1998-12-073911SENATE127101998-12-07The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Documents12711271Motion (by Senator Troeth, at the request of Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That standing order 166(2) be amended to read as follows:(2) If: (a) the President certifies that a document is to be presented to the Senate; or (b) a minister or the Auditor-General provides to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy President, or, if the Deputy President is unavailable, to any one of the temporary chairmen of committees, a document which is to be laid before the Senate, on the certification or the provision of the document, as the case may be: (c) the document shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (d) the publication of the document is authorised by this standing order; (e) the President, the Deputy President, or the Temporary Chairman of Committees, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the document; and (f) the President shall lay the document on the table at the next sitting of the Senate.Business12711271Motion (by Senator Troeth, at the request of Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That, with effect from the first sitting day in 1999:(1) Standing order 54(5) be amended to read as follows: Except on Monday debate on the question for the adjournment shall not exceed 40 minutes, and a senator shall not speak to that question for more than 10 minutes on any day. On Monday at the conclusion of debate, and on other days at the expiration of 40 minutes, at the conclusion of debate, or at the time specified for adjournment, whichever is the earlier, or if there is no debate, the President shall adjourn the Senate without putting the question.(2) Standing order 57 be amended by leaving out "At 10.30 pm, adjournment" in paragraph (1)(a)(xi) and substituting "Adjournment".Bills1271s1901271Consideration resumed from 3 December.The bill.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! The committee is considering the National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill 1998 . Senator Allison has moved Australian Democrat amendment 24 on sheet 1187 to clause 32 of the bill. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We now proceed to opposition amendments 13 and 14 on revised sheet 1185.12:33:001271Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—by leave—I move:(13) Clause 33, page 40 (line 6), omit "reviewable".(14) Clause 33, page 40 (lines 11 to 21), omit subclause (2).These are the last of the opposition amendments. What we intend to do here is, once again, take this bill back to the previous government's legislation in respect of the grounds of reviewability. The 1996 bill ensured that the scope of decision subject to review by the AAT is not unnecessarily narrowed. Amendments 13 and 14 both take the grounds of reviewability back to what they were under previous legislation. We say that the government has not presented a sufficiently strong case to omit reviewability.12:34:001271Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—We are opposed to the change. It is a philosophical question really. We would prefer that it be limited to reviewable decisions, as are defined within the bill. That is the way we drafted the legislation.12:34:001272Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The minister says that he wants to limit it to decisions that are reviewable within the bill. What range of decisions therefore do you deem that you would not want to have reviewed which otherwise, under the operation of normal administrative law, would be reviewed?12:35:001272Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—That is a very good question but it is hypothetical.12:35:001272Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I would like to say that is a good answer, but it is not. You obviously have concerns about areas of reviewability. Basically, you are saying in relation to reviewability that you, as a minister, and the government can make decisions by regulation as to what provision is reviewable and what is not. I think that sort of open-ended situation is something this parliament has not tolerated in the past. I would be surprised if we were to tolerate it now. Once again, you are asking for a mechanism whereby you have discretion as to what is reviewable. Obviously, that would be subject to some of the principles of law that have applied so far. You are asking for a pretty broad sweep here.12:35:001272Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I think the point is that, if the Senate is unhappy with the regulation being put in a reviewable form, it can take action at that time.12:36:001272Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I did come in here with somewhat of an open mind to see whether we could get anything out of the minister in respect of limitations on reviewability. I have not been satisfied by the answers. So I think we will be pressing our amendment.12:36:001272Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I indicate that the Democrats will be supporting the ALP's amendments.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Before I announce this division, I would warn that the bells have not been ringing in some of the offices. That may cause a problem, whips, later on. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Bolkus's ) be agreed to.12:40:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)31Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. *Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.31Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H. *Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Carr, K. Newman, J. M.Cook, P. F. S. Calvert, P. H.Crossin, P. M. Crane, W.Evans, C. V. Synon, K. M.Faulkner, J. P. Campbell, I. G.Mackay, S. O'Chee, W. G.Reynolds, M. Chapman, H. G. P.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.12:43:001273Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—by leave—I move Democrat amendments Nos 26 and 27:(26) Page 46 (after line 27), after clause 38, insert:38A Performance targets (1) If, in a year ending on 30 June, a Department or Commonwealth authority is responsible for the carrying on of an activity to which a NEPM applies, the Secretary of the Department or the Chief Executive Officer of the authority, as the case may be, must devise annual performance targets for the implementation of the NEPM and provide a copy of them to the relevant Minister by the 30 September preceding the 30 June on which the year ends. (2) Within 7 sitting days after receiving a copy of performance targets under subsection (1), the relevant Minister must cause a copy of the performance targets to be tabled in each House of the Parliament. (3) If, by 30 September in any year, the Secretary of a Department or the Chief Executive Officer of a Commonwealth authority responsible for the carrying on of an activity to which a NEPM applies has not provided a copy of the annual performance targets to the relevant Minister, the relevant Minister must prescribe the performance targets for the Department or authority for that year, by no later than 1 November of that year.(27) Clause 39, page 47 (after line 14), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) A report under subsection (1) must include a report on the achievement of performance targets set under section 38A.These amendments require performance targets to be developed and implemented when a national environment protection measure is put in place. They are straightforward. We would argue that the list ought to be included in this bill to make sure it is workable. It should be a standard measure in most bills of this kind.12:44:001273Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I do not think it is a matter of the greatest consequence, but my view is that this is unreasonably requiring matters of internal administration to be treated in a public way. The point is that if an NEPM exists and it obliges the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth will meet the requirements under it and secretaries will administer it in the same way as they administer every other obligation that they have upon them in terms of their public responsibilities. I do not see why we would want to give them an additional burden of having to table the way in which they internally carry on business. The obligation is upon government. Government accepts the responsibility. It will be under Commonwealth laws, Commonwealth regulations or application of state laws. If you argue for this here, you could argue it for practically every area of public administration, and I have not heard any case that has been made out that would suggest that that was really necessary.12:46:001273Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition supports these amendments. I think the minister is being unnecessarily difficult this afternoon with respect to them. What we are basically saying to government is: we want you to take this seriously. We want you set up performance targets—and, let us face it, they do it with respect to a lot of areas of activity—because we want to be sure in advance that departments are going to set targets that are worth while and will meet the objectives of this legislation and the accompanying legislation.We do not want to get in a situation where the government says to us, `Trust us, we'll do all this,' when we know full well that current administration is so complex and diverse that obligations sometimes get flicked aside and given lower priority. We have had examples of ministers in this place—quite some time ago, I must say—putting files aside for six, seven or eight years. We do not want a situation to develop where obligations on secretaries can be flicked aside for a period of time. We want them to take this seriously. As I said, I think the minister is being unnecessarily difficult with respect to this particular proposal.12:47:001273Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I would just ask a question of the minister. If I am hearing him correctly, is he suggesting that performance measures would be there in place but that he does not want this process to be made a public one, where there is a public obligation and set times when there must be public reporting? Would he expect the department to put in place performance targets in any case?12:47:001274Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—What I would expect is that the administration would meet the obligations of the law. How they do that is a matter of administration. No doubt, different administrators will have different ways to ensure that they meet their obligations. That is the point—that it is to me one of internal administration. What is of interest to the parliament is that the requirement to comply with the measure is met, and obviously the Commonwealth would meet its obligation and it will report in its annual report that it has done so.12:48:001274Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I ask again: is it not the sort of thing that the private sector does now as a matter of course? It seems to me to be a sensible management process that ought to be applied at government level. You say that this does not apply in other areas, but maybe it ought to. What is the government's thinking in that respect? Just saying that it is up to the department seems to me to be again failing to take a lead on these kinds of management measures.12:49:001274Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—It is not that it is failing to provide a lead; it is allowing administrators to administer. The NEPM will set out the standard and the standard will be applied to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will be legally obliged to meet it and administrators will have to devise ways within their areas of responsibility to ensure that the Commonwealth does meet it. It is really a question of how prescriptive you want to be. It seems to me that this requirement is over the top, principally because it does not lead to any better outcome. The outcome is what is contained in the NEPM that must be adhered to.12:50:001274Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Minister, is there any aspect of this amendment which the government would accept? Are there some time frames in there that the government would sooner not see, or is the whole amendment not acceptable to the government?12:50:001274Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—It is unacceptable to the government because it does not lead to any better outcome. The Senate has the opportunity to question the officials in estimates committees on the way in which they are implementing the measure—what internal practices they have adopted; what documents are required to demonstrate the `paper war'. There are so many ways in which senators can satisfy themselves that administration is occurring correctly. The bottom line of all this is that the NEPM must be complied with by government. Officials will be instructed to meet that obligation and then, basically, we let the officials get on with the job of doing their job.12:51:001274Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—The Democrats stand by this amendment. We think it is an important measuring stick for us to have in the act. It seems to be something the private sector does as a matter of course. We believe the Commonwealth ought to apply those kinds of management measures, and this is a good bill in which to do so.12:51:001274Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Those of us who have been around for a few years will understand what works and what does not and what is necessary and what is not in so far as our duty of audit and control of executive government decisions are concerned. I do not think at this stage that there has been a case made out for these amendments. If at some future stage that case is made out then quite clearly we would have to re-examine not only this matter in this bill but also other authorities.I am not criticising the initiative of Senator Allison. At some stage this might have to be done with various authorities and departments. But we wonder whether we are setting a precedent here which may relieve from certain officers of the government their responsibility in the first place to oversee what is taking place. As the minister has said, we in the Senate have a number of opportunities to examine those measures, not least of which are the estimates committees and the ability of this chamber to call for reports and papers. So at this stage I am not prepared to support this measure.Amendments not agreed to.12:54:001275Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I move Democrats amendment No. 28:(28) Page 47 (after line 29), at the end of the Bill, add:42 Review of operation of Act (1) The Environment Minister must cause an independent review of: (a) the operation of this Act; and (b) the extent to which the policy objectives of this Act remain valid; and (c) whether the provisions of this Act remain appropriate for the achievement of those policy objectives; to be undertaken as soon as possible after the fifth anniversary of the commencement of this Act. (2) A person who undertakes such a review must give the Minister a written report of the review. (3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 12 months after the fifth anniversary of the commencement of this Act. (4) In this section: independent review means a review undertaken by persons who: (a) in the Environment Minister's opinion possess appropriate qualifications to undertake the review; and (b) include one or more persons who are not employed by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority and have not, since the commencement of the Act, provided services to the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority under or in connection with a contract.This amendment calls for a review of the operation of the act by an independent person and for that review to be tabled in the parliament within 12 months of the fifth anniversary of the commencement of the act. Many acts now have review provisions—the Endangered Species Act, to name just one. We think it is important that the parliament examines how this is going, and this would be an appropriate vehicle do so.12:55:001275Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—In the light of the previous contribution by Senator Harradine and the comments by Senator Allison, the opposition will support this amendment. Institutionalising a review within a five-year period is a fair ask by the Democrats. We are talking about legislation which impacts not just on the environment but also on the way that states and territories and the Commonwealth interact to protect the environment. A five-year period after which an independent review will take place would, I am sure, encourage those who have a responsibility to implement this structure to more assiduously do so.12:56:001275Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I was going to argue that the review provision that is in the primary act, the 1994 act, is adequate in itself and does require a review, not only of the operations of that act but also of each of the participating jurisdictions after a period of five years from the commencement of this act. But the trouble is that the five years is only next year, which is not going to give a particularly helpful review of the operations of an act that we hope will come into effect after this debate. The concept, therefore, of looking at the implementation of the Commonwealth's response to its NEPC obligations—and that is the bill that we are debating—after a period of five years strikes me on balance as not unreasonable. Whereas governments, I know, sometimes are a little nervous about this concept of independent review, in the circumstances that does not strike me as unreasonable either. So I will accept the amendment.Amendment agreed to.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Is Democrat amendment No. 21, which was to oppose clause 28, supposed to have been dealt with?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—It wasn't proceeded with, Minister.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—I believe we have dealt with that. But there are other amendments, Madam Temporary Chairman—Democrat amendments 19 and 25, together with one which was circulated this morning.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Can I just clarify that? When you say it was dealt with, was it dealt with because the Democrats decided not to press their amendment—because they had changed their minds? We got some advice that it wasn't such a bad idea.12:59:001276Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—If we can have a few more minutes we will come back to that. I move Democrats amendment No. 19:(19) Clause 26, page 33 (after line 22), at the end of the clause (but before the note), add: (4) A person who provides information to an environmental auditor in connection with an environmental audit, knowing the information to be false or misleading in a material respect, is guilty of an offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 6 months. (5) A person who refuses or fails to provide information or to produce a document to an environmental auditor in connection with an environmental audit without reasonable excuse is guilty of an offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 6 months.Self-incrimination (6) For the purposes of subsection (5), it is not a reasonable excuse for a person to refuse or fail: (a) to give information; or (b) to produce a document; in accordance with a requirement made of the person by the environmental auditor, on the ground that the information or production of the document, as the case may be, might tend to incriminate the person or make the person liable to a penalty. However: (c) giving the information or producing the document; or (d) any information, document or thing obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of the giving of the information or producing the document; is not admissible in evidence against the person in any criminal proceedings, other than proceedings for an offence against, or arising out of, subsection (4) or (5).Democrat amendment No. 19 goes to the question of the auditor. Penalties apply to the auditor if he or she conceals any information. Our amendment makes it an offence for a person providing the information to the auditor to supply false information or to refuse to provide information or a document to the environment auditor. So it broadens the requirement on persons involved to include not just the auditor but also those supplying the information.It seems to us that without this amendment the auditor would not be able to compel officers of Commonwealth departments to provide information necessary for audits. Their job really would be made a lot easier by this amendment. The responsibility for providing accurate material would then have the force of law. We do build into this amendment measures for self-recrimination so that self-recrimination could not be used as an excuse for concealing information and that that information could not be used against the informant in court proceedings. We think this strengthens the bill considerably. As I say, it includes all those parties providing information for the audit to be embraced by the penalties applying to the auditor.13:00:001276Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I am a bit puzzled now. I thought the Labor Party last week, when we last debated this, said that it was opposed to this. As I recall it, we then went on to the next item. I interpreted that to mean that they were not being pressed. Is this a second bite of the cherry?13:01:001276Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—For the record, the minister is right. Last Thursday, I indicated that we felt the extra provisions proposed by the Democrats were not going to be supported by us. We thought that other provisions in Commonwealth law would be appropriate. I suspect the reason Senator Allison is putting this up is that since that time the government has accepted the provisions relating to the environmental audits and auditors. She may have considered that, in view of the fact the government had accepted those provisions, these powers may be a necessarily important accompaniment to the establishment of an audit process. I think we did leave it on that basis last week, Senator Hill. Since you support the environmental auditor process, we believed that you were considering whether the provisions in respect of false information, self-recrimination and so on should also be supported. So we are waiting for you, actually.13:02:001277Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I obviously support the concept of environmental audit because it is in our bill. I find somewhat puzzling our support for what is in our bill being a reason for wanting to reconsider this matter. I am still not clear whether Senator Bolkus is saying that reflecting over the weekend has caused him to change his mind.13:02:001277Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—What I was saying is that we felt last week, as we do now, that these powers are extraneous to the scheme we are supporting. But we had a feeling that, given you and the Democrats have got together in respect of the audits, you may have carried it one step further with the accompanying powers.13:03:001277Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—No. We are certainly in a cooperative mood, but we do not think this provision is necessary.13:03:001277Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I ask the minister to expand on his reasons for not supporting this. It seems to us to be very sensible to include others in this requirement to supply information. Can the minister justify his position?13:03:001277Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—As I recall it, this is to apply new penalties. It provides provisions—in particular, penalties—in relation to the process that Senator Allison feels would give greater credibility to it. We do not think that is necessary. We think the audit provision we have provided is sufficient in itself to provide what we are seeking from this part. Whilst we appreciate the fact that Senator Allison wants to help us in our drafting by expanding the provision further and providing penalties, we do not think it is necessary to go that far.13:04:001277Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—What happens if an auditor finds that there is an unwillingness to give up a document or that they do not get the kind of cooperation that is expected of them in government departments? What measures are in place to compel cooperation, if you like? As I understand it, the state governments have this requirement in their legislation. Why is it inappropriate at the federal level?13:05:001277Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I guess it depends where you are coming from. I naturally assume that there will be cooperation within public administration. I think it is extraordinary to think otherwise. I do not see that in the circumstances and purpose of these audits these extra penalty provisions that the Democrats are seeking to include are necessary.13:05:001277Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—But we have penalty conditions for the auditor. Why the auditor and not others in Commonwealth departments? If we have penalties for the auditor, why should we not have penalties more broadly? What is the reason for these being put in place for the auditor? I can see how, but I fail to see why we need to draw a distinction between Commonwealth officers and auditors.13:06:001277Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—This provision is really one for public confidence. It allows an examination to ensure that confidence. It is a big step to go from there to the need to include a provision for criminal penalties in relation to non-compliance. It does not strike me as the type of circumstance that provides a need for provisions of that type. I am surprised that you say it has been included within state legislation, because I would have thought the same argument that I am making now would equally apply within state jurisdictions. But that is really their business. I have not heard anything to suggest to me that this act will be any more effective by the inclusion of these criminal penalties.13:07:001277Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I gather it is New South Wales and Victoria that have it included. If I can draw your attention to the amendment, a person supplying information to the auditor, knowing the information to be false or misleading in a material respect, is guilty of an offence, and a person who refuses or fails to provide information or to produce a document to the auditor without reasonable excuse is guilty of an offence. We are talking here about fairly serious noncooperation and not simply about someone being slow or uncooperative in the simpler sense of the word, so I think it is worth while.13:08:001278Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—We are talking about investigation within the public sector for the purpose of giving public confidence. It would be very hard to imagine a lack of cooperation, but if there is then obviously the necessary disciplinary action can be taken within the Public Service Act and its regulations. I would have thought that, well before you got to that stage, if there were some element of lack of cooperation the head of the department would speak to the relevant person and the matter would be quickly sorted out. I certainly do not think a case has been made that you need to go that huge step forward and provide a new system of criminal sanctions upon public servants who may be providing the information. There are plenty of ways far short of that and, as I said, you have the disciplinary powers—if you really need them—under the Commonwealth legislation. It is using a very big stick, I would respectfully suggest, when it is not necessary.13:09:001278Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I will not pursue this much longer, but the clause in the New South Wales act says that a person who provides information to an environmental auditor in connection with an environmental audit, knowing the information to be false or misleading in a material sense, is guilty of an offence.Amendment not agreed to.13:10:001278Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I move Democrats amendment No 25:(25) Page 39 (after line 4), after Part 6, insert: Part 6A—Offences32A Offence of aggravated pollution A person to whom this Act applies who intentionally, recklessly or negligently pollutes the environment or intentionally, recklessly or negligently causes or permits an environmental hazard which results in: (a) serious damage to the environment; or (b) a serious threat to public health; or (c) a substantial risk of serious damage to the environment; or (d) a substantial risk of a serious threat to public health; is guilty of an indictable offence Maximum penalty: 2000 penalty units Note: Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes act 1914 provides that where a body corporate is convicted of an offence, the court may impose a pecuniary penalty not exceeding an amount equal to 5 times the amount of maximum pecuniary penalty that could be imposed on a natural person convicted of the same offence.This amendment makes it a criminal offence to intentionally, recklessly or negligently cause or permit serious damage or substantial risk to the environment or public health. This would apply to only the most serious instances of pollution, and it is the section which gives the bill real teeth.13:10:001278Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—It certainly introduces a new offence, but that has nothing to do with the purpose of the bill, which is to provide the implementation mechanism for obligations that the Commonwealth accepts under the NEPC process. Extra criminal offences in relation to bad behaviour should be dealt with other than in this legislation, which is not for that purpose. In other words, if you want to introduce new offences at the Commonwealth level for those who intentionally pollute, you are certainly entitled to do so, provided you have a sufficient basis of power for it. But you should do it, I would suggest, either through your own legislation or through an attempt to amend the Crimes Act or some other piece of Commonwealth legislation which deals with offences. 13:12:001279Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—As we indicated on Wednesday or Thursday, the opposition sees this measure, no matter how meritorious it may be, as extraneous to the structure that this legislation, together with the NEPC legislation, is implementing. As a consequence, we cannot support it.Amendment not agreed to.10000Bolkus, Sen NickThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Is it the wish of the committee that we proceed with clause 28? The question is that clause 28 stand as printed.13:12:001279Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I wonder if we can turn back to Democrats amendment No. 21.10000Allison, Sen LynThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We have dealt with amendment No. 21, Senator Allison.13:13:001279Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam Temporary Chairman, the fact is that, when you put that motion, the Senate was distracted by other matters, and Senator Hill indicated that he might be inclined to support the Democrats amendment No. 21, if we could revisit that and allow Senator Allison to formally explain it.10000Bolkus, Sen NickThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I will put the question again. Is it the wish of the committee that clause 28 stand as printed?13:13:001279Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Just so we all know what we are talking about, this is the amendment that the Democrats had indicated last week that they intended to oppose, and I was not sure whether they had changed their minds or whether we had simply missed it somewhere in last week's processes. I was seeking a little while ago an indication as to whether they still wished to oppose that provision. If they wanted to, then we would support them.13:14:001279Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Yes, we do wish to oppose this clause. We believe that reports of environment audits ought to be admissible in legal proceedings. We have canvassed some of the arguments already. 13:14:001279Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—It is also our position, and I am glad the government has had a change of heart on it.10000Bolkus, Sen NickThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that clause 28 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.13:14:001279Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I move:(1) Page 12 (after line 32), after clause 10, insert:10A NEPM to be made within 6 months of signing international instrument (1) Within 6 months after Australia signs any international instrument relating to environmental pollutants, the National Environment Protection Council must make a NEPM about the treatment of the pollutant or pollutants in accordance with the instrument. (2) In this section, international instrument means: (a) any treaty, convention, protocol, agreement or other instrument type that is binding in international law; and (b) a part of such a treaty, convention, protocol, agreement or other instrument.I think we are up to the last amendment, which was circulated this morning, and that requires that there be a national environment protection measurement made within six months of signing international agreements that relate to environmental pollutants, and the National Environment Protection Council would be required to make a NEPM about the treatment of pollution or pollutants in accordance with that instrument. This would mean that Australia has a real time line in complying with international instruments. Presumably if we sign those documents we have a commitment to do something about them, and this simply puts that intention into the National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill. 13:15:001279Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The amendment has been put as an amendment to this bill, but I would suggest to Senator Allison that really what she is wanting to do is to amend the primary act—the 1994 act—which sets up the circum stances in which a NEPM can be made. In particular, section 14 of that act sets out the various matters that might be subject to a NEPM which then gets negotiated by the Commonwealth and the states. If she is wanting to introduce another subject area, it seems to me that it is section 14 of the other act that really needs to be amended. All this act is doing is providing a process for implementing NEPMs that are determined under the pre-existing legislation.13:17:001280Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—We recognise that, but that is not the bill that is before us and, since this legislation does deal with pollution and since there is likely to be an international agreement in this area, it seemed to us appropriate. I would be happy to withdraw the bill if we could get some assurances from the minister that he would introduce such a measure into the other legislation. It would be useful to know if the minister would be agreeable to moving down that path.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—I think Senator Allison meant `withdraw the amendment'.13:17:001280Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Senator Allison wants some assurance from me that the government will act to amend its existing legislation. I think I understand where she is coming from, but I can think of many international instruments relating to environmental pollutants: the London Convention on sea dumping, for example. How would one make a NEPM or a national environment standard pursuant to that convention? In other words, I do not think that this is the way to implement Australia's obligations under the convention. If the convention sets out certain obligations that we accept as a nation, then we look to the domestic ways to put them into effect.What the NEPM process is designed to do is to provide national environmental standards across a range of different areas. The two subject matters do not necessarily interrelate. I think to seek an amendment in this form, certainly as it has been drafted today, really would not be workable. But what I could do, if it is of any value to Senator Allison, is to take her sentiments back to those who administer the NEPC act and see whether they wish to comment on it. Whether or not they do so, I could ensure that the Democrats' wish in relation to this particular question—that is, whether there ought to be a new category under section 14 of the NEPC Act dealing with the implementation of international conventions—be examined in the review that is to take place at the end of next year.13:20:001280Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I also support that course of action. That is the legislation that needs amendment—and I know the circumstances in which this amendment was put up in the last 24 hours or so—but I would rather get an undertaking from the minister that this amendment be put to the council for them to consider in that review. I give notice that, were the Democrats to move such an amendment when legislation comes forward consequent to that review, we would look at it quite positively.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—Senator Allison, do you wish to seek leave to withdraw your amendment or do you wish to pursue it?13:20:001280Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I seek leave to withdraw amendment No. 1 on sheet 1198.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.1280Bill (on motion by Senator Hill) read a third time.Bills1280r6071280Debate resumed from 23 November, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.13:23:001280Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The Wool International Amendment Bill 1998 has two main purposes. The first is it seeks to give effect to a decision of the government to impose a freeze upon sales of wool from the wool stockpile. It is pro posed that the freeze which is effectively in place at this point in time, following a cabinet decision in August this year, would continue in place till the middle of next year when the second purpose of the bill would come into operation—that is, the privatisation of Wool International.The opposition will in the committee stage be moving a series of amendments to the bill which, whilst not rejecting the freeze completely, will permit limited sales from the stockpile for the purpose of covering the ongoing costs of Wool International and servicing of the debt leading up to the finalisation of the privatisation process. Whilst we do not oppose at this stage the main purpose of the legislation, we do say that it is ill-founded, ill-conceived and indicative of the scandalous approach that this government has adopted towards the wool industry over the last 12 months or longer.To expand upon that statement it is necessary to have regard to the history of the wool stockpile and that is set out in brief in the report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. The committee met on 27 November and tabled its report last week. The introductory chapters of that report set out in brief a history of the wool stockpile. I am sure honourable senators in this place and many members of the public and certainly the industry recall that the wool stockpile came about essentially because of the overexpectation of growers and the industry in the 1980s with respect to wool prices.The price of wool hit record levels in the 1980s and the industry at the time thought that it could continue forever. Under the Wool Reserve Price Scheme, the government of the day—the public, therefore—was required to underwrite the floor price of wool. I recall at one stage the floor price of wool was at the extraordinary level of 870c. As the price of wool internationally plummeted below the floor price, the stockpile grew. It grew to such an extent that, within a short period of two years, from 1989 to 1991, the stockpile had grown from virtually nil to five million bales. As a result, the then Labor government took steps to, firstly, abandon the floor price scheme and, secondly, endeavour to set the industry on a process whereby it took a more rational approach to the sale of wool and in particular to make arrangements for the disposal of the wool stockpile.The Wool International Amendment Act passed through this parliament in 1996. The intent of that legislation at that time was to dispose of the wool stockpile by the end of the year 2000. Further, in July of 1997, when the current government came to office, it amended the act further to enable Wool International, the body charged with disposing of the stockpile, to work towards that target by being required to dispose of a minimum of 90,000 bales per quarter up to a maximum of 350,000 bales per quarter.Everyone in the industry knows that the wool industry, over the course of the last 12 months to two years, has been particularly affected by depressed prices internationally by the withdrawal from the market of major purchasers of Australian wool such as Japan, China and Korea. As a result, notwithstanding the requirements under the act, the wool stockpile has, once again, continued to grow. Consequently, so has the stockpile debt.The report notes that, over the period 1996-97, it was becoming more and more difficult to dispose of substantial quantities of the wool stockpile at any reasonable price and that, by November 1998, the stockpile debt stood at $200 million. That, of course, was a substantial reduction from the original debt, which was somewhere in the vicinity of $2.8 billion. Nevertheless, this has been a problem for the industry. Current signs are that, despite some small improvement in prices in recent times, the outlook is not all that positive.In this context, the government was apparently looking at the options, taking advice and endeavouring to determine what approach it should adopt to the stockpile. Evidence presented to the Senate committee on 27 November and evidence, if I can call it that, from newspaper reports over the last five or six months indicated that the overwhelming bulk of the industry did not support a freeze on sales of the stockpile. There were interests within the wool industry calling for the imposition of a freeze. They argued that, by withdrawing stockpile wool from the market, it would have a positive impact on prices, hopefully, over time.Whilst that was certainly a view that was being pursued by some groups, they were in the minority, and a very small minority at that. Indeed, the evidence given to the Senate committee hearing was that there were really only two key groups within the industry that supported a freeze. They were the Western Australian Farmers Federation and the Australian Wool Growers Association. The latter body, the Australian Wool Growers Association, is an organisation of some recent origin.I have never been one to always agree with the views expressed by the wool industry organisations or the rural industry organisations of this country, as honourable senators know, particularly in areas such as their approach to industrial relations. But I have to say that, over quite a number of years of having some contact with the rural industries, particularly watching and listening to their spokespersons, when you get organisations such as the New South Wales Farmers Association, the Victorian Farmers Federation, Wool International itself, the Wool Council and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia giving advice to government that it should not impose a freeze and strongly opposing a freeze on stockpile sales, you wonder why it is that the government turned around and made a decision to introduce a freeze.There can be only one explanation for that decision. That is, as we recall, Minister Anderson, the previous minister, went into the cabinet armed with the advice and the views of the industry, which were overwhelmingly against a freeze, but he got rolled. He got rolled by enough of his colleagues, no doubt, to lead to the decision that was made because of political expediency.I particularly express concern about the minister's remarks, as reported in the second reading speech, where he said that the freeze was imposed as a response to requests from the industry. That is what the minister's second reading speech says. In the Senate committee, I asked Dr Richardson, the Chief Executive Officer of Wool International:In the minister's second reading speech he stated that the decision to impose the freeze was a response to requests from the industry. Do you agree with that statement?And he replied:. . . If there were requests from the wool growing industry, they were not requests that I was strongly aware of.I continued:It seems that there was a lot of criticism of the decision from various sections of the industry. No doubt we will hear from some of those groups today. Wool International certainly did not request the freeze, did it?Dr Richardson replied:No. The board of Wool International believed that the appropriate move was to what was called the chill option.Dr Richardson's views were backed up by representatives of the other organisations that appeared before us. The details of their views are set out in the dissenting report by me, Senator O'Brien and Senator McKiernan on behalf of the opposition.It is a matter of concern that the minister in his second reading speech and the government said that the basis upon which they introduced the freeze was that of a request from the industry. Overwhelmingly, the evidence from the industry was not only that they did not request it but also that they opposed it. They made their views very firmly known to the government, because it was clearly in the public arena that a freeze may well be imposed.The opposition will, through its amendment, be seeking to give support to the chill option. Whilst the freeze effectively remains in place, we will be seeking to amend the act to enable Wool International to sell around 15,000 bales per quarter of wool from the stockpile to enable them to cover costs and to service the stockpile debt. That has been requested by Wool International and supported by other organisations. We do not believe it will cause any great difficulty with respect to the ongoing process of privatisation.Obviously there is a need for certainty and stability. The industry itself said to the committee, `Now that the freeze is effectively in place, we should live with it even though we do not agree with it, if for no other reason than that we do not continue as a country and as an industry to send mixed messages to the international community.' So we are responding to the views of the industry in that regard, particularly the views of Wool International and others who support the limited option of what is called the chill option.The final issue is that of the privatisation. We support that objective. We are very concerned, however, that if the situation that occurred with the Australian Wheat Board is any indication—and we hope it is not—it may not proceed as smoothly as people would wish. It is a very tight time frame to achieve this privatisation by the middle of next year. Further, there are some issues that are still on the table which have to be resolved—not the least of which is, firstly, the question of achieving the sell-off of the stockpile; secondly, ensuring that growers equity is maintained; and, thirdly, dealing with the issue of the costs of the privatisation.There were various estimates put before the committee as to what the costs would be. Certainly we have indicated in our report that the costs should be able to be kept to a minimum and that it is appropriate that the costs of the privatisation in the main be borne by the proceeds from the sale or the privatisation of Wool International. In due course, we will be proposing amendments to the legislation. We otherwise support the provisions of the bill.13:42:001283Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I have listened with great interest to Senator Forshaw's contribution to this debate. Unfortunately, on this one the Labor Party is playing catch-up. It has been behind the game most of the time in terms of its understanding of wool. I know that they are harsh words coming from me, but unfortunately on this occasion they are true. One of the problems was that right from the very beginning in 1993, as I said in my speech at the time, I believed the Labor Party got it wrong in terms of the legislation which was proposed in 1993.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I wasn't here.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I know you are not to blame, because I probably would have been able to convince you then in terms of the Garnaut report. There is no doubt that the legislation which arose out of the Garnaut report and the option chosen by the Labor Party as one of the options proposed by that report was the wrong one. However, having tried on a couple of occasions since then to correct the problems that I and others saw at that time, I believe we now have an opportunity to start again. I think it is very important that we do that in terms of not only the freeze but also the privatisation or demutualisation of Wool International.I do agree with Senator Forshaw that we could debate the freeze forever. I realise that he has quoted from a number of sources who disagreed with the freeze. Some of those have, very much, a vested interest in making sure that the freeze does not occur. Yet in the end, unless we were to have a ballot of every woolgrower, we really would find it difficult to be able to prove one way or the other just who in the industry supports the freeze and who does not.Certainly at the grassroots level—and I have gained this understanding through my contact with hundreds of woolgrowers who represent, I believe, some thousands of woolgrowers around this country—there was a lot of support for the freeze, and I do not agree with the proposition that the government simply made a political decision. I think the government was in a very difficult situation because it was getting conflicting information from different sections of the industry. But I do believe that the government, certainly on the economics and not just the politics of the situation, came to a very courageous decision and one which I believe will be vindicated as we move on.One other matter we all agree on is that this primary industry, which is absolutely fundamental to Australia, is in trouble and certainly needs to be given a new start. The freeze will not solve all the problems, but no-one is suggesting it will; nor will privatisation solve all the problems—and, again, no-one is suggesting it will. All we are saying is that, somehow, we have to break part of the bind in which the industry finds itself, and this is just one factor that parliament can get at because it is dealing with legislation for which we are responsible.But we know that, beyond that, this industry will need a lot of work. What is happening is that people, themselves, in the industry are saying, `We want to do that work.' That is what all last week's debate over AWRAP was about; that is what the debate has been about in terms of Wool International. The people, themselves, in the industry want to take control of their own industry and to come up with their own solutions. And we must help them do that. We in this parliament have an obligation to help this great industry get back on its feet and re-establish itself as a truly great primary industry in this country.Just to indicate how long this debate has been going on, I thought I would read from some of the previous debates in which I have been engaged, going back to 1993. Perhaps, first of all, I will read from evidence given in 1993 by Mrs Margaret Watt—and I think the parliamentary secretary may know the Watt family. Her words at that time were very prophetic. This evidence was given before an inquiry which was held in 1993, just before the legislation was passed. Mrs Watt said:The Garnaut report suggests a price improvement in the long term. Our real concerns are that as rural communities we are fighting to survive in the short term. There is a very real despair, a despair born of weariness and disillusionment, which is eating away at communities. Even reading the Garnaut report, far less trying to understand it, is beyond many. I am sure that I do not speak just for our woolgrowing community in that regard.The constant pressure that is building up for farming people to meet their interest payments and their budgets is really eating in. Costs, therefore, are being cut back. The result of that is that ordinary working farming families are taking on heavier workloads. There is further physical exhaustion and mental exhaustion resulting. Government cutbacks are further eroding what were once very viable communities.That was in 1993. The tragedy is that that situation has not improved; we are still seeing those kinds of pressures on farming communities and families like the Watt family.In 1993 the Democrats did move a couple of amendments which were not supported by the then government or the then opposition. Those amendments proposed that there be two mechanisms which would have enabled the market to be much more flexible. Our concern was in having a fixed release schedule which would determine the amount of wool to be sold each quarter with a little bit of flexibility—but not enough. What we really did was to say to the market, `You don't really need to buy from the fresh wool stocks coming onto the market; each quarter there will be a quantity of wool which will be sold at a discounted price, and you will be able to buy that.'In 1993 we said that this would cause a problem; and over the last five years, as we have watched the market, we have seen that, although not the only factor—and we certainly have had evidence of that in many Senate hearings not only that which was held last week—it certainly was a factor in the problem that we have experienced in the wool industry over these five years. In 1993 I said that we supported the general thrust of the legislation. But the question we asked then was:. . . whether it is good commercial practice to determine months and even years ahead how much of the stockpile we are prepared to sell. Professor Garnaut and others believe that it is necessary to regulate the market in order to give it certainty. Others raise the problem of applying mathematical formulas to markets which do not respond to fixed mathematical regulation in this way.And this has been the problem, as far as I am concerned: that the fixed release schedule was far too rigid and did not enable Wool International to have sufficient flexibility to operate in a sufficiently commercial way to allow it to respond to the fluctuations in the market price.In his evidence to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Mr Richardson admitted that the legislation did not allow for sufficient commercial flexibility. The Democrats wanted to move amendments in 1993 to have an upper and a lower market indicator which would have enabled Wool International to sell more wool from the stockpile if the market price was high but cease selling if the price in the fresh wool market fell below a certain price. We believe that would have given much more commercial flexibility to Wool International. I could read from a lot of other speeches over the years since 1993, where on a number of occasions I raised the same problems.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Spare us.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Certainly, Senator McGauran, because you were probably in the chamber on most occasions because of your interest in the wool industry, which is well known. But in a speech on 20 June 1996 I put on record a number of examples where within just a few days there was a change in the fresh wool market following sales from the stockpile at a discounted price. Because of the time constraint, I will not repeat those but will just say that they are there on the record.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—You haven't got a tip for Saturday have you?HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—That is a bit out of my field. But let me say this: some of the things that wool growers said in the hearings we held in 1993 were very prophetic. They warned that the very rigid fixed release schedule would operate as a factor in forcing the price of wool down while the stockpile remained high and while the 187,000 bales on average per quarter were being pushed onto the market. They warned about that in 1993, and of course we have discovered that what they said was true. So, in terms of tips, Senator Forshaw, it may be that you will have to ask some of the wool growers rather than me, because they could see what was going to happen.I will not continue to read from those previous speeches but will now go to a couple of the submissions which support the idea of a freeze and the idea of moving to demutualisation. In his submission, Stuart Coppock of the Australian Wool Growers Association wrote:1 It is submitted that the fixed disposal schedule outlined in section 20 of the Wool International Act 1993 and the amended version of 1996 were flawed in concept.That is what I have been saying. He continued:The intention of the Parliament was clearly on all occasions to ensure a level of commerciality in the sell down of the wool stockpile to achieve the twin objectives of the reduction of debt and the enhancement of the value of the wool stockpile. The fixed disposal schedule was considered in the WIRC Report and rejected.The outline of the legislative reforms of the Wool International Act with a four year period indicate the volatility of the issues in attempting to obtain a commercially satisfactory outcome. It is suggested that part of this difficulty is due to the operation of the fixed schedule. This view is grounded in the statistics provided in section 6 of the submission.I would urge all senators who want to be better informed to read the submission by the Australian Wool Growers Association which includes a whole series of statistics as evidence to support the point of view that they put. I want to read from the evidence that Mr Peter Laird gave to the committee, just to support again the contention I am making that this problem has been with us ever since the Labor government's legislation of 1993. He said:The stockpile legislation was a double-edged sword that was very damaging in many respects. The legislation forced wool onto the market because it had to be sold to a fixed selling schedule. Dr Richardson said he would have preferred to approach it in a commercial manner. That is logical. It is just crazy, it is suicide, to run a business by forcing wool onto a market that is saturated. That is why we are seeing the market responding to the change of legislation. It is about the selling method, not necessarily the amount of wool. As I said, it is a double-edged sword—there is a wool factor quantity in there also.But confidence is coming back. The market did make a correction last week, but my information tells me that there have been about 75,000 bales of wool gone from the secondary stockpile in the last fortnight while this improvement has been in the market. So not only the fresh wool has been sold but we have had the secondary stockpile moving, which is great.The Democrats also believe that it is a great improvement. Let me finish by picking up the submission by the Pastoral Group of the Victorian Farmers Federation and disagreeing strongly with a comment in that submission. They said:The decision to freeze the WI stockpile sales has unfortunately been driven more by individual political agendas, both within industry and at a Federal Government level, rather than commercial logic.Those supporters of the freeze have paid no regard to— . economic analysis of this option vs other available options. . . Let me say that, as far as the Democrats are concerned, we consulted extremely widely and that included a very good economic analysis of the options which were available. And, for that reason, we will support the legislation apart from one small amendment which I will move as we move into further stages of this debate.Debate interrupted.Ministerial Arrangements12861286Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—by leave—I inform the Senate that Senator Newman, Minister for Family and Community Services, will be absent from the Senate chamber for question time today due to personal family matters. In her absence, I will take questions relating to the portfolios of family and community services and defence.Questions Without Notice128612861286Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask whether the minister is aware of the latest outburst from the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Tuckey, as it was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 4 December:I would never be active in having World Heritage Areas. I think it's just a cop out anyway . . . I would find no reason to support any more World Heritage areas.I ask the Leader of the Government: is Mr Tuckey representing the views of the government in respect of this matter?1286Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—First, I should congratulate Senator Bolkus on breaking his duck. It has taken four sitting weeks but at last he has got to his feet. He of course was willing to sneak behind the government's back and lobby other international bodies in Kyoto when he thought he might win a political point. But finally he is prepared to get up and ask a question in this place. I congratulate Senator Bolkus on being appointed shadow minister for the environment. I read in the press that his predecessor wanted to maintain the job, but on his record I understand why he was replaced.I did see a newspaper report of some comments by my colleague Mr Tuckey, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. I know Mr Tuckey is disappointed by the unilateral breach of the regional forest agreements by Premier Carr, the Labor Premier in New South Wales, who broke the agreement that had been reached by Labor governments before we came to office to establish regional forest agreements that preserved conservation and provided for harvesting on a sustainable basis. It might have been to that background that Mr Carr was choosing to undermine the bipartisan position that had developed in this country to protect forests that caused him to raise the issue of world heritage, which are values that are examined within the regional forest agreement process.This government has been pleased to facilitate new world heritage listings in relation to Heard and Macquarie islands in particular. I am pleased that we have presently before the world heritage authorities an application for listing of the Blue Mountains. We think it is an excellent application and have been pleased to facilitate it in partnership with the New South Wales government in that instance. Senator Bolkus may be aware that we are exploring other possible listings, including one in relation to Purnululu.World heritage is of important value to this government. We are pleased to be part of an international community that recognises the importance of world heritage. What is of great regret to us is that in recent times the integrity of the world heritage system has been brought into question by authorities within the system that have proven to be less than fair and objective. Whilst we say that the issue of integrity needs to be revisited, nevertheless a world heritage administration that fairly and objectively implements a convention to which Australia is a party obviously would then have our support.I hope that adequately argues Senator Bolkus's question. Yes, this government does support world heritage, and we are pleased to be a party to the convention. But within the operation of the convention we want to be treated fairly and objectively, which of recent times we have not been.1287Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has not answered the question. I also remind him that if I was to ask him a question in the first week of resumption of sittings I would have had to have been in Buenos Aires with him. It is good to see you back, Minister. I note you have not rejected the views of Mr Tuckey in respect of world heritage. Therefore, in his words are your listings of Heard and MacDonald islands and Macquarie Island in 1996 just a cop-out? In light of the stark differences of approach to world heritage matters between you and your ministerial colleague, Mr Tuckey, can you definitively tell the Senate just who in this government is responsible for world heritage matters?1287Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—As I have said, this government is pleased to be part of an international community that recognises world heritage values and has demonstrated that not only by the listings that I have mentioned but also by the fact that we have expended greater public funds on protecting Australia's world heritage assets, developing further management plans and setting in place scientific advisory groups and community advisory groups—all in an effort to ensure that the values of world heritage are properly protected. That is the way in which we intend to progress the matter in the future.12871287McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Will you outline the benefits of the government's 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance to Australia's health system? Is it a fact that around 70 per cent of Australians believe the Senate should pass the government's legislation?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It is only on the Notice Paper for today.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The minister should not be debating the bill, but he may deal with aspects of the question.1287Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Thank you, Madam President; I would not do that. There is a political issue out there, as I was asked in the question. How could 70 per cent of Australians want a particular public policy to be implemented, and the Australian Labor Party oppose it? How could nearly 70 per cent of Australians want a rebate on private health care so that they can better afford private health care and have the choice that is inherent within it, yet the Labor Party oppose it? How could Australians vote in a government on a specific policy to introduce this rebate to give a benefit to so many Australians and, within a couple of months of the election, have the Labor Party vote against it?This rebate reform is designed to rebuild the health of the private health sector in this country for the benefit of hundreds of thousands of Australians who take out private health care. Why do they take it out on top of their contributions to Medicare? Because they want a choice. They are prepared to make an extra financial sacrifice to provide that choice. But we in this government, the coalition government, think that they deserve help—firstly, because the costs have been rising and they deserve some financial support and, secondly, because it is critical to the health of the whole system that private health care remain a strong element. If the private health sector is in trouble, that puts further burden on the public health sector as well. Maintaining that balance is vitally important. It is a balance that was destroyed by the Labor Party because, under the Labor Party in its 13 years of government, the 70 per cent of people in private health care was reduced to 35 per cent. Without those economies of scale, not surprisingly, premiums rose.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It was destroyed because people couldn't pay the premiums. They don't get value for money.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I remind senators on my left that there is an appropriate place to debate issues like this—it is after question time, and not by continual shouting during question time.BH4Senator HILL—When premiums rose, fewer Australians had that choice. This government is determined to do something about it and to give an alternative. We said at the last election that we would do that by providing a 30 per cent rebate—a policy that is strongly endorsed by the Australian people. Within a couple of months of the election, the Labor Party, disrespecting that view of the Australian people, says, `You are not having to have your rebate. We will vote it down. Notwithstanding the fact that the coalition went to the people with it specifically, we will still vote it down and we will not give you that rebate of 30 per cent.' What about the 700,000 Australians who are not well off but yet still take out private health insurance? What does the Labor Party feel in relation to those people? Doesn't it feel any responsibility for the 700,000 low income Australians who want the option of private health care—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—You gave them a rebate last year, and it didn't work.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Chris Evans, you can present that argument at the appropriate time if you wish.BH4Senator HILL—They want a rebate that will better enable them to afford it and, in many instances, enable them to stay in at all. We believe it is absolutely critical that we have a healthy private health sector in this country. We believe that providing a rebate will help keep numbers up and will provide the mass that is necessary to keep premiums under control. It is so obvious. Yet the Labor Party says, `We will vote it down. We will remove the chance of Australians having affordable private health care,' all because of some ideological bent that only the public sector is important. On this side of the table, we are in favour of both. (Time expired)1288McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question in regard to the government's support of maintaining the balance between private and public health. Minister, I ask whether you are aware of the following statement:Increased funding to public hospitals is also likely to lead to change in equilibrium between public hospitals, private hospitals, and private health insurance without necessarily achieving the level of impact intended.Are you also aware of who made that statement?1288Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—That was Jenny Macklin, the now Labor spokesman on health, in 1991 when she headed up an inquiry into hospital services in Australia. She was absolutely right. Obviously, if you just put the money into the public sector then you will have less money in the private sector and premiums will go up. It is exactly what happened under 13 years of Labor when former Prime Minister Keating deliberately took that position in order to undermine the private health sector. Labor has always won on this one. Private health sector participants are down to a number where the whole system is vulnerable. One side of the chamber, the government, is prepared to do something about it—to provide a rebate, to increase the mass, to strengthen the private health sector and therefore to take pressure off the public health sector so that Australians will not only have a choice but also be better assured of a strong overall health system. (Time expired)12881288Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Is the minister aware that the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Tuckey, has announced that he wants to look at a `whole-of-forest approach' to logging which would allow logging in all forests rather than `locking up these areas and gazetting them forever'? Does the minister support such an approach to logging? What is the minister's view about the environmental and biodiversity implications of such an approach?1288Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I think the best way to answer the question is simply to repeat the government's policy: we are strongly in support of the national forest agreement and we are demonstrating that by implementing regional forest agreements around Australia. We have successfully concluded an agreement for Tasmania and two in Victoria.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! This is the third question and there are some senators who have been interjecting constantly through all three questions so far. I would draw your attention to the standing orders.BH4Senator HILL—I was saying that not only have we implemented one agreement in Tasmania and two agreements in Victoria but, for the benefit of Senator Margetts, we are also close to concluding such an agreement in Western Australia as well. It is a historic moment for Australia because, for the first time, we will have a system of forest management that includes conservation reserves that are reserved for their conservation value while, at the same time, they are providing forests that are harvested in a sustainable way, both economically and ecologically, which cannot only bring jobs, employment and wealth from the forest product but also—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Madam President, I raise a point of order. The minister has gone on for a couple of minutes now. The question was not about his policy. The question was about Mr Tuckey's specific statements and the policy he would like to adopt and whether or not the minister agreed with him. I would ask the minister to direct his answer to the question.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, on the point of order, the only basis on which Senator Forshaw can ask a question is about government policy, and he well knows that. So Senator Hill is clearly well within his rights in answering the way he has been.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Madam President, on the point of order, I did not ask the minister to tell me what the government policy was. I asked the minister whether or not he agreed with Minister Tuckey's comments, which obviously are inconsistent with the government's policy. That was the question that was asked of Minister Hill.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The minister's answer is relevant to the question. There are other aspects that he may deal with in attending to Senator Forshaw's question. I call the minister.BH4Senator HILL—Madam President, the point is that I am responding to a question that relates to press comments about what Mr Tuckey has said. What I am doing is repeating, for the benefit of the honourable senator, the government's policy position. He can interpret those comments in the light of that position. That position is that we support, within the RFAs, both conservation reserves and harvesting on a sustainable basis—sustainable both economically and environmentally. By that means, we can protect the range of values. Values can be protected within both working forests, in terms of the fact that they are being harvested, and forests that have been dedicated for their conservation values.1289Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Noting the minister's answer and interpreting that he violently disagrees with Minister Tuckey's observations, I now ask: will the minister take advantage of his senior position within the government ranks and reassure the Senate that the government would never contemplate adopting the whole of forest approach signalled by Mr Tuckey?1289Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I should add that within the conservation reserve area there will be a number of different categories—basically we use the IUCN categories for guidance—which will allow other uses that are compatible with the conservation values that are being preserved. So it does not necessarily mean that no other uses will be permitted. It means that, where forests are being conserved for a particular value, those other uses must be compatible with those values. In some instances we have allowed mining. Obviously in other instances we allowed tourism and the like. I invite the honourable senator—with that helpful background, I hope—to reconsider his interpretation of Mr Tuckey's comments.12891289Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLP10—My question is directed to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. The government's 30 per cent private health rebate will make private health insurance more affordable, particularly for those on low incomes. It will also reduce pressure on the public hospital system. Will the minister outline the benefits of the government's initiative and will he identify those sections of the community who are likely to suffer if Labor continues its ideological opposition to this vital legislation?1289Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Parer for the question and for his interest in this very important matter. The government's proposed 30 per cent tax rebate for people to take out private health insurance will strengthen the national health care system. It will encourage people to take up or keep their private health insurance by putting about $750 into the pockets of average Australians who make the choice to have private health cover. It will help those people who struggle to keep up repayments so that they can keep their choice of doctor and have a big say in their own health care. A stronger private health system means less pressure on public hospitals.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Considering the initiatives that the minister is outlining will be debated in legislation later this week, are the minister and his questioner in order in dealing with the issue before we debate it in the Senate?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The minister may not anticipate debate on the bill, but he is not precluded from talking about matters relating to the issue.VW4Senator HERRON—I said that a stronger private health system means less pressure on public hospitals. People who are watching this broadcast need to be made aware that Labor want to wreck the private health system.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—Not true.VW4Senator HERRON—That is why Senator Crowley says, `Not true.' Labor will stop you receiving about $750 each year to alleviate the costs of maintaining private cover, and that is why they are continuing to oppose this legislation. I say to all the people who are sitting at home—the young, the low income families, the elderly and the retirees—that Labor will hurt them. Labor will take away their choice of health care by forcing them into the public system by opposing incentives which make it easier to afford private cover. For instance, take an elderly woman—it could be anyone's mother or grandmother—who needs to undergo a hip replacement operation. Fifty-two per cent of these hip operations are done in private hospitals. She may have struggled to keep her private health insurance all her adult life, and now is the time when she can get the doctor of her choice and the hospital of her choice. Labor want to make it even harder.What about the young families on one income? They have maintained private health insurance as a security blanket to avoid long hospital queues and to be able to give their kids the best hospital treatment in times of need. Labor want to stop this and make it so hard that ordinary Australians cannot afford private health cover. Labor have no plan whatsoever to restore the public system. They intend to destroy the private system. They want to punish senior Australians and low income earners. There are 700,000 Australians on incomes of under $20,000 a year who maintain private health insurance. Many of them are retirees who want the security of private health insurance to cover them in old age.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—They have already got it.VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Crowley did not listen to the first part of my answer when I said that it will encourage people to take up or keep their private health insurance. People want to rest assured in the knowledge that they will be able to have full control of their health needs for elective surgery for such things as hip replacements, breast lumps, colonoscopies and knee procedures. The government's 30 per cent rebate will make it easier for them. Labor is ignoring the 68 per cent of people who want the Senate to pass the legislation. Labor will stop at nothing. The political spoilers who make up the Labor Party want to remove freedom of choice. By doing that, Labor will hurt low income families, the elderly and retirees. Those opposite scoff about what we are trying to do. If they are ideologically correct, why is it that the Catholic Church is the largest independent operator of hospitals in Australia? It has 22 public hospitals and 37 private hospitals. It has 8,400 beds in 59 hospitals—3,100 public beds—and nine per cent of Australian teaching hospital beds. It comprises half of Australia's 200-plus bed private hospitals. It operates up to 500 aged care facilities, including hostels and nursing homes. The Labor Party wants to close the Catholic private hospital system down, when it is the largest independent operator in Australia. There are many others who will be affected by this, but I think it gives the lie to the Labor Party's ideology when the Catholic Church itself provides the largest independent health care system in Australia. (Time expired)1291Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLP10—I thank the minister for his answer and ask a supplementary question. Will he outline the number of people who will benefit from the government's legislation and the number of people who are presently covered by private health insurance? Will he further outline what will be the effect of opposing this legislation?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I take a point of order. At least the first and the third parts of that supplementary question, with due respect, must be out of order, if not the whole lot.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The first and third parts would get very close to anticipating debate on the bill, Senator, and you should be cautious of anything you say in relation to them. As to the second part, you may have matters you wish to contribute that do not anticipate debate.1291Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I was referring to the Catholic private health care system—and it follows on from that—which is the largest independent provider of private health care in Australia. So I thank Senator Parer for the supplementary question. In New South Wales, 2.7 million people are covered by private health insurance; 1.6 million in Victoria; 1.2 million in Queensland; a million in Western Australia; 650,000 in South Australia; 200,000 in Tasmania; and 52,000 in the Northern Territory. The ideological blinkers of the Labor Party mean that those people will have to pay a lot more to maintain their private health insurance. It is just plain insanity for a political party to inflict that upon the voters. That is what Labor is doing by refusing to allow them to maintain their private health insurance with a subsidy that the government is willing to give them. I find it incomprehensible, except for the fact that if you are a socialist and you want a totally public hospital system in Australia, then that is what you will get. (Time expired)12911291Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—If I can distract the Minister for Justice from signing her Christmas card to Senator Ferris—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, what is your question?XE4Senator BOLKUS—Minister, do you endorse Mr Fischer's latest attack on the Australian judiciary, labelling the ruling of the Miriuwung-Gajerrong decision as `extraordinary and unworkable'? Minister, is it the case, as Mr Fischer asserts, that the federal government is conducting a detailed analysis of that judgment? Has that analysis been completed? Was advice provided to the Deputy Prime Minister before he made his remarks? If so, what was that advice?1291Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator Bolkus, I haven't seen the full text of what it is that you allege Mr Fischer said. But it is not unusual for you to raise aspects of what someone said and then have to wait for me to go back and check entirely what Mr Fischer said. Can I, however, just give you a generalised response. There are conventions and proprieties, some people might call them, about comments with respect to judges, but there has never been the suggestion that judgments should not be subject to criticism or to scrutiny. I would expect that any judgment that touched on native title would be scrutinised by the federal government and you would expect that, too. If you want to allege that Mr Fischer said something you think is inappropriate, it is a matter you should take up with the Attorney.1291Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Can I suggest to the minister that she would be in a better position to answer questions if she read her briefs, rather than filling out Christmas cards during question time. I ask a supplementary question. Minister, given that Mr Fischer has described one High Court decision as awful, has accused the justices of the High Court of unacceptable judicial activism and has now attacked the Federal Court, how does your government expect Australians to maintain confidence in the federal judicial system if the Deputy Prime Minister reserves the capacity to belt the judicial umpires when he does not agree with them?1292Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I think Senator Bolkus lacks some basic understanding about the institutions that we rely on very heavily and, in particular, about what the independence of the judiciary means. It is no surprise. He was the shadow justice minister. He has been moved out of that for a whole variety of reasons, not the least of which was the touting of Federal Court documents around the place off the record. But he should understand—everyone on this side clearly understands—that the independence of the judiciary does not mean freedom from total scrutiny. It has never meant that. This is a free country. People are entitled to look at judgments of a court and they are entitled to say whether they agree with them and think they are workable or not.12921292Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Can the minister confirm that the mining company ERA wishes to withdraw from mining uranium at Jabiluka? Is it the case that ERA has already initiated discussions with the government and that the government has refused to countenance the idea or to provide any assistance for such a withdrawal?1292Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—That is news to me.1292Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. Will the minister undertake to find out whether such discussions have taken place with your department or any other department? Will you advise the Senate of the outcome of those discussions? If you do not know anything about the ERA withdrawal, have you responded to questions raised by the tourism industry about the ramifications of the Jabiluka mine for tourism in the Northern Territory? What studies have been done on the impacts of having Kakadu placed on the world heritage in danger list? Will tourist operators such as World Expeditions be compensated for losses arising out of Kakadu losing its world heritage status?1292Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Kakadu is not on the world heritage in danger list. I showed last week that the Wilderness Society confused the retention ponds with the billabongs up there which it refers to. It is also interesting that IUCN, which is the chief adviser to the World Heritage Committee, has also done so in its major publication.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Madam President, I raise a point of order on relevance. I asked the minister some direct questions. I did not ask about calendars or anything else. I ask you to direct the minister to answer the question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There are a number of parts to the question. Senator Hill may deal with them if he has time to in the time available.BH4Senator HILL—I only mentioned it because IUCN is the independent adviser to the World Heritage Committee. It has a lovely photo of the retention dam on page 44 of its guidelines. It comes with the name of Jim Forsell, who has been the principal adviser, as a matter of interest. So I do not think it is going to worry the tourism industry. Even IUCN thinks it is okay. As a matter of interest, as I understand it, the Ranger mine is the second most highly visited area of the region. Yellow Waters is the first area, and Ranger uranium mine is the second. (Time expired)12921292McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. I refer the minister to Minister Ruddock's attack on Federal Court judges, accusing them of undermining the government's refugee policy. Does the minister agree with Minister Ruddock that judges had ignored High Court guidelines on the handling of refugee appeals? Is it the case, as Minister Ruddock asserts, that judges do not have the breadth of experience or knowledge of the impact of their decisions in this area? If so, what action does the minister propose to take? If not, does she propose to correct the minister's attack?1292Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator McKiernan for his question. Obviously what we are on about here is some sort of suggestion that the government has been attacking the judiciary. I just wish that members opposite had such respect for the High Court and for the Federal Court when Justice Callinan was appointed. Senator Bolkus might like to have thought about that before he went on a wholesale attempt to undermine Justice Callinan. Senator McKiernan is, generally speaking, a much more reasonable and informed person than Senator Bolkus. The minister would ask that you consider what the High Court has said about how the courts should approach the judicial review of administrative decisions. In one case—that of Wu Shan Lan—four High Court judges in a joint statement said this:The reasons of an administrative decision maker are meant to inform and not to be scrutinised upon overzealous judicial review by seeking to discern whether some inadequacy may be gleaned from the way in which the reasons are expressed. In the present context, any court reviewing a decision upon refugee status must beware of turning a review of the reasons of the decision maker upon proper principles into a reconsideration of the merits of the decision.The other High Court judge in that case said:It is erroneous for judges to adopt a narrow approach, combing through the words of the decision maker with a fine appellate toothcomb, against the prospect that a verbal slip will be found warranting the inference of an error of law.He went on to say:The reviewing judge must be careful to avoid turning an examination of the reasons of a decision maker into a review of the merits of the decision where the judge is limited to the usual grounds of judicial review.There are other examples I could quote. What the minister is highlighting is that he shares those views of the High Court on how the judicial review of migration and refugee cases ought to be conducted. Turning to the matter of parliament's intention, in the minister's view it is clear that the current judicial review scheme in the migration legislation was intended to exclude some grounds of judicial review. That legislation spells out in detail the requirements for a visa and the procedures to be followed by the departmental decision makers, and gives extensive merits review of visa decisions.The Federal Court has taken a different view in numerous cases and has imported backgrounds of review, which this parliament has excluded. The minister has appealed the first of the cases referred to the High Court and is currently awaiting the judgment of that court. That puts in a more sensible context than the odd phrase here or there what the minister is trying to do. I think you can see that the High Court agrees with what the minister says. That is the minister's contention.1293McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. A very important component of my question was about the minister's assertion that judges do not have the breadth of experience and knowledge of the impact of decisions. I asked the minister whether she agrees with that and, if so, what she is going to do about it. I also ask: by not naming the judges has not Minister Ruddock attacked all the Federal Court judges, not just the few?1293Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—If you reflect on the answer, you will see that Mr Ruddock is saying parliament has quite specifically sought to take some areas out of judicial review for a variety of reasons, presumably on the basis that parliament is a better place and the minister and the decision makers are better equipped to make those decisions. On that basis, it follows that Mr Ruddock's remarks would be aimed at that aspect of a decision that parliament has in fact made. There are some decisions that are best made by ministers and other decision makers; that is, they are not judicial decisions. I am sure you understand the difference between a judicial decision and a decision on its merits.As to the minister not selecting any particular judge, he is entitled to make his remarks in general. He might feel that it is more respectful to make his remarks in general instead of doing what Senator Bolkus tried to do to High Court Justice Callinan. He completely undermined that judge by nominating him and sending staff up to Brisbane to see what he could get to attack the judge. There is a bit more respect for the High Court on this side of the chamber than there has ever been on that side. (Time expired)12931293Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill. Is the minister aware of current deliberations within the WA Planning Commission with respect to a development proposal for the Creery Wetlands near Mandurah, south of Perth. Can he advise whether his department has been consulted on this latest development proposal and what action he proposes to take, particularly in light of the area's proximity to the Ramsar listed Peel-Yalgorup wetlands system and the inevitability that the proposed development will impact on the Ramsar listed areas? Finally, what is the status of the proposed memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth, state and local government authorities and the developer?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—We have already saved the wetlands.1294Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—We have all saved them from time to time, Senator. Yes, they are important wetlands in Western Australia and there has been concern for some time that development proposals do not damage the conservation values, particularly the values of the Ramsar listed Peel-Harvey Estuary. That has, as Senator Faulkner interjected, been a concern of successive Commonwealth governments. We do not easily have a head of power under which to act, as the honourable senator would be aware. For the Commonwealth to intervene on Ramsar issues at the moment is a somewhat tortuous path. If Senator Margetts will join with us in implementing our environmental reform legislation that we have before the parliament, she can have greater confidence in relation to these matters in the future.Apart from a rather awkward procedure that has never been tested, the Commonwealth's process has largely been persuasive in relation to this particular matter. When the issue of development has from time to time lifted its head, successive Commonwealth governments have, as I said, become involved in an effort to protect the values of the wetlands. We of course are the state party to the Ramsar convention and have that responsibility, even though the Commonwealth government did not see fit to implement those obligations specifically under domestic legislation.It was my objective some time ago to complete a memorandum that I thought would give greater protection, but we were unsuc cessful in that, and then the issue of further development seemed to go onto the backburner. There is a suggestion that it is now back before planning authorities. We will therefore continue to act in the way that we have in the past to persuade the Western Australian government to ensure that these values are properly protected.1294Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I wish I could be assured that the minister has done everything in his power but I am not sure that I can be. Does the minister have any plans to incorporate the entire Creery Wetlands under the existing Ramsar listing for the Peel-Yalgorup system, of which the Creery area is an integral part? Given that the development is adjacent to a Ramsar listed wetland and would be included as part of that listing if it were not for its private ownership, has the Commonwealth government been a party to the deed of agreement?1294Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Extending the wetlands is not necessarily the answer. The issue is whether the development can be compatible with the adjoining conservation values, and that is the question that we have been addressing. I should give Senator Campbell some credit because he too has taken a great interest in this matter over many years, from the conservation perspective and also from the jobs and economic perspective. We believe in a balanced outcome in these difficult matters.12941294O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—My question is to Senator Vanstone, representing the Attorney-General. What did the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Fischer, mean when he said on the Meet the Press program yesterday that the proposal of the Association of Civil Marriage Celebrants to take legal action against the government for the unfair impact of the GST was `politically correct poppycock'? Was the Deputy Prime Minister serious in suggesting that civil marriage celebrants should pay a 20 per cent surcharge to cover the cost of cleaning up after their ceremonies and a further 20 per cent to subsidise the cost of maintaining the premises of religious celebrants? Or was he just being his usual idiosyncratic self?1295Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Madam President, I am not sure that it is appropriate to ask me what Mr Fischer meant when he said something. I would have thought in respect of the first phase that it was pretty obvious what he meant. I think it is self-explanatory. In relation to the other matters, Senator, it may come as a surprise to you but I do not watch every current affairs program on Sunday morning. I will have a look at the program and I will ask Mr Fischer if there is anything that he would like to add to enlighten you as to his remarks, and if he has some information that he wants to give me to pass on to you I will make sure that I do it by the end of the week.1295O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam President, perhaps the minister can deal with this supplementary question. What does the government propose to do to remove the obvious inequity of imposing a 10 per cent tax on civil marriage ceremonies while exempting religious ceremonies?1295Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The whole concept of a new tax system was taken to the last election—which, incidentally, we happened to win, Senator O'Brien, if you had not caught on. All of the detail of these matters will be very adequately debated when the bills come in. I am sure you can see, Senator, and that you are just pretending that you cannot see, the difference between exemptions for religious services and commercial services provided by a wide range of other people. There is a clear difference between those. There have always been exemptions for religious services in one way or another, and the fact that that is maintained does not seem any surprise to me. The civil celebrants are working on a commercial basis and would therefore expect to be included.12951295Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—My question is directed to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Will the minister inform the Senate what the government is doing to attract new investment and to create more jobs in Australian industry? What assistance will the government provide for the development of the new pulp and paper mill at Tumut in New South Wales? What benefits will the project bring to the region and to Australia more generally?1295Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator Brownhill for his question. Unlike the opposition, this government understands that, if you want to create jobs, you need sustainable economic growth and, if you want sustainable economic growth, you must have investment. Twelve months ago, we released a very major statement on investment called `Investing for growth', which identified investment as the critical element in creating economic growth and, therefore, creating jobs. In that statement and as part of our strategy in relation to investment, we announced the establishment of Invest Australia, which is our new investment promotion and facilitation agency.We also said at that time—in a very major decision—that, in special and limited circumstances, we would consider providing investment incentives for particular projects where there was clear economic benefit to Australia and where that economic benefit might not accrue to Australia unless the government took positive action to assist the investment. We also announced at that time the appointment of Bob Mansfield as the strategic investment coordinator.Yesterday I was pleased to announce the first initiative under that program, through the work of Mr Mansfield, and that was the government's decision to provide $40 million in order to enable the establishment of a pulp and paper mini-mill at Tumut in New South Wales. This is a tremendous project. It will provide around 1,000 new jobs in the region around Tumut. It is the first mini-mill of its kind in the whole world. The initial investment will be some $450 million, and there will be further investment down the track. It will produce 300,000 tonnes a year of unbleached kraft pulp and paper for industrial and packaging uses. It will, most importantly, replace imports of about 30,000 tonnes, and there will be about 100,000 tonnes for export.The government's assistance will be provided in several ways. The majority will come from existing programs—the Roads of National Importance program, the Infrastructure Borrowing Tax Offsets Scheme and the Regional Assistance Program. We will be providing an additional $15 million in the form of a cash grant, and I emphasise that all assistance provided will be treated as income for tax purposes.Our record in this initiative contrasts markedly with our opponents'. This is the first mill established in nearly two decades. The last mill built in Australia was built under the previous coalition government. There is a record of failure under Labor's period, most notably and disastrously, of course, the fiasco over the Wesley Vale pulp mill—a $1 billion investment lost to the state of Tasmania by your ridiculous inaction and infighting. It was an absolute disaster.The mini-mill for Tumut, which will proceed under our government, is environmentally friendly. It will be constructed using state-of-the-art technologies and based on the kraft pulping process, which minimises water use through a high level of water recycling. There is no bleaching involved in the process at all. It will use only plantation softwood timber and it will recycle up to 80,000 tonnes of waste paper from New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. It will I think very significantly result in an additional 30,000 hectares of softwood plantation being planted. So on every score this is a very major initiative. The project is proceeding only because the federal government has made the decision to provide $40 million worth of investment incentives. We welcome this decision.12961296Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Has the minister received the letter written by the Judicial Conference of Australia stating that the 15 per cent superannuation surcharge on the incomes of state, territory and some Federal Court judges as well as magistrates breaches the constitution? Has the minister's attention been drawn to the statement by the conference's secretary, Professor Stephen Parker, that the surcharge attacked three centuries of legal tradition that had protected judicial independence from government interference? On what basis can the minister assert, as he did through a spokesperson, that he is satisfied that the law is constitutional and will survive the challenge in the High Court? Did the government receive legal advice to this effect when the legislation was originally drafted?1296Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Again we have a question relating to the superannuation surcharge. I have not formally sought a ruling, but I have noted here before that elements of the Labor Party are very opposed to the superannuation surcharge—not all the Labor Party, it has to be said, but elements of the Labor Party. Of course, members of parliament and people in the Senate are subject to the surcharge like other high income earners. I just wonder whether we should get a ruling on whether the senator—in standing up and asking a question on the surcharge, which is a critical question—should declare an interest in relation to this.UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—Oh!WW4Senator KEMP—It is a very important point. The surcharge is an important equity measure which forms part of the government's policy on superannuation. I might say that, at one stage, it formed part of the Labor Party's policy on superannuation. When it got to the Senate, under Senator Sherry's guidance the Labor Party backflipped. After the bill was passed, the Labor Party backflipped again and the surcharge became part of the Labor Party's policy. So there are two backflips there, Madam President.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, I would draw your attention to the question that was put to you.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. I am drawing some important background to this question. As far as we are concerned, the surcharge should apply in an equitable fashion to high income earners whether they happen to be politicians, people in the Senate or judges. As I said, it is a principle of equity and it is one which the government supports.During the debate on the superannuation surcharge, there were various issues which were raised and debates about whether it was constitutional. In the course of those debates, the government sought advice and, as far as the government is concerned, we are satisfied that the law is constitutional. I understand that other issues have been raised from the conference on the weekend. I will check whether I have received a letter specifically on this matter. I think some of my colleagues have. The important point here is that the surcharge is a matter of equity.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—It's a new tax!WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Sherry, we know you are vigorously opposed to the surcharge. Unless you can tell me the Labor Party has once again changed its policy on this surcharge—has the Labor Party changed its policy on the surcharge?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Kemp!WW4Senator KEMP—As I was pointing out, the Labor Party blackflipped once on the surcharge. It has backflipped again. In the course of the election it further backflipped. I would be very interested to see when the senator asks a supplementary question whether we are seeing another change in tack for the Labor Party on the superannuation surcharge.1297Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that difficulties with the implementation of the 15 per cent superannuation surcharge have forced the government to extend the financial assessment date—originally August this year—not once but twice to 15 October this year and now to 15 February next year? Aren't these just further examples of why this legally flawed, ill-conceived, administrative nightmare should not have been proceeded with last year?1297Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—That is an extraordinary statement. Don't you know that it was Labor Party policy? This is quite extraordinary. The senator himself may well have already received an assessment for the superannuation surcharge. This senator is asking us to overturn the superannuation surcharge which each year he presumably will have to pay—unless he has got other particular deductions—and be liable for. I am astonished that a Labor Party senator has stood up in this chamber and attempted to overturn the superannuation surcharge, which I understood was Labor Party policy. I regard it as quite an extraordinary question. (Time expired)12971297Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. I refer also to the front page of today's Australian in which the immigration minister, Mr Ruddock, attacks Federal Court judges for undermining the government's strict refugee policy. How do these comments match with the fact that, of the 979 decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal which were appealed to the Federal Court over the last four years, only 21, or two per cent, have been successfully overturned and of these any could then be appealed to the High Court? Are the minister's comments not so much a legitimate complaint about judges succumbing to their personal biases but rather another case of cheap populism by the government, trying to look tough on migrants and bash some judges? Given the fact that any error in judgment by the Refugee Review Tribunal may result in the torture or death on an asylum seeker, isn't the government risking having the blood of at least some asylum seekers on its hands by pursuing its current proposal to limit judicial review of immigration rulings even further?1297Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank the senator for his question. There are a few things I would like to add to the answer that I gave to Senator McKiernan's question. I do not know if you were here for that. If you were not, I refer you to the Hansard . I will repeat something I said last week: the voice of dissent is the bell of freedom. Courts are independent but they are not free from scrutiny or criticism. That has never been the cornerstone of the independence of the judiciary. The minister has expressed a view. He is entitled to express that view; you are entitled to disagree with it. That is what a free democratic system is all about. It does not assist the development of such a system—if you endorse such a system—if every time you disagree with someone you refer to them as a cheap populist. You can be excused for that because you obviously do not know Minister Ruddock very well. But anyone who did know him would know that that is a ludicrous proposition for you to put.1298Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister respond to the reported remarks of former Chief Justice Sir Gerard Brennan that, without judicial review, government power may be abused with impunity and that government or the bureaucracy could refuse to obey the law or observe the rules? How can the government's plan to further restrict judicial review not impact negatively on the many genuine applicants who are simply legitimately pursuing their legal rights and not abusing the system?1298Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I will refer the senator's supplementary question to Mr Ruddock and see if there is anything he wants to add. The only thing I wish to add is: don't imagine for one minute that everything that happens is always going to be reviewed by a court or a judge and that providing that review in every circumstance is always going to be an appropriate path to follow. I will refer your question to Mr Ruddock. If he has got anything to add over and above that which is already on the public record, I am sure he will.12981298Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Does the minister agree with the Kennett government's submission to the Senate inquiry into the private health insurance rebate proposal that fund members on more than $50,000 a year should have to buy full, rather than discounted, hospital insurance before they qualify for the handout and that the rebate should be paid only for hospital insurance, not extras? Isn't Mr Kennett correct in claiming that offering the rebate for extras like dental cover will do little to relieve the pressure on public hospitals? Minister, why should we subsidise your dental care while pensioners cannot afford urgent dental treatment because you closed down the only scheme that supported them?1298Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Evans for the question. I have learnt with Senator Evans to doubt the question before I answer it.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Oh, what rubbish!VW4Senator HERRON—Rubbish, somebody said on the other side. On 25 March this year Senator Evans said to me:Today you said you did not know. Were you lying then or are you lying now?He did not retract that. I checked the Hansard at that time. I had said that they played their politics roughly, as they had done for the last couple of years, and that they had done it with the previous government, which was nothing new. He accused me of lying then and he did not retract, so I seize this opportunity to point out that anybody who hears that sort of question should question the question. He obviously has an agenda that he wants to run. I suggest that he check the veracity of his questions before he asks them.Jeffrey Kennett is an outstanding Premier of this country. Senator Collins is holding up a news article. The other thing I have learned, Senator Collins, is to question anything I read in the press. One of the columnists in Brisbane, a well-known political correspondent, once said, `Many times with the printed media you can believe only two things: the price and the date, and sometimes they get the date wrong.'10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many conversations in the chamber. Senator Herron, I draw your attention to the question that was asked of you.VW4Senator HERRON—Thank you, Madam President. Premier Kennett is, like many people, knowledgeable on many affairs. But I am afraid that knowledge of health care in relation to this particular debate is not his long suit. He has missed the fact that, where people choose to take out ancillary cover, that is their right. They have the right to choose ancillary cover just as they have the right to take out front-end deductibles. That is part of the system.It is obvious that Australians value the Medicare system and the quality of care it offers to the whole community. The government has introduced legislation so that the 30 per cent rebate of health insurance premiums can be provided to all Australians who want private health cover. This will take pressure off public hospitals. It will make them more accessible. It will get people off waiting lists. Premier Kennett has supported the rebate and encouraged the Senate to pass the legislation that will introduce the 30 per cent rebate from 1 January 1989.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—What year? Is it 1989 or 1999?VW4Senator HERRON—My apologies, 1999. Thank you, Senator Schacht. It was a typo.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, stop shouting!VW4Senator HERRON—The rebate funding is provided by the Commonwealth in addition to the support it provides for public hospitals under the new health care agreements. These agreements have been negotiated and agreed with all of the state premiers, including Mr Kennett, and all of their health ministers.Our commitment to Medicare is clear. In 1998-99, about $5.7 billion in current prices will be paid under the agreements. This is a funding increase of 8.8 per cent in real terms for the states and territories over the last year of the Medicare agreements, 1997-98. At the end of the agreements in 2002-03, the total funding in real terms for the states and territories will be 16.5 per cent greater than the 1997-98 rebate. So there is quite a dramatic increase under the Medicare rebate system under the agreements that have been agreed to by all the state premiers, including Premier Kennett.1299Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. First of all, I am sorry if the minister has harboured some offence since March this year. It is the first time he has raised it with me. I am surprised it took him so long if he was so mortally offended. But, Minister, the question went to the heart of your government's priorities. You are proposing to spend $200 million subsidising dental cover for the rich, all those people who have been brought into the rebate scheme, while you closed down the only scheme that allowed dental care for pensioners and other poor Australians to get urgent dental treatment. I ask: what are your government's priorities? Why will you not provide dental health for the poor who cannot afford care while you will subsidise your own dental care?1299Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am pleased that Senator Evans brought that up, because he did not understand his own government policy at the time. When in government, the Labor Party introduced the dental care subsidy and said it was for a fixed period to alleviate waiting lists at that time and it had a finite ending. Senator Evans was not aware it had a finite ending under the Labor Party government, of which he was a part at the time. So it is absurd for him to bring this up. He did not understand his own policy.As I have said previously, the reality is that people are given the freedom of choice whether to insure for ancillary cover or front-end deductibles. We are trying to make up the ravages that the Labor Party brought into private health insurance in the 13 years that they had it, when they intentionally tried to devastate the private hospital system of this country. They tried to destroy it. We are trying to restore it, and we will restore it if this legislation is passed.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice1299129915:05:001299Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp), to a question without notice asked by Senator Hogg today, relating to superannuation.I rise to take note, yet again, of the debacle that is the government's superannuation surcharge as outlined by Senator Kemp. I invite Senator Kemp to stay and join the debate to defend it, yet again. As always, the surcharge has been brought further and further into disrepute. We have seen over the last 18 months the government trying to pretend that it is not a tax. We all know it is a tax. We all know that the government has got itself into such a horrendous position on this tax simply because it was caught out when it promised no new taxes. What was its solution? It stood up and said, `It is not a tax; it is a surcharge.'The government promised the Australian electorate before the 1996 election there would be no new taxes. Yet in its first budget, nearly 2½ years ago, it broke that promise with a new $500 million tax. It found that the only way it could try to pretend to the broader community that it had not broken that promise was to call it a surcharge. Senator Sherry humiliated Senator Kemp over many months on this issue, the pretence that this was not a tax. Today we are seeing, yet again, more evidence that the surcharge, or tax as it is officially known on the books of this parliament, is in actual fact unconstitutional. You have got yourself into such a mess on it that you have allowed it to become fundamentally flawed. You come before this chamber and ask, `What is the Labor Party's position?'WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—I'm going to listen to this.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—The Labor Party's position is absolutely clear, Senator Kemp. It is absolutely clear.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Address the chair please, Senator Conroy.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—The Labor Party's position is that it supports this measure on an equity basis.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Oh, you support it.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—But this government has made such a mess of this measure—such a total and utter debacle—that we were in a position where we opposed the mechanism used to collect. It is that simple, Senator Kemp. You have made such a mess of the collection mechanism simply to avoid having to admit that it is a tax.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Would you address the chair, Senator Conroy.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—What you have done is you have forced every single—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, please address the chair.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Every single superannuant in this country has to pay for the collection of this tax. It is paying through the nose not just in lower returns but also in higher admin fees. This government stands condemned by the industry, by ordinary Australians and by their superannuation funds because you have made such a mess of it.It has been calculated that, to raise $100 of surcharge tax revenue, it is costing each super fund $54. That is a fact. The super funds have been forced to put such a ridiculous amount of administration into this bill that it is costing $54 to collect $100. This is the most inefficient collection method. It is almost as if the government sat down and said, `How can we so completely stuff this up that it is going to cost almost half of what we are going to raise for this tax?' And it designed this mechanism, Senator Kemp, through you, Madam Deputy President. The reason the Labor Party voted against this mechanism is that it is such an inefficient and inequitable measure. We have seen it questioned during the committee hearings as unconstitutional. There was more evidence over the weekend that it is unconstitutional. The government got caught pulling a fast one, pulling the wool over the eyes of ordinary Australians.We have seen in this measure lower returns. Each and every Australian with a super fund is getting a lower return when they retire because of this government. We have seen funds having to take money and put it into the cash side of their investment account. Cash is very reliable, but it has a very low return. That is what is happening. We have seen massive increases in costs. We have seen delayed assessments. Many of the people whom this measure was designed to hit still have not received an assessment from this government. Perhaps Senator Kemp can tell us why. That was the very question that was asked.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Two and a half years later.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Two and a half years later, and we still have not seen assessments for the very people this tax is designed to collect money from. They have been unable to collect the tax file numbers for hundreds and thousands of ordinary Australians. (Time expired)15:10:001301Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I was somewhat provoked to stay behind in taking note of answers to listen to Senator Conroy. I have made the mistake before in tuning into Senator Conroy: I learnt nothing. I regret to say that my initial impression has been confirmed again by Senator Conroy's effort, except for a very important statement that Senator Conroy made. I must say that I raised the question at question time whether the Labor Party supported the surcharge or not. We know that Senator Sherry was the most vigorous opponent of the surcharge. No self-interest there, Senator Sherry.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—None at all.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Some will ask whether this is to Senator Sherry's credit or whether, to take another view of Senator Sherry, this decision is one of extreme self-interest. The Labor Party supported the surcharge in the lower house. But when it came up here, under the guidance of Senator Sherry, the Labor Party attempted in every possible way to defeat the surcharge. Not one senator declared self-interest in this. Not one senator indicated that, if the surcharge was defeated, this would mean massive savings to virtually all senators in this chamber. Not one of them declared an interest. I was interested to hear Senator Conroy's comments as to whether the Labor Party had backflipped again. You will notice that I went through a sequence of the backflip.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Did you declare interest on the savings rebate?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Sherry, you have had your time.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, would you please address the chair.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—You have had your chance. You are on the record, Senator Sherry. Senator Conroy said that the Labor Party supports this measure as an equity measure. That is a very important statement. Apparently we are seeing the Labor Party's continuing support for the surcharge.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—But not a measure that's going to make the poor people pay.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Well, you are not poor, Senator Conroy, and presumably you are liable for the surcharge. Then he said, `However, we are unhappy with the way the collection mechanism works.' We waited during the debate in the Senate, because this was the argument that Senator Sherry ran. He was unhappy with the collection mechanism.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—So is everyone else.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—We put up an alternative.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—You didn't. You actually withdrew all your proposed amendments.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy and Senator Sherry will come to order and cease interjecting. Senator Kemp, you will address the chair and ignore the interjections.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I hope that you will show some kind of control over your colleagues. The fact of the matter is that while I was debating the measure I was subjected to constant harassment from that side.Senator Carr interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr!WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Madam Deputy President, are you planning to take any control over your colleagues or not?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, I do not require that sort of comment and assistance.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I shall be tuning in, Madam Deputy President, very carefully to the remainder of this debate.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You might learn something.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Those on my left!1301Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—What we learnt was that the Labor Party then attempted to propose an alternative collection mechanism. Then they went and did some research and found that it did not work; they found that it was highly complex and led to major problems, not the least for small business. So Senator Sherry dropped it. Senator Sherry, if my memory serves me correctly, never moved those amendments.I shall be listening very carefully to hear what is the alternative collection mechanism that the Labor Party proposes for the superannuation surcharge because, as I have noted, it does have a huge self-interest in this area. As a politician, as a higher income earner liable for the superannuation surcharge, the Labor Party has a huge—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Why are you making everybody up there pay to collect my tax?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, please desist from interjecting.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I think your instructions from the chair have been constantly ignored by your colleagues. You might like to exert some clearer authority, if I may suggest to you.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No, you may not.WW4Senator KEMP—So here we have the Labor Party with no alternative collection mechanism—that is the truth—none whatsoever.Senator Conroy interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—You had a couple of years to work out an alternative collection mechanism, and you could never do it. Either the Labor Party is as incompetent in this area as it is in every other area, or it was just utterly bone lazy. Take your pick: it is one of those two. Or perhaps there is an alternative—that the Labor Party looked closely at it and decided that, all things considered, this was the appropriate mechanism.(Time expired)15:16:001302Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Senator Kemp, in an attempt to distract himself and the government from the inadequacies of the particular problems of the so-called superannuation surcharge, challenged senators to declare an interest. We certainly did not see Senator Kemp, for example, declare an interest when—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—The savings rebate.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—the so-called savings rebate was introduced—$450 to every senator automatically. We did not see Senator Kemp following that line. And I will be interested to see Senator Kemp declare an interest when this government's so-called tax reform GST legislation comes into this Senate which reduces income tax for everyone in this place by far more than the fair share that we should receive. But that is not the issue.The issue relates to the so-called superannuation surcharge—in effect, a tax. This was the government's major tax reform announced in 1996: an additional tax of $½ billion. But Treasurer Costello did not call it a tax. He said to himself, I am sure, `Well, we went to the election in 1996 saying "No increases in existing taxes, no new taxes". So we've got to call the new $½ billion tax on superannuation something new; we'll call it a surcharge.' That was the fundamental beginning of this government's problem in collecting this $½ billion new tax.This new tax on superannuation does not just apply to higher income earners who earn more than $72,000; it also applies to many people who in certain circumstances earn less than $72,000. If they fail to provide a tax file number, persons who earn less than $72,000 are required to pay the full 15 per cent of the tax—the full 15 per cent. So it is not equitable in that sense.But there are a number of other fundamental flaws with this new tax. This new tax was budgeted to collect almost $½ billion in 1997-98. What did the government end up collecting? It collected $347 million. That means there was a $133 million shortfall. We have asked Senator Kemp why they had a shortfall of $133 million. No answer; waffle, but no answer. What happened to that $133 million that was budgeted to be collected in the first year? It is not an insignificant amount of money. It is about a third of the estimated amount of revenue that this new tax was going to raise—and it has not materialised.What did it cost to collect this new tax, the $347 million in revenue? In the first year, industry estimates—not Labor Party estimates but those of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia—are that, to collect $347 million, it cost $160 million; $160 million to collect $347 million. So, for every dollar raised in revenue in the first year, it cost almost 50c; almost 50c to raise a dollar in revenue from the new super tax. I might say that cost does not include the $20 million to $30 million it has cost the tax office. So we have $347 million in revenue, $133 million dollars short, and it cost $160 million. It is Australia's most expensive tax.7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—In the world.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—In the world, my Senate colleague interjects. It is one of the most expensive taxes in the world to collect; certainly in Australian history we have never seen anything like this. And this was this government's, Mr Costello's, major tax reform of its first term in office. This was announced in the budget of 1996. Two and a half years later, the assessment notices are still going out—2½ years later. So on any efficiency arguments, equity arguments, this tax is a monumental failure—and highlighted today, of course, by the approach of the judges. It is not just Labor—it is judges, fund managers, trustees, lawyers, accountants, economists. You are hard pressed to find anyone who supports the collection mechanism of this new tax. It is grossly inefficient. If this is a prelude to the GST, God help the Australian population when you have a tax that costs almost 50 cents in the dollar to raise. (Time expired)15:21:001303McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—I also rise to join this debate and pick up a couple of points made by Senator Sherry. Senator Sherry is somewhat specialised in this area of tax surcharge, unlike his colleague frontbencher Senator Conroy. Senator Sherry is the expert. Whenever Senator Conroy concludes a speech during a debate that he has started on such financial matters, he walks out of the chamber, leaving the debate to Senator Sherry. I do not know why Senator Conroy does not leave it entirely to Senator Sherry.Senator Sherry, I want to pick up a couple of points that you made about the administration costs of collecting this surcharge. I think you said that $347 million was raised in the first year and some $160 million was needed to raise that. That was the administration cost. As you know and must concede, the first year is always more. It gets less as the years go on. There is an establishment cost to raise these sorts of surcharges and taxes—there is no doubt about that, Senator Sherry. Of course it is a somewhat more complex system compared to other taxes, so you must concede that means testing is not always the best way to go when it comes to raising special surcharges and taxes. So you would then perhaps agree that the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance should not be means tested.The second point you made was that there is a shortfall in the government's estimate in raising a certain amount of the surcharge—we may have estimated for some $500 million and we got $347 million. Do not worry about our shortfall. We balanced our budget. Overall, this was part of the grand plan of our first budget. As tough as it was, there was a method behind the government's policies, such as this surcharge. Some of them were tough to do, but we carried them out and we are now reaping the benefits, Senator Sherry. So do not start telling us we have not raised enough revenue. What we have done is to balance our budget. We have brought our budget into surplus, and every sector of the economy—every department—has contributed to that. We do not need gratuitous economic advice, least of all from you.There is an inherent contradiction in the debate today. For example, the opposition is saying that the people who are going to have to pay the surcharge after the $70,000 point where the means test starts to cut in are poor people. Yet, with the 30 per cent health rebate system, they say the $70,000 income earners are rich people. So, Senator Sherry, there is an inherent contradiction in your argument.The second contradiction is that the House of Representatives Labor supported it but the Senate Labor did not support it. What went wrong in between the two houses? Who did the heavy lobbying on this? In actual fact, it was an ideological debate. By the time it got to the Senate, it was an ideological debate for the Labor Party and the ideology is pretty easy to understand: they have to pay the surcharge on their parliamentary pensions. That is the ideology behind this.Senator Conroy said that if government had to sit down and work out how to stuff up a tax system, this is the way to do it. Well, if the government had to stuff up the tax system, they would keep the existing tax system. That is the best way to stuff up the tax system we have, and that is exactly what you want to do: keep the existing tax system. You want to keep the existing wholesale sales tax with all its inequities and absurdities where, for example, frozen yoghurt does not get wholesale sales tax but soft yoghurt, which looks like ice-cream, does get wholesale sales tax. That is how you stuff up the tax system: keep the existing tax system. If you want to untangle the mess we have before us, support the government's tax reform system. If you want to untangle the budgetary mess we have, then support the surcharge tax on superannuation. (Time expired)15:26:001304Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I asked a very simple question of the minister today, and he was not able to respond. We know, of course, that the minister is responsible for waffle answers, but for the first time today, consistent with his indisposition of last week, we got a jelly belly answer.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Jelly belly?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Please, let's not deteriorate the language any further.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—I thought that was a fairly apt description of the answer I got, because it did not address the question that was asked of the minister. The question was about the problem with the judges—where the judges have now said that the super tax is illegal. That was the question to the minister. The minister did not answer it. The fact is that the judges are saying, quite loudly and clearly—reported—that the super tax is illegal. The government cannot face up to it.It is not a matter of my self-interest or anyone else's self-interest, Senator McGauran. It is purely and simply a fact that the government are yet to address the whole issue of the constitutionality of the change that they brought in. They were repeatedly told that it was unconstitutional, that it was unworkable and that it was an unfair tax for some people—but they ignored that completely. The minister ignored that at his own peril. There was a meeting of judges, who said that the tax is illegal. In today's Age it was reported:If the litigation goes ahead, the Government will be in the extraordinary position of being possibly the first in Australian history to have its laws challenged by its judiciary.That is what the government have set up: a challenge by its own judiciary. The statement, through Professor Stephen Parker, further said:Unless the legislation is repealed, we think that the matter must be decided by the High Court immediately and not become drawn out.As my colleagues said, from the outset this particular surcharge—this particular tax—has been a complete debacle. It has been ill-conceived and it has done nothing to assist the superannuation industry and those people who rightfully receive superannuation as part of their retirement package. Forget about the issue of what happens in this place, because there is no doubt on our side that the people in this place are liable to pay the taxes that are owed by them. That is not the issue. At issue here is the constitutionality of the law as seen by judges.The second issue that I raised in my question was the fact that the collection of this tax by the government has turned into a complete debacle. As one of my colleagues alluded to earlier, it has the highest compliance cost in the world for the collection of a tax and it has placed a great impost on funds and fund members. It will ultimately reduce the benefit that is returned to fund members. I have even heard cited that one fund paid some $40,000 to have the reporting charges—EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Must be a union fund, John.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—No, it was not. But, in spite of that, no members of the fund were actually subject to the surcharge. A fund paid some $40,000 to have the surchargeable amount reported when, in effect, there was nothing to be paid at all. Who bore the cost of that? The fund and the fund members. What we have here is not an issue of equity; we have an issue of inequity for those people who, not subject to the charge at all, had to pay it and get a reduced benefit for themselves.This issue shows nothing more than the fact that the government lobbed on to something that was no good. They stuck with it. It is not a matter of if you are on a good thing stick to it. They should have got rid of it. The minister has done nothing to convince the public or anyone in this place that it is a fair charge. The superannuation funds have repeatedly opposed this charge from its instigation and, as I understand it, will continue to do so. The judges do nothing more than support that contention. (Time expired)15:31:001305Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—What a spectacle we have here today—the Labor Party talking about economic management! Fancy economic management being the subject of taking note of answers that were given by the government in question time today. We are talking about the most incompetent economic managers that this country has seen for a long time. I am quite sure that Senator Hogg, who was the most recent speaker, is one of those who has suffered and will suffer for a long time because of the legacy of the Labor Party's economic management of this country. He can raise small issues as often as he likes—he can raise issues of constitutionality of law and all the other issues he might wish to—but nothing will ever deflect from the incompetent management of the Labor Party over 13 years they were in government.I am sorry that Senator Sherry has gone because he said in his little contribution that this not only applies to people on incomes over $72,000 a year but also applies to people who are earning less. He failed to say that this does not need to apply to anybody who earns under $72,000. If people cannot keep their affairs in order and will not give a tax file number, it is no different from the legislation you people introduced when it came to savings accounts in banks. If you do not give your tax file number to a bank, then the tax on any interest earned on your savings account will be paid at a rate of 48c in the dollar.What is the difference between the attitude we have taken to superannuation and the attitude your government took to the savings of Australians, whether they have savings accounts in banks or in other areas which pay interest? They have to give their tax file number in order that the tax will not be taken out at the top rate. It is exactly the same with the superannuation surcharge. Senator Sherry ought to be very careful that he does not mislead the chamber because there is no need for anybody earning under $72,000 a year to pay the top rate, in exactly the same manner that there is no need for anybody who deposits money in a bank account and earns interest to pay the top rate.He calls it an iniquitous tax. Let me tell you that there is nothing more iniquitous than a high income earner being able to claim 48 cents in the dollar from their contribution to superannuation and someone who pays 20 cents in the dollar being able to claim only 20 cents in the dollar. That is iniquitous and that is why the superannuation surcharge was introduced. It was introduced so that high income earners do not get a distinct advantage over low income earners. Did we hear that from Senator Conroy or Senator Sherry? Not on your life. The last thing they wanted to do was highlight the fact that, as high income earners, they could, if they wanted to, get a far greater rebate on contributions than someone who is on 20 cents in the dollar.Between 1983 and 1993, in the period of the Labor government, there were 83 major changes to superannuation legislation. So don't let them over there talk about confusing the public about the continual changes to superannuation, which makes it more unattractive to those people in the community who might wish to take it out. Let them look at their own record. Their own record was one of confusing the public year after year and changing the rules as they went along.Who will ever forget the then Labor government's attitude to their own workers who used to be able to contribute $3,000 a year to their own private funds in order to enhance the savings of Australia, in order to enhance their own retirement income. What did the then Labor government do? It took away the right of workers to claim a tax deduction for up to $3,000 of their own contributions. Don't you talk about looking after the workers, because in this one stroke you caused more trouble and more harm to workers in Australia, especially those older workers who had not been in superannuation schemes for that long, who were trying to build up, over a very short period, their retirement benefit.You, the Labor Party, took away the right of workers earning low incomes or middle incomes to contribute to their own retirement and claim a tax deduction for it. You ought to think carefully about your own record over those 13 years of government. The issues you have raised today are minimal compared with the blunders you made during that time in making changes to superannuation on a regular basis. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.130610001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:130666TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo 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 BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 66 citizens)13063810000The PRESIDENTTo 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 1 January 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 38 citizens)13061498DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned draws attention to the potentially damaging effects 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 1,498 citizens)1306658110000 8U4The PRESIDENT; Lees Sen MegTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned shows: That services and goods provided by natural and traditional therapy practitioners are an integral component of Australia's health care system and should be included in the health care exempt (zero rated) category under the Government's proposed Tax Reform Package. Preclusion implies a discrimination and could seriously restrict the choice of affordable health care available to Australians.Your Petitioners request that services and goods provided by natural and traditional therapy practitioners be included in the health care exempt (zero rated) category under the Government's proposed Tax Reform Package.the PresidentUNKNOWNthe President(from 28 citizens)Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 6,553 citizens)1306323I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaTo the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament Assembled:The Petition of the undersigned demands the Australian Government implement regulation for the mandatory labelling of all food or food components which are genetically modified.Senator Stott Despoja3I6Senator Stott Despoja(from 32 citizens)Petitions received.Notices1307Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Payne, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 (No. 2) be extended to 17 February 1999.Senator Margetts to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) calls on federal, state and territory governments to negotiate an extension of the timetable for implementation of the national competition policy until after the following inquiries have reported and the Federal Government has responded: (i) the Productivity Commission inquiry into the impact of competition policy reforms on rural and regional Australia, (ii) the select committee inquiry into the socio-economic consequences of the national competition policy, and (iii) the proposed joint parliamentary inquiry into market concentration in the retail sector; and(b) notes that the call is supported by many non-parliamentary organisations and individuals.Notice amended by Madam President pursuant to standing order 76.Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes moves within Indonesia to investigate the wealth and assets held by ex-president Suharto and his family and associates, and any corruption associated with the acquisition of such wealth; and(b) calls on the Australian Government to offer to assist the Indonesian Government with its inquiries into the alleged corruption and wealth holdings of ex-president Suharto.Senator Lundy to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) congratulates the participants and delegates of the inaugural National Children's Summit that was held in Parliament House from 4 December to 6 December 1998; and(b) encourages: (i) the participants and delegates to continue working on the very important issues raised during the summit, and (ii) the Government to look at the plan of action that lists the outcomes from the summit with a view to addressing the problems and concerns facing Australia's youth.Business13071307Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, be postponed till 9 December 1998.1307Motions (by Senator Bourne, Senator Woodley, Senator Murray, Senator Lees, Senator Stott Despoja, Senator Allison and Senator Bartlett) agreed to:That general business notices of motion Nos 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 66 standing in the name of Australian Democrats senators for today, relating to drug use and abuse, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1307Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 56 standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, relating to East Timorese asylum seekers, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1307Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Mackay) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 38 standing in the name of Senator Mackay for today, relating to the closure of certain Telstra operations in Tasmania, be postponed till 10 December 1998.Committees130813081308Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Knowles)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the committee on the provision of the Private Health Insurance Incentives Amendment Bill 1998 and two related bills be extended to 8 December 1998.Business13081308Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request of Senator Allison) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 57 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to the Ranger uranium mine, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous1308Motion (by Senator Lundy) agreed to: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.Documents13081308130810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—On behalf of the President and in accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General's Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 18 of 1998-99—Performance Audit—Accounting for Aid—The Management of Funding to Non-Government Organisations: Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID).Committees1308130813081308O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Murphy, I present the report of the Economics References Committee on matters referred to the committee during the previous parliament and seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.Ordered that the report be adopted.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I also seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—Report on Matters not disposed of at the end of the 38th ParliamentThe References Committee met on 30 November and considered references not disposed of at the end of the 38th Parliament and resolved to recommend to the Senate that—1. The following inquiries of the 38th Parliament be re-adopted: Whether a new reactor should be built to replace the High Flux Australian Reactor at Lucas Heights on that site or on some other site in Australia, with a reporting date of 18 February 1999; Operation of the Australian Taxation Office, with a reporting date of 30 June 1999.2. The following inquiries not be re-adopted: The need for a uniform national retail tenancy code.The Committee has not re-adopted this reference because the subject matter is now outside of the Committee's allocated portfolio area under continuing order no. 1, as amended by the Senate on 10 November 1998.Senator Shane MurphyChair, References Committee7 December 1998Delegation Reports1308130815:45:001308McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Korea and Malaysia which took place in July of this year, and I want to make a few short comments in regard to the report. On reading the report again this morning, I recalled the difficulties we had with the two new airports in the region. I suffered more than the rest of my colleagues on that delegation, my luggage going missing for some four days on the way through Kuala Lumpur into Seoul.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Is that where you got that shirt?1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—As a matter of fact, Senator Campbell, that is exactly right. The tie was bought in a different place, and I also got the blazer in Seoul. I was unfortunately travelling in casual gear and on the first few days of the delegation I did stand out somewhat until I was able to get some different clothes. We made mention in the report of the fact that in the one day we actually went through both of the new airports that had been opened in the region. We suffered greatly because of that with huge delays. Nonetheless, the airports now seem to be working and they are a credit to those people who conceived them and built them.I want to pay special attention at the very beginning to the leadership of the delegation leader, Harry Jenkins, the member for Scullin in the other place. Mr Jenkins did a wonderful job in holding the delegation together. We were quite a diverse group with diverse interests. He held the delegation together exceptionally well and, indeed, impressed the people we met in both countries. He was ably assisted by the deputy leader of the delegation, Mr Bruce Reid, who retired at the last election. Bruce was also a real asset to have on the delegation, assisting at every stage when there were any difficulties. Gillian Gould has to be commended for her efforts in keeping the delegation on stream and up to date with developments and meeting our commitments.It was a difficult time for the delegation to visit both countries. As the Senate would know, both countries have been very severely impacted by the economic crisis that has hit the region and have suffered very badly. Unfortunately, the people who are suffering most are those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. That is something that had an impact on the delegation when we visited. Of course, much has happened since the period in which the delegation visit took place. Some five months have elapsed, and a general election in Australia has occurred as well. In the report, the delegation has sought to stick to what was happening at the time that we visited.It was a difficult time for us to visit, and that was apparent in the visits that were organised for us. The visit to Korea was better organised than was the visit to Malaysia. Whilst the visit to Malaysia was productive, it could have been much better for us. We only got to meet with one minister in Malaysia, and that was only after the delegation expressed concerns at the briefing with the High Commissioner on the first morning of the visit. We were grateful for that meeting with the minister, but the visit could have been much better. The Malaysians themselves appeared more preoccupied with their own internal difficulties than they were with the visiting parliamentary delegation, and I think our program, to a certain extent, reflected that. But I think we were looking with biased eyes and comparing it with what occurred in Korea, a very close and, indeed, very important trading partner with Australia. The people in Korea were very pleased to see us and were very grateful for Australia's interventions in their economic difficulties. Our support for the IMF package was also appreciated, and that was expressed in comments to us.In Malaysia, there seemed to be a preoccupation with the happenings of the One Nation party in Australia. We were reminded that a previous delegation which visited Kuala Lumpur some 18 months ago had told the Malaysians that One Nation was an aberration and would not be around very long. We were reminded that since that time the Queensland state elections had been held and, indeed, the One Nation party was actually stronger than it had been previously. So that was a difficulty that we had to come to grips with in Malaysia. In many respects it would have been nicer to have gone to Malaysia this week than to visit at that particular point in time. Honourable senators would know that the area where I was born, only 10 miles from the border that divides Northern Ireland from Ireland, has experienced conflict for the last 300 to 400 years. I have not personally experienced it, but it has been going on for quite a considerable period of time. Even all of that did not prepare me for the visit that the delegation made to Panmunjom, the border area that divides North Korea and South Korea. I was not prepared for the tension that was very evident in that particular part of the world. There are some welcome signs on the horizon in North Korea and South Korea that there might possibly be hope for some form of peace in the near future.In Korea I was most impressed by our two meetings with the trade union bodies in Seoul: the Federation of Korean Trade Unions and the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions. They are two separate organisations that, it would appear, spent quite a considerable period of time opposing each other over the years. At this present moment in time, they are combining to protect the workers of Korea who are suffering particularly badly because of the economic crisis.Korean unemployment has increased from 452,000, that is 2.1 per cent, in October 1997 to over 1.5 million, seven per cent of the work force, in June of this year. It is predicted to reach two million, over 10 per cent, by the end of 1998. There are some particular difficulties for working people in Korea. These include the fact that it is mainly small business enterprises that are going bankrupt and they are the ones that are laying off the most workers. There is a very low level of trade unionism, only 1.6 million out of a labour force of some 22 million, and for those who do lose their jobs, redundancy provisions are very poor. One can perhaps understand why there is such a low level of trade unionism. We were told that between 1988 and 1997 more than 2,500 unionists were imprisoned for more than six months, and 10,000 for less than six months. So it is not easy being a trade unionist in Korea. The visit to the Samsung factory outside Seoul was very impressive and shows what has been achieved by that company in that area of the world.One very disturbing statistic for me as a Western Australian visiting Korea was the decline in Korean imports of iron ore from Western Australia. Iron ore imports to Korea suffered, in the first quarter of this year, a decline of 44.5 percentage points, which will obviously have an impact not only on my constituents back in the Pilbara region in Western Australia but also on the overall Australian economy.I commend this report to the parliament. It is perhaps somewhat dated, but that is not necessarily the fault of the delegation. Upon our return to Australia we were preoccupied with the federal election and getting that out of way and then had to meet again to agree on the content of the report. There will be some useful references in the report for others to build upon the relations that we have both with South Korea and with Malaysia.Perhaps the greatest effort has to be put into our relationship with Malaysia. There are very great strains on the relationship between Australia and Malaysia. They were expressed to us in regard to One Nation, but also expressed to us was the disappointment that had continued to be felt because the Australian Prime Minister had not personally visited. The effluxion of time has meant that particular difficulty does not remain. The Prime Minister has been up there for the ASEAN conference. Nonetheless, I think there is great suspicion about what Australia is about in the region.The country obviously is in some degree of turmoil. When we were there Mr Anwar was the Deputy Prime Minister. As we speak now, some five months later, Mr Anwar is on trial and is being held in prison. That causes some constraints. Australia, as a country that defends human rights, ought to be making stronger comments. The delegation refrained from making comments on the human rights situation. We felt that it would not have been appropriate at that point in time to have included those criticisms, one could say, in this report. With those final words, I commend the report to the Senate.Committees1311131110000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received letters seeking variations to the membership of committees.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be appointed to committees as participating members as follows:Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Senator Faulkner.Community Affairs References Committee—Senator Faulkner.Economics Legislation Committee—Senator Faulkner.Economics References Committee—Senator Faulkner.Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee—Senator Faulkner.Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee—Senator Faulkner.Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—Senator Faulkner.Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee—Senator Faulkner.Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Senator Faulkner.Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Senator Faulkner.Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Senators Bolkus, Cook and Faulkner.Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Senators Bolkus and Faulkner.Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee—Senators Bolkus and Faulkner.Legal and Constitutional References Committee- Senators Bolkus and Faulkner.Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Senator Faulkner.Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Senator Faulkner.Select Committee on a New Tax System—Senator Margetts. Bills1311r628Billsr630Billsr627Billsr6261311Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.131115:58:001311Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION (COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT) REPEAL AND AMENDMENT BILL 1998The Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill is one of a package of four bills that provide for new superannuation arrangements for Commonwealth civilian employees including closure of the existing partially funded defined benefit scheme to new employees. The bills also provide for new administrative arrangements for all existing schemes. The other bills in the package are the Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1998, the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998 and the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998.This main purpose of this bill is to ensure that the Commonwealth's civilian employees can participate in our choice of funds policy announced in the 1997 Budget. This will give them greater control over, and flexibility in making, their superannuation arrangements.At present, many Commonwealth employees are tied to membership of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (the PSS) or the closed Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (the CSS). The bill will close the PSS to new members from 1 July 1999 and new employees will be able to choose from superannuation arrangements made available by their employers. From 1 July 2000, CSS and PSS members will, if they wish, be able to cease active membership and choose the alternative superannuation arrangements made available by their employers. The bill will provide for the entitlements of CSS members who exercise choice to be based on the resignation deferred benefit, but adjusted to ensure no increase in unfunded liabilities.The bill will make a number of other amendments to various superannuation acts covering civilian employees. For example, it includes amendments to the Superannuation Act 1976 to allow CSS members to transfer amounts held in the Australian Government Employees Superannuation Trust or other funds to the CSS Fund. It will also amend that act to remove the current restrictions on the payment of reversionary benefits to a CSS pensioner's spouse or child from a post-retirement relationship with a pro-rata payment where the relationship was short term. Similar changes are made in respect of spouses' benefits under the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948.In addition, the bill provides for modifications to the superannuation redundancy entitlement arrangements for employees who cease to be CSS or PSS members as a result of a sale or outsourcing, in the terms announced in June 1997. In line with the operational date of the new preservation arrangements to apply to the general workforce, the bill will provide for preservation from 1 July 1999 of the employer financed component of a CSS or PSS lump sum superannuation redundancy payment.The bill will also amend the Superannuation Act 1976, with effect from 5 December 1997, to restore its original intention in relation to the acceptance of late elections for preservation of rights. The operation of this provision has been changed progressively by interpretations placed upon it by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court. The changes included in the bill are designed to balance out the interests of the Commonwealth with the interests of current CSS members and former members, who seek to make a late election.Finally, to simplify and streamline the administration of our civilian superannuation arrangements, the bill includes amendments to simplify the operation of relevant legislation and subsequently repeals a number of acts applying to those arrangements. Savings and transitional provisions relating to these repealed acts are included in the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998 contained in this package.The Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 amends various pieces of legislation as a consequence of amendments made by this bill. The other bill in the package, the Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1998, will provide for new rationalised administration arrangements for the closed schemes and for the continued administration of the repealed acts by a new Board, the Commonwealth Superannuation Board.Financial ImplicationsThis bill will result in a net increase in Budget outlays as a result of increased funding of future superannuation accruals. However, this will be offset by a reduction in future unfunded superannuation liabilities. The financial implications of the bill are explained in more detail in the explanatory memorandum.COMMONWEALTH SUPERANNUATION BOARD BILL 1998This bill that is included in the package will establish a new Commonwealth Superannuation Board to administer the closed Commonwealth superannuation schemes and, where determined, other schemes covering Commonwealth civilian employees.The Board will comprise an equal number of member and employer representatives and will have an independent chairman appointed with the agreement of the other Board members. Member representatives will be elected by scheme members.The new Board will have greater responsibility for administering the rules relating to the Commonwealth's closed superannuation schemes subject to certain caveats, including in relation to the employer costs of the schemes. The Board will be able to recover its administrative costs from employing agencies. Funding that was previously allocated to ComSuper has been allocated to Budget funded agencies.Financial ImpactThis bill does not involve any additional Budget outlays.SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION (COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT—SAVING AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1998This bill that is included in the package will put in place saving and transitional provisions. These provisions are necessary because of the amendments to, and in some cases repeal of, the Superannuation Act 1976, the Superannuation Act 1990, the Superannuation Act 1922, the Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act 1988 and the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Act 1973 as provided for by the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill 1998.The bill also ensures that the Commonwealth Superannuation Board established under the Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1998 will continue to use ComSuper as its provider of scheme administration services for a period of at least three years from 1 July 1999.Financial ImpactThis bill does not involve any additional Budget outlays.SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION (COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT) REPEAL AND AMENDMENT (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1998This bill is part of a package of four bills that, amongst other things provide for changed administrative arrangements for the Commonwealth's superannuation schemes for its civilian employees.Part of the proposed changes to the administrative arrangements for the Commonwealth's superannuation schemes is the abolition of the office of Commissioner for Superannuation and the transfer of the Commonwealth's responsibilities to a new Commonwealth Superannuation Board. Because the Commissioner has a statutory responsibility under the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973, consequential amendments to that act are required.The relationship between the trustees of the Commonwealth's civilian schemes and the organi sation known as Commonwealth Superannuation Administration, or ComSuper will also be different under the changed administrative arrangements. Consequential amendments to the Military Superannuation and Benefits Act 1991 are required to make similar changes in relation to the scheme provided for under that act.In addition, the changed administrative arrangements provide for the repeal of the Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act 1988 which currently provides a minimum level of superannuation in certain circumstances in relation to the Governor-General and members of the scheme provided for by the Judges' Pensions Act 1968. This bill will ensure that the minimum level of superannuation continues to be provided in those circumstances.The bill also makes a minor amendment to the CFM Act 1991 required as a result of the sale of Commonwealth Funds Management in 1996 and not included in amending legislation at that time.Financial ImpactThis bill does not involve any additional Budget outlays.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Bills1313r6041313Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.131315:59:001313Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—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 bill amends the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992 to streamline the Council's procedures so that it can more effectively maintain its role as a national leader in the field of medical and public health research and advice.The bill before you today seeks to facilitate processes and administration to ensure that Council continues to carry out its statutory functions in an effective and efficient manner.These amendments introduce a streamlined, single stage, public consultation process that Council will follow when seeking to issue guidelines. This process consists of advertisements notifying of Council's intention, a summary or outline of the guideline, and information on where interested parties can obtain a copy of the full draft guideline.The bill makes it clear that Council must take into account all submissions received before finalising and issuing a guideline.The bill also makes it possible for Council to endorse and issue guidelines developed by other bodies. However, the bill ensures that Council can demand of other bodies the very public consultation that it, itself, would have engaged in.In addition, the amendments make some minor changes to a principal committee name—the Medical Research Committee to be renamed the Research Committee—and to some of Council's committee operations.Provisions have been added which enable Principal committees to appoint a Deputy Chairperson and extend the Council's power to appoint and delegate to a working committee and delegate to the Chairperson of the Council.The amendments proposed in this bill will ensure that Council retains its position as a leader in medical and public health research and advice and will assist the smooth running of Council business.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the next day of sitting which is more than 14 days after the introduction of the bill in the House, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills1314Message received from the House of Representatives returning the following bill without amendment: Space Activities Bill 1998 Bills1314r6531314Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.131416:00:001314Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—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 bill contains a number of electoral reforms to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984.These reforms arise out of the recommendations contained in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters' report on the conduct of the 1996 federal election, which was tabled on 16 June 1997.Many of the recommendations of the Electoral Matters Committee's report have been dealt with in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1997, which received Royal Assent on 14 July 1998. The items of that bill were largely technical in nature and were not considered contentious.The amendments in the bill which I introduce today relate to the more substantive reform issues considered by the Electoral Matters Committee, including that matter of electoral fraud.Many of you would be aware that this bill was introduced into the Senate during the 1998 Winter Sittings. The bill was then referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, which tabled its report on the bill in the Senate on 23 June 1998. The (majority) Committee recommended that the bill be passed without amendment. However, the bill was not debated before the Parliament was dissolved for the 1998 Federal Election.There is increasing disquiet in sections of the community about the potential for electoral fraud and continuing scepticism regarding the integrity of the Electoral Roll as the current enrolment process is open to abuse.The Government agrees with the Electoral Matters Committee when it statesthat it is unacceptable that the most fundamental transaction between a citizen and the govern ment—[that is] the act of choosing the government at a democratic election—is subject to a far lower level of security than such lesser transactions as opening a bank account, applying for a passport, applying for a driver's licence or registering for social security benefits, to name but a few.Under the act in its present form, it is remarkably easy to place on the Roll a dead person's name, a false name, a non-citizen, or a person who is not yet 18. In addition, the enrolment could have a fake or false address.Maintaining the confidence of all Australians in the integrity of our electoral system is essential.Accordingly, this bill introduces some of the recommendations of the Electoral Matters Committee report with respect to addressing the potential for electoral fraud. The amendments relating to enrolment issues will provide:. for an upgraded witnessing requirement, whereby the witness must be an elector and be in a prescribed class of persons. Regulations will be made to provide for an extensive list of categories of people who will be able to witness a claim for enrolment, and will specify provisions for those electors who are unable to find a witness in the prescribed list,. that a person who is enrolling for the first time must have their identity verified before they are enrolled, and that a person who claims in their enrolment application to be an Australian citizen because of a grant of Australian citizenship under the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, must have their citizenship verified before they may be enrolled. The methods of verification are to be prescribed by regulation, and. that an elector must notify a change of address within one month of taking up residence at their new address.The regulations specifying the method of verification of identity for first time enrollees will require the applicant to produce, at the time of application, at least one original form of proof of identity documentation. The form of documentation will depend on the circumstances of the applicant, but may include an Australian birth certificate, passport or photographic driver's licence. It is possible that some applicants will not be in a position to produce an original form of identity document, and in such cases the regulations will provide for, say, a written reference to be produced.Original documentation will be able to be posted to a Divisional Returning Officer (DRO) or to an Australian Electoral Officer (AEO) with the enrolment application. The documents will be checked and then returned by mail to the applicant. Alternatively, the applicant may present the original documents at an office of a DRO or AEO with the application. The documents will then be checked at that time and handed back to the applicant.To provide, however, a wider facility for lodgement of original documents and enrolment applications by hand (so that many applicants need not part with original documents, especially those presenting a driver's licence), a new provision will allow prescribed persons to receive enrolment applications, and where necessary, sight and verify the lodgement of original identity documents, enabling the documents to be handed back to the applicant.The lodgement of enrolment applications with a prescribed person will only be by hand; the applications will not be able to be posted to a prescribed person. Prescribed persons will be selected on the basis of their accessibility to the public, and, subject to negotiation, may include government or semi-government organisations, such as post offices. Prescribed persons will not verify or determine entitlement to enrolment, however, they would be required to note on applications the time of their receipt and forward them to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) as directed. In the case of first time enrolment applicants, the prescribed person would also be required to verify the lodgement of an original form of identity document, and note on the application that the document was lodged, and then hand back the original to the applicant.In addition to the increased requirements with regard to the enrolment processes, the Government proposes, in line with the recommendation of the Electoral Matters Committee, to close the Electoral Roll on the day that the writ is issued for new electors, while still allowing three working days following the issue of the writ for existing electors to change their enrolment details.As the Electoral Matters Committee reported,"at the election some 428,000 transactions (new and updated enrolments) were processed from the day the writs were issued. The AEC freely admits that detailed checking, before the election, of these late enrolments—particularly the new enrolments—is virtually impossible. Consequently, the seven-day period is often called into question by those concerned about the integrity of the rolls.New enrolments should cease on the day the writ is issued, while electors already on the roll should be given three days in which to notify changes of address. Suggestions that such measures would lead to less accurate rolls are unfounded—the AEC should extensively advertise the new requirements, and should move as quickly as possible to a continuous roll review based on effective data-matching and flexible habitation reviews." New provisions will also ensure that an enrolment application lodged with a prescribed person, before the close of the Rolls for an election, will satisfy the requirement for the receipt of the application by a DRO or AEO before the close of the Rolls. That is, the application can be processed and, if accepted by the AEC, the applicant can be added to the Roll for the election.Regulations for verification of citizenship will take the form of the enrolment applicant being required to provide either their citizenship number or date of conferral of citizenship on the application, and for the AEC to verify with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs that the applicant is in fact an Australian citizen. It is possible that some applicants in this category will not be able to produce either a citizenship number or date of conferral, in which case the AEC will be required to make whatever enquiries of the applicant and the Department are necessary to verify citizenship.Amendments to improve the integrity of the election process include allowing only the presiding officer of a polling place to mark, fold and deposit the ballot paper of those voters who require assistance with voting. Scrutineers will also be permitted to witness the assistance being provided, and the voter may also nominate a person to witness the process.Other important amendments will:. repeal the entitlement of prisoners to be enrolled or to vote. The Government agrees with the Electoral Matters Committee that those who disregard the laws to a degree sufficient to warrant imprisonment should not expect to retain the franchise;. allow for the provision of date of birth and salutation details of electors to Members, Senators and registered political parties. Also, enable the use of the elector details by these people and organisations for electoral research purposes. The AEC will commence collecting salutation details on enrolment forms when the amendments are enacted;. increase the penalty for the unauthorised disclosure of elector data, or for its commercial use, to 100 penalty units (that is, $11,000);. allow for the preliminary scrutiny of declaration votes to commence on the Monday before polling day. However, no declaration envelopes will be opened before the close of polling, and any envelopes rejected at the preliminary scrutiny will not be rechecked until after the close of the poll;. require donors to political parties to provide a return to the AEC if the sum of the donations to a party in a financial year, by the donor, is $10 000 or more. This is an increase from $1 500; . require political parties to furnish a return identifying donors to the party where the sum of the donations from the donor, in a financial year, is $5 000 or more. This is an increase from $1 500; and. require only those donations which are $1 500 or more to be counted in the sum of donations from a donor to a political party. This is an increase from $500.The Government is concerned to ensure that all Australians have the utmost confidence in the integrity and accuracy of the Electoral Roll. The measures proposed in this bill will improve enrolment procedures without unduly inhibiting the opportunity for all adult Australian citizens to participate in the electoral process.I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned till the first day of the autumn sittings 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Committees13161316131610000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Messages have been received from the House of Representatives transmitting for concurrence resolutions relating to the formation of joint committees. Copies of the messages have been circulated in the chamber.The House of Representatives messages read as follows—Message No. 39The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following resolution, relating to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly.RESOLUTION AGREED TO BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER LAND FUNDThat, in accordance with section 204 of the Native Title Act 1993 , matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund shall be as follows: (a) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority groups or independent Senators.(b) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.(c) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair.(d) That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.(e) That, in the event of the votes on a question before the committee being equally divided, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.(f) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(g) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.(h) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of a subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting.(i) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(j) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum.(k) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records.(l) That the committee have power to examine and report on such annual and related reports as may be referred to it by the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives.(m) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to move from place to place.(n) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.(o) That the committee have leave to report from time to time.(p) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.Message No. 40The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following resolution, relating to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly.RESOLUTION AGREED TO BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITYThat, in accordance with section 54 of the National CrimeAuthority Act 1984 , matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority shall be as follows:(a) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (b) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.(c) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair.(d) That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.(e) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.(f) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(g) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.(h) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting.(i) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(j) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum.(k) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records.(l) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place.(m) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives. (n) That the committee have leave to report from time to time.(o) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the committee appointed during previous Parliaments.(p) That, in carrying out its duties, the committee or any subcommittee, ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement agencies, as far as possible, be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest.(q) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.Message No. 41The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following resolution, relating to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities, which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly.RESOLUTION AGREED TO BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON CORPORATIONS AND SECURITIESThat, in accordance with section 242 of the Australian Securities Commission Act 1989 , matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities shall be as follows:(a) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority groups or independent Senators.(b) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.(c) That the committee elect a member nominated by the Government Whips or the Leader of the Government in the Senate as its chair. (d) That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.(e) That, in the event of the votes on a question before the committee being equally divided, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.(f) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(g) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.(h) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of a subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting.(i) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(j) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum.(k) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records.(l) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to move from place to place.(m) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.(n) That the committee have leave to report from time to time.(o) That the committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities appointed during previous Parliaments.(p) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.Message No. 42The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following resolution, relating to a proposed Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly.RESOLUTION AGREED TO BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—PROPOSED JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL MATTERS(1) That a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to electoral laws and practices and their administration as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament or a Minister. Annual reports of government departments and authorities tabled in the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make. Reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that: (a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and (b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that Department or authority is presented to the House.(2) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 2 Senators to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.(4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.(5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair.(6) That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.(7) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote.(8) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(9) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.(10) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting.(11) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(12) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum.(13) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records.(14) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place. (15) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.(16) That the committee have leave to report from time to time.(17) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of: (a) submissions lodged with the Clerk of the Senate in response to public advertisements placed in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 26 November 1981 relating to a proposed Joint Select Committee on the Electoral System, and (b) the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Electoral Reform and Electoral Matters appointed during previous Parliaments.(18) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.Message No. 43The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following resolution, relating to a proposed Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly.RESOLUTION AGREED TO BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—PROPOSED JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE(1) That a Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be appointed to consider and report on such matters relating to foreign affairs, defence and trade as may be referred to it by: (a) either House of the Parliament; (b) the Minister for Foreign Affairs; (c) the Minister for Defence; or (d) the Minister for Trade. Annual reports of government departments and authorities tabled in the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make. Reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that: (a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and (b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that Department or authority is presented to the House.(2) That the committee consist of 32 members, 12 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 8 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any independent Member, 5 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 5 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 2 Senators to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators.(3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.(4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.(5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair.(6) That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.(7) That in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote.(8) That 6 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(9) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.(10) That, in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (9), the chair and deputy chair of the committee be ex officio members of each subcommittee appointed. (11) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting.(12) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(13) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum.(14) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records.(15) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place.(16) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.(17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time.(18) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Foreign Affairs and Defence and Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade appointed during previous Parliaments.(19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.Message No. 44The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following resolution, relating to a proposed Joint Standing Committee on Migration, which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly.RESOLUTION AGREED TO BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—PROPOSED JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON MIGRATION(1) That a Joint Standing Committee on Migration be appointed to inquire into and report upon: (a) regulations made or proposed to be made under the Migration Act 1958 ; (b) all proposed changes to the Migration Act 1958 and any related acts; and (c) such other matters relating to migration as may be referred to it by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Annual reports of government departments and authorities tabled in the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make. Reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that: (a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and (b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that Department or authority is presented to the House.(2) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators.(3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.(4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.(5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair.(6) That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting. (7) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote.(8) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(9) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.(10) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting.(11) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(12) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the public proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum.(13) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records.(14) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place.(15) That the committee have leave to report from time to time.(16) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Migration Regulations and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration appointed in previous Parliaments.(17) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.Message No. 45The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following resolution, relating to a proposed Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly.RESOLUTION AGREED TO BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—PROPOSED JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL CAPITAL AND EXTERNAL TERRITORIES(1) That a Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories be appointed to inquire into and report on: (a) matters coming within the terms of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 as may be referred to it by: (i) either House of the Parliament; or (ii) the Minister responsible for administering the Parliament Act 1974 ; or (iii) the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (b) such other matters relating to the parliamentary zone as may be referred to it by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (c) such amendments to the National Capital Plan as are referred to it by a Minister responsible for administering the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 ; (d) such other matters relating to the National Capital as may be referred to it by: (i) either House of the Parliament; or (ii) the Minister responsible for administering the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 ; and (e) such matters relating to Australia's territories as may be referred to it by: (i) either House of the Parliament; or (ii) the Minister responsible for the administration of the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands; the Territory of Christmas Island; the Coral Sea Islands Territory; the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands; the Australian Antarctic Territory, and the Territory of Heard Island and McDonald Islands, and of Commonwealth responsibilities on Norfolk Island. Annual reports of government departments and authorities tabled in the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make. Reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that: (a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and (b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that Department or authority is presented to the House.(2) That the committee consist of 12 members, the Deputy Speaker, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any independent Member, the Deputy President and Chairman of Committees, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators.(3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate.(4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.(5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair.(6) That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.(7) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote.(8) That 3 members of the committee (of whom one is the Deputy President or the Deputy Speaker when matters affecting the parliamentary zone are under consideration) constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(9) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.(10) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting.(11) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(12) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the public proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum.(13) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records.(14) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place.(15) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.(16) That the committee have leave to report from time to time.(17) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, the Joint Committees on the Australian Capital Territory, the Joint Standing Committees on the New Parliament House, the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Zone and the Joint Committee on the National Capital appointed during previous Parliaments and of the House of Representatives and Senate Standing Committees on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure when sitting as a joint committee on matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory.(18) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.Message No. 46The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following resolution, relating to a proposed Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly.RESOLUTION AGREED TO BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—PROPOSED JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES(1) That a Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be appointed to inquire into and report upon: (a) matters arising from treaties and related National Interest Analyses and proposed treaty actions presented or deemed to be presented to the Parliament; (b) any question relating to a treaty or other international instrument, whether or not negotiated to completion, referred to the committee by: (i) either House of the Parliament, or (ii) a Minister; and (c) such other matters as may be referred to the committee by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and on such conditions as the Minister may prescribe.(2) That the committee consist of 16 members, 6 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any independent Member, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators.(3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.(4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.(5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair.(6) That the committee elect a non-Government member as its deputy chair to act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.(7) That in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote.(8) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(9) That the committee have power to appoint not more than 3 subcommittees each consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.(10) That, in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (9), the chair and deputy chair of the committee be ex officio members of each subcommittee appointed.(11) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting.(12) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(13) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum.(14) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records.(15) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place.(16) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.(17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time.(18) That the committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committees on Treaties appointed during previous Parliaments. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That the Senate concurs with the resolutions of the House of Representatives contained in messages Nos 39 to 46 relating to the appointment of certain joint committees.Bills1325r6311325Message received from the House of Representatives returning and requesting reconsideration of the bill in respect of an amendment disagreed to by the House and the concurrence of the Senate to an amendment made by the House.Ordered that the message be considered in the Committee of the Whole immediately.House of Representatives message—SCHEDULE OF THE PURPORTED AMENDMENT TO WHICH THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DISAGREES:(8) Page 149 (after line 7), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 22—Liable parents' reportable fringe benefits totalsPart 1—Amendment of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 19891 Section 5 Insert: reportable fringe benefits total has the meaning given by subsection 158A(3).2 At the end of subsection 38A(1) Add: ; and (c) the liable parent's reportable fringe benefits total (if any) for the year of income.3 After section 158 Insert:158A Disclosure of reportable fringe benefits total (1) This section applies if one or more fringe benefits are provided in relation to a year of tax in respect of the employment by an employer of an employee who is a liable parent. (2) The liable parent must notify the Registrar, in accordance with the regulations, of the reportable fringe benefits total of the liable parent for the year of income ending on the first 30 June after the end of the year of tax. (3) The reportable fringe benefits total of the liable parent for the year of income is the amount worked out in accordance with the regulations, taking account of the value (worked out in accordance with the regulations) of the fringe benefit or fringe benefits (other than a fringe benefit of a kind that is prescribed by the regulations). (4) An expression used in this section and in the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 has the same meaning in this section as it has in that Act. (5) This section applies in relation to a liable parent who is an employee of the Commonwealth, or of an authority of the Commonwealth described in paragraph (e) of the definition of employer in subsection 136(1) of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 , as if the Commonwealth or the authority were an employer for the purposes of that Act. (6) This section applies in relation to a benefit that is an exempt benefit because of section 57A or 58 of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 and would be a fringe benefit apart from those sections as if it were a fringe benefit for the purposes of that Act. (7) This section does not require notification of a reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income before the 1999-2000 year of income.158B Penalty for failure to notify reportable fringe benefits total accurately (1) A person must pay the Registrar a penalty of the amount worked out under subsection (2) if: (a) section 158A requires the person to notify the Registrar of the person's reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income; and (b) the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income is at least 10% greater than the amount that the person notified the Registrar under section 158A was the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income. (2) The amount of the penalty is 10% of the difference between: (a) the administrative assessment of child support based on the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income; and (b) the amount that was or would have been the administrative assessment of child support based on the amount that the person notified the Registrar under section 158A was the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income. (3) If a person is required by section 158A to notify the Registrar of the person's reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income and does not do so as required by that section, this section operates as if the person had notified the Registrar under that section that the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income was a nil amount. (4) The penalty is a debt due to the Commonwealth, payable when the administrative assessment mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) is made. (5) The Registrar may make an administrative assessment of child support for the purposes of this section at any time. (6) The Registrar may remit penalty payable under this section if he or she thinks it is fair and reasonable to do so.Part 2—Amendment dependent on fringe benefits reporting legislationChild Support (Assessment) Act 19894 Section 5 (definition of reportable fringe benefits total ) Repeal the definition, substitute: reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income for a person who is an employee (for the purposes of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 , whether it applies of its own force or because of the Fringe Benefits Tax (Application to the Commonwealth) Act 1986 ) means the employee's reportable fringe benefits total (as defined in the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 ) for the year of income.5 Section 158A Repeal the section.Shedule of the amendment made by the House of Representatives:(1) Page 149 (after line 7), at the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 22—Liable parents' reportable fringe benefits totalsPart 1—Amendment of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 19891 Section 5 Insert: reportable fringe benefits total has the meaning given by subsection 158A(3). 2 At the end of subsection 38A(1) Add: ; and (c) the liable parent's reportable fringe benefits total (if any) for the year of income.3 After section 158Insert:158A Disclosure of reportable fringe benefits total (1) This section applies if one or more fringe benefits are provided in relation to a year of tax in respect of the employment by an employer of an employee who is a liable parent. (2) The liable parent must notify the Registrar, in accordance with the regulations, of the reportable fringe benefits total of the liable parent for the year of income ending on the first 30 June after the end of the year of tax. (3) The reportable fringe benefits total of the liable parent for the year of income is the amount worked out in accordance with the regulations, taking account of the value (worked out in accordance with the regulations) of the fringe benefit or fringe benefits (other than a fringe benefit of a kind that is prescribed by the regulations). (4) An expression used in this section and in the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 has the same meaning in this section as it has in that Act. (5) This section applies in relation to a liable parent who is an employee of the Commonwealth, or of an authority of the Commonwealth described in paragraph (e) of the definition of employer in subsection 136(1) of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 , as if the Commonwealth or the authority were an employer for the purposes of that Act. (6) This section applies in relation to a benefit that is an exempt benefit because of section 57A or 58 of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 and would be a fringe benefit apart from those sections as if it were a fringe benefit for the purposes of that Act. (7) This section does not require notification of a reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income before the 1999-2000 year of income.158B Penalty for failure to notify reportable fringe benefits total accurately (1) A person must pay the Registrar a penalty of the amount worked out under subsection (2) if: (a) section 158A requires the person to notify the Registrar of the person's reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income; and (b) the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income is at least 10% greater than the amount that the person notified the Registrar under section 158A was the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income. (2) The amount of the penalty is 10% of the difference between: (a) the administrative assessment of child support based on the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income; and (b) the amount that was or would have been the administrative assessment of child support based on the amount that the person notified the Registrar under section 158A was the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income. (3) If a person is required by section 158A to notify the Registrar of the person's reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income and does not do so as required by that section, this section operates as if the person had notified the Registrar under that section that the person's reportable fringe benefits total for the year of income was a nil amount. (4) The penalty is a debt due to the Commonwealth, payable when the administrative assessment mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) is made. (5) The Registrar may make an administrative assessment of child support for the purposes of this section at any time. (6) The Registrar may remit penalty payable under this section if he or she thinks it is fair and reasonable to do so.Part 2—Amendment dependent on fringe benefits reporting legislation Child Support (Assessment) Act 19894 Section 5 (definition of reportable fringe benefits total ) Repeal the definition, substitute: reportable fringe benefits total for a year of income for a person who is an employee (for the purposes of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 , whether it applies of its own force or because of the Fringe Benefits Tax (Application to the Commonwealth) Act 1986 ) means the employee's reportable fringe benefits total (as defined in the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 ) for the year of income.5 Section 158A Repeal the section.1328The CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN10000PON/A10—Before we proceed, I have a statement that I want to draw to the chamber's attention and wish to make. When this bill was first considered in the Senate, I made the following statement:Some of the government amendments to this bill have been drafted as requests. There is no reason for their being framed as requests. The amendments would not lead to any increase in expenditure under the bill. On the contrary, the explanatory memorandum accompanying the amendments indicates that their financial impact is a total saving of $39.148 billion to the year ending 30 June 2004. The amendments will therefore be treated as amendments.The Senate will be aware that I have changed purported government requests to amendments on several occasions when it was clear that they should not be requests. This, however, is one of the clearest examples I have encountered. These amendments would not be requests on any serious interpretation of section 53 ever advanced in either house.Section 53 of the constitution provides that amendments moved in the Senate should take the form of requests in three circumstances: where the bill imposes taxation; where the bill appropriates money for the ordinary annual services of the government; and where a Senate amendment would increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.Only the third circumstance is relevant here. An increase in a proposed charge or burden on the people has always been taken to mean an increase in expenditure under an appropriation. It is clear that the amendments in question do not have that effect. The problem seems to arise from a lack of understanding on the part of government drafters of the relevant provisions. They appear to operate on a theory of notional or bookkeeping effects of amendments rather than actual effects.A statement made in the House of Representatives indicates that one of the amendments is thought to require a request because it indirectly leads to expenditure out of an appropriation. Apart from the fact that the appropriation is in another act, it is stated that the expenditure is equal to the amount raised under that amendment. The effect of that amendment as such is therefore nil. The statement in the explanatory memorandum that the amendments together result in large savings to the revenue is not contested.The advice has therefore been changed to the extent that only one amendment is now thought to require a request. The course has been adopted in the House of Representatives of rejecting that amendment but making an amendment in identical terms. In past cases where this has been done, the Senate has simply agreed to the amendment made in the House, as it is identical to the Senate's amendment. The Senate may think this is the appropriate course on this occasion, but I consider that I should not let the occasion pass without some indication of the contradictory nature of the advice on which the House's action is based.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed:That the committee agrees to the amendment made by the House of Representatives.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Could we have a copy of the statement you have just read?10000The CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Yes, certainly.16:05:001328Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I want to comment on the statement that has been read, but I am not sure of the appropriate procedure.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You can do that, Senator.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—It disturbs me that, once again, we are debating the respective powers of the houses and their responsibilities. I sense from this government—if the government wants to assure me otherwise, I am happy to listen to it—a determination to downgrade the place of the Senate in this parliament. If the government wants to change the powers of the Senate or abolish the Senate, it would be appropriate for it to go to the people on the basis of a change to the constitution. But we really are dealing with the constitution of this country. The constitution makes it quite clear that both the Senate and the House of Representatives have powers given to them by the people. I sense an ideological drive by this government, at every point and whenever it is possible, to deliver a message to the Senate that somehow or other it has exceeded its power or that in some way or other the Senate is to be regarded as simply a rubber stamp for the government.I am appalled by that attitude. The government ought to understand that certainly it was elected through a majority in the House of Representatives but that the people also spoke very clearly about the kind of make-up of the Senate which the people themselves required. Again, I think it is important that the Senate not accept from the House of Representatives any suggestion that its powers should be abrogated or watered down in any way. I sense that that is what is going on here. If it is simply a matter of trying to get a definition between the two houses, that is obviously something that can be decided through debate or through whatever process is available. I am appalled by the continuing attack on this house—both verbally, in the way in which the government continually talks about the Senate blocking its legislation et cetera, and by devices which send back to us amendments which have quite legitimately been moved by this house, yet the government in the other place decides that it is simply going to change them to a request.16:08:001329Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I have a point of explanation. Senator Woodley, I refer you to the statement made by the Deputy President before this matter came into the chamber today. My understanding is that there is a different interpretation of this particular matter by the Clerks in each house. It is no reflection on the government; it happens to an interpretation put on the matter in the other place by parliamentary counsel and, indeed, by the Clerks there. I have it on good authority from our Clerk that our position is correct. In fact, there is some doubt about the position in the advice given by parliamentary counsel. Nevertheless, the better way out of it is to take the advice of the Clerks and get on with it. The government is not involved in this. It is not the government down in the other place telling us what to do; it is an interpretation by the Clerks in both houses.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—Thank you; that explanation does help.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I draw your attention to the paragraph which says that the problem appears to arise from a lack of understanding on the part of the government drafters. It does not mention anything about the government or ministers.16:09:001329Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I rise briefly to say that obviously we accept advice from a number of different sources here in parliament and in the Senate but that this is, in the end, a decision that has come up from the House of Representatives. It is not a decision that has come up from the Clerks; it is not one that has come up from the drafters. In the end, a decision that comes from the House of Representatives is supposed to come from the elected representatives in the House of Representatives. I would hate to think that we were in a situation where, somehow or other, the people making the actual decisions had lost their parliamentary responsibility.We are getting a message from the House of Representatives. In that sense it is reasonable, as we all know, that a message from House of Representatives in effect means a message from the government. As we know, the House of Representatives has a winner takes all, party-political system of voting. When we get a message from the House of Representatives, it is all very well hiding behind legal advice but we also know that governments may or may not choose to accept the advice they are given.In this particular case, I remind honourable senators that a number of statements have begun to be salted into the media of late—into editorials, a number of press outlets and opinion pieces. Recently people have been threatening to reduce the number of senators. I believe that that was said by Senator Minchin. There have been a number of statements about Senate recalcitrance and the need for reform, and you can read that as the desire of the government to get rid of the ability of the Senate to scrutinise what it is doing.I feel less comforted than some, I guess, that what we are getting is simply legal advice. I understand that people are dependent on legal advice but I also understand that, when we get a message from the House of Representatives, it is not said that it is a message from the Clerks and it is not mentioned that it is a message from some legal adviser; it is a message from the democratically elected representatives of the people of Australia. In the end, because of the way the House of Representatives operates, that means the government.The people of Australia ought to be aware that various excuses are being used at the moment in what I believe is an integrated campaign which will, in effect, mean that the government will eventually go to the opposition—if they have not done so already—to talk about changes to get rid of minor parties and independents and to use whatever happens to be their excuse of the moment to move in that direction. I feel that is something that ought to be talked about. The role of the Senate is cherished by many people. They may not like parliamentarians in general but they believe that the ability of the community to have input and influence via the Senate is absolutely essential.16:13:001330Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Madam Chair, the Senate has before it a message from the House of Representatives and we are considering that message. I am going to speak for a very brief time indeed. The message from the House of Representatives was clear. It was a formal message. The statement by you is very clear as well, and it sets out the situation as it should be—as it is, in fact, in law. I was pleased to hear the intervention of Senator Calvert, because the case is as he said.The government knows that things come and go and that the numbers in this particular place or the method of consideration of matters in this place may change. For any major political party to do other than subscribe to this message of yours would be very short-sighted indeed. I am sure that neither of the major parties will be doing that in this particular case. They may be doing other things, as Senator Margetts said. They may be considering the way senators are elected in particular circumstances, that may be true; but on this particular matter, no.We are considering a formal message from the House of Representatives. By inferentially accepting the value of your statement, Madam Chair, we are really sending a message to the House of Representatives and I hope they heed it.Question resolved in the affirmative.Resolution reported; report adopted.Bills1330r6071330Debate resumed.16:16:001330Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I just have a minute or two left, and in that time I simply want to indicate that the Democrats have an amendment. During the hearings of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, every witness, I think, indicated that they were concerned about the cost of privatisation and about the legislation which indicated that Wool International would bear all of the cost. The Democrats concern is that this is, in the end, I suppose, a government decision imposed upon Wool International. We agree with those witnesses who said that the cost really should be borne either in part or in whole by the government, so our amendment seeks to have that cost shifted back to the government rather than it being imposed on Wool International. We are concerned that any further cost to Wool International will reduce the equity for the unit holders in Wool International.I want to point out that the committee will be having a hearing on 17 December at which all of the people who want to can put on the table the proposals they are making for the future of the stockpile. I also indicate that the New South Wales Country Hour on the ABC acted in a pretty irresponsible way by canvassing one of those proposals in a fair amount of detail, probably prejudicing it to a certain extent. I want to put on the record that I do not think the committee or the Senate should view that with any kind of approval, because we in the committee wanted to have all of the proposals on the table together so they could be considered, in a sense, although none of us believe in it, on a level playing field—perhaps I should talk about a level table rather than a level playing field. So I was disturbed that the New South Wales Country Hour, against the request of the people involved with this particular offer, actually went ahead and discussed that offer.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Freedom of the press.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Yes, it is freedom of the press. There is no doubt they were able to do it, it is just whether it was a very wise thing to do. With that, I conclude my remarks.16:18:001331McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—The purpose of the Wool International Amendment Bill 1998 , as it has been summarised, is, firstly, to prohibit Wool International from entering into contracts for the sale of wool from the stockpile between the commencement of the bill and 30 June 1999 and, secondly, to require Wool International to assist in the privatisation of the organisation. The bill is yet another reaction to the long running industry crisis, which has been dominated by the debate over the disposal of the wool stockpile and how to arrest the slump in wool prices. The debate has its origins as far back as 1990, when instability in the wool industry took hold following a decade of good returns. The industry was facing a severe downturn in wool prices and a mounting stockpile and debt burden.As a member of the Senate at the time, I recall only too well the handling of the issue by the then minister for primary industries, Mr Kerin. He added to the instability by undermining the reliable floor price scheme and sending the marketplace into speculative frenzy, forcing the then Australian Wool Corporation to buy some 90 per cent of the sales on offer. Mr Kerin achieved this in stages. Firstly, he declared the floor price of 870c would be changed, but he let an inordinate amount of time elapse before he set the 700c level. He declared he would stick by that and the scheme, and then he completely abandoned the whole scheme.The point is that there was a problem at that time, around 1990-91, which feasibly could have been managed but it was allowed to get out of control by the then Labor government, so what was a problem became a crisis because of that early poor management. By 1991 the stockpile had reached 4.72 million bales and the industry had collapsed under the weight of it, with prices well below 400c per kilo and a debt of some $8.2 billion being created by maintaining that stockpile.The industry lurched under this burden until it came to its next crossroad in the handing down of the Garnaut report, which dealt with the options for the sell-down of the stockpile. The debate settled on a fixed sell-down of the stockpile of some 350,000 bales per quarter. Just as Senator Woodley raked over history and mentioned what he was doing in 1993 when the Garnaut report was handed down, I will do that also and say that at the time I was no great enthusiast for the Garnaut option of a fixed sell-down. In a speech I made in the parliament at the time, I had this to say:It is my opinion that the Garnaut solution to the massive wool stockpile will work provided one important variable holds up—that is, the current demand—which was quite strong at the time. It was some 820 million kilograms per year. I went on to say:Should this variable fail, Garnaut fails, and we will be back in this parliament rewriting the legislation again. The point is that we cannot afford such an error. We cannot afford to be wrong again.On any analysis, the fixed sell-down started to drive prices down again. Even though changes were made to the fixed schedule in 1996 by this government to make it a more flexible sell-down, the damage had already been done. So the industry struggled under repressive prices for five years. A certain inertia set into the industry over that time. It was from those wrong judgments on the Garnaut report that the seeds of dissent towards Wool International and the other leadership bodies were sown which have now come to a head.I give this brief history to show that the government does not make this decision in isolation. Each stage has been interlinked right back to the 1990 problems. The casualties of a near decade of turmoil have been the 50,000-plus farmers, some of whom have been forced to exit the industry or take on crippling debt just to survive, not to mention the effect of the falling exports on the wealth of the nation. The bill's explanatory memorandum states why the government has chosen the freeze option to the stockpile. It says:Suspending stockpile sales will take pressure off the fresh wool market and allow growers to release some of their wool stocks. This will allow improved income in the short term, and encourage maintenance of production levels.It goes on to say:It would also provide wool growers with the opportunity to improve their financial position by allowing them to sell wool from their privately held stocks and the current season's wool clip.The Senate legislative committee report on this bill received submissions strongly opposed to the freeze—just to present the other side of the argument—raising concerns such as the freeze will erode the grower equity in the stockpile due to holding costs, it will have an adverse effect on the growers equity in the stockpile and it will affect the confidence of the buyers to see yet another change in the government's policies towards a stockpile.However, to balance these adverse effects has been the increase in the wool prices since the freeze, therefore, increasing the value of the stockpile. To take advantage of this jump in the stockpile value it is imperative that the parliament establishes as soon as possible the private company to handle future sales. The privatisation of Wool International really does bring to close the decade-long saga of the wool stockpile. I wonder if it is a decision that the parliament should have made back in 1990, given the number of legislative changes that have been made to the selling of the stockpile over the years.The Senate report outlines the government's justification for privatisation, to which I referred. In announcing the privatisation, Mr Anderson, the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, said:Equity in the stockpile is now significantly higher than the wool debt, even at today's depressed prices, so there is no justification for ongoing Government involvement . . . Mr Anderson also commented that the privatisation of Wool International would `satisfy calls for the stockpile to be managed on a purely commercial basis by a private sector board responsible solely to its shareholders'. All the ills of the wool industry do not come from the stockpile. To that end Dr Bob Richardson had this to say to the committee during its hearings:The key issue facing the wool industry is that it has been experiencing continued structural decline in demand. This has been going on for much of the 1990s. It is this, not the stockpile, which is the major factor in the poor state of the wool industry in Australia.Therefore, the future of AWRAP also needs to be finalised expeditiously to allow the industry to get on with its future plans.Speakers before me have outlined the importance of the wool industry, its export value, its value to local towns and districts, and its value to rural families, let alone its cultural significance to Australian art, literature and identity. Yet, like no other industry in this country, it has suffered a decade-long downturn in commodity prices perpetuated by a string of poor decisions from the top. Now it seems that the house is being put in order.In finalising, I refer to the 3 December edition of Stock and Land. There are two excellent articles worth reading that really point out that the way ahead is not so difficult and complex as it is made out by some and that really you can give this industry a bit of hope and a bit of cash in the pocket. I refer to a letter to the editor from Giovanni Nesti from Prato, Italy, about his views on the wool industry. I have not got the time to go through that, but I recommend that be read. I also refer to an article on page 13 about the French retail fashion house of Kookai and how successful it has been in selling the wool products at its outlets. So there is a great deal to be hopeful for, but, as I said before, we have had to get the house in order. It looks like that is coming about. Therefore, I urge the Senate to support this legislation.16:29:001332Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—In speaking to the Wool International Amendment Bill 1998 proposed by the government, I would like to say that, having spent some 14 years of my working life as a shearer, I do have some affinity with the industry. It has been a great industry and I would like to see it continue as a great industry. It has made a marvellous contribution to this country in economic terms. I think it is something we ought to take very seriously.The government, in considering its position or arriving at its position, provided a very interesting scenario. It would seem that it was probably driven more by political outcomes than by what is really in the best interests of the wool industry of this country. As we all know, including Senator McGauran, from time to time the wool industry has had its difficulties. It has had its ups and downs, as is the case generally with commodities like wool.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—As was the case with John Kerin.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—How interesting! Senator McGauran is saying that John Kerin, the former minister for primary industries, is at fault. We in government put in place something—it was not necessarily the right thing—that gave a lot of support to and underpinned a lot of people in the wool industry at that time. If you talk about Australia riding on the sheep's back, I have to say that a lot of cockies rode on the floor price for wool, and did so on the basis of being poor managers, in the case of some.We have before us this legislation that proposes to put a freeze on the wool stockpile. So, if we put in place a freeze on the stockpile—we propose to put it in place for six months or thereabouts from the date of enactment of this legislation—what is that really going to achieve? I have listened to honourable senators—Senator McGauran and others—saying that this will help the farmers stabilise wool prices, et cetera. What if it does not? If you look at the circumstances currently confronting the wool industry over and above the problem with prices, where are the pressures coming from? The pressures are coming not just from the problem of prices associated with an oversupply but from competition from a whole range of areas such as synthetics and cotton. All of those things are having an impact on this industry.Our shadow minister, Mr Gavan O'Connor, pointed out in the House of Representatives an ABARE analysis of the circumstances confronting the industry. He said:The ABARE analysis indicates that poor prices were the main factor driving the growth of the private stockpile and that farmers with mixed cropping and wool producing businesses were the ones storing most of the wool. High relative grain prices have increased the financial capacity of those growers to store their wool and to pursue more flexible marketing strategies in response to price movements. The ABARE analysis also showed that the composition of the on-farm stockpile is quite different from Wool International's stockpile profile. This is an important point to consider in assessing the efficacy of the freeze decision. The majority of wool in the Wool International stockpile is 21 to 23 microns, while over 50 per cent of the standard group and wool held on-farm is 21.5 microns or finer. Given all these factors, there are many people in the industry questioning whether the focus on the stockpile is indeed the main event or is merely the sideshow.That is a very good point. If we take account of all the factors that have the capacity to impact on this industry, it is difficult to see how a freeze of the nature proposed by the government will have any real beneficial effect.At the end of the day, I think we will see a situation develop where we will have had a freeze for six months, wool prices will still be very low, the on-farm stockpile will have increased and we will have to make another decision. I will be interested to see the government's decision at that point in time; how it will deal with a stockpile that it has basically frozen, which was unlike what the majority of the industry wanted—not the few from Western Australia and maybe the few Queenslanders who ran scared in terms of the Nationals and what was happening with regard to One Nation. The reaction from the government was more in line with political circumstances than what was really required by the industry.In my own state, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association condemned the decision, and continue to condemn it, because they see all of its shortcomings. I find Senator Crane's position very interesting. He initially championed the cause of a freeze and is now rethinking his position.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Where do you get that from?FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—We will watch with interest exactly how Senator Crane's position develops over time. In terms of Wool International, we now know the result of a meeting of farmers that was held and the decision they have taken. Nevertheless, if you look at the selling down of the stockpile, they probably did not do such a bad job given the constraints that they had.There are other options, and I know that Senator Forshaw will be moving some amendments on behalf of the opposition, that provide a more sensible approach in allowing Wool International to sell at least some wool. When Dr Richardson was responding to questions at the Senate committee hearing, he said:The role of the stockpile sales in this has been greatly exaggerated. Once we were faced with the narrow band fixed release schedule of 187,000 bales per quarter of deliveries, we could no longer just sit back and wait and sell in the spot market. That forced us into a situation where, to avoid any speculative squeeze at the end of a quarter, it was necessary for us to make some forward sales to try to add a limited amount of additional commercial flexibility when we were under such tight constraints.That is quite a good approach to have. It also provides some stability in terms of wool pricing rather than, as he very accurately and quite correctly points out, having to dump a big quantity of wool at the end of a quarter and those people who are selling their wool in the last quarter getting caught out and wool prices hitting the deck. Those are the sorts of issues that Wool International, with the constraints it was operating under, was thinking about.The government, on the other hand, says, `No—shock, horror—One Nation is going to win a few seats around the place. We need to do something. Let's put a freeze on the sale of wool.' In the second reading speech, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry said:The Government fully appreciates the reasons for the wool industry's call for assistance to alleviate whatever pressures there are on the wool market that are in its scope to control. The Government's decision to freeze stockpile sales through to 30 June 1999 was a response to this request from the industry, and followed a long period of intense consultation on the future directions of the industry.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Correct.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Correct, Senator McGauran says. Well, it appears that he did not consult too many people on the eastern seaboard. He does not appear to have consulted even 50 per cent of the industry.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—I will tell you about that in a minute.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I hope the parliamentary secretary will get up and tell us about that. I hope you will explain how you consulted with all and sundry. You obviously did not consult with the farmers in my state. They certainly did not think that you did. I think in a number of other states you did not do too well either. I do not know how you did in Victoria, which is the state which you come from, but I suggest that you are a long way short of majority industry support—a long way short. I suppose reality will hit home to some of these people now. They have been forced into a position that they never wanted to be in in the first place.As I said earlier, what happens at the end of the day when the term of this freeze has expired and we find ourselves in a situation where private wool stocks have grown, the onfarm stockpile has grown, prices have not increased and farmers are faced with having to contribute more because of the withholding debt that will grow? They will have to meet those commitments without any money being derived from the sale of wool from the stockpile. What are we going to do then? Decide to freeze the stockpile further? Is that what we are going to do? Or are we going to have sales on a limited basis? I would be very interested in hearing from the parliamentary secretary about what we will do in those circumstances.I think the circumstances confronting the industry are difficult, but it is not the first time that we have had difficult circumstances. I do not think the government's decision to put forward this legislation in terms of freezing the stockpile is the best option. I think the option that we have proposed by way of amendment is a better option, and I would urge senators to support that.With regard to the second part of the legislation, we support the privatisation of Wool International. I think that was something we were moving towards anyway. I hope that the government will take up the amendments that we have proposed, because I think they will provide greater flexibility. I do not think it is the answer in itself, but I do believe that we ought to continue to sell down some of the stockpile wool. Otherwise I think we will find ourselves at the expiration of the term of the freeze in a worse situation than we are currently in.16:41:001335Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Wool International Amendment Bill 1998 gives effect to two recent announcements by the government. The first announcement was the pre-election announcement to freeze the sale of the wool stockpile by Wool International until 30 June 1999. Wool International are currently required to sell the wool stockpile at a rate of at least 90,000 bales per quarter, and this bill would suspend that requirement until midway through the next year. As the explanatory memorandum acknowledges, this bill also seeks to commence steps towards privatisation or demutualisation of Wool International, the managers of the wool stockpile.While the Greens (WA) have concerns with the bill, we will be supporting the passage of the bill at the second reading stage. One concern that I would like to raise is the underlying political expediency of this bill from the government's point of view. Despite supporting the stockpile freeze, I have doubts about whether the government had honourable intentions behind the decision to freeze the stockpile. As the Victorian Farmers Federation Pastoral Group noted during committee hearings:The decision to freeze the Wool International stockpile sales has unfortunately been driven more by political agendas . . . rather than commercial logic.As many in this chamber would be well aware, the Greens believe there are many more legitimate reasons for policy decisions than just short-term commercial factors. But I suspect this decision has been motivated much more by election timing than altruistic reasons of wanting to help out the industry through their hard time.The Greens endorse this move by the government to assist the wool growers and the wool industry. The Greens endorse this move to attempt to ameliorate some of the long-term problems in the industry and some of the long-term problems caused by the previous government's decision to sell fixed amounts of the wool stockpile, as Senator Woodley discussed. However, I would like to highlight that this kind of move is the very antithesis of the general economic agenda of the government.Conveniently, the announcement of the freeze of the stockpile was timed just before the election—perhaps to remind the wool industry that the coalition does have a heart; that they should forget the last three years of some of the driest economic policies that Australia has ever seen; that they should not remember Minister Anderson's and the coalition's perpetual drive for free trade; that they should not remember their blind faith that free trade will deliver the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow; that they should not remember the fact that the coalition has forced Australia to lead the world in exposing our markets to the ebbs and flows of the globalised trade scene.They should not remember the fact that the coalition has resisted cries from many struggling primary industries to have some assistance, not to move so fast, to look at the reality before them. No, it is not these kinds of things the coalition wanted in the forefront of wool growers' minds as they headed for the polling booths on 3 October. No, the coalition wanted wool growers to walk into the polling booth with a fresh memory of a government who cares about the future of the wool growers and the wool industry—not a government leading the industry to the precipice and saying, `Jump.'I turn to the specific merits of the bill. The explanatory memorandum of this bill states that the object of the bill is:. . . to help address the slide in wool prices and improve the financial position of wool growers and to encourage processors not to switch off the fresh wool market . . . These objects are certainly worthy, and the Greens (WA) certainly hope that this mechanism goes some way to achieving these goals. The Greens note that many in the industry have had concerns for a significant time about fixed amounts of wool being fed into the fickle market. Over a significant period many have been calling for flexibility in the sale of the stockpile.It is clear that the reduced price of wool has meant that there is an increased pressure on wool growers. There are a significant number of wool growers out there too: there are around 11,000 farms in Australia whose main income is gained from wool production. Of course, there are a lot more people who rely on wool production than those 11,000 farms. So, when there is a reduction in the demand for wool products and the market for wool deteriorates and the prices go down, it is the wool growers who feel the crunch—and feel the crunch they have, with prices plummeting to a low of 465c. Evidence to the committee highlighted the fact that many Australian wool growers have found themselves in a grave situation.The industry has certainly given equivocal support to the freeze. The government, however, has been reticent to acknowledge the variety of opinion on this issue. As Senator Forshaw recognised, the minister, in his second reading speech on this bill, made the apparently unequivocal claim that:The government's decision to freeze stockpile sales through to 30 June 1999 was a response to this request from the industry, and followed a long period of intense consultation on the future direction of the industry.Of course, during the passage of the wheat marketing bill, we heard statements on what `the wheat industry' said, and we realised that `the wheat industry' was not the entire industry; so we knew that there were other opinions that were not being listened to by the government at that stage. So here we have the government claiming that it is listening and responding, yet again, to the whole industry. Regardless of the merits of the freeze, this claim is not true.There has been a significant amount of dissent to this move, and it has been mentioned that some of the country hour radio programs also have been running a campaign against it. This is apparent from just looking at the newspapers, and it became apparent in the committee hearings on this bill. The reality is that industry is significantly divided on the merits of this issue.The dissenters have claimed that freeze of the stockpile would have little impact, and all that would happen would be the replacement of Wool International's stockpile with the stocks from growers' and brokers' stores. Consequently, it would not have had any positive effects on the prices of wool either in the short or medium term. There was also concern expressed by the Wool Council that this move does not address the fundamental issues of demand for the industry and may damage the industry's international reputation. Of course, those are the kinds of issues I referred to before in terms of trade and commodity prices globally.However, the proponents of this freeze argue that the sale of the stockpile wool was significantly contributing to the fall of wool prices. It has been argued that, in the dire situation that faced the wool industry, further sales of the stockpile would only exacerbate the problem and put the future of the industry in jeopardy. They have outlined the possible flow on effects if the wool industry contracted as a result of the fall in the price of wool—or, should we say, a further fall in the price of wool.Some of these possible flow on effects include: a decrease in the number of wool growers in the industry; a decline in the economic viability and threshold level of survival for rural towns and communities; a dramatic cut in wool production resulting in problems for the wool processing sector; and a shortage in the supply of wool, possibly leading to the further substitution of other fibres for wool, resulting in a permanent loss of markets for the Australian wool industry.The proponents argue that suspension of sale from the stockpile would give the wool growers the breathing space they need. It would give wool growers the ability to increase the flow of wool from stockpiles on farms as well as from the current season's wool clip.The Greens (WA) recognise these concerns, but we do agree that the freeze of the stockpile is not the panacea for all of the problems of wool growers. However, we are glad that the government seems to be paying attention to long-term effects of short-term measures on rural and regional communities. For a long time the Greens (WA) have pointed out how policy decisions often have impacts far beyond those that are immediately obvious.These are the kinds of decisions that I alluded to before: the immense impacts of globalised free trade; the push for free trade and related micro-economic reform associated with competition policy; the impacts on employment, job security and the viability of regional communities; the impacts on world markets based on the fact that a number of countries have been pushed to the same precipice, without anybody having had the courage to say, `The emperor has no clothes,' or `The emperor's clothes are somewhat shoddy and need changing.' We are beginning to see some changes or some complaint on the regional areas in terms of global free trade and free trade models. But as yet this has not sunk into the general conversation or the media debate in Australia.The Greens (WA) agree with the government's assessment that, regardless of whether the stockpile freeze pushes prices up, the potential increase in growers' income by being able to sell their own stockpiles will have positive resonations in rural and regional communities; it will take the pressure off growers financially at a crucial time. Dr Stephen Beare, Deputy Director of ABARE, acknowledged this in his evidence to the committee: essentially it is a transfer of revenue potentially from Wool International to private stock sales.I now move to the second aspect of this bill—that is, the proposal to privatise Wool International. The proposal announced by Minister Anderson at the time was to replace Wool International by a private shareholding company, with shares allocated on the basis of individual equity entitlements in the wool stockpile. Most of the industry seems to be in favour of the privatisation of Wool International, although there have been concerns expressed during the committee inquiry by the Hamilton Victorian Farmers' Federation District Council that the government is abandoning equity holders on the basis of commercial expedience.A contentious issue in this announcement to privatise is that the government has seen fit to legislate that Wool International bear all the costs of privatisation. Senator Woodley, in his presentation in the second reading stage, has indicated that he will be attempting to amend this during the committee stage of the bill so that the costs will be borne by government. The Greens (WA) will be supporting this amendment.The Greens (WA) are in agreement with this amendment, as are most in the industry. The industry support is not surprising—for obvious reasons. They would rather not pay, but the reality is—as the industry rightly points out—that this is a government decision. The government has chosen a certain direction and it is reasonable to expect that they pay for the processes. The Wool Council makes the point that the legal and financial advice that the Commonwealth is receiving relates to matters of specific interest to the government. The Wool Council also makes the point that it is usual practice for the government to pay for its own asset sales—one would think so. The process is estimated to cost around $4.5 million, and this kind of burden should not be shifted onto the industry.The Greens (WA) note that the government intends to establish an interim advisory board to guide the move to demutualisation. As the government has recognised, there are a range of alternative business plans being developed by different sections of the industry, with different options for the end result. The main call from the industry seems to be for consultation—that is, effective consultation. The industry wants to have a say in the planning and the implementation of the moves to privatise Wool International. I would say that is a reasonable call.In relation to this consultation issue, the Greens (WA) are supportive of the recommendation of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. This recommendation gives the committee a watching brief over the privatisation of Wool International and enables the committee to gather more information and gather up the many loose ends associated with privatisation. This seems like a very sensible idea, considering how much is still left up in the air. It is still unclear whether equity holders will be able to choose whether to be involved or what the nature or composition of the board will be. In addition, as the committee report notes, the private offers on the stockpile require more examination.Overall, despite the scepticism of the Greens (WA) as to the motives behind this bill, we are supportive of the bill in taking the pressure off the woolgrowers and the wool industry. We are supportive of Senator Crane's reference of these further demutualisation issues to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.16:54:001338West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I do not intend to speak long on this debate today, but I have participated in every wool debate in this place since I first came here in 1990. We see that the industry is again in crisis. Prices are dropping and the growers are not a very happy bunch, as was evidenced by the anger at the AWRAP board meeting last week. They are very angry.In relation to the Wool International Amendment Bill 1998 , I urge people to read the report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. I especially urge them to read the dissenting report by Senators Forshaw, O'Brien and McKiernan. I would also draw the attention of senators to the fact that there is quite a lot written in the bulk of the main report about the opposition to the freeze. It is very interesting to look at the groups that are opposed to the freeze. One wonders why the government is so hell-bent on having the freeze, because the majority of groups representing the growers are opposed to a freeze.The Pastoral Group of the Victorian Farmers Federation said that there was a strong and clear majority opposed to the freeze. They also stated that a rural press survey had found that 60 per cent of Victorian and Tasmanian producers opposed the freeze. They are not an insignificant group. There is quite a considerable amount of wool that is produced in Tasmania and Victoria, and I am sure the parliamentary secretary at the table will recognise that. The Premier of Victoria, Mr Kennett, has also been critical of the decision. He stated that:. . . we are on an orderly process to get rid of that wool pile stockpile [sic], in about 12 months, 18 months. So we have actually buckled to a policy position that I think is fundamentally wrong.Mr Bob Quirk, a spokesperson for the Australian Council of Australian Wool Exporters, indicated that they had problems with the freeze. Mr Rod Thirkell-Johnston, on behalf of the Wool Council of Australia, expressed the view—and it is in the report:. . . I think a lot of people see a very simplistic solution in the present difficult situation that if you just reduce the supply by the legislated amount in the stockpile that this will increase the price of wool. But from all the research that we have had done, that doesn't stack up . . .Mr Quirk again is quoted as saying:From a personal point of view I think what is particularly disappointing about today's announcement is the decisions were taken without any consultation with anyone on the customer side of the industry.The producer side is very important, but the customer side is also vitally important.A lot of the anger about AWRAP has resulted from the way the customer has been treated. The woollen suit that I am wearing probably weighs three or four kilos. It is a reasonable quality wool, but the value of raw wool in this suit is less than $10. Why did it cost me a couple of hundred dollars to buy? These are the sorts of questions that have to be asked when we are looking at the wool stockpile and any industry relating to wool. Who is making the money? It is not the producers, and it sure is not the consumers, whose hip-pocket nerve is bleeding badly.Although there has been a significant drop in the price of wool, I have not seen a reduc tion in the price of woollen commodities in shops. Why does my woollen suit still cost me $400 and why did the grower probably get $10 if he or she was lucky? The wool might have made a few trips around the world after it left this country to be processed, but the cost to the consumer has certainly not been returned to the grower. That is a question that a lot of growers are beginning to ask themselves these days.I return to the issue of opposition to the freeze. The Western Wool Growers, Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia said:The principle of a freeze to us was an economically bad decision.The New South Wales Farmers Association stated in its submission to the inquiry:From recent history, there is no evidence that reducing stockpile sales results in any sustainable increase in wool prices. The Government cut the legislated selling schedule from 180 000—190 000 bales per quarter in 1996, to a minimum of 90 000 bales per quarter in 1997. Although some short term price recovery was experienced, this quickly subsided with prices falling to their lowest levels since 1993.When you have all these groups opposed to a freeze one has to ask: why is the government continuing to go ahead with the legislation? I also notice that the majority report of the committee stated:The Committee also recommends that the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and reportThe administration, management and performance of Wool International Limited, including all aspects of the proposed sale and disposal of Wool International Limited by the Commonwealth Government.I understand that that was moved and then withdrawn. One has to wonder what the government is doing. The government obviously did not like what government senators had come up with, so they were told to do otherwise.Bills for the stockpile freeze will not stop coming in. Wool International will still have to maintain the debt schedules. Storage costs will still have to be paid. Someone will have to pay that bill. That is why the opposition favours the chill option—that there will be enough sold to meet Wool International's costs so that the farmers will not be buying themselves another big debt at the end of all this. It is very, very concerning. This industry wants stability. This industry has not had stability.Ms Lynne Johnston, the Chairman of the Western Wool Growers, Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, said that the PGA, as they are known, opposed the freeze on the basis of economic principles. She said that the PGA:sought an independent analysis from the economic division of the Agriculture WA—the agricultural department of Western Australia—which backed up our objections. This analysis showed that there would be a small short-term gains of some 13c.She went on to say:However, the long-term result would be negative as the buyers making their purchasing decisions would be making those decisions based on the knowledge the wool must come back onto the market.They will sit it out until the wool comes back on to the market.I have also heard many rumours from the industry over the last couple of years that cheaper prices are being offered to people if they buy wool from the stockpile overseas, that there are two prices to the wool in the stockpile. This is denied quite frequently. But I was interested to see the Four Corners report which also indicated that this was in fact the truth, that there are two prices and that you can buy it overseas at a cheaper rate. This does not help the Australian farmers and Australian producers.New South Wales farmers oppose the decision to freeze the stockpile. Mr David Wolfenden, who is Chairman of the Wool Industry Committee of the New South Wales Farmers Association, stated that the option to freeze sales of the stockpile was debated at the association's annual general meeting and was `comprehensively defeated by 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the vote'. As I say, I keep wondering why it is being pushed by the government. Mr Robert Tehan, a member of the Wool Committee of the Victorian Farmers Federation, said that the `government's decision to freeze the stockpile will cost wool growers at least $10 million a quarter'. He was amazed, I think, that the explanatory memorandum of the bill states that to improve the financial position of wool growers is one of the objectives of this government action. Obviously, from a Victorian point of view, he did not agree.I think the government need to be asked: why are they rushing in with this freeze? Who are they satisfying? In this case, it is the tail wagging the dog because the majority of the industry and the producers do not want a freeze. They can see that a freeze means that the manufacturing side of the industry will be aware that all they have to do is wait—wait until the freeze is over and then they will have a considerable amount of wool back on the auction floor, back into circulation, for them to purchase and maybe at a cheaper rate by buying from the stores overseas, if they are able to purchase from overseas at a cheaper rate.One would have to wonder why they are able to purchase the wool more cheaply overseas when Wool International would have had to have borne the cost of transporting the wool to the overseas site. One would have thought the cost would have been higher to cover transport costs. That is obviously not the way this government works.I think this government needs to be asked a whole series of questions. It needs to look very carefully at this. This is a very delicate issue. There are people having difficulty surviving. There are communities having difficulty surviving. There are a number of fundamental questions that also need to be asked like: why is it when a suit that would have no more than $10 worth of wool in it would cost me $400 or $500 to buy? What are the wool organisations doing?656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—What about the GST?1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—Yes. This is before the GST, Senator Forshaw. One wonders why wool is not able to be sold and marketed in the same way that cotton is sold and marketed. I am critical that a number of wool organisations have not marketed or made processed wool accessible to the average person in the street. Why does it require somebody on my sort of income to be able to afford to buy wool clothing, but the average person cannot afford it and is forced to purchase garments made from non-renewable resources and from non-natural resources? I think the government need to think very carefully about how they proceed with this, because the industry has grave concerns about what the future of wool is. We want to make sure that the wool industry does not have grave concerns. This is a good industry. Wool is a wonderful fibre to work with, but the average person has to have confidence in it, and the growers certainly have to have confidence in it.17:08:001340Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—The Wool International Amendment Bill 1998 is a critical piece of legislation for rural and regional Australia because it provides for the freeze of the stockpile announced before the election. One of the earlier speakers, Senator Forshaw—who is the main spokesman for the opposition—made quite an uninformed speech, which is unusual for him. It seems that the Labor Party are confused by the proposals contained in the bill. The Labor Party want a chill to the stockpile but Senator Forshaw then says that they basically support the proposal. I say to Senator Forshaw that the game has moved on and, as I understand it, the proposed Labor amendments will not attract the support of the Democrats anyway. The reason why the freeze—as opposed to the chill—proposal has been decided as appropriate by the government is that it is the best option. It is time to have that circuit-breaker and to make a decision about the future of the privatised stockpile, quite apart from being a sort of halfway house. The freeze will be in place for a short time, only six months, until 30 June next year. Senator Forshaw made a number of points that were entirely wrong. He said that the debt of Wool International was exploding. It is certainly not an inconsiderable debt—it is about $180 million and it will be $200 million by 30 June next year—but it pales into insignificance compared with 1991 when the debt was $2.8 billion.Australia's 60,000 wool growers, mostly family farmers, deserve better than the divided and depressed conditions in which they find themselves today. After all, we are talking about what is still our greatest rural enterprise: a means of making a living that substantially opened up large tracts of regional Australia, and for very large tracts of regional Australia wool remains the only agricultural activity that remains suitable.Today, even for the most urbanised Australians, the wool industry has an influence on how we see ourselves as Australians. This may have been much stronger 20 or 30 years ago, but it is still true today. The wool story is not just about the producers who produce what remains of about $4 billion worth of export income, it is about the station hands, the stockmen, the shearers, the rouseabouts and the truckers—a whole range of rural communities, small and large, that all depend on wool for their prosperity and wellbeing, to a greater or lesser extent, as befits the sort of rural mix that they have.I want to say something about the type of people who grow wool. Our political opponents may have a rather jaundiced view of wool growers because of the historical stereotypes that prevail—the view of an all-powerful squatter exploiting the land and the worker, which in fact gave birth to the ALP in the Queensland shearing sheds in the 1890s. This is certainly not the case now with struggling families relying on incomes much smaller than almost anybody else in the community and, I suspect, very often a smaller income than the shearers who shear the wool. In my experience, there is hardly a group of primary producers more decent and prepared to give people a fair go than wool growers. After all, for years they have grown a product that the world wanted and they could get on with life without cutting their neighbour's throat. It might sound old-fashioned but wool remains—even today at these very reduced prices—a very decent way to make a living. To produce a wonderful natural product that, properly blended, is unsurpassed and to produce the best of this product in the world is quite something. It takes the present crisis to make the wool industry motivated for change in the way that previous speakers have described last week. As a result of the no-confidence motion passed in the board of AWRAP, the government will appoint a high level task force to map out the best marketing, research and development and general future for wool. The task force will also assess wool against its competitor fibres. We acknowledge that the threats to wool are partly because of relatively low prices for synthetics and also, as senators will be aware, because the price of oil is at a 12-year low.Simply, the task force will be the forerunner to privatise, to democratise and to commercialise a company that will be controlled by wool growers. This is a unique opportunity to stand back and take a look at how the industry's marketing should be done. The role of a future statutory body will also have to be addressed by the task force if the government is to support the necessary legislation for a compulsory industry levy, which is currently at four per cent. This levy comes from the gross returns of all wool growers. As I see it, the task force will be charged with delivering a representative structure that controls promotion—and the international arm of that, the Woolmark company—and research and development. At the same time the delivery of a strategic plan for wool will be delivered. The task force will have the power to use any outside expertise it requires to point to the future needs of the industry.This legislation, as I have pointed out, is to implement the government's decision to freeze the stockpile and allow the privatisation of the company, which will occur next year. Wool International became the sell-down mechanism after the Australian Wool Realisation Commission fell over in 1993 and—as Senator McGauran mentioned earlier—after the Garnaut committee recommendations. The initial requirement, that of the repayment of the stockpile debt, was altered when Wool International was able to attempt to enhance the value of the stockpile for the benefit of growers.Wool International have done a difficult job in difficult circumstances, and I am not overly critical of the role they played in terms of the legislative guidelines that they had to work under. The world market conditions for wool and the strict legislative conditions under which Wool International operated made it difficult for them to function in a method that was sympathetic to growers. I am not generous of their performance either. I can say, though, that I have always found the managing director of Wool International, Bob Richardson, and the chairman, Dick Warburton, to be highly capable, approachable and decent people. I wish them well during the freeze and after the privatisation. In the meantime, I welcome the caretaker role that Wool International will pursue.It is prudent and in the long-term interests of wool growers that all the core functions of Wool International are continued for the next six months until the privatisation takes place. These include: the retention of the information services; the retention of the inventory management, as there are over one million bales still in the stockpile; the retention of the Treasury function because, as I said, a debt of about $200 million has to be serviced; and retention of the unit-holding register. Wool growers have about 340 million units in Wool International with a net value of around $1.42 at the September valuation. Wool International also needs to retain a minimum appraisal of sales role so that its corporate knowledge remains and knowledge of its buyers and the way it operates is not lost completely and can be used after privatisation. These functions are critical for the privatisation in June 1999 to be successful.As for the actual privatisation, that is not for this legislation; it is a debate for another time. Clearly, however, a further industry task force or interim board must be appointed shortly to advise of the form of the future liquidation process and the appraisal of current and future offers for the stockpile. The government is addressing these matters with urgency and in cooperation with industry.The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee has recommended that all aspects of the proposed sale of Wool International be subject to an inquiry. I think that recommendation has merit.I desperately hope that the wool market will improve. As I said earlier, a lot of very decent families and communities depend on it. It seems inevitable that eventually things can be got right. Apart from anything else, the world fibre market is increasing in size exponentially and wool is clearly a wonderful natural product. It certainly can service a very important niche market—not as pure wool perhaps but as a blended quality item. In recent times products such as wool plus lycra garments and wool blended jeans have come onto the market. They are wonderful products and, if we can get our advertising right, I am sure that the market will improve.There are two ways for a market to improve. One is to take a very low price for your product and the other is to promote it well. We have certainly taken a very low price for our product for a very long time. Clearly we need to promote it better, and the processes are being put in place for that to occur.17:20:001342O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—In terms of the Wool International Amendment Bill 1998 , I would like to say that I do not have any personal interest in the matter. I am not a holder of Wool International equity units, I do not have a private bale stockpile and I do not run sheep. So I am approaching this bill—as is the opposition—on the basis of looking at the evidence ascertained by the committee and the material that has been put before us by responsible representatives of the industry from a number of states, including my own, as well as the Wool Council and ABARE, in terms of their economic analysis.Senator Sandy Macdonald, in his comments, put a view of Wool International which I would have thought was a responsible one which ought to have been shared by all members of the coalition in their approach to this matter. But I must say that certainly comments in the Australian on 8 September attributed to Senator Crane—the chairman of the legislation committee that has reported to the parliament on this bill—and comments by David Hawker, the chairman of the coalition's wool subcommittee, do not indicate that Wool International is held in high regard by at least part of the coalition. Frankly, Senator Crane's comments astound me. He is reported—and I hope that the report is incorrect—as saying:. . . WI's actions were an `absolute disgrace', undermining wool prices and hurting embattled wool growers.`The sooner we can get back into government and sack those bastards, the better,' Senator Crane said.I would hope that this is not reflective of the government's approach to this matter. If Senator Crane is correctly reported, this appears to be a rather intemperate comment—not a measured approach to what is a very difficult issue on which there is hardly unanimity in the rural sector. It is shooting from the hip, one might say, in terms of the politics of this matter. Indeed, politics seems to be running this matter so far as the coalition policy is concerned and not the welfare of the whole of the industry.There is a story on page 46 of today's Australian Financial Review which is entitled `Wool Victim of Politics' by Stephen Wyatt. Basically the report says that the prices have gone down again. It finishes with the paragraph:Many analysts expect wool to re-test its recent five-year lows of 465 because of an absence of demand from key Asian markets. A new AWRAP board can do nothing about this.The article talks at some length about the sacking of the AWRAP board. But it is interesting that here the independent analysis indicates that the price of wool is likely to fall, irrespective of the legislation that is before this parliament. The headline says a lot about how this government implements policies for the bush. The bill we have before us today is based not on policy but on politics, as I said earlier—the politics of the bush and, as some earlier speakers have said, the politics of One Nation. The background to this bill also says a lot about how the Howard government has treated rural industries since March 1996. It explains why the government has lost the bush and why it has been forced to make short-sighted, ill-considered policy responses to complex problems like the collapse in wool prices.One of the first actions, if I can go to the history of how this government has approached rural policy, of incoming minister Mr Anderson was to approve the importation of cooked chicken meat from Thailand, Denmark and the United States. That approval would have been signed off if a journalist had not made a call to the minister's office and asked about the extent of consultation with the National Party back bench. The minister then didn't sign off the approval. The Senate investigated the matter and found that the science on which the approval was granted was flawed. The whole process was then redone and the effective regime that now exists was put into place, no thanks to the government but thanks to the Senate and thanks to the industry.The Australian pork industry was initially ignored. It then had some money thrown at it, designed not so much to address the problems facing the industry as to shut the industry up. There was nothing there to provide short-term assistance to growers. There was nothing there to properly investigate the impact of imports on the domestic market. The government provided some money to identify and grow export markets and it then reluctantly and belatedly added some more money to assist with the processing sector. Finally, it was dragged kicking and screaming by members of its own back bench, the opposition and, I guess, One Nation into an investigation of the impact of imports.That report has now been released. The Productivity Commission, a body not known for its protectionist views, found that imports had caused serious damage to the domestic industry. It has offered the government a range of policy options, including World Trade Organisation legal options, to deal with the problem. We all await the government's response to that report. Again, we now have before us some appropriate policy options to assist the pork industry, but again no thanks to the government. Thanks again go to the opposition, to the Senate and to the tenacity of the industry.Our meat export effort into the United States was put in doubt because the then minister pushed too far on privatising meat inspection services, the project 2 package, and the European Union responded in a similar manner. The industry had to run around and tidy up a mess not of its own making. There was a decision, again forced on the then minister, to remove a government subsidy designed to keep meat inspection charges at a reasonable level while AQIS was restructured. The effect was to dramatically increase AQIS charges, some by as much as 300 per cent. Mr Anderson's colleagues had left him with no choice. Again, the government was forced to back down and the minister wore all the flack.But the manner in which the government, or more specifically the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has handled the issue of the future management arrangements for the wool stockpile beats all of the above hands down. This government came into office with a plan for the Australian wool industry. One of the key elements in the plan—I will quote from the Reviving the Heartland document—was to:. . . maintain the wool stockpile fixed schedule, ensuring that its management minimises its impact on the market and ensures certainty and market stability by making an early determination of a transparent and credible stockpile management strategy for the post-July 1997 period.The minister came close to honouring that commitment. After a series of discussions, `roundtables' as they were called, the minister set a course for the industry based on maintaining a managed sell-down of the stockpile. He made that point very clear in a statement released in December last year. Let me quote the first paragraph of the statement:Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, John Anderson, today reasserted the government's commitment to dispose of the stockpile strictly in accordance with existing wool stockpile selling policy.He said:"The stockpile policy was developed through the exhaustive Wool Roundtable consultative process carried out last year."So the government's policy was right on track at the end of last year. It was also right on track in the form of a submission to cabinet in August this year. The minister had gone through an exhaustive process of industry consultation. The advice he received was the advice the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee received last Friday week, which was that the freeze option was the worst option. The industry view, I must say, was not unanimous. But frankly, those who opposed the freeze option dominated, that is, they were the overwhelming majority.The President of the Wool Council, Mr Rod Thirkell-Johnston, said that the council had been consulted on the question of the future management of the stockpile by the then minister, Mr Anderson. He said that there were a number of industry meetings in the lead-up to the cabinet meeting. I asked him at the hearing if this was his view and Mr Anderson's view, which is that the sale of the wool from the stockpile should continue. He responded:Yes. The minister was trying to keep faith with the international community as a result of the round table.So Mr Thirkell-Johnston said that at a round table in 1996 the government told the international industry there would be no further changes to the sale of wool from the stockpile until it was disposed of completely. I asked him at the hearing if it were his view and the minister's view, prior to the cabinet making the decision to freeze the sale of the stockpile, that such an action would be a breach of faith with the international community. Mr Thirkell-Johnston replied:We were very concerned that it would be a breach of faith with the international customers and would require very careful handling, if it was enacted, to regain their confidence.I asked him whether that was the minister's view, and he said that it was.Ms Lynne Johnston, the Chairman of the Western Wool Growers, Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, said that that association maintained its opposition to the concept of freezing the stockpile. She said that the PGA opposed it on the basis of economic principles. Ms Johnston told the committee that the PGA had in fact sought an independent analysis from the economic division of Agriculture Western Australia. She said that that analysis had backed their objections. She said:This analysis showed that there would be a small short-term gain of some 13c . . . . However, the long-term result would be negative as the buyers making their purchasing decisions would be making those decisions based on the knowledge that the wool must come back onto the market.Secondly, there was no comprehensive plan in place . . . that encompassed the whole industry from growers through to processors as to how it would be unfrozen . . .So the former minister sought advice from his own department and the government's key economic policy adviser on rural industry, ABARE. I am sure that he received the same advice that the Senate committee received last Friday, which was that the freeze would not generate a recovery in the price of wool. Mr Anderson also received advice from Wool International, the authority actually charged with the responsibility of disposing of the stockpile. Again, the advice would match the evidence given to the committee. The freeze is the worst option from the point of view of returns to unit holders. Dr Richardson, the Chief Executive Officer of Wool International, told the inquiry that the board of Wool International believed the so-called chill option—that is, the sale of sufficient wool to meet Wool International's costs—was the best option. Dr Richardson said that there were discussions with the former minister about alternative options to manage the stockpile and their implications for unit holders in the context of the value maximisation objectives of Wool International. He said that options including a freeze, a chill or maintenance of the status quo had been considered. He said that the analysis undertaken by Wool International found that there were lower net returns to unit holders from a freeze than from the other alternatives.So what of the impact of the freeze to date, because there is a freeze being undertaken, although the legislation has not yet passed? There was a slight recovery in the price in recent weeks, which freeze supporters are claiming to have been a product of the freeze. But that is not the view of the experts.Dr Beare told the committee that ABARE was reviewing its forecasts for all commodi ties, the results of which would be released on 15 December. He said that the September forecasts for the eastern market indicator was 560c on a clean basis. He said that that forecast would be reduced somewhat in December. Dr Terence Sheales, ABARE's chief commodity analyst, said:Economic conditions are having a very major effect on demand for fibres generally and hence on prices.In response to a question about the recent recovery in wool prices, Dr Sheales said that, while there was not yet any data available, it appears there has been a move to fill orders before the Christmas close-down. He said:The other thing of note is that prices have slipped a bit in recent days.Dr Sheales also said:. . . the only other thing I would say is that we have gone through a period in perhaps the last month of a feeling generally in the world macro-economic environment that there has been some settling of the Asian situation. That may have brought a little more confidence back into the market but, again, that is quite anecdotal information in terms of the effect it may have.There was no mention from the government's key agricultural economic advisory body of the stockpile freeze as a contributor to better wool prices; that is, ABARE did not say that.The problem with this decision is more than just a failure to generate a recovery in the price of wool. The freeze means that Wool International no longer has any income but must continue to meet its costs. The costs of storing the stockpile and servicing its debt and its administrative costs all have to be paid. That means that the value of grower equity in the stockpile must decline. Further, a number of growers have borrowed against the value of their equity through a number of private financing facilities. Those funds were lent on the basis of one set of rules, and now those rules are to be changed.The government's decision to ignore the best available advice and freeze all sales must also create legal difficulties in relation to options available to unit holders to access the value of their holdings. Again, in evidence, Mr Tehan from the VFF told last Friday week's hearing that the impact of the freeze on private sector initiatives appeared to have been disregarded completely by the government. He said:In September, 1997, Wool International issued certificates of equity to those who paid wool tax on wool sold in the period 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1996.That allowed a number of private sector initiatives that gave unit holders the ability to access equity locked up in the future distributions of Wool International.Producers accessed these services on the basis that there was a clear, legislated disposal policy for Wool International leading to a legislated final date for the stockpile disposal at the end of 2000. Mr Tehan said:In correspondence to a unit holder who has used the Elders Wool Stockpile Equity Advance, Elders stated:`Should the stockpile not be finally sold and settled by 31 December 2000, Elders reserves the right of clearance from you at the expiration of a three-month notice period.'Mr Tehan estimated that there was $40 million so far led by financing facilities offered by Elders Rural Finance securitisation facility, Wesfarmers Dalgety loan facility and Macquarie Bank Wool International equity trading facility. Dr Richardson from Wool International told the committee that the unit holders' units entitled them to participate in a surplus once the debt has been removed and the stockpile sold. He said:If the Commonwealth is to withdraw that right and replace it with something else without just compensation, then . . . there are legal problems.He also said that, if the government were to withdraw a unit which entitled unit holders to a share in a surplus and replace it with a share which entitled them to participate in a dividend, there would be a question as to whether these two things were equivalent.This bill also contains amendments to the Wool International Act to allow Wool International to support the process of the privatisation of the stockpile and to meet costs associated with that process. There was general support from the industry for that. We heard some interesting evidence from Mr Mike Hutchinson, the Chief Executive of the Office of Asset Sales. What was clear from Mr Hutchinson was that the timetable for the presentation of legislation to the Senate for the privatisation was very tight. He said that it needed to be passed by May to allow the process to be completed by the end of the financial year. However, he also indicated that we might not have that legislation until as late as March.If that is the case—or even if we get it in February—extreme pressure is going to be placed on the Senate, and the industry, to assess the legislation and deal with it in the timetable which would allow the processing of this bill in time for the privatisation or demutualisation to take effect by 30 June. I point out that there is no provision for the freeze proposed in this legislation to continue past 30 June. So there are some fundamental problems to be addressed in relation to this matter.I was quite interested in Senator Woodley's comments—bearing in mind that it was Senator Woodley who first referred the clauses of this bill to a committee for inquiry—indicating that he would support the government's position. I understand Senator Woodley to have said at the hearing that he had some economic analysis which supports that position, but we have not seen it as yet. The only analysis that he has relied upon today is the analysis of the Australian Wool Growers Association. I point out that that analysis flies in the face of the view of ABARE, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, the Wool Council, the New South Wales Farmers Association, the Victorian Farmers Federation, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association and, in his own state, the United Graziers Association of Queensland.In the last two weeks, the evidence is that 75,000 bales from the private stockpile have gone into the market to replace the 90,000 bales from the Wool International stockpile. We will be dealing with amendments which propose the chill option. I know I have no time left now but I will develop that argument further at another time.17:40:001346Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I too would like to make some brief comments about this legislation. One cannot help but make a quick comment on the statements made by the previous speaker, Senator O'Brien. In terms of the current situation facing the wool industry, and the necessity for quick and decisive action, it was a very sad, distorted contribution.To see what we are dealing with in this phase, one has to look at a bit of history—that is, the 4.8 million bales and the $2.8 billion debt. The wool industry has done a remarkable job to get that down to just over one million bales and a debt to $180 million. One would think, listening to the previous contribution, that we have been locked in concrete for the last eight years. In fact, one of the problems with this—the one which brought the crisis on in the first place—was the activities of the former minister, John Kerin, when he made certain statements overseas that things were immutable, that they were locked in stone and would not change. But, of course, they did change. That did a lot of damage to the wool industry in terms of those commitments that were given.In 1990, the wool industry was in real trouble—in fact, it was virtually bankrupt. There had to be a debt reduction schedule. That went well for about 18 months and then it failed. We then had a situation where for 18 months the industry and the Labor government argued. They appointed Garnaut to make a report but took 18 months to act. In 1993, following the Garnaut report, we went into the fixed schedule release. Once again, history shows that that worked reasonably well for 18 months and then it failed. What did we have? We had no activity from that side until we got into government, and then we brought in the flexible schedule. Once again, that worked very well until December last year and then it failed. Why did it fail? It failed because of the Asian meltdown; it collapsed. We saw wool go into an absolute free fall. In seven months we saw $200 million wiped off the value of the Wool International stockpile. We saw well in excess of $180 million wiped off the grower stockpile. We saw a huge reduction in the prices being paid to growers.This charge that we should let that continue—that we should let the free fall continue, that we should let the wool industry and the people around it collapse—is one of the most irresponsible comments that I have heard perpetuated about an industry situation. The stockpile is an artificial component of the market. It is wool that was grown in the 1980s when the reserve price failed. In fact, we would have driven the industry into the ground if we had allowed that to continue.It is a very simple equation: the reason that it worked well from 1996, when the flexible schedule came in and we came into government, until December last year is that supply and demand were somewhere in balance. All of a sudden, 100 million kilos of demand went. We had, in round figures, 95 million kilos of excess production coming onto the market. That is virtually wool that was coming out of the Wool International stockpile. Anyone who can add up can work out very quickly under the current arrangements that, by the end of 2000 or somewhere in that vicinity—I cannot be precise about it—supply and demand are going to come back roughly into balance. We have seen growers reduce their production in this period from somewhere close to one thousand million kilos—in fact, production went from over one thousand million kilos in one year—back to about 620 million kilos. The wool coming off the grower stockpile makes up the difference with what demand is currently. It is a fairly simple equation.I do not know how you convince people, but it just cannot be a coincidence, as was claimed at our hearings, that on the very day that the first freeze was put in place economic circumstances changed and the price of wool started to go up and on the very day that the freeze was taken off economic circumstances went back to exactly the same as they were pre-freeze and the price of wool started to fall again. We lost another 150c from the price of wool and, of course, that wiped more value off the stockpile.There are many angles or things you can talk about in terms of this and I just briefly mention the importance of the privatisation process. It is interesting to see that a number of additional offers are now starting to come onto the table from people who are interested in this privatisation process. Of course there is the option under Corporations Law for the industry itself, if they so desire, to operate and sell on a commercial basis. In terms of this current position, I am confident that we are going to see the gradual improvement and consolidation of the wool industry.When people say it is only going to rise this much or it is going to rise that much, we see confidence coming back into the industry. We see back in the marketplace those buyers who have not bought other than stockpile wool for quite a number of years. I believe, as I mentioned earlier, we will see supply and demand come back into balance somewhere in 14 to 18 months' time. In the last three weeks of sales, we saw 75,000 additional bales come out of the growers' stockpile which already is starting to be utilised and will be utilised until that balance comes back into place. And when the stockpile wool is utilised—whether it is processed or not—that will give the industry itself time to start rebuilding its flocks and to build up its position to meet world demand.Once again, I am confident from the work that I have seen done in the medium and longer term—and I can quote ABARE, I can quote the WA agriculture department or I can quote some of the other work that has been shown to me by exporters—that Australia will return to a place where it is supplying in the order of 750 to 820 million kilos per annum to the world market.There are many things that can be said about this. I certainly believe that it is the correct decision. The government had to act in the interests of wool growers because the market was being pulled down at a very rapid rate because world economic circumstances changed very dramatically—as they did back in 1993 and as they did, once again, between 1993 and 1996. Had the government then had the courage to take some decisive action, we would not have seen the industry collapse to the point that it has.With those comments, I look forward to the passage of this legislation very much. In my closing remarks, I must declare an interest in this particular subject before us because I am a member of a family farming partnership that produces and sells wool.17:48:001348Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I do not have to declare an interest, other than the fact that I wear woollen clothes from time to time. I think a few comments need to be made in respect of this legislation. Firstly, I think it is a bit rich that members of the government come in here and tell us that they were not spooked by One Nation. I had government members telling me that the Senate would definitely come back this year. I even had government members telling me as late as the last week in August, `No, the election cannot be for a while yet because we have to get the freeze through.'I think the first point that needs to be made is that it is not necessarily the best public policy to proceed to bring in the freeze when Pauline Hanson is on the rampage out there with a head of steam up and there is panic in the government ranks. As I understand it, this is a controversial issue; it is certainly controversial amongst a lot of the growers. If I am wrong about that, I am sure the parliamentary secretary will tell me so later.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—I will.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—She is nodding her head, but the evidence that I have heard here today in this debate is that there is considerable discussion about whether or not the freeze is a good idea. I will say a couple of other things. Firstly, we heard from Senator McGauran here today how all of this was our fault. I am used to that around here. It seems that we get blamed for everything from the weather all the way down. I asked Senator McGauran if he was wearing woollen knickers, and I did not get much response to that. But that is not actually as flippant a question as it seems because in fact today a large number of people have chosen from the smorgasbord of fabrics out there to wear things other than wool. Indeed, one of the problems the wool industry has had over a number of years has been that this smorgasbord of alternative fabrics has found its way into all the sorts of traditional areas that wool took for granted even only a few years ago.I think that the schemes that have been in place to try to somehow or other rebalance the supply and demand equation that Senator Crane talked about have been interesting schemes that—according to his analyses, and I have no reason to dispute them—have generally had about 18 months of life in each one. I remember in particular the desire to try to keep the floor price going. In fact, it failed because it was too high. It failed not because a floor price scheme will never work; it failed because the market was not going to pay that price for the product. Then a new floor price was debated by the agrarian socialists who said, `The problem is that the floor price is too high.' You do not need much of an IQ to realise that. In the meantime, a whole series of bales of wool were being stockpiled around the country, and that is posing a major problem.What then happened of course was that various schemes were put in place. I do not want to take the time of the Senate today—or, for that matter, that of other senators—to go over Senator Crane's history of how this problem was dealt with. But, at the end of the day—and, again, the parliamentary secretary can allay my fears—I cannot help but think that when you have got over one million bales in an official stockpile that is frozen and I am told by Senator O'Brien, who is more knowledgeable on these things than I am, that there is—Senator Troeth interjecting—ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—He probably is—you can take me on if you want to, Parliamentary Secretary. I am more than able to look after myself on these things. But, at the end of the day, Senator O'Brien tells me there are 1.1 million bales out there in private hands. All in all that adds up to two million bales at least of product that is hanging over the market. Price recovery, I hope, is going to be a feature of the late 1990s. I am hoping that, in the next couple of years, wool growers will be able to get a decent price and a decent return for their product, but I do not know that this legislation is really going to help that because it puts a large question mark over where things are going to go.There is no doubt that anyone buying serious amounts of wool will have to take on board what is going to happen with the stockpile. It is now frozen. There is no longer the regulated sale of this commodity over a lengthy period of time. It is going to hang there with the question: what will exactly happen with this? That is probably as far as government can go on this issue. The wool industry itself will have to seriously look at marketing and will have to seriously look at alternative uses for its product, as indeed other fabrics and other products that have come in and taken wool's share of the market have done. Over the last 10 and 15 years in particular other fabrics are being more widely worn in all parts of the world and wool's actual market share has shrunk considerably over this time in a whole range of different ways. The wool industry is going to have to look at some of the more interesting alternatives for the sale of its product.I leave my remarks here tonight with a question mark over what a total freeze will tell the wool buying community out there. What is going to be their reaction to this? I do not know whether or not we will see a hardening of wool prices as a result of this legislation going through. We may. But I would think that, at the end of the day, this one will probably have less than an 18-month expected Senator Crane life. I suspect this one may last for a short while, but ultimately wool is a commodity. It is bought and sold and, if there is massive oversupply or potential oversupply because of a large amount of wool that could go on the market from private growers irrespective of this legislation, then the price, I suspect, will remain soft.I am not sure which way the Asian crisis is going. I hope the economic reports that are coming in telling us that things have bottomed out there are correct, because this is very important not only for wool but for all of our commodities, for our trade in general. Indeed, we had a positive trade balance with many societies until the Asian crisis came along. Now we no longer have that positive trade balance. There are many societies now—and Malaysia is one—from which we are importing much more than we are exporting to them. One would hope that balance in the trade will come back. That is essential.I am not so sure that this legislation is going to do much for that. I am not so sure it is really going to steady that price up over the next so many years. I suspect that is probably why a number of growers have taken the same view. It may well be that all the growers are unanimous on this and that the Senate has been told a bunch of—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Porkies.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Not porkies, Senator Forshaw. It has been told some misconceptions. It may well be the case that there are some confused growers out there giving different signals. But, at the end of the day, it would appear that this is more a measure in panic. This measure may achieve the goal, but I doubt it. My suspicion is that it will soon fail, even if it succeeds in the short run.17:57:001350Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—in reply—I thank honourable senators for their contribution to the debate on the Wool International Amendment Bill 1998 . I will leave aside Senator Quirke's remarks for the moment. They were a fascinating excursion into history and fashion, but I suspect they did not tell us a lot that we did not already know. The purpose of this bill, as has been remarked, will free sales from the Wool International stockpile and allow Wool International to support and commit funds to a process of privatisation.Before I go on with the government's comments on the reasons for us doing this, I would like to make a few comments on what opposition senators have said. I agree with them that wool industry support for the freeze is mixed, but it is certainly not the almost total blanket opposition to the wool freeze that they have suggested. Some of the major organisations were initially opposed, such as the Wool Council of Australia, some of the state farmer organisations, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, and a number of brokers and processors. But there were also some very strong sources of support—the Australian Stud Merino Breeders Association, the Western Australian Farmers Federation, the South Australian Farmers Federation, the Australian Wool Growers Association, and again some processors and brokers. The Senate may be interested to know that, in the month following the announcement of the freeze, the ministerial office received, from mainly growers: 383 letters in favour of the freeze, including 144 also in favour of privatisation; 54 against the freeze; and 45 undecided. I point out to those opposite that many wool growers in my experience are not members of grower organisations. They make up their own minds on these issues. We at least are listening to the grassroots on this decision, unlike the Labor Party.It may also have escaped the attention of Senator Murphy and Senator West that, at the Senate hearing, the Wool Council and the PGA withdrew their opposition to the freeze, urging the government to move on with privatisation and not to revisit the freeze decision. Certainly my electorate office in Melbourne received phone calls on this issue, and I would have to say that they were split fifty-fifty as far as being for and against the freeze decision. I believe there has been strong grassroots support for this decision. The government needed to take decisive action, and decisive action has been taken.With regard to Senator Murphy's points about the constraints of government legislation, Wool International has, I believe, managed the sale of the stockpile as best it could. I agree with Senator Murphy that the constraints of legislation, as Wool International and its executive director, Dr Bob Richardson, have consistently stated, have made the job more difficult. That is exactly what this bill is removing. It is allowing the privatisation of the stockpile, eventually free of statutory constraints. It is laying the groundwork for that. Senator Murphy asked, `What will be the position in six to 12 months time?' If this bill gets through the Senate, as I sincerely hope it does, the position in six to 12 months time will be that growers will be able to make their own decision as to what they would like to do with the stockpile and the way in which they would like to organise their own industry.Senator O'Brien commented on the coalition government's reaction to primary industry and agriculture since we won office in 1996. Our actions consistently have shown that we take a long view of primary industry. We have moved to give control of the wheat industry back to wheat growers. We have moved to give control of the meat industry back to processors and producers. We make the industry responsible for its own affairs. That is exactly what we will eventually do with the wool industry, and this bill before us today is the first stage in that.The freeze, as is proposed by the government, prevents Wool International from entering into contracts for the sale of stockpile wool in the period to 30 June 1999. It is also prevented from entering into forward contracts for the period beyond the freeze. This bill does not prevent Wool International from honouring existing contracts. Wool International can and will deliver any wool contracted for sale before the suspension of sales on 15 October 1999.The freeze of the stockpile has many benefits. It assists wool growers by shifting all the demand to the fresh wool market and growers have an opportunity to increase their income by releasing wool from privately held stocks as well as this year's clip. I know, as well as the opposition knows, that there is a great deal of wool stored in wool sheds and stored in a private holding capacity. This bill will allow those growers who have taken that commercial decision to release that wool onto the commercial market. This bill holds real benefits for growers, and they are not just based on political outcomes. It allows growers a breathing space before privatisation and, with regard to the reduction of the supply that this bill will bring about, there will be less impact on the marketplace. I would advise the Senate to disregard Senator O'Brien's wild statements on prices that have been up or down since the announcement of the freeze.This bill, it is important to point out, does not privatise Wool International, nor does it specify any particular form of privatisation. It simply allows Wool International to support and commit funds to the privatisation process, and in the new year the government will be introducing legislation to implement that privatisation. The new private entity, whatever it is, will commence operations from 1 July 1999. In the meantime, the government is developing details of that privatisation.The concept of it is to convert wool growers' equity in Wool International into equity, perhaps in the form of shares, in a new entity established under the Corporations Law—that is, a demutualisation. It will put ownership and control of the wool stockpile in the hands of the wool growers. It will remove government involvement from management of the stockpile, just as we have already done through bills that we have passed with regard to the meat and wheat industries.The process of demutualisation will be led by the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing within the Finance and Administration portfolio. That office will work jointly with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. There will obviously be high quality business and legal advisers to develop that proposal, which will be the most efficient and cost effective of those available. But it will also be one that protects the interests of equity holders, staff and other stakeholders as much as possible.We are considering mechanisms for industry to prepare for the privatisation, including through the proposed NFF Wool Industry Advisory Committee. We propose to do this by establishing an interim advisory board which will, I would like to assure Senator Margetts, consult with wool industry representatives and the aforementioned advisers. It will also allow industry to consider any proposals for the future of the new Wool International entity by groups such as the Australian Wool Growers Group and, more recently, by other industry proponents, and it will develop a draft business plan for the proposed privatised entity. Any decision on the business plan will be for the board of the newly privatised entity and its shareholders after 1 July 1999, not the interim advisory board and not the government. All of these decisions will be made by the newly privatised entity.As I said, we intend to introduce legislation in the new year to implement the preferred privatisation option, and that will, of course, be subject to normal parliamentary scrutiny. This decision will, I believe, end the damaging debate within the industry over stockpile issues, and I would agree with all senators who have said that the past 10 years have probably been quite damaging for the wool industry. But decisive intervention or decisive action is needed now, and it will be the last intervention by the government.The future roles of the stockpile of the industry will be based on commercial decisions in the interests of the equity holders—that is, the shareholders—with no Commonwealth involvement. As I said, we take a long-term view of industry rather than a short-term view, and we have taken the decision to hand primary industry over to its stakeholders.Many comments were made during the debate about the reason for the low wool prices during the last 10 years. There are many reasons for this, as senators have commented. There has been low demand in world markets. There has been low productivity in wool production. There has been a lack of strong industry leadership, and I think some of the fragmented views coming from the industry as a whole during this debate would lead senators to agree with this. But there is also the overall need to provide a high quality fibre that meets the needs of its customers. That is the only way in which we are going to sell more wool, which would achieve a rise in prices which would no doubt make every wool grower in Australia very happy.Let us get on with this. I am gratified to see that Senator Margetts acknowledged that, in spite of the disparate views of industry, in spite of some of the issues that have been put forward in the debate, we basically need to get on with it. The views on the release of wool from the stockpile range from zero release to 15,000 bales per quarter. I think it is fair to say that everyone who has contributed to this debate, bar some opposition senators, are looking to the future of the wool industry. This bill is a move in the right direction. I thank honourable senators for their contribution.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.1352The bill.18:09:001352Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—As I indicated in my speech at the second reading stage, the opposition proposes to move a set of amendments to the Wool International Amendment Bill 1998 which would provide for the application of what is known as the chill option. Rather than have a full blown freeze, wool from the stockpile will be able to be disposed of by Wool International up to an amount of not more than 15,000 bales per quarter or such larger quantity as the minister may determine. The sole purpose of that would be to enable Wool International to cover operating costs, in particular, interest payments that Wool International may be subject to with respect to the debt.I would like to respond to some of the rather outrageous remarks and distortions from Senators McGauran and Macdonald. I do not know whether it is the fact that, of the speakers from the government side, it was the two National Party senators who resorted to distortion and outrageous comments, but I think that is illustrative of a certain bias in their position. We all know that at the heart of this issue that has caused such heartache to the wool industry over quite a number of months—it has certainly caused some tensions within the government and in the cabinet—is the differing attitudes that emerge from time to time between the National Party and the former minister, who claims to have represented the interests of the industry, and the ministers from the Liberal Party who really control the agenda in the government.The first distortion that was made by Senator Macdonald related to my speech at the second reading stage. He claimed that I had said that the debt had exploded. I never said that at all. I have here the Hansard pink. I invite Senator Macdonald to have a look at it and certainly to have a look at the proof Hansard when it is issued tomorrow. I said no such thing. What I said and what I reiterate is that which is contained in the Senate legislation committee's report. That is, I referred to the fact that the debt for the stockpile was now some $200 million and that, while certainly at a level that nobody feels very comfortable with, it was neverthe less substantially less than the original debt of some $2.8 billion.I acknowledged in my remarks the fact that, over the period of time that there had been a selling down of the stockpile, the debt had come down. I also said something that has been recognised by Senator Crane and recognised in evidence to the committee. That is, over the course of the last year or so, we have had a situation in the industry of severely depressed prices and of problems in the market. China, Japan and Korea were not purchasing the quantities that they have done in the past. This was impacting upon the program of selling the stockpile, upon growers' equity, upon price and obviously upon the debt. I might quote from the Hansard to back this up. On page 12 in his evidence, Mr Thirkell-Johnston said:So there has been a significant loss of equity while this process has taken place, and there are costs in freezing the stockpile. You have got the added debt which will be added during the period that it is frozen and before sales can resume.As the Chair, Senator Crane by way of comment asked this question:Isn't the real issue here, though, in terms of that loss of value, the slide that was allowed to go unabated from December 1997 to August 1998, when we saw almost $200 million wiped off the value of the stockpile? That is the real reason why there has been a slide in the value; it is nothing to do with what is going to happen in the future. Isn't the challenge to rebuild the value of the stockpile?Mr Thirkell-Johnston responded:The challenge is to rebuild the value of the stockpile, but the stockpile will go down in value because it is occurring—I think that should be `incurring'—costs servicing the debt between now and the time that sales resume, and the longer you go until the sales resume that debt has to be serviced. Whilst we all expect wool prices in the cycle to improve, how long is that going to take? The prognosis for the future certainly shows no reason why wool prices would lift significantly certainly before March next year. Hopefully, they will lift then looking towards the next autumn-winter season in the northern hemisphere. As you have heard earlier, the prospects are not that good, so you are probably looking at another year out. The longer you go without selling and the longer you contain it, you have to service $200 million worth of debt.The Hansard continues:CHAIR—I hope you are not suggesting that the government should have allowed the slide to continue and the price to sit down around the 460c or below.Mr Thirkell-Johnston—Certainly not.CHAIR—Would you agree that any costs involved in privatisation have been more than regained by the small increase in the price of wool?Mr Thirkell-Johnston—No, I would not agree with that.CHAIR—Well, what figure would you put on it?Mr Thirkell-Johnston—I think the figures will show that between now and July, it will probably cost growers $21 million—somewhere between $20 and 25 million—to continue to service that debt in Wool International's caretaker operations. The market movement since the freeze is not really due to the freeze; it is due to external circumstances in global demand for wool and what is happening in our major customer countries.I end the quote there, but Mr Thirkell-Johnston does go on to comment, for instance, how the Chinese have come back into the market in the intervening period.As I have said, I do not know where Senator Macdonald got the idea that I had said the debt had exploded, because that is totally incorrect; I never said that. But certainly the evidence and Senator Crane's own contributions indicate that the current debt is still a problem—and it is a problem that needs to be addressed.One of the proposals to address that problem is the option that has been put forward by sections of the industry and which we believe the Senate should take into account in amending the bill accordingly. That is that, rather than allow that extra $21 million of debt to accumulate over the course of the projected freeze through to July next year, it would be better to allow Wool International, as the terms of our amendment state, to have the power to sell during what would then be termed `the restricted period; and that power may be exercised only to the extent that in each quarter the wool stockpile may be reduced by not more than 15,000 bales.We believe that that is a sensible proposal. It is one that was put forward and strongly supported by sections in the industry. I take the parliamentary secretary's comment that, at the hearing, certain of the organisations appearing before us said, `Well, look, now the freeze is in place, we don't want to go back and overturn it all again.' Nobody is suggesting that—and certainly we are not suggesting that.We say, and we acknowledge, that, whilst we believe that the original decision was wrong, whilst the bulk of the industry believe that the original decision was wrong, we have moved a bit too far down the road since then and the last thing we want to do is follow one bad decision with a reversal which will only cause further problems in terms of the market by demonstrating further uncertainty, further instability. Ultimately, that is what is at the heart of this issue—that is, regaining the confidence of the market and getting people, or the other countries particularly, to come back in and purchase our wool and get the price to increase. We have put forward our amendments, as have been circulated, on the basis that there is a recognition that the debt will grow over the course of the next six months by the estimate of $21 million—and that $21 million reflects the cost of servicing the current debt of $200 million.There are two other comments I would make and a question I would ask of the parliamentary secretary. Senator McGauran, in his contribution—and I am not sure what sort of a contribution it was; to be honest, I think it was rather flippant—said, `Oh well, it was all John Kerin's fault.' Also, as the government says and we acknowledge, the heart of this proposed legislation is ultimately to put the control in the hands of the growers.We do not dispute that and, indeed, we have acknowledged it. We have acknowledged it in the changes to the wheat industry. We have acknowledged it in the legislation that has gone through this parliament in regard to the meat processing industry. We acknowledge it because we claim some credit for some of this—or a great deal of it. We started many of these processes off under ministers in the previous Labor government, and I refer in particular to former Ministers Bob Collins, Simon Crean and John Kerin. That is where a lot of this movement started.If you listened today, you would think that all of these organisations in the rural sector have been run not by growers but simply by government bureaucrats. You would think, to listen to what has been said particularly by the government, that somehow the growers have never, ever had a say in the running of their own industry.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—That's rubbish.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—It is rubbish, and I think it should be put to bed. Whilst these structures have devolved over a number of years, have had legislative underpinning, and have been statutory authorities or government corporations such as the Wool Corporation, they have still had at the heart a large measure of grower or industry ownership and control. You can look at the people who used to be on the Wheat Board or the board of the Wool Corporation. The people who are on the board of AWRAP have just been sacked by the industry. What happens in AWRAP? When the industry members, the growers, said that they had no confidence in the board of AWRAP, the obligation was on the minister to dismiss them. No ifs, no buts—that was the outcome.If you look at the board of Wool International, there have been grower representatives there as well. Of course, if you go right back to the start of the problems with the build-up of the stockpile, the decisions to set the high reserve prices were not made by government in isolation. They were decisions made by industry personnel, and they were accepted by the government of the day.So the point I am making here is that we hear a heck of a lot from the representatives of the government suggesting that somehow the industry should bear no responsibility for the problems. Senator McGauran says it is all the Labor government's fault or it was all John Kerin's fault. That is totally untrue and should be rejected. I seek leave to move opposition amendments Nos 1 to 8.Leave granted.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 to 8:(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), after item 1, insert:1A Section 4 (at the end of the definition of disposal schedule )Add "and 20A". (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 11 to 14), omit the item, substitute:2 Section 18 Insert: restricted period means the period beginning on 1 October 1998 and ending on the day on which the assets and liabilities of Wool International are transferred to a company registered under the Corporations Law for the purposes of taking over the assets and liabilities of Wool International.(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 17), omit " freeze ", substitute " restricted period ".(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 21), omit "excluded", substitute "restricted".(5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (lines 25 to 27), omit subsection (1), substitute: (1) Wool International's power to enter into a contract, on or after the restricted period commencement day but before the end of the restricted period, for the sale of stockpile wool, is limited by subsection (1A). (1A) Wool International's power to dispose of stockpile wool during the restricted period may be exercised only to the extent that in each quarter the wool stockpile may be reduced by not more than 15,000 bales or such larger quantity as the Minister determines is necessary to cover the operating costs of Wool International, including interest payments for which Wool International is liable, for a particular quarter. (1B) A determination made under subsection (1A) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . Note: The heading to section 20A is omitted and replaced with the heading "Limitation on disposal during restricted period ".(6) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 29), omit "freeze", substitute "restricted period".(7) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 2), omit "excluded", substitute "restricted".(8) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 5), omit "excluded", substitute "restricted".18:24:001355Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I want to speak on the amendments moved by the Labor Party. Again, as I said in the second reading debate, the Labor Party is really trying to play catch-up here. You ought to go back and read the transcript of the hearing which we held, because the chill option was raised a number of times. All the witnesses said, `That was our preference, but we've moved past that now. We can't go back to that.' I know the Wool Council has been running around today trying to get support for the chill option, knowing that the Labor Party would move that amendment here.The Wool Council are also behind the game. That is the problem. They also have been trying to play catch-up in this whole debate. If you do not believe me, let me read what Mr Gooch, who is from the Western Australian Farmers Federation, said about the chill option. I think it is important to put this on the record, because he was just one of a number of witnesses who made the same point. The chair asked this question of Mr Gooch:To go back to the situation with the so-called option of the chill freeze, you mentioned it in your presentation, but could you enlarge on what you said? What impact would you see in terms of whether that would be a help or a hindrance to the privatisation and commercialisation process?Mr Gooch said:First of all, an explanation of the effect that the chill or the debt maintenance may have had: it would have been in place for three quarters, which is approximately 45,000 bales. During the election, while the freeze was suspended, 40,000 bales were sold. The net financial result as at 30 June next year is almost negligible. That is the first issue.The chill—the debt maintenance option—was an opportunity for the industry to have a unified view, but it was lost and everybody knows what the consequences have been. The fact that the financial result is almost negligible means that it has had practically no effect on the privatisation issue and the financial surroundings of the privatisation issue. We are now left with either the debt maintenance option or the complete suspension. We have a suspension now, so why don't we stick with it?We have moved beyond the possibility of a chill option. To continue:We are talking about seven months. Why don't we get on with the more important thing—that is, getting this privatisation sorted out.In the end, of course, that is the critical issue. The freeze is simply the beginning of that, and we need to move on. So that is why the Democrats will not support the Labor amendment on the so-called chill option.In terms of the chill option I also wanted to perhaps refute a few things that Senator O'Brien said, because it does affect this particular debate. He asked, `Where is the Democrats' economic analysis?' I might say to you, Senator O'Brien, `Where is the Labor Party's analysis?' You have not put that on the table. Now that you have asked the question, let me put some of the analysis that we did. I can see I am going to run out of time, so I will come back after the break.I might also add that the Democrats—who have very meagre resources to do these things—were not going to do an economic analysis and then spread it all over the countryside. We did it for our own edification. This is just some of the analysis which we had available to us. To start with, we had discussions with Mr Vanne Trompf from the Hamilton branch of the VFF. That went over some months, because he certainly was pressing this issue. That debate with Mr Vanne Trompf has continued. I had correspondence with him in that regard. He and others made mention of the work done by Henry Haszler, which really was economic analysis of the chill option but, as we know, the debate really has gone past that now. That was part of the analysis which we were able to do.I did say in the hearings that the Democrats have looked at economic analyses of this whole stockpile disposal over at least five years. I could go back to the original analysis done by the Balmoral group of the VFF. In fact, their prediction about what would happen proved to be correct.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Before the dinner break I was putting on the record some of the analysis which the Democrats had recourse to in order to support the freeze option and, even more importantly than that, moving to demutualisation and privatisation of the wool stockpile. This was in answer to Senator O'Brien's question in his speech on the second reading about where was the Democrats' economic analysis. I thought I would continue putting that on the record.One of the other pieces of analysis, which has been done over five years, is on the effect of the sales of wool from the stockpile on the fresh wool market. I am going to give you one illustration of that, although it has been done on a number of occasions by different people. I just refer to an analysis done by Tom Silcock from Victoria. It was put on the record in a Senate hearing on 17 June 1996. He gave one example to show the effect of sales of the stockpile at a discounted price on the fresh wool market. He gave the following example:On Thursday 23 November 1995, the market closed at 611 cents eastern market indicator. On Friday 24 November 1995—the following day—Wool International sold all remaining December quarter quota up to 40 cents under the market. The following Monday, 27 November 1995, exporters were appalled by Wool International's actions—their orders and limits had all been reduced for next day's auction. On Tuesday 28 November 1995, when the market opened it fell 36 cents to 575 cents eastern market indicator.That is just one example of the kind of analysis, which has been going on for five years, which supports the contention that something had to be done. We may still argue about whether there needs to be a chill or a freeze—and I guess that is what this debate is about—but there should be no argument about the fact that the sale of wool from the stockpile at a discounted price is one of the factors in reducing the price for fresh wool sold at auction. There is no doubt about that in my mind anyway.That kind of analysis has been given to a number of Senate inquiries between 1993 and 1998. I am not going to go through all the Hansards, but they are there for anyone who wishes to read them. At each of those Senate inquiries there were various economic models and economic analyses given of the reasons for low prices for fresh wool in the market. We have come back into this place and amended the Wool International Bill 1993 on a number of occasions because of the concern of the effect of selling wool from the stockpile. In 1996 and 1997, the government itself altered the amount of wool which needed to be sold to try to relieve the pressure on the fresh wool market.Senator O'Brien raised the problem of the Australian Wool Growers Association analysis, which was done by Stuart Coppock, and said that that was in conflict with the position put by, for example, the Wool Council, New South Wales farmers and a few other groups. I have only had a chance to compare those analyses very quickly, but as I did so I discovered, as I suppose everybody does, that they were using different analyses in order to prove different points or to support different positions. Simply because one analysis is not supported by another analysis does not mean that either of them is wrong; it simply means that we all use figures and statistics to support our own position. Other senators, if they wish, can make the same comparison between the different submissions which were made to the committee.I thank Senator Crane, who supplied to me over the last couple of months a number of various economic analyses that he did, not on behalf of the government necessarily but for himself as his own analysis of what was going on in the wool industry. You can argue that Senator Crane wanted to support his own position. Well, of course, he did. Nevertheless, what he supplied were economic analyses. One does get a little irritated by the claim made, for instance, by the Victorian Farmers Federation pastoral group that they were operating out of an economic analysis and everybody else who supported the freeze option was operating out of a political agenda. It is easy to make that claim.Within the church we often have the same kind of debate where people on one side will say, `We believe the Bible, but you don't. That is the problem.' It is almost the same kind of debate: `We have the truth and you are operating out of a political agenda.' I simply do not accept that. We operate from different agendas and different positions, but let us not claim for our position absolute truth and for every other position absolute error. That is just not how it operates in the real world.Perhaps one final piece of information is that I discussed this whole issue with Senator Andrew Murray—a Democrat colleague of mine who has an economics degree, who is a businessman and who understands markets—very fully and he certainly supported the direction taken by this legislation. That just puts on the record the fact that the Democrats, and I am sure the government, are not simply operating out of a political agenda. We have made use of the various economic analyses which have been given to us. We certainly understand the politics which are operating, but we are seeking to do the very best for the industry that we can. While it was possible to promote and support a chill option some months ago—although there are a number of people who tell me that that would not have worked either—it is no longer possible to do so. For that reason, the Democrats will not support the Labor amendments.19:38:001357O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—In relation to the Labor amendments before the chair, it ought to be understood that the difference essentially between the opposition and the government-Democrat arrangement is that the opposition is supporting the view of the majority of the industry—as reflected by the Wool Council, the New South Wales Farmers Association, the Victorian Farmers Federation, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association and the United Graziers of Queensland—based on the economic analysis by ABARE of the effect of the freeze on the industry and on the stockpile. We are of the view that the majority industry position which existed prior to the government's decision on the freeze is still able to be implemented. Indeed, that is the evidence which the committee received last Friday week from Wool International. As I understand it, the Wool Council is of the view that, if Wool International believes that is still an option, it ought to be supported. When you get down to it, the difference between our position and that of the government and the Democrats is that we say approximately 15,000 bales per quarter ought to be able to be sold to meet the interest costs and the operating costs of Wool International pending its privatisation or demutualisation. That seems to me to hardly be a heretical departure from the position the government takes, but it would require a departure. It would also require of the Democrats a departure from the position they have been taking for some months now.What effect would that have? Let me refer you to the evidence which we took from Mr Laird of the Australian Wool Growers Association about what has been happening in the market over recent weeks. At page 20 of the committee Hansard, I asked Mr Laird the following:Senator O'BRIEN—Right. So we have taken a minimum of 90,000 bales from the stockpile out of the market and they have been replaced with 75,000 bales in the last fortnight from the private stockpile.Mr Laird—Yes. But what you have to realise is that the private stockpile is held commercially. It is held by us—Senator O'BRIEN—I understand that.Mr Laird—and it is a commercial decision as to when we want to sell it.The opposition's point in relation to the freeze, which I clearly outlined in my speech in the second reading debate, is that the freeze imposes a penalty on Wool International unit holders. The information we have is that, when coupled with the costs of privatisation—which the evidence tells us will be somewhere between $4 million and $5 million—the unit holders of Wool International will pay somewhere between $25 million and $30 million for the privilege of having their asset frozen and demutualised so that holders of private stock can take advantage of the market.We are saying that, if there is any view in the industry which has some degree of common support, it is that there should be enough of the stockpile sold merely to pay the interest costs on the debt, the storage costs and the administrative costs of Wool International. Let us forget for a moment about the costs of the demutualisation and privatisation, because that is dealt with in another amendment. We are saying that those unit holders, quite a number of whom have provided their units as security for loans, not be disadvantaged by a freeze which is preventing the sale of at least 90,000 bales per quarter—the evidence we have is that is being replaced substantially out of the private stockpile—but that about 15,000 bales of their assets be sold to meet their costs so they are not $20 million, $25 million or $30 million out of pocket at the end of the process. The evidence before the committee tells us that the cost of the freeze together with the cost of privatisation will range somewhere between $25 million and $30 million.So that is the difference between the positions. We are saying that this is an achievable target compared with the amount of wool from the private stockpile which is going onto the market now. According to evidence—evidence that was not contradicted—given before the committee by an organisation that advocates the freeze, 15,000 bales or thereabouts are going onto the market compared to 75,000 bales from the private stockpile. We believe that Wool International unit holders who do not hold or do not seek to sell private stockpile wool ought not be disadvantaged in the interests of those private stockpile holders who do seek to sell their wool, who do seek to take advantage of the market conditions which are created by the freeze on the wool stockpile. Frankly, if the intent of the legislation is to restrict the amount of wool going onto the market and thereby somehow affect the price, isn't it just as possible that all you will do is create the opportunity—in fact, that is what the evidence is showing—for private stockpile wool to fill that gap?We were also given incontrovertible evidence that the price, although it initially rose, has come down again. We had evidence that a total freeze is not going to have the substantial effect on the price that some people had hoped. We had evidence that, if we sell from the stockpile only the amount necessary to meet those costs, at least there will be an equitable position which holders of Wool International units can be satisfied with—that is, that to all intents and purposes there is a freeze with the exception of the amount of wool necessary to cover their costs.I put it to the Senate that if this bill is passed without the amendments we propose there will be winners and losers. The winners will be those people who hold private wool stockpile and who seek to sell it. The losers will be those people who hold Wool International units and who choose not to sell any private stockpile they might hold.This issue is complex. In terms of an outcome for the industry, there is a lot of black and white and grey. The Labor Party have looked at what the majority of the industry want in relation to this bill. The evidence is that they support the chill option and not the freeze option. We have looked at the available economic modelling and decision making on this issue. I must say, Senator Woodley, that what you said in the committee stage of this debate was the first time I had heard you outline the detail of any economic evidence that you have. To this point in time, the impartial, authoritative evidence—if I can put it that way—is supportive not of the freeze but of the chill option. I do not seek to simply put down the source of your economic advice, but I would like to have the opportunity to analyse it more thoroughly.On the material that was available to the committee, it seems that the only reasonable conclusion we could have come to was that the government did not take the best option when it decided to support the freeze. The government had better advice and chose not to use it. We have the benefit now—and, indeed, the government has the benefit—of accepting the chill option, of accepting the sale of what is essentially a very small part of the wool stockpile and providing equity to those Wool International unit holders.If the legislation is carried without amendment, then I go back to what I said in my speech at the second reading stage—that is, that there will be a series of unit holders who will be economically disadvantaged by that decision. I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary as to what the government's view is about that matter and what advice, if any, the government has on the potential liability which might arise from a decision to freeze the stockpile and impose costs on unit holders, having regard to the evidence which Wool International presented to the committee.19:51:001359Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—To take your last comment first, Senator O'Brien, the effect on the unit holders is something that could be discussed when we are dealing with the other amendment. In your amendment, which we are discussing at the moment, we are simply talking about the freeze as compared with the chill, which is what you propose. The government does not support those proposed amendments because they do not deliver all the benefits to the market of a freeze. They would divert demand from the fresh wool market and they would only prolong the uncertainty. As I said in my earlier remarks, we need to move on.Any stockpile sales in the current climate would reduce the opportunity for growers to sell this season's clip. Suspending the stockpile sales, as we provide for in this bill, will allow growers to release some of their wool stocks, whether it is off the sheep or out of the woolshed, and they will be able to realise some much needed cash in the current difficult market circumstances. So I agree with Senator Woodley, and the government will be opposing this amendment.19:53:001359Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I listened very carefully to what Senator O'Brien was saying. I think he puts a very good case for the chill option, but it is a bit late. I have the Hansard in front of me. Certainly Senator O'Brien gave an accurate account of what was in the Hansard as far as it goes, but he could have gone on and said that I made the point that not only were the 75,000 bales from the private stockpile sold but also—and I don't have the figure—an amount of fresh wool was sold at auction. The effect of that on the industry has been to give a lot of confidence back to the industry.The effect on the unit holders of the stockpile being frozen would be a serious issue if we did not understand that there are a number of private offers on the table. They certainly project a very good result if the total stockpile is sold according to one of those offers. All of the offers that I have seen are well above the current market price, so there will be a profit to the unit holders if the privatised company decides to go ahead and accept one of those offers. If it doesn't, then it will be making a commercial judgment that it can do even better by holding on to the stockpile. But that is a decision for that new company when it is put in place.So while I think Senator O'Brien presents some pretty good arguments for the position he is putting, I do not think those arguments stand up in the situation we are now faced with, which is to have the freeze in place so that we can put the whole problem to one side and then move ahead to the demutualisation and privatisation. That will be the opportunity for the industry to take control of its own destiny.19:55:001360Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I rise to respond to the comments just made by Senator Woodley and also by the parliamentary secretary regarding this notion that unless we have a total freeze, which the government is proposing and the Democrats are supporting, then somehow we will not be moving ahead. Senator Woodley just used the words that we have to `move ahead', and that somehow, therefore—I think I am interpreting him correctly—we cannot be revisiting the issue of the chill option. I would be willing to accept that argument if it had been the case that all of the witnesses who came along to the hearing the other day and who made their position very clear as to what their views were just prior to August, when the government made its first announcement, had said: `Look, it doesn't matter what we thought then; we now want the freeze.' That is not what the evidence was.As Senator O'Brien pointed out, the various organisations made it clear that, firstly, they opposed the freeze and, secondly, they supported the chill option but, thirdly, a number of them made it clear—and subsequently we have been made aware—that they still believe that is an option, one that was to be properly considered by the committee. That is why we took evidence on that Friday, the 27th. As far as we were concerned—and I am sure as far as quite a number of those organisations that came along and appeared before us were concerned—the possibility of the chill option was still on the table. That is still the position today.We have to be careful that we do not confuse the concern that the industry groups have about a complete reversal, that is, going from no freeze to an announcement about a freeze on 4 August, with the intervening period when there was an election and Wool International was, in effect, prohibited from having a freeze because legislation required them to continue to sell down from the stockpile and then subsequent to the election the minister announcing that the government would present legislation forthwith to the parliament to enact the freeze. That has been pretty much the history.As a result of that uncertainty, organisations were making two things clear to us: firstly, `We do not want chopping and changing, we do not want a complete reversal'; but, secondly, in their view the chill option was still a viable option and one that should be considered. That was made clear by Mr Thirkell-Johnston of the Wool Council. I asked him specifically:What is the position of the Wool Council now? Is there acceptance—that is, of the freeze—simply because Cabinet made the decision and that is it? Or do you feel that the issue should be looked at further and that possibly the freeze should not be enacted or that one of the other options should be considered?He said:I think we should still support the chill option but I doubt whether it is possible now.He wasn't saying, `Don't do it.' He was saying, `We would still support that option,' but that he had doubts about whether it was possible to bring it about.Further on at page 9 of the Hansard, he said:I think we are still of the opinion that Wool International should be allowed to keep contact with its customers.Subsequently, we know that the position of the Wool Council is that it believed the chill option to still be a viable option and one that should be considered. I remind senators again that that is what we were doing on that Friday. There was no point in having the hearing of the Senate select committee unless we considered not only the government's decision for a freeze and how that came about and who supported it and who did not but also what the alternatives were and whether they were still ones that were available to be put into place either in lieu of the freeze or in conjunction with it.I do not need to quote in detail, but the Victorian Farmers Federation made it clear on page 25 of the Hansard that they still sup ported the chill option. The New South Wales Farmers made it clear and the United Graziers Association of Queensland have made it clear. As we are advised, there is nothing that prevents it from being put into place. So we reject this notion that somehow we are preventing the industry from going forward. Indeed, the chill option only arises on the basis that, firstly, you have a freeze of sales from the stockpile other than for this limited exemption; that is why it is called the chill option. If people were able to listen tonight, they might be wondering what we are talking about with all this freezing and chilling. But we all know what we are talking about. A chill is, in effect, a form of a freeze.Secondly, it is intended to be put into place to enable the industry to go forward through the privatisation or demutualisation process but in a way which ensures that the ongoing costs and debt servicing costs of Wool International will be met over the next six months or so. As a result of that process, as Senator O'Brien has so eloquently argued, we will not be impacting upon, to their detriment, the equity of those unit holders.I think it is a lost cause, but I appeal to Senator Woodley to think about it again. We are not trying to stop the industry going forward. We are saying that the industry should go forward and that it should go through the process of demutualisation. Wool International should be privatised. That should be done within the time frame that has been outlined; we have grave doubts about that. We will ask some questions about it shortly. We should do it with the overwhelming support of the bulk of the industry organisations, which is to allow some very limited sales of that stockpile to occur to cover those costs.20:03:001361Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—Although Senator Woodley said in not so many words that there were lies, damned lies and statistics, I suspect that on this occasion we have quotes, quotes and selective quotes. Paragraph 3.25 on page 11 of the committee's report states: Although opposed to the freeze, by the time the Wool Council appeared before the Committee . . . it had accepted that the freeze was going to come into place. According to Mr Thirkell-Johnston ". . . we have gone beyond the position of no return as far as the freeze is concerned."So there is a variety of views. Again:The Western Wool Growers, Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, expressed a similar view . . . `. . . the realities of life are such that the freeze is in place now . . . So the decision to make the freeze is now history. I believe, and our association believes, that it is time to move forward—`time to move forward' is exactly the phrase that Senator Woodley and I have used—and deal with the freeze in the best possible way.'You will always find associations and individuals who disagree, obviously, with the decision that the government has taken. But, for the reasons I have outlined, the government believes that this is the best decision, and that is the way we are going to move.20:05:001361O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I will bring those quotations up to date. On page 15 of the Hansard , Mr Thirkell-Johnston was asked questions about reconsidering the chill option. At the top of page 13, he said:If you want my personal opinion—talking about the chill option—I think it would still be a better way if it were possible, but I doubt whether it is practically possible.I then said:We may ask Dr Richardson to take that on notice as well as the other questions.Having been at all the inquiry's hearings, I can tell you that Dr Richardson did take it on notice. In response to a question on notice, he said that it was feasible. My understanding, from talking to Mr Thirkell-Johnston at that hearing, was that he accepted, if it were possible, that the chill option was the better way to go.I am not trying to prolong this debate. However, the suggestion is that there was selective quoting or misquoting of the facts. They are the facts. That is the more up-to-date position which Mr Thirkell-Johnston took at the hearing. It is all very well to say `Go forward', but we have said—and I do not think I need repeat it—that the proposal now before the Senate is one that puts the unit holders backward. It does not advance them at all.20:06:001362Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I put to Senator O'Brien that the question before the Senate now is whether to freeze or not to freeze. Who is playing politics now? The government is playing policy here in the best interests of the wool growing industry of Australia. We have stated our position, and I believe that it is the right one.20:07:001362Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I have to rise because I object strongly to the suggestion that I have selectively quoted from the Hansard in order somehow to use an answer to establish a proposition that was not otherwise evident. I will read out the full quote for the benefit of the parliamentary secretary, who of course did not have the benefit of being at the hearing. This quote is from pages 14 and 15 of the Hansard , which is after the quotations that you referred to, Parliamentary Secretary, that come from the majority report.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Just as you quoted from the minority report.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—It is a pity; if you just listened, Parliamentary Secretary, you might learn. After asking Mr Thirkell-Johnston as to the position of the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, which supports the chill option, Senator O'Brien asked:Is the position of the TFGA that they still support that option?Mr Thirkell-Johnston —They would still support that. They were the strongest group opposing the freeze in the original argument.Senator O'Brien —Are you saying that the Wool Council would not support that option and would not support a move to amend the legislation now before the Senate to that effect?—very pertinent to what we are debating now.Mr Thirkell-Johnston —The point is that we have not discussed whether the legislation could be amended or not. The position that we had taken is that the freeze to all intents and purposes is there. I doubt very much whether you could even amend the legislation. You would have to ask Dr Richardson whether that chill option could now be enacted. I have some doubts whether it could.Senator O'Brien then asked whether, if Dr Richardson from Wool International was of the view that it could be amended, that would have an effect on the Wool Council's views.Mr Thirkell-Johnston replied:I think many of our members would be affected, but not all, by any means. You would have to ask the individual states that question as they come before you. If you want my personal option, I think it would still be a better way if it were possible, but I doubt whether it is practically possible.Now the whole point is that Mr Thirkell-Johnston's position on behalf of the Wool Council was not that they were saying that they did not want the chill option anymore. Their position was based upon doubts that it could actually be enacted, because they believed that the freeze that had been announced by the government was, to all intents and purposes, in place and that it would even be doubtful the legislation could be amended to change it to a chill option.The facts of the matter now are that, firstly, that is possible; and, secondly, that the position of the Wool Council has strengthened in recent days and it is now clear from advice that they would have no difficulty with the legislation being amended to enact the chill option rather than the freeze. I believe that needs to be firmly placed on the record, because we are not seeking to quote selectively. This has been a process whereby people's positions have been modified but it is very clear that, once the organisations that have supported the chill option as the best way forward for them have come to the realisation that it is possible to amend this legislation to put that into effect, that is the position that they support in preference to the total freeze, the position of the government and the Democrats. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Forshaw's ) be agreed to.20:15:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)24Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. *Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.41Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. Margetts, D.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Murray, A. O'Chee, W. G. *Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Stott Despoja, N. Tambling, G. E. J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.Woodley, J.Campbell, G. Vanstone, A. E.Crossin, P. M. Tierney, J.Faulkner, J. P. Synon, K. M.Hutchins, S. Newman, J. M.Reynolds, M. Chapman, H. G. P.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.20:19:001363Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—by leave—I move Democrats amendments Nos 1 and 2 on sheet 1190:(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (lines 21 to 28), omit paragraphs (b) and (c).(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 14), after subsection (5), insert: (5A) Nothing in this Act is to be taken to require Wool International to meet any additional expenses incurred either by Wool International or the Commonwealth in connection with the activities referred to in subsection (1).I do not want to speak at great length to these amendments. What they are doing is taking up the cry of not just some of the witnesses—against which we put contrary opinions of other witnesses—but the consistent cry of all the witnesses, whether they come from the Australian Wool Growers Association, from Tasmania, from PGA in Western Australia, from Victorian Farmers or New South Wales Farmers. All of them were of the same opinion, and that was that the decision to move towards the freeze and privatisation really is one taken by government. A lot of concern was expressed that, although government believes that it is for the benefit of wool growers, putting all the costs against Wool International would reduce the amount of equity that wool growers would finally be able to access and that was an imposition on Wool International that ought not to be.I have taken up the concerns of all of the witnesses at the hearing; there was not one who dissented. There was no contrary opinion for one side or the other—all of the witnesses were of one voice on this particular issue. Although I expect I am not going to get support from the government or the opposition on this, I nevertheless put on the record that all the witnesses were on my side on this particular issue.I could have read you the comments of Mr Thirkell-Johnston from the Wool Council, of Mr Laird from the Australian Wool Growers Association, of the Pastoral Group of the Victorian Farmers Federation or of Mr Wolfenden from the New South Wales Farmers Association—I think he is now the president of the Wool Council as well. All of them made this appeal. It is really to do with section 22ZG. As Mr Wolfenden said, `This amendment'—section 22ZG—`is completely open ended and exposes wool growers to possibly unlimited liability.' He is probably overstating it a bit, but he certainly was supporting the position that I am putting. Without labouring the point, I simply say that the Democrats have moved these amendments on behalf of wool growers and particularly on behalf of Wool International so that the equity of unit holders in Wool International will be preserved during the privatisation process.20:23:001364Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we oppose these Democrat amendments. We, therefore, support the provisions contained in the bill—that is, that the expenses incurred in the demutualisation process should be met out of the moneys of Wool International. We also are of the view that there are specific costs incurred by the Commonwealth that should be borne by the Commonwealth rather than costs that should be met out of Wool International funds. For instance, if the minister decides to engage a consultant to advise him or the government on the process of demutualisation, we would see that those costs would be properly borne by the government, not by the industry.We do not see that the provisions of this bill would have that impact. Further, that is an issue that could be followed up through the estimates process in due course. We believe the principle contained here is sound—that is, as the assets of Wool International are held on behalf of, and owned by, the unit holders, the growers, and ultimately the privatisation process is to their benefit, the necessary costs in bringing about that privatisation for the industry's benefit should be borne out of the funds of Wool International.Senator Woodley made the statement that he moved his amendments, not for this reason, but with the comfort that all of the organisations that appeared before the committee, every single one of them, support his proposition. That is a—HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—A strong argument.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—I do not think it is a strong argument. In fact, if anything, Senator Woodley, it probably would make you wonder why, because the industry is putting here that the government should pay rather than the industry should pay. It would be a unique organisation that would say, `If there is a choice between the industry paying and the government paying, we think the industry should pay.' Frankly, that is just not going to happen, and we know that. So I do not think we should get carried away with the fact there was unanimous support within the industry for this proposition. Their claim was, as you have identified, for the government to pick up the tab for a privatisation process which they are demanding and which is ultimately to their benefit.I do not think the fact that you are representing the views of all the farmer organisations on this issue really carries that much weight. If we could transfer the discussion for a moment to the private health insurance levy, at the end of the day it is easy to argue that people want the government to pay rather than themselves. But anyway that is a debate we will have somewhere else.There is a range of issues that we do wish to raise about the process of privatisation and particularly some questions to the parliamentary secretary. We have a great concern that the process will not be finalised within the time period, given the experience that we had within the wheat industry. Despite the assurances that were given to this side of the chamber—and I recall also to the Democrats—that everything would be okay and the time line could be met, it came to pass as we predicted. There were major outstanding issues still to be resolved in that process. There are some issues that still have to be resolved here. There is the issue of taxation liability.It was said to us in evidence in the committee's hearing that the cost of the privatisation was anticipated to amount to only $2 million to $3 million with a very important proviso that stamp duty was not payable at the time of the transfer. I think I am pretty accurately reflecting the words of the witness at that time. Of course, what would be the position if stamp duty were payable at the time of transfer? Secondly, what does that mean for the ultimate stakeholders, the growers, the unit holders in Wool International, in terms of possible future liability? That is one issue that has to be resolved.Secondly, we are going to have a very full schedule when the Senate comes back in 1999. Given the government's proposed legislation, it is difficult to see how sufficient opportunity will be given, firstly, to the industry and, secondly, to the parliament to examine the proposed demutualisation of Wool International. We are very apprehensive that either the proposed time frame will not be met and/or there will be an attempt by the government to push the further legislation through the parliament without the scrutiny that it deserves.I need to place those matters firmly on the record. I cannot claim the same degree of experience in predicting and tipping in this Senate that Senator Woodley was claiming earlier. He does go back a few years more than I do, but I would not mind having a small wager that our predictions will come to pass. With those few remarks at this stage, we support the provisions of the bill and, therefore, will not support the amendments moved by Senator Woodley.20:32:001365Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I would like to place on record the government's view of the Democrat amendments. The government will not be supporting these amendments. We maintain that the cost of privatisation should be met from Wool International funds simply because Wool International unit holders will be the owners of the net assets and will be the major beneficiaries of the change.I also point out to Senator Forshaw that, in relation to his later remarks in that last speech, I did indicate in my second reading speech that we propose to introduce legislation in the new year to implement the preferred privatisation option. This will, of course, be subject to normal parliamentary scrutiny. That is on the record, and the new private entity will commence operations from 1 July 1999.20:33:001365Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I just want to make a couple of very quick comments on Senator Forshaw's speech. He is quite right. It is not because the witnesses all supported the proposition I am putting to the Senate tonight that we wanted to move these amendments; it is more to do with the very arguments that Senator Forshaw put—that is, there are costs within the demutualisation process that, quite rightly, should be borne by government. That is quite clear.It surprised me that the Labor Party did not move an amendment along those lines. I would have thought that, if that was their conviction, they would have moved an amendment which would have allowed for the appropriate costs to be borne by the government and the other costs to be borne by Wool International. That would have been a compromise position that the Democrats would have seriously considered, but the Labor Party did not put that.However, the reason for my raising the whole issue of the witnesses was that that seemed to be the major argument that the Labor Party were using in the previous debate in support of their amendment. So I thought that, if I pointed out to them that all the witnesses were in favour of the amendments I am proposing, they would have embraced it on the same basis because that is what they argued in the previous debate on their amendments, but apparently they are able to change track depending on which amendment it is they are supporting.I will not prolong the debate. I realise that I am not going to get the support here for my amendments. That is a pity because I do believe that we all are keen to make sure that the growers, or the unit holders of Wool International in this case, really will be able to get a maximum benefit from their equity holdings.20:35:001365O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—In relation to the debate we are having about the cost of privatisation and the question of meeting the timetable proposed for the privatisation or demutualisation, could the parliamentary secretary indicate the cost implications of the timetable not being met? That is, would a time overrun in relation to this process influence the extent of costs to be borne by the industry for the privatisation or demutualisation?20:35:001365Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—That is a hypothetical question. At this time there is no thought of an overrun, and the legislation will go in the time line that I have indicated. I welcome your concern, and I look forward to your cooperation in making sure that that time line is adhered to.20:36:001366O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I raise the issue because of the evidence Mr Hutchinson from the Office of Asset Sales gave to the committee on the question of the timetable. He told the committee that the legislation needed to be introduced as early as possible and, after I pointed out to him that the first opportunity would be 15 February, he said:I imagine that we will come under very great pressure to have them available for introduction in that week. Certainly that is the sort of timing we have in mind. It could be a couple of weeks later.I then said:If they are a couple of weeks later they might not be introduced till March.Mr Hutchinson said:I meant a couple of sitting weeks later.Then I asked him:At what time would the legislation need to be in place to allow the timetable that has been set out to be given effect?He said:We would need to be certain of the legislation fairly quickly in order that we could be certain of meeting the timetable. Therefore, we could enter into commitments with respect to debt arrangements and the like—all of which have a significant lead time and all of which involve transition from the government guarantee and the like. We do not have a clear date yet in our minds.Rather than go through it all, Mr Hutchinson later said:. . . if the legislation was not available by early to mid-May at the latest we would be dealing with a very problematic situation, but it may not be a terminal situation.The essence of the evidence was that there was a very strict timetable. I am heartened by the parliamentary secretary's comments that the legislation would be subjected to the normal process and scrutiny. However, there must be some doubt that that timetable would be met.Given that, whilst you may say that the question I ask is hypothetical, we are dealing with an amendment which talks about the imposition of costs upon the industry. To the extent of the timetable of the process, the industry will not control the process yet it may—if my suppositions are correct—face additional costs because of not meeting that timetable. I would not want the government to be saying to the Senate, `Well, it is on your head that that cost is being imposed.' I would have thought that, notwithstanding the provision in the legislation, those are costs which should not be imposed on the industry if it is not their doing that the process is delayed and costs are necessarily incurred.20:39:001366Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I think I have outlined to Senator O'Brien what the time line is. I think you will also find in Mr Hutchinson's remarks that he saw no reason why the time line should not be met. This bill would be given category T status and would proceed along the time line that I have indicated. There would be normal parliamentary scrutiny, and I look forward to the cooperation of the opposition in getting the next bill into and through the Senate.20:39:001366O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—There would be normal cooperation in relation to the legislation. I am asking a specific question which goes to the issue that Senator Woodley raised, although not perhaps in the way that his amendments address it. I put it to you that Mr Hutchinson does envisage the possibility of a time failure in relation to the deadlines that are proposed. I am seeking for the industry some certainty as to the level of costs. We do have evidence that the costs were in the range of $4 million from the Office of Asset Sales, with the expectation that there would be an additional half a million dollars from the department.Then there was the question of stamp duty, which I must say is not resolved with any great clarity because the only information we have from Mr Hutchinson is that `the deal should not attract stamp duty at the time of the demutualisation'. I do not know whether that means that it will attract stamp duty at some other time. It may be that you are not in a position to assist us with that. It was a rather imprecise answer from Mr Hutchinson as to the potential for the imposition of costs after the process as a result of stamp duty. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can assist us now on that.20:41:001367Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I think Senator O'Brien is making the hypothesis that this is going to run beyond the time line and that all these difficulties will then arise. This process, and some of the processes that he is talking about, will be part of a new bill which will deal with this whole process of demutualisation. It will be subject to normal parliamentary scrutiny, and that is when we can look at it.20:42:001367O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—So, if there is an additional cost overrun, the Senate will be happy for that to be imposed on the industry.20:42:001367Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—Your words are `if there is a cost overrun'. This is hypothesis and speculation. We are not dealing with that in this bill. What we are dealing with is the bill as it stands and the two amendments. That is what we are dealing with. We are not going into ifs or hypothesis.Amendments not agreed to.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.1367Bill (on motion by Senator Troeth) read a third time.Bills1367r6001367Debate resumed from 2 December, on motion by Senator Ian Macdonald:That the bill be now read a second time. 20:44:001367Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—The Payment Processing Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 is a complex bill which, in essence, is designed to introduce three significant changes to the social security system. The bill proposes to, firstly, shift the payment system for pensions and allowances away from the payday based payment of the `pension Thursday' system to fortnightly payment in arrears; secondly, allow for individually chosen paydays for pensions; and, thirdly, reduce from 14 days to seven days the notification period for changes in circumstances which affect entitlements.The opposition supports the first two measures but has very serious concerns with the third proposition. It will oppose the reduced notification period and seek to move amendments to maintain the 14-day notification period. The first measure, the change to the administrative procedure for payment of pensions and family allowances by moving away from the single `pension Thursday' system to fortnightly payments in arrears, is, we think, a constructive proposal. It will bring pensions and family allowances into line with other allowances so that they will generally be paid fortnightly and in arrears. We understand, from the government's explanatory memorandum, that this will produce some savings, and it will mean that pension paydays might be spread throughout the week rather than all being on the same `pension Thursday'. Obviously this will increase flexibility and, hopefully, reduce the administrative problems associated with the more rigid structure that is currently in place.The second measure provides that pensioners and family allowance recipients can choose their paydays, although new and existing customers will be encouraged to choose days other than the traditional Thursdays. Obviously, this will spread payments throughout the week which, we understand, will reduce processing times and allow for greater flexibility. Because all pensions are now paid on the same day, the lead-up time to process these 2½ million payments is some six days. When a person notifies Centrelink of a change in circumstances resulting in a decrease in entitlement, and does so within the time allowed, it may nevertheless be too late to alter their entitlement for that fortnight if the processing of their payment is already under way.If pension payments are spread across the fortnight, the lead-up time to process each day's payment will be much shorter and advice of changes in circumstances is more likely to be taken into account in determining entitlement for the fortnight in question. We understand that this also provides savings to the government, but we are also supporting that aspect of the measure as being an improvement in the system generally.Where the opposition differs from the government in terms of this bill is on the government's proposal to reduce the notification period for changes in circumstances by pensioner recipients from the current general 14-day provision to a provision of seven days. We are yet to be convinced of a rationale to support such a change to a shorter period. I know that during the committee inquiry into this bill the Department of Social Security argued that the old 14-day notification period had been based on the use of mail, and that the 14 days had been deemed originally to be reasonable to allow a transfer and processing of mail notification. I think now it is argued that, because of improved technology and the very much phone based system that is often used by Centrelink clients, a shorter period could be implemented.We think, though, that there are real problems with a shorter notification period. I know that it does apply with a number of other pension payments. But we are most concerned that the shorter period may have a very deleterious effect on a number of recipients because, as senators would be aware, failure by a recipient to notify can result in them being in breach and, ultimately, they could be fined or have a loss of entitlement in serious cases. We do not see any justification at this stage in supporting a move to the shorter period. People on pensions do not have large financial reserves, and we think it is important that the system does not penalise them unfairly, does not cause them undue hardship because of what we think would be too short a period in which they have the right to notify of a change in circumstance.We are particularly concerned at this time because of the context in which we are having this debate—the context of the ongoing problems with Centrelink. I think the government's case would be far more convincing if the Senate were assured that all pension recipients would have no difficulty in contacting Centrelink, that notifications were processed quickly and that the Centrelink organisation was responsive to their needs and their notification.But, of course, the history of Centrelink in recent times is very different from that. The problems with Centrelink have been documented and very graphically characterised for us in the Ombudsman's report. We had the situation earlier this year where enormous phone delays were occurring, where people basically could not get through on the telephone to Centrelink to notify it of a change of circumstance. Centrelink encourages people to use the phone, to contact the organisation by that means rather than just fronting up to its office. In the July-August period this year, Centrelink had 900,000 calls of which it could only answer 90,000.With Centrelink, you have an organisation struggling to cope with the demand of inquiries from recipients. The Ombudsman's report detailed the fact that, at various stages, Centrelink is only answering a third of the calls made to it. So we have an organisation that is struggling to answer two-thirds of the calls being made to it; and we have a government saying that we can have a shorter notification period. People are being required to notify Centrelink of changes to their circumstances within seven days rather than 14. The developments are clearly at odds.If Centrelink were proving to be an organisation that was adequately resourced, that was coping well with the demands placed on it, then perhaps one could look at this measure differently. But, from the Labor opposition's point of view—with the history of Centrelink, the history of the underresourcing of that organisation, the very real issues people have in contacting Centrelink and getting service, in working through their problems of notifica tion and other queries—to reduce the notification period at this stage could be a very harsh measure and could unduly deprive people of entitlements through no fault of their own.The Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation put their concerns to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry earlier this year. We know also that Centrelink has been struggling again more recently with the requirement to have `blockout days' where officers have not been taking appointments because they have been using those days to deal with the backlog of work.We have had the recent announcement by the government that the efficiency dividend that they have applied to Centrelink will result in 5,000 more jobs going from Centrelink. Five thousand of the 24,000 jobs currently at Centrelink will be cut, therefore their potential to service their client base is reducing all the time.The pressures on Centrelink are increasing as the government provides more and more work for that organisation to deal with. We just do not think they currently are coping adequately. This is not a criticism of the staff; it is just the reality that they have not got the resources allocated to meet the tasks set for them by government. We also have Centrelink trying to overcome this problem by an increasing reliance on technology, which of course is not always favoured by some of the client groups of Centrelink as they are often unfamiliar with or unhappy with dealing with that sort of technology.So we have got a whole range of issues occurring inside Centrelink that go directly to their ability to service their client base. It just seems to us that, in that context, it is totally inappropriate to be saying to the client base, `You risk being breached, you risk having financial penalties put on you if you fail to notify us of a change of circumstances within seven days,' when the system is clearly incapable of servicing that client base and meeting that seven-day deadline in all circumstances. So, for those reasons in particular, we think the move from 14 to seven days is particularly inappropriate at this stage. We may well have taken that view anyway, but it certainly reinforces our view that now is not the time to reduce the notification period.I notice also that this measure is due to commence on 1 July. July is not a terribly good time for Centrelink from what we have seen in the last year or so. I gather there are child-care funding changes also proposed for the start of the financial year. We just think that Centrelink will be under enormous pressure at that time of the year, and we suspect we might have problems similar to the disaster that was the introduction of the youth allowance last year, where so many clients of Centrelink could not get proper service.Those contextual matters lead us to the position that we want to see the 14-day notification retained. I think the government has yet to make a convincing case for moving from the 14-day to the seven-day notification period anyway. In the absence of that case being put, I think we would have adopted a position of opposition to the reduction in notification, but in the current context I think it is even more important.In conclusion, the opposition supports the bill because we recognise that running costs may indeed be reduced without harm to Centrelink clients by moving away from the overload of administration associated with pension Thursday. We support the rationalisation of payment cycles, but we are convinced that halving the notification period would cause hardship to clients, particularly given that the government has deprived Centrelink of the resources necessary to deliver income support fairly and efficiently within the current 14-day regime. In committee, we will seek the Senate's support to remove those provisions of the bill that would reduce the notification period from 14 to seven days.20:56:001369Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Payment Processing Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 before us tonight will make a number of changes to the way in which social security payments are made. At the moment, some social security payments, such as Newstart, are calculated over a two-week period. That is, if a person is qualified for that payment for the whole of that two-week period, then they receive a full payment, but if they are only qualified for one of those weeks, they only receive half of the regular period payment. These types of payments are known as `period based payments'.While this system applies for some social security payments, other payments such as age pensions and family allowances are made under a different system altogether. Under that system, a person only needs to be qualified for their payment on one day in the fortnight to receive a full payment. For example, if a person's payment day is Thursday, it does not matter if that person qualified for the payment a fortnight ago or on the Tuesday two days prior, they still receive a full payment. Those types of payments are known as `payday based payments'.This legislation we are debating at the moment is seeking to do away with these payday based payments and have all payments made under the period based system, using the rationale that it will simplify the system—something the Democrats always are keen to see—and introduce consistency into the way in which welfare payments are made. It will also more closely match the level of payments received with a person's period of eligibility. The Democrats are strongly in favour of any moves to simplify the social security system. We do not have any significant objections to the government's proposal. As such, we will be supporting schedule 1 of this bill.This change will allow pensioners to receive their payment on a day of their choice, rather than having to receive it on a so-called pension Thursday. I do not know how many senators have been into their local bank on pension Thursday, but if they had they would realise that this is by far the busiest day of the fortnight for many bank branches. And that is not surprising when we see in the explanatory memorandum for this bill that there are around 2½ million pension payments made every second Thursday. I have no doubt that the banks would see a spreading of pension payment days as highly desirable. I am also sure that there will be a certain number of people who will welcome the opportunity to be able to choose, for whatever reason, to receive their pension on a different day.Having said that, though, I think we do need to take note of the issues which were raised by the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation in their submission to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry. The APSF pointed out that in communities throughout Australia there can be a range of activities organised to coincide with pension Thursdays. For example, some local authorities provide community buses to collect older people from their homes and take them to the banks to collect their pension and then take them on to the shops and supermarkets to do their shopping. Also, some older persons' social groups base their activities around pension day. These are issues which can easily be overlooked in the development of a policy change like this one, but these are issues which are directly relevant to the way in which many older people live their lives.As the APSF pointed out, these activities often provide avenues of friendship and social contact for isolated older people. Because of this, and because of other arrangements people may have made around their pension payday, I am sure a large number of people—at least for the first few years of their new arrangements—will continue to choose to receive their pension on the current pension Thursday. As such, the Democrats strongly support the call of the APSF that people should not be placed under any compulsion whatsoever now or in the future to move to a different pension payment day.Whilst there may be administrative benefits for the government and the banks to have people's pension days spread evenly across the fortnight, the Democrats believe that the principle of choice that underlies this change must be retained across the board and people must be free to choose their day of payment, including retaining their existing one. At this stage, as far as I am aware, the government has not indicated any desire to require people to accept certain payment days, so I would simply put the Democrats' concern on the record for any future changes that might be considered.Before moving on to other changes in this bill, I think it is appropriate to take the opportunity to highlight again the valuable role that the APSF played in the inquiry into this legislation, their submission to that inquiry and their continuing role as advocates for older people. The federation is surviving in the face of very harsh and, in the Democrats' view, unjustified cuts to their funding by this government. These cuts came about following the APSF's criticism of the government's aged care reforms. The APSF is now surviving primarily due to the great dedication of those who work for it. I would again put on the record the Democrats' very strong desire to see the government reconsider the APSF's funding situation because they clearly do play a very important role in providing advice and information to all political parties, including the government, about issues affecting older people.Turning to schedule 3 of the bill, the primary change contained within this schedule is that it will reduce the period in which people must report changes in their circumstances to Centrelink from 14 days to just seven days. I note some circulated amendments to be moved on behalf of the government which appear to be reversing that situation to a large extent. I look forward to the parliamentary secretary's clarification of that. That seems like an improvement which goes a fair way to meeting the concerns that the Democrats expressed in our minority report to the community affairs committee and that Senator Evans outlined in his speech.At the moment, if a person notifies Centrelink of changed circumstances which gives them an increased payment, they only receive that increase from the date of notification. Under this bill as it stands, Centrelink will backdate that increased payment to the date of the event which brought about the increase. That is actually quite positive, although if I read the government's amendments correctly that will be changed, but I will wait until the committee stage for the parliamentary secretary to clarify that.The reduction in notification limits from 14 days to seven days has attracted criticism. The APSF, in addressing this part of the legislation, stated its opposition to this part of the legislation, as has the Welfare Rights Centre in Sydney. The principal criticism is that it places too onerous a requirement on pensioners and families to notify Centrelink of their changed circumstances. This is particularly so given the ongoing difficulties people have in actually getting through to Centrelink on the phone.I think it is worth raising this issue again, because it is such a fundamental one. I am sure any senators who have contact with members of the public who try to have dealings with Centrelink, which I imagine is just about all of us, will agree that it is one of the issues of greatest frustration, and one that, to be fair, has been an issue of frustration for such a long time, going back to the time when Labor was in office as well as when the coalition gained power. It has been an ongoing source of great irritation and annoyance to a huge number of people. It really is time something concrete and significant was done about it. Reducing staff is hardly the best way of addressing that.I wish to read from a letter to the editor in the Sydney Morning Herald on 24 November from a Belinda Carson of Pymble, who wrote of her experience. She had been on the phone for 30 minutes trying to dial the Centrelink office. She had received a letter from Centrelink, asking her to get in touch within 14 days. She promptly reached for the phone to dial the number listed on the top of the page. She hit the redial button over and over within the space of half an hour. She could not even get through to be put on hold—just an engaged signal for half an hour. If that is the situation which is still facing people in Sydney, let alone in regional areas, just a couple of weeks ago, then clearly it is a problem that has not been addressed. Whilst that is the case, then it is clearly inappropriate to reduce any further the amount of time that people have to notify changes in their circumstances.It is also worth highlighting the huge range of reasons that people have to give for changes in their circumstances. Whilst all of us in whatever role and responsibilities we have in life try to make sure we read all the fine print and all the details of every form that gets sent—forms can have a whole page of reasons why one needs to notify of a change in circumstances—it often takes people a little while to realise that they need to notify Centrelink about a particular change in their circumstances. If they run into the problem of not being able to get through, it is not surprising that often people have trouble meeting that deadline. I think it is a great myth to suggest that people on income support payments of whatever sort may have nothing better to do than to sit around all day and try to get through on the phone. Most of them live lives just as busy as any other people in the community.Not long ago, following the introduction of the common youth allowance, we saw media reports of 90 per cent of calls to Centrelink not being answered. A proportion of these calls would obviously be repeat calls by the same person. Again, it is important to recognise some of the efforts Centrelink has taken to address this problem. But it does remain the case that it is very difficult for people to get through on the phone, and the telephone is the most commonly used means of informing Centrelink of changed circumstances. It is also worth noting the recent report of the Ombudsman in which the Ombudsman said:At certain times of the day Centrelink's teleservice centres cannot cope with the level of inquiries. At peak times, even though the teleservice centres have a call queuing system, the caller gets a busy signal because the queues are already full.So there are ongoing problems with the teleservice centres. The Democrats have grave reservations about the prospects of those problems being rectified in light of the many thousands of jobs that Centrelink is planning to shed over the next few years. Even putting those significant telephone contact problems to one side, the Democrats still believe that seven days may not be a sufficient period in which to require pensioners and families to contact Centrelink.It is probably worth reminding the Senate that this chamber, including I believe the government senators, accepted that seven days was insufficient time for notification when we debated the common youth allowance legislation last year. Originally a seven-day notification period was proposed for that payment, but the Senate supported an amendment moved by my colleague Senator Stott Despoja to increase that to 14 days. As we heard via Senator Stott Despoja in question time in this place last week, there are huge problems even under that system in terms of the number of young people that will potentially have their payments cut off due to not getting forms back in in the appropriate length of time. The only other comment I would make on this schedule is that, while the government wants to force people to inform Centrelink of any changes within one week, Centrelink has a full six weeks before it needs to act on that information. As a result of a government amendment some time back, Centrelink can take up to six weeks to act, safe in the knowledge that any overpayments it might make can be recovered as a debt. This applies where people have acted in good faith and have met the requirements for notifying Centrelink. Some of these overpayments are then able to be portrayed as fraud and used as justification for a further reduction in social security support.That is an unfortunate side effect of some of the public campaigns that have been run on the quite justifiable government attempts to ensure people are receiving their accurate and appropriate payments. That is not something the Democrats have a problem with, but we do have a problem with some of the public interpretation of the information that comes out of those data-matching exercises. In this day of so-called reciprocal obligations the onus to act on new information seems to fall only on individuals, with no corresponding onus—or a much reduced onus—being placed on the department to act quickly on that information. As with many other measures in this area often dressed up under that reciprocal obligation tag, it seems fairly close to being a one-way street.Just briefly, I would signal that during the committee stage of the debate on this bill I will be taking the opportunity to again request the Senate to reconsider the continuing operation of the two-year wait for newly arrived migrants in relation to the special benefit. I will go into that in not too much detail during the committee stage.21:10:001373Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thank Senator Evans and Senator Bartlett for their contributions. The Payment Processing Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 contains two major provisions: proposals to move all social security and veterans' affairs payments to an arrears basis so that people receive their exact entitlement, and proposals to amend the date of effect provisions to give a seven-day notification period for changes in payments, events, et cetera. I have noted the comments that honourable senators have made, and the Minister for Family and Community Services was aware of the comments in the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee report. The government will be agreeing to accept the 14-day notification period but without beneficial backdating. We can discuss that further as we get into the committee stage. The payment in arrears proposals will correct present problems which result in some customers receiving too much and others receiving nothing at all. Customers will be paid for each and every day to which they are entitled—no more and no less. Currently, for example, a person who turns 65 the day before a pension payday gets a full pension payment, yet a person who turns 65 the day after the payday has to wait a full fortnight to receive payment. On the date of effect provisions, customers will generally have a standard seven-day period to notify of changes in circumstances for the first time. Customers entitled to increases in their rate because of a change will be able to receive arrears, provided they notify Centrelink within the 14-day period when we have the amendments, seven-day period under the bill as it stands. Currently, increases only apply from the date of notification. I want to reply to Senator Bartlett's comment about the difficulties of people contacting Centrelink. Whenever one has a telephone service, there will always be periods of peak pressure on those services. I have been advised that it is easier to get through in the more off-peak times. If we move to the 14-day notification, it gives people greater opportunity if they cannot get through in a peak period. There are also other methods of notifying the department, through mail or by dropping in the form. Senator Bartlett highlighted the issue of pension day in particular for older pensioners. I say, `Halleluja, this bill is going through.' During the consultations for the International Year of Older Persons, one of the issues that came up over and over again was that older people saw themselves as being discriminated against and as being stigmatised. One of the very things that stigmatises people on age pensions is having to line up at the bank on pension day. Many people have a negative attitude that the banks are busy because pensioners are there on pension day. It also makes pensioners softer and easier targets for muggers, for people who know that pensioners are more likely to go to the bank on that day. When we were doing the consultations, an older gentleman from one of the Victorian regional areas said to me, `What I would like to see you do is to stop them putting up petrol prices in regional areas on pension day.' I said, `Hopefully we are going to fix that with the new legislation because pension day will gradually disappear. There won't be a day on which prices can be put up.' So this is great news for older people in particular because it will relieve the strain. It will give them some opportunity to be paid on a day which is more suitable to them. This is a great initiative that Senator Newman has put in place. She had to think about it some time ago for the legislation to get to this point. She saw it as one of the initiatives that social security could put in place for the International Year of Older Persons.It is one way in which we can demonstrate our care for older people in particular, although it does benefit all other recipients of social security benefits and payments. I commend the bill to the Senate. I believe that the measures in it are innovative and have a number of foreseen positive benefits that the minister has outlined previously. I think she will be telling us much more about these benefits because this is a very good news story, particularly for older people.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that consideration of this bill in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day.Notices13741374Senator Patterson to move, on the next day of sitting:That on Tuesday, 8 December 1998:(a) the hours of meeting shall be 2.30 pm to 6.30 pm, 7.30 pm to 11.10 pm;(b) the routine of business from 7.30 pm till 10.30 pm shall be the government business order of the day relating to the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 and 2 related bills, second reading speeches only; and(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10.30 pm.Bills1374r6001374Consideration resumed.The bill.21:16:001374Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. This memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 7 December 1998. I seek leave to move the government amendments that have been circulated in the chamber.21:16:001374Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—First of all, I want to know whether the government are trying to move those amendments as one set. I thought the government needed to seek leave and I was going to deny them leave unless the parliamentary secretary provided an explanation.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—I apologise but—AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could wait just a second. I have only just seen these amendments to be moved on behalf of the government, so I have a range of questions I want to ask about them. It would probably be useful if the parliamentary secretary started by explaining why the government sought to change its position. I do not know about Senator Bartlett but I would certainly be interested, as I am sure other senators listening to the debate in their offices would be. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could take us through that and that would save us time down the track.While she is doing that, I would appreciate an explanation of the financial impact statement contained in the supplementary explanatory memorandum because I am not quite sure what that is supposed to mean. If she could take us through that too, that would be helpful.21:17:001374Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—This is challenging me, since the minister was going to take the bill through this stage but cannot do so due to unforeseen circumstances. I have had a brief briefing, but I did not look at the running sheet before I sought to move those amendments.Most of those amendments that you see there relate to substituting 14 days for seven days, as I indicated in the second reading speech. The government agrees with the sentiments of the chamber and the sentiments of the two senators who spoke—Senator Evans and Senator Bartlett, on behalf of the opposition and the Democrats—that it would be a more feasible, workable and acceptable process if we had a 14-day reporting period. Although it seems like there are a lot of amendments, they basically substitute 14 days for seven days in the various schedules.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—I think you will find they do more than that.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—If I could just clarify the situation: the matter is that leave must be granted.21:19:001375Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—If the parliamentary secretary got a further briefing, I think she would realise that her amendments do more than that. There are two separate issues contained in her amendments. It would be my intention that we deal with them separately, not as a whole. I was more interested in her explanation for the second part, and I am not sure whether she has had a briefing on that yet. That goes to the nub of the issue.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—I think I indicated in my second reading speech that we weren't going to accept beneficial backdating but we would accept substituting 14 days for seven.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I just thought it would be interesting to know why. You proposed it in your bill originally. You then produced amendments which were circulated in the chamber today seeking not to proceed with that matter and change the act. I think the Senate is entitled to an explanation.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Bartlett, do you have any question you wish to ask before Senator Patterson responds to Senator Evans?21:20:001375Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—In terms of contrasting the government's amendments with the opposition's amendments, I understand that the government's amendments are basically doing the same thing as the opposition's except for the beneficial backdating. Is that correct?21:20:001375Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—The answer to Senator Bartlett is that that is correct. The reason we are accepting the 14 days without beneficial backdating is that we are moving from seven days to 14 days. Beneficial backdating is not, nor has it ever been, a part of the social security system and it should not become so now. The government was prepared to accept beneficial backdating in the context of seven-day notification because it was a shorter period of time. However, given the Senate's reluctance to adopt a seven-day notification period, we have compromised by offering a 14-day notification period. This is, after all, what we currently expect of age pensioners—that is the system as it exists for age pensioners—and we cannot see any reason why other customers should not be treated in the same way and be expected to meet this basic requirement, given that we are agreeing to a 14-day notification period.21:21:001375Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I want to briefly respond to that by saying that the parliamentary secretary is not actually agreeing to a 14-day period. That is what currently exists in the act and the impact of the amendments are to take us back, as I understand it, largely to the status quo, but I am happy to be corrected if that is not right. My understanding is that, in the majority of cases, the 14-day period already applies.The government had convinced us on this beneficial backdating question. We had been swayed by the force of their arguments and had agreed to support that measure, so we are a bit surprised that the government do not wish to proceed with it. In that event, it seems to me that the government amendments would be best considered in two groups rather than in one. I understand what they are trying to do, but I think we need to have a vote on the measures separately. The government can seek leave to move those amendments together—and I am not sure why they are listed first on the running sheet—but I would have thought, and it may not be my place to say this, that as there are two groups of amendments that go to two separate issues they ought to be voted on separately.21:23:001375Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Senator Evans mentioned a notification period for the payments of 14 days. In fact, a number of payments do not currently have a notification period of 14 days: Newstart allowance, mature age allowance, sickness allowance, special benefit and partner allowance. I am advised that they currently have a seven-day notification period.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—I was referring to this bill.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Senator Evans keeps shouting out that they are not in this bill. The issue is that we have a range of notification periods. One of the reasons we are making the notification periods all the same is that there is one that is 21 days, some that are 14 days and some that are seven days. Throughout social security and social security benefits they have grown like Topsy. There has been no uniformity. One of the problems when you do not have uniformity is that individuals, especially if they are moving from one benefit to another, are not as aware of the rules and are more likely to be in receipt of an overpayment through an error because they thought they had 14 days and it was seven days, or they thought they had 21 days and it was 14 days or whatever. This will make them all the same. Also, it is more likely that staff at Centrelink will be able to give them the correct advice because there is one notification period for all payments.The reason for trying to bring them together and make them the same was to make the rules about social security much more transparent and much less likely to be subjected to errors, either on the part of the recipient or on the part of the people advising them.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—As I understand it, the amendments that Senator Paterson is seeking leave to move together relate to schedules 3 and 4, numbered (1) through to (78) on sheet BC439.Leave not granted.Amendment (by Senator Patterson) agreed to:(1) Schedule 3, item 2, page 57 (line 10), omit "7", substitute "14".Amendment (by Senator Patterson) agreed to:(2) Schedule 3, item 3, page 57 (line 17), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Amendment No. 3 is opposition to schedule 3, item 10 and therefore will need to be put separately. So the question is that schedule 3, item 10 stand as printed. Those of that opin ion say aye, to the contrary no, I think the noes have it.21:27:001376Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Just before we continue, I wonder if the opposition understands the implication of that.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Are you asking Senator Evans a question? And does Senator Evans want to respond?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—It is going to create confusion if we cannot move the amendments as a whole because they are integral to each other. That is why we sought leave to move them as a whole.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I am advised that we will need to move items separately where there has been opposition indicated.1X4WESTSenator West—Mr Temporary Chairman, I take a point of order. Some of these items on the running sheet are actually making an amendment, that is, the first group. The second group relates not to the question of whether the amendment will be accepted, because they are opposition to what is printed. The question has to be that the clause stand as printed. Therefore, it has to be divided into two groups. Then you can have a debate between yourselves as to whether you move bundle A together, by leave, and what to do with those in bundle B. But you cannot treat government amendment No. 3 in the same way. The government `amendment' is not an amendment; the question is that the bill stand as printed. You cannot put everything together.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That is correct.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—With due respect, Mr Chairman, I thought that was the very proposition I put to the government five minutes ago—that we deal with them in two groups.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I must have misunderstood you. I said that I hadn't seen the running sheet because I had moved them all together. I was prepared to move those listed on the running sheet—(1), (2), (5), (4), (7), (8), (10), (11), (13), (14), (16), et cetera—as a whole.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—I think you will get unanimous support for that.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I am moving, as on the running sheet, the first group of amendments to be moved by the government.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—As I understand it, you sought leave to move those amendments (1) through (78), with the exception of (3) and all of those others that are integrated with some opposition amendments that are the same but different. At this point in time the question is that schedule 3, item 10 stand as printed. That is where we are at.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—And you are voting against it.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Yes. That is right.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I put the question. I called in favour of the noes. To confuse Hansard even further, I call in favour of the noes again.21:30:001377Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—It would perhaps clarify things for us all if you could actually put government amendment No. 3, describe what you are doing and put the vote again. As I understand it, the government is seeking to deny. I would be interested in your explanation.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I am advised that it is not actually an amendment. The question is that schedule 3, item 10, stand as printed. The government has signified its opposition.21:30:001377Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I want to clarify something. All these—(1), (3), (6), (9), (12), (15), (18) and (21) et cetera—specifically relate to the beneficial backdating? Is that correct?AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—They seek to remove it.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—That is correct.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—Yes.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 3, item 10, stand as printed. 21:35:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)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. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Evans, C. V.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.33Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H. *Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Tambling, G. E. J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W.Crowley, R. A. Tierney, J.Denman, K. J. Chapman, H. G. P.Faulkner, J. P. Newman, J. M.Hutchins, S. Vanstone, A. E.Reynolds, M. Synon, K. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.21:39:001377Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—To assist with the running of the Senate, I was wondering whether we could deal with those items from 22 to 204 as they appear on the running sheet together.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—You are asking me to put the question that schedule 3, items 22 to 204, as numbered on the running sheet stand as printed.21:41:001378Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Could I ask why we are doing that rather than dealing with them in order. I just want to be clear that I know what we are doing. I indicated to the parliamentary secretary that we would take a vote as indicative and not divide on all of the measures. I am happy for us to take them in groups. My original suggestion was that since there were two issues at stake we ought to move them as two debates—that is, the 14-day debate and the beneficial provisions debate. I think we are in thunderous agreement on the 14-day provision so I thought it was sensible for us to move the rest of those amendments and have them passed—I assume they will be passed—and then to move the remainder of the amendments which go to the question of the beneficial provisions. We will still be adopting the same position that we indicated but, the chamber having divided, I would not be forcing us to a new set of divisions on those issues. I am not sure why we are now going to jump to that schedule and I want to be clear that we know what we are doing.21:42:001378Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—In answer to Senator Evans's question, I am advised that items 22 through to 204 are the items which are associated with beneficial backdating, which we have just had the test vote on, as you indicated.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that items 22 through 204, as marked on the running sheet, stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We go back to government amendments 1 through to 78. As I understand it, we are up to No. 4.21:43:001378Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10— by leave—I move government amendments Nos 4 to 78 as indicated on the running sheet:(4) Schedule 3, item 14, page 62 (line 3), omit "7", substitute "14".(5) Schedule 3, item 15, page 62 (line 10), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(7) Schedule 3, item 25, page 66 (line 31), omit "7", substitute "14".(8) Schedule 3, item 26, page 67 (line 6), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(10) Schedule 3, item 35, page 71 (line 18), omit "7", substitute "14".(11) Schedule 3, item 36, page 71 (line 25), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(13) Schedule 3, item 46, page 77 (line 29), omit "7", substitute "14".(14) Schedule 3, item 47, page 78 (line 5), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(16) Schedule 3, item 56, page 81 (line 31), omit "7", substitute "14".(17) Schedule 3, item 57, page 82 (line 6), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(19) Schedule 3, item 66, page 85 (lines 28 to 31), omit the item, substitute:66 Subsection 408JB(5)Omit all the words before "after", substitute "Subject to subsections (5A), (5B), (6) and (7), the period specified under paragraph (3)(d) must be the period of 14 days".(20) Schedule 3, item 67, page 86 (line 6), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(22) Schedule 3, item 74, page 90 (line 10), omit "7", substitute "14".(23) Schedule 3, item 75, page 90 (line 17), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(25) Schedule 3, item 85, page 94 (line 31), omit "7", substitute "14".(26) Schedule 3, item 86, page 95 (line 6), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(28) Schedule 3, item 93, page 99 (line 13), omit "7", substitute "14".(29) Schedule 3, item 94, page 99 (line 20), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(31) Schedule 3, item 101, page 103 (line 31), omit "7", substitute "14".(32) Schedule 3, item 102, page 104 (line 6), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(34) Schedule 3, item 109, page 108 (line 13), omit "7", substitute "14".(35) Schedule 3, item 110, page 108 (line 20), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15". (37) Schedule 3, item 120, page 113 (line 7), omit "7", substitute "14".(38) Schedule 3, item 121, page 113 (line 14), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(40) Schedule 3, item 127, page 118 (line 10), omit "7", substitute "14".(41) Schedule 3, item 128, page 118 (line 17), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(43) Schedule 3, item 135, page 122 (line 21), omit "7", substitute "14".(44) Schedule 3, item 136, page 122 (line 28), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(46) Schedule 3, item 140, page 125 (line 15), omit "7", substitute "14".(47) Schedule 3, item 141, page 125 (line 22), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(49) Schedule 3, item 148, page 130 (line 10), omit "7", substitute "14".(50) Schedule 3, item 149, page 130 (line 17), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(52) Schedule 3, item 158, page 134 (line 26), omit "7", substitute "14".(53) Schedule 3, item 159, page 135 (line 2), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(54) Schedule 3, item 160, page 135 (line 11), omit "7", substitute "14".(56) Schedule 3, item 169, page 138 (line 28), omit "7", substitute "14".(57) Schedule 3, item 170, page 139 (line 3), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(58) Schedule 3, item 171, page 139 (line 12), omit "7", substitute "14".(60) Schedule 3, item 179, page 143 (line 10), omit "7", substitute "14".(61) Schedule 3, item 180, page 143 (line 17), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(63) Schedule 3, item 189, page 147 (line 5), omit "7", substitute "14".(64) Schedule 3, item 190, page 147 (line 12), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(66) Schedule 3, item 196, page 150 (line 10), omit "7", substitute "14".(67) Schedule 3, item 197, page 150 (line 17), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(69) Schedule 3, item 200, page 152 (line 26), omit "7", substitute "14".(70) Schedule 3, item 201, page 153 (line 2), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(72) Schedule 3, item 206, page 155 (line 30), omit "7", substitute "14".(73) Schedule 3, item 207, page 156 (line 5), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15". (74) Schedule 3, item 208, page 156 (line 16), omit "7", substitute "14".(75) Schedule 3, item 209, page 156 (line 23), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(76) Schedule 4, item 44, page 163 (line 20), omit "7", substitute "14".(77) Schedule 4, item 45, page 163 (line 27), omit "than 8", substitute "than 15".(78) Schedule 4, item 52, page 165 (lines 9 to 31), omit subsection (2), substitute: (2) If: (a) the favourable determination is made following a person having advised the Department of a change in circumstances; and (b) the change is not a decrease in the rate of the person's maintenance income; the determination takes effect on the day on which the advice was received or on the day on which the change occurred, whichever is the later.Amendments agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to opposition amendments 1 to 37 on sheet 1188.21:44:001379Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I seek your advice, Mr Temporary Chairman. Because we have moved fairly quickly and I was not aware that the government amendments were going to be moved in that form, I am not sure that we have not dealt with those issues by virtue of the previous votes. It is my understanding that the only outstanding issue that has not been determined by the Senate is Senator Bartlett's particular amendment for a new schedule 3A. I think, by virtue of the previous decisions, all of the other amendments are redundant. I would appreciate your expert advice on that before declaring that with any great certainty because I want to be sure that I have not dudded myself and I want you to share the responsibility for that decision, Mr Temporary Chairman!10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—Senator Evans, we have backtracked slightly through the maze and we think you are correct. Senator Patterson, do you want to add something?LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—I had hoped that you were calling on the Temporary Chairman's expert advice, Senator Evans, because I agree that those are now redundant and all we have left to deal with is Senator Bartlett's amendment.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will proceed with Senator Bartlett's amendment while we figure out what the state of the opposition amendment is.21:45:001380Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I move Democrats amendment No. 1 on sheet 1179:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(1) Page 156 (after line 30), after Schedule 3, insert:Schedule 3A—Newly arrived resident's waiting period for special benefitSocial Security Act 19911 Subsection 23(1) (paragraph (g) of the definition of newly arrived resident's waiting period ) Repeal the paragraph.2 Subsection 23(1) (paragraph (ka) of the definition of waiting period ) Repeal the paragraph.3 Paragraph 732(1)(da) Repeal the paragraph.4 Sections 739A, 739B and 739C Repeal the sections.This amendment relates to the newly arrived resident's waiting period for special benefit. I do not want to go into this in great detail, although I feel four minutes probably is not adequate to deal with it—15 minutes maybe—in which case we probably will not get to a vote on it tonight.Just briefly, it is a matter that has been dealt with by the Senate a couple of times before. Whilst I do not like making a habit of continually bringing back decisions for another vote when I do not like the decision, I think this is an issue which is one of great significance. It is clearly causing a lot of hardship out in the community and I think it is fair to say that the evidence of that hardship is such that it is becoming clearer over time that unintended consequences have come forward from this measure and they are still happening out there. So rather than traverse over the arguments that I have put forward many times before in this chamber, I would simply request that the Senate give this matter consideration again because I do believe it is important. It is not a very costly measure, but it will clearly alleviate a lot of hardship that is happening out in the community.Since senators will probably have the chance to ponder this matter overnight, for those senators who wish to get a reasonably good snapshot of such hardship, I refer them to the very extensive article that was in the Sydney Morning Herald Good Weekend Magazine on 12 September 1998 by David Lazar. This article outlined in great detail the impact of this measure on a number of families. The simple measure that we can adopt now to remove that hardship is to support my amendment.Senator Harradine has suggested that it may be beneficial for me to read a couple of examples. I do urge senators to read through this article. Basically it gives examples of a number of families who have migrated to Australia—who have basically been invited into this country to be productive citizens—including skilled migrants as well as people coming here under sponsored migration. Circumstances for these families have not, for a variety of reasons, panned out the way they suspected, and the article gives quite clear examples of absolute extreme hardships—children suffering malnutrition and parents suffering psychiatric breakdown and becoming potentially suicidal.I am sure that was not the intention of this measure when it was introduced. This amendment is not going to cost a great deal in terms of budgetary implications and it is going to save a great deal in the long term in terms of social damage as well as the economic impact of trying to pick up the pieces after this sort of hardship happens. I would urge the Senate, if they have not yet made up their minds, to ponder this overnight and to give consideration to supporting this amendment.21:49:001380Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—This is an extremely important amendment. It is one that I feel should, as Senator Bartlett mentioned, be considered in depth and thoroughly. I, together with Senator Bartlett, urge all honourable senators in this chamber and outside the chamber to have a look at this measure overnight. I do not suppose we will get to it until maybe 5 o'clock or half past four tomorrow afternoon, so I do urge honourable senators to have a look at this matter, to realise its importance and to consider voting for the measure.Progress reported.Adjournment138110000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 9.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.138121:50:001381Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—I want to spend the short 10 minutes that I have available to me tonight to give the Senate some warning of the recent decision made by the Federal Court judge Justice Malcolm Lee with respect to the Miriuwong and Gajerrong people of the East Kimberley. The decision that the judge made goes well beyond the Mabo decision made in 1992, and one would not have thought that that would have been possible with the devastation and the potential that that had for political and economic disruption to what was previously seen as always being a politically stable country.The decision made by Justice Malcolm Lee in effect gave 28 applicants over 7,000 square kilometres of land in a very potentially wealthy part—and, in fact, manifestly wealthy part—of the East Kimberley with respect to minerals and agriculture. It also included rights to fishing. Whilst the application was made by only 28 people, it encompassed no more than 200 people from both the Miriuwong and Gajerrong families. The area is larger than some countries in Europe. It is the first time that any judge in Australia has made such a decision in respect of the Australian mainland.When the decision was made by the High Court of Australia to grant the Murray Island people, the Mer people, right and title and to recognise their native title to the islands just south of the coast of Papua New Guinea, it had few serious ramifications for Australian people. The extrapolation of what Justice Malcolm Lee has now done in Australia throws that into disarray. He has gone, as I said, far beyond what the High Court did with the Mabo and the more recent Wik decisions.I guess it would be fair to say that, now that the land has been granted by the Federal Court, the Western Australian government has no option but to appeal that decision. It has no option because Justice Lee has said that the area encompassed in that in excess of 7,000 square kilometres includes mineral rights. The serious outcome of that for pastoralists is obvious. The serious outcome of that for miners is equally obvious. And there are serious outcomes for tourist operators and for everyone engaged in the agricultural industry there because it also includes vast amounts of the Fitzroy Valley, Lake Argyle, the Argyle Dam and areas that are of significance to the economy of Australia.This opens the floodgate for similar applications to be made unless the insanity of Justice Lee's decision is overturned by either the full bench of the Federal Court or, ultimately, one would hope, the High Court of Australia. I live in hope that, when the High Court of Australia finds that the native title it said existed for the Mer people of the Murray Island could be extrapolated to the mainland of Australia—3,000 square miles of Australia; an area the same size as the United States of America—the High Court will in its wisdom find that the excesses of Justice Malcolm Lee cannot be allowed to be tolerated both for the political stability of Australia and for Western Australia.This will not just stop in Western Australia, of course. Let me cover the ramifications of this for Western Australia and the nation. Whilst Western Australia has 9.7 per cent of the population of Australia, nonetheless it produces 27½ per cent of national export income. If a claim were to cover other areas in Australia—and anyone could claim it; 28 people claimed 7,000 square kilometres—what a catastrophe. The claim of those 28 people, unwittingly or wittingly through their legal advisers, now encompasses an area of land that could inhibit the development and the wealth of Australia.Western Australia produces the greatest amount of oil condensate and gas in the nation. It is the biggest producer and exporter of alumina powder in the world. It is the biggest producer of diamonds in the world, mining over 40 million carats last year from the Argyle diamond mine, which is encompassed by this grant. It is also the biggest producer of gold by far in the nation. It is the third biggest producer of gold in the world, mining over a record $5 billion of gold last fiscal year. It is the biggest producer of iron ore in the world. It is the biggest producer of wheat in the nation—not that too much is grown in the Kimberley, but the extrapolation of that must go to other areas of Western Australia and other areas of Australia if this is allowed to pass.It is the first time, as I said, that this sort of native title claim has been successfully granted by a superior court in Australia. The decision contradicts the Howard 10-point plan, that plan that we reassured the mining industry, the pastoral industry and the rural industries of Australia would be amended so that there would be not just certainty with respect to the production that makes Australia such a wealthy place to live in and the envy of the world but certainty of title for people engaged in those industries. Once again it creates uncertainty both for those industries I have mentioned and for the titles. It leaves a potential liability of $1.3 billion if the state government successfully overturns that; it is liable for the payment to 28 applicants—possibly up to 200—of $1.3 billion.The justice gave no reason for some of the things that he did. Why did he do this when the High Court clearly gave a judgment that we thought was harsh, that we, as the engine room of Australia in Western Australia, thought was a harsh judgment against Western Australia? Why did Justice Lee do this? I cannot answer that. But I can say that, unless the full bench of the Federal Court or ultimately the last appellate court in Australia overturns that decision, you will have a few people controlling and owning Australia—not necessarily Aboriginal people but people who choose to call themselves Aboriginal people.We have an island continent with no frontiers and we are creating frontiers. You have to get a permit to enter places. The middle of Western Australia, part of the Northern Territory and the north-west corner of South Australia is an area larger than France that Aboriginal people already have. Aboriginal people have 50 sheep stations and cattle stations in Western Australia that already amount to 25 million acres of land. Is it that we should live in a fraction of the land and that a few people who decide to call themselves Aboriginal or are Aboriginal should live in the vast bulk of it? It is a formula that is bound to fail. It is a formula that is going to create much more dissension between people who choose to say they are black Australians or those of us who choose to call ourselves white Australians or from Asia or anywhere else, bar being an Aboriginal person. It will create dissent.Native title cannot be partly extinguished. It can either be extinguished or native title exists. Justice Lee makes no mention of how coexistence works there. He makes no mention of how much minerals should be given to Aboriginal claimants over the area. He makes no mention of access. But he does say that, if Aboriginal people want to keep out other people, they are quite entitled to do that. This has set a precedent in Australia. In an island nation with no frontiers we are creating frontiers for ourselves. Whether you want to call that a permit to enter or a visa to enter, as they do in Europe or other parts of the world, it makes no difference. We have created a situation where visas will be needed to enter Aboriginal land.Future generations will not thank us for what we have done. They will not thank Justice Lee for what he has done. The time has come for us to legislate away native title with fairness. If that cannot be done, it is time for us to seriously consider a referendum to control native title once and for all. (Time expired)138222:00:001382Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—On Friday and Saturday last week here in Parliament House, hundreds of delegates assembled for the inaugural National Children's Summit. The Coalition for Australia's Children, which is represented by over 50 organisations—including AYPAC, Centacare, Kids Helpline and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, just to name a few—brought together in a wonderful forum thoughts and ideas of many young people and advocates of youth and children.Thomas Keneally, one of the people present, gained a rapport with the gathered crowd with his comments about the role of education for young people. It found resonance in the packed forum, and many other advocates of children and youth were there to discuss the frameworks for the future and corporate and community partnerships.The conference culminated in a declaration and plan for action, and the conference was structured in such a way that the young people present had the final say, a right of veto, if you like, on the outcome. An active program to empower the young people at the conference paid off, in my view, with youth delegates coming away knowing they had achieved something very important for their efforts.His Excellency the Governor-General opened the conference with a heart-warming address following a traditional welcome by the Ngunnawal people. But one of the things that impressed me most about the structure of the conference was the way that both youth and children's issues were brought together in a holistic representation of the challenges that were confronting the next generation in Australia. So often we see youth issues metamorphose over time into narrow policy channels that actually militate against progression and lateral approaches to solving very complex and persistent social and economic problems.It was very clear at the opening session that this summit grew out of a sense of frustration, a sense of futility, that was felt by many under the federal government, particularly with respect to, I think, the lack of leadership of John Howard. In my view, there has been a failure on behalf of the coalition government to provide even a sense of leadership for younger generations of Australians. Our young people are such a source of inspiration yet, every time there is a cut to education, a slash to support for students, the government is saying, `We do not value you and we do not value your contribution to society. You know this because we do not invest in you.' This is the message of the coalition. Is it any wonder that the self-esteem of so many young people is flattened? Whilst the spirit of the summit was soaring, John Howard's lack of attendance—YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Mr Howard, please.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—Sorry, Mr Howard. Mr Howard's lack of attendance offended many delegates, particularly many young people. It was known at the conference that he was in the building at the time but could not find the time to make an appearance, let alone find the time to listen. This was the message I received from so many young people: it was one thing to be able to express your point of view, it was another to have those in positions of power, in positions to actually make decisions, listen to and act upon the words they heard.The last 2½ years have seen so many community services affecting quality of support to our young people diminished. There are several specific changes including the changes to Youth Allowance, which effectively threw 13,000 unemployment benefit recipients into crisis when their support was cut. Over 33,000 had their benefits reduced. For children under five, the cuts to child care invariably impacted upon their places of care, although I have to say that it is a credit to the resilience and dedication of many child-care workers that there has been minimal impact on the quality of care. These cuts have tended to manifest themselves in a large number of centres closing their doors.The Youth Round Table is another expression, I believe, of a failure of the coalition government to address youth policy adequately. The defunding of several representative organisations and the replacement of those organisations which evolved over time in response to community needs with the Youth Round Table that is yet to find its place and have its representation announced is an indictment of the lack of confidence the coalition has in actually being able to work with those who select themselves to advocate for and represent young people in Australia.Bigger issues such as youth employment prospects for the future have been affected by the lack of industry policy in critical growth areas. One I am particularly interested in, information technology, is a terrific example. The lack of industry policy there is a great indictment of the government as young people have shown themselves to be global leaders in creative innovation, with people like Alex Hartman inspiring new generations of entrepreneurs.A glimpse at the IT pages in any of the newspapers shows it is young people pushing the outer boundaries of cultural expression through new media such as the World Wide Web. It was pleasing to note that the conference made a terrific effort to have a presence on the Internet, to which they are posting the outcomes of the conference and several of the key discussion points.On this point, portrayal of young people in the media proved to be an interesting discussion. Not all media have the same positive view of young people as Internet pages. There was an acknowledgment that there really needed to be a generational shift in attitudes to the culture and life choices of Australia's youth, but this shift would probably not come with those in power actually changing their minds and doing things differently. Those in power have to move over and give space to new thought.I want to congratulate the participants in the conference and assure them that there were members of political parties present, with me, Wayne Swan and Tanya Plibersek representing the Labor Party, listening to the issues raised and taking their deliberations away from that conference to form part of our policy considerations in the future.There were many issues traversed, and the major outcomes of the conference included that the National Children's Summit recognise that it is a fundamental right of all children and young people to be heard and to live their life with dignity and respect; recognise the vulnerability of childhood and the fact that many children and young people face serious problems that push them to the margins of society and inhibit their full participation; reconcile and acknowledge the diversity of Australia's children and young people; and call on all Australian governments and the wider community to endorse this declaration and commit themselves to a plan of action.I have not been able to do justice to the wide range of issues that were traversed at the summit. Rather than take up further time, I seek leave to incorporate into Hansard the declaration produced by the National Children's Summit of Australia 1998.Leave granted.The document read as follows—National Children's Summit—Australia 1998DeclarationOur vision for children and young peopleChildren and young people are entitled to full and active participation in Australian society.The first National Children's Summit affirms that the well being of our children and young people is central to the achievement of a fair and decent society. We commit ourselves to an Australia where our young people are supported to be healthy, contributing, responsible, and confident citizens.The National Children s Summit. Recognises it is a fundamental right, of all children and young people to be heard and to live their life with dignity and respect.. Recognises the vulnerability of childhood and the fact that many children and young people face serious problems that push them to the margins of society and inhibits their full participation.. Reconcile and acknowledges the diversity of Australia's children and young people.. Call on all Australian Governments and the wider community to endorse this Declaration and commit themselves to a Plan of Action.The National Children's Summit confirms the importance of Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, signed in 1990 with the joint support of Commonwealth, State and Territory governments. We celebrate the sensible and achievable provisions of the Convention. In 1998 the Convention was again endorsed by the Joint Treaties Committee of the Federal Parliament.The National Children's Summit has prepared a draft Plan of Action for Children and Young People in Australia. This document contains a commitment by governments, corporations, community organisations, institutions, families and individuals to work together for the dignity and well being of all Australian children and young people.Our Responsibilities for children and young peopleWe all have the responsibility to ensure that the best interests of children and young people are reflected in decisions and actions affecting them. We must eliminate the barriers that inhibit young people's participation in society.Governments have a particular responsibility with children and young people with respect to the provision, planning and review of things such as education, health care, social security, alternative care, and juvenile justice, and other issues. They must ensure the co-ordinated development and delivery of services, supported by the resource allocations that reflects the needs of children and young people. They must also support the parents and carers in their efforts to provide children and young people with an adequate standard of living and the care they need.Businesses should strive for a culture of corporate citizenship that takes full account of the best interests of children and young people. This includes a range of flexible work practices to support children and families. Children must be treated fairly as consumers and an ethical approach to marketing and advertising is especially important.Community organisations should give priority to working in genuine partnership with children and young people. This includes developing practices that encourage and enable children and young people to actively participate in organisational decision making. It also means supporting children and young people to establish their own organisations and approaches.Our commitments to children and young peopleThe Summit has made a number of commitments to the children and young people of Australia. Those commitments are based on:PartnershipAll sections of the community must work together in genuine partnership for the benefit of children and young people. Governments, businesses, community groups and the young people themselves all have unique yet complimentary contributions to make. The commitment to partnership and participation of children and young people should form the basis to all of the other commitments in the Plan of Action.PolicyA comprehensive national policy framework for children and young people should be developed through a process of co-operation between all Australian governments and other sectors, including young people themselves.Consultation and FeedbackGovernment and other sectors should undertake regular and genuine consultation and feedback outcomes of that consultation with young people when developing policies and programs.AdvocacyChildren and young people are entitled to a strong advocacy of their rights and interests. This includes peer advocacy and the support for it. Without this, some voices will continue to go unheard.ResourcesChildren and young people are entitled to a fair and equitable share of the nation's resources. Their status as citizens in our society demands nothing less.ResearchTo enhance our knowledge and understanding of children and young people, comprehensive and up-to-date research on issues affecting their lives is essential.The way forwardWe are determined to carry forward the commitments we have made to the children and young people of this nation.We call on all Australians to work with us in achieving the vision of a society that truly respects and values its children and young people.We invite the leaders of government, businesses, community organisations and young people themselves to meet again with in three years to review progress of the Plan of Action, update the commitments and take other action as necessary to ensure that all children and young people receive a fair share in the life of this nation.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—On that note, I conclude by saying that there is a desperate need to take a broader view of youth issues confronting our future generations. Many of the paths trodden so far by the coalition do not head in the right direction. I am hopeful, as a result of this conference, that the government will take some heart and some guidance and leadership from those who were prepared in their own time to come together in this place over the past few days and put their thoughts and feelings on the public record.138522:09:001385Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I rise briefly tonight to address an issue relating to one of the concerns I raised in my first speech in this place, which is the need to raise public awareness about some of the conditions and suffering experienced by animals in our community. Some senators may have read an article in the Sydney Morning Herald last week on 1 December by Ben Power which highlighted the death of one of two female elephants—Ranee, a 43-year-old elephant, who died on Sunday last week.That is a sad thing, but I guess of its own it does not raise any animal welfare concerns. An issue which was highlighted in the article, as the zoo's general manager of life sciences, Mr William Meikle, explained, is that in the wild female elephants live together and form very strong bonds with each other. This elephant which died, Ranee, and the zoo's other female elephant, Burma, a 41-year-old elephant, had been together for 16 years.As is clearly highlighted in the article, the surviving companion experienced—and is presumably still experiencing—a great deal of grief at the death of its companion. The article indicated that no replacement female would be sought in the short term, but next March the female elephant and the zoo's male elephant will be relocated to the Western Plains Zoo in Dubbo while a new elephant exhibit is being built at Taronga. I presume those elephants will be able to exist and have companions with other animals there.The difficulties that zoos face in keeping large animals and adequately addressing animal welfare concerns was addressed in an article by Sian Powell in the Australian last Friday which highlighted the virtual impossibility of keeping mega fauna in adequate space in a city style zoo. This applies to elephants, lions, tigers and the like. For those who saw the very insightful ABC series into zoos some time back, it was very clear that, whilst those caring for elephants do as much as is humanly possible to address the needs of the large animals, clearly in that circumstance it is not feasible to adequately address the behavioural needs of elephants. It is not surprising that zoos have difficulty in meeting some of these requirements. They have the competing demands of needing to entertain the public along with education and the increasing focus that many zoos are placing on conservation areas.I raise this by way of preliminary indication of the importance of ensuring that large animals are kept in adequate conditions. I also want to highlight the far worse situation that a solitary elephant is facing at the moment in a circus in New South Wales, the Stardust Circus. This single female elephant has been alone since her lifelong companion died over two years ago. This is in clear contravention of the New South Wales government's own regulations under the Exhibited Animals Protection Act of New South Wales.A report was done by animal behavioural scientist Dr Roger Mugford, who visited the Stardust Circus at the start of November in Canterbury in Sydney. He inspected the circus for about an hour, and he identified a large number of potential problems. A major problem which I have mentioned and which is highly significant is that of a single elephant basically being kept in solitary for over two years, which is in clear contravention of the act. There are a number of other problems with the actual conditions in which the elephant is kept.According to the preliminary report provided by Dr Mugford, the elephant, whose name is Arna, was not safely enclosed and is in constant, intimate and unsupervised contact with members of the public whilst being inadequately restrained by a single tape. I have seen video evidence of that. The elephant is unable to escape the attention of the public, which is another breach of the act. It has no access to overnight shelter which will protect the elephant from climatic extremes, which is another breach of the act. Inadequate shade is provided for the elephant. No supply of drinking water was witnessed for the elephant during the hour long inspection.Dr Mugford identified damage to the elephant's ears on their outer edge by the harsh use of a training instrument. He stated that foot care to the elephant had been neglected, skin care of the elephant seemed to be non-existent, transportation of the elephant in the trailer parked at the circus would pose extreme danger and induce stress, and a circular balancing table of strong steel con struction was found to have a sharp jagged weld that would cause pain and possible injury to the elephant during circus performances.All those conditions I have read out are clear breaches of the New South Wales Exhibited Animals Protection Act. I raise them tonight simply to highlight the lack of action there has been in this area. Often governments, whether at state or federal level, say, `We have regulations, we have codes of practice, we have guidelines to meet all these concerns, so don't worry about it,' which is all well and good. But the key issue is ensuring that those guidelines, regulations, laws, or whatever, are enforced. Clearly, this is a case where that is not happening.Regardless of all the specific problems with the conditions that the elephant faces at that circus, the bottom line is that an elephant, particularly a female one, should not be kept in solitary confinement, as has been done in this case for two years. Also, there is a free range sanctuary in South Australia which is offering a home to this elephant. There obviously, firstly, she will have a lot more space and, secondly, she will be able to interact with others of her species—which is a condition that is clearly desirable and, again going back to the situation at the Taronga Park Zoo, one that most animal behaviourists and animal handlers at zoos, those who do make some effort to care for the needs of their animals, I am sure, would agree is a far more desirable outcome.I call on the New South Wales government to ensure that its own regulations are enforced. We have a situation where this elephant has been in solitary for around two years, in contravention of the act, and with there being an alternative organisation that is willing to take the elephant—which might otherwise be a problem. Given that the solution to that problem is there, and with the clear breaches of the act that exist having been brought to the attention of the government, I simply join in the calls of many others throughout the country, and particularly throughout New South Wales, for the government to ensure that its own act is enforced and require the circus to surrender its elephant as soon as possible.138722:17:001387Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—On Saturday, 6 December 1998, His Excellency Richard O'Brien unveiled a monument erected on the foreshore of the Burgoyne Reserve, Williamstown, Victoria, to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Great Hunger in his native Ireland. With pathos and eloquence, he told of that defining but horrific period in Irish history and of its impact on Australia. The monument is made up of basalt rock which was thrown up by a nearby volcano hundreds of thousands of years ago and metal inscriptions, which include the following words:In memory of one million people who died in Ireland during the Great Hunger of 1845-1852. In praise of the courage of tens of thousands of dispossessed Irish who sailed to Hobsons Bay to build a new life. In sorrow for the dispossession of the Bunurong and Woiworung people but in a spirit of reconciliation. In solidarity with all those who suffer hunger today.The Bunurong people originally held the land upon which the monument is set, and Victor Briggs from that tribe welcomed those who gathered for the ceremony. So too did Councillor Brad Matheson, the present day Mayor of Hobsons Bay.Peter Kiernan, of Irish descent but thoroughly Australian, responded to the ambassador's address. Francis O'Meara played a lament on the uillean pipes which evoked the mood of grief but also of hope which must have informed the air on the Williamstown foreshore 150 years ago. Loretta Brennan sang a song with pure voice, unaccompanied by any musical instrument. It spoke of the tragedy and courage of yesteryear that has now become part of the histories of Australia and of Ireland.The monument is the outcome of the inspiration and work of the `Irish Famine Commemoration Committee—Melbourne', wonderfully led by Val Noone. Its other members are Loretta Brennan, Mary Doyle, Patricia Foley, Mary Kenneally, Peter Kiernan, Michael O'Grady, Paul Ormonde, Louis de Paor, Pauline Rule and Chris Watson. Pauline Rule, an historian, told the gathering why the day and place had been chosen for the ceremony. On 6 December 1848, 191 Irish orphan girls arrived in Hobsons Bay on the Lady Kennaway, a sailing ship of 585 tons. They came from a land in which the native population had been devastated to one from which the Bunurong and Woiworung people had but recently been ousted. They were typical of many Irish girls and young women who arrived in Australia without their families during the Great Famine. Many of us have them as forebears. They met hardship, prejudice, want and an alien environment with courage and, ultimately, with triumph. Their contribution to Australia has been immense.In 1994 This Great Calamity, a history of the Irish famine 1845-52, written by Christine Kinealy, was published in Dublin. In it, she wrote:At the end of the Famine, it was evident that substantial changes had taken place in the country. In the 1850s the Census Commissioners recorded that in the ten years from 1841 to 1851 the population had fallen from 8,175,124 persons to 6,552,385 persons. They also estimated that if the famine had not occurred, the population of Ireland in 1851 would have been 9,018,799.The Great Hunger slaughtered a staggering number of people; it made migrants of even more. It was the occasion of many a Celt coming to Australia from Ireland. They were, in the most part, poor in resources, reduced in social standing, but rich in spirit. They and their descendants have done mighty things for Australia. In the 19th century, they set the model for migrants who have since followed them here from numerous countries around the world. Those with Irish antecedents who arrived here during the Great Hunger demonstrate how much Australia has gained from people who have come to it out of places where they were subject to oppression, privation and prejudice.The Great Famine was a horror in history. It resonates in Ireland to this day. It has left its mark on Australia's story and on its char-acter. Australia was the place where many of its victims found redemption; that is a process a host of migrants have experienced since then. We should never put that process at risk.22:23:001389Senate adjourned at 10.23 p.m.Documents13891389The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Aged Care Act— Accountability Principles 1998. Accreditation Grant Principles 1998. Classification Amendment Principles 1998 (No. 1). Committee Amendment Principles 1998 (No. 1). Flexible Care Subsidy Amendment Principles 1998 (No. 1). Quality of Care Amendment Principles (No. 1) 1998. Residential Care Subsidy Amendment Principles 1998 (No. 2). User Rights Amendment Principles 1998 (No. 1).Christmas Island Act—Casino Control Ordinance—Revocation of designation of casino premises, dated 19 November 1998.Customs Act—Approved forms pursuant to section 4A—Instruments of Approval Nos 40-43 of 1998.Export Control Act—Export Control (Orders) Regulations—Export Control (Fees) Orders (Amendment)—Export Control Orders No. 3 of 1998Health Insurance Act—Health Insurance Determination HS/4/1998.Higher Education Funding Act—Determination under section 15—T24-98.Radiocommunications Act—Radiocommunications Licence Conditions (Maritime Coast Licence) Determination 1998.Remuneration Tribunal Act—Determinations Nos 23 and 24 of 1998.Taxation Determination TD 98/27.Taxation Ruling TR 98/18-TR 98/21.Veterans' Entitlements Act—Instruments under section 196B—Instruments Nos 76 to 81 of 1998.