else. It is a sad result of legislation passed by this current government. The report refers to the Industrial Relations Court of Australia. The government, by legislation, has removed the work from the Industrial Relations Court of Australia to the Federal Court of Australia. This was done, according to the report, quite clearly on 25 May 1997. It saw the specialised area of industrial relations being placed under the more general jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia. I think that that was a gross error of judgment. The issue of industrial relations was undoubtedly best left in the hands of specialists in the Industrial Relations Court of Australia.Whilst the Industrial Relations Court of Australia was in existence, it served its purpose very well indeed. It undoubtedly used the specialist knowledge of those eminent judges who had been appointed to the court to resolve industrial matters with a full knowledge and understanding of the industrial relations environment, which can be quite fiery.So it is a sad day when one picks up the annual report of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia to see that it is no longer a properly functioning body. Whilst all the staff were transferred across to the Federal Court, and the expertise has not been lost in that sense, the identity has been lost. The report says that the court will remain in existence and its annual reporting obligations will continue whilst it has proceedings awaiting disposal and until such time as it no longer has a purpose.This is a report which in previous times would have been brimful of important industrial relations information, clearly identified and very useful for those people who are industrial relations practitioners—and there are many out there in the broader industrial relations community. I draw attention to the fact that the Industrial Relations Court has lost its identity and has lost its specific purpose, as previously given by a Labor government, and that one should lament its passing into the realms of the Federal Court of Australia.19:05:001012Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—I would like to echo the comments of Senator Hogg in relation to the submission of this report. It is certainly a sad day for the Australian industrial relations system and for employees and employers that this appears to be the last report of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia as it has now had its powers transferred to the Federal Court.I say that because I think over the last 12 months we have seen a very active Federal Court in this country. In particular I refer to the actions that the Federal Court had to take concerning the recent waterfront dispute. Justice North, in particular, and a number of the other Federal Court judges who have had to act in the review of his decision have been quite active in ensuring that the access to justice that was needed by those waterfront workers was indeed available to them.The issues I wish to raise in relation to this report concern the transfer of the Industrial Relations Commission to the Federal Court of Australia, the costs involved, and the beneficiaries of the costs and the actions of that transfer. I do not think it is any secret that Patrick Stevedores believe that the recent dispute cost them, in legal fees alone, $13 million. Of this, $10 million went to a legal firm called Freehill Hollingdale and Page.It is believed that the Maritime Union of Australia paid around $3 million in legal costs, the National Farmers Federation paid up to $1 million in legal costs and the Commonwealth government paid over $500,000 in legal costs in this dispute. That is what worries me about the direction in which the federal government is taking the industrial relations system in this country. As you can see from a quick tally of that figure, it cost shareholders, taxpayers and union members in this dispute well over $17 million or $18 million to try to achieve what people saw as a just and fair outcome.In the current parliamentary Liberal Party, there are 25 people who said in their curriculum vitae that they were lawyers before they came into the parliament. There are a substantial number of members on the other side who have legal degrees or who have sought to say that they practised as lawyers. In fact, in the New South Wales party, some 10 lawyers in their ranks have come into this place.I can only talk in terms of Sydney, but in Sydney a good lawyer can always earn a very good living and a good barrister around St James Square or Phillip Street can certainly make a motser. I do not know whether a number of those people have not been successful in their careers as lawyers and have had to find another career—politics—but I can say that on my side the people who come from the trade union ranks, as we have been lampooned by certain government people, have all been successful in the careers we have pursued and we come here as part of that success.This report underlines one of the major flaws in the government's industrial relations regime: it has emasculated the commission and it has not allowed parties to sit down independently to try to work out the resolution of disputes. This dispute went straight to the Federal Court of Australia and straight on the meter for the lawyers—whomever they represented. Unfortunately, it appears to me that if you have the money you will be able to buy justice in this country. I do not think this is fair and it is something we will resist fiercely on this side, that you can be allowed to buy justice. I have heard it said that we have a Rolls Royce system of justice in this country: unfortunately, you have to be able to own a Rolls Royce to be able to get it. That appears to me to be the case in the waterfront dispute. I think it is a sad day with the passing of the Industrial Relations Court and this final report.19:10:001013Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I want to add to what was so well said by Senator Hogg and Senator Hutchins. It is a pity to see this court that did specialise in seeing to it that justice was done in the workplace subsumed into the Federal Court. All the Federal Court judges I know of are quite outstanding men and women. But the fact of the matter is that we had a discrete section of that court that looked to see that justice was done in the workplace. Mr Acting Deputy President, as you well know, the workplace is a place where there can be great injustices done unless both sides of the employment contract are in some sort of equal position. It is very difficult for persons employed in a situation where the power distribution is very much against them to vindicate their rights, first of all, without a union but, secondly, without a court to go to to enable them to get their fair deserts. Where you have a discrete court which is devoted to seeing that justice is done in the workplace, you are going to get a much better result overall than when that is not the case.Question resolved in the affirmative.101319:12:001013Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.The introduction to the annual report of the High Court of Australia, in part, states:The High Court of Australia is the nation's highest court. It is established by the Constitution for the resolution of constitutional disputes. It is also the nation's final court of appeal.In other words, all matters that are dealt with in Australia and Australian courts have, as their final place of appeal, the High Court of Australia. Senator Hutchins was talking earlier about the cost of the waterfront dispute. I notice that page 36 of this report states that the operating statement of the High Court of Australia for the year ending 30 June 1998 was less than $11 million. It seems extraordinary that a court as central to Australia's constitution as this one should have an operating cost so moderate.It does bring to mind, Mr Acting Deputy President, the thought that the third arm of government, with the High Court at the peak of that third arm of government, should be so moderate in the expense that it imposes upon the taxpayer. If you look at the executive costs of the second arm of government, then it becomes even more remarkable. The High Court is a body that is central to the way we live, to our rights, to the attitudes we take to each other and to government. It is the final barrier between us and government; and I think when a report from that body comes before this place it should be acknowledged.19:15:001013Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.101319:15:001013Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—I move: That the Senate take note of the document.The report marks the first year of operation for the GWRDC of the five-year plan for the years 1997 to 2020, a plan which was launched at the Australian wine industry's Outlook Conference during September 1997 in Melbourne. I had a lot to do with the wine industry at that particular stage and I was responsible for doing things with it. The reason I really want to speak on this report tonight is the fact that Dr John Stocker, the chairman of the GWRDC, is a person of immense ability who has done an outstanding job in his capacity as the chairman of the research and development corporation.The corporation's mission is to realise for Australia the excellent returns that are available through strategic investment in wine industry research and development. The wine industry is one of those industries which has really shown the way in primary industry, not only because it is a wonderful product but also because the people who are in it have put their collective resources together to drive their industry forward. They have put together the strategy `2025: the Australian wine industry', which gives a blueprint for the industry for the 30 years from when it was first put into place.The program's priorities are derived directly from industry requirements. The most important thing with R&D is that you actually do the job not only for the producers' benefit but also for the quality assurance and the other sorts of things associated with an industry which has been improving and progressing absolutely dramatically. In fact, our exports in 1997-98 approached $812 million and they are anticipated this year to reach over $900 million. They are exporting to many countries around the world that we never thought that we would get into: for example, a lot of our wine is now going into China.The 5,000 independent wine grape growers and the more than 900 wineries that we have in Australia do a wonderful job as far as the tourism industry, regional employment and suchlike go. It is only because the research and development corporation—which recognised the need for close consultation with the industry to ensure the continuing relevance of its programs and to enable a regular review of priorities—has actually been able to help the industry drive itself forward.It is well worth reading out a couple of the objectives of the corporation in the one minute I have left. The major objectives of the corporation are to promote, through the support for appropriate research and development, the increase of economic, environmental or social benefits to members of the grape and wine industry; the sustainable use of natural resources—and that implies the use of water, soil and everything else associated with the industry; the more effective use of the resources and skills of the community—and one thing they indeed do is to create jobs in their areas; the improvement of the impact of research; and the accountability for expenditure upon research and development activities in relation to the grape and wine industry. I congratulate Dr John Stocker on the outstanding job that he is doing as the chairman of that research and development corporation and I highly commend this report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks.Leave granted; debate adjourned.1014The following government document was considered and not debated:Meat Industry Council—Report for 1997-98. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Hogg. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Hogg in continuation.Adjournment101410000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being 7.20 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.101419:20:001014Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—I rise tonight to speak about one of Australia's great industries, one that embodies the colourful history of Australia and some of its great characters. I am talking about the wool industry and I would like to tell the chamber tonight about a meeting that took place in the small New South Wales town of Goulburn yesterday, where 1,600 wool growers voted for a new beginning for their industry. They voted to reclaim their industry and their future.The debate was energetic and at times quite colourful. As you would expect, it was a good-natured debate. Farmers are almost always very polite. But there was no doubt about why the hundreds of men and women had driven thousands of kilometres from all around Australia and had gathered at Goulburn. They wanted to take part in the vote to put their industry into the 21st century. And they did, by overwhelmingly passing a motion of no confidence in the board of the Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation, known as AWRAP. The board has now stood aside and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Mr Vaile) will soon make new appointments.The wool industry today is at a crucial crossroad, and the fresh start that growers have voted for may indeed be the last chance for this great industry. The no-confidence motion resulted from a widespread view by growers that their wool tax funds had been squandered and that the board lacked the vision and the long-term strategy to be able to stem the decline in the wool market and to provide a new vision to increase demand and therefore price. Growers at the meeting repeatedly said they wanted to give agriculture minister Mark Vaile a clean sheet to begin planning for a new approach to the industry and to the development and, importantly, the promotion of wool.A South Australian wool grower, Mr Peter Morgan, put the situation simply and quite colourfully when he said the industry had unsuccessfully tried to make a silk commercial purse from a bureaucratic sow's ear, where producers were at the wrong end of the market chain to promote wool. Wool promotion was, he argued, as much the responsibility of the manufacturer as it was of the growers.Growers speaking in favour of the no-confidence motion claimed that AWRAP had spent too much time on promoting itself and not enough on promoting the product. They argued that there needed to be a report of the organisation's activities to determine where wool growers could improve their returns. They recognised that wool needed to be promoted more effectively.They naturally feel frustrated that in the last 28 years $8 billion has been spent on wool promotion and yet wool is almost at one of the lowest prices of recent years and market share for wool growers is declining. They rejected the argument put by some that the no-confidence motion would reduce consumer confidence or that it would pose a financial risk to growers.Wool growers did not come to this decision overnight. The seeds of this discontent were sown in the aftermath of the collapse of the reserve price scheme at the start of this decade and over the recent years of roller-coaster price fluctuations. So why did the growers feel such a sense of anger and frustration at this Goulburn meeting? I believe it was that frustration that led to growers decid ing that they would not even question the chairman of the board or the chief executive of AWRAP on the financial documents or the annual report presented. They came to debate the motion of no confidence and they simply wanted to get on with it.Since the 1990s, the wool industry has been managing the reduction of a wool stockpile from 4.7 million bales and a debt of $2.7 billion. The official stockpile has now fallen to just over one million bales but there are, of course, around 850,000 more bales of wool in the woolsheds of Australia. Growers are also under increasing pressure as a result of the Asian crisis and the weakening European demand which has further pushed down wool prices. In fact, demand for wool has fallen in the past eight years from about 1,900 million kilograms a year to just over 1,500 million kilograms a year. Wool has never regained the 870c per kilo set in the dying days of the reserve price scheme and, as we all know, in recent weeks it has fallen to below 500c a kilo.So where to now for the industry? It seems that new arrangements for the industry must contain at least three important principles. Firstly, there must be a performance audit of the board's activities to ensure that growers can see where Woolmark has succeeded, and where it has failed, and how growers have benefited from the research and development in dollar terms.Secondly, the change process must be managed effectively. There must be a truly independent task force at arm's length from the retiring board. The chair must be clearly committed to change in the industry structure and culture, with a team comprising a careful mix of those with a knowledge of business and, of course, the wool industry itself. Thirdly, and most importantly, the process must be customer focused; business like in its approach, with clear and concise links between producer and customer; and with grower controls of levies and contestability of funding.The minister for agriculture has undertaken to appoint a new chairman for AWRAP within 30 days and to establish a future directions task force for the wool industry. I am optimistic that wool growers can move forward with renewed confidence that there will be increased grower participation in the future decisions taken by the new AWRAP board and its industry activities. The aim will be to build on and sustain wool demand and to improve wool grower productivity. These are key challenges that the industry faces and they will ensure a long-term and more profitable future for the industry.Yesterday's vote was a milestone in the democratic processes of the wool industry. For me it was a historic day and I am sure it also was for those hundreds of families who travelled from all around Australia to attend the Goulburn meeting. I was honoured to attend that meeting and to be part of the proceedings. Growers, in taking responsibility for their industry's future directions and for its reform, have made a courageous decision to look boldly to the future of one of Australia's most important agricultural industries, one which embodies some of our nation's greatest characters.101619:28:001016Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—One of the greatest ironies of the recent election was that, whilst economic commentators lamented the lack of scope in the tax debate, crucial elements of Labor's tax package were completely under-analysed. The status attributed to the GST was singular: reform equals GST. This had the effect of constraining the tax debate into one of pro or anti the coalition's new tax.It is an indictment of those who offered their active advocacy to the GST that a little peek around the millennial corner was not taken. This simple voyeuristic endeavour would have brought into sharp relief the inevitable damage that a GST will do to the Australian economy. Quite simply, if a GST makes some goods dearer, it is bound to encourage Australians to buy via global e-commerce. Electronic commerce, the practical facilitator of a globalised economy, will inevitably reduce the revenue raising capability of a GST. Global access to markets via the Internet, to electronic services and to intangible or digitised property will defy national borders, and hence tax laws pertaining to consumption, relegating the GST as a tax for times past.Labor's tax proposals, which offered an innovative approach to leveraging social outcomes from the income tax system, remain a worthy alternative base from which to build a tax regime for the next century. Conversely, any proposal that perpetuates or enhances inequity, like the coalition's GST, will inevitably break down social cohesion.The OECD Ministerial Forum on Electronic Commerce held in Ottawa in early October represented an important forum for discussions on these issues to progress. Unfortunately for Australia, we did not have a minister present. Whilst I acknowledge this had more to do with the timing of the federal election, it was nonetheless an indictment that none of the state Liberal ministers could find time in their schedules to attend. Had a minister attended, he could have brought back the bad news for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The bad news for the government is that electronic commerce will undermine a GST within a relatively short space of time.Instead of looking forward and anticipating the challenges of a globalised economy, the GST, as I said, is a tax for times past. It is a tax based on the assumption of an isolated fiscal regime, where revenue collection can be structurally linked to domestic consumption within national parameters. With the Internet as the medium and electronic commerce as the mechanism for economic globalisation, this assumption is false. To base our tax system on a false assumption is both foolish and irresponsible.The Ottawa ministerial forum made many recommendations as well as articulating many of the unresolved challenges e-commerce will bring to member nations. The report entitled Electronic Commerce: Taxation Framework Conditions, produced by the Committee on Fiscal Affairs, outlines the principles that have given Australia and other OECD members policy guidance to date. The central tenet is that the tax regime of member nations should not discriminate between the digital or physical commerce environment.Australia has embraced this principle. Only today we saw the Prime Minister make a joint statement with respect to a theoretical bilateral agreement, when what we saw in fact was an echoing of many of the outcomes that were articulated two months ago at the OECD ministerial forum. There are many other features of this statement that are contextualised by a rhetorical commitment, stated in the report as `the potential' of electronic commerce `to be one of the great economic developments of the 21st century'. How Australia extracts the potential value of this great economic development will not be governed by our internal fiscal regime but rather by how we leverage ourselves in the global marketplace. Australia is a comparably small economy, so great care needs to be taken to ensure that our future economic base is nurtured. That is why the Prime Minister's failure to confront the GST in today's joint statement is so irresponsible.The Ottawa ministerial forum traversed many issues, not least being the impact and effect of electronic commerce on a nation's ability to tax consumption. The report Electronic Commerce: Taxation Framework Conditions identifies four elements of an electronic commerce taxation framework specifically relating to consumption tax. Firstly, rules for the consumption taxation of cross-border trade should result in the jurisdiction where consumption takes place and an international consensus should be sought on the circumstances under which supplies are held to be consumed in a jurisdiction. Secondly, for the purposes of consumption taxes, the supply of digitised products should not be treated as a supply of goods.Thirdly, where business and other organisations within a country acquire services and intangible property from suppliers outside the country, countries should examine the use of reverse charge, self-assessment or other equivalent mechanisms where this would give immediate protection of their revenue base and of the competitiveness of domestic suppliers. Fourthly, countries should ensure that appropriate systems are developed in cooperation with the WCO and in consultations with carriers and other interested parties to collect tax on the importation of physical goods and that such systems do not impede revenue collection and the efficient delivery of products to consumers.So, as you can see, the OECD report poses some fascinating riddles with each of these points highlighting the complexity that a consumption tax introduces to the electronic commerce challenge. At this stage, the OECD have been unable to offer any better advice than self-regulation for the taxing of services or intangible or digital property purchased via the Internet. It would be an envied administration that could extract tax voluntarily, so this concept is not going to be realised.The implications of this weakness of the GST in a globalised economy must not be underestimated. Claims that the current small proportion of e-commerce sales in the crucial business to private consumer category justify a steady as you go approach look forlorn in the context of the phenomenal growth that Australia is experiencing in Internet connectivity, with a 46 per cent growth in Internet connectivity to households in the last nine months alone and a subsequent growth in e-commerce predicted as security solutions are refined and commercialised.The Internet and television will collide in an amazing kaleidoscope of interactive entertainment and information services in lounge rooms around Australia. A global smorgasbord through which goods and services can be purchased will become available and consumers will no longer be confined to a domestic marketplace. This new media will be driven, as is conventional media, by advertising revenues. When the market is a global one and seeing an ad from a US based travel agent and booking online may provide a better product for a cheaper price for consumers, not to mention avoiding the national GST, the dangers become clear.If a GST makes some goods dearer, it is a reasonable assumption that it will encourage Australians to buy via global e-commerce, thus avoiding tax and potentially wounding Australian industry. Where are the Australian Taxation Office plans to stop this seepage? If the current e-commerce threat to the tax base is a worry, the GST will accelerate it. With the Internet identified as a priority for the tax department, you would think the tax commis sioner would have had more to say. The government has been deathly silent on the implications of the GST with respect to e-commerce. It is about time that they released the study and recommendations arising from that.All in all, these issues point to one outcome, and one outcome only: the irrelevance and the lack of suitability which the GST represents to Australia in the 21st century. The silence of the government, particularly in the context of today's statement, certainly shows, firstly, that they either have looked at these issues, realised the serious implications and are choosing not to say anything or, secondly—something which is almost a worse scenario—that they do not understand. Time will tell the outcome of this issue, but in the meantime the government has an obligation to confront these issues actively and put their intentions and plans before the Australian people.101819:38:001018Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Tonight, Australia received some very important news from the World Heritage Committee meeting in Kyoto. It declared that the construction of the Jabiluka uranium mine within Kakadu should be halted. As the Senate will know, the commission agreed to consider again the question of inscribing the Kakadu world heritage site on the List of World Heritage in Danger until April next year, allowing time for a further three reports to be prepared and considered.The last couple of weeks have seen the Australian government taking frantic and desperate measures to turn the World Heritage Committee around. Australian bureaucrats were suggesting as late as yesterday that the Australian government had no constitutional powers to stop the mine. I want to remind the Minister for the Environment and Heritage tonight of three practical steps he could take to do that. He could warn ERA that if they proceed they do so at their own financial risk. I would have thought that the government would have been wanting to minimise any sort of compensation claim that taxpayers might have to meet. This would certainly be one very responsible way of doing that.The minister could issue a proclamation under the World Heritage Properties Act. That is, as I understand it, what that legislation is for. A proclamation could be made and given assent by the Governor-General within 24 hours, after which time the minister can then issue a determination and the Northern Territory and the mining company would be obliged to act on that determination.The minister has been saying that he would not actually allow the mining of uranium before April. But as we all know, the program would not have allowed mining before then in any case. What the minister has failed to acknowledge is that construction of the mine is in itself a significant factor in putting at risk those natural and cultural world heritage values identified by the investigating team in October. The minister could indicate to ERA that he will not provide an export licence unless the company agrees to halt the mine construction now.I think it should have been very obvious to the minister that the reprieve granted to Australia by the World Heritage Committee would not make any sense at all unless it were accompanied by that commitment to halt the mine. I would like to put on the public record tonight the reasons why to do other than require construction to be stopped would have been impossible for the committee.I want to quote from a letter to the committee by Professor Nicholas Robinson of the Centre for Environmental Legal Studies at Pace University, New York. Professor Robinson is a specialist in international environmental law and is Chairman of the Commission on Environmental Law of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. He stresses that his opinion is based on established legal procedures, not on any political issues associated with Jabiluka. He says:. . . I am concerned that the recommendation of the World Heritage Bureau that Kakadu not be listed as endangered, despite a finding that the site is in fact endangered, would violate the basic procedures laid down under the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention clearly indicate that once the committee has before it sufficient evidence to satisfy itself that there is "serious and specific danger", . . . then the Committee, under paragraph 85, is obliged to inscribe the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger, with the "program of corrective measures" proposed to be immediately implemented by the State Party—that is, Australia—concerned.The Mission report [on Kakadu] recommended that Kakadu be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. It found "serious and specific dangers" pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Convention and that at least one of the Guidelines criteria was proven. These findings included scientific, aesthetic and cultural concerns. The Bureau has accepted the report as "both thorough and credible".Professor Robinson points to the six months delay before reconsideration to allow further reports of its `efforts to prevent further damage and mitigate all the threats identified in the UNESCO mission report'. He argues that it is questionable under the guidelines that this is possible and argues that, under the circumstances whereby the mine is proceeding, not only can there be no efforts to prevent further damage, but also the serious and specific danger may well be exacerbated unless mining construction ceases and corrective measures are implemented as determined by the committee. He says:Were there to be an immediate suspension of all construction of the mining operations that endanger the property, pending such studies, then the delay in listing might be consistent with the World Heritage Convention.However, since the mining operations have been found to be the cause of the endangerment, further study activities alone do not appear to constitute "corrective action" . . . and nor do they abate the threats identified by the Mission report.Professor Robinson draws attention to the interpretation of the World Heritage Convention and the guidelines which is reinforced by application of the precautionary principle under international law, restated in principle 15 of the Rio de Janeiro Declaration on Environment and Development which states:In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. Australia is obliged, in article 4 of the World Heritage Convention to—and I quote again:. . . identify, protect, conserve, present and transmit to future generations, the properties of world heritage. Not to list a site that has been found to be in danger would violate the Precautionary principle.I would have thought that it would have been bleedingly obvious to the government that the mine construction should stop immediately this became a matter of consideration by the World Heritage Committee. It certainly was obvious to the Democrats, and that is what we argued. Professor Robinson goes on to talk about the cultural values of Kakadu. He said:There is a further reason for the World Heritage Committee to ensure that the procedural guidelines are closely adhered to. The cultural landscape of the Kakadu National Park, as a world heritage site, is defined in part by the indigenous people of the region. A basic consideration of all Human Rights issues is that the established legal process always be closely adhered to, and not adapted expediently in order to meet perceived exigencies of the moment. The Rio de Janeiro Declaration on Environment and Development in Principle 22, emphasises the importance of respecting indigenous people and their communities, and that "States should recognise and duly support their identity, culture and interests, and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development".Cultural tourism is important to the World Heritage Convention and to the sustainable use of cultural sites; thus there are economic interests relevant here. More important, however, is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees to everyone the rights inter alia, in Article 21 to participate in government decisions affecting them, in Article 27 to the legal protection of cultural heritage, and above all in Article 7 to equal protection before the law.A decision to change the rules of the game in mid-course would leave the World Heritage Committee open to the appearance of disregarding fundamental human rights of the indigenous people identified in the Mission report.Today we saw the minister during question time take a dorothy dixer in which he thumbed his nose at the World Heritage Committee in terms of cultural values, and he actually suggested that the indigenous people affected by this uranium mine in their midst stood to benefit by its go-ahead. The argument goes along the lines that Aboriginal people have enjoyed the benefits of the royalties from Ranger and they want more of the same.I have actually been up to the township of Jabiru, which serves the Ranger mine. I called in to the health centre there and talked to the director. I asked her what was the most serious health problem in the area. The answer came back that it was scabies and that 90 per cent of Aboriginal children in this area were affected by this Third World disease. Scabies has very serious implications in the medium and long term for the major organs of the body. Life expectancy in this area is low, even by Aboriginal standards. So if these are indicators of affluence, then it is new to me.The $48 million in royalties over 18 years from Ranger have not gone to make the traditional owners in this area rich. In fact they have been used by the land council for the most basic services—services which non-indigenous Australians take for granted. They have also been used to develop tourism ventures. (Time expired)102019:48:001020Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—In rising to speak this evening I note the occurrence of World AIDS Day 1998, World AIDS Day having commenced in 1988. The timely theme for World AIDS Day 1998 is entitled `Force for Change: World AIDS campaign with young people'. The devastation of the AIDS pandemic is only too evident and not one that I should need to draw to the attention of senators. In December last year UNAIDS and the World Health Organisation released extraordinary figures that showed there is about one-third more people living with HIV than estimated in December 1996. The figures in fact estimate that there are a staggering 16,000 new infections each day, which has added 5.8 million infections to the 1997 total. It is now estimated that there are over 30 million people living with HIV infection. Of these 30 million people, at least one-third are young people aged between 10 and 24 years.The World AIDS Day 1998 home page on the Internet points out that in the, say, one minute that I have been speaking, five young people world wide between the ages of 10 and 24 years have been infected with HIV. The home page goes on to say:In the absence of a vaccine or a cure, education is the only weapon available to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.Educating young people is central to our fight to reduce the incidence of HIV-AIDS. This year's slogan, `A force for change,' well reflects what all community leaders and indeed all Australians need to actively pursue—that is, changing attitudes, particularly those in relation to discrimination against those with HIV, and to gay issues, through education.Australia's elected representatives have an opportunity to lead that force for change. It is not acceptable to pretend that the pandemic sweeping our planet is in fact somebody else's responsibility. We should be 100 per cent behind any force for change. Education of young people, the greatest resource in our nation, is pivotal in this endeavour. Young people should understand both the myths and the realities of HIV infection and AIDS. We should ensure that we lead the way with tolerance and understanding of the issues, and we must provide support for people living with HIV infection. That is the only way that we can in fact be any sort of a force for change—by educating the community.It is also important that as community leaders we acknowledge that HIV is an issue of concern which does not confine itself to the gay community. Indeed, across much of the world the dominant method of the transferral of HIV-AIDS is in fact high-risk heterosexual contact. In sub-Saharan Africa, South-East Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean and North America the primary means of transferral is in fact via heterosexual sex. The stories that emerge from these regions about the nature of infection are startling. The UNAIDS global summary of the HIV-AIDS epidemic contains references, for example, to towns on the South African borders where seven pregnant women in 10 tested HIV positive in 1995. Clearly, many of those from these regions are infected because of a lack of education about practices and behaviour which would protect against infection. Just as education is a crucial issue in these regions, so it is in Australia.The government has made a solid commitment to education on issues surrounding HIV-AIDS. Earlier this month I had the opportunity to launch an HIV-AIDS Resource Manual on behalf of the Minister for Health and Aged Care, my colleague the Hon. Michael Wooldridge MP. The manual is a comprehensive, 300-page, cross-referenced resource that contains detailed information for HIV educators and service providers. It covers the latest developments in treatments, education, prevention, sexual health and other topics. It is an affirmation of the government's support for and commitment to the reduction of HIV infection in this country. That commitment is not just for the implementation of education campaigns; it also supports the development of an effective and skilled work force that operates in partnership with the government, the medical profession and others for whom the HIV-AIDS Resource Manual will be an invaluable guide.The government has demonstrated its commitment to the reduction of HIV infection by actively pursuing community participation. The government acts in partnership with organisations such as the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations and AIDS and related diseases councils throughout Australia. Recently, the AIDS Council of New South Wales opened relatively new premises in Parramatta, my own base, to better support the community of western Sydney and those living with HIV. I am a strong supporter of ACON Western Sydney and will be taking a constructive role in its future.Part of the government's active partnership in reducing HIV infection comes from our support of these organisations in the development and implementation of national education and prevention initiatives, particularly those that target gay men in Australia. Senators are no doubt aware that Australia is recognised world wide for our success in addressing the HIV-AIDS pandemic, and in particular for the bipartisan political approach that has been taken over so many years. Innovative education programs have been an important part of that success. The govern ment continues to support the need for ongoing education and is committed to the development of a fourth national HIV-AIDS strategy.Recently the minister and the government supported a national review of gay men's education in Australia and the development of a national education strategy. The review confirmed the success to date of education programs in Australia in controlling and reducing the spread of HIV. The government response to the education strategy was developed jointly with the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations. One initiative coming out of that response is the development of a national training agenda for educators in the area.The Commonwealth is bringing together key stakeholders to set priorities for a range of national training initiatives, which will support educators in their work of minimising infection. The Commonwealth has also brought together a national consensus group to oversight the development of a national evaluation framework for HIV-AIDS health promotion programs. AFAO and AIDS councils are members of the committees oversighting both projects.Another remarkable achievement this year in taking Australia to the forefront in reducing the rate of HIV infection was, in my view, the election of my colleague the minister, Michael Wooldridge, to the position of Chair of the Programme Coordinating Board of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. Dr Wooldridge said on this occasion: This is obviously a personal honour but more importantly recognition of Australia's leadership in research, treatment, the development of pragmatic responses to HIV/AIDS and the success that our community has had in having these issues addressed in an understanding and non-judgemental manner. Australia now has further opportunity to play its part in the concerted international efforts, under the auspices of UNAIDS, to slow the spread of HIV.Minister Wooldridge's election to this important international position can only further strengthen Australia's leading role in combating the spread of HIV in Australia but, more importantly, within our region and around the world. In work away from the parliament, in taking any sort of role in consolidating as a force for change—to adopt this year's theme for World AIDS Day—it is useful to recall the words of Peter Piot, the Executive Director of UNAIDS, in his plenary speech to the 4th International Congress on AIDS in Asia and the Pacific in October last year. He said:The arrival of AIDS puts every society under strain. It searches out our weaknesses, throws harsh light on hidden areas, and demands that we discuss subjects whose very existence we would prefer to ignore or deny. The societies of Asia and the Pacific are no exception. Traditions may be different, values may be different, but the disease is the same. It is just as ruthless, just as relentless, and just as eager to exploit hypocrisy and ignorance. We as human beings have little choice but to admit our weaknesses and build on our strengths. And in the face of an external threat one of our most powerful capabilities is community action. But if communities are to take responsibility for their own defence they need the freedom to do so. To isolate people living with HIV or AIDS is to weaken them and reduce their ability to help themselves. Similarly, to marginalise drug users, or sex workers, or the gay community, or anyone else living outside the mainstream of national life, is to undermine their ability to organise and protect themselves against AIDS.We should heed Peter Piot's words. To be a force for change, we have to educate the community against prejudice. In this rapidly changing world, we must ensure that young people have access to all the information available on HIV, so that together we can reduce the incidence of HIV infection and offer all people living with HIV both commitment and support.102219:59:001022Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I was going to speak tonight about my visit to Belgium representing the Australian Labor Party and the parliament at the 80th anniversary celebrations of the end of World War I. In view of there being only a couple of minutes, I will take another opportunity on a different night to make some remarks that are fitting for the occasion.In the minute or so left, I want to compliment senators Lundy, Allison and Payne on the quality of their contribution—each on quite a different subject, but each with detail and commitment. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for Senator Ferris's contribution. Her contribution reminded me of an obscure French leader of the last century who once said, when he saw a group of his followers going past where he was speaking, `There are my people. I must follow them. I am their leader.' I think Senator Ferris tonight was saying, `Whatever the wool growers want, wherever they want to lead me, I will follow and support what they are doing.' That is why the coalition has made such a dreadful mess of wool policy in this country. There has been no leadership from the government. Just before the election they announced the policy of freezing the wool pile—no more sales to try and jack the price up. But the price still went down. We still have a wool pile. We still have no policy from the government on how they are going to deal with the problems of the wool industry.20:00:001022Senate adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Documents10221022The following government documents were tabled:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development Corporation—Corporate plan 1998-2001.Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act—Administrative Review Council—Report for 1997-98—Erratum.Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand—Record and resolutions—13th meeting, Broome, 31 July 1998.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Reports for 1997-98— Australian Foundation for Culture and the Humanities. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation and Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee. Horticultural Research and Development Corporation. Meat Industry Council. Private Health Insurance Ombudsman. Health Insurance Act—Medical Training Review Panel—Report for 1997-98.High Court of Australia Act—High Court of Australia—Report for 1997-98.Income Tax Assessment Act and Taxation Administration Act—Commissioner of Taxation—Report for 1997-98, including reports pursuant to the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 , the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 —Corrigenda.Issues from the Advance to the Minister for Finance as a final charge for the year ended 30 June 1998.Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act—Snowy Mountains Council—Report for 1997-98.United Nations—Report of the Australian delegation to the 51st session of the General Assembly, New York, 17 September to 19 December 1996.Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996—Industrial Relations Court of Australia—Report for 1997-98.1023The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Air Navigation Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 321.Airports Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 320.Christmas Island Act—Regulations— No. 1 of 1998 (Tobacco Sellers Licensing Act 1975 (W.A.) (C.I.)). No. 2 of 1998 (Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (W.A.) (C.I.)).Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act—Regulations— No. 1 of 1998 (Tobacco Sellers Licensing Act 1975 (W.A.) (C.K.I.)). No. 2 of 1998 (Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (W.A.) (C.K.I.)).Evidence and Procedure (New Zealand) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 317.Higher Education Funding Act—Determination under section 15—T22-98.Migration Act—Certificate under section 502, dated 24 November 1998.National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Act and National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 316.Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 318.Patents Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 319.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act and Horticultural Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 315.Answers to Questions on Notice1024The following answers to questions were circulated:1024(Question No. 160)1601024Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator ColstonPF4QLDIND00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 12 November 1998:With reference to the Coalition's election promise to legislate for consumer benefits arising from open competition in telecommunications, can the Minister assure the Senate that the Government will seek passage of legislation providing for the strengthening of competition, prior to the introduction of any further Telstra sale bills and, if so, will those competition reforms include an obligation for Telstra to: (a) disclose its basic network and service costs to competitors when it negotiates access to its network and services; and (b) file all of its intra-industry agreements with competitors with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, so that Telstra is not able to deny consumers the benefits of genuine competition and lower prices.1024Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1998, which is part of the package of telecommunications legislation the Government introduced into the Parliament on 12 November 1998, includes several amendments to strengthen competition and these amendments will take affect prior to the further privatisation of Telstra.Specifically, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill includes provisions to enable Telstra (and any other carrier) to be required to disclose its basic network and service costs to competitors so they can be used in negotiations for access to its network and services. Under Division 6 of Part XIB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 theAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is able to make rules requiring one or more specified carriers or carriage service providers to keep and retain records. These records, may, amongst other things, relate to a firm's network and service costs. Proposed items 6 to 25, 27 and 28 of Schedule 1 to the Bill enable the ACCC to require a carrier or carriage service provider to prepare reports containing information kept under record keeping rules and enable the ACCC to disclose or require the disclosure of those all or part of those reports. These provisions will therefore enable Telstra's competitors to be provided with information, where appropriate, on Telstra's costs for use in their access negotiations.The ACCC has been working with industry to develop new record-keeping rules for accounting separation, which amongst other things, will identify Telstra's costs. The ACCC has recently selected Arthur Anderson to finalise these rules for implementation by carriers. Carriers are expected to implement the rules in 1999.The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill does not include provisions requiring Telstra to file all of its intra-industry agreements with competitors with the ACCC.However, under Divisions 4 and 5 of Part XIB of the Trade Practices Act, the ACCC already has discretionary powers which enable it to require Telstra to file various charges, including charges as would be set out in intra-industry access agreements. The ACCC may also provide public access to filed charges if it is satisfied the public interest benefit would outweigh both the public detriment through any lessening of competition and any substantial prejudice to the commercial interest of the person resulting from disclosure of the information.