1998-12-093911SENATE148301998-12-09The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills1483s195Billss1911483Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following bills be introduced: a bill for an act to amend the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982, and for related purposes; and a bill for an act to amend the Ozone Protection Act 1989, and for related purposes.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.148309:32:001483Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table the explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—WILDLIFE PROTECTION (REGULATION OF EXPORTS AND IMPORTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1998One of the greatest threats to the survival of many of the world's critically endangered species is the illegal hunting of these animals for use in a range of products, particularly traditional medicines.Australia is one of the 144 countries which have ratified the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Under CITES, Parties are required to control international trade in species that are threatened with extinction, or that may become threatened with extinction if trade is not controlled.Continued and uncontrolled use of endangered species in products such as traditional medicine threatens many species with extinction, and has been the subject of particular concern among the signatory nations to CITES, including countries that have practised in traditional medicine for thousands of years, such as China and Japan. CITES Parties have acted on this concern in recent years by agreeing unanimously to a number of resolutions which urge Parties to strengthen controls on products containing endangered species. The Government is committed to fulfilling its obligations under these resolutions.Two species commonly used in traditional medicines, tiger and rhinoceros, survive in wild populations in numbers of less than five thousand and fourteen thousand respectively. In the case of tigers, this represents a decline rate of 95 per cent since the turn of the century. Out of the five species of rhinoceros in the world, four have numbers of less than three thousand in the wild, with the Javan rhinoceros surviving in numbers of less than one hundred.The Wildlife Protection (Regulation Of Exports and Imports) Act 1982, which is administered by Environment Australia, implements Australia's international obligations under CITES. The act prohibits the import and export without a permit, and in some cases, the possession, of products that contain endangered species. However, in its current form, the act does not enable the Government successfully to prosecute offenders for the illegal import into Australia of many products that contain endangered species. This is because forensic science is not currently able to provide the required level of certainty. Thus, despite the prohibition, imported traditional medicines containing endangered species remain available in Australia, and there have been no prosecutions for their illegal import under the act.The amendment will rectify this by extending the controls to products that are represented to contain material from endangered species, and will enable prosecutions on this basis.Implementation costs for the amendment will be funded from within existing departmental budgets.I would now like to explain the amendment in more detail.For a prosecution to be successful under the current legislation, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that a product does contain an endangered species. In some products, particularly traditional medicines, endangered species may be mixed with other ingredients and heated at high temperatures. In such cases, current technology is unable to distinguish individual species or to prove conclu sively that any particular species is contained with the product.The proposed amendment will allow a prosecution to be successful on the basis that a product is represented to contain material from an endangered species. If the packaging, markings or labelling of a product, or any accompanying documentation or other circumstances, represent that product as containing material from endangered species, it will be legally regarded as doing so. In this way, the amendment will overcome the forensic problems associated with conclusively proving the presence of a particular species in the product.The amendment will act as an effective deterrent to the trade in traditional medicines that contain material from endangered species, and will encourage the use of alternative ingredients, many of which are already recognised by traditional medicine practitioners.It is not the intention of the amendment to prohibit the general use of images of wildlife as a marketing tool, for example where a product obviously does not contain material from endangered species.In making successful prosecutions possible, this amendment will play a vital part in protecting endangered species from poaching for use in the traditional medicine trade.In conjunction with the implementation of this amendment, the Government will continue to work closely with groups of traditional medicine practitioners and consumers to highlight the plight of endangered species and to promote the use of alternative substances in traditional medicines.The Government is providing leadership and support for the community in meeting our national and international obligations to preserve the world's endangered species. This amendment will contribute legislative force to the fight to protect them against extinction.OZONE PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1998The Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 will amend the Ozone Protection Act 1989 (the act). The act enables Australia to fulfil its international obligations as a Party to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (the Montreal Protocol), to eliminate its consumption of ozone depleting substances. The act controls the import, export and manufacture of a range of ozone depleting substances, known as `scheduled substances', by requiring licences for these activities, and by prohibiting the import and manufacture of certain products containing ozone depleting substances.The act is a key element in Australia's approach to ozone protection. It is administered and enforced in conjunction with complementary State and Territory legislation and controls, and industry and non-government organisation activities, including voluntary Codes of Practice. This highly cooperative approach to environmental protection is detailed in the 1994 Revised Strategy for Ozone Protection and was endorsed by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council in 1995.The innovative licensing and quota systems, first enacted in 1989, enabled Australia to achieve by 1995 a phase out of the ozone depleting substances CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and HBFCs (hydrobromofluorocarbons). The phase out has been total other than for a restricted range of essential uses. A total phase out of halons, except for essential uses, was reached in 1992, one year in advance of Montreal Protocol requirements. Australia's foresight in adopting such control measures was most recently borne out in the 1997 Montreal Amendment which now requires Parties to develop and implement a licensing system to regulate the import and export of ozone depleting substances.These outstanding efforts were formally recognised in 1997 through the award of a Certificate of Appreciation to the Australian Government, by the United Nations Environment Program, in a ceremony which marked the 10th Anniversary of the Montreal Protocol.The Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 represents the most recent step in Australia's response to the challenge of ozone depletion. It proposes amendments to improve the operation of the act's licensing and quota systems, and to allow more effective and targeted regulation of ozone depleting substances. The amendments reflect agreed solutions to issues encountered by industry, government and community stakeholders in progressing Australia's phase out of ozone depleting substances.The decision to implement these solutions through legislation was taken through ongoing dialogue with industry and consultation with the Office of Regulation Review to make the initiatives business-effective. This is reflected in the conclusions of the Regulation Impact Statements.As a Party to the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments, Australia must phase out consumption and production of HCFCs by 2020 and methyl bromide by 2005.The act provides that the import, export or manufacture of either HCFCs or methyl bromide is prohibited unless otherwise authorised under a `controlled substances' licence. The bill clarifies that, in assessing an application for a `controlled substances' licence, separate consideration may be given to each activity in which an applicant seeks to engage.Given the proximity of the scheduled phase out dates for HCFCs and methyl bromide, and that neither substance is currently manufactured in Australia, this proposed amendment will ensure manufacturing is not commenced in Australia by `controlled substances' licensees without due consideration.Australia's HCFC industry activity triggered the quota system under the act for the first time in 1997. The act limits the total quantity of HCFCs that may be imported or manufactured by licensees to approximately half the `country cap' allocated by the Montreal Protocol, whereby the quota system is triggered.The HCFC quota system will commence from 1 January 1999. From this date, HCFC `controlled substances' licensees must seek a quota allocation to engage in the regulated HCFC activity of importation or manufacture. The quotas will be allocated for a period of two years. After the first quota allocation, quotas will be based on the licensee's individual activity in the penultimate calendar year before the start of the following quota period.The amendment enables the continued issuance of a "controlled substances licence" for a two year period, and further specifies as a condition of the licence the quantity of HCFCs a licensee may import or manufacture within any given year of a quota period. This will ensure Australia's HCFC controls remain equitable and efficient by avoiding possible distortion in the calculation of future quota allocations, for example if a disproportionate amount of a total quota allocation is imported in the first year of a quota period.It is with the strong and active support of the fluorocarbon industry that this bill addresses this issue.During the development of the bill, the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department identified an area of duplication in the act, arising from its historical development which reflects Australia's changing international obligations.The ratification by Australia of the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol which the Parties adopted at their ninth meeting in 1997 to ban trade in methyl bromide with non-Protocol countries, means the substance is now more effectively covered by the existing provisions in subsections 18(2) and (3), rather than in sections 42 and 43, which are to be repealed by the bill. Subsections 18(2) and 18(3) provide that it is a condition of a licence granted under the act that scheduled substances, which include methyl bromide, are not to be imported to or exported from a non-Protocol country. Breach of the licence condition without reasonable excuse, is an offence with a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units currently $55,000. The bill also updates the Montreal Protocol text in the act with the addition of the most recent text following Schedule 3.The last two amendments will fine-tune the administration of the act. One allows Ministerial delegation of the power to request further information in relation to a licence application. This will shorten the time for licence applications to be assessed and issued.Another clarifies the scope of the exemption from the prohibition on manufacturing or importing CFC-dependent refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. The amendment specifies that the exemption only applies to the import of the CFC-dependent refrigerated transport containers, not their manufacture. While Australia does not manufacture CFC-dependent refrigerated transport containers, the global shipping industry still relies to some extent on the existing fleet of these containers and so Australia will continue to permit their movement in and out of Australian ports.While Australia only contributes about 1 per cent to the total global consumption of ozone depleting substances, it represents a positive role model for the international community through its active participation in international ozone fora, bilateral activities with developing countries and domestic implementation of accelerated phase-out measures developed through a highly cooperative partnership with industry, the community and all levels of government.This bill will ensure that Australia continues not only to meet its international obligations under the Montreal Protocol, but demonstrates its ongoing commitment to the recovery of the ozone layer through innovative and effective co-operation with industry.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned until the first sitting day in 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills1485s187Billss1881485NATIONAL TRANSMISSION NETWORK SALE BILL 1998Consideration resumed from 8 December.The bill.09:33:001486Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—by leave—I move:(1) Clause 9, page 9 (after line 5), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) The Minister for Finance and Administration must not make a declaration under this section in respect of a transfer of assets unless the arrangements for the transfer specify the responsibilities of parties to the transfer for any community service obligations under section 15A.(2) Page 10 (after line 26), after clause 12, insert:Part 2A—National Transmission Network Reserve12A Establishment of the National Transmission Network Reserve (1) A fund called the National Transmission Network Reserve is established. (2) The Reserve is a component of the Reserved Money Fund under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 . (3) The purpose of the Reserve is to make payments for subsidising the costs of community and national broadcasting services in transferring to digital broadcasting.12B Payments into the Reserve There is to be paid into the Reserve in any financial year an amount equal to any amount received by the Commonwealth as a result of a transfer of assets under section 9 (either directly or indirectly in any form including shares or the proceeds of the sale of shares) in that financial year.12C Payments out of the Reserve (1) Amounts in the Reserve are to be applied for the purpose of assisting community and national broadcasting services to transfer to digital broadcasting. (2) Amounts in the Reserve may also be applied for the payment of carriage fees and fees for access to sites or telecommunications transmission towers on behalf of a customer who is a nominated customer because of subsection 15(3) or (6). (3) Total payments out of the Reserve in any financial year must not be less than payments into the Reserve in that year. (4) The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts is to decide what proportion of the fund in any year is to be applied for the assistance of national broadcasting services and what proportion is to be applied for the assist ance of community broadcasting services, provided that not less than 5% of the fund in any year is to be applied for the assistance of community broadcasting services.12D Investments and income of the Reserve (1) So far as is practicable, money in the Reserve that is not required for the purpose of making payments out of the Reserve is to be invested in accordance with the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 . (2) Amounts equal to income derived from the investment of money in the Reserve are to be transferred to the Reserve from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.12E Payments Amounts required or permitted to be paid under this Act are to be paid out of money appropriated by the Parliament for the purpose.The Democrats have several amendments to the National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1998 and the National Transmission Network Sale (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 and have several questions for the minister as well. Both the first and the second Democrat amendments relate to the establishment of a National Transmission Network Reserve. This would be a fund to hold the money that comes in from any sale under this act. The money that is so held would be allocated by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts for the purpose of mainly digitisation of the national broadcasters, the ABC and SBS. A maximum of five per cent of the fund would be to assist the community sector in changing to digital, and the rest could also be used for various other purposes which would include payment of carriage fees and fees for access to sites or telecommunications transmission towers on behalf of customers.The nominated customers—the ABC, SBS, community broadcasters, emergency service organisations, commercial broadcasters in declared remote areas, non-profit bodies and any government bodies—could have their fees paid by the government through this fund as well. I think the government estimates at the moment that the money that would come in from the sale would be between $200 million and $300 million—I do not have it down here, but I think that is right. Perhaps the minister could enlighten us.As we all know, the amount of money that the ABC will need to transfer to digital for both their broadcasting and their transmission facilities has been estimated by Arthur Andersen in the report to be about $180 million. If they sell off as much of their property as they possibly can, which I think is a very bad idea—and, if I recall, Arthur Andersen thought it was a very bad idea as well—they would need anywhere between $84 million and $108 million. Obviously that money has to come from somewhere.At the moment, the government has promised $21 million plus about another $22 million or $23 million, which comes nowhere near $180 million or even $84 million. It seems to us that this would be the most sensible way and, indeed, the easiest way to make sure that both the national broadcasters and the community broadcasters have the funds that they will definitely need—it has to happen—to transfer their television to digital. Then, of course, there will be the extra funds that will be needed to transfer radio to digital. That has not even been decided yet. We have not seen that legislation yet. There are no standards yet for that.Having the fund in reserve as an amount of money which could be used to do all those things seems to us to be an eminently sensible way of doing it. The minister, Senator Alston, did say during the digital bill that the government would fund the ABC to transfer to digital. The money has to come from somewhere. We think that, if this is put aside for where the money comes from, everybody—the ABC, SBS, community broadcast listeners and workers—will feel a lot more sure, a lot more certain, that digitisation of the national broadcasters and of community broadcasters will be able to happen smoothly. There will be a lot more certainty about it than there is at the moment.09:37:001487Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The proposition put by the Democrats is, in summary, to accept the proceeds of the sale, squirrel it away for a few years and hypothecate it towards the expenditure that will be required on the roll-out of the digital network for the ABC and SBS. As Senator Bourne has said, the Commonwealth has already made undertakings in relation to the funding of that roll-out. Simply put, it is a three-stage process—but I am sure there are lots of substages in those three stages—and it will occur over a number of years. It will probably be at least five years, and some parts of the roll-out could take even longer than that.This government shares the view of the previous government. The Labor government, as I recall, year after year stood firm against the concept of hypothecation. The Commonwealth has made it clear that, with a couple of small exceptions, we intend to use the proceeds of the sale for debt repatriation which will help the Commonwealth budget and assist us in meeting our commitments on a range of issues—in particular, commitments in relation to the future roll-out of digital for the ABC and the SBS. We think there is no solid case to create this form of hypothecation in this matter.In terms of the sale proceeds, Senator Bourne asked what the estimates were. A number of public estimates have floated around. They depend on an enormous number of variables. We considered some discussions, and I am probably foreshadowing what Senator Harradine might ask in future about controls over foreign ownership potential. We looked at what might occur if you sought to put a range of different restrictions on foreign ownership, and the potential sale proceeds varied enormously. I am using this as an example of the sorts of considerations you would have to take into account when placing a value on the network. Effectively, the network could be unsaleable with some constrictions placed on it and, therefore, the market value of it could go down to zero. So I would not like to speculate on a price.We have had a number of bidders who have shown interest in the network, but it is a process of talking to the bidders, talking through the process of the sale, finalising the sale procedures and documentation and then seeing what comes out. So I think it would be highly speculative, almost hypothetical and unhelpful to mention any figures. It could fall anywhere between $100 million and $500 million. Senator Bourne mentioned two or three figures in her speech in the debate. We would hope the higher end of the scale, from the Commonwealth's point of view, would be found.That fundamentally is the reason the coalition opposes this proposal by the Democrats. I know it is very well intended, but the Commonwealth has already made it quite clear in its statements that we will be funding the digital conversion of the ABC. As I understand it, we have already made some forward estimates in relation to some of those aspects, which shows our bona fides in this regard.09:42:001488Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—The opposition has considered the amendments and the background brief circulated by Senator Bourne from the Democrats. We have been persuaded by the merit of her argument that the moneys necessary—whether it be $100 million or $200 million—for the digital conversion process for the national broadcasters should be allocated and set aside. Accordingly, we will support this amendment when it comes to a vote.I do have a question of Senator Campbell in a similar vein and it relates to the second and third five-year periods. In the bill before us, the government has undertaken to guarantee funding for broadcasting or transmission costs for the ABC and the SBS in the first five years. Would the government care to comment on its current intentions in relation to guaranteeing or otherwise the transmission costs for the national broadcasters in the second and third five-year periods?09:43:001488Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The ABC, as Senator Bishop has picked up, has the option to renew those contracts out to 15 years. As far as the funding goes, the Commonwealth does forward projections of its budget out to four years. I do not think we have gone out to five years yet, and I do not think any previous government has committed funding of any program beyond four years at this stage.We have actually gone beyond that with the ABC and committed to five years in respect of this relatively small proportion of their budget. To ask us to go out to 15 years would be unprecedented. I am sure the people at the ABC would love to have some sort of forward commitment of 15 years. I know that the previous government certainly gave no undertakings to the ABC about any of their funding certainty for more than three years—four years at the absolute most. Our giving them five years security, safety and comfort in relation to this relatively small aspect of their budget has given them a lot of certainty to ensure the transmission is a smooth one. To ask us to go out to 15 years would be unprecedented.09:45:001488Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I acknowledge the point made by Senator Campbell. The issue that arises is that, if this bill goes through in its current form and the National Transmission Agency is owned and managed in private hands, the consequences are that in significant parts of outlying Australia—regional Australia—there will be a private monopoly that has effective control of transmission and broadcasting services. Our concern is that the ABC and the SBS will no longer be able to rely on provision of service by a government agency or instrumentality but will have to take the rate that is set by that private agency in the second and third and subsequent five-year periods.It appears to us that if the agency is going from being a public monopoly to a private monopoly, it is only proper that that private monopoly will seek to maximise its interests for return to its shareholders. And that is best achieved by extracting monopoly rents from recipients—the ABC, the SBS and other community broadcasters—in those second and third five-year periods.I note that the government says that it is unable to commit for periods post four years. In this situation, in five years time, the two national broadcasters may or may not have received adequate funding to convert to digital broadcasting. Then in the final 12 months, when they sit down to have their negotiations to guarantee transmission services with the new private owner, that private owner will be able to extract monopoly rents from the ABC, the SBS and any other interested community broadcasters. That is of great concern to the opposition. We seek undertakings from the government that the agency will not be able to extract those monopoly rents.09:47:001489Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I can give that undertaking. The point that needs to be made very clearly in this Committee of the Whole today is that the rate is actually set now for 15 years. It is a bit like the rent at Centenary House, Senator Bishop, except the escalation factor at Centenary House that gets charged to the taxpayer through the Auditor-General's office escalates at a factor of nine per cent per annum. The rate of escalation in the contract for 15 years between the NTA and the broadcasters is actually set at an escalation factor that is below the CPI. So the rate is already set.The point that should be made is that the ABC will have market power on its side. It will have a contract. I guess if you took a picture of the NTA you would see a lot of aerials and towers and wires and nuts and bolts, but what you are really selling is the income stream from the contracts, and the Commonwealth is putting that in place. I guess it is a bit like an office building: people look at office buildings and think you are selling the bricks and mortar; you are not really, you are selling an income stream from the tenants. The tenants in this case are the ABC and the SBS. They have a 15-year contract, but the option is on the side of the ABC. So the ABC and the SBS actually have the market power at the end of the five years. The NTA have got to be responsive to their needs in terms of the digital roll-out and their maintenance contracts and so forth.This is a competitive marketplace. As we have seen with the revolution in technology, there are new networks being rolled out very regularly. We have just had in the last month—I am not saying the technology is compatible for TV transmissions, but we have had a new low earth orbiting satellite network established—entirely foreign owned but providing a fantastic transmission service for satellite telephone users in Australia. There will be other networks in place for TV transmission. Providers of transmission services will be competing for contracts, so if the price that is put forward by the privatised NTA is not competitive with what the ABC and SBS and other broadcasters can find in the marketplace, then they will lose the contract. But in terms of the guarantees of the price, they are set in place now. The ABC could actually exercise the double five-year option. Their price is guaranteed for 15 years, regardless. I am informed that that is with an escalation factor which is below the CPI which, as you and I both know, is extremely low at the moment.09:49:001489Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—On the same subject, this new version of the bill changes the contracts that the minister was talking about from two five-year contracts to three three-year contracts. When I was talking to the department about that, they said it was to coincide with the national broadcaster's triennial funding arrangements. The ABC do not seem to think they have a triennial funding arrangement with this government and that this government has not been forthcoming in giving them very much certainty about anything at all really. The triennial funding is one thing that the ABC do not think the government has given them much certainty about.Can the minister tell me whether he believes the ABC have a triennial funding arrangement with the government at the moment? If they do—or even if they don't—when would these three three-year contracts start? Would they start as soon as this bill goes through and, therefore, in the middle of what I believe the government thinks is a triennial funding arrangement, and then go to the middle of another triennial funding arrangement somewhere in the future? Or would it start with the beginning of the next triennial funding arrangement? Or does the government believe—as I believe the ABC do—that there is no triennial funding arrangement at the moment at all?09:51:001490Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Mr Chairman, through you to Senator Bourne: I am informed that the contract negotiations are taking place at the moment. I guess they will pay cognisance to the progress of this legislation and the progress of the sale, but the contract negotiations in some respects are happening anyway.There is, I am advised, reference in the explanatory memorandum about the renewal periods. I think originally the ABC was seeking five plus five plus five, and there is a reference in the new EM to three plus three plus three that reflects the state of what the ABC wants. I think in my references previously I was speaking of five plus five plus five, but it is in fact three plus three plus three. It since has gone back to five plus five plus five, I am informed, at the ABC's request. So the EM is out of date. I was out of date, back to date and up to date again.So those contract negotiations are taking place. At the moment, they include a five plus five plus five; that is what the ABC is seeking. As you would know better than most in this place, the triennial funding cycle for the ABC is into its second year at the moment, so we are roughly halfway through or just past the halfway mark in a triennial funding cycle.I think that is really all I can say—that the ABC seem to be happy to look at a five plus five plus five. But I put the view that the ABC are in a strong position in these negotiations; they are the people who have the market power here. The NTN will not be worth very much in a few years time if the ABC say, `Look, sorry, we can get a better deal from another transmission network.' So the National Transmission Network will need to look after its customer in this respect.09:53:001490Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—On that point: the earlier point I raised related mainly to the issue of private monopolies and perhaps the fear of extraction of monopoly rents in outlying states and regional and rural areas. In the seventh paragraph of your second reading speech on the National Transmission Network Sale Bill, you stated:In the medium term, we recognise that there is likely to remain limited competition in the transmission services market, especially outside major metropolitan centres.That suggests to the opposition somewhere in excess of five and less than seven or eight; that there is not to be the great wealth of competition that you might have outlined; and, hence, there is more meat, if you like, in negotiations for the ABC. I again return to the point in terms of funding in those second and third five-year periods in light of the government's own comments in the second reading speech.09:54:001490Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I will make a couple of quick points. Firstly, the government recognises that in some parts of the marketplace and some parts geographically of Australia, competition will not be as strong as it is, for example, in a densely populated metropolitan area. That is why the bill and the government's telecommunications regulatory regime generally—but particularly in relation to this bill—have picked up an access regime which I think is overseen by the ACCC in a similar way to the handling of some other telecommunications infrastructure. So that is required there.But also the negotiations between the ABC and the NTN I think have been conducted to date on the basis of a package for the whole of Australia. That, I would imagine, would be the practical reality of future negotiations. As I said in my summing up of the speeches in the second reading debate in this place last night, funding for the expansion of the network has always been an on budget funding decision year by year by governments, and that will continue to be the case. If there is a need to expand the network, the government will have to fund that.09:55:001490Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I think this is an appropriate stage to ask the committee a question and be informed by the minister about what the government intends in respect of funding assistance for, for example, community broadcasters and the transmission costs which they need to bear. I—and I imagine a number of other senators—have received representations about these matters. I have received representations from Ros and John Langlois, from Don Wing MLC and a number of others about this question. They have indicated that they have taken the opportunity—which I will do now—of reminding the committee of what Senator Alston wrote to the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia. He wrote:. . . irrespective of the means used to address this problem, the security of the community sector, including affordable access to the means of delivering services, is our objective.I wonder whether the minister would kindly let the committee know what deliberations the government has had on that matter in the last few days. Would he be able to enlighten us about its intentions in this regard?09:57:001491Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I am happy to respond to that because it is an area of concern for the government. Honourable senators would know that, in May of this year, the minister announced an annual grant of $30,000 to the Community Broadcasting Foundation. That funding was effectively to pick up any difference between a subsidised or cross-subsidised rate and the commercial rates that are being applied—firstly, since the NTA has been corporatised and, ultimately, if and when it is privatised.There are a number of organisations—and, Senator Harradine, I think probably all of us have received submissions from them—some of which are not on NTA sites at the moment but seeking access to them, which actually have commercial arrangements already on private sites. But, as I have said, they are seeking access to NTA sites because the coverage is better in some circumstances.Based on the commitments that Senator Harradine has referred to and the government's commitment to ensuring that the community broadcasting sector does have access at reasonable rates to these facilities, the government has announced—and I announce formally today—that we will be increasing the annual grant to the CBF, the Community Broadcasting Foundation, by a further $50,000. So that will take its annual funding up to $80,000. On the estimations that we have, that should ensure that across Australia those organisations will have access, at similar rates to those they are on at the moment, to NTA sites where they are required. So we understand that funding will, Senator Harradine, allay any fears.The feedback we have had from those broadcasters is that they are very supportive of this measure and they agree with the government's contention that the extra $50,000 will fund any gap—probably not a good word to use at the moment with the health debate taking place. That should plug the funding hole, let us call it, for those very important community broadcasters. I am happy to formally announce the $50,000 annual increase going to the Community Broadcasting Foundation.10:00:001491Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—That is good news for community broadcasters, but I have just one final plea on these two amendments. Although the government says it will fully fund the ABC to broadcast and transmit in digital, the ABC has not had the background to believe that. I have not seen the background to believe that they will be fully funded. I fervently hope that is the case.I think that everybody in here knows that Mr Mansfield recommended a couple of years ago that $500 million was the absolute base for running a national radio and television network. The government is now giving the ABC, I think, $467 million or $468 million without the orchestras, which Mr Mansfield did not include. So that is way below the $500 million that even Mr Mansfield thought was the minimum that was needed. The ABC is not getting that.The ABC required $180 million. They estimated that it was about $180 million to transfer their metropolitan and rural television networks to digital for both broadcasting and transmitting. The government—I am sure, not because it did not believe them but because it wanted to have the ABC backed up—asked Arthur Anderson to check on that. Arthur Anderson came up with a report that agreed with the ABC, which said that the ABC would need $180 million to transfer over to digital. I know that is the whole amount, and I know the government is telling us that, yes, it has promised $21 million—$21 million is nowhere near $180 million—and that, yes, it has promised another, I think, $23 million or $24 million. We are still up to about $44 million or $45 million or something like that—still nowhere $180 million.The ABC and Arthur Anderson confirmed this. They said that if they sold a lot of their own property, if they got rid of their facilities and if they cut themselves down to a skeleton for broadcasting and transmitting, then they would need only $84 million to, I think, $108 million to properly transfer over digital broadcasting. Digital broadcasting is coming. We have already had that bill through the Senate, and it will happen. All commercial and free-to-air broadcasters will go over to digital broadcasting for television, and the ABC requires a great deal more funding than this government has promised them.I take the point that that is only the first stage, but the money has to come from somewhere. If the money is coming from the government anyway, I cannot see any reason why the government cannot say, `Okay, this is where it will come from. If there is more in this fund'—the minister hands out the money after all—`than is needed for the national broadcasters to go over to digital broadcasting, then it will go into consolidated revenue.' The government is going to do that anyway. The government tells us that it is going to fully fund the ABC and the SBS to transfer over anyway, and I am glad to hear the news about community broadcasters.If that is going to happen anyway and if there is a great deal of unease out there in ABC listener land—which is somewhere that I live—amongst ABC watchers and listeners, especially in rural and regional areas, about whether there will be adequate funding and whether they will be able to go over to digital at all, especially in regional and rural areas, why cannot this parliament say, `This is something that we want to be sure of. We want to demonstrate that the government is absolutely true to its word. Here is the money'? The government says it is going to give the money to the ABC and SBS anyway, and we have heard the promises about community broadcasting. When digital has been achieved, anything that is on top of this will go back into consolidated revenue, which is where the money would have come from anyway. Everybody out there watching and listening to the ABC would be so thankful and happy that they may even vote for the government next time around.This would demonstrate to all of us who are so fearful about the future of the ABC—and there are a great many people out there who are really fearful—that this government actually does have its heart in the right place with respect to the ABC, that this government is prepared to put in absolutely full funding for the digitisation of ABC television at least. This will ensure that everybody in Australia—rural, regional and metropolitan—will be able to watch ABC television well into the next century after the digitisation has gone through.10:05:001492Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I will just make a few comments, because it is a very important issue. I will reiterate what the government has done to date. We have agreed to provide $20 million in real terms over the next five years and to meet any outstanding debt incurred by the ABC for phase 1 of the upgrade of its facilities and equipment from analog to digital. That $20 million goes to what is happening inside the studios. It is an extremely small component of the whole process.I do not think anyone in the ABC would be able to tell you within tens of millions of dollars what the conversion will cost. It is a highly complex, lengthy process to shift across to digital for television, and for radio down the track. The government will provide $16.9 million in real terms over five years to the SBS to assist with phase 1 of their upgrade of equipment and facilities. The govern ment has also indicated that it will give consideration to additional funding for the second and third phases—that is, the internal signal reticulation and the transmission costs of both broadcasters once these costs are more certain. As I said, there is incredible uncertainty about what will take place, and the government needs to make independent assessments of what those costs are.The digital TV act—and I think this is an important point—places an obligation on the national broadcasters to participate in the digital television conversion process and the government will provide them with funding to meet these statutory obligations. In other words, the government has required them under that act to do these things. We have an obligation, which I am restating today, to fund them to do that.The problem with this hypothecation, which the Labor Party opposed vigorously for 13 years in government, is that, two and a bit years into opposition, they have all of a sudden chucked out of the window here today the principle that they stood by in relation to every single policy. They have said: `Right, we will chuck out what was a sound principle,' because it suits their short-term political ends. But that is, I guess, the game they are in at the moment. If you haven't got a long-term policy you just have to play the game kick by kick.For the rest of the Senate, who think about these things more seriously in the long term, I make a couple of points. Let us presume—and I put the word `presume' in great big capitals and underline it for the sake of Hansard and for the sake of any potential bidders who might be paying attention to this debate; I am sure all of them are—that the income from the sale is only $150 million and the cost of digital conversion is a couple of hundred million dollars. You still have to go to the budget to find the change.Let us go to the other alternative and say that the fund has in it a couple of hundred million dollars, and the cost of conversions is only $150 million. Your amendment, Senator Bourne, makes no allowance for what would happen with the other $50 million. There is actually a drafting mistake there which would ensure that any balance in the fund will have to sit there forever. That highlights the problem of hypothecation. It is very hard to make an arrangement, particularly in this circumstance. I know that people like to say, `Let's put road taxes into road funding.' I guess that is a more direct relationship because building roads is something that governments around the country need to do every day of every week.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—That's what you fellows used to say in opposition.ZS6Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I know we did. And you always said, `No hypothecation.'2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—It's amazing how it changes. So we are both consistent.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—That's right. Both have had to cross the Rubicon, or cross the road. This highlights the problem. I guess that with hypothecating road taxes with road expenditure, at least road expenditure is something that takes place every day somewhere around the country, even if it is not on the Sydney orbital at the moment. But with this, you are looking into a process and a program of expenditure and infrastructure upgrade which will take place over at least the next five years and probably the next seven to 10 years in relation to all of the networks.We really have only the vaguest idea of the sort of expenditure that will be incurred. We have picked up this asset, which has some sort of link to the whole process, but only very tenuous, and said: `Somewhere between $100 million and $300 million might come out of the NTN sale and setting up digital might cost somewhere between $100 million and a couple of hundred million, so let's take the money out of this and give it to that and set up some sort of fund but not make any provision or have any discussion as to what happens if the fund falls short.'Obviously we will have to go back to the budget anyway. The cabinet is going to have to make decisions about where the money comes from out of this fund, so a decision is still going to be made, even though you have said that the money from this fund can only be spent on certain things and so we can't use it for anything else. But ultimately a minister or the cabinet is going to have to make a decision to spend the money and, I presume, if there is not enough money in the fund they will have to find some other money, which is exactly the situation we are in at the moment.What we have done, to reiterate, Senator Bourne, is to place an obligation on the national broadcasters to convert, which is the only practical thing we can do. We can make a core promise to say that we will spend X million dollars, but it really is meaningless until we know what the requirements are. The ABC are assessing that at the moment. I think it is a messy way to go about it. I don't think it is going to help the ABC. I don't think it is going to assist people who live in ABC listener land, like I do—for those of you who want to meet Christopher Lawrence from ABC Classic FM, he will be at the ABC shop tomorrow morning at 6 o'clock—but I don't think it is going to make any of us more comfortable about the ABC. It is a big process they are going through. I think it is a noble intent of Senator Bourne's but it is a very messy, and ultimately unproductive, way to go about it.10:12:001494Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I don't want to take up the time of the Senate. I know we have other amendments to go through, but this is probably one of the subjects I feel most strongly about. The minister tells us this is exactly the situation we are in at the moment, where you would have to look for more money. But the point about this is that whatever money comes out of the sale would have to go first to the ABC and, after digitisation is completed—and there is a finite time when it will be—then anything left over would obviously go into consolidated revenue. The government has hundreds of funds around the place. There is a heritage fund. There are funds all over the place. Money just doesn't sit there forever. That is silly—of course it just doesn't sit there forever.Friends of the ABC, people who listen and people who watch have noticed that the ABC has been downgraded in the last two years. The reason for that is that it is not getting enough funding. Nobody trusts this government to fund the ABC correctly. There is a very good reason for that. There is an excellent reason for that. They are not doing it. The minister said that the government has—and this is excellent—promised $20.7 million, not $20 million, for the first stage of digitisation and they will cover any further ones. I think that brings it up to between $44 million and $46 million. That is nowhere near what will be needed.I hope that the government will take out of consolidated revenue—if this amendment doesn't go through—the money that is needed by the ABC and the SBS to fully digitise. But it would be an awfully easy thing for the government to do, if it really wanted to destroy the ABC, to just not quite fund them enough, to just not give them quite enough money so they couldn't quite digitise enough, so they couldn't quite get it out there to all those rural and regional areas, so the service would have to be downgraded all over the country, so that the signal would not be as strong as it is—and it is not strong enough as it is. The ABC has already been given the cruddy end of the spectrum. I am sure that will happen again. It would be so easy for that to happen.I am sure there are an awful lot of people out there—and I am one—who do not trust this government to properly fund the ABC in any way whatsoever. This would give at least some certainty to all those people who are worried about the funding of the ABC, who are worried that the signal will be downgraded because there is not enough money to digitise properly. Then we would have the same problem that we have with digital and analog telephones, and it is a real problem.The minister mentioned that an independent assessment has been made, as far as we know, by the Arthur Andersen report, and they came up with the same answer as the ABC. The ABC have been proven to know what they are talking about on this issue. Nobody knows the exact amount that will be needed for digitisation, but neither did they know with the commercial broadcasters when the commercial broadcasters insisted that it would cost them between $500 million and $750 million for the three of them—I think $750 million was the top end; it is now accepted to be around $500 million for full digitisation—and the government just accepted that.I remember Senator Alston standing there, having just accepted those figures, saying, `Okay, the commercial broadcasters say that it has to go through. It will cost them this much money. We accept that figure, and we have to work with that.' Why don't we just accept what the ABC is saying? Sure, it will be a little bit different. Sure, nobody knows how much it will cost, but if the word of the commercial broadcasters is good enough for this government I do not understand why the word of the ABC is not, especially when the commercial broadcasters have not been independently tested by the government the way the ABC has. The ABC has been independently tested with the Arthur Andersen report and found to be correct.I am sure we all remember that the Arthur Andersen report said they did not think it was a very good idea for the ABC to sell off all its facilities in order to digitise. I do not think it is a very good idea either. I do not recall insisting that all the commercial broadcasters sell off facilities. No, we are making sure that they have a very certain atmosphere in which to digitise.I will not take up the time of the Senate any longer, but I have to say that a bit of certainty about the funding of digitisation on the part of this government would go down very well with all those people who are going to turn up at 6 o'clock tomorrow morning to the Canberra Centre to say hello to Christopher Lawrence and have a bite to eat. I certainly hope to do that, and I think I will see the minister there.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—For breakfast?TW4Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNE—Yes, Senator Harradine, breakfast is included. I think all of those people who are interested in the fate of the ABC want to see certainty. They have not seen it so far in the life of this government. If there is one thing in the life of this government that you can be sure of, it is that the ABC will be bashed and underfunded. If we can make sure that there is funding that is guaranteed to some extent at least for this, I am sure that would go over extremely well with ABC listeners and ABC watchers.Amendments not agreed to.10:18:001495Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—by leave—I move Australian Democrat amendments (3) and (4):(3) Clause 14, page 11 (lines 24 to 26), omit subparagraph (iii).(4) clause 14, page 12 (lines 10 to 17), omit subclauses (2) and (3).These two amendments, which I circulated only yesterday, relate to the difference between analog and digital and the responsibilities of the NTN in the bill. That has just been put into the bill in its newest form. It was not in the old bill that we looked at in the last parliament. I cannot find my notes, so I will try to explain to the Senate what I think happened.The old bill did not include a difference between digital and analog, although this was in the explanatory memorandum. This is coming out of my head, so it may well be wrong, and I ask the minister to tell me if it is. I think the explanatory memorandum said that it was intended to be analog and that digital will be picked up in the digital conversion bill, which went through last session. The digital conversion bill did not pick it up to the extent that we had hoped. I think that is why it has now been put into this bill. What worries me, though, is that the digital act, while providing some access to sites, is not clear enough. It is not clear what the regime will be if this bill goes through in its present form after the changeover from analog to digital. If I could get the minister to give me an explanation of that, that would certainly clarify it for me.10:20:001495Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I am happy to do so. The analog transmission services component of the access regime in this bill is intended to provide a safety net for nominated customers who currently have analog transmission service arrangements with the NTA. These customers will have their existing contracts carried over to the new owner of the NTN, with the existing terms and conditions and rights to review those contracts for a total cumulative period of approximately 15 years.In negotiating the renewal of these contracts, the nominated customers will have the added statutory protection of an analog transmission services access regime. So the existing regime gets transferred across to ensure that the contracts can be renewed on reasonable terms and conditions. The nominated customers will be able to purchase new digital transmission services in a competitive market either from the new owner of the NTN or from an alternative service provider. The digital TV act gives both the ABC and SBS as well as commercial television broadcasters a statutory right of access to NTN and other broadcasting transmission sites to install their own digital television transmitters or to contract with alternative transmission service providers to install transmitters on their behalf.The NTN Sale Bill gives the ABC, SBS, RPH licensees and other nominated customers a guaranteed right of access to NTN transmission sites to install digital radio transmitters. Self-help groups will also have a guaranteed right of access to NTN sites to install digital radio or television transmitters. Any specific issues relating to access to broadcasting sites for the delivery of digital radio services will be considered by the government in developing a legislative scheme for the introduction of digital radio in Australia.10:22:001496Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I thank the parliamentary secretary for that. That is basically the problem. It looks as though the original explanatory memorandum and legislation—and let me know if this is not the case—do not quite match up with the new legislation. The original explanatory memorandum said in part 3 that it was not to cover digital television. It said that issues of access in relation to this would be looked at in the context of the digital legislation, which of course has now gone through. But that legislation did not limit itself to analog services. It deals with access to services and to physical facilities. So it is access to the sites, the towers and what is there already.When the digital legislation came in, clause 50 only covered access to sites and towers. So we are still only looking at access to sites and towers. We all took that to mean that the access regime to services—the services that the NTN bill mentions—would not be displaced at all and would remain in place. The department said, when they were talking to us and when they were talking to the ABC as well, I understand, that digital transmission services would still be covered by the NTN bill. So, of course, we all worked on that assumption.But the effect of the new bill, while it may be consistent with the original explanatory memorandum, is to leave no access regime for delivery of digital services anywhere. In all other areas where we are looking at delivery of services, the referee, the ACCC, makes sure that prices and conditions are kept fair. But that is not included in this because digital is taken out and we are only looking at analog. So after digital comes in, that goes away.Where the NTC is in a monopoly position, the ABC and SBS will be at a disadvantage. That is especially true, as Senator Bishop mentioned earlier, in regional areas where there may be no competitor at all for the ABC or SBS to be able to take up a service with. Unlike the commercial channels, the ABC and SBS have no transmission structure themselves. The NTN is currently their transmission structure. That is how they are able to get their signal out. They have no transmission structure to bring to the table to try to make it fair. The ACCC is not involved in this.While the ABC, SBS and community broadcasters do get access to the sites under the digital act—that is, the physical site—they have to deal site by site and they have to develop their own service arrangement. I understand that they would prefer to buy services themselves, and the current analog contract is also service based. So that is more realistically how they would like to act to buy transmission services.The question really is: if digital is not included and there is no arbiter who will make sure that the whole situation is fair and reasonable, why should we leave digital in there when it is inconsistent with the digital act and with what I believe was really the intention of the government in the first place in the spirit of the first act—that is, to have a fair and reasonable access regime for the ABC and SBS? If we take out the word `analog' and leave it so it could be digital or analog, then that would seem to me to be at least a safety net. I know the minister has mentioned that himself and is interested in making it fair and reasonable.10:27:001497Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I have listened to the arguments and we do not think there is any inconsistency. The government's regime is to provide an access regime for the sites as opposed to the transmission services. That is a regime that will apply across the industry—that is, the site access regime—which will be overseen by the ACCC.We think that is fair to not only all transmission broadcasters but also all site owners. If you were to create a special access regime to transmission services, you would create distortions for both the transmitters and for the broadcasting community. The regime is in fact consistent with the digital TV act. It was always the government's intention—I think it was slightly unclear, and we made it clearer—that we wanted an access regime in relation to the sites so the ABC, SBS and other people can get clear, fair access to sites. We do not want to distort it by giving a special deal on transmission services.10:28:001497Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I just want to make sure that I have this straight. The parliamentary secretary believes that, even though the bill has been changed, the access to the arbiter has not been—that is, the access to the ACCC for users of the sites and users of the transmission facilities will still be in place?10:28:001497Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I understand that the digital TV act will set up an access regime and arbitration regime in relation to transmission. This act—this is why we are trying to create a clear distinction—puts in place an access regime and the arbitration that goes with that through the ACCC in relation to the sites. We think that is the right regulatory regime, and I refer also to the analog transmission services in relation to the NTN bill.10:29:001497Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—Does that mean that, because it has been taken out, because it just says `analog' in this, and because this bill comes later, that does not in any way affect the access of the ABC and SBS to the ACCC as the arbiter to decide whether or not they get fair and reasonable access?10:29:001497Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I am informed that the digital TV act makes it quite clear—and I think it is actually spelled out in plain English—that it overrides anything in this act in relation to site access.Amendments not agreed to.10:30:001497Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—by leave—I move Democrats amendments Nos 5 and 6:(5) Clause 15, page 12 (after line 31), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) A community broadcasting licensee is a nominated customer for the purposes of: (a) the carriage of broadcasting services on a non-profit basis for community and educational purposes; and (b) access to sites or telecommunications transmission towers for purposes connected with a community broadcasting service.(6) Page 13 (after line 27), after clause 15, insert:15A Community service obligations (1) This section establishes community service obligations for the benefit of certain customers. (2) If a customer is a nominated customer because of subsections 15(3), (3A), (4) or (6), any fees for access to sites or telecommunications transmission towers which are payable by that customer must be worked out in accordance with an approved marginal cost pricing formula and any terms and conditions of access must be specified in a written contract. (3) If a customer is a nominated customer because of subsection 15(3) or (6), any fees for carriage of broadcasting services are the responsibility of the Commonwealth. (4) The Minister must determine an approved marginal cost pricing formula for the purpose of subsection (2). (5) A determination under subsection (4) is a disallowable instrument.I have discussed my amendments Nos 5 and 6 with the department, and the parliamentary secretary has got back to me with some notes relating to community broadcasting licensees which really clarify who is included in that. The parliamentary secretary does have some notes to put on the record, I understand, about this. And I think if he does intend to put on the record the same notes that I have got, that would take away the necessity for even moving those amendments. So, if we can listen to the parliamentary secretary, we may be able to get through this a bit faster.10:31:001498Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Democrats amendment No. 5 relates to the extension of the transmission services component of the access regime to community broadcasting licensees, as I understand it. The transmission service component of the access regime in this bill applies to the ABC, SBS, RPH community licensees and self-help groups, who currently have analog transmission service arrangements with the NTA. The NTN Sale Bill gives community broadcasters a right of access to NTN sites and towers to install analog or digital transmitters. This provides statutory protection for their existing site access arrangements. It is not necessary to give community broadcasters a statutory right of access to transmission services provided by the new owner of the NTN, given that they do not currently require these transmission services from the NTA.10:33:001498Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I thank the parliamentary secretary. I believe that does cover amendment No. 5. I apologise because amendment No. 6 should be separate. If the Senate is happy with the minister's explanation, I will withdraw Democrats amendment No. 5. I think he has clarified that. I seek leave to withdraw amendment No. 5.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.TW4Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNE—Amendment No. 6 is my final amendment. This is the one relating to community service obligations, and it just extends community service obligations a little from where they are in the bill. I believe the extension would be sensible. If I could get an explanation from the parliamentary secretary about how far he believes the community service obligations go and why he believes that they are adequate—and I am sure he does—I think that would be helpful.10:34:001498Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I think Democrats amendment No. 1, which was not successful in the committee of the whole, also relates to this issue. I think amendment No. 1 would have prevented the sale of the NTN unless certain things were done, unless fees payable by community broadcasting licensees, emergency service providers, et cetera, were determined by a marginal pricing formula which was set out in a disallowable instrument.The Commonwealth makes the point here that we would prefer to fund this area in a transparent way in the budget. One of the ways we have sought to do that was the establishment of the Community Broadcasting Foundation, which we have explicitly and transparently funded to the tune of $80,000 a year to assist those community broadcasters. If some future government were to seek to alter that or if, for example, community broadcasters came forward and suggested to the government or to honourable senators that that was not enough for some reason, then that becomes a transparent and obvious issue for the government deal with. That is the way that we have been dealing with it. We think is the appropriate way to handle it, and we seek to continue to do that. You might doubt our bona fides in relation to the funding of the ABC, but I think we have put our money where our mouth is in relation to community broadcasters.10:36:001499Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I have a question to Senator Bourne. I am unsure of the intent of her clause 15A. Is it seeking to extend the nominees who will receive favoured treatment in terms of access to the CSOs or is it seeking to address the method of delivery of the CSOs, as outlined by the parliamentary secretary?10:37:001499Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I am not surprised you are a little unsure, Senator Bishop. The whole idea is to strengthen the CSOs. This clause 15A would put in new community service obligations for the benefit of certain nominated customers. The nominated customers are the ones we mentioned before—the ABC, SBS, community broadcasters, emergency service organisations, commercial broadcasters in declared remote areas, non-profit bodies and government bodies. The community sector is defined in the bill as Radio for the Print Handicapped, non-profit community specific broadcasting services and educational broadcasting. Access to NTN sites is based on these definitions.Nominated customers would be able to negotiate their access fees to the NTN sites under an approved cost pricing formula that would be determined by the minister. The pricing formula would be a disallowable instrument. The broadcasters and the transmission facility owner would specify the fee for access and any other terms and conditions for that access in a written contract. We think that this would provide greater security for community broadcasters and enable them to negotiate fairer and more reasonably priced access.10:38:001499Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—So it is your intention, Senator Bourne, that the class of nominated customers is to be extended quite widely. It does not have the limitation that is contained in the government's EM.10:38:001499Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I have to say it is a while since I have looked at this—this was pre the election. I believe the idea of this amendment would be to include the community sector as well as the nominated customers. So it would include Radio for the Print Handicapped, non-profit community specific broadcasting services and educational broadcasting as well.10:39:001499Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I might say for the record that the government has, through the mechanism I described in my last intervention—that is, on budget funding—guaranteed that all these organisations will not be paying any more. I think it is guaranteed for at least the next five years, is it? It is up to 15 years if they pick up the option. We are doing it through a transparent process. We are funding it directly to the organisations that are in this situation for the CSO component—not all of them have a pure community service obligation component. They are being looked after through a direct, transparent on budget process. Amendment not agreed to.10:40:001499Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I want to go to the question of employment. I apologise to the committee for raising this because it is more of a parochial matter, but it is important. At present Telstra has the tender for the technical work of maintaining the services of the National Transmission Agency in Tasmania at least, and I believe in a number of other states as well. As I understand it, Telstra has made it perfectly clear that it is not going to tender to extend its NTN contract beyond June of next year. Could the parliamentary secretary advise the committee on what the prospects are for those persons who are currently employed by Telstra. What are their prospects and what are their options? Are there going to be situations which they could take advantage of or are we going to see yet another problem arising in employment terms in Telstra?10:42:001499Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—It is an issue that I have spent some time looking at and it is an issue that Senator Harradine has raised with me over a long period. I have done a lot of work in this area. We have sought to confirm what Senator Harradine asks about Telstra. Senator Harradine may treat this with a grain of salt—because we are having discussions with Telstra on another issue at the moment—but I have `unequivocal' advice from Telstra which says that it intends not to tender for that contract. It is important for the committee to understand that, regardless of whether the government is to sell the NTN or not, Telstra has made it quite clear that they are not going to tender for that work. I understand that was a decision taken by Telstra back in 1995. It bears no relationship to privatisation, deregulation or anything else. It was a decision that Telstra made—prior to even the 1996 election—not to stay in that business. It is entirely unrelated to this particular sale bill and, I might add, it was entirely unrelated to the partial sale of Telstra itself. It was a decision that was made by Telstra management a year before this government won the 1996 election.In relation to the 12 staff that are employed in Tasmania, there can be no certainty as to where those individuals would be employed. I share with Senator Harradine the hope that those individuals—and their families who rely on those individuals as their breadwinners—would be able to stay in Tasmania, if they wanted to. I think there is a lot of hope for that, because we are dealing with an area of employment that is expanding, not contracting.We have had indications from two of the bidders that they are keen to talk to the Telstra management because they are keen to recruit those Telstra staff. So that is very one good sign of hope. The other good sign of hope is that we have spent much of the last hour talking about digital conversion. All the advice we received from people involved in that process and international experience shows that digital conversion will see a massive increase in the number of technical staff involved in this area of work, both in the building of the digital roll-out and in ongoing maintenance. There will be more involved in maintenance. We estimate that there will be an increase in Tasmania of around 15 jobs per year, at least over the next five years. They are saying that there will be an employment impact. I will read it specifically:The NTA and its advisers to the sale have estimated that in the order of 1,000 to 1,500 man years—`person years' for the politically correct, I guess—will be required for the construction phase of the digital television conversion.That is 200 to 300 jobs per year over the next five years. They have estimated that Tasmania's proportion of that will be about 15 people. So there is immediately a demand for technicians in this area. As I have said, there is then an ongoing requirement for maintenance personnel.It is important to point out, for those of us who have practical minds, that the people required to maintain the transmission network cannot be located in Ballarat, Bendigo or Meekatharra. They have to be near the towers and the infrastructure. If something goes wrong, under the contracts they need to be able to perform this maintenance work at very short notice. These are jobs that cannot be transported to the mainland. Although the decision made by Telstra back in 1995 not to stay in this business creates uncertainty in their lives—none of us enjoys that or would wish it on these 12 people—the reality is that there are a number of reasons for hope in relation to the prospects of those 12 people in Tasmania.The same applies to other people and for the honourable senators who represent all other states. This is one area of massive expansion in Australia. Telecommunications and the IT sector generally are expanding very rapidly. Being at the dawn of the digital era, there will be an expansion in employment prospects in the transmission area.10:48:001500Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I have one further question for the minister. One of my staffers has just checked through the digital television broad casting act. It still appears to us from the digital act—I would like the minister's clarification of this—that NTN sites would be accessed for the purposes of the site but not for services. The services would not be included in that. My intention with the amendment was to include services, whereby access would be available for the purpose of services. I would like some clarification of that.10:49:001501Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—That is exactly what I said in my intervention on that amendment. The access regime to the sites—if you read the Hansard , you will see that I said the sites, not the services—is guaranteed by the digital act. That is what I want to make quite clear. The government believes that that is the best regulatory regime. We want to draw a clear line between an access regime for the services and an access regime for the sites. The two acts are consistent in that respect.10:49:001501Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—So you do not believe that the nominated customers have any access right with regard to services?10:49:001501Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—They do in analog, but not in digital. It was never our intention to transfer the access regime across to digital. We think it is bad policy. The regime in relation to services is through existing contracts.Bill agreed to.NATIONAL TRANSMISSION NETWORK SALE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1998Bill agreed to.Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.1501Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) put:That the bills be now read a third time.10:55:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)34Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. 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. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G. *Parer, W. R. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.29Allison, L. Bishop, T. M.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Sherry, N.Chapman, H. G. P. Lundy, K.Macdonald, I. Hutchins, S.Patterson, K. C. L. Campbell, G.Synon, K. M. Carr, K.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a third time.Bills read a third time.Bills1502r614Billsr615Billsr6131502Debate resumed from 23 November, on motion by Senator Newman:That these bills be now read a second time.11:00:001502Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The three bills before us today are very important pieces of legislation. They are the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 , the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Bill 1998 and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 . This package of bills is a very important legislative development in respect of regulating nuclear facilities, nuclear installations and sources of radiation throughout Australia. The key bill, of course, is the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998, and it is to that bill that I will be particularly directing my remarks.I should say at the outset that the opposition is supportive of the passage of the legislation, except we will be seeking to move an amendment at a later stage which would require a public inquiry to be conducted prior to any issuing of a licence for the establishment of a nuclear installation. But I will come back to deal with that in more detail later.The opposition also notes that, following a hearing of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee on Monday, 30 November this year, the government has accepted a range of proposed changes to the bills to strengthen their provisions. We are appreciative of that. Accordingly, as I said, we are supportive of the passage of the legislation with the one exception that I have mentioned.The stated purpose of the legislation is referred to in the explanatory memorandum. It states:This Bill proposes to establish a scheme to regulate the operation of nuclear installations and the management of radiation sources, including ionizing material and apparatus and non-ionizing apparatus, where these activities are undertaken by Commonwealth entities.The object of the Bill is to protect the health and safety of people, and to protect the environment, from the harmful effects of radiation.That, of course, is a very important objective, one increasingly seen by the people of this country and the people of the world to be at the forefront of issues that need to be resolved at both a national and an international level. The more we can do to ensure that the operation of nuclear facilities and installations and the use of radiation, firstly, are for peaceful purposes and, secondly, take place with the absolute safety of the personnel employed in the industry as well as the general public and with no harm or the least harm to the environment the better.These bills do represent an improvement upon the existing regulatory system at the Commonwealth level. The bills ensure that all Commonwealth entities and their employees involved with radiation and nuclear activities will in future be regulated under the one set of legislation. Previously, as has been recognised in two important reports, there has been an ad hoc approach to regulation and there have been gaps in the application of particular pieces of legislation.For instance, in 1993, the Research Reactor Review, set up by the then Labor government to look at the future of the Lucas Heights facility, amongst others, concluded that the current regulatory system was inadequate and needed to be more properly codified and, indeed, strengthened. In the report of that Research Reactor Review—it is known as Future Reaction; it is more commonly known as the McKinnon review—it states in the executive summary when commenting upon the operation of the Nuclear Safety Bureau:The regulatory machinery even for the small nuclear industry in Australia is unduly fragmented and unclear, and the scope of responsibility for the current regulatory body—that is, the Nuclear Safety Bureau—is too limited. Accountability to a Minister different from the one responsible for reactor operations is required.Further, it states:The IAEA—the International Atomic Energy Agency—licensing requirements provide a suitable basis for licensing arrangements in some other countries which, with adaptation, could be used in Australia.The arrangement by which the operating organisation ANSTO operates under an Authorisation issued by the ANSTO Board, rather than a licence issued by the regulatory body, is inconsistent with IAEA international principles and requirements.There is scope for rationalisation of the separate safety and safeguards regulatory regimes which apply to ANSTO.The regulatory body should have unambiguous and effective sanctions to apply to the operating organisation ANSTO to ensure that conditions it imposes are met.This legislation does reflect in many ways the recommendations of the McKinnon review that I have just referred to. On that basis, it is an important development.A further report that forms part of the basis for this legislation is that of the Senate Select Committee on the Dangers of Radioactive Waste, which reported in 1996. That is a report that I know is well known to senators, particularly those participating in this debate today. The report was entitled No time to waste. That report also expressed concerns about the problems with the current regulatory system.On page 24 of that report the committee referred to waste which is currently stored at Lucas Heights, an issue that still causes much concern both in the community of that region, the Sutherland Shire, and more widely throughout the Australian community. It is an issue that at this point in time has not been satisfactorily resolved. In commenting upon the waste, the committee said:Disputes surrounding Commonwealth bodies' immunity from State laws are not unique to ANSTO, and they raise broader issues which have not been canvassed by the Committee in this Inquiry. It could be argued that if a Commonwealth body complies with State standards as a matter of policy, then it should have no reason to object to complying in law as well, since the difference will not affect its operations. In the case of ANSTO the position is complicated by the obvious national security aspect of Australia's nuclear research capability, which underpins the argument for immunity from State laws . . . The Committee accepts this argument, but with a caution. In a liberal democracy, while national security remains paramount, it must also compete with other interests.It went on to say:Part of the problem is that ANSTO combines research and advice functions which may involve the national interest, as well as commercial activities in which, arguably, it deserves no advantage over private enterprise.The Committee accepts the `national interest' argument but does not consider it satisfactory that ANSTO's waste or commercial operations are exempt from controls that apply to its private sector competitors. The Committee believes that this is not an area where self-regulation is appropriate.It goes on to then recommend the creation of a Commonwealth regulatory body independent of ANSTO to ensure that this area is covered.One key feature of the legislation before the Senate is that it establishes a new agency—the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, ARPANSA—to oversee all the regulatory aspects with respect to Commonwealth facilities and Commonwealth employees. The agency will operate within the Department of Health and Aged Care.Further, the legislation provides for the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer of ARPANSA. The functions of the chief executive officer are outlined in clause 14 of the bill. Those functions include: to promote uniformity of radiation protection and nuclear safety policy and practices across jurisdictions of the Commonwealth, the states and the territories; to provide advice on radiation protection, nuclear safety and related issues; to undertake research in relation to radiation protection, nuclear safety and medical exposures to radiation; to provide services relating to radiation protection, nuclear safety and medical exposures to radiation; to accredit persons with technical expertise for the purposes of this act; and such other functions as are conferred by this act, the regulations or any other law.Most importantly, one of the key features of the legislation is that it establishes a licensing system for regulating nuclear facilities, nuclear installations and sources of ionising and non-ionising radiation. Two other bodies will be established to support the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council: a radiation health committee and a nuclear safety committee.Whilst we do support the legislation, we have raised in debate in the other place, both when it occurred earlier this year and since the election, a number of concerns with the legislation. In particular we raised our concern that there was not sufficient recognition of the rights of community groups and particularly local governments. They should be given a greater opportunity to be involved in the decision-making processes of the ARPANSA.We are pleased to acknowledge that the government has strengthened the bill since it introduced it earlier this year by including provision for local government to be represented on the Nuclear Safety Committee. That is a very important issue for the community of the Sutherland Shire, where the Lucas Heights facility is located. As honourable senators know, that is where I happen to reside. So I am quite conscious of the views of the Sutherland Shire Council and of the broader community in this regard.Page 6 of the majority report of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee notes that the government will be bringing forward amendments to the legislation to deal with many of the issues that we raised, that other groups have raised, and that other representatives in the Senate have raised. They include: ensuring that the chief executive officer must have regard to the application of world's best practice when issuing licences; ensuring that the minister and the chief executive officer consider nominations from consumer environmental groups before making appointments to the committees; and amending the definition of `nuclear installation' by deleting the references to nuclear power reactors and reprocessing facilities. We understand it is the case that Australia has no intention of building a nuclear power facility, and as such it should not be referred to within that section of the act. The bill also will distinguish between medium scale facilities such as a reactor or a waste storage facility—they will be called `nuclear installations'—and small scale facilities, which might be dubbed `prescribed facilities'.There is one area where we disagree with the government on this legislation. The opposition intends to move an amendment to provide that, prior to any issuing of a licence by the chief executive officer for the construction of a nuclear installation—we have in mind the new Lucas Heights reactor or a new reactor at any other location in Australia—there must be either an independent inquiry or a public inquiry held pursuant to the provisions of the environment protection legislation. We would ask that the government give further consideration to accepting our amendment in that regard. When we get to the committee stage we will be arguing that there are very good reasons as to why that process should occur prior to a licence being issued.We do not build nuclear reactors in this country every day of the week or even every year. It is 40 years since the first reactor was built at Lucas Heights. The government has made a decision to replace that reactor with another reactor. There is a lot of concern about that decision in the community. There are very good reasons why it should firstly be determined whether we need another reactor in this country. If it were demonstrated that there were issues as to where it should be located, those issues should be properly addressed in a public forum such as a public inquiry. There is great dissatisfaction and concern being expressed with the current EIS process that is under way in that regard.With those remarks, I would indicate that we support the legislation in principle, but at the committee stage we will be pursuing our amendments and will listen with interest to the other contributions made in the debate.11:20:001504Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Before I begin debate on the specific provisions contained in this bill, I do feel it is important to restate the Green's total opposition to the nuclear fuel cycle. Despite all the claims to the contrary, the reality is that nuclear material is inherently dangerous and remains so for many years—hundreds of thousands of years in some cases.I have just returned from Melbourne where two important conferences took place on the weekend. The first one, which I attended, was the international congress of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. The second was a national meeting to establish a coalition of antinuclear groups to campaign against uranium mining, a nuclear reactor and a national radioactive waste dump.In an international context, recent events, such as the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan, have confirmed that the existing nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime has failed. One of the key problems in that regard is the total failure by the five nuclear weapons states to commit to a timetable for nuclear weapons disarmament. That failure contributed directly to the recent tests in India and Pakistan and remains a stumbling block to real nuclear disarmament.It is also important to note that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is based on a fundamentally flawed premise: that it is possible to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons by providing non-nuclear weapon states with so-called `peaceful' nuclear technology. This flawed argument has been highlighted by people such as Elizabeth Clegg from the Centre of Defence Studies at the University of Aberdeen. In an article entitled `Building the bomb: how states go nuclear', to which I have referred previously in this place, she stated:In conclusion, then, it can be seen that the infrastructure required for the development of a nuclear weapons potential is best created under cover of a well established civilian nuclear industry; in all of the above cases the military option was made possible by the existence of a civilian programme.Whilst opposing the involvement of the Australian government in the nuclear fuel cycle, the unfortunate reality is that we do have a nuclear reactor and nuclear waste in this country, and proper independent regulation is required.The introduction of this legislation which provides for the protection of the Australian community from the adverse effects of radiation and for the safety of Australians who deal with radioactive materials is, therefore, extremely important. We know that a number of people have been asking for it for some time. It is too important to be allowed to go through parliament without the Australian community having had the opportunity to register its concerns about the regulatory regime on which we will have to rely to protect us from hazards which have the potential to remain with us for an indefinite period of time.It was for that reason I pushed for a committee hearing on these bills. As predicted, a range of concerns were expressed by community representatives. Many of these concerns had the potential to be addressed by way of amendment to the legislation. And the hearing has clarified the issues, providing a way forward to strengthen the protection provided by the bill.A number of community groups expressed concern about how much of the framework of these nuclear regulations is to be contained in regulation rather than in the legislation itself. The government, however, is to be commended for going some way towards meeting those concerns, and particularly for allowing a period of open public consultation on the regulations which are so important to the effective functioning of ARPANSA as a regulating body.One of the key concerns raised by several parties to the hearing and others who made written submissions is the fundamental issue of whether there is such a thing as a `safe' level of exposure to radiation. It is my view and the view shared by many that there is no safe level of exposure, and to legislate to allow any increase in the radiation to which Australians are exposed is fundamentally flawed.Even following the presentations by ARPANSA and ANSTO, concern remains about the `allowable' exposure to radiation. A particular concern is the power of the CEO to grant exemptions which could see workers exposed to higher doses of radiation than otherwise allowed. The aim should be to have exposure as close to zero as is technically possible, and there should not be power to grant exemptions over people's lives.The standard in the legislation purports to be world's best practice. While this should mean `as low as technically achievable'—that is the ALATA principle—the standard in this legislation is set at `as low as reasonably achievable', and that takes in the dollars and cents. If this is world's best practice, it is not good enough, especially when we know that better standards are achievable elsewhere. `World's best practice' does not mean the best practice in the world; it obviously means something quite different by way of compromise.We believe that world's best practice does not and should not equate to international atomic energy acceptable levels, the International Atomic Energy Agency in many ways being both a regulator and a proponent of nuclear technology. Standards are constantly under review and technological developments are taking place. But best practice in the nuclear industry is constrained by economic forces, which should not be the primary concern in a bill to protect Australians from radiation and provide for nuclear safety.The precautionary principle must be the most important consideration where nuclear health and safety issues are concerned. For this reason we will seek to delete the threat of imprisonment for ARPANSA inspectors making a false or misleading statement or warrant. Criminal law should quite adequately deal with criminal fraud, should that be a problem. Threats of imprisonment—and we are talking about a maximum of two years imprisonment—in this way in this legislation could be seen as intimidatory and not necessarily in the best interests of the community and, could I say, quite out of proportion to the kind of real, enforceable legislation and regulations on the industry itself. Despite our stated problems with the use of the term `world's best practice', the inclusion of a requirement for the CEO to have regard to world's best practice when issuing licences is an improvement in the current bill.For the regulatory authority set up under this legislation to have the confidence of the Australian community, it must clearly be independent of the government of the day and be responsible to parliament. The regulatory authority, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, falls some way short of this standard because it is not an independent statutory authority. We are pleased, however, to see that the government has now agreed that the CEO have direct power over the staffing of ARPANSA—but still it falls a long way short of being an independent statutory authority.The recommendation to exclude nuclear power reactors from the legislation is an improvement in accountability. The Greens, however, are concerned that licences for a nuclear fuel fabrication plant, an enrichment facility, a fuel storage facility and a reprocessing facility remain possible under this legislation, albeit with the approval of the CEO. These activities should either be specifically prohibited under this legislation or, at the least, should not be able to take place without full and separate parliamentary scrutiny.Over the last couple of weeks, we have heard some quite extraordinary information from the United States about other countries wanting Australia to take their nuclear waste, their nuclear junk. We have to be very, very aware, when launching into a bill like this, of exactly what it is that we as a parliament are giving the tick to, albeit perhaps with the authority of the licensing authority of the chief executive officer of a body which is not quite independent of the government.When there are financial pressures and the pressure of international scrutiny, we know that in the end arguments such as, `Australia would be very responsible in this current disarmament regime to take other people's core waste from nuclear reactors' and `You've got the best conditions, a nice stable economy and you're going to make a lot of money out it,' will be convincing to a growing number of people, perhaps particularly those on the more conservative side of politics.We believe separate approval should be obtained for any other new facility, such as a spent fuel conditioning plant, a nuclear waste disposal facility, a waste storage facility or an isotope production facility. It should be noted, however, that any proposal for such a facility would itself be of great concern to the Greens. If our concerns regarding scrutiny of any proposal for any new nuclear facility are not satisfactorily addressed, we will seek to amend the definition of nuclear installation by deleting reference to any nuclear installation which does not currently exist.Major nuclear installations require much greater prior scrutiny than is envisaged in the bill. In particular, there must be a comprehensive public inquiry into, and parliamentary scrutiny of, the question of whether there is a need for the installation before the process even gets to the stage of an impact statement or an inquiry into the proposal itself. No licence proposal should be considered until a public, open inquiry into the need for the installation and an impact assessment process have been completed. An amendment to achieve that end will be moved in the committee stage of this bill.Those people who think that these things are done as a matter of course should speak to the people living around Australia's only current research reactor at Lucas Heights. They will tell you what the culture of secrecy is in relation to the nuclear industry in Australia. There were a number of delegates from the former Soviet Union at the IPPNW conference at the weekend. There has been so much secrecy involved in the nuclear issues in the Soviet Union—as we knew—that, ironically, we now seem to have more information from the former Soviet Union about the issues of nuclear proliferation, nuclear materials and the problems of dealing with those than we do from the United States, the UK and, indeed, from Australia.The proposed government amendment to give public notice of the licensing of a nuclear installation is grossly inadequate. The whole process must be open to public participation, and this should be reflected in the regulations. There is no reference in this bill to the regulation or setting of standards in the uranium mining industry, yet codes of practice in the industry were covered by the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act, which is repealed by a consequential amendments bill. It is desirable for the Commonwealth to have oversight of such standards and for there to be an open, public process for the ongoing development and improvement of the codes, and this bill is silent on this question. Even the Senate Select Committee on Uranium Mining and Milling looked at the lack of oversight in relation to this industry. We commend the government for clarifying the situation regarding existing codes and development of improved codes by agreeing to have the current requirements of the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act included in the regulations.The only role for the community in this bill is a purely advisory one and, even there, it is a role severely constrained by the legislation. A further amendment is required for protection from prosecution for committee or council members who make public any information or concerns that they may have about radiation protection or nuclear safety. There is no point in us moving towards some kind of whistleblower legislation if we put a gagging mechanism in legislation that prevents responsible members of the community being able to canvass with their community some of the issues of health and safety that they are asked to deal with. Otherwise, these advisory committees merely pick out the best and most able people within the community and disarm them—if you can excuse the pun. They literally gag them by taking them out of the process, keeping them busy running around in circles and making them unable to communicate with their own representative constituency.The Greens (WA) commend the introduction of the conflict of interest provisions for committee and council members in the regulations, and we would like to see that extended to include a register of financial interests. There is a clear need for the strengthening of reporting requirements throughout the bill. We are particularly concerned that the CEO's functions include the monitoring and reporting on the operations of the agency and its advisory bodies, and it is pleasing to see that the government will be moving appropriate amendments in this regard.There has been a lot of work, a lot concern about the community and some movement on this bill. If this bill had been shoved through at the end of the June sittings, as the govern ment proposed to do, we would have had none of these changes. It was proposed that the bill be coughed through at a lunchtime without debate and divisions, and that of course meant without time for amendments and consultation. We were advised at the time that the community had plenty of time. We, in fact, were told by the community that that was simply not true. The Greens (WA) had a great deal of pressure put on them at that time because we were told by the government that we were the only ones holding back this fabulous piece of legislation. Quite frankly, the legislation has been shown to be less than fabulous.Although, as I have conceded, the concept of ARPANSA has been asked for by a number of groups over quite a deal of time, it was not a case of `any regulations at all you are prepared to throw at us.' The community were tired of being treated badly, of being kept in the dark and of not having some kind of independent authority as an oversight of the industry. That certainly did not mean that they wanted to go backwards. It certainly did not mean that they wanted commercial pressures in the end to come through and override them—steamroller them—by way of this legislation.Our concern—and there are still some concerns remaining which we will deal with in the committee stage—is that this bill will end up being a Trojan Horse: something that looked attractive; something that was in the guise of a proposal that the community wanted, but something that contained elements much more problematical; something that could lead to other areas of concern where the parliament would then have no scrutiny or no redress. We had a situation where, in the hands of a CEO who would be responsible to the minister and whose staff at that stage would have been selected from ministerial staff, ticks could be given to activities which in no way the community would be happy to have outside parliamentary and public scrutiny. So this bill has been problematical. I don't think it is perfect and I don't think it is going to get anywhere near perfect, but I am happy that we have had at least some chance in the last few months to move somewhat closer to some level of public health and safety. There is still a long way to go.In summary, whilst the Greens (WA) are pleased that the government has made some concessions to acknowledge community concerns about this bill, we feel that further amendments are required to ensure adequate protection for the community from the dangers of radiation and of nuclear activities.11:39:001508Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise on behalf of the Australian Democrats to support in principle the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998. The Australian Democrats recognise the importance of protecting the Australian community from the adverse effects of radiation. We believe that people who work with radioactive materials deserve a rigorous and comprehensive regulatory system to ensure that they are not exposed to any unnecessary dangers associated with radiation.I oppose generally, and my party generally opposes, the use of radioactive materials in places where there may be a risk. Basically we believe that there are no safe levels of radioactivity. As we know—I assume all in this chamber know—radioactivity can cause harm. I would like to see a blanket ban on radioactive materials and other toxic materials everywhere. Internationally there is a recognition that radioactivity is unsafe at every level and that there is no safe dose. The recent UK National Radiological Protection Board describes in recent studies of low dose radiation and health effects that one hit of radiation is enough to cause cell damage, and this of course can lead to cancer. This is enforced by a recent report in the New Scientist magazine which reports on the work of the Medical Research Council on cell damage from low dose radiation.Perhaps even more importantly, this is an issue that we believe has been left out of the government's and the opposition's reckoning on radioactivity: radiation causes cell damage as well as hereditary damage. This hereditary damage cannot be measured using ordinary techniques and, therefore, continues to remain outside the reporting of most studies and most regulated reporting requirements. Certainly, the Democrats share some of the health concerns that have been raised in this chamber today, in particular some of the concerns raised by the Greens (WA) about what is considered an acceptable dose of radiation as well as the possibilities of the CEO granting exemptions in relation to acceptable doses.This concern about radioactivity underpinned many of our proposed amendments to the recent Space Activities Bill 1998 . In regard to that legislation we sought not to prevent radioactive materials being launched into space, although we would have preferred a blanket ban, but to prevent radioactive and toxic materials being launched into space without a hazard and a risk assessment prepared by or organised by the minister. So we have an ongoing concern in this area.We believe that the community has a right to be involved with any major developments in the way we regulate the use of radioactive terms in workplaces and in industries. This issue is far too important just to leave to governments, bureaucrats and experts without the full consultation of the community and their involvement.The community will have to rely on this new legislative framework for protection against the harmful effects of radioactive material for an indefinite period of time, potentially quite a long time, into the future. Therefore, it is particularly important that we get this right now. I echo again my statements from last week's debate on the Space Activities Bill 1998 , where we sought to regulate commercial activities in space. It was an important piece of framework legislation and it should have been done—indeed, we attempted to do it—correctly. It is the same in this case. It is important that we get this legislation right, now that we have the opportunity.The Democrats are also aware of the many concerns raised by community groups and consumer groups during the committee's inquiry into this bill. I am pleased to note that the government has attempted to address some of these concerns, including allowing a period of public consultation on the regulations to the bill. We support this process. We believe it will allow for greater community input into the way this new regulatory regime will function.The Democrats recognise that radiation is used in a variety of fields, including archaeology, medicine and the construction industry. Other applications include defence, the food industry—that is, the sterilisation of food—and scientific research. In particular, we acknowledge the responsibility of the Commonwealth government to protect the estimated 3,500 Commonwealth workers who utilise radiation in their work. These include people working across a range of difficult fields, such as customs, the postal service, defence, medical and dental practitioners, telecommunications, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the CSIRO.The Democrats acknowledge that the current regulatory regime does not adequately protect these workers from any potential harm associated with radiation exposure through their work. The existing laws controlling exposure to radiation in Australia come from a mismatched system of Commonwealth, state and territory legislation which does not necessarily provide comprehensive coverage.Senator Forshaw referred in his comments in the second reading debate to the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Dangers of Radioactive Waste entitled No time to waste and the Democrats support recommendations 7 and 8 of that 1996 report. This report identified that while radiation exposure was covered by state laws, a regulatory gap persisted because these laws often did not apply to the Commonwealth or to Commonwealth employees. We understand that this bill addresses recommendations 7 and 8 of the No time to waste report, which called for the development of a nationally agreed regulatory scheme for the regulation of the use of radiation.The Democrats understand that Australia is contemplating signing the International Atomic Energy Agency's Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management 1997. This convention requires, among other things, each contracting party to establish a legislative and regulatory framework to govern the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management. Article 19 of the convention requires national safety requirements and regulations to be in place and a system of licensing of spent fuel and radioactive waste management activities to be adopted with appropriate inspections and enforcement of the regime. The Democrats would support Australia signing this convention and taking a leadership role in the management of radioactive waste.Most people in this chamber—certainly Senator Margetts has referred to it and I have no doubt that our environment spokesperson, Senator Lyn Allison, will as well—were extremely disturbed to see the promotional video produced by Pangea Resources, which states that Australia would be the best country to store much of the world's high level nuclear waste. The company assert that they have met—and I acknowledge that these are the company's assertions—with Australia's ministers and officials about their plans for a nuclear waste dump in Australia.Senator Margetts interjecting—3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I acknowledge the interjection from Senator Margetts that they have met with Western Australian ministers. In question time the Democrats pursued this issue. We asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources whether or not he agreed with this claim that Australia is the best place to store high level nuclear waste. We also asked him to rule out completely any involvement of this government in setting up an international nuclear waste depository in Australia. I was pleased that the minister stated unequivocally that:. . . no high level radioactive waste facility is planned for Australia and the government has absolutely no intention of accepting the radioactive waste of other countries.The minister went on to state that the government policy in this area is:. . . clear and absolute and will not be changed. We will not be accepting radioactive waste from other countries . . . it will not be government policy to accept radioactive waste from other countries nor to accept high level radioactive waste. We are very pleased to hear that. On the basis of this, the Democrats seek to enshrine this commitment in legislation in order to protect the community from the harms associated with any commercial nuclear waste disposal facility.We are also committed to restoring faith in the government in the parliamentary process. As part of this commitment, we are opposed to political partisan appointments in any field. My colleague Senator Andrew Murray has previously brought to the attention of the Senate the matter of the Nolan committee from the United Kingdom. Finally—it has taken a while—even that class rigid society has got sick of the ministerial patronage that went on there. Through the Nolan committee, it has recommended a wholesale review and overhaul of the system of ministerial patronage and has advanced a transparent, accountable and open appointment system.We have sought to do this on a number of occasions with a number of bills. I think Senator Murray last moved these amendments in relation to the wheat marketing board. Individuals and organisations, together with other constituencies, often express to us their fear of dominance or capture by partisan or particular interests when governments have had a hand in any kind of board, authority or organisation where people are appointed to manage it. That fear is regardless of what political party is in power.As senators will have noted, the amendments of the Democrats will address the matter of appointments of members to the council and set out the general principles whereby those members would be appointed. Frankly, we should not have to do that in legislation, but the history of this country seems to be no different from any other country where people have had the power to appoint others either on the basis of nepotism, the basis of mateship or the basis of conferring a benefit. Whatever happens, that is a partisan way to approach things. We believe it is an unacceptable way, and our amendments seek to redress that.It is my belief and that of my party that it is in the interests of all Australians of any political persuasion to accept that a system of transparent appointment on principles and merit, independent scrutiny, probity, openness and transparency would be to the benefit of any organisation, including the one we are discussing today. I will be attending to that area of interest when the bill comes before the committee for debate.The Democrats believe that the CEO of ARPANSA should be able to hire staff independently of the Department of Health and Aged Care. This is necessary to ensure that ARPANSA can function as a truly independent body. We will move an amendment that allows the CEO of ARPANSA a greater degree of independence than is currently allowed under the bill.I understand that the government amendments have just been circulated. I was not sure what stage we were up to with government amendments, but certainly we have made it clear that we will support government amendments that make explicit the obligations of ARPANSA to comply with any agreements made by Australia in relation to the safe conduct of radiation and nuclear activities and the adoption of standards, codes and best practice, that reference the functions and composition of the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council and supporting committees, and that require a community representative to be included on the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Committee, the Radiation Health Committee and the Nuclear Safety Committee.The Democrats will be supporting the opposition amendment which would require public consultation to take place before a new nuclear installation could be licensed. We agree to the need for community consultation. We also agree that there should be a legislative requirement, and we fully support that amendment.The Democrats will also be supporting Greens amendments which bring greater accountability to the bill and which ensure that the community will have more substantial involvement in any future regulatory developments. In particular, we support the amendments which restrict the application of the bill by excluding major nuclear installations. We believe this is vital to ensure that the govern ment of the day cannot instigate a major nuclear facility without full community consultation.We will also support the amendments relating to increased reporting requirements to ensure that the public is kept fully informed of any problems arising with this new regulatory regime. Those amendments that we will be supporting, those amendments that we will be moving, are aimed towards ensuring greater accountability and transparency in the bill.We have also put on record our concerns about doses of radiation. I made it a point at the committee hearings to ask nearly all the witnesses what they considered was an acceptable dose of radiation—if there was such a thing—or what was the low level dose that people could be subject to without too many risks. It was interesting to hear the variety of opinions from councils which said that there was no acceptable level right through to various discussions from ANSTO and ARPANSA representatives.I draw the attention of the chamber to a document produced by Jean McSorley, whom I am sure we are all familiar with for her work in investigating issues of radioactivity and nuclear materials, specifically looking at the environmental impact of those materials as well as looking to prevent members of the community being subject to such materials. She quotes from a UN paper examining the problem of low dose radiation. She believes that it challenges the notion of negligible harm. She says:Radiation, by its very nature, is harmful to life. At low doses it can start off only partially understood chains of events which lead to cancer or genetic damage. At high doses it can kill cells, damage organs and cause rapid death.She goes on to question aspects of Lucas Heights, particularly the proposed environmental impact statement, and whether it is possible to measure the health impact of radiation exposure at Lucas Heights. She then goes on to talk about the objectives of the ARPANSA bill in relation to protecting people from the harmful effects of radiation. Her concerns are as follows:Harmful is not defined in the bill. However, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that what is meant by `harmful' in this situation is perceived as the most manifest effects of radiation, certainly the most damaging that is—early deaths through cancer and insignificant numbers. As with the terms `as low as reasonably achievable' or `acceptable dose limits', the word `harmful' in this context raises many questions. Certainly, if it is taken as that suggested, it does not convey the full effects that radiation can have on a single person or across a given population.She goes on to talk about the fact that there is no safe dose of radiation.The Democrats and I subscribe to that view. We do oppose generally the use of radioactive materials in places where there may be a risk. That is why we are particularly concerned about issues such as nuclear materials and radioactive materials being made available in the community, whether they are on earth or being launched into space. We will continue to maintain our attempts in this area to make sure that, hopefully, one day we will see a blanket ban on some of these radioactive materials, although recognising there may be some exceptional circumstances in that they may be used for the purposes of health. But we will continue to pursue matters such as these in the Senate as well as ensuring accountability and greater transparency in bills such as these.11:55:001512Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—This package of legislation provides for the protection of the Australian community from the adverse effects of radiation and for the safety of Australians who deal with radioactive materials. As my colleague Senator Stott Despoja said, a key concern raised by several parties to the hearing and those who made written submissions is that fundamental issue of whether or not there is such a thing as a safe level of exposure to radiation. That leads me to discuss a very topical and important matter—that is, the proposal for a nuclear waste dump in Australia.Some years ago, as I recall, Australia did a study into the suitability of this country in terms of its geology and its demographics and declared that basically 75 per cent of Australia was suitable to store waste—the rationale being that if it was far enough away from population centres and in a stable geographic area, then it was okay for nuclear waste. I recall saying at the time that this was a very dangerous message to send to the rest of the world. By saying that we were not going to accept nuclear waste from overseas but indicating that so much of Australia would be suitable to do so seemed to many of us at the time to be extremely dangerous and extremely unwise.This week we are being told that, in the interests of a secure world, Australia should accept waste that might otherwise find its way into the laboratories of terrorists and unfriendly nations to create nuclear weapons. How much work has already been done on this proposal away from any sort of public scrutiny is anyone's guess. But the leaking of a promotional video last week made by Pangea Resources blew the lid on what appears to be a two-year campaign. This Seattle based company wants to create a dump in the outback of either South Australia or Western Australia.Its representatives claim that they have discussed this with Australian ministers and bureaucrats. We do not know who exactly. Senator Minchin has already denied any knowledge of meetings at a ministerial level. Senator Margetts says today that the Court government has had meetings. It is a very intriguing convergence of events. We have Pangea's campaign and, at the same time, something of a boost from the Clinton administration. The message that Australia needs a dump has come from no less a figure than President Clinton's special envoy on weapons of mass destruction, Robert Gallucci. He has maintained that Australia would be making the world a safer place if it accepted the world's nuclear waste and plutonium. But the reasons he chose to single out Australia are perhaps more complex than any sort of idea that we might be a model nuclear citizen.Mr Gallucci admitted on the ABC just this morning that the US has produced much of the world's spent nuclear fuel. It just so happens that the United States government has an enormous problem in deciding what to do with this fuel. It made a commitment in 1982 to acquire and to store all spent nuclear fuel from commercial plants. The deadline for starting this acquisition was January this year, but nothing has happened because a storage facility has not yet been agreed upon. It is quite understandable that the utilities are very angry about having to pay millions, if not billions, of dollars for temporary storage while the US government tries to make up its mind. This adds to the pressure on Australia.In 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, nominating the Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the only site to be considered for a permanent waste facility. However, Nevada politicians, public and scientists opposed this. They say that that mountain has the potential for earthquakes, volcanic activity and underground flooding. A draft environmental impact statement is due in the middle of next year. Both the Senate and the House have passed legislation to create a temporary storage facility there, but President Clinton has threatened to veto this.The US has started a $2 billion program to dispose of 50 tonnes of excess plutonium, some of this produced in the dismantling of nuclear weapons. So the US has a lot of nuclear waste, a lot of plutonium, and no place to put it. The American public will not buy the idea that radioactive material is safe. And, instead of more encouragement of renewable energy, the response, it seems, has been to look for a docile country like Australia.Mr Gallucci basically admitted that the choice of Australia was motivated not so much by geology as by political fallout. He said, `I don't know enough about the geology of the United States,' when he was asked by the ABC why a dump could not be sited there. Of course, the `political fallout' that he refers to is the very real risk of public exposure to radioactive material. I think that Australians should be very wary about taking advice from someone who admits to ignorance about the United States' geology, yet professes to know all about Australia's. Mr Gallucci went on to say:If you ask me if this—referring to the dump—is possible in the United States, I would tell you that politically I doubt it would be possible. Special Envoy Gallucci's remarks, I think, show a great deal of naivety about Australia. The message is basically that we should accept a dump because we here are not as politically organised or as aware as Americans. I think this is not just naive, it is also very insulting. Australia has not gone down this path of nuclear energy or nuclear weaponry, and a key reason for our caution on the nuclear industry has been in the past—and it remains today—the health of those people who would be exposed to radioactive material.Mr Gallucci said an Australian dump would address `the needs of so many countries who don't have the geology for the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel or radioactive waste'. The question that must be asked is: why are these geologically unstable countries actually encouraging proliferation of nuclear power without providing for safe and long-term waste storage? And I use that word `storage' advisedly. We are not talking about disposal; it is storage. We do not know what to do with nuclear waste material.Simply by housing a dump, Australia will not solve the problems associated with countries refusing to take responsibility for their own nuclear waste. The United States has one of the poorest safety records in the world when it comes to operating nuclear power plants. This is not just a not-in-my-backyard principle. Australia should not become a dumping ground for what has now amassed as 148,000 tonnes of the world's high-level nuclear waste, any more than it ought to become a dumping ground for the world's dioxins or DDT.Moreover, a dump that begins as a small facility can very easily be made larger, and this phenomenon too can be demonstrated overseas—it is very much a case of `out of sight, out of mind' when we are talking about the very large area of Australia which is only very lightly populated. Nor is it improbable that a dump that initially accepted only domestic waste might further down the track take international waste.There has been longstanding cooperation between the United States and Australia in nuclear matters. An American company has been brought into the Maralinga area to vitrify radioactive waste in situ. This year, the United States announced it would be using an Australian technology, Synroc, to immobilise plutonium. This may make quite compelling any arguments about whether Australia should accept high-level waste from the US and other countries—if it so safe, why doesn't its country of origin take it back for storage? I guess another argument is: if Australia continues to dig up uranium and continues to open uranium mines, such as Jabiluka, what sort of message does that send to the rest of the world about responsibilities for the waste that has been created?Senator Minchin told the Senate yesterday that a preferred site for a national waste repository would be nominated by the middle of next year. The senator said that such a repository would be `good for South Australia'. He ruled out accepting waste from overseas—at least for now. Perhaps he is waiting for national opinion to be tested by the likes of the Institute of Public Affairs. Lo and behold, in the Herald Sun last Saturday, IPA executive director Mike Nahan recommended Australia should consider taking overseas waste. He argued that nuclear power is here to stay. This argument is morally equivalent to the argument that poverty, AIDS and despotic governments are here to stay and, therefore, there is no reason to do anything about them. The fact is that the nuclear industry is inherently unsafe. The waste is deadly and, at present, poorly handled in most places in the world. We argue that vested interests should not be allowed to prevail over the health of future generations and over our environment.In any case, there have been no nuclear plants commissioned in the United States since 1978, and more than 100 planned reactors have now been cancelled. Nahan said in the article that `permanent disposal is needed and the best locations are sites remote from people'. Further on in the story he said that a dump `would also probably need to be located on Aborigines' land which would require their permission'. A dump on Aboriginal land cannot by definition be remote from people. It seems that Nahan made an uncon scious slip here, a slip that has the unmistakable ring of terra nullius to it. The Democrats are urging the Prime Minister to write to President Clinton expressing dissatisfaction with Mr Gallucci's remarks. Any United States pressure on Australia to carry the can for America's unsafe nuclear industry is unwelcome, and we ought to say so to the President. Despite Senator Minchin's comments to the contrary, there is no doubt that the campaign for Australia to take on the world's nuclear burdens has really only just begun. As we open up more and more uranium mines, that campaign will gather momentum.This bill puts in place some protections for people who work with radioactive material, and we support that. But it will not protect us from the rest of the world seeing Australia as a convenient dumping ground for them. On behalf of my colleagues, I give the Senate notice that the Democrats will be working on that much greater—and, in many ways, more important—level of protection from becoming the world's nuclear waste dump.12:08:001514Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—in reply—I thank senators for their contributions to this debate on the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 and two associated bills, and in particular I thank those senators who participated in the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry. The report of the committee—authored by the committee chair, Senator Sue Knowles—was based on a number of submissions received in public hearings and has previously been made available to all senators. It gave us good advice and raised issues that have been addressed. I think most of the points that have been raised in debate today by the various speakers have at different stages been taken into account in the deliberations on this important piece of legislation.The need for the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency as an independent regulator of Commonwealth radiation and nuclear activities is undisputed. This series of bills ensures for the first time comprehensive national regulatory oversight of radiation sources, apparatus including cyclotrons and irradiators, and, importantly, nuclear installations. The bills have been subject to intense scrutiny. They have been the subject of considerable debate by a range of interested groups including environmental groups, local government, state and territory agencies, and industry.The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry that I referred to into the scope and contents of the bill earlier this week has confirmed multipartisan support for this legislation. I welcome Senator Forshaw's comments that the Labor Party intend to support the legislation. That process has also identified some aspects of the legislation which can be further improved, and the government proposes to move some amendments to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 . In summary, the amendments ensure that the CEO of ARPANSA has regard to world's best practice; that consumer and environmental groups are invited to provide nominations in respect of membership of the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council and supporting committees; that the CEO will monitor and report to parliament on the operations of ARPANSA, the council and committees; and that the definition of `nuclear installation' is clarified to exclude nuclear power reactors or nuclear reprocessing facilities and to include facilities such as nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities.The Senate committee report has also recommended that the regulations developed under this bill be subject to community consultation over the next two months. The government is committed to ensuring extensive consultation involving community, environmental, scientific and other interested parties. We are confident that this will result in strong and effective regulations. While the consultation process will no doubt identify areas where regulations can be enhanced, the government will ensure that the matters referenced by the community affairs committee are addressed in the regulations. These matters include requiring that, before making licensing decisions in respect of nuclear installations or prescribed radiation facilities, the CEO publish a notice that an application for licensing has been received.In the case of licensing decisions in relation to nuclear facilities under clause 31, the regulations will require: that the CEO take into account matters raised in any public submissions received and include in a report to parliament both the matters that were raised by public submissions and the basis for the CEO's licensing decisions; mechanisms for developing and ensuring codes previously developed under the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978; and the CEO to list new and existing licences in the quarterly report to parliament, addressing any conflicts of interest.I note that several of the speakers, particularly from the Democrats and the Greens, seem to be preoccupied on this matter of nuclear waste. I am surprised, given the comments that were made in this parliament by both Senator Hill and Senator Minchin on 1 December, that they still hold those apprehensions and fears. It would be interesting to note the bedtime reading of the Greens and the Democrats—it would probably be rather scary. Let me put into the record again the comments that were made on 1 December.The Democrats leader, Senator Lees, specifically addressed the issue that both Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Allison have raised this morning. I do not think it can be any clearer put than the answer that Senator Minchin gave when he said:In relation to the press reports this morning—that is, 1 December—I can confirm that as far as this government is concerned there have been absolutely no ministerial level discussions with that company, Pangea Resources. I am advised that representatives of Pangea have had discussions with government officials over the years—I think going back before we came into government—on the general issue of radioactive waste management, but those discussions have always been clearly on the premise that it is not government policy and will not be government policy to accept radioactive waste from other countries nor to accept high level radioactive waste.Senator Hill made this point in answer to a question on the same day from Senator Margetts: I am sure the Minister for Foreign Affairs would say that the government is under no pressure; furthermore, it is not intending to build a facility for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste.It is important to recognise that this legislation separates the regulatory aspects of this important issue from policy and certainly ensures the integrity of ARPANSA.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.1516AUSTRALIAN RADIATION PROTECTION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY BILL 1998The bill.12:16:001516Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. This memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 9 December 1998.12:17:001516Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—We have a running sheet which, I am advised, indicates that the first proposal to be considered in committee is that from the WA Greens regarding clauses 7 and 8. We are opposing it. I thought they might at least like the opportunity to move it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—I understand that we can call the government amendment on first—that is government amendment No. 1 on the running sheet—while we are waiting for the Greens senator to come.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—That is an interesting proposal, because there are some even greater complications with this amendment than the first one. I am happy to proceed with that course. However, there are proposed amendments that relate to this issue, which is the definition of `nuclear installation', from the Greens. The opposition has what we hope is a compromise position that might be accepted by all the parties. If it is, that could dispose of the matter. The difficulty is that we do not have Senator Margetts in the chamber at the moment.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Perhaps the minister at the table can clarify it. My understanding is that we could deal with government amendments, opposition amendments and then the Greens amendments.12:19:001516Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I am prepared to withdraw government amendment No. 1 and support opposition amendment No. 1.12:19:001516Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I was going to ask a question of the minister, not specifically in relation to this amendment but in relation to the bill as a whole. I understand, and other people were led to believe, that originally this legislative framework was going to include uranium. Is that correct? Is there a reason for the government not including uranium in this legislation?12:20:001516Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I am advised that the bill deals only with Commonwealth activities in this area. But the area of regulation will also give scope for ARPANSA to advise on matters relating to uranium.12:21:001516Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I understand that we are actually dealing with various proposals to amend clause 12, which deals with the definition of `nuclear installation', and that the government has withdrawn its proposed amendment No. 1. It accepts our amendment, which has been circulated on sheet 1210. We welcome that. It is really now in the hands of the other parties. I move:Clause 12, page 8 (lines 14 to 22), omit the definition of nuclear installation , substitute: nuclear installation means any of the following: (a) a nuclear reactor for research or production of nuclear materials for industrial or medical use (including critical and sub-critical assemblies); (b) a plant for preparing or storing fuel for use in a nuclear reactor as described in paragraph (a); (c) a nuclear waste storage or disposal facility with an activity that is greater than the activity level prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this section; (d) a facility for production of radio-isotopes with an activity that is greater than the activity level prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this section.I will now wait to find out what the attitude of the other parties is.12:21:001517Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—It is obvious that the Greens (WA) also have amendments Nos 1 and 2 in relation to the definition of nuclear installation. It is an issue that is of major concern to the groups that have been dealing with this bill. I will explain what we are trying to do with our amendment. We can then deal with the whole lot consequently.What we would be trying to achieve is to effectively ban a whole range of nuclear installations which we do not currently have in Australia and which we do not want to have. I would like to ask each of the honourable senators in this place to consider whether they would want any one of the facilities on their list in their state or near their home town and then ask themselves why they would want to be able to go ahead under a regulated regime like this one where all the authority for licensing is in the hands of one person—that is, the CEO of ARPANSA. I suspect that if you were totally honest with yourselves you would acknowledge that these are facilities so objectionable to the vast majority of Australians that you would have to answer `no' to those questions.I would like to argue that our amendment seeks to ban such facilities from definition. The opposition's amendment is to change the definitions and, whilst I will give my argument, I will ask whether or not we could change the order in which the amendments are dealt with, because ours is, I guess, the stronger approach. The opposition's proposal has also been discussed with us and is considered to be a better approach than exists in the bill. I will continue with my argument but perhaps we can think in the meantime whether we could change the order in which the amendments are dealt with and go from the strongest approach down to the next acceptable approach and so on.Let us look at each of the proposals in turn, starting with a nuclear fuel fabrication plant. As if it is not bad enough that Australia has let itself be drawn into the nuclear war cycle by mining uranium, we have here a facility which would see Australia turn uranium into fuel. Clearly, with Australia's use of nuclear fuel being entirely focused on Lucas Heights, there is no need for us to produce our own. The quantity required would not justify it. Then there is the problem of what we would do to it once it was used. As long as we are getting our fuel from elsewhere, we can insist on its return. That is what the government wants us to do, and there is no need for us to have a nuclear fuel fabrication plant.Next, let us look at a nuclear power plant. I am pleased to see the government proposes taking nuclear power plants out of the definition of nuclear installations in this bill. This amendment strengthens the position by explicitly prohibiting nuclear power stations from being licensed by ARPANSA. There is virtual unanimity in Australia in opposing nuclear power. We hear the odd politician from the right side of politics—and perhaps we also hear the other odd person—who thinks there is money to be made, but in general the amendment recognises and specifically includes any possibility of nuclear power stations being licensed.Let us look at an enrichment plant. What is an enrichment plant? Primarily, it is used for turning radioactive materials into even more radioactive materials for use in weapons. It is an appalling concept and one which we would have no part of and should have no part of. Whilst it can have civilian uses, it is one of those dual use facilities which is the key link between civilian and military uses. To anyone who stands up and says `No, there is not any swap between military and civilian uses'—as I guess the minister may, from time to time—you should go and speak to the substantial delegation from the former Soviet Union. There were about 12 of them, and they could give you chapter and verse of the free movement over time between civilian and military uses of nuclear material and enriched nuclear material in their country. It can be used either for the production of plutonium or for enriched uranium, both of which have potential uses in weapon development. If we are serious about nonproliferation, we should ban enrichment in Australia.Let us look at a reprocessing facility. Reprocessing of nuclear fuel is one of the dirtiest stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, and it is the most radiologically damaging part of the cycle as far as worker health is concerned. It also has a role in separating weapons grade fuel. We should have no part in it.Let us look at a nuclear waste storage or disposal facility. What a euphemism this word `disposal' is. One of the things that came out clearly in the No Time to Waste report is that we would not be disposing of waste, we would be storing it—because there is no way of disposing of it. It is still there—it is just somewhere else, and we are hoping that when we do choose facilities for storing waste we will choose ones we can see and monitor easily and clearly for the time that we alive and our children are alive.Unfortunately, you cannot just dispose of nuclear waste and then it is gone. No safe permanent disposal of nuclear waste has been invented, and whatever attempts are made to do so will only incur intense and continuing problems for the management of that waste for thousands of years. We would hope that there are safer ways of dealing with that, but they do not exist yet. Even the synroc technology still has problems that are acknowledged.It is a symptom of the desperation in the nuclear industry that they are floating this idea of the outback of Australia—a far-flung part of a far-flung land, the other part of the world, a desert; do not worry about it. We are all politically aware of the fact that the United States up to now has not wanted any other country to be involved with collecting, storing or reprocessing this material because of the security issues. We also know that they have got one heck of a problem convincing anybody in their community that they should take it. We have heard that in the contributions so far and in particular from Senator Allison. It is not the ideal dumping ground, as we know. We must not give the potential dumpers any comfort, and we must outlaw nuclear waste dumps. So I would like Senator Forshaw in particular, considering it is the ALP's amendment and if he would be happy to reverse the order of putting the amendments, to deal with the prohibition first and then the change of definition later.12:28:001518Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—While Senator Forshaw is thinking about that, I have some specifics that I would like to put to the government, and maybe they can consider them during the lunch break coming up shortly.6E4TAMBLINGSenator Tambling—Why didn't you come and make a second reading speech?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I didn't come and make a second reading speech because the government had requested this debate to be as short and as specific as possible. If the government is inviting me to be more expansive, I would be happy to do so.6E4TAMBLINGSenator Tambling—You have had other opportunities, including the committee.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Tambling, you are there now to give information to this committee, and I am about to seek some. How long this takes will depend on how well you are able to supply the information I seek.The first question to be asked, of course, is why this legislation and this definition do not apply to all installations in Australia and why the Commonwealth has not used this opportunity to take on national responsibility for all installations.At the top end of Salamanca Place in Davey Street in Hobart is the nuclear repository for waste in that state. It is in the basement of a public building. It is there because the Tasmanian authorities cannot find anywhere else to put it because, as Senator Margetts was just saying, nobody wants even low-level nuclear waste in their territory. I would have thought this would have been an opportunity for the Commonwealth to take national responsibility for coordinating the safe storage of such waste when governments like Tasmania's are blatantly incapable of finding a solution to the problem.The second question has to do with the Silex laser enrichment research and development project currently taking place at Lucas Heights. My understanding from Micle Schneider, the French expert who was here for the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War conference in Melbourne over the weekend, is that such a project has weapons potential. It is to do with the enrichment of uranium and plutonium, and research is being done at the behest apparently of a United States company. It may well be research that is being done in Australia because it would be under difficulties in the United States where much tougher patenting and security laws are in place.Such companies have a tendency to want to do research outside the United States because they can get away with things they could not in the United States, and Israel is one of those countries where such research is often undertaken. It appears on this occasion that it is being undertaken in Sydney at Lucas Heights with about 12 people engaged in the project. I am seeking information from the minister as to what that project is specifically about. Is the laser enrichment process that is being worked on one that could potentially be used in weapons production? Why is it being undertaken in Australia? What are the ramifications? What information can the Commonwealth give to this committee about just want is going on there?Thirdly, we go to Kakadu. The government leader in this debate, Senator Tambling, will be familiar with this one, and I guess it will not take so much research. At the moment, Cyclone Thelma is off the coast of the Northern Territory, as we are all aware. But at Kakadu, more specifically in the Ranger uranium facility, it has been reported by the Office of the Supervising Scientist that there are increased uranium concentrations in the constructed wetland filter.To put this in simple terms, according to my advice, where the usual level of soluble uranium permitted is four micrograms per litre, it has recently been measured at 6,300 micrograms per litre—a figure which is through the roof. There is provision for this wetland filter to be diverted elsewhere if there is an overflow. The concentration of the uranium and possibly daughter nucleides such as radium, chlorium and polonium is unusually high because the filter is very low and very acidic. Potentially we could see that go to an overflow and flood situation, and I ask the minister: what provision is being made to ensure that this extraordinarily high level of soluble uranium is not a threat to the ecosystem within the Ranger facility or beyond?My next question relates to Pine Creek, and Senator Tambling will also know about this. I simply want to know whether Pine Creek is a working facility—that is, a uranium mine—at the moment. Is there extraction of any ore taking place at Pine Creek? Is any ore going to the Ranger facility? If so, under whose authority?Finally, I would like to ask about Roxby Downs in South Australia, the Olympic Dam project. We have been told that the old pilot plant at this project is being used to clean radiation contaminated equipment before it is taken off site. I would like the government to tell us about that. The equipment apparently is being taken to the old pilot plant and sandblasted in the open air, in effect turning that region into a low-level radioactive waste dump.Is it true that the sandblasting is taking place to clean equipment at the old pilot plant? What is the government's knowledge of this? How is it keeping tabs on it? Will the government be able to tell the committee if it does not know about what has taken place there, what clean-up procedures are necessary, whether the company is complying with its licence conditions, whether any workers are being exposed to radiation and when the last audit was taken of this operation? Does this bill cover the management of this type of radiation hazard, which I am told is occurring at Roxby Downs? If this bill does not, why does it not?12:36:001519Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I think it would have been more appropriate if a number of the issues raised by Senator Brown were raised at earlier stages in the consideration of this legislation and during the committee stage or, alternatively, raised of portfolio ministers at question time because they are not necessarily directly related to this particular legislation. I do note that it is a broadcast day and, therefore, it has given Senator Brown an opportunity obviously to canvass issues which he sees as matters of concern.I will turn, firstly, to the three specific issues that Senator Brown raised: the Ranger facility at Kakadu, the linking somehow of that to current Cyclone Thelma and then the wetlands filter. I suggest that this is very properly a matter that Senator Brown ought to be canvassing with Senator Hill, as Minister for the Environment and Heritage, and asking him to look very carefully at this legislation. It is important to note that this legislation will facilitate national codes of practice that will, in turn, assist in some of the areas of inquiry by Senator Brown.I have not been specifically advised about the particular facilities at Pine Creek or Roxby to which Senator Brown referred. I note that they are properly mining and resources matters that I thought he would have raised in the first instance with those ministers responsible in this place or alternatively with the Northern Territory or South Australian authorities which have specific issues to address in that area. I will certainly make inquiries about that.In relation to research and Salamanca Place, Senator Brown asked why the Commonwealth has not taken over all of the facilities. There are a number of issues that are properly still state responsibilities, so it is a matter of pursuing those appropriate responsibilities. The reference to Salamanca Place waste will be handled when the waste repository comes on stream.12:39:001520Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The parliamentary secretary has been a little cheeky—if that is not too unparliamentary—in his comments regarding broadcast day, because I suggest the parliamentary secretary has also used broadcast to his advantage during this debate. Quips about Democrat bedtime reading do not go unnoticed. But I do confirm your state ment, Senator Tambling: Democrats and Greens bedtime reading indeed is very scary—we are reading government bills, so that probably explains it.I have a question to both the government and the opposition about the first amendment moved by Senator Forshaw in relation to the definition of nuclear installation. I want to get from both honourable senators their understanding of whether or not the definition can include—and I suspect it may be able to—nuclear reprocessing and power generation.12:40:001520Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I am advised that the answer is no.12:40:001520Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Spot-on, Senator Stott Despoja. We should not have to restrict what we say in here because it is broadcast day. What is this parliament about? It is about people listening in. We are here to represent people and they have a right to hear what is being debated.I am a bit surprised by the lack of information coming from Senator Tambling for the government. It worries me that there is such little readiness of information on the very important questions I have put to the government in this debate. This is about nuclear safeguards in this country and, if the government cannot answer that sort of question, I wonder how much faith we can have in this legislation giving greater safety as far as nuclear matters are concerned.I note in particular the question about the current situation in Jabiluka. I think that is germane to this debate. It has been raised as a matter of urgency by one of Senator Tambling's constituents in the Northern Territory, and I would be very pleased if the senator could come back with some information about that after lunch. The possibility of a flooding of that wetland filter in the Ranger uranium site—where there are extraordinarily high levels of uranium, beyond those which are considered proper—needs to be addressed.I turn specifically to the Lucas Heights matter. This is central to this bill and it is a Commonwealth responsibility. That is the one question that Senator Tambling did not respond to at all. This question arises out of a report to this parliament this year by the regulatory authority. That report says that, at Lucas Heights in suburban Sydney at the moment at the behest of a United States company, there is a laser enrichment research and development project afoot. I am told by a top expert in the field that the outcome of this research could be a much cheaper and more efficient way of enriching uranium and, by the way, plutonium. This has the potential to make it cheaper to run nuclear reactors.Nuclear reactors, for those who do not know, take an extraordinary amount of energy in themselves. In fact, I am told that, in France, three or four of their suite of nuclear reactors simply provide the energy to keep the other reactors going. A laser enrichment process has the potential to lower by as much as half or more the amount of energy taken in the running of the reactors themselves. Be that as it may, the downside is that it will also make it much cheaper and much easier to enrich uranium for the purposes of creating nuclear weapons. I would like to know from the government what is afoot with this project and what assurances they can give the committee.12:44:001521Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I am advised that, with regard to the issues raised about Lucas Heights and lasers, ANSTO has categorically denied that there is any project to do with weapons or enrichment research for weapons at Lucas Heights.12:44:001521Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—What has happened here? The report says that it is going on. It is there in black and white and I will quote it after lunch. This is the government's own report. So we have an absolute contradiction here. I would ask the government to look at its Safeguard Office report for 1998—I think it is page 23; if it is not, it is section 23—which refers to the Silex laser enrichment research and development project being undertaken at Lucas Heights and explain what that report is about when we resume the debate later.Progress reported.Matters of Public Interest152110000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Order! It being 12.45 p.m., I call on matters of public interest.152112:45:001521Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Today I would like to say something about the great economic potential of the Kimberley region of Western Australia and in particular how that potential could be enhanced by the provision of cheap electricity from the proposed Derby hydropower project. I thank the Kimberley Development Commission for much of the material used in this speech, which I am sure senators will find very interesting, as will those people listening to the broadcast of proceedings around Australia.The Kimberley's advantages include its location, with its proximity to Asia and the emerging northern markets in our region; its market focus, with industries focused on new markets and the development possibilities which thereby exist; its extensive natural resources in the form of minerals and other resources, such as pearling and fishing; as well as its great tourism and pastoral resources. In general terms, the Kimberley is like a great unopened box of treasures.The biggest disadvantage the Kimberley has in terms of secondary industrial development is the cost of power. That is the major hurdle for the development of industry in the Kimberley. The cost of power is the major disadvantage that Western Australia in general faces when development is considered, because the cost of power in Western Australia is higher than it is in any other part of the country. In 1995-96 the nominal price per kilowatt-hour of electricity for commercial use in Western Australia was 10.72c. Unfortunately, that has increased since then. By contrast, around the rest of the country in 1995-96 the average cost of power was 8.06c per kilowatt-hour, and that has since come down. So Western Australia does have a disadvantage in terms of the cost of power.As I said, the Kimberley has enormous potential in terms of mineral development and mining. The mining potential of the Kimber ley could be transformed by access to cheaper power. For example, at the moment the Kimberley mining industry contributes something like $485 million per year to the regional economy. The outlook for the industry is good, with Western Metals expanding operations in the area by opening up one of the world's largest zinc mines. The Pillara project, which is also a lead and zinc project, will bring into world markets very large amounts of lead and zinc. There is also one of the world's largest bauxite deposits on the Mitchell Plateau, but at the present time it is uneconomic to mine that bauxite deposit because of the cost of power. The process involved in converting bauxite to aluminium demands huge amounts of electricity, for which reason aluminium is sometimes described as `solid electricity'. For the mining industry, for the benefit of people in the towns in the Kimberley, for the potential development of tourist resorts and, in general, to enhance the lifestyle of the people in the Kimberley, the provision of cheap power will make an enormous difference to the cost economics of projects in that area.For the benefit of the Senate, I would like to outline some details of the proposed Derby hydropower project. A proposal has been put forward to harness the tidal power of the Kimberley. The Kimberley has some of the very highest tides in the world, reaching 11 or 12 metres. It is proposed to use the rise and fall of the tides in the Kimberley to generate hydro-electricity which would then be distributed around the Kimberley by a conventional grid.The location for this proposal, as I have said, is at Derby, which is the old regional service town of the West Kimberley, although it has now perhaps been somewhat eclipsed by Broome. The area around Derby is one of tidal flats. In Doctors Creek, it is proposed to put in a hydropower facility which will produce up to 48 megawatts of electricity output. A new company, Derby HydroPower Pty Ltd, is undertaking studies and working to gain the necessary approvals from the EPA and from the government in Western Australia. Tidal power has many advantages. It is a clean source of energy. It is renewable energy, which I am sure would meet with the approval of my colleague Senator Brown if he were here listening to this. There being no pollution, the use of tidal power helps meet Australia's greenhouse emission commitments.The tidal power station proposed for Derby is designed to have an operational life of 120 years. As time goes on, the price of electricity produced from this facility will get cheaper and cheaper because, apart from the capital cost of building the facility, tidal power generation costs are immune to such things as Middle East crises, increases in the price of oil, or other factors such as concerns about the use of uranium in nuclear power, which might mean that such a means of generating electricity could in time be unacceptable to the community.Two options exist, I am told, for the proposed hydropower project in Derby in Doctors Creek: one, a so-called double basin option; and the other, a twin basin option. The location of this project is about 12 kilometres from Derby where there are two tidal creeks in the mangroves. In the double basin option, barrages will be built across the mouths of both creeks to control the water levels; sluice gates will allow the tide to run into the west creek, which is the high basin; and in the east creek, which is the low basin, water will only drain out at low tide. Turbines, to be located in the channel between the two basins, will be driven by water flowing from the high basin to the low basin. So there will be a continuous renewable source of energy providing power to the Kimberley area.Obviously, tides rise and fall. During the neap tides, which will occur about two days each fortnight, power output will be reduced. To meet consumer demand and provide security for supply, it is proposed to provide supplementary thermal electricity generation in various locations around the Kimberley from traditional methods such as the use of diesel and other hydrocarbon fuels. But this will only be used to supplement the electricity produced from the Derby hydropower project.The potential of this project is enormous because generating electricity from the tides at Derby, as I have said, will provide non-polluting reliable power, replacing the need for diesel generation or the use of other hydrocarbon burning fuels. It will allow for stable electricity prices at a low level. And, most importantly perhaps, it will help Australia meet its greenhouse commitments, because the use of the Derby hydropower project will mean a reduction of some 150,000 tonnes in CO2 emissions each year from powerhouse generation in the Kimberley alone.One of the greatest benefits for the Kimberley from the development of a hydropower project will be the ability to establish a Kimberley grid. That will mean that, instead of small electricity stations running on diesel in the mines and towns of the Kimberley, a grid can be established which would cover the areas from Broome to Fitzroy Crossing, the Western Metals new mine at Pillara and any other new developments which occur in the area.Western Power has, at the present time, asked for submissions on how the Kimberley power system might be improved, and it has certainly shown a great deal of interest in the prospect of very cheap hydropower from the Derby hydropower project. Of course, as I have said, there is the Mitchell Plateau bauxite deposit, which is one of the largest deposits in the world. Currently, it is simply not feasible to even consider developing those deposits. But, with a similar hydro scheme on one of the fiord-like gorges which form the Kimberley coast further north of Derby, the possibility of developing Mitchell Plateau bauxite becomes quite realistic—and not just a matter of turning it into alumina, but perhaps processing it all the way to aluminium.Essentially, as I have said, aluminium is regarded as solid electricity, and the bauxite which we process in Australia into alumina is exported to countries like Norway and Canada; there it is further processed because those countries have cheap power. This project would bring to Australia electricity of comparative price to that in Norway and Canada where it is also generated by hydro electricity.The Derby hydropower proposal is a very visionary scheme which will make use of one of Australia's greatest renewable energy resources—that being the huge tides on the Kimberley coast of Western Australia. The establishment of hydropower will bring extremely cheap electricity to the Kimberley; it will open up the region for development, which will transform the Kimberley; and it will also contribute to Australia's greenhouse emission reduction targets.In conclusion, the Derby hydropower project has applied to be considered for a funding grant under the renewable energy showcase initiative, to which the coalition government has committed $10.5 million. I would put on record the fact that I believe this project would certainly be worthy of being awarded showcase funding. I certainly endorse the Derby hydropower's application for such funding because, as I have said, this is a very exciting and visionary project which will transform that area of the far north-west of Australia.152312:59:001523Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—As all honourable senators will know, tomorrow, 10 December 1998, marks the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, which probably has to be the most important document written this century, is accepted now by 182 countries. So to celebrate that anniversary, I think we would do well to remember the declaration's preamble, which says, in part:. . . recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.There is no doubt that responsible governments should play a lead role in ensuring everyone has equal access to programs and services which promote and protect their human rights. In the absence of a constitutionally enshrined or federally legislated Bill of Rights—and, of course, we do not have one—human rights rely on a range of factors such as law reform, policy development and administration, the development of common law and, of course, proper levels of funding. These are the means through which we meet all our obligations not only under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.Human rights are based on and are enshrined in international law. I think it would be true to say that most Australians are committed to social justice principles and human rights. Certainly the Democrats are. Such principles include: genuine consultation with members of the community on decisions which affect their lives; equity and fairness in the distribution of resources, especially for those members of the community most in need, including indigenous peoples, refugees and newly arrived migrants; improved accountability of decision makers; greater access to services and economic resources for improving quality of life; full and equal opportunity for all people to participate in decision making which affects all our lives; and the promotion and protection of all of our rights.But the concept of human rights protection is not just about our domestic application of internationally agreed standards. Human rights are also fundamental to international security. Governments which disregard the rights of their own citizens will not progress as a society in any of the areas associated with human advancement—including social cohesion, including economic development, and including regional security. This became an issue recently at the APEC forum.The sight of Australia trying to keep trade liberalisation on the top of the agenda while the world was preoccupied with the democratisation of the Asian region and the negative fallout from the Asian economic crisis was less than pleasing to many of us. It captured well the link between human rights, trade and development issues. It captured well the government's inability to deal with that. It also clearly demonstrated to the government that human rights protections are not a western concept and never have been—human rights are truly universal.To insist that there is no place for discussing human rights in any sort of negotiation is both morally and tactically wrong. Respect for human rights should be a starting point for any negotiation. Apart from the overriding moral imperative, failure to take human rights into consideration during any negotiation will eventually backfire, as we have seen so dramatically in our region over the last 18 months. It leads only to instability and violence.It is clear that the ability of nations to protect human rights effectively depends on the strength of its public institutions, a representative legislature and accountable executive government, an independent judiciary, and a distinct role between civil police services and the military. Thank goodness in Australia we have that. A vigorous civil society is another important element in the creation and maintenance of a culture of human rights. So is the right to self-determination of all peoples and the commitment of governments to supporting that outcome.Governments working together with the United Nations, taking a key and active role in the bodies of the United Nations, including the International Labour Organisation, are continually signing onto and ratifying human rights conventions and encouraging in practical ways other nations to do likewise. It is only in practical and effective efforts to promote and protect human rights that a government can demonstrate a real commitment to the welfare of individuals and society as a whole.The Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, of which I hope to be a member this time—I have been in the past—completed only quite recently its report into the promotion of human rights in our region. We concluded that while human rights protections were improving, there still needed to be a great deal of work done in this area. Australia, because of our relative size, influence and international reputation, has a key role to play in the promotion of human rights in our region. The `people's struggle' movements we are currently witnessing are calling out for our support and assistance. We should not resile from offering that to them, nor from entering into dialogue with members from the opposition parties. That is something we must do. We have not done enough in the past and we must do it.But strengthening Australia's credibility as a promoter of human rights in the region requires a coordinated effort and a great level of commitment that certain sections of the coalition government do not appear to have. The government also needs to demonstrate that it is prepared to collaborate with other nations' governments, opposition leaders and non-government organisations to achieve the ends that we want to achieve. The minister refers to a hectoring approach to others' foreign policy, but I believe that without persistent perusal of these objects nothing will change. We have to be loud, as well as being soft.Australia has decreased emphasis on multilateral forums for advancement of human rights to bilateral dialogue, as evidenced in its move to bilateral dialogue with China and Indonesia. For bilateralism to be a useful tool in the advancement of human rights, that dialogue must also be transparent and accountable. Those two things are absent from the model advanced by Australia at the moment. This dialogue is not pursued with public resolutions condemning China's human rights dialogue. Indeed, the government does not even circulate details of visiting dignitaries' itineraries, in case they are greeted by protesters.Because of that, it is the central issue of the universality of human rights—the notion that human rights are a western concept. Implicit in this construct is that somehow poorer countries cannot afford human rights protections. So we see culture, wealth and political ideology mitigating the strength of international human rights standards. Of course that is not the case. Of course human rights are universal, and of course everyone is now coming to agree with that. These challenges to the universality of human rights stand in the way of the confrontation of the fundamentals of human rights—the impact that the violation of human rights has on the ordinary citizens throughout the world but particularly in our region at the moment.As we approach the 50th year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we should examine the interaction between all of these things. Is there a correlation between a nation's wealth and human rights? Are social and economic rights of greater or equal importance to civil and political rights? Are `economic reasons' grounds for defence against violation of the standards enshrined in the declaration? Obviously, the answer to all of those questions is no. The 50th anniversary is time to defend and reassert the primacy of the foundations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—universality and indivisibility. We must remember that the declaration did not emerge from wealthy and prosperous nations alone; it emerged from the horrors of World War II and the ravages of the Great Depression.These ideals—the right to recognition as a person before the law without discrimination; the right to freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention and exile; the right to fair and public hearings by independent and impartial tribunals; the right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty; the right to competent and independent representation; the right of appeal—were forged from desperate times. They constitute the framework for the rule of law, and that is a precondition for any civil society.More broadly, the universality of human rights means practices like torture can never, never be condoned. There is no tradition which can justify the degradation of another human being. There is no political system licensed to indiscriminately kill. There is no religion whose vocation justifies summary justice. There is no culture, no particular historical event, no economic turmoil which may be deemed sufficient reason to deprive anyone of their human dignity.So what about our own government's record? Since the coalition came to office in March 1996, they have slashed spending on a whole range of areas that impact on human rights. The coalition government has severely damaged Australia's international reputation for upholding human rights. They have downgraded their commitment to human rights' forums, particularly at the United Nations, and across a range of social services and policy areas. These include in the areas of social justice and equality: indigenous affairs, the status of women, access to justice, higher education, legal aid, migration, social security, employment, young people and health. That is ironic, given that the majority of Australians care very deeply about human rights.Australians want the government to apologise to our indigenous peoples for the wrongs of the past. Despite the Prime Minister's commitment to reconciliation, which we are very pleased about, without an apology, nothing will be progressed. In the search for peace and reconciliation, both sides have to give. In 1998, this is a shameful position.On the eve of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 50th anniversary we should be thinking about these things. We should be considering where we want Australia to go over the next 50 years. I hope we want Australia to become a more humane society and to become some place that looks after and stands up for the human rights of others. This is a region that really needs that to happen, and we should again become a leader.152613:12:001526Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I rise once again to speak on the need for drug law reform in Australia. Before I begin, I would like to congratulate Senator Vanstone for her commitment to law enforcement in this area. On Tuesday, the Australian Federal Police captured a record size shipment of cocaine, with an estimated street value of $50 million. In anyone's language, that is certainly a large amount of money and a large amount of cocaine. However, this is a victory tinged with irony given facts that have come to light in recent weeks.A federal government survey into trends in drug use, released late last month, revealed a sixfold rise in cocaine use amongst drug users in Sydney. Researchers were told that cocaine is now readily available and prices have dropped significantly. One-hit caps are being sold for only $50. Last year a cap would have cost $80 and three years ago they were not reported to be available at all. The Australian newspaper reported on 27 November:. . . cheaper and purer cocaine is flooding Sydney, where it is being sold like heroin, breaking into new markets in the western suburbs where cocaine use is just as common as in the more affluent eastern suburbs.Clearly, the supply of cocaine to this country has been dramatically increasing over the past couple of years, despite this government's best efforts at law enforcement. The recent seizure of one shipment of cocaine, while is to be applauded, represents a mere drop in the bucket when we consider the relative increase in supply over the last few years.So, while I congratulate Senator Vanstone, I note in question time yesterday that she claimed that the seizure indicated the government was `smashing transnational organised crime groups'. I certainly hope so, but I do doubt it. Senator Vanstone also said yesterday that the seizure sent a message to drug syndicates. Unfortunately, the dramatic increase in demand for cocaine in this country would be sending them another more financially compelling message.Despite this government's law enforcement strategies, the incidence of drug use in Australia has continued to rise rapidly. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 27 November warned that Sydney is facing `a new wave of health, crime and social problems' as a direct result of increased cocaine use. Dr Darke, a senior lecturer with the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, has explained some of the reasons why cocaine is likely to provoke such problems. He said:It is directly toxic to the heart and vascular systems and, unlike heroin, has a direct toxicity to the brain. There is a very strong association with serious psychiatric disturbances, such as paranoid psychosis. It has major implications for public order because it's a stimulant drug and people get wired up. You get a lot more violence.The police commander of the Sydney eastern region agrees with Dr Darke that the incidence of cocaine use has increased dramatically. Obviously, efforts by this government to stem the flow of drugs into the country have enjoyed limited success. Unless something is done to address the demand side of the problem, future efforts to limit supply will continue to be constantly undermined.The health problems associated with increased cocaine use will ultimately have widespread implications for the broader Australian community. The Australian article of 27 November compared the current situation in Australia with similar circumstances experienced abroad. It revealed:. . . in Vancouver, where cocaine replaced heroin as the drug of choice among injecting users, the prevalence of HIV rose from two per cent to 15 per cent between 1994 and 1997.Cocaine's short-lived effects mean that users have to inject far more frequently than heroin users, increasing the risk of spreading AIDS and other diseases like hepatitis C and B. These diseases are easily communicable to members of the non-using community.These increases in cocaine use indicate that this government's policies have failed to put a dent in the supply side of the drug problem in Australia. The increasing incidence of drug use among young people in particular has by no means been arrested. This government needs to accept that its law enforcement policies are failing on the whole, despite a few isolated and well-publicised successes. The only way to arrest increasing drug use is to alter the approach to focus on the demand side of the problem. We need to look at why more and more of our young people are turning to drugs. In addition, the government needs to provide more funding to treatment facilities that are struggling to cope with increasing numbers of patients.Senator Vanstone keeps talking about her government's so-called balanced Tough on Drugs strategy, but it seems this concept of equity does not extend to treatment services for users. The Tough on Drugs strategy has allocated $150 million over four years for law enforcement and Customs operations designed to address the supply side of the problem. Only $100 million has been allocated for treatment services. The funding allocated for treatment and prevention strategies together is only $117.5 million, compared with $150 million for the supply side strategies.The government's emphasis is obviously still centred around law enforcement strategies, despite ongoing evidence that this is not the most effective approach. As I have previously said in this place, there must be a balance between law enforcement and treatment facilities. We must have more money for treatment services. Many youth workers have already identified a desperate need to establish more youth oriented treatment options, particularly for heroin users.The study I referred to earlier also revealed a huge drop in the price of heroin. Heroin is now selling for around $280 a gram compared with $400 a gram only a year ago. Evidently Senator Vanstone's few well-publicised heroin hauls in recent months have had little impact on the increased supply of heroin entering the market. There is an urgent need to provide new treatment options and support services appropriate for catering to young people's specific needs.The incidence of heroin use among young people is continuing to rise unabated. Understandably enough, treatment facilities dealing with patients whose serious addictions have spanned decades are often inappropriate environments for recovering teenage users. The need for more youth specific services also implies a need for more youth workers with experience in the drug and alcohol field. If youth specific strategies were to be implemented for the treatment of drug abuse in Australia, such workers would have a vital role to play in the provision of counselling and support services for participants. However, a large scale reallocation of resources towards youth specific services would be required in order to facilitate the development and implementation of new treatment options and support services for youth. While the current government's inaction and ineptitude on this issue continues, unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen.Nevertheless, the enhancement of youth specific services should be considered a viable means of combating heroin abuse, in particular among young Australians. Kim Sattler from Canberra's own Woden Youth Centre has had years of experience in dealing with young people and is a strong advocate for providing more services for youth. `When we know that IV drug use is massively on the rise with under 25-year-olds, then if we don't want to lose a fair chunk of one generation then we better start looking at much more flexible options,' she has said. I am inclined to agree with her totally.The crux of the matter is this: we need to start looking at the people and the problems separately. The people are not the problem. They merely have a problem. While we keep trying to punish them instead of helping them nothing will ever be achieved. The Prime Minister and his government talk about the war on drugs. The notion of war implies that we are on different sides. With any war there are casualties and victims. The government should not be on a different side to the people who use drugs; it should be on their side providing them with the help and support they need to address their problems.The first casualty when war comes is truth. This government has sought to sidestep the issue of drug law reform with political posturing about being tough on drugs instead of initiating any honest new solutions. The Prime Minister rejected the recommendations of his own Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy last year when it concluded that the ACT heroin trial should go ahead. If the Prime Minister will not consider any new treatment options for heroin users, then I appeal to him to at least look at strengthening the current options with enhanced support services. We would not expect an alcoholic to be treated without proper counselling and support. Why do we expect heroin addicts to be able to go without such services when they are certainly fighting an addiction of similar magnitude?The government must seek to remove the stigma that surrounds people who use heroin, rather than act to institutionalise it within the community. Equally, the growing problem of cocaine use will not be adequately addressed if the emphasis on heavy-handed law enforcement continues to dominate. It is time we started addressing the reason why Australia has a drug problem that is growing at an alarming rate. The time for punishment and persecution has surely passed. It is time to look at why decent, sensitive people in the community have to turn to drugs when they obviously feel there is no other option for them in their lives.152813:23:001528O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—The first speech in a politician's career in either the House of Representatives or the Senate is a high point of that career as it is often a long and difficult road to achieve the honour of representing an electorate in this place or in the House of Representatives. When that end goal is achieved and the privileged few take their place, they do so with enormous pride, and first speeches generally reflect that pride. But, more importantly, first speeches often reflect community attitudes, aspirations and concerns in a very precise way. The reason is simple: first speeches are usually built around many hard months of campaigning, thousands of doors knocked upon and many public meetings attended. They also bring to the parliament a view not yet influenced by party pressures.For all of these reasons, the first speech of the member for Riverina, Mrs Kay Hull, makes very interesting reading. I assume that all of the National Party members in this place and all of her colleagues in the other place have had a chance to read it. Senator Boswell might want to have a few words to say about it here or somewhere else. Mrs Hull said that during the last campaign she travelled extensively, listening to the myriad of issues that people in her electorate, the electorate of Riverina, put to her. She said she had promised those people during the campaign that she would raise their concerns in the parliament if she were given the opportunity to do so. She told the House of Representatives that her first speech reflected those very concerns.The new member for Riverina said the most pressing concern in country areas was the state of health services. She said that most of her constituents considered the health system to be in crisis. She said the lack of doctors, specialist services and trained nurses in rural areas was at crisis level. Mrs Hull need look no further than her own party and its coalition partner for the source of the problem. In just three years the Howard government has caused massive damage to health care, particularly in regional Australia. Bulk-billing rates have been forced down because the Howard government froze GP rebates. Public hospital funding has been slashed by many hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr Howard launched an assault on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. He closed Medicare offices, many of them in rural and regional Australia.The Howard government also abolished the Commonwealth Dental Health Program, which Labor established in 1994 because Australians on low incomes had poor dental health and could not afford private dental care. That scheme offered free dental care to around four million pensioners and adult cardholders. During its lifetime it dramatically reduced waiting time for basic and emergency dental care and it greatly improved access to dental services in regional and rural Australia. Since this program's abolition, waiting lists have more than doubled and in some areas patients have to wait for years for essential dental treatment.Mrs Hull also said in the other place that of equal concern to the people in Riverina was unemployment and the lack of job opportunities in rural and regional areas. Again, the cause of the problem lies with her own colleagues. The Howard government had not simply failed to give job creation in the bush the attention it justly deserves—that in itself would be bad enough; it actually abolished the Commonwealth Employment Service, which provided access to many job opportunities in regional Australia. Not only has this cost thousands of jobs directly with the closure of the CES offices around the nation, there have been many more indirect unemployment consequences, reinforcing the population shift from country to city. The replacement service, the Job Network, has been a spectacular failure, particularly in regional centres.Mrs Hull also referred to economic rationalism. She said:We are told, `Sell assets, shed debt, outsource and above all downsize, and the private sector jobs will come and economic growth will follow.' Unfortunately, with that process having been put into place, we are now faced with far more challenges to overcome. Our banks have gone, or are going. Our schools are closing. Our education, rail, taxation, electricity and other government departments have disappeared from our regional towns.There is a difference between sound policy designed to develop efficient service delivery and efficient allocation of public resources as against ideological obsession. The former Labor government pursued good public policy in this regard. It implemented programs designed to achieve a range of objectives, which included universal service delivery with efficient service delivery. In contrast, this government has underpinned its approach to service delivery with an obsession for small government. In its view, small government is good and big government is bad.In the 1996 election, the coalition described regional communities as `Australia's forgotten people'. After the election Mr Howard did not forget them, but perhaps it would have been better if he had. Mr Sharp, the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development, said:There is not clear rationale or constitutional basis for Commonwealth involvement in regional development.Then in its first budget, the government took to regional Australia with a vengeance. It cut funding for regional development assistance. It cut ABC services to rural and regional Australia. Now it wants to sell off the whole of Telstra, putting at risk communications in rural and regional Australia. It has cut funding for job programs in rural and regional Australia, and regional universities have been hit hard.Mrs Hull also told the House of Representatives that aged care is in crisis. Every candidate who contested the last election would be of the same view. Aged care was undoubtedly one of the major failing policy areas of the first Howard government. There were endless changes to a fundamentally flawed policy, adversely affecting the most vulnerable in the community. Mrs Hull said:. . . demand for dementia care far outstripping the supply of service that is available. Case loads on clinical nurses have doubled, but our operational days have been cut back. Increased demand for aged care hostels in rural areas cannot be satisfied.Frankly, all of these problems can be laid at the feet of the Howard government.Another area of community concern that Mrs Hull found during her campaign was the lack of adequate child-care services. She said child care was another area that has suffered in a world of rationalism, with far too few places and far too many families waiting to access quality child care for their precious children. She said this issue was contributing to a breakdown of the family unit. She was right on the mark and so were her constituents. Child care enables families to work and that means improved living standards and better opportunities for kids. Child-care centres are also important places of learning for young children.Again, Mrs Hull need look no further than the Prime Minister for the source of the problem. In its first budget, the Howard government pushed up child-care costs and cut funding in this key area. On top of that, having cut $820 million in its first two budgets, it underspent its funding in its last budget.The Howard government's assault on families, particularly families living in rural and regional Australia, has been comprehensive. There have been job cuts, cuts to funding for education, cuts to health, cuts to aged care assistance and cuts to the public hospitals. The new member for Riverina is in for a very tough time if she thinks that she can deliver solutions to the problems she discovered while campaigning—because, despite the rhetoric from the National Party, this is very much a government for the big end of town.There is one other matter that I wish to raise today. All senators would be aware that both major parties went to the last election with a special package of measures for the state of Tasmania. The Labor package was designed to deal with the not insignificant economic difficulties facing the state. We had a plan, developed in consultation with the Tasmanian community. That package reflected the confidence Labor has in the future of Tasmania, given the right set of policies and the commitment to implement them.However, the same cannot be said for the Howard government. While the government also presented a package of measures to Tasmanian voters at the last election, it was not committed to the future of the state. The Howard government's real view of Tasmania was stated by no less than the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Fischer, last Friday night. Mr Fischer was addressing the parliamentary press gallery annual dinner at the National Press Club. This is what he said about Tasmania: `the Tasmanian economy is a basket case.' He then said that the Tasmanian economy was `beyond repair'. It is important that everyone in Tasmania realise the significance of this statement for the future of the state under a Howard government. It means that the Howard government has given up on Tasmania and that this view will influence every cabinet decision.Many of the problems currently facing the state are the result of misguided policies implemented by the government. Unfortunately, it now appears that the government has abandoned the state altogether. Perhaps the Tasmanian electorate abandoned the Liberal Party this year at both the state and federal levels in Tasmania, but there are two things that are certain: Labor will not abandon Tasmania and, frankly, Mr Fischer will be forced to eat his words.153013:32:001530Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Before I move the suspension of the Senate, I would like to make a few remarks about the treatment of regional Australia by the previous Labor government. We have heard from Senator O'Brien a range of comments about regional Australia. He needs to be reminded regularly, as do all honourable senators and particularly the people of Australia, of what happened under the previous government.This government is yet to have its third birthday. Most Australians, particularly those living in regional and remote Australia, would still not have forgotten what the Keating government did to them and what Mr Keating did as Treasurer—the sort of policies they pursued and the impact they had, particularly on people who lived in regional and remote areas. We saw under the 13 years of Labor government some of the greatest destruction of regional Australia in the history of this great nation.That sort of economic devastation to industries in rural areas, to farms and stations throughout this country, had not been witnessed since the 1930s Depression. The sort of devastation that occurred to individual households had only occurred at one other time in Australia's history since our foundation, indeed since Federation, and that was during the Great Depression. It took—to use a phrase that my father coined—`extremely sexy fingers' on the part of then Treasurer Mr Keating and Prime Minister Hawke, and in the latter period of that government Prime Minister Keating, to wreak the havoc that they wreaked on regional and rural Australia. Senator O'Brien may well get up and wish to say that he did not support that previous government and that he has found a new way forward—the Blair way, the Beazley way, the Conroy way, the Carr way, or whatever the new way forward is for the Labor Party; because I know they are grasping around in the darkness trying to find a solution, let alone a policy—2M6COONANSenator Coonan—The Mark Latham method.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I guess they have got a few options available to them. He may say that he is part of the new face of Labor. We will never let the people of Australia forget, if their memories get hazy, what happened particularly to regional and rural Australia. Senator O'Brien comes in here, as have other Labor senators in the past few years, and discusses regional and rural issues and what is happening in regional and rural Australia. They are right to do that, but they must remember the legacy of the 13 years of the Hawke and Keating governments.Madam Acting Deputy President, you understand that, coming as you do from Western Australia. You saw what happened to the outback areas, the pastoral and mining districts, of Western Australia—those great provinces. You saw what happened in the agricultural districts of our great state—the destruction of towns, the destruction of families and the destruction of family farming enterprises—when the economic vandals on the other side of the aisle were in government. They increased the interest rates that farmers had to pay. In fact, any entrepreneurial enterprise or business had to pay rates above 30 per cent in some respects. People who had farming equipment and other infrastructure financed through finance companies in this nation were forced, during the Keating treasurership and prime ministership, to pay rates of over 30 per cent on their business loans. They were wiped out.This was from a government and from a Treasurer who, at the time, said that he had his hands on the levers. My father's phrase about sexy fingers—for those who cannot pick it up—is for people who have their hands on these levers, but when they touch things with these fingers they stuff them. That is what these people did to the economy of Australia. Not content to wipe out regional and rural Australian businesses, farms and stations and the mining industry with their $10 billion annual deficit—year after year, for 10 out of the 13 years these people chose to spend $10 billion more than they earned—or to mortgage the future of young Australians, who will have to pay this debt back, they wreaked this economic destruction.But they were not content with that. When it came to confronting the unusual constitutional problem caused by the High Court's decision in the Mabo 2 case, they had the opportunity to work constructively with the states, who have constitutional responsibility for land management, but they threw that away. They walked away from negotiations with the states and said, `We will go it alone. We want to appeal to the cappuccino set, the chardonnay set, in the suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney.'They did not want to do the hard yards trying to find a solution to the problems caused by the constitutional issues relating to Mabo 2. They walked away. They ran it alone and imposed on this nation what became known as the Mabo legislation which, technically, is the Native Title Act 1993.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—Totally unworkable.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—It delivered a land management system in Australia that was totally unworkable, to use Senator Coonan's words. It effectively closed down exploration in this country and sent it offshore. It put geologists and lots of blue collar workers out of work across this country. It particularly harshly impacted on regional and remote areas of Australia. It was a double whammy from these people opposite. When you come into this place, Madam Acting Deputy President, I ask you and I ask members opposite to think very carefully about the credibility that they bring to a debate about regional and rural Australia after the havoc that they have wreaked across this country.It will take, I hope, generations to forgive those opposite for what they did to this nation in the last 13 years. I hope it takes generations but, more sincerely, I hope that members opposite will sit down and do the hard yards in relation to policy that will be constructive for Australia. They have just spent 2½ years sniping and carping, and being obstructive and negative and saying no to everything and overturning any principles that Labor may have ever had. If they want to be a serious opposition that can propose serious alternative policies they firstly have to find themselves a direction.As I said earlier, there are five or six different proposals from various people, but none from the leader, of course. He is totally devoid of any ideas. He has run out of ideas and run out of oomph, and he certainly never had any ticker. But there is a range of other proposals. Mark Latham is putting forward some proposals, and I see Senator Conroy is talking about finding a fourth or fifth way. There are other people talking about a third way. You can copy the Clinton model or the Blair model. They could look at the Mitterrand model. Those people are looking for a way forward for Labor.Let us hope they find a way because, in a Westminster democracy, you need a serious opposition. We do not have one at the moment. We have a rabble of opportunists with a record of economic destruction in this nation that is second to none. No other governments were so bad for Australia as were the Hawke and Keating governments. Let us hope they find a way but let us never forget what they did to this country. Let us never forget what they did to regional and rural Australia. Whenever Labor senators get up and have a go at this government, just remind them what they did.This government has delivered five per cent economic growth at a time when the region is in economic recession. These guys had trouble delivering any growth at all when the region was growing at eight, 10 and 12 per cent. We have cut interest rates to levels that have not been seen since the 1930s so that farmers, home buyers and home owners can benefit to the tune of about $300, or more, a month for a $100,000 mortgage. We are putting money in the pockets of these people.The people in regional and remote Australia have got more money in their pockets now as a result of this government's sound economic management. We are getting rid of those $10 billion deficits and turning them into surpluses for the first time in generations. Yet these people come in and want to play games. The hypocrisy is breathtaking but let us never stop reminding them of what they did. I certainly never will. As long as I am allowed the honour of serving in this place, I will take any opportunity to do that.153213:42:001532Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I might use this brief occasion before question time to respond to some of Senator Campbell's comments. Senator Campbell chose to ride on the back of Senator O'Brien's contribution, so he deserves some response. He refers to the comments of Labor senators on several of the macro-economic issues that face us today and the impact on regional economies. It has amused me somewhat because I was taking the opportunity to acquaint myself with the work done by what was the old DEETYA committee on regional unemployment during my period of duty today and some of his comments do not quite fit with much of the evidence that was received by that committee. However, we will have an opportunity, probably early next year, to put down a report of that committee's consideration in relation to regional unemployment. We can perhaps better address some of those issues then.Senator Campbell referred to the views of Labor senators in relation to regions, but Senator O'Brien was highlighting the contribution made by the new member for Riverina in his speech. I was somewhat amused to see this front-on attack from Senator Campbell, this sniping at Labor senators and the reminders about 13 years of government. There are a couple of points that he failed to address in his brief contribution to today's considerations.Firstly, the reason that we are grappling, in a policy sense, for what he chooses to call the second, third, fourth or fifth way is that we need to deal with the impact of globalisation on regions in Australia. Since Senator Campbell chose not to proffer any proposed solutions for these regions, he is in some difficulty—with respect to the vast amount of evidence that has been put to the Senate committee on the problems still being faced by regions—in suggesting that his government has offered any succour to those people that have been suffering disadvantage for many years.It is easy for us to stand up here and highlight one section or one industry and ignore any other industries, but I think the interjection made by Senator O'Brien was quite valid: `What about today's wheat industry?' Until we all acknowledge that there are significant problems in this area and do not resort to brief quips about `sexy fingers' and all those sorts of comments, and until we address these problems seriously we are a long way from finding any way for Australia to generate economies and employment for our youth of the future and to survive in a globalised economy.I also do not think it is reasonable in relation to growth statistics to create figures, as Senator Campbell did to suit his argument. Yes, there has been most recently a five per cent growth figure under the current government, and I will be very happy if that level of growth is sustained and if it is generated and distributed into growth in employment and sustainable economies in regional Australia. But I do not think the government has the record over a lengthy period of time in relation to sustained growth to be able to proffer the sort of complacency that Senator Campbell did in his earlier contribution. If anything, the consistent and sustainable economic growth under the period of Labor government stands up much better than does Senator Campbell's brief five per cent figure.Senator Campbell also surprised me with his reference to the need for a serious opposition. I would have thought that, after the last election results, he would have realised how very close his own government came to being in opposition after just one term. Talking about serious oppositions, perhaps the Labor Party is in a position to say, `In some senses, we were lucky—through the current government's mismanagement—to be in the position to offer the sort of opposition we were able to after such a sort period.' As Senator Campbell highlighted, this government has not even reached its third birthday. It was at about its second and a half birthday before we faced the last election. It had not even reached its third birthday when it was nearly out on its ear.Senator Campbell would want to be careful about his reference to serious oppositions, because we are still waiting to see serious government. Contributions such as his own, following Senator O'Brien's highlighting of criticism from within Senator Campbell's own ranks, reflect poorly on the ability of this government and its representatives currently in the chamber to offer a serious debate.Sitting suspended from 1.48 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice153315331533Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Minister, I refer you to recent reports that the National Australia Bank is about to enter the final phase of its campaign to convince the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to allow it to merge with another major bank. Is it the case that, despite having explicitly ruled out any relaxation of the four pillars policy, the Prime Minister has agreed to meet with Mr Argus of the NAB to discuss the issue? Given that the NAB saved the Liberal Party from bankruptcy in the mid-1990s, will the minister confirm that there will be, as the Prime Minister has stated, no relaxation of the four pillars policy?1534Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I actually thought that Senator Conroy was going to ask me about branch stacking in the Labor Party in Victoria and the Dreyfus report, so I pulled out that brief. I will put it away.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Pull the Bulleen one out.WW4Senator KEMP—Of course you would be extremely sensitive about it, Senator Conroy, after the particular attack that you were under in the Labor Party in Victoria.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, I remind you of the question that was asked of you by Senator Conroy.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—It is very difficult to pursue this important question with Senator Ray calling out all the time and then trying to defend Senator Conroy. Why would you try to defend Senator Conroy, who is, in my view, indefensible? The government's position on the four pillars policy is absolutely clear. On the ABC's AM program on 30 November, the Treasurer said:So in the situation as we find it now . . . you can't conceive that allowing mergers would improve competition.The Prime Minister said in his address to the National Farmers Federation on 24 November:Our position on bank mergers is this: that we are not for all time against mergers of existing banks. But we would not agree to any mergers taking place, any further mergers of the majors, in other words we'd maintain what's called the four pillars policy, until we are satisfied that there was a greater level of competition than now exists.So the government's position on the four pillars policy is absolutely clear. The four pillars policy is in place and will remain in place until such a time as there is a greater level of competition than now exists. I do not know what Senator Conroy is on about. I think it is important that the Prime Minister and ministers have a wide range of meetings with community and business groups and business and community leaders. I think that is perfectly appropriate. If I were you, Senator Conroy, I would not worry too much about the four pillars policy.1534Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of Mr Argus's advice to the Prime Minister that banks cannot lend to small business at the same rates as they do for home mortgages because it is more risky? Given that banks demand a mortgage on both the small business and usually the home of the small business operator, does the minister agree with the NAB that lending to small business is more risky under these circumstances? What effect does this attitude from the NAB to small business have on the relaxation of the four pillars?1534Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I suspect I may even get a question on the level of interest rates today, so I invite you to tune in to my response. Mr Argus is entitled to put views and is entitled to argue his case.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—What is your response?WW4Senator KEMP—My response is that Mr Argus is entitled to put views to the government if he wishes to and is entitled to argue his case. My response—and I refer you to the first part of my answer—is that the four pillars policy is in place, and I quoted for you comments from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister on this particular issue.15341534Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. There have been six cuts in official interest rates since the Howard government came to office. This means an after tax saving of some $3,000 in interest payments for Australians with an average sized mortgage. Will the minister explain what the benefits are for families and small businesses?1534Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Calvert—the very popular and efficient whip on the government side—and welcome that question from him. Since the Reserve Bank capped official interest rates at 4.75 per cent, financial institutions, including all the major banks, have announced cuts in their home mortgage rates and in some cases their lending rates to business. These rate cuts are a terrific Christmas present for Australian families and business.Madam President, you may recall that, when this government came into office, the standard variable mortgage rate was some 10.5 per cent. This rate is now 6.5 per cent. Just to reiterate that: when Senator Conroy's government was in office, the standard variable home mortgage rate was 10.5 per cent. It is now 6.5 per cent, with some home loan rates going below six per cent. I think we can all recall on this side—as, indeed, Australian families and people in business can recall—the very high level of interest rates which occurred under the previous government. The Labor Party was a high interest rate government, and this government is a low interest rate government.Under the former Keating government, interest rates reached a staggering 17 per cent—a 17 per cent slug on home loans. This is what the Labor Party delivered to Australian families. It is no wonder that, every time elections come around, the Australian community and Australian families remember—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—The National Bank bailed you out.WW4Senator KEMP—They remember, Senator Conroy, the very high interest rates which occurred under the former government. Since the government has been elected, as a result of the interest rate cuts an Australian family with an average mortgage is saving probably more than $3,000 per annum in interest—an enormous saving in interest. As a result of our policies, a terrific Christmas present has been able to be delivered to Australian families. These cuts in interest rates have been a result of the very sound policies which have been followed by the Howard government.Virtually all our major policies, all the major initiatives in the economy and elsewhere, have been opposed by the Labor Party, but we have delivered growth of five per cent in the 12 months to September, the lowest home mortgage rates since the 1960s, 400,000 new jobs since March 1996 and the highest number of ANZ job vacancies since March 1990. Inflation rates are at or near the 25-year lows. It is a remarkable achievement and it is no wonder that the Australian community, faced with a choice of returning Labor to office or sticking with a government that can carry out sensible and positive reforms and deliver real benefits, real jobs and real growth in the economy to Australian families, chose the Howard government. (Time expired)15351535Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer. I refer the minister to comments by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, who stated:Some small businesses will need to think carefully about their accounting systems, for example . . . and perhaps look at the computers that they have got now to make sure that they are up to date.How many of Australia's one million small businesses will need to upgrade their computing systems as a consequence of the GST? Is it a fact that small businesses required to change their accounting and computer systems to accommodate the GST will on average receive only $500 worth of government assistance? Is the minister aware that the Institute of Chartered Accountants has today described this figure as `unrealistic'? What does the government estimate the cost will be to small businesses required to overhaul their accounting and computing systems for the GST?1535Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Sherry for his question. This tax reform policy is delivering huge benefits to Australian families and huge benefits to Australian business. My colleague Senator Minchin in an answer earlier this week mentioned the enormous costs which are coming off small business as a result of the tax reforms this government is bringing in.Senator, I am not sure whether you are aware that in relation to the very important changes in many of the accounting arrangements and the withholding tax arrangements the Labor Party adopted our policy. You will remember that when you brought out your failed tax reform policy, at the back of it you tacked on all the changes that this government had proposed in relation to PAYE and the changes in all the withholding tax arrangements. You adopted holus-bolus virtually all the proposed changes which we brought in, without the GST, and which would have led to huge costs to small business.The government has in its policy clearly recognised that there will be some costs. That is why we have provided a very substantial sum, $500 million, to assist in this process. There is a consultative committee which is now looking at the best and most effective way to distribute this assistance. I think that certainly makes sense.The government, as always, will work closely with small business. Unlike the Labor Party, we do not attack small business. We are anxious to deliver to small business, as we have been able to do since we came to office, major cuts in interest rates. We have been anxious to deliver cuts in red tape, which we have delivered. We are bringing in tax reforms which are to the benefit of small business. We just do not accept the nitpicking arrangements and complaints that we constantly get from the Labor Party on tax reform.Small business remember that the Labor Party brought in the unfair dismissals law. Small business remember the changes and the introduction of the FBT which the Labor Party brought in. Small business, Senator Sherry, have very long memories about the Labor Party. Small business remember how you favoured trade union interests over business interests. Senator, you would be pleased to know that small business strongly supported tax reform at the election. This government is going to deliver on that promise and calls on the Senate to make sure that the government promises can be delivered in full and on time.1536Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I ask a supplementary question. I am glad, Minister, that you admit that there will be `some costs', to use your words, but this is significantly more than nitpicking. Certainly small business have made representations to us about the costs. Are you aware that small businesses requiring outside assistance to update their computing systems will face a shortage of skilled IT personnel as a consequence of pressures caused by the millennium bug? What will be the additional cost to small business of hiring IT personnel as a consequence of this short age? What assistance, if any, does the government intend to provide to overcome this problem?1536Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—You will be aware that in the last budget some changes were brought in. The government has announced some changes in relation to the millennium bug. I think those changes will provide assistance to business. Senator Sherry's concern for small business, as I have said, is entirely misplaced. Tax reform is about helping small business.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—A lot of them don't believe it.WW4Senator KEMP—They do believe it, Senator. Even more importantly, when the choice came at the last election they voted for us; they did not vote for you. We believe that tax reform will provide a huge benefit to small business. Small business appreciate what this government has done and what it is trying to do in the way of tax reform. We have received extremely strong support from small business. The only people who complain are the Labor Party. (Time expired)15361536Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald. Will the minister outline the government achievements and initiatives in improving the delivery of health services in regional and remote Australia?1536Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—That is a very important question from Senator Knowles. I thank her for her question. I know that Senator Knowles and her Western Australian colleagues have a big interest in rural and regional Australia and the initiatives that the government is promoting for those of us who live in rural and regional Australia.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much yelling in the chamber from those on my left. I would ask them to cease.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Senator Knowles will be pleased to hear that the coalition government is focused on delivering high quality health care to regional and remote Australians. We recognise that we need more doctors in rural and regional areas and that we need to encourage doctors that are currently there to stay. In the past, rural and regional communities have had difficulties in attracting and retaining doctors. We work with rural communities, with professional bodies and with educational institutions to overcome these obstacles.We have put in place a number of initiatives that will be very useful to people living in rural and regional Australia. One of Senator Knowles's colleagues, Senator Eggleston, actually practised medicine in rural and regional Australia for many, many years in a very distinguished way. We are going to provide an additional $30 million for more doctors in remote and rural Australia. We have committed to funding $50 million more to a program of general practitioner retention payments for practitioners living in rural and remote areas. This is to stop the flow of doctors out of rural and regional areas in Australia. It is a very good move.This is on top of the increase in funding that the government has made for public hospitals right across Australia of some 19.2 per cent over five years. Public hospitals in rural and regional Australia and everywhere else in Australia will benefit very significantly from the huge increase that the federal government will give in public hospital funding over the next five years. We are also providing $31.3 billion in funding for public hospitals over the next five years. I want to repeat that, because it is an enormous investment by this government in public hospitals over the next five years—$31.3 billion. That is more than any other government in Australian history has ever provided for hospitals.Senator Knowles will also be interested to know that we are providing $41.6 million for 30 new rural multipurpose health and family service centres. These centres are targeted to sites in small rural communities with populations of around 2,000 people. At the present time, 35 multipurpose service centres are operating throughout Australia. The Labor Party might be interested—I know my side is—to know that there are 14 in New South Wales, six in Victoria, two in Queensland, four in South Australia, seven in Western Australia and one each in Tasmania and the Northern Territory.These existing and new multipurpose service centres will provide a range of services which include health and medical services such as immunisation, palliative care and mental health, support services such as community nursing, home care and Meals on Wheels, child care, infant welfare and parenting information. We will be supporting supported accommodation services, such as nursing home and hostel care. As well, the Medicare Ezyclaim system was introduced into rural and remote areas as part of our government's commitment to making Medicare services more accessible. We are going to improve upon that. We have committed $30 million to install a further 600 Medicare Ezyclaim facilities. (Time expired)1537Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, will the programs that you have just outlined—which the Labor Party have overlooked and carefully misrepresent—be supplemented by other government initiatives for regional areas?1537Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Thank you, Senator Knowles. Again, you ask a very worthwhile question, one that I am pleased to answer. I did not mention the fact that, over the past two years, this government has established university departments of rural health in each state and the Northern Territory, committing more than $27 million in funds. These departments provide rural health, education training and support for health care professionals with an emphasis on rural population health.Very importantly, I am very pleased to mention that the government will provide a $10 million capital injection to the James Cook University medical school in Townsville—my home town—for 20 new medical places and another $13.2 million to the University of New South Wales for a clinical school at Wagga Wagga. The importance of that is that we on this side believe that if you train doctors in rural and regional areas they will stay there. (Time expired)15381538Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Is the minister aware that Ross McDowell, the General Manager of the Queensland Credit Union, has described the Treasurer's response to concerns about the impact of the GST on credit unions as `patronising' and `smart alec'? Is the minister also aware of Mr McDowell's claim that the GST would remove a `significant competition influence on the banks', as the GST will apply to credit unions when the same services offered by the banks will be exempt? Is Mr McDowell correct? Is the government serious about competition in the financial sector when the impact of the GST on credit unions will clearly have the opposite effect?1538Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Unlike the Labor Party, this government has been very supportive of credit unions. We have been able to increase the ability of credit unions to compete, particularly through the payment of cheques, which has been widely welcomed by the credit unions. That was one of the initiatives which this government was able to carry out on behalf of credit unions. Senator, the Treasurer has answered some questions in the parliament on this. I do not know if the comments you quoted were quoted in full or accurately but, if they were, I think the comments that were made were unfortunate comments. The fact of the matter is that we are seeking to treat all financial institutions in a similar manner on a level playing field. I think that what we have carried out in that area will do that.We are aware that the credit unions have put particular views to the government. I am sure there will be other institutions in the financial sector which will also have views. But we are treating all those financial institutions in a similar fashion. I think that that is the appropriate way to do it. I know that the credit unions have requested that sales from the Credit Union Services Corporation to them should be GST free. We are aware of that particular proposal that they have put to us, but to accept that would be to treat credit unions in a special fashion compared with other financial institutions.On the general point, we would expect all financial institutions to benefit from the sorts of reforms that this government is carrying out. One of those reforms is in the tax area. An important feature of those reforms will be to make the Australian economy more competitive to enable the Australian economy to grow at a higher rate to deliver real benefits to Australian consumers. The tax cuts will provide greater disposable income to taxpayers. That will be of benefit to financial institutions as well.Tax reform is one of the important measures we went to the Australian people on. We outlined in detail at the election the proposals that the government intended to put into effect when we were elected. We were elected and we intend to carry out our major tax reform initiatives. I suggest that the Senate and the Labor Party accept that this government won the election on the basis of a number of policies, but particularly on the policy of tax reform.1538Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, what is the government doing to effectively assist credit unions in remaining competitive against the big banks? You talk about a level playing field, but in actual fact the big banks get special treatment. Could you, in the light of your comments, please explain what the government's policy is to assist credit unions? Will you give an undertaking for you or the Treasurer to meet with the credit unions to listen to their very real concerns?1538Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Of course I am happy to meet with the credit unions. I have already had discussions with some of the representatives of credit unions. If they wish to meet further with me, all they have to do is phone my office. They do not have to get a Labor senator to ask me a question in the parliament. They would find that, if they gave my office a call directly, I would be more than happy to meet with them.15381538Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Senator Ian Macdonald. Minister, does the government stand by the joint media release issued by Ministers John Fahey and Mark Vaile on 20 March 1998 which promised in part that Canberra airport's new operator will be subject to, for the term of its operating lease, a comprehensive regulatory regime that will ensure that public interest is fully protected? Minister, why have there been savage increases of over 300 per cent in rents and flying charges to Canberra airport's small business operators when the government promised in its media release that aeronautical charges would be capped at CPI minus one for the next five years?1539Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Woodley mentions a media release. I must say that I am not familiar with it. I would assume it was released some months ago. I would also assume that the ministers involved would not have any reason to change their minds. What I understand about the Canberra airport is that it is going to mean a huge boost to the economy of this part of regional Australia and to the Capital Territory.Madam President, you would understand—and you would be very well aware of this from the marvellous representations you make for this area, if I might say so—the great importance Canberrans place on their airport and the fact that it is being upgraded, that it is now in private hands and that it will provide more and more air activity and more and more jobs over time to people in this part of regional Australia. Senator Woodley, I have read in the paper that there were some rentals going up. I am not sure that that applies to the regulatory charges that I think you said the particular media release related to. I suspect that you might be talking about apples where they were talking about oranges.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Pineapples.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Or pineapples. If that is not correct, I will discuss the matter with Mr Anderson to see if he wants to comment further on the matter you have mentioned.1539Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his commitment to discuss this with Minister Anderson. I also thank you for your answer to my question the other day about airports. Minister, are you aware that a protest meeting was held yesterday at the Canberra airport which passed a motion to demand the Howard federal government honour its promise to provide an effective price cap at phase 2 privatised airports to prevent this type of monopolistic exploitation of airport users? Minister, will the government honour the promises made in the Fahey-Vaile media release?1539Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I cannot really add further to the answer I gave previously. I will refer that to Mr Anderson and see if he can get a comprehensive answer for Senator Woodley.15391539Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Minister, I refer to the Prime Minister's repeated assurances that no-one will be worse off under the GST. Can the minister confirm that a self-funded retiree who receives between $30,000 and $40,000 per annum will not be eligible for either the aged persons savings bonus or the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus, worth $3,000 dollars? Minister, is such a self-funded retiree, who has no assets other than their private pension income, considered well off by the government? If not, will the government be extending the pension bonus scheme to this group of self-funded retirees to adequately compensate them for the imposition of the GST and so ensure that they are not worse off?1539Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Faulkner, for that question on the government's very important initiative of tax reform. Senator, the tax reform proposal has been out since August, and I must say that the Labor Party has failed to produce examples of people who will be worse off. That challenge was thrown out during the election when, in fact, community attention was focused on this, and the Labor Party failed to produce examples of people who would be worse off as a result of the tax reform package. Senator Faulkner mentioned the supplementary savings bonus. Amongst other things, this bonus is available to people who have personal income from savings and investments, either in—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I directed a question to Senator Kemp about a self-funded retiree who received between $30,000 and $40,000 per annum, and asked, effectively—in, I thought, a very good question—whether such a person would be worse off under the GST. So I think it is a very clear question, a specific example, and I would ask you, given Senator Kemp's opening remarks, to ask him to address those very serious concerns in his answer.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, I just remind you of the question. You should remain relevant to the issue.WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, you do not have to remind me of the question because, as I was saying, the supplementary bonus is available to people who had, among other things, less than $30,000 in total income in 1998-99 or 1999-2000. But, Senator Faulkner, I think you forgot to mention that this person may well benefit from income tax cuts, which we are delivering in spades. You forgot to mention that this person may well benefit from the refundable franking credit changes which we brought in. You failed to mention, of course, that this person may well benefit from the health insurance rebate, which the Labor Party is attempting to deny many people in this particular category.So for you, Senator Faulkner, to get up and complain is quite extraordinary, because you and your party are attempting to prevent the tax reform package going through. You are attempting to prevent the major tax cuts that we want to deliver to Australian families going through. It is our party that announced the franking credits initiative which will be of enormous benefit to self-funded retirees, and it is our party that is attempting to deliver a major benefit through the health insurance rebate, which self-funded retirees, above all, are demanding. They are demanding this assistance with private health insurance. It is the Labor Party which is attempting to prevent—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I think the minister has had adequate opportunity to explain to the Senate whether a self-funded retiree earning between $30,000 and $40,000 per annum will be worse off under the GST. That is the question, and the minister should be directed to answer it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. The minister is addressing the question.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. Indeed, I appreciate that ruling on your part because there was absolutely no point of order. It was explained to Senator Faulkner that you have got to consider the tax package overall; you have to consider the very many benefits in this tax package. We have indicated that for the higher income groups there are many benefits, but the benefits which will be available to people who may not get the supplementary savings bonus will, very importantly, come through the franking credit arrangements, the health insurance arrangements and the proposed income tax cuts. So there are a wide range of benefits that are available to self-funded retirees. I might say that during the election this group, again, gave the government very strong support. They gave the government very strong support because they appreciated the benefits from tax reform. But they were particularly keen on the health insurance rebate, and that is the very measure, Senator Faulkner, which you are opposing.1540Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My supplementary question is to Senator Kemp. Senator Kemp, can you confirm—regardless of the Prime Minister's repeated assurances and the statements you have just made in question time—that no-one will be worse off under the GST? Can you, Minister, confirm that your own colleagues recognise that self-funded retirees who fall within this private pension income range of $30,000 to $40,000 per annum are worse off on the grounds that these retirees `fall between categories'? I ask the minister to confirm that his own colleagues say that these people are worse off.1540Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—You say `your own colleagues', but no-one has raised that with me. I am looking around at my own colleagues, and they are all just bemused at the comment you are making. If you want to quote colleagues, let me give a specific name—Mark Latham. Your own colleague has said that the Labor Party utterly failed in policy development running up to the last election and that the Labor Party is not interested in new ideas.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Just tell us about your own colleagues.WW4Senator KEMP—That is what your colleague said. I have actually named your colleague. Your colleague Mark Latham has indicated what a hopeless group the Labor Party was over the last three years. They show no sign of reforming.15411541Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the Minister representing the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. I refer the minister to the recently released report by the Environmental Protection Authority in Western Australia in relation to the Department of Conservation and Land Management's compliance with ministerial conditions attached to the current forest management plan for the years 1994 to 2003. I ask: given that the EPA has found that CALM has breached some of the ministerial conditions, is the Commonwealth reviewing the status of current export licences for woodchips from Western Australia's old-growth forests? What action is the Commonwealth government taking in relation to the RFA process in WA following the release of this critical report?1541Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have received the report. I have had a look at it and have asked for urgent advice upon it. I understand that Mrs Edwardes, the Western Australian minister responsible for conservation and land management, is also seeking advice on it. It is our intention that the Regional Forest Agreement will soon overtake the current system of export licences. The current system of licences is on a quantitative basis, whereas under the new system export of woodchips will only be allowed from within a Regional Forest Agreement and in particular from that part of the RFA which has been designated for harvesting purposes. Even then, I remind Senator Margetts, it must be harvested not only in an economically sustainable way but also in an ecologically sustainable way. It is my view that the reports of the EPA and the views of the EPA as expressed therein should be considered as part of the RFA process. I will take into account their views as far as the Commonwealth is concerned in the negotiation. We are well advanced in that negotiation, and we hope that it will be soon concluded. Then, as I said, a better system will overtake the currently existing system, and Senator Margetts will no longer have to worry about the problem that is concerning her at the moment.1541Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. The minister said that the RFA process will soon overtake the current system for licences. He is referring to the fact that the current system of licences still is in the hands and responsibility of the Commonwealth—they still have the ability to take action. Given that aspects of the report are critical of CALM's conflict of interest in relation to forest management in Western Australia and in particular it makes a recommendation about the need for a major restructure of the Lands and Forest Commission to avoid any potential for a conflict of interest, what action is the Commonwealth government proposing to take to limit CALM's role in the current RFA process until these conflicts are resolved? Is the minister saying he will not take any action in relation to breached conditions of export licences?1541Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Senator Margetts will know that it is not uncommon for state government authorities in the forest area to be responsible for both harvesting and conservation, and within these authorities there are various safeguards to try to adequately divide the two responsibilities. I am sure the Western Australian government will take into account the views of the EPA on that particular question—whether there are or are not sufficient safeguards within CALM's structure. We will certainly take it into account, because part of the obligation is to provide for a forest management outcome that will guarantee ecologically sustainable harvesting in the future. That is where we will be concentrating our efforts, and that is looking forward rather than looking backwards.15421542Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I direct my question to the Assistant Treasurer. Can the minister confirm that the Australian Taxation Office is imposing the 15 per cent super tax on deceased Australians? How many assessment notices have been sent to deceased taxpayers for the 15 per cent super tax? Why does the government believe that it is appropriate to levy the surcharge or super tax on Australians who have not and cannot receive their superannuation because they have died? How much does the government anticipate collecting in this matter?1542Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Again we have the attack on the surcharge in the Senate. Mr Beazley indicated during the election that the Labor Party supported the surcharge. But the truth of the matter is that Labor Party colleagues in the Senate and Mr Beazley continue to relentlessly attack the surcharge on every ground. They attempt to provide every cover, except the real grounds that the Labor Party senators are loath to admit—that the surcharge applies to their superannuation. That is the reason why the surcharge is constantly under attack in this parliament.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Madam President, I raise a point of order. The point of order is relevance. You could not have a clearer question going to the assessment of the super surcharge on dead Australians. The answer we are getting relates to live Australians, not the dead Australians that the question relates to.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am waiting for the minister to get to the point. It is certainly an introduction.WW4Senator KEMP—What we are talking about is the surcharge. The issue relates to the relentless attack on the surcharge by Labor senators, contrary to Labor policy. What I am explaining to the Senate and the public is that the reason we get this constant attack on the surcharge in the Senate from Labor Party senators is that Labor Party senators object to paying the surcharge.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Rubbish! That is absolute rubbish.WW4Senator KEMP—They object to paying the surcharge. That is the reason why you are part of this campaign. Make no mistake.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, you should not be directing your remarks across the chamber. I remind you of the question that was asked of you.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. I was responding to the astonishing response that we see from the Labor Party benches.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Well, you are lying.WW4Senator KEMP—I am not lying.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Yes, you are.WW4Senator KEMP—I am telling the truth: Labor senators, contrary to Labor Party policy, continue to attack the surcharge in this Senate because Labor Party senators don't want to pay the surcharge.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Which is a dead lie, and you know it, Kemp.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Ray!ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Once again, I draw your attention to relevance. It was a question about the tax office assessing dead Australians for the superannuation tax. Senator Kemp has not attempted to answer why dead Australians are receiving assessment notices from the tax office.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I draw your attention to the question, Senator Kemp.UW4CRANESenator Crane—Madam President, I raise a point of order on the reference by Senator Ray on the other side of the chamber to our minister being a liar. I think that should be withdrawn from the record.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Ray, if that was the expression used, I ask you to withdraw.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I withdraw. I ask Senator Kemp to withdraw his allegation that we voted improperly on the basis of self-interest and not on the process issues of superannuation. We are not to be expected to cop that abuse and distortion at question time or at any other time in this chamber.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, you should not be casting any imputations against senators opposite. I ask you to withdraw that inference as well.WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Don't argue. Just do it!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators all around the chamber will cease shouting.WW4Senator KEMP—On the point of order: the Labor Party voted against the—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Madam President has made her ruling. Withdraw!3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Withdraw!WW4Senator KEMP—I am entitled to make a point on the point of order. The Labor Party voted against the surcharge in the Senate. The Labor Party attempted to defeat the surcharge in this Senate. As a result, they would have delivered themselves a huge benefit each year. They are acutely embarrassed by this. Out of deference to Madam President, who holds the respect of everybody in this parliament, I will withdraw that comment.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Unconditionally withdraw that, Senator.WW4Senator KEMP—I did.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I did not hear it. I ask you to do it so that I can hear it.WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, as you have asked me to unconditionally withdraw, that is precisely what I will do.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I ask that Senator Ray be now asked to unconditionally withdraw. His withdrawal had a large condition attached to it.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I unconditionally withdraw, as I always do.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I understood that he had. I remind you of the question, Senator Kemp.WW4Senator KEMP—Let me lay the facts before this chamber so that we understand precisely where the Labor Party is coming from. Let me lay the facts out.The Labor Party supported the surcharge in the lower house. The Labor Party voted, as I remember—correct me if I am wrong—for the surcharge in the lower house. When it came to the Senate, the Labor Party opposed the surcharge. What they never said when they opposed the surcharge was that, if this surcharge was defeated, every Labor senator would have received a major benefit.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, on the question of relevance to the question, I have difficulty in seeing the connection. I draw your attention to the question that was asked.WW4Senator KEMP—I am explaining the Labor Party's position.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Are you going to apply this to your health insurance rebate and every tax bill?WW4Senator KEMP—People will declare—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much shouting in the chamber.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam, President, I raise a point of order. You cannot hear the answer. If you want to ask the question, you ought to listen to the answer.WW4Senator KEMP—It is very hard to answer questions because of the sort of abuse that one is getting in this chamber, including from Senator Faulkner, who asked about the health insurance rebate. This is a rebate which the Labor Party is attempting to deny the community. It applies particularly to self-funded retirees, which Senator Faulkner mentioned. The tax office sends out assessments that relate to particular years and to particular benefits received in those years. If there is any more information on this that I can obtain, I will provide it to the Senate.1543Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister like to comment on the principle of sending out notices of assessment, which are quite appropriate with income tax and other matters, to people who have died and who are not able to access their benefit to superannuation but who still have to pay the tax on it? Can you see that that is quite a different principle to any other tax imposition for a deceased person? Can you imagine the distress it causes to those managers and beneficiaries of the estates? Can you tell us what the situation is, how many people are affected, what the value of it is and how you rationalise the principle of the matter?1544Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The point I was making is that assessments are sent out on the basis of particular benefits that people may have received in a particular year. As I said, if there is any more information on that matter I will provide it to the Senate. I mention once again that this is part of the relentless attack by Labor Party senators, contrary to their policy, on the superannuation surcharge which applies equally to people in the higher income brackets—including parliamentarians—and is quite appropriate.15441544Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is also addressed to the Assistant Treasurer. I ask the minister: is the government aware that complaints by consumers relating to bank services have increased by more than 12 per cent—to more than 4,700—over the past year? Is the government aware that the greatest number of complaints relate to the charging of inappropriate, excessive and incorrect fees? To what level will customer dissatisfaction have to increase and for how much longer will the banks be allowed to profit excessively from their customers before the government admits that greater regulation, rather than its claimed red-hot competition, is needed in the oligopolistic banking industry?1544Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, what you seem to have missed in all these debates is that one of the big thrusts of the government's policy is to increase competition in the financial sector, of which banks form only a part. We have indicated there have been improvements, but there is still a way to go. On the other hand, we can point to benefits that consumers have received as a result of the government's policies. Not the least of those is the fact that interest rates have come down very substantially, and part of that has been due to the increased competition which has occurred in the banking sector as a result of the government's policies.We, like everybody else, are concerned to make sure that consumers receive the best possible services, and that is one of the reasons we seek to give consumers choice. One of the reasons we encourage greater competition in the financial services area is to provide consumers with that choice. We can point to the fact—as I think I have done on previous occasions—that very substantial benefits have already been delivered to consumers. But, as I have indicated, competition has a way to go, and one of the ways to deal with the sorts of problems you have raised is to support the government's policy of increasing competition within the financial sector, which is already delivering benefits.There are many things this government can be proud of, and we can point to very important changes. I mentioned in my earlier remarks today things like the very low inflation rates, huge benefits to consumers, very low interest rates and a very great increase in jobs—numbering some 400,000—since this government came to office. So there is a whole host of areas where people are receiving benefits. The government always watches these things closely and we would be concerned—as I am sure Professor Fels would—about any oligopolistic practices, if I can use your word.1544Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The Assistant Treasurer mentioned in his answer that he would like to see the best possible services for consumers and that can be achieved in a whole host of areas. I am wondering if the minister is aware that during the debate on the Wallis inquiry the government said it would move quickly to establish codes of conduct and to implement standards for alternative dispute resolution processes for the financial services industries. Seven months later, we have seen no indication of progress in that area. When will the government move to protect consumers in that way, or do we have a fair time to wait, given that the minister has just said we have a fair way to go?1544Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The government has moved as quickly as it can in a whole host of areas. I must say that one of the things which holds up the government is the difficulty of getting things through this Senate. One of the reasons that legislation does not move as speedily as possible is the amount of time the Senate insists on taking up on every conceivable bill. The government has a priority in looking after consumers—3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—Madam President, I raise a point of order as to relevance. I would ask the minister, in his time remaining, to address the specific issue of codes of conduct. When will the government move to act on its promise during the Wallis debate in relation to codes of conduct?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, I draw your attention to the question.WW4Senator KEMP—As I have said, I will check with the relevant minister—Mr Hockey—and provide you with a detailed answer as to what we have already achieved to date and the current state of play as soon as possible.Distinguished Visitors154510000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Before calling Senator Cook, I draw the attention of senators to the presence in the gallery of a former Victorian senator, John Siddons. Welcome, and I trust your visit back to the national capital will be enjoyable.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice154515451545Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question, too, is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware that the chief executive of the Australian Bankers Association, Mr Tony Aveling, has stated:We would have preferred that financial services attracted the GST directly rather than the input tax effects being passed on to consumers in hidden fees and charges.Given that the government's own tax package claims that the GST will save the banking industry $670 million annually, why should bank fees and charges go up? Is the government prepared to let the banks use input taxing as an excuse to further increase fees and charges while at the same time making cost savings of $670 million per year?1545Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Cook, a former Keating minister, gets up in this chamber and starts to worry about the costs of banking. This was a minister who presided over home loan variable rates soaring to 17 per cent plus. This was a minister who was quite happy to come into this chamber and attempt to defend the indefensible—that is, young families being forced to pay these huge interest rates as a result of the incompetence of government policy.The senator has come into this chamber and attempted to argue that somehow he has a sort of privileged position in this area. You do not, Senator. You come with a great deal of form in relation to banking. You come as a minister who presided over interest rates on home loan mortgages soaring to 17 per cent. So don't you come in here and attempt to lecture this government on its performance.The government went to an election on the position that we planned to adopt in relation to tax reform and financial services. That, as stated many times in this chamber, is the position which we are putting to the Senate, and we are seeking to ensure that we can deliver the benefits of tax reform to all Australians.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. I do not mind Senator Kemp attacking me, even though he does so fallaciously and wrongly, but I do mind that he does not answer the question that I put to him. It was not an attack upon the government; it was a question about whether the government will allow the banks to pocket $670 million and put up their fees or not. I just wonder whether you can direct Senator Kemp to answer that question. It is a simple, plain question, and he should be able to answer it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am sure the minister still has time to come to the question.WW4Senator KEMP—I am glad Senator Cook concedes there are substantial benefits to the banking sector and other sectors as a result of financial reforms. These are the elements which we would expect to be passed on to consumers—of course, we would expect these benefits to be passed on to consumers. Tax reform, we believe, is something which the Australian people voted for. They voted yes to the coalition government. They voted no to the Labor government. We are seeking the ability to bring in these tax reforms.The Labor Party believes in a vast range of taxes. The Labor Party believes in taxes on bank accounts. It believes in the financial institutions duties and debits taxes on bank accounts. That is what it believes in. That is its policy.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many interjections and conversations in the chamber.WW4Senator KEMP—State governments, including Labor governments, want to drop their FIDs and BADs. Everybody in the wider community wants to drop these duties. The one group in Australia that is defending the FIDs and BADs is the Australian Federal Labor Party, led in this chamber by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Cook. We are trying to take taxes off; we are not trying to put taxes on. We believe that the tax package overall will be of huge benefit to consumers. As a result of our many reforms in the financial sector, we are delivering benefits to consumers, and these benefits will continue to improve.1546Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Kemp is having a particularly inept day today, but he did say in answer to that question, referring to the banks, `We will expect them to pass the advantages on to the consumers.' He did say that. Based on that, I ask: will the government specifically instruct the ACCC, under its new as yet undefined powers, to monitor bank fees and charges to ensure that the $670 million worth of savings flow through to bank customers and are not pocketed by banks for their bottom line? Will you do that specifically?1546Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The senator is quite right in one sense alone—that is, the ACCC will be monitoring the implementation of the tax reform package. This monitoring will be widespread, and we would not expect any major group, any major industry or anyone to attempt to achieve price exploitation as a result of these changes.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I rise on another point of order. The question was: will the government specifically instruct the ACCC? The minister has not answered that question. Will you now ask him to answer that question, please?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, I was under the impression that Senator Kemp had resumed his seat having dealt with the question.BH4HILLSenator Hill—I was going to say that we did not miss Senator Cook yesterday—he put out a press release saying he was doing important business—but we would have preferred him to have been away today. If Senator Kemp has sat down, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .RF4COOKSenator Cook—Before we go, on the point of order—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.Questions Without Notice1546154615:06:001546Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—A question from Senator Jacinta Collins was taken on notice by me last week. It was a question on the Child Support Agency's staff identification policy. The following advice was provided to the Minister for Community Services, and I propose to table it.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—And incorporate it?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I will incorporate it too, if you like. I am happy to do that. You can also use a photocopier. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—QUESTION ON NOTICE OF 3 DECEMBER 1998 FROM SENATOR JACINTA COLLINS ON CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY STAFF IDENTIFICATION POLICYThe following advice was provided by the Minister for Community Services. The Child Support Agency encourages staff to give their full names to clients because clients feel more comfortable dealing with staff who have introduced themselves.However, the Child Support Agency understands that, in some instances, staff may have good reason to prefer not to divulge this information. No staff member is obliged to provide their personal details.Staff are required to provide clients with their first name, site location and the 131272 number as a contact number.The staff identification policy and guidelines are readily available to all staff and allow for the use of alternative forms of identification on occasions when a staff member has a genuinely held concern that giving their full name could compromise their safety.154715:07:001547Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I have an answer to the question Senator Woodley asked me earlier. If it is appropriate, I can read it now. The subject of Senator Woodley's question was reported in a couple of newspapers, including the Canberra Times , and referred to the Canberra airport which Senator Woodley has mentioned.These articles and the argument overlook the fact that there will be real reductions in aeronautical charges over the next four years at those airports sold in the phase 1 and 2 sales process. The reductions will result from the CPI minus X price capping regime, which Senator Woodley mentioned, implemented as part of the sale process at major public transport airports. Any rebalancing of aeronautical charges at these airports, which is allowed under the pricing model, is still subject to the cap, which winds back the overall sum of these charges over the price capping period.In addition to the price capping regime administered by the ACCC on aeronautical charges at regular public transport airports—and Senator Woodley will be interested in this—aeronautical related charges are subject to price monitoring by the ACCC. The ACCC can recommend a formal price surveillance where it perceives that the airport is abusing its monopoly position. This pricing framework provides incentives for airports to pursue improvements in service standards while freeing up investment decisions from the constraints imposed by public sector ownership and by harnessing the commercial potential for the airport as an asset.Further, I explained to Senator Woodley that, as airport lessees are able to adjust prices within the price cap, this means they are able to increase prices for some users, as has been done at the Canberra international airport. However, the extent that the prices are increased for some users means that other users will experience a price decrease above what would be expected just from the operation of the CPI minus X regime.I hope that answers Senator Woodley's question. The commitment is there and continues. I hasten to add, again, that the Canberra airport operators and most Canberrans believe that the privatisation of the Canberra airport is very good for this area.Miscellaneous154715:09:001547Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—by leave—After each election, a postal ballot is held of Democrat membership across Australia to determine the parliamentary leadership. I am pleased to be able to announce today that this ballot, which occurs whether positions are contested or not, has been concluded and Senator Stott Despoja has been returned overwhelmingly as deputy leader and I have been returned overwhelmingly as leader.Further, I seek leave to table two lists of portfolio responsibilities for Australian Democrat senators. The first covers the period of January to June 1999 and the second covers the period from July 1999 onwards, when our Senate representation will be increased to nine senators.Leave granted.15:11:001547Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—by leave—On behalf of the government, I congratulate Senator Lees and Senator Stott Despoja on their elections.Questions Without Notice1548154815:12:001548Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—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 Robert Ray today, relating to superannuation.During his answer, Senator Kemp made one of the more despicable allegations you could make in this chamber. He accused all Labor Party members of voting against the 15 per cent superannuation levy in order to enrich themselves. He did so deliberately and he knew the statement was false.The issues involved here are of both principle and process. The Labor Party reaffirms here today, as it did then, that we support the principle of 15 per cent superannuation tax. What we did not like then, and what we do not like today, is the process adopted by the government. That was a process adopted simply so the government could avoid calling this a tax. That was a process adopted simply to keep the facade of a prime ministerial promise that he would not increase taxation over the life of the first parliament. By having that facade, it meant that many people on lower incomes were levied administrative fees for the processing of this particular tax and were worse off. It also meant that those who had not supplied their tax file numbers, no matter what their income, would be charged the 15 per cent.When Senator Kemp comes into this chamber and deliberately accuses the Labor Party of self-interest, he fails to distinguish between principle and process, and he is not fit to be a minister of the Crown if he cannot do so. No-one on our side of the chamber has accused Senator Kemp of promoting the private health insurance rebate to enrich himself, and no-one will. No-one will accuse Senator Kemp of supporting the GST simply to enrich himself. He should make a complete apology for that accusation made here today.But we are used to Senator Kemp. He is a minister who comes into this chamber and cannot answer a question. He was asked today specifically what happens to the superannuation tax on deceased Australians. We did not get an answer out of him. Why? He was not even trying to cover up. He just simply did not know. He comes into this chamber and gets scores of questions to which we get no detailed responses. He is not on top of his portfolio. Heaven knows what he does during the week. He must just sit up in his office and look at the ceiling—not read his briefs, not attend meetings with his departmental officials so they can explain matters to him.What does this Assistant Treasurer do that makes him so ignorant and so incapable of answering any questions? After all, this is a government that spent tens of millions of dollars developing the GST proposal and spent $15 million trying to sell it to the Australian public via taxpayers' money, and what do we have? We have an Assistant Treasurer who does not understand one iota of his own bill.Heaven knows what is going to happen when the 16 bills arrive in this chamber. Are they going to bring in a designated hitter to replace Senator Kemp to put the legislation through? He is not capable of putting it through. He is not capable of answering any questions on the GST other than by way of the mindless mantra that he goes on with in this chamber. He should spend some time listening to his colleagues, who occasionally attempt to answer questions. Senator Ian Macdonald came in straight after question time and added further and valuable information to his answer to Senator Woodley's question. Would Senator Kemp ever do that? Never. He is a total and absolute flop as a minister. He is someone whom the first time around John Howard ignored and did not put in his ministry. He only got in after Senator Short got turfed. Why did he get in? You had to have a Victorian for balance; they were not happy with the Prime Minister because, basically, they did not get a good run in 1996.We are not going to put up with Senator Kemp coming into this chamber and imputing motives for the way we vote. There was never a question in any Labor senator's mind as to whether they would be worse off or better off through the legislation. What was in our minds was to protect those in the community who were worse off, those whom this legislation impacted against, simply because this government did not have the guts, the honesty, to admit that this was a new tax, not a surcharge. (Time expired)15:17:001549Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—The questions in recent times about the surcharge and when the surcharge went through have certainly highlighted that this has been a very complicated piece of legislation. As Senator Kemp has strenuously attempted to explain over many days, many months, this was introduced as an equity measure. I think a lot of the questioning indicates that, nowadays, we are very wise after the event. I only wish that the sort of collective wisdom that we are seeing at the moment could have been applied earlier, that it could have been put on the record during hearings of the committee of which Senator Sherry and I were members. I do not recall this particular issue of a death benefit being raised before the committee. Indeed, it is certainly one of the issues.One of the difficulties is that it is associated with this advance payment. Because it is an advance payment, it is not a provisional tax. This is one of the difficulties with it being a surcharge; they call it a tax at a later date. You did not alter a number of the other issues, which included the advance payment. If you were going to change it to be a tax, you would have assumed, other things being equal, Senator Sherry—I think you might have been responsible for putting that amendment through—that you should have also changed the definitions, et cetera, in relation to the advance payment.The notion of the advance payment as such was that it was somewhat akin to a provisional tax; but it was not a provisional tax, because at the time it went through it was a surcharge. If you were consistent when you had your big victory in changing it from being called a surcharge to being called a tax, you should have at the same time changed the definition and the naming and the application of the advance payment. It is really in this advance payment area where we run into the sorts of difficulties that Senator Ray outlined in his question.So because it is an advance payment, it is not a provisional tax. Therefore the provisional tax provisions, such as variation, et cetera, do not apply to the advance payment. This is an oversight which in time I would like to see amended.I would even like to go further. I have been somewhat outspoken in terms of the application of this. I think a lot of the people who passed this legislation at the time did not fully appreciate the implications of the tax, both to the wider community and, might I add, to themselves. I think a lot of people have got assessments that they have been somewhat surprised about. A number of our colleagues who have left this place or are leaving this place are obviously getting some assessments far in excess of what they would have ordinarily expected.The difficulty really comes back to the fact that, when the Labor Party changed these rules, they should have gone a bit further and changed the definitions and the applications, et cetera, in relation to the advance payment. Because most people were not aware of the implications, it went through unannounced, unamended. If you were a vigilant opposition, you certainly would have been on your feet saying, `These are the people who are being affected.' True, you did that in relation to certain eligible termination payments; I give you full credit for raising that, because that could cause certain problems. But at the end of the day I think you will find that certain adjustments will be made.In relation to your particular problem, Senator Ray, I would hope that the tax office, with an astute executor, would make sure that that adjustment will be made. So essentially it is a timing issue but, undoubtedly, it does cause a problem at the time it is issued.15:21:001549Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I have listened intently to the contribution made by Senator Watson. It appears from that contribution that Senator Ray would have been better informed if he had asked the question of Senator Watson rather than Senator Kemp. At least there would have been some understanding of the answer instead of the waffle that we were treated to just over half an hour ago in Senator Kemp's response.I think it is worth while making the point to the Australian public that Senator Kemp is, in fact, the Assistant Treasurer. That is the position he holds in this government—although the public could be forgiven for wondering whether that is the case. You certainly would not get that understanding from listening to the answers that Senator Kemp gives to questions in this chamber or the contribution he makes to debate on economic issues. In responding to questions, I must say that he is very good at answering anything but the question actually asked of him.Senator Kemp is very good at obfuscating the issues. He is very good at understanding what is happening in the Labor Party, or reading what snippets might be in the newspapers that morning. But, when it comes to dealing with issues that fall under his portfolio and issues that are of importance in economic terms to the Australian people, then he seems to suffer—suffer very significantly—from lack of memory or selective memory. In fact, one would argue that, in many instances when dealing with economic issues, his memory borders on amnesia.Over the past two weeks of the parliamentary sitting we, as an opposition, have asked some 20-odd questions and 20-odd supplementary questions of Senator Kemp. Senator Kemp, in response to those questions, has demonstrated a significant inability to explain: what the powers of the ACCC will be over profiteers after GST changes; whether banking fees will attract the GST; the application of the GST on discounted books and its impact on independent booksellers; the impact of the GST on the sale of farms; the impact of the GST on housing; the GST as it relates to bank charges and EFTPOS fees; the collection of superannuation charges; whether claimed industry savings of $10 billion will be passed; the level of input credits that will be GST free; the GST as it applies to private tuition and public school charges; the effect on the CPI of GST-induced house price rises; fringe benefits tax on group certificates; and a host of other issues that have been raised by the opposition in the past week or so. It is no wonder that Senator Kemp is known around this building as `Senator Waffle'.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Would you please refer to the minister by his correct title.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—Senator Kemp is well known around this building by his nickname—in fact, better known by his nickname than by his title of Assistant Treasurer. Senator Ray in his contribution asked what Senator Kemp does: does he look at the ceiling; does he talk to people in his department; does he take advice on issues relevant to his portfolio?5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—He just helps the economy. No help from you lot.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—There would have to be a significant question mark over that. But it would seem that he does not have much to do with the Irish-Australia Association, and he certainly was not much help to Senator Calvert in his quest to be re-elected president of that organisation last night. Senator Kemp, it would appear, probably spends most of his time in the Treasurer's office, making the tea, taking the biscuits backward and forward into the Treasurer's office and having tete-a-tetes with the Treasurer.It is very obvious that the Treasurer does not take Senator Kemp into his confidence. The Treasurer certainly has not taken him into his confidence with any of the key issues that are of importance to the Australian public in terms of the introduction of a goods and services tax—because Senator Kemp has demonstrated his inability to deal with those questions in this chamber. (Time expired)15:26:001550McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—Senator Kemp does not make the tea for the Treasurer, he does not run the biscuits for the Treasurer. All those are just lightweight comments that Senator Campbell has made. We all know that they are not true. The Assistant Treasurer, in fact, has the record of guiding through this parliament in 1996 this government's first budget which was one of the toughest budgets—unfortunately we had to make the tough decisions—ever to go through the parliament. It was a budget which you blocked and checked and delayed all the way. But there was a plan behind that budget which Senator Kemp guided through, and now we are reaping the rewards. We were left with a legacy of $10 billion government deficit, and we had to attend to it. Senator Kemp was party to that with the Treasurer.After taking the bad times, it is good enough for us also to be able to enjoy the accolades. The accolades are now there for Senator Kemp. We now have, as the Prime Minister put it, the golden days. We now are reaping the benefits of that very tough budget which Senator Kemp had to guide through this Senate—this obstructionist Senate. We now are reaping the rewards of the work put in by Senator Kemp in those very tough days and late nights—rewards such as five per cent growth; such as unemployment now notching below the barrier of eight per cent; such as the lowest interest rates for over 30 years and heading down, with our expecting another notch down in interest rates in the next coming months; and, of course, such as the lowest inflation. Each one of those runs into another and, with each one, the process was begun because of the very tough budget, the 1996 budget, which Senator Kemp helped craft and guide through this Senate.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—He did not.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—He did so. He had the carriage of that budget through the Senate. Now he takes the accolades. If that budget had failed, if the economy were in trouble, the buck would stop on Senator Kemp's table—of course it would. But that has not happened. Therefore, your argument does not stand up—and it certainly does not stand up because, as we saw, Senator Campbell started to waffle and drift off. I think he had run out of material when he began talking about something that had happened in the Irish friendship group that Senator Kemp was not there to support Senator Calvert. No-one has a clue about what he was talking of.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I ask my honourable friend and colleague Senator McGauran, whenever he refers to the other Senator Campbell, to use his Christian name, because I do not want to be associated with a senator who almost single-handedly closed down the construction industry of Australia for one decade.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, but it would be helpful if people were to actually be able to identify the correct senator to whom they are referring. There are several senators here who have the same name, so it does help.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—That is a fair point of order, and Senator Ian Campbell is quite right. We must distinguish between the two Senator Campbells, there is a great difference between them—and I will make that distinction.Senator Ray began by accusing the Labor Party of self-interest in regard to the superannuation surcharge. It is in their interest—that is a fair point—just as it is in ours. We all benefit or we are all disadvantaged by it. So I think the point was a bit exaggerated, and you seem to be oversensitive on it. Then Senator Ray and the other speaker—you have had two so far, and I suspect Senator Sherry will be getting up soon—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—No, he's not.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—He's not? So you are dumping the whole issue completely.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—No, you've got me. You had better hurry up.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—This is really just an attack on Senator Kemp. We will have no intelligent argument or debate on the superannuation surcharge—is that it? I would like to make a couple of points on the superannuation surcharge, if I can, and take the politics out of this issue. The other day, Senator Sherry made the point about the administration costs. At least Senator Sherry makes some solid points, and we expect you to as well, Senator Quirke. Instead of just attacking the good Assistant Treasurer, you should make some points.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator McGauran, would you like to address the chair, please.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Madam Deputy President, if they could make some points about this surcharge and if we could have a focused debate on it, then they will see that the surcharge is indeed an equity measure.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Please, John.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Well, why did the House of Representatives support it? Why did your leader, Kim Beazley, support the surcharge and, by the time it got up here, it was being rejected? No-one has yet stood up to explain that. Perhaps Senator Quirk can. What happened between the Houses for the surcharge to be rejected? And you have not let go of it since. It has gone through and you still have not let go of it. That is one contradiction.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—The assessment notices are only just going out.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—There are several contradictions you have to answer in this debate. I want to answer one of the main criticisms, and that is the administration costs and difficulties that this surcharge is facing. It is correct that the collection time has been delayed somewhat. The costs—I only take Senator Sherry's figure on this; he said it was $160 million—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—It was ASPA. ASPA said that.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Then we will accept that figure, Senator Sherry. As Senator Watson said, it is a complex piece of surcharge or tax—we are happy to call it a tax, and this has been amended in the preamble, I believe. But that is a first year charge. (Time expired)15:32:001552Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Firstly, it is very good to see Senator Watson here because we want to thank him for answering the question. In a sense, it is a pity that we did not have Senator Watson on a few other days because he could have filled in all the blank spaces—which, by the way, was all of them, because Senator Kemp never answered anything at all.I must say that I find this whole debate rather interesting. It used to be the case that there were two things you could rely on: deaths and taxes. Now you can rely on taxes in death. A motion was circulated this morning which impinges on certain benefits that MPs will get when they leave this place in one form or another—horizontally, vertically or however else they leave this joint. This motion, which will be the subject of a debate this afternoon, has a few people worried. As I was walking up and down the corridors a large number of people—people who were rather hypocritically nodding in agreement with the Assistant Treasurer this afternoon—consulted me about how this 15 per cent works.As Senator Watson said, the cat was out of the bag. Apparently, somebody has been given a very large bill and it is slowly dawning on some of them over there what this means. They come in here and say one thing but when they are out there in the corridor, let me tell you, you cannot even get to the men's room. They want to know how much it is going to cost them and how the whole thing is calculated. Then when we come in here, Senator Watson says that it is all our fault because, if we, as the opposition, had been doing our job properly, we would not have let them make mistakes. That just has to be one of the best chestnuts of the year. I will remember that one for a long time. Somehow or other it always winds up as our fault.Senator Kemp was missing last week and we went through about 12 or 13 questions. Sometimes we did 14 and 15. We did not have that problem this week. Senator Kemp was back and we were down to fewer questions and even fewer answers. I really thought that Senator Ray asked the one question that we would have to get an answer on. I thought even Senator Kemp would have to tell us whether someone who had died during the course of the year would be dug up and given the bill for this surcharge. I cannot say tax, because it is not a tax; it is a surcharge. What is the difference between a surcharge and a tax? Go and ask the bloke who has just been dug up. You might as well ask him because if you ask Senator Kemp you are not going to get an answer.You may as well go to the poor individual or the family who has the bill and say, `I don't know whether you realise it or not, but poor old Fred is no longer with us. We miss him. We particularly miss the few quid that he should have paid while he was here, and here is the bill that has been sent to you.' I do not know how you can get anything more straightforward than that: the bloke expires during the course of the year and a bill is sent along to whoever is on the receiving end of this.We wanted to know whether this was the way the system works. What we were told was, `It's all your fault because, if you had been smarter and a better opposition, you wouldn't have let us do this. You wouldn't have let us set this whole system up. But, you're right, the poor bloke is going to get dug up and given a bill, but it is all your fault.' In fact, I do not know why they just did not offer to give us the shovel to go out there and dig the guy up and say, `I'm sorry, we should have done a better job on this. It's our fault. You've got the bill from this government because we couldn't stop them.' Well, dear oh dear. I think you are going to have to do a lot better than that. I think we should take this break over Christmas to hope that Senator Kemp can take a couple of weeks out to read a few of his briefs before he comes back.Question resolved in the affirmative.155310001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:155377TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate Indonesia's continued denial of human rights to the people of East Timor.Your Petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian government to:(1) actively support all United Nations resolutions and initiatives on East Timor;(2) actively support the right to self-determination of the people of East Timor;(3) work for the immediate release of all Timorese political prisoners;(4) repeal the Timor Gap Treaty; and(5) stop all military cooperation and commercial military activity with Indonesia.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 77 citizens)1553638U4Lees Sen MegTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned strongly opposes any attempts by the Australian Government to mine uranium at the Jabiluka and Koongara sites in the World Heritage Listed Area of the Kakadu National Park or any other proposed or currently operating site.Your petitioners ask that the Senate oppose any intentions by the Australian Government to support the nuclear industry via any mining, enrichment and sale of uranium.Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 63 citizens)155350TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate, the deleterious effects of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. Make available the draft text of the agreement.2. Make a public statement about its intentions with regard to the signing of the MAI, detailing the beneficiaries of the Agreement, and accountability measures for all corporations.3. Not sign the MAI unless substantive amendment is made, including the observance of international agreements including environment, labour, health and safety and human rights standards.4. Extend the deadline for signing the MAI to enable full and proper public consultations to be held.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 50 citizens)155393N26Abetz Sen EricTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned demonstrates our support for the concept of Private Health Insurance and we welcome the Howard Government initiative to assist us.Your Petitioners ask/request that the Senate should:Pass the Government Legislation granting a 30 per cent Private Health Insurance Rebate to all Australians, irrespective of means, who purchase Private Health Cover.Senator AbetzN26Senator Abetz(from 93 citizens)155315VI4Reid Sen MargaretTo 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.Senator ReidUNKNOWNSenator Reid(from 15 citizens)15545288U4Lees 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.Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 528 citizens)1554963I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned demand 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 96 citizens)Petitions received.Notices15541554The following notices were given:Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That on Thursday, 10 December 1998:(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm, 7.30 pm to adjournment;(b) consideration of general business and consideration of committee reports and government responses under standing order 62(1) not be proceeded with;(c) the routine of business from 7.30 pm shall be government business only;(d) divisions may take place after 6 pm; and(e) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall not be proposed till after the Senate has finally considered the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 and 2 related bills, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 and 2 related bills, and the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1998, or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister.Senator O'Brien to move, at the request of Senator Cooney, on the next day of sitting:That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills for inquiry and report by 27 May 1998:A review of the fairness, purpose, effectiveness and consistency of right of entry provisions in Commonwealth legislation authorising persons to enter and search premises.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to repeal and amend Acts and make other provisions consequential on the enactment of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1998 , to make technical amendments, and for related purposes.Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 .Senator Faulkner to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate notes that:(a) the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has reversed his publicly stated policy in regard to Senator Colston's vote, and now accepts it;(b) since the election on 3 October 1998, Senator Colston has voted with the Government in 93.11 per cent of all divisions;(c) the Prime Minister's initial procurement of Senator Colston's vote cost Australian taxpayers $16 000 per year; and(d) the Prime Minister's most recent procurement of Senator Colston's vote came with the cost of public humiliation and ridicule. 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 Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998 be extended to 18 February 1999.Senator Cook to move, on the next day of sitting:(1) That the following matters be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade for inquiry and report: (a) the circumstances leading to the deaths of Gary Cunningham, Greg Shackleton, Tony Steward, Brian Peters and Malcolm Rennie at Balibo, East Timor, on 16 October 1975, and the death of Roger East, at Dili, East Timor, on 8 December 1975; (b) the extent of Australian government knowledge of military activity in the vicinity of Balibo and other relevant information prior to the deaths of the five Australia-based journalists on 16 October 1975; and (c) the subsequent extent of Australian government knowledge of events at Balibo on 16 October 1975 and efforts made by Australian governments to establish the facts concerning the deaths of the five journalists at Balibo and the death of Roger East in Dili.(2) That, without limiting the scope of the inquiry, the committee shall review the report of Mr Tom Sherman tabled in the House of Representatives on 27 June 1996 and any further report or findings by Mr Sherman following the referral to him by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of claims concerning the events at Balibo broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on 20 October 1998.(3) That, in conducting the inquiry, the committee shall seek access to all relevant Australian government records and archival material, including holdings of relevant intelligence material, and seek relevant information from persons and organisations in Australia and overseas.(4) That the committee shall also give consideration to such further inquiries and/or measures which may be considered necessary to determine facts concerning the deaths of the six Australia-based journalists in East Timor in 1975. Senator Tierney to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) Australia's strong performance in the United Nations report, The State of the World's Children 1999 , (ii) that the report found that Australia has outstanding primary school retention rates and levels of government spending on education compared to other countries, and (iii) that 7 per cent of Australian government expenditure is on education, compared to 4 per cent in other industrialised countries; and(b) congratulates the Federal Government for giving the Australian education sector the support and funding its needs to be world class.Senator Faulkner to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the 1998-99 Treasury portfolio additional estimates statements reveal that the Community Education and Information Program on the Tax System cost the taxpayer $19 943 000, (ii) this taxpayer-funded advertising and promotion campaign for the goods and services tax was intensively focused on the 15 days immediately preceding the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) calling the 1998 federal election, and (iii) this political campaign on behalf of the Coalition parties cost the taxpayer $1.3 million per day, or $55 389 per hour, or $923.15 per minute, or $15.39 per second, in the lead-up to the 1998 election;(b) condemns and deplores this expenditure of public money by the Howard Government on promoting a party-political policy to be put before the electorate during the 1998 election campaign;(c) calls on the Prime Minister to require the Federal Director of the Liberal Party of Australia to refund this $19.9 million to the Collector of Public Moneys, Department of Finance and Administration; and(d) demands that the Prime Minister immediately act to implement all recommendations of the Auditor-General's report No. 12, including that the parliament review the following matters: (i) government information and advertising arrangements, (ii) use of the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration, and (iii) assessment of requests for use of Commonwealth copyright material.Committees155615561556EU4O'CHEESenator O'CHEE—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that 15 sitting days after today I shall move that the following delegated legislation, a list of which I shall hand to the Clerk, be disallowed.The list read as follows—1. Archives Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No.273 and made under the Archives Act 1983 .2. Childcare Assistance Immunisation Requirements IMCA/12G/98/3 made under section 12H of the Child Care Act 1972 .3. Excise Amendment Regulations 1998 (No.3), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No.275 and made under the Excise Act 1901 .4. Health Insurance (1998-99 General Medical Services Table) Regulations 1998, as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No.301 and made under the Health Insurance Act 1973 .5. Instrument of Approval for Forms made under subsection 30(2) of the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994 .6. National Native Title Tribunal Regulations 1998 (No.3), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No.281 and made under the Native Title Act 1993 .7. Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Regulations 1998 (No.2), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No.260 and made under the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Act 1989 .[Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provisions apply: must be resolved within 15 sitting days after today or the legislation will be deemed to have been disallowed.]EU4O'CHEESenator O'CHEE—I seek leave to make a short statement about the committee's concerns with this legislation.Leave granted.EU4O'CHEESenator O'CHEE—The committee's concerns with these instruments covered a variety of deficiencies, including inadequate safeguards for official decisions, possible excessive fees, discretions with no indication whether they are subject to merits review, possible prejudicial retrospectivity, inconsistent provisions for declarations, no information provided of consequences of not providing information or providing inaccurate information and a substituted fee item with no indication whether it was included in the original regulations. As usual, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short statement of the matters raised by the committee.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Archives Regulations (Amendment) Statutory Rules 1998 No.273The Regulations amend the Principal Regulations with respect to the charges which may be made for copying and discretionary services.The Explanatory Statement indicates that, in relation to most matters, the charges set out in the Schedule substituted by these regulations have increased. That Statement also observes that there has been no change to the charges made for training courses, the reason being that they are already high in comparison with the prevailing prices in the market. Presumably, Archives is able to charge above market rates for its training sessions because it is a monopoly supplier. The Committee has written to the Minister asking why, if the charge is currently high, the opportunity was not taken to reduce it.Childcare Assistance Immunisation Requirements IMCA/12G/98/3 made under section 12H of the Child Care Act 1972The instrument will, in some circumstances, allow more time for parents to comply with the immunisation requirements of the Child Care Act 1972 before they lose their eligibility to Childcare Assistance.The Explanatory Statement advises that on 6 January 1999 Centrelink will write to parents of children under seven not shown as being immunised advising them of the link between Childcare Assistance and immunisation. Section 12G of the enabling Act indicates that the link there referred to is established only when the Secretary to the Department is satisfied as to various matters. However, it does not readily appear from the legislation whether a parent has a right of review of an adverse decision by the Secretary and whether, if there is such a right, the parent is to be informed of it.The Committee has written to the Minister for advice. Excise Amendment Regulations 1998 (No.3)Statutory Rules 1998 No.275The Regulations set up the administrative framework for claiming payment for the production of naphtha.New subregulation 52AAAA(1) gives to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy a discretion to approve a plant at which naphtha is produced. The exercise of this discretion would be commercially valuable, but there does not appear to be any provision, either in the regulations or in the enabling Act, for external merits review of the exercise of this discretion.New subregulation 52AAAA(9) permits a Collector of Customs to require an applicant for approval to produce records, or give additional information, within the period specified in the notice. The subregulation does not, however, require the Collector to specify a period which is reasonable in the circumstances.The Committee has written to the Minister for advice.Health Insurance (1998-99 General Medical Services Table) Regulations 1998Statutory Rules 1998 No.301The Regulations set out the table of fees for general medical services applicable for the year from 1 November 1998.The copy of the regulations received by the Committee included a particular fee for a specified item although an erratum slip attached to the front of the Regulations substituted another fee. The Committee has written to the Minister seeking an assurance that the Regulations made by the Governor-General had the correct figure in the fee column.Instrument of Approval for Forms made under subsection 30(2) of the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994The Instrument grants approval for forms for the purposes of the Act.Although the Instrument was made on 12 October 1998, it is stated to have had effect from 4 September 1998. There is no indication that this retrospectivity does not affect prejudicially the rights of a person other than the Commonwealth and may therefore be of no effect.Two of the Forms indicate that the signature at the foot of the form is a declaration that the information provided is `true and correct in every material particular', but the other Forms do not include such a statement. There is no indication that the information to be provided by the other Forms does not need to be accurate. Also, the Forms do not contain a statement of the consequences of either refusing to provide the information, or of providing informa tion which is not true and correct in every material particular.The Committee has written to the Minister for advice.National Native Title Tribunal Regulations 1998 (No.3)Statutory Rules 1998 No.281The Regulations delete references in the existing Regulations to native title and compensation applications being made to the Tribunal.New provisions give the Registrar a discretion to waive the fee otherwise payable on the lodgement of a native title application. The Explanatory Statement indicates that the Federal Court of Australia Regulations provide a similar waiver of fees for applications filed in that Court. However, while those Regulations do make an identical provision, they also provide for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of the exercise of that discretion.There appears to be no similar provision in these Regulations and the Committee has written to the Minister seeking his advice on whether it would be appropriate to provide for AAT review of the exercise of this discretion.Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Regulations 1998 (No.2)Statutory Rules 1998 No.260These Regulations provide for a declaration by the Secretary that a therapeutic goods business has an annual turnover that is of low volume and low value.New subregulation 4C(3) obliges the Secretary to either accept or reject an application as soon as practicable, but does not provide a time limit within which a decision must be made. New regulation 4D also permits the Secretary to delegate the power to consider such applications to any officer in the Department.The Committee has written to the Minister suggesting that an application should be deemed to be refused if an applicant had not been advised within 28 days. This would trigger the applicant's right to independent review of that decision and provide a clear time frame from the outset.Notices15571557The following notices were given:Senator Bourne to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate— (a) notes that 10 December 1998 marks the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and(b) requests that: (i) the Government strengthen the role of human rights in the program of the Centre for Democratic Institutions, (ii) the Government respond positively to the recommendations of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into regional dialogue on human rights, (iii) to mark the anniversary, the Government widen non-government participation in the Australian-China human rights dialogue to facilitate its evaluations through greater transparency, and (iv) the Government consider a meaningful broadening of the human rights dialogue process in Australia's region, in particular with Indonesia, Cambodia and Burma.Senator Payne to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the marking of the International Day of Disabled persons on 3 December 1998, and (ii) the announcement of the 1998 Prime Minister's Employer of the Year Awards in which Benbro Electronics, based in Brookvale, New South Wales, was awarded the National Employer of the Year Award in the Small Business category for its work with people with a disability;(b) congratulates the Bennett family and Benbro Electronics on their workplace policy whereby 25 per cent of their employees are employees with a disability;(c) applauds Benro Electronics for its ongoing training of people with disabilities, in association with the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service;(d) congratulates the other winners of the Prime Minister's awards: H.M. Five Star Engines, winners of the large business section; the South East Metropolitan College of TAFE, winners of the Higher Education category; and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, which won the Commonwealth Agency award; and(e) recognises the importance of training, work experience and employment opportunities in supporting Australians who have a disability in their efforts to lead active and fulfilled lives.Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes the call by the Tasmanian Minerals Council in a letter to the Tasmanian Deputy Premier (Mr Lennon), dated 8 December 1998, for the Tasmanian Government to overturn the recommendations of the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC) unless it recommends regional reserves;(b) observes that any such unilateral action by the Tasmanian Government would breach clause 52 of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement; and(c) calls on the Commonwealth Government to inform the Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian Minerals Council that it will not overturn the RPDC recommendations.Senator Murphy to move, on the next day of sitting:(1) That the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 1999: (a) the extent to which Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) already in existence, or under development, are achieving, or are likely to achieve, their objectives and the objectives of the National Forest Policy Statement, and, in particular: (i) the extent to which RFAs are enhancing, or are likely to enhance, the achievement of: (a) import replacement programs, (b) higher levels of downstream processing, (c) employment creation, and (d) industry development, and (ii) the extent to which RFAs are achieving, or are likely to achieve, the following goals of the National Forest Policy Statement, including but not limited to: (a) maximisation of the use of commercially available forest resources, (b) ecologically sustainable industry forest management practices and the protection of the full range of forest eco-systems, (c) the objectives of individual RFAs in relation to sawlog supplies; and (b) the adequacy of measures to evaluate the operation of RFAs, including the adequacy of measures to address breaches of the industry codes of practice breaches of RFAs and associated processes by state parties to RFAs; and (c) the need for changes to existing and draft RFAs, and to legislation in relation to RFAs, having regard to forest conservation, wood production and industry development objectives of the National Forest Policy Statement.(2) That when the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 is first introduced in the Senate and a motion is moved for the second reading of the bill, debate on the motion shall be adjourned at the conclusion of the speech of the senator moving the motion and resumption of the debate shall be made an order of the day for the first day of sitting after the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report on the matters mentioned in paragraph (1) is presented, without any question being put.Senator Allison to move, three sitting days after today:That the following matters be referred to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 May 1999:(a) the approvals process for the Jabiluka uranium mine project, including both the Ranger Mill and Jabiluka Mill options and the appropriateness of the process, including but not confined to the independence of the process, the level of assessment, the timing and content of decisions and the capacity of the assessments to deal with world heritage obligations and impacts;(b) whether an inquiry under section 11 of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 is now warranted in relation to the project;(c) whether Australia is appropriately fulfilling its international obligations in relation to the protection of the Kakadu National Park World Heritage Area in relation to the project;(d) whether Australia is appropriately fulfilling its international and domestic obligations in relation to radiological protection in relation to the project; and(e) the rights of traditional Aboriginal owners over the area and the extent, appropriateness and outcome of consultation with the tradition owners. Senator Margetts to move, on the next day of sitting:(1) That the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy, appointed by resolution of the Senate on 1 July 1998, be reappointed with the same functions and powers, except as otherwise provided in this resolution.(2) The committee inquire into and report on the National Competition Policy, including: (a) its socio-economic consequences, including benefits and costs, on: (i) unemployment, (ii) changed working conditions, (iii) social welfare, (iv) equity, (v) social dislocation, and (vi) environmental impacts; (b) the impact on urban and rural and regional communities; (c) its relationship with other micro-economic reform policies; and (d) clarification of the definition of public interest.(3) The committee have power to consider and use for its purposes the records of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy appointed in the previous Parliament.(4) That the quorum of the committee be 3 members, with 1 representing the Government, 1 representing the Opposition, and 1 representing the Australian Democrats, the Greens (WA) or independent senators.(5) That at least one member of any subcommittee be a member nominated by the Australian Democrats, the Greens (WA) or independent senators.(6) That the committee report on or before the last sitting day of June 1999.Senator McKiernan to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the decision of Justice R Finkelstein, handed down on 30 October 1998 in the Federal Court of Australia, found that there was no evidence to support the Refugee Review Tribunal's finding and the Government's position that the East Timorese applicant in that case had effective Portuguese nationality, and (ii) on 20 November 1998, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) lodged an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia against the decision of Justice Finkelstein; and(b) calls on the Minister to: (i) withdraw his appeal to the full Federal Court of Australia, (ii) recognise and accept the Federal Court decision, and (iii) recognise the approximately 1 700 East Timorese as a special case and expedite the process of handling each application individually, subject to the appropriate bona fides of each applicant being established.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that 10 December 1998 marks the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;(b) requests that the Government: (i) mark the anniversary by ratifying the statute for the International Criminal Court and pass enabling legislation at the earliest possible time in order to facilitate it becoming effective internationally, and (ii) urge state governments to amend mandatory juvenile sentencing laws in order to prevent child imprisonment, except as a last resort, and never for longer terms than those served by adults for the same offence.Senator Bartlett to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that 10 December 1998 marks the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that the Declaration includes the following: Article 14 (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution;(b) condemns aspects of the Government's immigration policy and practice which contravene Article 14, including: (i) recent immigration regulations which prevent people who are appealing for refugee status from working while their cases are before the courts or the Minister, and (ii) the Government's proposed legislation to limit access to judicial review for asylum seekers; and(c) calls on the Government to honour its obligations under Article 14 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights.Senator Woodley to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes the Federal Government's call for the words `self determination' to be removed from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People;(b) condemns the Coalition for failing to recognise the integral role self-determination must play in any move towards reconciliation between Australia's indigenous and non-indigenous people; and(c) calls on the Government to reverse its position on this matter in accordance with the wishes of Australia's indigenous people and in a genuine effort to achieve reconciliation in this country.Senator Murray to move, on the next day of sitting:That the provisions of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities for inquiry and report by 22 April 1999.Senator Bartlett to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes, with grave concern, that: (i) the national office of the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation (APSF) loses its remaining staff on Friday 11 December 1998, and (ii) this closure is the result of the Government's cutting off the APSF's funding as punishment for the federation's criticism of Coalition policies affecting older people, including the abolition of the Commonwealth dental health program and the changes to nursing homes;(b) notes that this will result in: (i) the further undermining of a very effective and truly independent voice for pensioners and superannuants, and (ii) a significant reduction in the quality of advice that we as legislators receive on a range of issues affecting older people; and (c) condemns the Government for defunding the APSF, particularly as 1999 is the International Year of Older Persons.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) Australian internet use continues to proliferate as current figures, produced by AC Nielsen's NetWatch service, show a 33 per cent increase in the number of Australians accessing the internet in the past year, and (ii) access among young Australians is very high, with 51 per cent of all Australian teenagers accessing the internet in November 1998; and(b) expresses concern that: (i) the Government has not produced the framework legislation necessary to promote the emerging Australian industry, and (ii) opportunities for Australian jobs, wealth and improved lifestyles are being lost because of a delay in implementing the necessary framework legislation.Senator Murray to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that 10 December 1998 marks the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and(b) requests the Government: (i) to follow up its supportive statements on voluntary codes of conduct for Australian companies by creating a working group of government, business and non-government organisations for the development of codes based on human rights principles, and (ii) as a matter of priority, to make human rights issues a transparent and integrated part of regional security, trade and aid policies, focusing where appropriate on treaties, labour standards, refugees and legal reform.Senator Woodley to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes, with grave concern, that the national office of the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation (APSF) loses its last remaining staff on Friday 11 December 1998; (b) notes that this will mean: (i) the Government loses the benefit of the APSF's very valuable input to a range of Senate and advisory committees, (ii) the views and the concerns of older people will not be as fully represented in the public arena, and (iii) older people may not have the APSF representing them in the coming tax debate, a debate with very substantial implications for all pensioners, self-funded retires and older unemployed people; and(c) condemns the Government for defunding the APSF, particularly as 1999 is the International Year of Older Persons.Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the 1997 Jabiluka uranium mine environmental impact statement states that only 10 additional personnel will be required in year 2 of operations following construction, and (ii) very few local indigenous people have been employed at the Ranger Uranium Mine;(b) condemns the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) for misleading the Senate by claiming that 1 000 jobs will be created at the Jabiluka mine when this is clearly not the case; and(c) urges the Government: (i) to conduct studies into the number of jobs in the tourist industry which will be lost should Kakadu lose its world heritage status, and (ii) to proclaim the Kakadu world heritage property as threatened and to then issue a determination to stop further construction work on the mine.Senator Woodley to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that 10 December 1998 marks the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (ii) the celebrations and events underway around the nation to mark this significant occasion, and (iii) the role of eminent indigenous Australians in highlighting the human rights of their Aboriginal and Islander brothers and sisters; and(b) calls on the Government to cease its campaign to overturn a 15 year policy of support for self-determination as outlined in the United Nations draft declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that there have been more than 100 health and safety incidents identified by the Office of the Supervising Scientist at the Ranger uranium mine over the past 18 years, resulting in damage to both people and the environment;(b) condemns the Minister for Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) for misleading the Senate by claiming that the Ranger uranium mine had not damaged the environment and that, for this reason, the Jabiluka uranium mine should go ahead; and(c) urges the Government to proclaim the Kakadu world heritage property as threatened and to then issue a determination to stop further construction work on the mine.Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the royalties from the Ranger uranium mine have largely been spent on public services which should be provided by governments, and (ii) public services are grossly inadequate in the area of the Ranger uranium mine, that 90 per cent of indigenous children living at the township of Jairu have scabies and that poor and overcrowded housing limits prospects of controlling the disease;(b) condemns the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) for suggesting that traditional owners have enjoyed benefits of royalties from the Ranger uranium mine not available to other Australians; and(c) urges the Government to proclaim the Kakadu world heritage property as threatened and to then issue a determination to stop further construction work on the mine.Committees15621562156216:01:001562Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the 13th report of 1998—and the last report of 1998—of the Selection of Bills Committee. I move:That the report of the committee be adopted.I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEREPORT NO. 13 OF 19981. The Committee met on 8 December 1998.2. The committee resolved:(a) That the provisions of the following bills be referred to committees:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateHealth Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyCommunity Affairs8 March 1999Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 1998 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyLegal and Constitutional8 March 1999(b) That the following bills be referred to committees:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateMigration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyLegal and Constitutional8 March 1999Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (see appendices 2 and 3 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyLegal and Constitutional22 March 19993. The Committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:. Australian Sports Drug Agency Amendment Bill 1998. Industry Research and Development Amendment Bill 1998. Judiciary Amendment Bill 1998. Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 1998. Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill 1998. National Measurement Amendment (Utility Meters) Bill 1998. Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 1998.The Committee recommends accordingly.4. The Committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 1 December 1998). Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 (No. 2)(deferred from meeting of 8 December 1998). Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998. Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998. Customs (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998. Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998. Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998. National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Amendment Bill 1998. National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment Bill 1998. Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 1998 . Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 1998. Primary Industries Levies and Charges (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998. Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998. Sales Tax Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998. Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1998. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998. Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1998.5. The committee considered two proposals to refer the provisions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 (see appendices 4 and 5) , and recommends that the provisions of the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. The committee did not reach a decision on a reporting date.6. The committee considered a proposal to refer the provisions of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 (see appendix 6) , and recommends that the provisions of the bill be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. The committee did not reach a decision on a reporting date.(Paul Calvert)Chair9 December 1998Appendix 1SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEProposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of billHealth Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:To permit examination of the details of the proposed changes to private health insurance. Possible submissions or evidence from :Consumers Assoc., Doctors Reform Society, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population HealthCommittee to which bill is to be referred:Community Affairs Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s):Possible reporting date: 8/3(signed) Kerry O'BrienWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 2SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEProposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill/s:Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No.2) 1998Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:To enable full community consultation on all bills, with special reference to the impacts on the constitutional validity and human rights implications of the Judicial Review and No. 2 bills. Also the potential impact of all bills on the ability of all potential migrants and refugees to be able to equally access their rights to apply for appropriate visas.Possible submission or evidence from:National Immigration ForumFederation of Ethnic Communities Council of AustraliaFormer Chief Justice Sir Gerard BrennanMigrant Resource CentresRefugee Council of AustraliaLaw Council of AustraliaDepartment of ImmigrationCommittee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s):Possible reporting date:8 March 1999.(signed) Vicki BourneWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 3SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEProposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:Things have changed since the last report—new court cases decisionsGive the community a chance to know what is happening/consequences of the Bill.The last report was too quick and sharp.Possible submissions or evidence from:Committee to which bill is to be referred:Legal and Constitutional Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s):Possible reporting date:25th March 1998(signed) Kerry O'BrienWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 4SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEProposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:Part 3—Accreditation procedures of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:To clarify the drafting of the minimum standards for accreditationPossible submissions or evidence from:Legal and constitutional experts with an interest in Aboriginal heritage issues (refer to witnesses appearing before Joint Standing Committee on Native Title examination of this Bill)Committee to which bill is to be referred:Legal and Constitutional References CommitteePossible hearing date(s):Possible reporting date:18 February 1999(signed) D E MargettsWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 5SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEProposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:Substantial amendments need to be made to the Bill to bring it in time with the Evatt Report. There needs to be considerably more consultation with indigenous Australians and organisations and Dr EvattPossible submissions or evidence from:Northern Land Council, Central Land Council, Mick Dodson, Elizabeth Evatt.Committee to which bill is to be referred:Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee.Possible hearing date(s):Feb, March.Possible reporting date:April or May(signed) Kerry O'BrienWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 6SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEProposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:Constitutional and environmental issues relating to the abrogation of Commonwealth powers and responsibilitiesPossible submissions or evidence from:Environment groupsEDOsIndustry groupsCommittee to which bill is to be referred:(1) Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee.(2) Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee.Possible hearing date(s):Possible reporting date:22 March 1999—coincides with reporting date for Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 (No. 2)(signed) D E MargettsWhip/Selection 16:02:001565Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move the following amendment to the motion just moved by Senator Calvert:At the end of the motion, add:"and,(1) in respect of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998, the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee report on 8 March 1999; and(2) in respect of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998, the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee report on 15 February 1999.".I will not delay the Senate too long. I just want to make it clear that when the Selection of Bills Committee cannot reach agreement on matters, particularly reporting dates, we have to bring the matter to the chamber. It is very rare that agreement is not reached; I think it has only happened on a couple of occasions in the last year or so.The government regards both the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 and the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 as important pieces of legislation. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill that was before the previous parliament before that parliament was prorogued was indeed the subject of an inquiry and report by a legislation committee, so the bill has already gone through that process. Some honourable senators—I think they were from the Labor Party—sought to have the bill referred once again and were seeking an extremely long reporting date, if I recall correctly, out into May or June or something like that. We have suggested that an appropriate date, which would allow that committee the best part of three months to do its inquiry, would be 8 March 1999. This would allow the parliament the opportunity to deal with that bill in the sittings before Easter.In relation to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill, the proposals from various other parties, I think, were to look at a reporting date of 22 March. That is in the week leading up to Easter. The government is very keen to avoid—excuse the pun—a logjam of bills in that period leading up to the Easter break. Yesterday, on behalf of the government, I offered a compromise to the committee to have a shorter reporting date on that, but we really do need to deal with this piece of legislation.We have just heard in the giving of notices that Senator Murphy will seek to refer a range of the policy issues associated with the regional forest agreements to the Rural and Regional Affairs References Committee, with a reporting date foreshadowed for June. I think it is quite appropriate that references committees look into those policy issues, and the government will not stand in the way of that. But in respect of this legislation we believe that, even though there is going to be a Christmas break—hopefully all honourable senators will have some time off during that period—you would be able to do a sensible, considered and thorough examination of the RFA bill 1998 in the more than two months that are available between now and 15 February. Usually, legislation committees are able to do inquiries in a much shorter period. We believe 15 February allows ample time. So we seek the Senate's support for what we regard as reasonable propositions on the reporting dates for both of those important bills.16:07:001566Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move an amendment to Senator Ian Campbell's amendment:Omit "15 February 1998", substitute "22 March 1998, with particular reference to:(a) any legal and constitutional defects of the bill, including (but not limited to): (i) whether it is inconsistent with section 99 of the Constitution; (ii) whether it is invalid to the extent that it refers to instruments not yet in force or which are able to be varied without reference to Parliament; and (iii) whether it is invalid to the extent that the compensation provisions in the RFAs attempt to bind Parliament or fetter the exercise of executive power; and(b) the environmental impacts of the bill, including (but not limited to): (i) how it relates to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998, in particular, the activities regulated by each and their respective geographical coverage; (ii) whether it will fetter the capacity of the Commonwealth to meets its obligations under the World Heritage Convention, Climate Change Convention or other international treaties, especially by virtue of the compensation provisions in the RFAs; and (iii) whether the requirements of the Australian Heritage Act 1975 , the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 have been met (notwithstanding declarations to that effect in the RFAs) and the environmental impact of RFAs overriding those Acts".I do not believe that February is time enough for this extremely important matter to be adequately canvassed by the committee. I am also concerned that the committee have particular reference to the constitutional ramifications of these regional forest agreements and the legislation which is aimed to cement them into place.On the face of it, there are inconsistencies. This legislation has difficulties with section 99 of the constitution and it needs to be investigated by this particular committee. Moreover, the legislation has major environmental ramifications. If we do not look at those through this committee, I am not sure where they are going to be looked at. Let me give you the example of the impact of this legislation on global warming. Evidence is now rapidly coming to the fore that the best security the planet can have against global warming, which is hardly a disputed effect these days, is to keep our forests intact because they are the best terrestrial carbon bank available. This committee needs to investigate whether locking those forests out of their function as a carbon bank in the future is not a major mistake for this nation to be making. This is new science. It needs to be looked at. The legislation that this committee is looking at will lock the Commonwealth out of effectively having a say in Australia's forests for the next 20 years. It actually locks all governments out of having a say. It delivers the forests into the hands of the big logging corporations, in particular the woodchip corporations.Many citizens would not know that to protect forests in the future—whether they be in New South Wales, in Victoria, in Western Australia, in Tasmania or with a regional forest agreement coming up in Queensland—the public will have to buy them back. Governments are going to have to pay millions, if not billions, of dollars to buy back forests to protect them as national parks or as carbon banks, with all their wildlife, from these corporations who are not paying a penny. This legislation is effectively handing Australia's magnificent wild forest resource and the wildlife across to the woodchip corporations on a platter—no price and basically no searching questions asked.This is a critical moment for the history of this Australian parliament's governance of one of our most critical resources for the future—and that is the forests. I may maintain that the forests should be left standing, and members opposite may maintain that they should be blitzed and sent off to the woodchip mills and then to the paper dumps of Japan. But there is more to this legislation than that. This has constitutional ramifications. It has ramifications far beyond the forests and profits for how Australia is going to handle the increasingly dire problem of global warming.Scientists tell us that, in the last 15 months of global weather measurements, every month without exception has been the hottest month on record. It is something that we cannot keep our heads in the sand about any longer. We have Australian scientists saying, `The best way that Australia is going to be able to ameliorate this factor in the future'—amongst a suite of other sensible provisions—`is to keep our best carbon bank intact. Don't trade that bank away for woodchips or for short-term profits.' But that is what this legislation does.They are some reasons as to why this is important. This committee must have a particular reference—and time—to look at the matters that I have canvassed. I commend this extremely important amendment to the Senate.16:12:001567Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I want to speak briefly to this amend ment and a number of other amendments. This amendment, and others, and various references are really causing indigestion for the rural affairs committee. If the chair of the legislation committee were here, he would also say the same thing. We actually now have three references with three different reporting dates.We have an amendment from Senator Brown which, in a way, goes beyond the scope of the legislation committee to deal with. It is more a references committee matter. Then we have a reference on policy matters from Senator Murphy, which also deals with the same matter. The Democrats will not oppose this amendment, but I think the committee itself will have to take these various references and rationalise them in some way. I give that notice to the Senate. I thank Senator Murphy for the fact that he did have some discussions with the committee about how the terms of reference might be framed. But I thought, as chair of the references committee, I ought to at least signal that the two committees will need to rationalise in some way these various amendments, various reporting dates, and the fact that both the legislation committee and the references committee will have to deal with the matter.16:13:001567O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I want to foreshadow that I will move a further amendment. I think it is an amendment to the amendment to the amendment.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Yes, that is correct.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I foreshadow that I will move:Paragraph (a) omit "8 March" substitute "19 April".Paragraph (b) omit "15 February" substitute "22 March".The debate at the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee seemed to me to revolve around whether the appropriate reporting date was 8 March or 22 March. As I understand it, another date is proposed in the motion as outlined but in a different form from the written one that appears in the chamber. The suggestion that there was some compromise offered may be the position. However, the reality is that the debate centred on whether we would be reporting on 8 March or 22 March. I point out to the chamber that the difference in terms of the government's ability to debate the bill is one sitting week. That is, we will have the bill available for debate in either the first or the second sitting week in March. That is the difference between the parties.This is clearly a complex bill. Look at the matters that Senator Brown seeks to refer to the committee. I would have thought it competent for any witness to raise with the committee any of the matters contained in his amendment. Therefore, his amendment is not necessary. We agree with his reporting date, as that is consistent with the position we took at the Selection of Bills Committee. We think that Senator Brown's amendment is unnecessary. If submissions arrive before the committee, the committee can deal with those matters. Senators who are on the committee or participating on the committee can seek to advance arguments accordingly.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Well, support it.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—We will not support it, because it is not necessary. We do, however, support the date of 22 March, which you put forward. In relation to that, we say again that this is a very complex area. This is an area where there is a lot of feeling.Given the likelihood of submissions being received between now and Christmas being small, and allowing the many members of the community who have an interest in this matter to present submissions to the committee, it would be appropriate that the closing date not be until perhaps late January or early February. Given the need to allow witnesses in parts of Australia other than Canberra to give evidence, the committee will need to travel, and there is limited time to do that. There also needs to be time for the secretariat to prepare the report, given the other work that Senator Woodley indicates it has. We urge the Senate to support that aspect of our amendment.I want to pick up one point about the RFA reference that was made by Senator Ian Campbell. The implication of what he said about Senator Murphy's proposed reference, which at this stage is a motion and not a fact, is that perhaps the government is supporting it. I look forward to the confirmation of that matter.In relation to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill, the argument that Labor puts is that it is necessary for this committee to travel and to allow members of the Aboriginal committee in the west, north-west and northern Australia to present their submissions. Again, there will need to be time for those submissions to be prepared. The reality is that this is a complex issue and a complex legal issue which cannot, in our view, be resolved by relying upon the Sydney-Melbourne-Canberra triangle to be the source of evidence in the matter.We urge the Senate to support the amendment that we have outlined and to make the reporting dates 19 April for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill and 22 March for the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee report.16:19:001568Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I am looking at what the government is proposing here and what Senator Woodley said with regard to the discussion. I raised at a committee meeting of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee the possibility of looking at some of the circumstances with regard to the RFAs that are both in place and being negotiated in this country. I did so out of concerns that have been raised with me by workers and contractors in the industry.The RFA has one key objective among many. One of the key objectives is import replacement, job creation and the utilisation of what is a very valuable resource in what can be and could be a very significant industry in this country. But having had experience over a long time with the national forest policy statement and, prior to that, all the inquiries in our state, I understand some of the circumstances that have confronted the industry over a long time. The industry has been looking for resource security. It is important to have resource security for the purpose of investment. I totally support that notion.What is happening in the industry currently is totally unacceptable in terms of what is a very valuable resource and the utilisation of it. Many people are losing their jobs. In an adjournment speech, I referred to people in New South Wales who were mentioned on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald. They lost their jobs by having their names drawn out of a hat. I was talking to people about a sawmill in my state that closed last week. Five people lost their jobs. Why? They were told that there were no logs to supply that mill. Frankly, I find that totally unacceptable. I know that throughout the state there are more than enough logs to supply a mill. This was the Cue River sawmill, which has been operating for about 100 years. It is for those reasons that I moved the reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. This parliament, including the Senate, has a responsibility to assess processes that were put in place by agreement with the state and Commonwealth as a result of a Commonwealth initiative. If they are not working, we should take steps to rectify those problems.If we pass the regional forest agreement legislation, it effectively rules the Commonwealth out of the game. It will put in place a regional forest agreement and legislation which, if there is a breach of the regional forest agreement, means that the only occurrence that can take place is the termination of the agreement. I do not think anybody would want to see that happen.That is why I think there has to be greater flexibility in regional forest agreements and the legislation that underpins them. There needs to be a process through which the Commonwealth and the states can discuss and agree on remedial action to bring about the achievement of objectives where they are not being met, particularly in respect of the import replacement of forest products. The trade deficit within Australia is running at around $2 billion per annum in forest products, so it is not as though there is no scope for us to have some import replacement strategies and some export strategies. Many reports, some of them commissioned by state and federal governments, tell us that there is a significant shortage in supply over demand in hardwood timbers in the South-East Asian region, let alone in other parts of the world.We know that the forest resources of the countries to our immediate north are declining at a significant rate and that forests cannot continue to be cut at the current rate. Therefore, I think we have a responsibility as a country in this region of the world to better manage our forest resources and utilise them in a way that maximises the benefits to the states, to the economy and to the country as a whole, particularly as it relates to jobs.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—And the environment?FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—And the environment. When the Prime Minister and the then premier, Tony Rundle, signed the regional forest agreement for Tasmania, there was an announcement about 1,000 new jobs. (Time expired)16:24:001569Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I will not take terribly long because I think the key issues have already been canvassed. I just want to make two points. Firstly, I support the amendment foreshadowed by Senator O'Brien. This is a very complex issue. The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee has had a brief discussion about the work it would undertake when Senator Murphy foreshadowed that he would seek to move a notice of motion to the effect that he has done today. Secondly, we are aware that it is likely that the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee will have to look at the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 .I support the remarks of Senator Woodley. This is an issue that is going to require some detailed work by both committees and it certainly should not be rushed. It is quite clear that the government's proposal is ridiculous, given the requirements of the Senate committees and the Senate itself when we resume in February next year. I also want to place on record that, while I acknowledge that it is somewhat late in the process, we have been endeavouring to bring these various reporting dates into some appropriate se quence. I raised with the parliamentary secretary and other representatives whether we would be able to defer this matter and further consider and resolve it, but that does not appear to be the case.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—You can't hear a bill in two months—is that your problem?656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—No—a day, Senator Ferguson. Even you would not be able to cope with that. Beyond that, I strongly support the foreshadowed amendment of Senator O'Brien. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Brown's ) be agreed to.16:31:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.54Alston, R. K. R. Bishop, T. M.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G.Campbell, I. G. Collins, J. M. A.Colston, M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lundy, K. Macdonald, I.MacGibbon, D. J. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Minchin, N. H. Murphy, S. M.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.16:34:001570O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I now move my foreshadowed amendments to Senator Campbell's amendment:Paragraph (a) omit "8 March" substitute "19 April".Paragraph (b) omit "15 February" substitute "22 March".10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I put the question that Senator O'Brien's amendments to the amendment moved by Senator Campbell be agreed to. As a division is required, ring the bells for one minute.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Because the next division, as I understand it, will mean that the government and the opposition will be on different sides of the chamber, as opposed to this most recent division, it might be wise to ring the bells for four minutes.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Ring the bells for four minutes.16:49:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)34Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.*Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.36Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. 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.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.*Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Bishop, T. M. Brownhill, D. G. C.Cook, P. F. S. Chapman, H. G. P.Carr, K. Crane, W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Amendment (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to.Motion (by Senator Calvert), as amended, agreed to.Business15711571Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notices of motion No. 76 (relating to the Western Australia Regional Forest Agreement), No. 56 (relating to East Timor) and No. 69 (relating to the national competition policy) standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today be postponed till the next day of sitting.1571Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Mackay) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 72 (relating to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority) and No. 2 (relating to Civil Aviation Regulations (Amendment)) standing in the name of Senator Mackay for today be postponed till the next day of sitting. 1571Motion (by 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 Finance and Public Administration References Committee, be postponed till 17 February 1999.1571Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 73 (relating to genetically modified foods), No. 75 (relating to the Dusseldorp Skills Forum) and No. 77 (relating to the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations) standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous1571Motion (by Senator Brown)—by leave—put: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.16:49:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.*Quirke, J. A. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.33Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.*Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Bishop, T. M. Brownhill, D. G. C.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Cook, P. F. S. Crane, W.Gibbs, B. Hill, R. M.Ray, R. F. Troeth, J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous1572Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) supports the international Sri Chinmoy `Peace Blossoms' initiative which promotes the most fundamental cause for all humanity, the cause of peace;(b) confirms Australia's commitment to the promotion of favourable regional and global relationships including, through support for the work of the United Nations advancement of free trade and promotion of human rights; and(c) welcomes the proposal: (i) that Australia join the worldwide family of `Peace Blossoms' as the world's pioneer Sri Chinmoy peace continent, and (ii) as consistent with the commitment of all senators to work for peace and harmony between peoples and nations.Matters of Urgency1572157210000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 9 December 1998, from the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Lees:Dear Madam PresidentPursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move:That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency:The need to reform the Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme to reduce the level of public subsidy and to ensure that benefits cannot be accessed if a former member is found guilty of an offence against the Commonwealth, or until a former member turns 55 years old, and for the Government to immediately propose legislation to this effect.Is the proposal supported?More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.16:53:001572Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—On behalf of Senator Lees, I move:That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency:The need to reform the Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme to reduce the level of public subsidy and to ensure that benefits cannot be accessed if a former member is found guilty of an offence against the Commonwealth, or until a former member turns 55 years old, and for the Government to immediately propose legislation to this effect.This motion calls for the immediate introduction of legislation to reform the parliamentary superannuation scheme—and it is a very important motion. It is a motion that ought to command the support of the entire Senate. I have been pushed to move this urgency motion by the Prime Minister's extraordinary statements last week in the other place conceding that the current parliamentary support scheme is too generous but that it was a problem `that you will never really solve', to use his words.That, in my view, is a very major cop-out. It is a cop-out because the public is increasingly calling for politicians to live by the same rules as everybody else. As George Megalogenis, in the most recent of a number of editorial pieces in several papers, said yesterday:The longer the government puts off these necessary reforms for the past, present and future MPs, the bigger the risk that the voters will falsely view Howard's inaction as greed rather than just plain gutlessness.My motion refers to the three areas where reform of our parliamentary super scheme is most urgently needed to bring it closer to community standards: first, we have to reduce the level of public subsidy; second, we have to ensure that parliamentarians' access to their pensions is given at the same time as everybody else—and that is not before the age of 55; third, we have to ensure that, if an MP is found guilty of an offence against the Commonwealth, they should not be entitled to keep the publicly funded part of their superannuation. These are the minimum reforms needed to quell public anger, and let me go through them.The public subsidy of the superannuation scheme, according to the Government Actuary's advice to the Senate superannuation committee, is the equivalent of around 69 per cent of salary; that is, around $57,000 a year public subsidy on top of a backbencher's salary of around $82,000. That means, for every dollar a parliamentarian is paying into their super scheme, the public will eventually have to pay around $6. Just in comparison, the public pays just over $2 for every dollar that public servants pay into their superannuation scheme.By anyone's standard, the parliamentary super subsidy is excessive. But it gets worse, because the level of public subsidy depends on how long a member has been in office. So, if a member leaves with less than eight years of service, it is a very low subsidy. With eight years of service, it peaks at over eight times their personal contributions, falling to 4.88 times at 18 years of service and to 3.17 times at 24 years of service.An accumulation scheme with a fixed government subsidy set at a much lower multiple would be fairer to all parliamentarians and would be seen as fairer by the public—and this is, I think, very important. The public wants to know that their former parliamentarians access their super on the same terms as other people. Here I acknowledge that, under reforms to the scheme, future lump sum benefits after July next year must be preserved but pensions are still accessible immediately. That sort of largess is not available to public servants taking out a pension or, indeed, to any beneficiaries under pension based superannuation schemes.This early access to pensions again adds to the unfairness between different groups of members and, whilst I acknowledge that it is perfectly legal, under the same scheme I do not think it is appropriate that a former member after nine years of service can be entitled to an indexed pension for life of $45,000 a year at, say, 35 years of age. Pensions like lump sums should not be accessible until age 55. However, we accept that some form of retrenchment benefit might be appropriate for a short period after a member loses their seat.The third reform is to address fairly and squarely the issue of access to publicly funded superannuation benefits where the former parliamentarian has breached public trust and committed some offence against the Commonwealth. Again, the public is entitled to be outraged that a parliamentarian, like the former member for Parkes, can be found guilty of misuse of Commonwealth funds and still be entitled to superannuation benefits worth around $1 million, 85 per cent of which is funded by the public. Reforms to allow superannuation entitlements to be frozen where a former member is charged and then allowing only refund of personal contribution if the former member is found guilty, I believe, are essential. If a former parliamentarian is found to have breached public trust, then the public should turn off the `subsidy tap', as it were. As Mr Megalogenis puts it, this should deter anyone else who thinks they could get away with false travel claims.There are other reforms which should be made, many of which were discussed in detail by the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation. The information is there and available on the failings of the scheme; and the information is there that the public regards the superannuation scheme as a rort and that reform could help restore faith in politicians in this country.What is lacking, however, is the will. In response to a question from Mr Peter Andren, the Prime Minister acknowledged that a review of the scheme should look at the level of subsidy, the age 55 preservation issues and the issue of people convicted of criminal offences. He said he did not close his mind to a review, although we have already had a review. But then he said, `You could never really solve the problem and you will not solve the anomalies of this within a short space of time.'It is now 15 months since the Senate superannuation committee brought down its report containing all of the information the government needed to develop a reform response, and we would argue that 15 months is more than a reasonable time to fix the scheme. The government's response is just not good enough. Passage of this motion will help to show the government that calls for fixing the scheme are not going to go away. The super scheme is a rort, the Senate should label it as a rort and the government should be called upon to fix it.Madam Deputy President, I note that Senator Faulkner has moved some amendments to my motion. Is it appropriate at this point for me to seek leave to incorporate those amendments in my motion?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—Senator, I believe that cannot be done at this stage. Senator Faulkner will move his amendments by leave later.17:01:001574Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—I must reject the notion that the parliamentary superannuation scheme is an absolute rort. I do not think making that sort of statement in this place does anything for the dignity or service of members of parliament, because we all know that those sorts of statements attract the eye of the press. It is those sorts of statements that cause discussions outside parliament.Unfortunately, the complexities of the scheme are not widely understood or even accurately reported. Members contribute 11.5 per cent of their after tax salary, and this is very high when we compare it with community standards. Under some circumstances, the scheme does allow commutation up to 50 per cent. But, after a certain age, that commutation factor comes down quite considerably, so there is a discouragement to taking a lump sum and it is not as attractive for people to stay in the parliament long term.But the scheme can be considered generous by certain community standards. It is unusual, but not unique, for some members to receive a pension benefit before age 55. However, it is relatively difficult nowadays to qualify for a pension benefit, and many parliamentarians in this volatile climate do not stay long enough to qualify. If one looks at the statistics in recent years, this is increasingly the case, particularly in the light of an increasingly volatile electorate when one looks at the turnover in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.Members and senators who retire voluntarily are only entitled to a pension if they complete more than 12 years service or have ceased to be a member on four election occasions. If defeated at an election, they must have completed eight years of service or have, on three occasions, ceased to be a member on the dissolution of the House of which they were then a member to qualify for a pension.Parliamentarians who do not qualify for a pension are only entitled to a lump sum which is equivalent to a refund of their own contributions without interest plus a taxpayer funded supplement of 21/3 times those contributions if defeated. If they retire voluntarily, the supplement is only 11/6. So that is not a lot of attraction for people who want to make a contribution for a very short period of their life, and I am thinking of people who might have retired from high positions, who want to come into this place, serve a term and then move out. By any standards I would not say, Senator Allison, that that is a rort, because I do not think the scheme favours those sorts of people. These short-term serving MPs are the kind of people we should be trying to encourage into the parliament—people who have some experience and are prepared to stay four, five, six years and then perhaps retire. Certainly the parliament would be much richer for attracting such people.Many of those benefits to which I have just referred are relatively modest when compared to the severance or involuntary retrenchment packages received in the private sector. Retrenchment benefit, holiday pay and termination benefits are not part of a parliamentarians remuneration. These costs are theoretically absorbed in the parliamentary scheme. So we really must look at the total package, not just the more generous aspects of superannuation. Unfortunately, the Democrats are looking at some of the more generous aspects only and certainly not the whole package.In September 1997 the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation handed down its 25th report, entitled The Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme and the Judges Pension Scheme. Not surprisingly, Senator Lyn Allison of the Australian Democrats provided a dissenting report. While the Judges Pension Scheme encountered some limited criticism, it was the parliamentary scheme that attracted most attention from the wider public and naturally the press. While some critics pointed the finger at the generosity of the judges scheme, there was a general acknowledgment that judges receive from the Commonwealth much less than they would receive as barristers, particularly in the higher echelons of the court or in private practice. There was also the very important question of judicial independence. This question of generosity was not considered relevant by a lot of the witnesses in respect of politicians—except for a few politicians on both sides of the parliament. They recognised that some of the leaders may be under-remunerated.Many parliamentarians do not stay in the parliament long enough to enjoy the benefits which the media and the Democrats are so willing to highlight. When we handed down our report, Liberal senators acknowledged that the scheme was, in some areas, out of step with community standards. We differed on some minor aspects with our ALP colleagues in terms of the solution to the problem.Unfortunately, much of the written material in the popular media is not always factually correct. On other occasions, calculations of entitlement for long-serving Prime Ministers and ministers were used by the popular media as if they were applicable to most members of parliament and, once the benefit is reported in the press, whether accurate or not a lot of people believe the press. Some of those calculations, of course, were also based on a pension assuming each individual lived until an age of about 80 years and the amount then converted as if it were a lump sum payment. In one release in the past six months, one journalist actually made five major errors in a headline article.This motion should look at the remuneration package. When one considers the amount that is paid to Mark Taylor, the captain of the Australian cricket team, the Prime Minister's salary pales into insignificance. If we further look at the rest of the cabinet, they compare unfavourably with the rest of the better players in the first XI.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Sheffield Shield wages.VJ4Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSON—My colleague says that they are perhaps Sheffield Shield type wages. Thank you, Senator Ferguson. So we have to look at the total remuneration package.Some provisions actually should be removed from the parliamentary scheme. I refer to the double jeopardy provisions. We had a situation not so long ago when a parliamentarian who may have been convicted of a road offence running the risk of losing the whole of his parliamentary superannuation. The penalty in that case, because of the double jeopardy provisions, may have been far in excess of what the infringement might have warranted.Obviously, I have to declare an interest in this issue because I am a member of the scheme and also a trustee. The scheme was designed at a time when the age expectancy of parliamentarians was much shorter and when people came into parliament at an older age.While a lot of attention has been paid to the pension's so-called generosity, the anomalies are very slowly being removed. There indeed are anomalies—for example, in relation to orphan benefits on a pensioner's death and where a person remarries. There are anomalies in regard to the maximum total of reversionary benefits payable in respect of a member. There are features in regard to an MP with over 18 years service continuing to contribute, although at a much lesser rate, and having progressively smaller lump sum entitlements. So the longer you are here, the less the lump sum payment you are entitled to.Then we have all the problems associated with the surcharge, particularly if the tax office is a bit slow in issuing assessments. So it is up to the tax office to get its act together to promptly issue surcharge statements to minimise these sorts of problems. People who are defeated at an election can find they have a heck of a tax bill to pay in relation to the surcharge plus the bank overdraft of financing an election.The problem for some politicians is the uneven curve at which the employer contributes to the scheme. This can give rise to very high contribution rates at certain times, particularly around about the eight year mark where the contribution tax is high disproportionately. In such circumstances, a parliamentarian defeated at an election will get an abnormally high surcharge bill.While there is no apparent difficulty in attracting people to stand for parliament, I feel the whole remuneration package is now in such a state that many talented people will not contemplate parliamentary service because of the relatively low remuneration compared with other options available to them, particularly those people who want to come for the short-term after a major career. The disrup tions to established lifestyles and careers offer further disincentives. I am also concerned at the very narrow base from which a lot of our parliamentarians are coming. I wonder if this is also due to the parliamentary scheme.In the interests of representative government, it is desirable that a wide a range of people undertake parliamentary service. That includes people from the most productive sector, in terms of their actually getting out productively in the workforce and getting their hands dirty and earning money in a mining, manufacturing or agricultural sense.Success in business or the professions, with its resultant high remuneration, should not deter these people from standing for parliament. As such, the conditions of service in parliament should be appropriate to encourage high quality parliamentary candidates. At the same time it would be regrettable if people were attracted to parliament purely for their own financial gain.In the wider community there is a resistance to raising the salary of parliamentarians, so the conditions tend to stay the same. Parliamentarians do not have the option of salary packaging that the general community has. Unfortunately, the motion before us, I believe, is a knee-jerk, populist motion which in the long term will not help the parliament at all. I believe that the 25th report has the right solution. (Time expired)17:11:001576Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I begin my contribution by asking why we are debating this as an urgency motion today. I think I can probably answer my own rhetorical question, which is that this is a pretty cheap publicity stunt from the Australian Democrats and from Senator Lees, who apparently hasn't even had the courage to come in and move her own urgency motion. I suspect it is an unnecessary debate for us to have today. But I am not willing on behalf of the opposition to take the approach of just simply signing off on this urgency motion that is before the Senate and the simplistic recommendations that are contained within it and calling on the government to bring forward legislation to give these simplistic proposals effect.I use the word `simplistic' advisedly. Take, for example, the proposal of the Democrats that benefits not be accessed if a former member is found guilty of an offence against the Commonwealth. Let's have a look at this. Currently the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, section 22, operates to disqualify a member or senator from receiving any benefit under the act other than their own contributions if the member or senator is convicted of an offence that is punishable by imprisonment for a year or more. However, if the member or senator were to choose to resign his or her seat before being convicted, that act would not apply. Several recent cases have highlighted that deficiency.The Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989 provides for the imposition of a superannuation order in respect of a Commonwealth employee who has been convicted of a corruption offence and who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding 12 months in respect of the offence. The effect of the order is to disentitle the employee to all employer funded superannuation benefits. So an authorisation from the Minister for Justice to the Director of Public Prosecutions is required for such an order to be sought.A corruption offence is defined as an offence that constitutes an abuse of office or a perversion of the course of justice. A Commonwealth employee is defined so as to include members of parliament. The benefit of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 is that it applies to any offence and any sentence, subject only to the provision that the offence is punishable by imprisonment for a year or more.The benefit of the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act is that it applies to former as well as serving members of parliament. However, it requires an order by a minister which is subject to political discretion and can only apply in instances where an actual sentence of more than 12 months is imposed. A wholly suspended sentence falls outside the reach of the act. It also applies only to so-called corruption offences. Many very serious offences that would be regarded with justifiable revulsion by the community and carry very serious sentences would not fall within the meaning of the definition of a corruption offence.Let us be very clinical about the motion that is before the Senate. Senator Lees's motion suffers from a variety of deficiencies. Firstly, it applies only to Commonwealth offences. Many serious offences are covered only by state and territory legislation and criminal codes. A conviction for such an offence would fall outside the reach of the Democrats' motion. Secondly, it would create two classes of members—serving members who would be subject to the full provisions of the current requirements of the disqualification aspects of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act and former members who would be subject to a much narrower set of forfeiture provisions.Thirdly, the motion makes no mention of the status of former parliamentarians' own contribution. Various High Court judgments in which the court held that forfeiture provisions contained within the Fisheries Act 1952 could apply to property without offending the `just terms' provisions of section 51 of the constitution indicate that the Commonwealth can validly make a law that provides for the forfeiture of a member's or former member's own contribution. Fourthly, parliamentarians would continue to be subject to two sets of potentially conflicting pieces of legislation in respect of the status of their employer funded superannuation. To what extent would the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act still operate? What would be the effect of the inconsistencies between the two acts?In fairness to the Australian Democrats, they have genuine concern about fraud, corruption, bribery or other offences that have been committed. In that case, there obviously is a real issue as to whether a member or a senator should be entitled to receive his or her superannuation following their conviction. But there is also a very significant issue as to whether this rule should apply in the very broad manner as suggested by the urgency motion that is before the chair.There is a whole plethora of minor offences against the Commonwealth which I think very few people would say should result in the forfeiture of a member's or senator's superannuation entitlement. It might be failure to properly authorise an electoral advertisement. I would not want to lay a bet that there were not quite a lot of members and senators over the years who might have been involved in that sin of omission. It is pretty common in the political process in this country. Obviously, it is a criminal offence that attracts a fine of up to $1,000.There are few prosecutions made under that provision of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, because the AEC and the Director of Public Prosecutions exercise their discretion not to prosecute in a range of cases. If you had a sweeping provision like this, not every MP or senator serving now could be entirely safe from potential prosecution and loss of benefit. It is even a criminal offence to fail to attend to vote. I am not suggesting anyone would be silly enough to do that. I acknowledge that we all have a bit of self-interest in this place in relation to voting, but that offence attracts a maximum penalty of $50. It is the same situation.Even where the offence is a potentially serious one, and you have a situation where a member or a senator could lose their superannuation entitlement, you could argue that there is a case that no such deprivation of entitlement should automatically occur. Section 29 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 makes it an offence for a person to wilfully or unlawfully destroy Commonwealth property. That is punishable by a maximum term of 10 years imprisonment. You have circumstances where the commission of such an offence perhaps should warrant the forfeiture of a member's or senator's superannuation entitlements. But I am sure we can all envisage circumstances where that would not be the case. I bet Senator Brown can envisage such a circumstance. He nods his head.I know during the election campaign we had what I would describe to the Senate as a comparatively passive protest, but there might be minor damage to Commonwealth property. You might have the aerial or some other part of a Commonwealth car damaged. Should a member or a senator lose their superannuation entitlement because of that? What about during the Vietnam War if you burnt your draft card? Should you lose your superannuation entitlement because of that? These are the sorts of things that Senator Lees and the Democrats have not really thought through in this regard. It is serious enough for it to be thought through properly.I do not want anyone to misunderstand what I am saying here, and I do not think anyone would. I am not condoning the destruction of Commonwealth property at all. I am not suggesting that that is appropriate behaviour but, in some minor circumstances, I do not think anyone could really argue that a member or a senator should lose their superannuation entitlement over that sort of offence. You have to get a sense of proportion into this debate. Section 44 of the constitution only deprives a member or a senator of office if the offence they have committed is subject to a penalty of a term of imprisonment of one year or more. As well intentioned as the motion before the Senate at the moment might be, it does not reflect that requirement.In my view, this is an issue that really should not be addressed in this way. This is not a simplistic issue that can easily be dealt with in an urgency motion before the Senate in a debate that is really designed just to get a bit of publicity and a bit of media interest for the Australian Democrats. This sort of forum and this sort of debate being discussed by people like us do not allow a proper examination of what I think are complex and important issues.What about the Democrats proposal that superannuation benefits not be accessed until a former member turns 55 years old. Are the Democrats aware of the complexity of the preservation age provisions in the current superannuation legislation? I wish I was fully aware of all those complexities. Are you aware that the legislation phases in an increase in the preservation age from 55 to 60 years? If you are, your motion does not reflect it at all. For those born before 1 July 1960, the preservation age does remain at 55 years. For those born between 1 July 1961 and 30 June 1962, it is 56 and so on and so forth up to the age of 60 for those born after 30 June 1964. If you are aware of it, why doesn't your motion reflect some of these complexities?According to this motion, the Democrats are proposing that the same preservation age provisions should apply to all parliamentarians, or are you proposing a permanent preservation age of 55 years? Would it be fair for the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, Senator MacGibbon, who, I understand, will be retiring soon, and Senator Watson, who has reached more mature years than some—I am not being personally critical here—to be able to collect their superannuation immediately upon retirement—or even Senator Lees herself? I have looked up her age. She was born in 1948. Therefore, she will be 56 at the end of this term. She will be able to collect her superannuation immediately upon retirement, and so will those other senators and members I mentioned, and many other names that you might care to add to that list.But the Deputy Leader of the Democrats, Senator Stott Despoja, will have to wait 22 years after the end of her term in 2002 to collect her super. I do not know whether she has been consulted by Senator Lees who has not even moved her own motion relating to this proposal, but these are the sorts of issues that are important in this debate. There are issues of equity and ethics which we really do need to consider with regard to this matter. The further we push up the preservation age for politicians, the more we are encouraging them to pursue a second career outside politics. Is that what we want to encourage? Is that what you want to encourage? Do we want our elected representatives to be keeping an eye all the time they are—LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—They can come in when they are older. That is the other thing.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—No. Do we want our parliamentarians when they are here to be keeping a weather eye on their post-political career opportunities while they are serving as parliamentarians? Isn't that compromising? Of course it can be compromising. You have to also recognise that it is not always easy for former members of parliament to find employment, no matter what their qualifications or whatever personal qualities they might have. The fact is that political partisanship is not always a saleable commodity out there in the community for many employers. I know that some of our former colleagues have made it to the short list, but I know that a much smaller number have been able to land a job.I believe that a turnover rate in parliament is a good thing. I actually happen to think it is desirable. I think new blood is welcome and necessary in this place. We should be very wary of making changes that encourage time serving. We should be very wary of that if we are being honest. Do the Democrats, or any of us for that matter, want to encourage people who simply sit around clocking up 23 years of miserable service in a place like this? Do we want to increase the temptation to venality in the Commonwealth parliament? Do we want to increase the temptation for the maximisation of entitlements in the Commonwealth parliament? Is that what we are on about? Do we want to increase the temptation for nepotism in the Commonwealth parliament? I do not think that is really the way we want to operate. Do we really want people to be in here time serving and spitting in the eye of their former colleagues and the like?LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—That was a bit unnecessary. You were not bad until then.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I am just saying that we do not want to encourage that sort of behaviour. We do not want to encourage people like Senator Colston and the like. You have to look at the logic of what the Democrats are asking of the Senate in this motion. They are basically saying that the current system is wrong. It is too generous but, if it is wrong now, it was wrong before. I have not noticed any former Democrats handing back their superannuation. I challenge you to tell me if any have. I do not believe any have. I challenge the Democrats to get up in the light of this urgency motion and indicate which ones will be putting their cheques voluntarily in the mail.I really will be awaiting answers to those sorts of questions with interest. I think this is really nothing but a publicity stunt. But these are important issues, and I acknowledge that. They are important issues, but this is a simplistic, populist, low-grade publicity stunt at the end of the parliamentary year.We in the opposition are interested in getting a proper analysis and a proper overview of this issue—and, certainly, a proper inquiry into it. We have indicated for a long time that we are keen to support an independent inquiry into the superannuation scheme to be carried out by the Remuneration Tribunal.I do commend to the Senate the amendment to this urgency motion that I will move, which allows for an independent review of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and for a separate review to be conducted by an appropriate body with a view to applying disqualifications provisions, similar to section 44 of the constitution, to the superannuation benefits of former parliamentarians for offences committed during their period in office. I believe that this is a sensible way of proceeding, and I seek leave of the Senate to move this amendment so we can actually progress this issue in a proper way and can stop the grandstanding today.Leave granted.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I move:Omit all words after "urgency", substitute:"The need for:(1) the Remuneration Tribunal to conduct an independent review of the Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme; and(2) a separate review, to be conducted by an appropriate body, with a view to applying disqualification provisions, similar to section 44(ii) of the Constitution, to the superannuation benefits of former Parliamentarians for offences committed during their period in office".17:31:001580Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—From the government's point of view, this is a waste of time. It is an unnecessary debate, as Senator Faulkner said. Superannuation of members of parliament is not a new subject, as my colleagues Senator Watson and Senator Faulkner have pointed out. It has indeed been the subject of considerable review by the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation, which reported in September of last year. In that report, the coalition members of the select committee concluded that the issue of superannuation must be considered as part of parliamentary remuneration—in other words, total remuneration as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. That was the recommendation from coalition senators Ferguson and Watson. They have both done a lot of work in the superannuation area, and that was their recommendation in that report of last year.The report has been passed on to the government, of course, and the government has already indicated that it will consider the committee's recommendations on that scheme after the legislation for the process of setting parliamentary remuneration has been passed. But what has happened there? What has happened with that process? Proposed changes to the method of setting the remuneration of members of parliament were included in the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill, which was rejected twice by the Democrats and the Labor Party, along with the new Public Service Act. So that proper process, which the government has put forward to change and to basically move along in the direction indicated by the Senate select committee, has indeed twice been rejected in this chamber by the Democrats and the Labor Party.The government believes that once the new method of determining the remuneration of members of parliament—that is, members' and senators' remuneration—is resolved, then the government will give consideration to the arrangements for any further review, including the involvement of the Remuneration Tribunal. Legislation to implement the new process is scheduled to be introduced in the autumn session next year.As the Prime Minister indicated in response to a question from Mr Andren in the other chamber just two weeks ago, the government does not have a closed mind in relation to a review of superannuation, be it parliamentary or otherwise. Having a common age for the commencement of benefits under the scheme is one of the changes that people have pressed from time to time upon the government. The government has given an undertaking to look at that option.But why the urgency motion today? Undoubtedly, it is quite unnecessary. The motion by the Democrats shows an absolute knee-jerk reaction to recent events. They have put forward, if you like, two propositions. But this issue of superannuation for members of parliament is a very complex one, as my colleagues Senator Watson and Senator Faulkner, who spoke before me, have pointed out. It is an issue which needs due consideration. It cannot be addressed overnight in a knee-jerk way or by just looking at some particular aspects. It has got to be looked at as a whole and, as the Senate select committee recommended, it really must be looked at as part of total remuneration. The government has agreed to look at the total issue.I have a personal view that looking at total remuneration—which is basically what happens in the private sector—is the way to go. If you look at total remuneration for members and senators, then, marrying with that, an accumulation superannuation scheme is the obvious way to go. Again, that is what has happened in the private sector. What has happened in the private sector over the last 10 to 15 years is just that change—the change from defined benefit schemes, which used to be very common 15 to 20 years ago, to accumulation schemes.People are paid total remuneration, so, when they change jobs, they take their entitlements with them. The same thing basically should apply here. If that were done, if there were consideration of total remuneration in the accumulation schemes, then the problem of double jeopardy, of penalty, really does not arise. When people incurred the penalty of having to leave this place—Senator Faulkner went through the details of that before—they would not, if they had their superannuation paid into an accumulation scheme, get doubly penalised.It also means that the incentives that are in the scheme right now between short term and long term would disappear. The current scheme is unfairly weighted towards long-term members and senators in the parliament. It is not very generous at all—in fact, it is quite ungenerous—to short-term members and senators. That is unfair and should be changed. The government has said it will look at this matter. If that were done so that we were looking at total remuneration, then the problems which have arisen would not arise in the future.I have a personal view on the matter of age 55. I agree that the remuneration from superannuation should not be available to members of parliament and senators before the age of 55. But, again, there are complications for a transition to that sort of scheme that have to be taken into account. This urgency motion brought forward by the Democrats really is unnecessary at this point in time. The government has given an undertaking it will follow through in looking at these extremely complex issues. It is very important they be looked at calmly and slowly so that the matter of superannuation is dealt with fairly for all concerned.17:38:001581Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I think that keeping this issue alive and flagging a response to public concern about it is a good thing. The worst thing that can happen is that it simply disappears off the agenda of this parliament when there is so much angst about it out there in the public arena. It is heightened in the wake of every election when the media is able to print stories of people going away with million dollar cheques.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Nobody gets a million dollar cheque.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The media prints stories of people going away with million dollar cheques—that is factual, Senator—so the whole place and the role of parliamentarians comes into disrepute. I am not concerned about our acting in a populist fashion on this matter. After all, that means responding to popular concern—the concern of the people themselves. Both the government and the opposition ought not be so dismissive about that concern by saying, `This is a populist move by the Democrats.' No doubt there is a flavour of that about it but, from my experience both in the Tasmanian state parliament and in the term I have had in this place, that is a means of trying to keep at bay anybody who would question the system, and in particular anybody who would question the unspoken agreement that there is between major parties to protect both the salary system and the superannuation system of parliamentarians.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Have you read the superannuation report?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—You will have your turn a little later, Senator. One of the consistent things about this debate is that we tend to hear parliamentarians measuring themselves against what happens in private enterprise on the boards of big business. I want to say that that is the wrong measure. We ought to be measuring ourselves against the salary or superannuation entitlements of average Australian citizens. We are members of parliament representing the average Australian person.Those opposite might click their tongues about this, but that is how a democracy is supposed to work. You do not hear people getting to their feet in this place saying, `Let's measure ourselves against what a young pensioner or an unemployed person might be able to look forward to at the age of 55, at the other end of the spectrum.' You always hear them saying, `Look at the packages that they are getting in the boardrooms of big business.' In my view, the packages are obscene.Let us take it to the far extreme. In the United States, there are now chief executive officers who, besides their superannuation packages, are taking home annually $200 million, $300 million or even $400 million. In Australia there are now dozens of chief executive officers taking home—they do not earn this; they are taking home—more than $1 million per annum. It is quite obscene (a) that that happens, and (b) that there could be any member of a representative parliament who says, `That is the measure against which we must place discussions on our own incomes or superannuation.' Of course it is not. The measure ought to be what the average citizen is getting. That would sober most of us into thinking how we as parliamentarians have an obligation to relate to the general community and to listen to what the general community has to say about the excessive payments that are being made through the superannuation scheme with the knowledge that the taxpayer is footing the bill. It does not come out of the air, it does not come from some fund in the sky—it comes out of the pockets of taxpayers.I do not think we ought to be living in penury. As all parliamentarians would know, you cannot effectively pursue your job without having the wherewithal to move from place to place to get good advice and without being able to contribute to the public debate through the experience of moving around the electorate and around the nation. But, that said, it is a wonderful privilege to be a representative of the people in this place. Parliamentarians go very close to—if not crossing—the line of usurping or abusing that privilege if they are seen to be dipping their hands deep into the public purse in a way which is not commensurate with the privileges that we have in discharging our duty. However, I am attracted to the idea that there ought to be an independent tribunal which would look at parliamentary superannuation and separately at the need to review whether parliamentarians who are disqualified because they have infringed on the laws ought to forgo their superannuation. Senator Faulkner referred obliquely to the fact that I stood in front of the Prime Minister's car during the election campaign.Government senators interjecting—QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senators opposite are saying that I should not qualify for superannuation because I happened to delay the Prime Minister on his way to breakfast. That is the way in which this could go if it were left in the hands of parliamentarians. A debate like that might end up with some sort of motion passed in this place that Independents, Democrats and Greens should get no salary or superannuation. But, being this close to Christmas, that is very unlikely. The generosity of spirit of government senators opposite would ensure that it did not happen. Therefore, I support the general tenor of the motion. I am also attracted to supporting the amendment, which would allow for the Remuneration Tribunal to conduct an independent review of the whole matter.17:46:001582Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—I should put on the record that personally I hope Senator Brown never collects superannuation, because I hope that he will not be here more than six years. He has to be here more than six years to collect it. This issue of parliamentarians' superannuation is one which I, as a member of the superannuation select committee, have looked into in detail. It was as a result of a reference from the then senator Cheryl Kernot that we looked into this matter. I notice that she has been very quiet on the issue of late.This is a knee-jerk and populist motion. Senator Lees's motion, as moved by Senator Allison, really appears to result from a newspaper article by George Megalogenis, whom she quoted at length in her original contribution to this debate. The fact that it is a knee-jerk and populist motion means that it does not offer any long-term solutions to the issue of parliamentarians' superannuation. The government is continually looking at this and has this report, which it is acting on.The Australian Democrats say that this government has done nothing about the issue of parliamentarians' superannuation. The 15 per cent surcharge, which was introduced by this government after 1996, will effectively reduce by 15 per cent the superannuation entitlements of parliamentarians who have come here recently. There is no mention by Senator Allison of action that has already been taken by the government.Senator Allison mentioned a six per cent public contribution to MPs and a two per cent contribution for public servants, as though there were something wrong with that and as though you were comparing apples with apples. I ask Senator Allison to publicly state here today whether she will return two-thirds of her entitlements when she retires from this place because she feels that the government has been overgenerous with her retirement benefits? If she feels that way, we would be very happy for her to publicly commit today that she will return two-thirds of whatever she is entitled to on her retirement in this parliament because she feels that the public purse has contributed far too much to her retirement benefit.A lot of people overlook the effect of the 15 per cent surcharge on MPs. I am quite aware of it because I received my surcharge assessment the other day. We hear the media comments about how little we contribute for the benefits that we get. I do not know of any superannuation scheme for the public where someone is asked to contribute 20 per cent in after tax dollars on their gross income for their retirement. I have no other income except the income that I get from this place. In effect, I will have been asked to contribute over this past 12 months 20 per cent of after tax dollars to my superannuation. That is 20 per cent of my gross income. I ask Senator Allison whether she can find any scheme in private enterprise or in the Public Service where any member is asked to contribute that much towards their superannuation.There are a number of other issues. The media will always talk about elements of the scheme which appear on the surface to be generous. But you must always take the superannuation entitlements as part of the total remuneration package. That is something Senator Allison failed to address in this motion when she talked to this group. If I were a young member of this parliament with a wife and young children, I would feel obliged to take out extra death and disability cover because the arrangements for the support of surviving children, if I and my young wife happened to be killed in a road or plane accident, are totally inadequate. Without extra personal death and disability cover, any surviving children would not be able to exist on the small amount left in the event of the death of both parents.It is not the same if just the member were to survive. If you look closely at the scheme, you find that children would be disadvantaged to a great extent if both their parents were killed in an accident.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—That is not true of many.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—No. It is not. If you have a private scheme, you have a lump sum of death and disability cover which can be used. As someone who was formerly involved in the industry, I can tell you that I have spent a lot of my life protecting people and making sure that surviving children would be covered in an unfortunate event like that. This scheme does not do that.These populist notions have been raised in the media. Let us face it that members of parliament are fair go for all these things. I repeat that one thing coalition senators recommended in this inquiry was that future members of parliament not receive any pension benefit until age 55. However, that needed to be taken in the context of the total remuneration package, not in isolation. While the remuneration package exists as it is, there are a number of current serving members of parliament who know that the whole package is not taken into consideration when you just pick out the under 55 age group that retires from parliament.We will not be supporting the amendment of the ALP. We will not be supporting the urgency motion of Senator Allison because this is not an urgent matter. This is something that needs to be considered over a length of time and with the consultation of all parties. (Time expired)17:51:001584Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—What an extraordinary debate. How amazing it is to see the immediate unity between the two major parties when it comes to the question of tampering with their entitlements. Obviously we have hit a very raw nerve. We will continue to do that. It has now been 15 months since the Australian Democrats first moved on an inquiry into parliamentary superannuation. We acknowledge that this is a complex issue; there is no doubt about that. However, 15 months is a long time in which to consider the complexities and in which to do something about the scheme's extraordinary generosity.Let me turn quickly to Senator Watson. Senator Watson has a greater knowledge of this scheme than probably anybody else in this chamber. He does identify some of the problems with it. He says that it is very generous and high compared with community standards. He draws attention to those members who stay just long enough in order to qualify for it. He also draws attention to the fact that those who are here for a shorter time—whom he encourages, strangely enough—do not qualify.I think that to talk about the fact that when this scheme was put together life expectancies were shorter and terms in parliament were longer, and therefore things have changed, is an admission that we need to do something about it, and this is the reason we have this problem. We have different periods of time and different ages when members are retiring. That is one of the important reasons why we need to have proper reform.Senator Faulkner's extraordinary attack on the Democrats, Senator Lees, me and everybody else he could think of and his calling this a publicity stunt is really amazing. He fails to address the substantive question, concentrating mostly on the question of the criminal provisions in the motion, and he fails to look at the question of the generosity of this scheme. He accuses the Democrats of putting forward a simplistic motion—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—But you agreed with my amendment earlier. You dope!1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—We have already talked about the complexities. The report of the Senate committee does talk about the complexities. I urge Senator Faulkner to look at that report. (Time expired)10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Faulkner be agreed to.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—I acknowledge that the ALP has put forward an amendment to our motion and that it is a worthwhile amendment. I seek leave to incorporate that amendment into the motion.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Allison, we have the amendment before us. We will be putting the amendment to the first vote.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Madam Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to amend my motion to incorporate the amendment which is—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator, there is already an amendment before the chair which has to be put to the vote.Senator Faulkner interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, could you please stop interjecting and screaming out. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Faulkner be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The question is that the motion moved by Senator Allison be agreed to.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—I seek leave to incorporate Senator Faulkner's amendment.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The amendment has just been defeated. The question now before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Allison on behalf of Senator Lees be agreed to. Question put: That the urgency motion (Senator Allison's ) be agreed to.18:00:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V.* Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.53Bishop, T. M. Boswell, R. L. D.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, G.Campbell, I. G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Colston, M. A.Conroy, S. Coonan, H.*Cooney, B. Crane, W.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Ellison, C.Faulkner, J. P. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Herron, J. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lundy, K.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Minchin, N. H. Murphy, S. M.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Notices15851585Senator Coonan, at the request of Senator Eggleston, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee on Australian Content—Paragraph 160(d) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 be extended to 8 February 1999.Committees15851585158518:05:001585Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I present the 74th report of the Committee of Privileges entitled Possible unauthorised disclosure of parliamentary committee proceedings , together with a volume of documents.Ordered that the report be printed.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.This report is an omnibus report which covers six references. It encompasses two joint committees, generating two references each, and two Senate references committees. The matters range from relatively minor unauthorised disclosures, in respect of which the Committee of Privileges has found that no contempt has been committed, through to generalised contempt findings and two major contempt findings against persons identified in the report.Given this spate of references and widespread concerns expressed by a considerable number of senators and members in the course of the inquiries, the committee decided to make broad comment on the question of unauthorised disclosure of committee proceed ings. Accordingly, the first chapter reiterates the principles governing unauthorised disclosure.Having concluded that the existing prohibitions on unauthorised disclosure should remain, the committee has outlined the approach it expects other committees to take when examining the question as to whether matters of this nature should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. It has also set out its approach to dealing with matters when referred. The committee has made one minor recommendation relating to the handling of private documents.What will be obvious from this unanimous report, and the committee's usual unanimous findings in respect of the matters referred, is the genuine concern about what the committee has called an epidemic of improper disclosures in recent times. The committee hopes that its declaration of intent about its treatment of possible contempts will be sufficient deterrent to persons who might consider improperly disclosing committee proceedings. It also intends to disseminate the report as widely as possible, in the hope that persons who have regular contact with parliament will become aware of their responsibilities in handling documents produced to and by the houses of parliament and their committees. Because of the nature of several findings, I seek leave to give a notice of motion.Leave granted.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I give notice that I will move, in accordance with standing order 82, not less than seven sitting days after today:That the Senate—(a) endorse the findings contained in paragraphs 2.10, 2.27, 2.36, 2.56, 2.66 and 2.72; and(b) adopt the recommendations contained in paragraphs 1.54 and 2.75,of the 74th report of the Committee of Privileges.Senators will observe that the notice of motion I have just given refers specifically to the committee's formal findings and recommendations. The committee will however assume that, if the Senate endorses the findings and adopts the recommendations, this will signify its agreement to the committee's treatment of the issues discussed in the report. I commend the report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.1586158618:09:001586Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I present the register of senators' interests incorporating current declarations of interest lodged between 1 July 1998 and 4 December 1998 and I seek leave to make a short statement.Leave granted.FY5Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMAN—The Senate resolution for the declaration of senators' interests has operated for almost five years since March 1994. It requires senators to declare in writing and orally private interests which might give rise to conflict with parliamentary or official duties. This obligation to declare makes senators conscious of their official roles and the need to act in them without seeking personal gain or advantage.A procedure for declaring interest is, however, only one element in the ethical framework within which all parliamentarians should act. Other elements are contained in a code of conduct. I draw senators attention to an important Parliamentary Library research paper entitled `A code of conduct for parliamentarians' by Dr Andrew Brien of Sturt University. Aware of surveys which show that trust in parliamentarians is at an all time low, Dr Brien sets out the background to codes of ethics and conduct for parliamentarians showing how they are designed to both enhance their standards and their standing in carrying out difficult public roles. I commend the research papers to senators.There is as yet no code of conduct for the Commonwealth parliament. It is arguable that, without a suitable code, registers of interests are only a halfway house. Sample codes are in existence and I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard simplified summaries of codes to enable senators to reflect on the issue I have raised.Leave granted.The document read as follows—Draft Federal Parliamentarians' Code(Proposed by the Parliamentary Working Group. Full text tabled on 21 June 1995)1. Loyal to AustraliaUphold the law2. Exercise due diligenceUse public resources economically3. Due regard for rights of others, eg. privacy, non-discrimination, confidentiality, privilege4. Act honestlyAdvance the public good5. Seek the public interestAvoid conflict of interest6. Not obtain private benefit from public office7. Personal conduct consistent with dignity and integrity of ParliamentDraft Federal Ministers' Code(Proposed by the Parliamentary Working Group. Full text tabled on 21 June 1995)1. Act without fear or favour2. Be frank and honest with public and Parliament3. Do not use official influence for private interests4. May accept gifts, benefits, hospitality if report them as required by procedures5. Don't abuse public property or entitlements6. Don't misuse official information for personal gain7. Be accountable to Parliament Pay proper regard to official advice Use discretion legitimately Document and justify decisions8. Ensure staff act consistently with the above9. After-departure from office don't seek improper advantage from influence over former colleagues or officialsCode of Conduct for NSW Parliamentarians—1.7.981. Declare conflicts of interests between private financial interests and official decisions2. Do not promote a matter, vote or ask questions in Parliament in return for money or benefits3. Declare gifts and benefits as required by procedures (+$500)4. Use public resources properly5. Don't use confidential information for private gain 6. Political parties are a fundamental part of the democratic process and helping the party is legitimate for MPsUK Code of Conduct 19.7.95A Be faithful to Her MajestyB Uphold the lawC Act in the interests of the nationD Observe the 7 Principles of Public Life:E Act to strengthen the public's trust in Parliament and do nothing to bring it into disreputeF Accept no bribe, fee, or reward for doing anything in Parliamentary proceedingsG Register Interests as required by proceduresH Be open and frank if lobbying for an organisation in which you have a financial interestI Do not act as a paid advocate in any proceedings in the HouseJ Observe requirements of confidential information and do not use it for personal gainD Observe the 7 Principles of Public Life:1) Selflessness: Public interest not personal gain2) Integrity: Avoid obligations to others that might influence free judgement3) Objectivity: Act on merit when making appointments, official contracts and official rewards4) Accountability: Be accountable to the public and submit to scrutiny5) Openness: Be open about decisions and give reasons for them and release information unless clearly against the public interest6) Honesty: Declare private interests and resolve conflicts of interest7) Leadership: Support these Principles by personal example1587158718:11:001587Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator O'Chee, I present the regular end of sittings statement on behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee on the work of the committee for the spring sittings 1998 and seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Statement on work of the Committee during the Spring Sittings 1998OverviewDuring the present short sittings the Committee scrutinised 707 legislative instruments. This number, although historically large, is somewhat less than usual, no doubt due to the caretaker period of government in relation to the election. These instruments were made under the authority of scores of enabling Acts administered through virtually every department of state. Almost every legislative scheme relies on legislative instruments to provide the administrative detail of programs set out in broad policy in enabling Acts which authorise those instruments.The Committee acts on behalf of the Senate to scrutinise each of these instruments to ensure that they conform to the same high standards of parliamentary propriety and personal rights which the Senate applies to Acts. If the Committee detects any breach of these standards it writes to the Minister or other law-maker in respect of the apparent defect, asking that the instrument be amended or an explanation provided. If the breach appears serious then the Chairman of the Committee gives notice of a motion of disallowance in respect of the instrument. This allows the Senate, if it wishes, to disallow the instrument. This ultimate step is rarely necessary, however, as Ministers almost invariable take action which satisfies the Committee.As usual, by the end of the sittings Ministers have given the Committee undertakings to amend many provisions in different instruments or enabling Acts to meet its concerns, reflecting a continuing high level of cooperation from Ministers in its non-partisan operations. The Committee is grateful for this cooperation.Of the 707 legislative instruments scrutinised by the Committee, 163 were statutory rules, which are generally better drafted and presented than other series of legislative instruments. The other 544 instruments were the usual heterogeneous collection of different series.The Committee scrutinised each of the 707 instruments under its four principles, or terms of reference, which are included in the Standing Orders. There were 85 apparent defects or matters worthy of comment in those 707 instruments. The defects are described below under each of the four principles.Principle (a)Are legislative instruments in accordance with the statute?The Committee interprets this principle broadly. It includes not only technical validity but also every other aspect of parliamentary propriety. The Committee noted that there may have been deficiencies in the following areas.ValidityLegislative instruments must comply with the provisions of both the enabling Act and umbrella provisions of any other relevant Acts such as the Acts InterpretationAct 1901 . One instrument purported to be made by a letter from one official to another, with no making words at all. Several instruments appeared to subdelegate legislative power, which is invalid unless expressly authorised by an enabling Act. Another instrument purported to subdelegate a power of delegation in the Act, seemingly with no authority. Another subdelegated what the Explanatory Statement advised were matters related to individual businesses, which would be valid, but the actual provisions seemed to refer to classes of business, which would be void. Other instruments appeared to incorporate material as amended from time to time, which again is invalid unless expressly authorised. Legislative instruments which provide for prejudicial retrospectivity are also generally invalid; one instrument provided for apparently prejudicial commencement six weeks before it was gazetted.Parliamentary proprietyThe Committee ensures that no aspect of a legislative instrument breaches parliamentary propriety. One instrument appeared to indicate that two separate Departments had been granting exemptions to the Principal Regulations with no legislative authority to do so. Another instrument amended provisions of legislative instruments to reflect changed conditions, but there was no indication of when this would be done for the enabling Act. One instrument provided for powers to be delegated to any officer at all in an agency, although other instruments restricted delegations in two related agencies to more senior officers. Another instrument indicated that its provisions would be reviewed before 2001 but did not provide details of who was to conduct the review. The Committee has previously reported to the Senate (3 December 1998) that it had discovered that proclamations by theGovernor-General commencing three Acts (two of which related to the public revenue) and consequently many provisions in numbers of sets of regulations, were void. There were various implications for parliamentary propriety flowing from this. Another instrument altogether, of 415 pages, which was made by theGovernor-General, had a pink erratum slip glued to the front cover, with no assurance that the Governor-General was aware of the error and its correction. The Committee understands that the Australian government bookshop is still selling copies of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 No. 401 , apparently as part of the Principal Regulations, although they were disallowed by the Senate on 31 March 1998. It is true that these regulations were in force from 24 December 1997 until disallowance, but are now little more than an historical curiosity. Such sales may mislead users and it would be preferable if they were sold only to people who make a specific request.Drafting and presentationThe Committee considers that the standard of drafting and presentation of legislative instruments should not be less than that of Acts. Several instruments included otiose provisions already provided in an enabling Act. Others included deficient dictionary or definition provisions, one of which appeared to be circular. Another referred to an investigation without any provision for an investigation and a report with no indication of how or to whom the report is to be made. One instrument inadvertently omitted some words. Several instruments had Explanatory Statements which were deficient in quality. Several instruments were not numbered. Other instruments included cross reference errors. A number of multiple sets of amendments of the same principal instrument was made on the same day. One instrument 174 pages long did not include a table of contents, which made it difficult to follow.DelayThe Committee questions any apparent delay in making legislative instruments. One instrument corrected errors in provisions for the collection of levies five years later, with a possible lack of a sound legislative basis for their collection during that time. Another instrument provided for exemptions from certain provisions four years after Departments were granting them. One instrument implemented uncontroversial recommendations of a report three years after it was presented. The Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee Report Payment of a Minister's LegalCosts: Part 2 , February 1997, noted that the Department was developing a proposal to make regulations which in fact were not made until 18 months later.Commencement of instrumentsDuring the sittings the Committee noted a tendency to provide for the commencement of instruments not by reference to a specified date but rather by reference to commencement of a particular Act. The Committee accepts that it may be desirable for legislative instruments to be ready to come into effect at the same time as enabling provisions, but in these cases the expected date of comment should be included in provisions of the instrument, in notes in the body of the instrument or in the Explanatory Statement. Numbers of instruments did not do this, which may inconvenience users. The Explanatory Statements for these instruments did not even include reference to the six months rule, under which Acts which commence on proclamation provide that commencement is deemed if they are not proclaimed within six months of assent. If the actual expected date of commencement is not known the Explanatory Statement should explain the reasons for this. Some instruments dependent upon commencement of Acts did give this information, but enough did not for the Committee to report the tendency. In some cases there is no excuse; for instance, one instrument provided for commencement on the commencement of a specified Act with no further information, while the Explanatory Statement for another series of instruments advised that the Act would commence on a particular date. The Committee also could do nothing but ask about an instrument which provided for commencement on a specified date although the Explanatory Statement advised that it would commence on a different date.Principle (b)Do legislative instruments trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties?The Committee also interprets this principle broadly, to include every aspect of personal rights. The Committee noted deficiencies in the following instruments.Safeguards on powers of public officialsLegislative instruments which confer powers on public officials to affect individuals should be reasonable and include appropriate safeguards. One instrument provided that a form must be returned by a specified date but a warning on the form itself indicated that the form must be returned within two months of receipt. The form also warned that if the form was not returned by the (wrongly) specified date then the Minister may impose sanctions. This warning was also wrong because the enabling Act provided only for the Secretary to impose sanctions. The form also did not advise that any decision to impose sanctions was reviewable. Another instrument approved six forms in relation to the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994 but only two of them included a declaration that the information given was true and correct. There was also no indication in any of the forms of the consequences, if any, of providing information which was not true. One instrument provided only that an application must be made in a manner and form acceptable to an agency. The rules of a court provided for some application forms but advised that eight others had not yet been made; the Committee asked when it was likely that these would be made. One instrument provided for intrusive information in relation to past trivial offences, for details which may not have been necessary to satisfy a "fit and proper person" test and for date of birth information which may not have been justified. Another instrument provided only for subjective safeguards in a search warrant. Another instrument provided that an official must accept or reject an application as soon as practicable, although it may have been preferable to specify a certain period within which this must be done, which would then trigger review rights. Another instrument provided that an official may demand information from people within a period set by the official, with no reasonability safeguard.Personal rightsThe Committee questions any provisions which may operate harshly or which impinge directly upon rights. One instrument revoked the appointment of a body because the Minister was apparently satisfied that it had failed to perform its functions adequately, but there was no indication of the grounds on which the Minister relied in coming to that conclusion, or of whether the body was warned of the possibility of revocation and given an opportunity to present its case. Another instrument exempted an agency from being sued in Australian courts in relation to "personnel matters", but neither the Act nor the regulations defined that expression. In another case the Committee was concerned that people may have been adversely affected while a drafting error was being corrected. Another instrument provided that one private body must report all safety incidents to the civil aviation authorities even though there was no such requirement for a similar private body. The Explanatory Statements for other instruments gave no assurance that retrospectivity was beneficial. One instrument provided for the exchange of personal information between the Department and private financial institutions in relation to people who wished to participate in a financial supplement scheme, with no assurances about privacy.Fees, charges and allowancesMany legislative instruments provide for fees, charges, allowances and benefits. The Committee questions any such provisions which are unusual or unexpected. The Committee was disturbed by advice in the Explanatory Statement for one instrument which generally increased charges for services by an agency, that charges for training courses were not being increased because they were already high in comparison with prevailing prices in the market. The Committee asked whether the agency had been abusing its position as monopoly supplier and whether the charges should not be reduced. One instrument increased greatly the types of investigation for which an agency could recover its expenses from the private body being investigated, without adequate safeguards. Another instru ment provided for certain levels of charges although the Explanatory Statement advised that other levels were intended. Other instruments did not explain increases in costs payable to legal practitioners for work in Commonwealth courts which were many times greater than the CPI.Principle (c)Do legislative instruments make rights unduly dependent on administrative decisions which are not subject to independent review of their merits?Many legislative instruments provide for public officials to exercise administrative discretions. The Committee considers that these discretions should be as narrow as possible, include objective criteria to limit and guide their exercise, and provide for independent, external review of their merits by a specialist tribunal such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.One instrument provided that an agency would write to all parents of children under seven years not shown as being immunised advising them of the link between child care assistance and immunisation. The enabling Act provided, however, that the link was only established if the Secretary was satisfied as to various matters. The Committee asked about review and whether parents would be informed of any such right. The Committee was startled by advice in the Explanatory Statement for another instrument that review would not be available because decisions would be made on a case by case basis; this is usually a reason why review should be provided. Another instrument did not indicate what decision was being made, another did not indicate who was to make a decision, while another delegated a decision making power to the wrong person. As usual, several instruments provided for review of some decisions but not for related ones; the Explanatory Statement for one of these instruments purported to explain this, but not to the satisfaction of the Committee. One instrument provided that an agency may make decisions on such criteria as the agency thinks necessary. Another instrument provided only for internal review when external may have been better. Another instrument did not provide the usual review of a discretion to waive fees and compounded the deficiency because the Explanatory Statement was misleading.Many administrative decisions affect business and the Committee scrutinises these carefully, particularly those affecting small business, to ensure proper review rights. One instrument provided for an authorised person, who apparently could be anyone, to deny sales tax and customs and excise duty exemptions. Another provided for discretions in relation to test shipments of exports, another for discretion to approve a manufacturing plant. A number of instruments provided for discretions in relation to civil aviation operations, some only of which were subject to review. Another instrument gave the Registered Health Benefits Organisation power to make decisions which could have adverse effects on the financial operations of hospitals. Another instrument provided for a discretion to approve people to give courses and set examinations in relation to matters which could affect professional qualifications.Principle (d)Do legislative instruments contain matters more appropriate for parliamentary enactment?The Committee does not raise this principle as often as its other three principles, but it is an important part of parliamentary propriety and in this respect complements the first principle of the Committee. One instrument six lines long provided for the operation of Comcover, which appeared to be a substantial insurance operation. The Committee noted that Comcare, the other Commonwealth insurance operation, was set up by Act. The second reading speech for the enabling Act for Comcover discussed legislative instruments and appeared to advise of a far more limited role for them. The Committee has asked the Minister for full advice.Other developmentsDuring the sittings the Committee made a special statement to the Senate on3 December 1998 on its first meeting of the present Parliament. On 3 November 1998 the legal adviser and Committee staff hosted a visit by the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Intergovernmental Agreements of the Western Australian Parliament. The Committee's home page was placed on the Internet and the Delegated Legislation Monitor was also converted to the Internet. The Committee is grateful for the support which it has received from the Senate during the present sittings.159115911591Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the 11th report of 1998 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.Ordered that the report be printed.1591159118:12:001591Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I present the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on the impact of the government's child-care funding cuts on families, children and child-care services, together with submissions and the Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.In taking note of this report, I would like to place on the record the fact that this report was largely completed prior to the election. I would like to acknowledge and thank the senators who were on the committee at the time of the inquiry, including Senator Bishop, who was the chairman, Senator Knowles, who was the deputy, Senator Andrew Bartlett, Senator Forshaw, Senator Belinda Neal, Senator Kerry O'Brien, Senator Marice Payne and Senator Kay Patterson. I came on the committee to chair it only in the concluding stages of the report, so I make it clear that the report is largely the work of my colleagues prior to that.I also want to place on the record the committee's appreciation for the secretarial support from Elton Humphery, Christine McDonald, Peter Short, Ingrid Zappe and Leonie Peake. The secretariat are very often the backbone of any inquiry. They contribute an enormous amount of work and I think it is important that we acknowledge their contribution.There are a number of things about this report that I think are terribly important. First of all, it contains another set of submissions from a very stretched industry—the child-care industry—from the people who provide the services and from the people who use them. It proves beyond dispute that the Howard government has made life very dreadful for the families and providers in the child-care area.This report contains considerable information that suggests the child-care industry has been very severely impacted by the changes of the first Howard government, and those changes have put a considerable strain on child care. That strain is reflected in the number of centres that have closed, the number of centres that have very large vacancies, the number of centres that have had to increase their costs and the number of families who have chosen to either withdraw from child care altogether or dramatically reduce their hours.Significantly, it seemed that much of the evidence presented to the committee by way of submissions could not be confirmed by the hard data from the department itself. We are very concerned that the data from the department seems often to be lagging behind the evidence put forward in submissions to the committee. In particular, there is some doubt about the number of child-care centres that have closed. In my own state a number of centres have closed, more of which are community based centres rather than private centres. Yet nowhere is there coherent data from the department that lists those centres that have closed. Indeed, there is some argument by the department that the evidence people provide for us is not factual.In passing, I have to say that a lot of the comment in this report refers to `anecdotal' evidence. I think we need to be careful of the use of this adjective because it is in some ways pejorative. If anybody from a state writes to say that a certain number of centres have closed, and this is not substantiated by departmental data, that it might be described as anecdotal evidence does carry with it the sense that it is just a claim and not hard evidence. Many of the people who have gone to the bother of putting in submissions are people who are working in the industry, people from peak organisations who are very aware of the state of play of their member participants. So I do think we have to be cautious about the use of the word `anecdotal', particularly as it sometimes conveys a considerable pejorative tone.I think it is important that we do have evidence from the department that is completely up-to-date. The department, for example, has to know how many people are using child care in how many centres so that it can properly provide—I suppose it is now through Centrelink—the approval of child-care assistance to the eligible recipients in those centres. I find it a bit confusing that we might be claiming to have accurate data for the payment of child-care assistance but less than clear data and numbers about those child-care centres that have closed and those that are open. Others might wish to make different comment about that, but I certainly think it is very important.The clear evidence before this committee was that the costs of child care have risen, that child care is less affordable, and that this is impacting hardest on people on the lowest incomes. The committee is also concerned about what is meant by `affordable' and has urged the department in recommendations to try to produce some harder data on what could be meant by affordability of child care. If we are going to say that child care has become less affordable, it is clear that the price rises and the cost increases have had an impact. That means that the price rises and the cost increases are definite and real.In the few minutes remaining to me I wish to refer to outside school hours care. Paragraph 4.125 at page 75 of the report states:Witnesses also pointed to closure of services as evidence of the adverse impact of loss of the operational subsidy.Here we do have hard evidence from the department, which the report notes was given by the Department of Health and Family Services in answer to Senate question on notice No. 202:Between July 1997 and July 1998, 98 OSHC services (before school care/ after school care/ vacation care) had closed.This section of the report starts with a very interesting quote from the National Out of School Hours Services Association, which I would like to read into the record:OSHC services did not grow out of government initiatives like other child care services, rather it `sprang from within the community as part of a growing need for safe play opportunities lost to children as society changed in the 1970s and the neighbourhood of backyards, streets, footpaths and mothers in starched white aprons disappeared.I am not sure about the mothers in starched white aprons. But what we do know is that there was a major concern some few years back—I would say the late 1970s, early 1980s—about children usefully defined as latchkey kids—children who would be left at home as both parents or a single parent were working. These parents were not able to be at home for the children and those children became described, I think very succinctly, as latchkey kids.What is emerging from the evidence in this report is that, with the closure of 98 outside school hours care services, we are seeing latchkey kids emerge again. If we are concerned about our parents working with less stress and less anxiety and therefore being more productive, and particularly if we are concerned about the safety and the protection of our children, it is essential that we do not revert to the latchkey practices that led to the community initiatives in this area.The operational subsidy cutbacks in this area have proved disastrous. There has been too much of an administrative burden on the centres and therefore many of them have been forced to close. There has been an increase in child-care assistance in the area but the administrative costs of replacing the operational subsidy with the increased child-care assistance has created a burden that has led directly to the closure of many of those centres.This Senate should have a major concern about the emergence of a new generation of latchkey kids. We know the evidence. We know how disastrous that was. We know how important it was to see the outside school hours care services emerge. It is a terrible pity that government policies might lead to a dramatic and long-term existence of another generation of such children.I have here a very full child-care funding inquiry tabling statement which shortly I will ask to be incorporated. In the last minute left to me and just in closing, I would say that it concerns me that, when I first came into this parliament in 1996, I chaired in this place a report on early childhood, called Childhood matters: Report on the inquiry into early childhood education. That is a three-year-old report and, to my knowledge, there has never been a government response to the very important recommendations throughout that report about child care, early childhood education and sufficient support for children. I sincerely hope that the government can, in addressing the report now before us, take the time to look at the recommendations of that earlier report and provide it to the Senate. As I foreshadowed, I seek leave to have that tabling statement and its many more full comments about this whole area incorporated.Leave granted.The tabling statement read as follows—The child care industry in Australia has grown significantly over the last decade. The Department of Family and Community Services indicated that at December 1997 some 432,700 children used Commonwealth-funded long day care services including family day care. The Commonwealth provides funding to families through Childcare Assistance and the Childcare Rebate and to child care services through capital grants and operational subsidies. Commonwealth expenditure on child care was $1.06 billion in 1994-95 and is projected to reach $1.21 billion in 2000-2001.The Committee's inquiry into child care funding arose as a result of widespread concern about the impact of the changes to the Commonwealth's funding of child care announced in both the 1996-97 and 1997-98 budgets. Among these changes were:. the abolition of the operational subsidy for community-based long day child care centres;. limiting Childcare Assistance to 50 hour per week;. limiting non-work related Childcare Assistance to 20 hours per week;. freezing of the indexation of the Childcare Assistance Fee Ceiling and the Childcare Rebate Ceiling for two years;. the introduction of a new income-tested Childcare Assistance payment for school age children using Commonwealth-approved child care centres for before school, after school and vacation care; and. the introduction of a National Planning System for new child care places.The Committee's inquiry attracted widespread interest throughout Australia and it undertook an extensive program of public hearings. To allow as many individuals as possible to put their views, the Committee held community forums at five of its eight hearings. The Committee also provided an opportunity for representatives of care providers including both community based and private long day care centres, family day care services, out of school hours services and vacation care services to give evidence. The Department of Family and Community Services ('the Department'), peak groups, State and local government and unions also gave evidence.Information on child care servicesIn undertaking its inquiry, the Committee received a great deal of anecdotal evidence about the impacts of the changes to child care funding on services and families. At the same time, there were difficulties in gaining up-to-date statistical information which accurately reflected the state of the industry following the changes. In particular, the Department acknowledged limitations to its data on recent closures of centres. The Department is working towards improving its data collection and analysis. However, the Committee has recommended that the Department, in conjunction with other major collectors of data on children's services, adopt a more coordinated approach to data collection to ensure that overlap and deficiencies in the current data collection are overcome.Impact of changes on services Operational subsidyCommunity-based services provided evidence about the impacts of the abolition of the operational subsidy. It was stated that fees had increased as a result of the loss of the subsidy. Increases ranged from relatively small amounts to as much as $30 per week. Other means of compensating for the loss of the subsidy included reduction in the levels of staffing, loss of support staff such as cleaners and cooks, reduction of services including the provision of cooked meals and nappy services and closure of baby places.The Committee did not support the reintroduction of the operational subsidy for community-based long day care centres. However, the Committee considers that both the community-based and private services have a valuable role to play in the provision of child care in Australia. They provide alternative models for the management of child care services and provide families with choice of care and choice in level of participation in the provision of services for their children. The community-based sector also makes an important contribution to the social capital and infrastructure of communities. Further, the Committee considers that the growth of one type of service provider to the detriment of the other would not be a positive outcome for the industry.The Committee has recommended that the Commonwealth provide support for the industry by encouraging both service types and in particular ensuring that community-based services continue as viable service providers. The Committee also recommended that in order to ensure the continuing viability of community-based services a one-off grant be provided to them in recognition of the additional costs associated with supporting management committees and the need to upgrade management facilities to improve efficiency. Further, consideration should be given to expanding funding for restructuring within the community-based sector and to providing funding for the development of innovative models of child care based on the community development approach.50 hour limitIn regard to the limiting of Childcare Assistance to 50 hour limit per week, the Committee considered that it was appropriate that a limit be placed on access to assistance that goes to unused care. Provisions are available for an exemption to the limit for those families who are genuinely in need of more care. However, the Committee does consider that the evidence received highlighted a significant area of competing goals wherein the Commonwealth is trying to restrict the number of hours of unused care for which Childcare Assistance is claimed and service providers are attempting to meet demands for care which require them to open centres for more than 50 hours per week. The Committee has recommended that the review of centres' charging practices which has been referred to the Child Care Advisory Council be conducted as a matter of priority.20 hour limitThe Committee considers that the 20 hour limit on non-work related care is adequate. Provisions are in place to exempt from the limit families in crisis situations and families with a child who has a disability.Impacts of the changes on long day care centresEvidence was received that the major impact of the changes on the child care industry has been to the viability of the industry. It was stated that fees had increased as a direct result of the funding changes and that this had occurred at a time when the amount of assistance offered to families had decreased. Fee increases have had an adverse impact on utilisation rates. Many providers stated that cost cutting, particularly in the area of staffing, was affecting the quality and variety of services offered. Witnesses stated that centres had closed as a direct result of the funding changes and that further closures were anticipated.The Committee considers that the child care industry is going through a period of great change and that there are a number of variables interacting in a complex way within the industry. Some are the result of the Commonwealth's changes to funding. However, the child care industry is also influenced by changes to State regulations under which services operate and which have resulted in cost increases in the past. Centres also experience changes in costs associated with employing staff and running a business.The Committee concludes that oversupply of places is a significant factor influencing the industry at the moment. The National Planning System will assist decision making in the future to ensure the growth of a viable child care industry. However, in the interim there will be continued rationalisation in the industry.With regard to quality of care, the Committee heard evidence that the changes to child care funding have impacted adversely on the quality of care being offered. The Committee does not consider that there is a major difference in the quality of care offered by either type of service and has noted that the proportion of community-based centres and private centres meeting accreditation standards is very similar.Out of School Hours CareAccess to Childcare Assistance for OSHC services was supported by many witnesses. However, many expressed the view that the operational subsidies for OHSC services were still required to provided a secure funding base as, unlike long day care centres, they do not have predictable utilisation rates. It was noted that the new system imposed a greater administrative burden on OSHC services and families.The Committee is concerned that so many OSHC services have closed since December 1997 and that some witnesses predicted further closures before the end of 1998. The Committee considers that OSHC services are disadvantaged by the introduction of the Childcare Assistance only model of funding.Witnesses also stated that fees had increased in OSHC services as a result of the changes. As a result there had been a growth in the number of `latchkey' children as families were no longer able to afford before and/or after school care. Many witnesses voiced concerns about the safety and welfare of primary age children left to look after themselves.The Committee considers that OSHC services should have greater access to school facilities. Where services must amalgamate and children are required to travel from schools to the service, funding should be provided to ensure that the cost of travel is not an increased burden on families.A further matter raised in evidence was that Childcare Assistance is calculated taking into account only the number of children in the family using a particular service type. The Committee considers that the justification for not taking into account all service types used by a family in calculating Childcare Assistance should be investigated further.Vacation careThe Committee considers that vacation care services face similar problems to OSHC services regarding administrative costs and fluctuating attendance. The Committee considers that additional funding for administrative costs should be extended to vacation care services. Family day careThe Committee concludes that FDC offers an important additional choice for families seeking care for their children, in particular for those with special needs such as shift workers, those requiring overnight and respite care and for families in rural and remote Australia. The operational subsidy is a fundamental element of the FDC system and no changes should be made to this arrangement.Impact on familiesMuch of the evidence on the impact on families emphasised the changes to affordability of child care, particularly for low-income families. Anecdotal evidence suggested that affordability of child care has declined and that many families are withdrawing children from formal care or choosing to mix formal and informal care arrangements or changing work arrangements to limit the cost of child care for the family.The Committee considers that while Government assistance has not increased at the same rate as increases in child care costs for families, the impact on affordability has varied across income ranges. The Committee considers that there has been minimal impact on affordability of child care for high-income earners. The Committee received much contradictory anecdotal evidence in relation to affordability for middle-income earners. However, it considers, for the moment at least, that middle-income earners are able to access child care without too much economic difficulty. In relation to low-income earners the picture is different and the Committee considers that there has been a much more significant decline in affordability. This is having an adverse impact on the ability of low-income families to access formal child care, particularly those families with more than one child. The Committee has therefore recommended that urgent action be taken to better target child care assistance to low-income families by the introduction of a `top up' or `supplement' to the current rate of Childcare Assistance.The Committee also recommends that the Department Family and Community Services conduct research to establish criteria to judge affordability levels for families accessing child care as a matter of priority.Impact on childrenThe Committee considers that the impact of changes to child care funding on children has not been adequately assessed, in particular any changes to quality of care. The Committee has recommended that the review of the Quality Improvement and Accreditation System (QIAS) being undertaken by the Child Care Advisory Council be completed as a matter of priority. In relation to informal care, the Committee recognises that informal care will always be the most favoured option for many parents. However, the Committee also notes that informal care, by its nature, is largely unregulated and that in some instances it may not provide the same benefits and protection as formal care for children and their families. Further, there are some families who are forced to choose informal care because of affordability and access issues.Families in rural and remote areas and disadvantaged familiesWhile the Government has provided additional funding assistance through its Disadvantaged Areas Subsidy, there is a need for further assistance for disadvantaged families living in urban areas. The Committee believes that the range of services to which the Disadvantaged Area Subsidy applies is too restrictive. Many urban centres provide important services and benefits for particularly high-needs families. The Committee considers that this should be recognised and supported through additional funding. The Committee has recommended that additional funding be provided to centres which cater for very high needs families in socially or economically disadvantaged urban areas.Taxation and related issuesSeveral groups and individuals expressed the view during the inquiry that parents should be given the widest possible choice to either participate in the paid workforce or remain in full-time care of their children and that universal child care payments to all families with young children be introduced. The Committee has some reservations in relation to this proposal. These reservations relate to the potentially significant additional budgetary costs of such a scheme, and the possibility that funds would be spread too thinly across the potential target group. However, the Committee has recommended that the costs required to implement any proposal to introduce universal child care payments to all families with young children be investigated to ascertain whether such a proposal could be at all viable.Women's labour force participationThe Committee received a considerable amount of anecdotal evidence suggesting that recent fee increases and changes in the child care sector are having an adverse impact on women's participation in the paid workforce. While the published labour force data do not appear to reflect these trends to date, the Committee believes that the full impact of the changes has yet to be reflected in these official statistics and that some decline in women's labour force participation rates will become evident in official labour force data in subsequent years. Impact on workers in the child care sectorThe Committee considers that child care workers have been detrimentally affected by the changes which have been occurring in the child care industry. They have suffered job losses, and reduced working hours, wages, conditions of service and career development opportunities. They are lowly paid and working in difficult conditions. Professional recognition should be given to the valuable contribution provided by these workers in managing the physical, emotional and intellectual development of children in their care. As one submission noted, next to parents, it is with the children's services workers that `the greatest responsibility for the care and education of the youngest and most vulnerable members of our society rests'.Finally I commend the report and its recommendations to the Government.18:22:001596Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I also wish to address a few remarks to this Senate Community Affairs References Committee report on child-care funding. It provides a very useful addition to the information available on what is occurring in child care under the Howard government, and I think it will be an important reference source for people in years to come.What is most clear is that this report proves what parents, community groups and the industry have known all along: that, under the Howard government, child care has become more difficult to afford. The government has taken $850 million out of child care, and assistance has been frozen at $115 per week. But many centres have had to raise their fees, which average now around $150 per week. As a result the gap between the assistance provided and the fees charged has widened, with many parents struggling in affording to cover that increasing gap.The child-care cuts of Mr Howard's government have been very tough on household budgets. In particular, they have been very tough on women and their ability to participate fully in the work force and in education in this country. Many women have reported—and the evidence is in the committee report—that they have had to give up work, they have had to give up educational opportunities or they have had to restrict their participation because of the increasing cost burden of affording child care. That is something that the community and this Senate must take very seriously.The government went to the last election with a promise to increase child-care assistance by a very small amount of $750 extra for each child in care. But that does not seem to have been proved to be a priority for the government, and we have seen no sign of that legislation. I suspect that that reflects the government's lack of priority for child care.I was not a member of the committee at the time of the report, but I did take the opportunity to fill in for Senator Gibbs for a couple of days and was able to attend a couple of days of the hearings, which I found very useful. It was part of my ongoing interest in child care, and that interest has been both as a consumer and as a parliamentarian. I am very pleased now to be involved in the Community Affairs Reference Committee. I cannot claim to have been involved in the whole of the inquiry or the drafting of the report but in recent weeks I have been involved with the committee's work.I believe that the key issues arising from this report are worth while for all of us to consider. The affordability question is the key issue; it is having the most impact out there in the community. The increasing affordability impacts on the parents; they are forced to reduce their care or withdraw their children from care altogether. That, of course, then impacts on the centres. In recent years we have seen a large number of centres having to close, and that is documented fully in the committee report.There is some restructuring occurring in the industry, and some of the changes are driven by other factors. The report quite rightly acknowledges that—that there has been some quite uncontrolled growth, in particular in Queensland and a number of other states. But that is not the only factor at work. The affordability question is driving a lot of the closures and a lot of the reduced demand in the sector. That is something that is directly attributable to government policy and the increasing costs of child care.So there are a number of issues here and a number of developments occurring in the industry. But, as I have said, the affordability issue is at the core of a lot of the development in the industry, it is at the core of a lot of the problems of the parents, and, therefore, it is at the core of a lot of the problems for child-care centres.The report particularly recommends development of a child-care assistance supplement for low income earners. I think that is a very interesting development. The committee spent a lot of energy looking at better targeting of child-care assistance for low income families, particularly those with more than one child. The committee has recognised that the impact of the Howard government cutbacks to child care and the failure to increase assistance have impacted disproportionately on low income families and reduced their ability to afford child care. We are seeing in a whole range of areas that child-care centres seem to be closing in disadvantaged locations, far more so than they are in the more well to do suburbs.In my own state of Western Australia, I have had a recent experience with a Voogalari child-care centre in Langford, an area that is not well-to-do. That centre has been unable to get assistance under the disadvantaged area subsidy provided by the government because it is not a rural or regional centre. It is an urban centre, but it is a centre whose client base is predominantly of families with working class parents or parents who are on income support.So I think my own experience in Western Australia confirms what the committee report finds, which is that there is a real problem here about the lack of sufficiency of child-care assistance to those families in low income areas, and we are seeing that impact on child-care centres in those areas. I think the recommendations of the committee's report really do require the government to have a good look at that issue and at directing more assistance to enable child care still to be an option for low income families who need that sort of assistance.I think there is a really interesting discussion to be had, too, about the survival of the community based system of child care in this country. The report recognises the importance of the sector, it describes the damage and it provides some interesting suggestions as possible solutions.I think the really good thing about the report is that it does recognise that, on the issue of child care, there is more than market economics at stake in the community. We have to value other things. We have to give some recognition to social values in our considerations. The committee is to be commended for its recommendations that go to supporting a mixed private/community sector based model of child care in this country and for its recommendation that we ought to find new ways of supporting that community endeavour.Community sector child care provides us with social values and community infrastructure that are at the heart of healthy communities, and there has to be a role for those community based child care centres. They are under enormous pressure as a result of the abolition of operational subsidies. They are among the centres struggling to survive in those changed circumstances, and the committee recommends special support for those centres. They do not recommend reintroducing the operational subsidy, but they do recognise not only the special needs but also the role that those centres play. They recognise that that is a contribution that we as a community ought to value and support. I think that is another very encouraging part of the report.There is a very good section on out-of-school-hours care. I do not have time to discuss that at length, but I think there are very real concerns about what has happened to out-of-school-hours care and vacation care as a result of the government's cutbacks. I know from my own experience in Western Australia that large numbers of centres have closed and other centres are really struggling. This is an important area of child care that has been very badly hit by the government's policy decisions. It is an area of child care that runs on a shoestring and provides a very essential service for working parents. It is an area that we ought to be supporting. The committee report correctly identifies that that sector has been driven down and very badly affected by government policy changes.There are other issues that I want to mention just briefly. One issue is the discussion and report on the impact on women, which I mentioned before. This is a really important social issue. We have to provide support for families where both parents want to work or single parent families where that parent wants to work. It is a wasted resource if people are driven out of the work force and their skills and abilities are not used. It also denies them the proper opportunities in life that we should be allowing them. It is a very important issue.The other issue is the discussion of the impacts on child-care workers. They are a group that provides an enormous contribution to our society, are very poorly paid and have very poor conditions, and the government's policy changes have worsened their conditions quite considerably as more pressure has been put on the centres. I think the discussion in the report about the need to support those workers is a very important aspect of the report as well.18:33:001598Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—In a moment I am going to seek leave to incorporate my speech rather than take up the time of the Senate, but I will do that in the hope that I might also get leave to very briefly return to the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, so that I can present that.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, you can do that after this is disposed of.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I seek leave to incorporate my speech on this issue in Hansard . Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Child Care Funding ReportThis inquiry into child care funding, which was established to examine the impact of changes introduced by the Coalition during its first term, was a timely one.The more than one thousand submissions received by the committee and the testimony the committee heard highlighted a number of problems with the current approach to child care. It is clear to the Democrats that there is an urgent need for changes which will address the negative way the Government's current child care policies are impacting on children, parents and child care providers.The child care industry has suffered greatly and the choices available to Australia's families have been greatly reduced under the Coalition Government.Not only has the Coalition failed families, it has also failed small business.Many private and community child care centres are now experiencing very hard times. A number of centres have already closed.These problems have been caused by changes introduced in the 1996 Budget which have increased the out of pocket cost of child care services for a large number of families.These changes have resulted in a growing number of parents turning to unregulated backyard care or grandparents or friends to care for their children.Going into the 1996 election the Coalition talked a lot about its commitment to small business. In Government it has also had a lot to say about the important role this sector plays in the economy.However, this Government's so called `commitment' to small business rings very hollow in the light of the effect its child care policies are having on private child care centre operators.Over the past six months my child care adviser and I have met a number of centre owners who have had to sell their family home just to remain in business.We have met people whose marriages have broken down under the pressure of falling occupancy rates and we have met others who have been forced to seek professional help for depression.Many private centre owners have told us they are now just so desperate to cut their losses and walk away from their businesses altogether but cannot do so because child care centres are no longer saleable items.Yet this Government has largely refused to acknowledge the way its policies have affected families and child care operators.It has, instead, chosen to blame the current problems on the former Labor Government's failure to introduce appropriate planning mechanisms and the uncontrolled growth of centres which occurred as a consequence.Claims that oversupply have contributed to the current crisis in child care are, of course, supported by the Democrats.However, we are convinced that the current situation has been primarily caused by changes introduced in the 1996 Budget. Perhaps one of the most disturbing impacts of the Coalition's child care policies is the rapid growth which has occurred in unregulated backyard care.The Democrats firmly believe this practice must be stopped as soon as possible both to protect the safety of Australia's children and to ensure that there is a viable future for high-quality, formal child care in this country.At the moment those offering unregulated backyard care can register as being eligible for the Childcare Rebate. This means that parents using these services can claim Childcare Rebate to offset their fees.Yet these informal backyard carers are not subject to any character checks, safety checks or any other form of quality control.While the Government says it supports all families' child care choices, the Democrats believe it is crucial to differentiate between children who are cared for by trusted relatives or friends and those who are being cared for by carers who are completely unchecked and unregulated.We support the removal of Childcare Rebate eligibility for those providing informal, backyard child care as a priority.The Democrats recommend the following changes, which were formulated in close consultation with parents and child care operators throughout the country, to the Coalition's current childcare policies:. immediately raise the level of Childcare Assistance available to families from $2.30 to $2.70 per hour;. increase the Childcare Assistance ceiling for out of school hours care services so that it is in line with that which is paid to families using similar services through family day care;. increase the 20 hour limit on non-work related care to three full days of care;. remove the 50 hour cap on Childcare Assistance for work related care;. remove Childcare Rebate eligibility for those providing informal, unregulated backyard child care; and. continue with the current arrangements for the provision of operational subsidies for family day care services.The Democrats believe that the maintenance of proper childcare is one of the most pressing issues for families in Australia today.18:33:001599Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—In less than 10 minutes, I wish to make a few comments concerning the report of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee on child-care funding. I was the chairman of that committee, and it was a most interesting, useful and—one hopes—in the long run helpful inquiry.There is no doubt, as Senator Evans said in his comments, that the changes, alterations, cutbacks and different priorities of this government in the area of child-care funding have had significant impact in all states of Australia. There has been a shift in the marketplace. There has been a shift towards demands for a different type of child care and there has been a shift in growth patterns in the private sector as opposed to the community sector.We went on the road for some eight or nine days to all mainland states. The format of the committee was quite useful in that we had the opportunity to hear evidence from hundreds and hundreds of people in addition to the some 900 or 1,000 submissions received by the committee. The format in nearly every state was that there would be an hour-long session where parents could come along and make a short three-minute statement addressing issues or concerns arising from changes to child-care funding. Then there was another hour-long session where operators in both the community sector and the private sector came along and put their focus. This enabled the committee and all the senators participating to come to terms immediately with the real issues faced by parents of children and by the operators in the community and private sectors in this key industry.What was interesting at the outset was that there was a range of divergent and, I sadly conclude, almost irreconcilable different philosophical approaches to this whole issue of child-care funding from those who regard it purely as a labour market device to encourage females to participate in the work force to those at the other end of the spectrum who regard child raising as something purely to be done by mothers who want to stay at home and which the states should pay—apparently, large sums of money—for. In the range of community fora and discussions that were hosted by the committee there appeared to be a range of views that go right across the spectrum, and unfortunately there appeared also to be little capacity for those views to come together and concentrate on the real interests of parents and children.To that extent, when the secretariat was given the drafting instructions to bring the massive material and evidence together, the instruction was to have a bias towards low income families, families with dependent children and for the report to seek to achieve practical measures to give equity to low income families and families in disadvantaged or depressed areas. To that extent, the report accurately reflects the evidence received by the committee and the work done by the committee.There is no doubt that in the community sector and the private sector—basically an industry exclusively dominated by small business, there not yet having been a consolidation into chain operations—there is enormous commitment by the operators of those centres and enormous commitment by the parents and the workers who give their time in those centres to the children who are managed there. Chapter 3 in the report has a wealth of information in both statistical form and in an analysis by the secretariat as to child-care use in Australia, numbers of centres, numbers of parents, funds expended by government, and trends over time. For someone coming new to this area I would suggest this wealth of information can only help in the future. So that was the view that was brought by those participating in the committee.I was somewhat surprised when I read the minority report from Senators Sue Knowles and Marise Payne. I think it is fair to say that they did not bring, perhaps, the open mind to this debate on child care that might have been appropriate. I must say that during the hearings my views on the issue of child care changed quite radically, from the evidence provided by parents, child-care operators and the various submissions made, particularly by the department. The minority report by Senators Knowles and Payne, if one wanted to describe it, is a churlish minority report. It adds little value to the mass of information gained. It provides no objective analysis and to some extent provides petty and petulant comment from the government senators. I am at a loss to know why they went out of their way to provide five pages of comment along those lines.The case is similar with the report by Senator Bartlett, from the Democrats. I was surprised that he authored the report, it having been Senator Woodley from my memory who participated in the hearings, certainly in the Queensland hearings, and who was the person I had some involvement with on the committee. Senator Bartlett, apparently, has responsibility for child care in the Democrats. I pass no comment on that. The problem is that when you have someone writing a dissenting report who has not, to my knowledge, participated in the inquiry as such and heard from the hundreds of witnesses who bother to come forward, they bring their own preconceived ideas or notions to their report. To some extent it reflects inbuilt biases. That seems to be a recurring theme. I have been asked to conclude my remarks. I seek leave to continue my remarks on this report later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.1601160118:41:001601Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on matters referred to the committee during the previous parliament. I move:That the report be adopted.I note that two issues need ongoing monitoring by the committee: the incidence of Ovine Johnes disease in the Australian sheep flock and the effects of pricing and slot management arrangements at Kingsford Smith Airport.Question resolved in the affirmative.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I also seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT REFERENCES COMMITTEEReport on Matters Referred to the Committee in the Previous ParliamentThe Committee met and considered references not disposed of at the end of the 38th Parliament. It resolved to recommend to the Senate that—The following inquiries of the 38th Parliament be re-adopted:The incidence and management of Ovine Johnes disease in the Australian sheep flock (referred to the Committee on 19 November 1997)The effects of pricing and slot management arrangements at Kingsford Smith Airport on regional airlines and communities (referred to the Committee on 10 March 1998)Senator John WoodleyChairman9 December 1998Miscellaneous1601160110000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—In accordance with the decision made by the senior officers of the Department of the Senate to declare their interests on the same basis as senators, I present a copy of the Declaration of Interests lodged as at 4 December 1998.Committees16011601160110000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—A message has been received from the House of Representatives transmitting for concurrence a resolution proposing the formation of a joint select committee. Copies of the message have been circulated in the chambers.The resolution read as follows—RESOLUTION AGREED TO BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—PROPOSED JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE RETAILING SECTOR(1) That a Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector be appointed to inquire into and report on: (a) the degree of industry concentration within the retailing sector in Australia, with particular reference to the impact of that industry concentration on the ability of small independent retailers to compete fairly in the retail sector; (b) overseas developments with respect to this issue, highlighting approaches adopted in OECD economies; and (c) possible revenue-neutral courses of action by the Federal Government (ie courses of action that do not involve taxation reform).(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 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 select committee until completion of the joint committee's report.(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.(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 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.(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 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 the adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.(16) That the committee report no later that 6 months after this resolution is agreed to by both the Senate and the House of Representatives.(17) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the House of Representatives Standing Committees on Industry, Science and Technology and the Senate Economics References Committees 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.18:42:001602Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I seek leave to have the message considered immediately.Leave granted.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam President, I take a point of order. My reading of the process here is that committee memberships ought to have been dealt with before this matter. I wonder if you would review that, Madam President, and see if that is not the case.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—A message can be reported at any time, Senator.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I move:(1) That the Senate concurs with the resolution of the House of Representatives contained in message No. 50 relating to the appointment of a joint select committee with the following amendment:(1) That paragraph (2) of the resolution of the House of Representatives contained in message No. 50 relating to the proposed appointment of a joint select committee on the retailing sector be amended to provide that two senators be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one senator be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent senator or senators; and(2) A message be forwarded to the House of Representatives seeking the concurrence of the House in the variation to the resolution of appointment.18:43:001603Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The opposition will be supporting the amendment. In doing so, can I indicate to the government that we regard it as totally unsatisfactory for propositions to be moved in the other chamber concerning joint committees which involve the government determining what representation the Labor Party would have on such a committee without consultation with the opposition on this matter.It strikes me that the attitude of the Manager of Government Business in the House of Representatives is totally unacceptable in that he indicated to the Labor Party spokesman on this question that this matter was to be considered forthwith and that there would be one minute provided for the opposition to express its views on this topic. That, to us, is a situation that clearly we will not be allowing to go unreported. We would strongly oppose actions by the government to do so. We are firmly of the view that, in general principles, select committees should recognise the balance between the houses. But, more especially, we are of the view that there ought to be an acknowledgment of the due proportionality in this chamber. Any proposition that provides for the government to determine our representation without regard to those principles will be opposed by the opposition.Question resolved in the affirmative.1603160310000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The Senate yesterday passed a motion appointing senators to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Senators Bourne and Margetts, having nominated in accordance with the requirements of the resolution of appointment of the committee, were appointed to the two positions for senators nominated by minority parties and Independents. However, a third nomination, that of Senator Harradine, which had been received on 9 November 1998, was overlooked when the documentation for the chamber was being prepared. Because of this, the two appointments made yesterday are not effective. A ballot will therefore need to be held to determine which two of the three senators who have nominated are to be appointed to the positions for minority parties and Independents.18:45:001603Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I seek leave to make a very brief statement before seeking leave to move a motion in relation to the appointment of members to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.Leave granted.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Senator Carr talked about lack of consultation. Well, this was a doozey. I would seek to sort out the problem in relation to the continued work that has been done by the Democrats, Senator Harradine and me on the joint standing committee. There has been no change to the Senate numbers in relation to elections. I will be seeking to make a very reasonable amendment to allow for there to be three senators appointed to the committee on the nomination of any minority parties and Independent senators, with this position expiring on 30 June 1999. Of course, we will have a different Senate then, and we should be considering the different numerical make-up of the Senate at that stage. I think it is reasonable. It solves the problems that I think have resulted. Therefore, I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the appointment of members to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.Leave granted.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I move:That:(1) The resolution of appointment of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be varied to provide that, until the expiration of 30 June 1999, three senators be appointed to the committee on the nomination of any minority parties and independent senators; (2) A message be forwarded to the House of Representatives seeking the concurrence of the House on this variation to the resolution of appointment; and(3) Contingent on the House of Representatives agreeing to the variation to the resolution of appointment, Senator Harradine be appointed to the committee. Question put: That the motion be agreed to.18:52:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)10Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V.* Brown, B.Harradine, B. Lees, M. H.Margetts, D. Murray, A.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.61Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Lundy, K.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Minchin, N. H. Murphy, S. M.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.*O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted for this matter to be resolved before putting the question of the adjournment? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Before proceeding to a ballot, the bells will be rung for four minutes.The bells having been rung—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The Senate will now proceed to a ballot. There are three nominations for the two available positions. The candidates for the positions are Senator Bourne, Senator Harradine and Senator Margetts. Ballot papers will be distributed to honourable senators, who are requested to vote for two candidates by striking out the name of the candidate they do not wish to vote for.The ballot papers having been distributed—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Has every senator voted? The clerks will now collect the ballot papers. I invite Senator Calvert and Senator O'Brien to act as scrutineers.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Can we have another ballot paper?WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—In my eagerness to conclude this matter, I crossed out Senator Bourne and Senator Margetts instead of crossing out one, because I know that is going to be the result and I just want to get to it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator McGauran, if you return your spoiled paper to the desk, you will be given another paper.The ballot having been taken—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The result of the ballot is as follows: Senator Bourne, 73 votes; Senator Harradine, 65 votes; and Senator Margetts, 10 votes. Senator Bourne and Senator Harradine are, therefore, elected as members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, nominated by the minority parties and Independents.Adjournment1604Motion (by Senator Tambling) proposed:That the Senate do now adjourn. 160519:19:001605Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—This evening I would like to speak about a matter that is of interest to my constituents in the Northern Territory and probably to many other Australians. That issue is the recent failed referendum relating to the proposal for statehood in the Northern Territory. This is an interesting and informative story that illustrates the attitude of the government in the Northern Territory. It was not that long ago that public opinion polls showed public support for Northern Territory statehood running at about 80 per cent. However, when the statehood referendum was held recently, nearly 53 per cent of Territorians voted against statehood. That is a remarkable and disturbing turnaround in public support over a relatively short time.Today I want to put on the public record what happened with that push for statehood, identify where the push for statehood went wrong and look at who is to blame for this unexpected and unprecedented result. Since the Northern Territory was granted self-government in 1978, talk about statehood has never been far off the local political agenda. It has waxed and waned depending on how close the Territory was to either a federal or Territory election.In 1985, a bipartisan committee of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly was established to look at the issue of statehood for the Territory and how best to pursue it. Over the last decade or so, this committee, the Sessional Committee on Constitutional Development, has been active in consulting the wider community about what would be included in any new constitution if statehood were granted.In 1986, a three-pronged process of constitution building was adopted by the Country Liberal Party, led by the then Chief Minister, Steve Hatton. This process included the development of a draft constitution by a bipartisan committee of the Legislative Assembly, the consideration of that document by a constitutional convention and ratification by the Legislative Assembly with its submission for approval to a referendum. The committee presented its final report in November 1996.It should be pointed out that the CLP member and former Chief Minister Steve Hatton, who has overseen the Territory's development towards statehood as head of the Sessional Committee on Constitutional Development, embraced the idea of an elected people's convention and an inclusive process. However, as we will see, these concepts were not in keeping with the desire of the current Chief Minister, Shane Stone, to push statehood through with what many people have described as almost indecent haste.In April 1995, the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, agreed to the establishment of a joint Commonwealth-Northern Territory working group to examine and report on the implications of statehood for the Northern Territory. It is fair to say that the push for statehood received further impetus when the federal parliament decided to overrule the Northern Territory's euthanasia legislation. This reminded many Territorians that they did not enjoy the same level of rights as the states.A constitutional convention was held in Darwin in late March this year to consider the final draft constitution which would give shape to any new state created by the granting of statehood. The convention got off to a controversial start. None of the 54 delegates for the constitutional convention were directly or popularly elected. Instead, the Northern Territory government hand-picked them. It is true to say that particular people representing particular community groups were elected, but those community groups were chosen by the Northern Territory government.Aboriginal Territorians were also unhappy with the constitutional convention. The Northern and Central Land Councils boycotted the convention, angry at the lack of representation offered to them at the convention by the CLP government. They argued—quite correctly, I think—that as they represented over 65,000 people they deserved more than one place between two councils.The CLP government managed to push through their preferred constitution, overlooking many of the recommendations arising from the Sessional Committee on Constitu tional Development's lengthy process of community consultation. Another outcome was that the convention recommended three referendum questions. These questions were: whether people supported statehood, what the new name of the state should be and whether people supported the draft constitution. However, on 18 August this year, the Chief Minister, Shane Stone, rejected that proposal for three referendum questions, announcing that it had been decided that only one question should be submitted to voters in the referendum. That question, which was subsequently put to voters on 3 October, was:Now that a constitution for a State of the Northern Territory has been recommended by the Statehood Convention and endorsed by the Northern Territory Parliament:- Do you agree that we should become a state? Yes/No.In what was considered to be a shock result, nearly 53 per cent of Territorians voted against the statehood proposal. But statehood should have been assured. It had bipartisan support from both the CLP and the ALP in the Northern Territory. However, the ALP support was qualified. The Territory ALP was unhappy with the way the CLP had tried to hijack the statehood process for their own political objectives. Anyone who questioned any aspect of the statehood process was dismissed by the arrogant CLP as being anti-Territorian. The oldest trick in the book up in the Territory is that, if anyone questions the way you are doing something, you label them as being anti-Territorian—something akin to being accused of heresy.In response to public concerns about the proposed draft constitution in the lead-up to the statehood referendum, Chief Minister Shane Stone, at his dismissive best, said that if people did not like the draft constitution then they should simply vote against statehood—the implication being that they would be committing a treasonable act. However, many people on both sides of the political fence took the Chief Minister at his word, announcing that they would be voting against statehood, not because they were opposed to statehood but because they were not happy about the contents of the draft constitution or because they were not sure what was contained in the constitution and what it meant.Territorians were given the opportunity to closely examine the draft constitution only a few weeks before the referendum. Then, in what was a massive turnaround, the Chief Minister changed tack and said that if people did not like the draft constitution they should not vote against statehood. He said there would be plenty of opportunities for further consultation about the content of the constitution after the referendum on statehood. The referendum was no longer about the constitution; it was solely about statehood.He did not really give people much choice. He said, `Trust me. Vote for statehood and I will take into account your concerns about the constitution after the referendum'—after Territorians had voted on statehood. He was hoping, I suspect, that Territorians would give their imprimatur to statehood while not supporting the draft constitution. However, as we have seen, the majority of Territorians—prompted, I think, by the experiences of many Territorians on both sides of the political fence—realised that trusting the Chief Minister was a precarious exercise and subsequently voted against statehood.In short, a referendum on statehood, which should have breezed through, which should have collected up a celebration of people in the Northern Territory and which should have been a step in the history of the Northern Territory, was defeated—not because the overwhelming majority of Territorians were opposed to statehood but because they did not trust the process. They did not trust what they were being asked to do. And who can blame them? It should be pointed out that there was no constitutional necessity for a referendum on statehood and, under section 121 of the Australian Constitution, the federal parliament has the power to establish a new state.In another classic display of bad faith, the Territory parliament refused to fund both the `yes' and `no' cases for the referendum. While it is perhaps true that they were not obliged to fund both sides, it showed a lack of goodwill in funding only the `yes' case. The amount spent on the `yes' case was substantial: $600,000 was spent on advertising and another $160,000 was spent by the Territory electoral commission on distributing the official `yes' case. It was left to a coalition of concerned groups, under the auspices of Territorians for Democratic Statehood, to draw the attention of Territorians to the failings and inadequacies of the argument in favour of statehood. They did this with minimal resources. I think they spent around $7,000 and presented their arguments very well.What lessons have we learned from the statehood debacle? I do not believe that the referendum result reflected people's actual feelings on statehood. People were clearly unhappy with the way the statehood process was undertaken, and they were not happy with the man attempting to crash statehood through.Last week in Batchelor, over 120 indigenous delegates from the Territory were meeting to discuss what they wanted to include in any constitution to accompany statehood, and the conclusions from the Batchelor College conference are on the public record. I was disturbed to hear that the Chief Minister was invited to attend that constitutional convention and clearly did not bother to do so.In concluding, the statehood process must be inclusive in the Territory. Territorians want an opportunity to have a constitutional convention with democratically elected representatives. They want a constitution which ensures accountable government in the Territory and they want a constitution which accurately reflects their inspirations and protects their interests. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my speech in Hansard.Leave granted.The document read as follows—Likewise, Aboriginal Territorians want a constitution which protects their cultural, political, religious and social rights.When these things are addressed I am confident that Territorians will be overwhelmingly supportive of statehood and I would hope that the Australian parliament would then support the Northern Territory becoming the seventh state of Australia. 160719:29:001607Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—With your indulgence, Madam President, as a brief synopsis, I would like to continue where I left off on Monday night with respect to the Federal Court judgment by Justice Malcolm Lee, which in effect gave 7,199 square kilometres of land to the 28 claimants who were listed in that judgment. I want to make sure that my fellow Australians are aware of the serious ramifications that that judgment had—not just for my state of Western Australia but for the nation of Australia as a whole. Unless it is handled very succinctly and with immense circumspection, I fear that that one single judgment—the first made by a court in Australia—will have serious ramifications for Australia both economically and socially.The land that was granted covers an area, as I said, of over 7,000 square kilometres in the Kununurra region of the East Kimberley and extends into the Northern Territory. It includes freehold land, Lake Argyle, historic and other pastoral leases, vacant crown land, the Ord River, the Kununurra town site itself and various reserves and special leases. In his judgment, Justice Lee said that it did, inter alia, cover:. . . a right to make decisions about the use and enjoyment of the determination area; . . . a right to control the access of others to the determination area; a right to use and enjoy resources of the determination area; a right to control the use and enjoyment of others of resources of the determination area; . . . a right to receive a portion of any resources taken by others from the determination area.This will not be the first of what is going to happen in Western Australia, which is of vital concern to me and, as a result, to the nation. In 1901, Australia became an indissoluble federation of states, but it appears that it is not completely indissoluble because parts now are being taken out of it—50 per cent or more of the Northern Territory, for instance, is controlled by indigenous people.Western Australia also has areas that are controlled by indigenous people for their exclusive use. The Pitjantjatjara people in the central part of Australia also have exclusive use of an area of land that is the size of France, and one needs to have a permit to get through that area unless one is driving on the roads. It is of vital concern to me that a nation that has had no boundaries in common with anyone else other than Australians is being carved up in the form of apartheid, if you like, in reverse.Japan has its aboriginal people in the form of the Ainu, who reside solely now in the northern part of Hokkaido, which is itself the northernmost main island of the Japanese archipelago. India has its people, the Dravidians, who never had any land rights there, in the southern part of India. There are little or no land rights in South America. South Africa had its Hottentots, who are extinct in their pure form but who are reflected in many of the Cape coloureds, who make a wonderful contribution both to their cultural remnants as well as to their hard work and ingenuity in that country. The bushmen of South Africa are a credit to their survival. Against all sorts of odds they have survived in small pockets of what was formerly South-West Africa.I think that the problems we are facing now are minuscule compared with what they will be in the future. Australia relies on exports for its survival. The mining industry—in which I have spent a great deal of my life after having studied geology in Kalgoorlie and worked in the exploration and mining industry—exports last fiscal year were worth $40.8 billion. A great deal of that came from Western Australia. It contributed in direct taxes $1.2 billion. It contributed in indirect taxes in excess of a further half a billion dollars. This fiscal year, 1997-98, for the first time in 50 years there was a retreat of seven per cent in the amount of money that was spent on exploration. We are, in effect, living off yesterday's discoveries. The health of Western Australia is the health of the nation.As I said in my speech on Monday night, Western Australia produces 27½ per cent of national export income. We are being thwarted as a result of the decision by the Federal Court two weeks ago of having mineral rights now that are naturally reserved for the Crown. The 38 per cent of Western Australia which is pastoral lease is crown land for the purpose of the WA Mining Act—not so native title. Native title today includes the minerals. So, with a wave of his judicial wand, Justice Lee has created, I suppose, a hunter-gatherer people into miners, tourist operators and so on. That is causing, and will cause, immense disruption to established industries wherever native title is imposed.I have a duty, as every member in this House has a duty, to scrutinise any decisions made by any court. I find that the decision made by Justice Lee is detrimental to Western Australia, and I know it is because I have been in consultation with the Western Australian Farmers Federation, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association—and I have been a member of some of those organisations for many years. They are fearful about this precedent set by the Federal Court.No judge, in my humble opinion—as the Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell said in the first part of the 17th century—is above the law; no-one is as tall as that. Judges themselves cannot be above criticism. They interpret the law, and some people have said in recent times they are making the law. They cannot be above criticism. I do not propose to be silent, and nor will I be silent, on matters that affect my state of Western Australia.We are yet to define native title unambiguously. I am not sure what native title is. I do know it is better than fee simple. I do know it is better than perpetual leases. I do know it is better than conditional purchase. I do know it is better than pastoral leases. It is a title that appears to me to be something akin to the old English titles where, in theory, you had a plot of land on a surface area that extended in a wedge to the centre of the earth and you had that which covered the birds of the air as well. That is what appears to me to be native title.What I do know is that you need a permit to get into these places. We now have frontiers in Australia where you need a permit to enter—or you can call it a visa, if you like. I have had to apply for visas myself, even as a member of parliament, to get into those lands. I am seriously disturbed about the ramifica tions this will have and is having on pastoral families, some of whom have been there for five generations. I am seriously concerned about that.I have said that I have a profound duty to my state of Western Australia and I take representing that state here very seriously. Unless some legal sanity prevails in this most vexing period of our national evolvement, we will witness not only an economic downturn but also the division of Australia—apartheid in reverse, as I have mentioned—and all of those social and other aspects of it that would create upheavals we have never had before. I ask my colleagues to take serious note of the judgment that Justice Malcolm Lee made two weeks ago in the Federal Court and how it affects our state of Western Australia and thus the rest of the nation.160919:39:001609Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—It seems like One Nation got into the Senate before it got here, judging from that diatribe we just heard from the honourable senator opposite who referred to cultural remnants. I hope that speech is an expression of a cultural remnant in this country. The senator did not even understand that it is not up to the courts to grant things; it is up to the courts to interpret the law made by the parliament. That is what His Honour Justice Lee did in the Federal Court, and I would have thought it would have been far more dignified of the senator to come in here and back the right of the judge to make that determination according to the law.I might also say to Senator Lightfoot—through you, Madam President—that when entering Tasmania the situation is worse, because you do not need just a visa or entry permit. You have to get a key to enter indigenous lands in Tasmania, but you do not go to the indigenous Tasmanians to get it—you go to the woodchip corporations. They determine whether or not you can get a key to go into large areas of Tasmania which they have locked up. They determine what time you can come out and so on.What we have seen in this country is a move away from the rights of indigenous people to the superseding rights of corporate nonentities—faceless people in the corporate sector ruling over who can and who cannot go here and there. Try to go into the Jabiluka valley at the moment and see what ERA confronts you with—and that is indigenous land. The senator who just spoke does not understand that, right around this planet, the time-honoured right of indigenous people to their land has been usurped by the sheer power of the corporate sector over successive governments. They have taken away the rights of the older owners, supplanted themselves in there and are determining what happens to too much of this magnificent country of ours.I want to speak about governments, because one of the most difficult things for us to tackle in the coming years will be our relationship with the people of East Timor. It is very difficult to talk about this matter as a member of parliament without implying that, in some way or other, it is a criticism of this country of ours. I want to make it clear from the outset that the criticism goes to the governments of this country, rather than the people of this country, and there is a very important distinction to be made there.This afternoon the government voted in the Senate with Senator Colston to turn down a motion I put forward which called on the government to offer whatever help it could to the Habibie administration in Indonesia in its investigation into the wealth of President Suharto et al. So we see the latest episode in a failure of responsibility by our government to look over the fence in a way which is constructive to our neighbours—by that, I mean the people of Indonesia rather than the government of Indonesia.I want to refer this evening to one Australian who has faithfully documented the plight of East Timor and sought to confront what he calls Australia's culpability in the East Timor genocide—that is Jim Aubrey, the executive spokesman of Australians for a Free East Timor. I want to quote from his book Free East Timor and an essay he more recently prepared for Geneva. In his book Free East Timor are these words:The depth of the Australian Government's acquiescence to and appeasement of Jakarta's intentions, and Canberra's accommodation of the Indonesian regime's crimes against humanity, begin in full earnest with the murder, on 16 October 1975, of five Australian and Australian-based television journalists. Having gone to East Timor to find out the truth behind the accusations concerning Indonesian plans to invade East Timor, they were brutally murdered by Indonesian soldiers, whom it appears had crossed the border with the singular purpose of eliminating the newsmen. Canberra's reaction was not only silence but, as well, an unquestioning and subservient acceptance of Jakarta's explanation that the newsmen had died in cross-fire during a battle with East Timorese soldiers. Canberra—meaning the Australian government of the day—displayed a greater common allegiance with the criminal murderers than with its own murdered citizens, and Indonesia readily saw that it could act in East Timor with impunity. On the fate of the journalists, eyewitness testimonies now in existence totally contradict the Canberra-Jakarta `cross-fire theory', rejecting the suggestion that any fighting took place on the morning of the murders.Mr Aubrey went on to say:On 7 December Indonesia invaded East Timor and two months after the invasion, 60,000 East Timorese had perished—the same number of East Timorese that are believed to have died in Australia's war against Japan in the 1940s.On the opening days of the invasion, several hundred civilian men, women and children, including another Australian journalist, were shot, one by one, on the wharf in Dili harbour. One eye witness reported that `the Indonesians tore the crying children from their mothers and passed them back to the crowd. The women were shot one by one, with the onlookers being ordered by the Indonesians to count.Australia signed an exploration agreement with Indonesia in 1989 to exploit the billion dollar oil and gas field of the East Timor Gap. By this time well over one-third of the East Timorese population had perished under the Indonesian occupation. That amounts to more than a quarter of a million people. For his part, Mr Whitlam went uninvited in 1983 to the United Nations in an attempt to persuade the general assembly to drop East Timor from its agenda. He was not successful and to this day he remains recalcitrant to the extreme about being unable to condemn the indiscriminate violence against the civilian population of East Timor. Mr Aubrey states:The position of each of the successive Australian Governments is more than criminal negligence. It is direct complicity in genocide. Consecutive Australian governments have perpetuated their compliant mimicry to the physical, cultural and ethnic genocide in East Timor. The successor to Gough Whitlam, conservative Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, made Australia the first Western country to grant recognition to the annexation of East Timor, which was further supported and clarified by Fraser's successor, Labor leader Bob Hawke. The next Prime Minister, new Labor leader Paul Keating, expressly went to Washington in September 1993, at a time when American human rights endeavours were being finetuned, with the result that a number of restrictions were placed upon defence sales and defence training to Jakarta. Mr Keating urged President Clinton to withdraw human rights considerations from underpinning economic and defence contracts. In 1995, the Keating Government awarded the Order of Australia to the Indonesian Foreign Affairs Minister, Ali Alatas, at a time when many countries in the world were giving peace awards to Bishop Belo and Jose Ramos Horta.We then read at the end of this book a quote from Greg Shackleton, who was one of the Channel 7 crew from Melbourne killed in October 1975. In his last on-camera report, he said, in part:. . . Something happened here that moved us very deeply. It was so far outside our experience as Australians that we'll find it very difficult to convey to you, but we'll try.Sitting on woven mats, under a thatched roof, in a hut with no walls, we were the target of a barrage of questioning from men who know they may die tomorrow and cannot understand why the rest of the world does not care. That's all they want: for the United Nations to care about what is happening here. The emotion here last night was so strong that we, all three of us, felt we should be able to reach out into the warm night air and touch it.It was an appeal to Australia that went unheard. The death of Mr Shackleton and his fellow crew members on the subsequent day was a murder which has gone unanalysed and unpunished. I want to add a quote which Mr Aubrey draws attention to from Xanana Gusmao, the East Timorese resistance leader still in gaol in Jakarta. He said in 1990:We have to say that Australia has taken an attitude of an accomplice in the genocide perpetrated by the occupation forces. I hope that in the coming year the inquiries which have been established in this place will do something not only to redress the unspeakable wrongs that have occurred to our East Timorese neighbour but also to in some way assuage the complicity of successive Australian governments in what has happened.161119:49:001611McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—This evening I wish to address the revolution that is happening on Australia's waterfront—in particular the Melbourne waterfront, where the Senate will recall the tumultuous union strike which occurred last April. It is fair to say that industrial warfare broke out at this time as Patrick Stevedoring, backed by the government and aligned with P&C Stevedores, took on the Maritime Union of Australia to bring about desperately needed reforms to productivity.It is worthy to note the state of Australia's wharves prior to the strike. To this end, I refer to a speech I made on 26 October 1997 outlining the inefficiencies of Australia's waterfront. Firstly, our crane rates were some of the worst in the world, with a five port average of 18 containers per hour. Secondly, there were truck turnaround times averaging 1.5 hours; again, this was one of the worst, compared with the best practice times of 30 minutes. Thirdly, rorts were occurring in actual hours worked, such as the notorious `nick', meaning that you went home early—you nicked off. There was payment for 22 hours on a Sunday for 4.5 hours of work. Fourthly, the industrial action on the waterfront was 10 times higher than that of any other industry in Australia. That was one of the worst, if not the worst, rates in the world.Each productivity benchmark was supported by a number of inquiries undertaken either by the government's Productivity Commission or independent sources. There was no avoiding the facts. We had the worst wharves in the world and something had to be done. The level of performance at Australia's container terminals is particularly vital to Australia's agricultural traders, with containerised cargo representing 66 per cent of the value of Australia's seagoing imports and 40 per cent of the total value of exports. In 1995-96 some $62 billion of cargo was shipped in containers.The task the government had to undertake was never going to be easy, given the entrenched interests and historical resistance of the Maritime Workers Union. Nevertheless, the government's open objectives were to meet seven benchmarks for reform: firstly, an end to over-manning and restrictive work practices; secondly, higher productivity through 25 crane lifts per hour; thirdly, greater reliability through less industrial disruption and less interruption through elimination of restrictive work practices; fourthly, substantial improvements in the industry's appalling occupational health and safety performance; fifthly, lower costs through the ports logistic chain; sixthly, introduction of new technology; and, seventhly, training.These benchmarks were backed up by the government's industrial legislation, particularly the re-introduction of the secondary boycott law. I do not wish to trawl over the events of the dispute that consequently broke out. We recall the players. They were the National Farmers Federation's P&C Stevedores, Patricks, the MUA and the government. Of course, we recall the vitriol and the threats and lies that flew from the union. Australia caught international attention at this time with pictures of workers being dragged from picket lines, children being used as front-line strikers and balaclavaed security men, none of it doing Australia's international reputation any favours. Such was the price that all parties were willing to pay to win.Enough time has elapsed to assess the results of the agreement reached between Patricks and the MUA that saw the dispute end and the MUA return to work. What has emerged is a remarkable improvement on the docks. First, turnaround times for trucks in Melbourne are now only 20 minutes, which is as low as they get anywhere in the world. Second, Patricks has reduced manning levels by 50 per cent. Third, there have been more than 100 changes to work practices and conditions and the legendary rorts. Fourth, an 800-page agreement has been reduced to 36 pages. Fifth, a number of tasks have been outsourced, such as the maintenance of plant and equipment. Sixth, where there was great criticism of wharfies earning as much as $80,000 and up to $100,000 per year for very little effort, the same money is being earned but only if high product rates are maintained. Seventh, and most importantly, the average crane rate is 26 containers lifted per hour. In fact, frequently at the Melbourne docks crane rates have exceeded this figure, with a record 35 container movements per hour being noted. An obvious consequence of this improved container rate is improved ship turnaround times.This is the success achieved by Patricks and backed by the government in the form of meeting redundancy packages. The Australian wharves are, at this rate, becoming world class. The other major stevedoring operation, P&O Ports, is currently in discussions with the MUA, aiming to achieve similar improvements. Obviously it is taking advantage of the path blazed by Patricks. Nevertheless, the government has indicated to P&O Ports that it will not support any redundancy packages unless its seven stated benchmark reforms are met.More crucial reform is needed. Given that two major stevedoring companies handle 95 per cent of containerised trade, greater competition in this area needs to be introduced. It would be in the national interest for the government to support new entrants otherwise the major cost savings achieved by the stevedoring companies are unlikely to be passed on, at least in full, to the customer.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Hear, hear!WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—After all, savings to our exporters has always been the main motivation behind the government's involving itself in waterfront reform. It is why the NFF also became involved. As a National Party senator—my colleague Senator O'Chee is also in the chamber—I am only too keen to see some of these savings go straight to the farm gate. The greater profit margin that would be achieved by farmers from these reforms going to the farm gate would have a cascading effect on their local region. There are several means by which a government may support the entry of a major player or support an existing operation. However, we need a three- or even four-pillar policy on our wharves to bring to fruition our intent to bring the wharves to the level of world's best practice.161219:56:001612Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I rise this evening, one of the closing days of parliament for 1998, to take the opportunity of saying a few words about the nation's capital, Canberra. Even though Canberra obviously is my home, as the elected representative in this place along with the President, Senator Reid, I watch with interest the range of attitudes expressed by federal parliamentarians about this city. I suppose I find myself this evening bemused with a number of pieces of correspondence I have received over the last few days; they, more than anything else, highlight the damage that has been done to Canberra under a coalition government.This issue is a difficult one to raise, because here in opposition we are forever accused of talking down the Canberra economy, talking down what this place has to offer. But, contrary to that, our advocacy fought on behalf of the people of Canberra is aimed at bringing to the attention of the government the structural damage it has done to this place through both its changes in approach to the public sector and the ignorance with which it approaches the relationship between the public and private sectors in the regional economy.These two issues, more than anything else, come to the fore in the campaign that has been embarked upon—a campaign being waged in conjunction with the ACT government and, I know, supported by the federal government. Letters have been distributed to federal members of parliament; the new minister for territories responsible for this city is writing to me as a local resident—and I presume to every other federal parliamentarian—asking me to take a closer look at Canberra and what a wonderful place it is.Obviously I do not have a lot of time to spend on this issue tonight, as time is nearly out. But the point I want to make is: why letters? They do not come in place of decisive action and the reversing of some of the harsher impacts of the cuts to the public sector and the unanalysed effects they have had on our private sector.We know that pressures on charities in this town have increased, and we know that jobs have declined. We know that job security is under threat, and we know that thousands of families have run away. So my message to the government is this: deal not with this issue through mere letters, but take stock of the substance of your policies.19:59:001613Senate adjourned at 7.59 p.m.Documents16131613The following government documents were tabled:Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act—Anglo-Australian Telescope Board—Anglo-Australian Observatory—Report for 1997-98.Australian Securities Commission Act—Reports for 1997-98— Australian Accounting Standards Board. Corporations and Securities Panel.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Reports for 1997-98— Australian Law Reform Commission (Report No. 86). Companies and Securities Advisory Committee. Landcare Australia LimitedDepartment of Defence—Special purpose flights—Schedule for the period 2 January to 29 June 1998—Erratum.Employment, Education and Training Act—National Board of Employment, Education andTraining, Australian Research Council [and] Higher Education Council—Reports for 1997-98.International Labour Organisation— Australia's submission reports on International Labour Organisation (ILO) maritime instruments adopted in 1996. Conventions— No. 178—Inspection of seafarers' working and living conditions. No. 179—Recruitment and placement of seafarers. No. 180—Seafarers' hours of work and the manning of ships. Recommendations— No. 185—Inspection of seafarers' working and living conditions. No. 186—Recruitment and placement of seafarers. No. 187—Seafarers' wages and hours of work and the manning of ships.Protocol of 1996 to the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention 1976.Murray-Darling Basin Act—Murray-Darling Basin Commission—Report for 1997-98.National Residue Survey Administration Act—National Residue Survey—Report for 1997-98.Telecommunications Act 1997—Digital data inquiry— Ministerial statement by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston), December 1998. Report, August 1997.1613The following document was tabled by the Clerk:Federal Court of Australia Act—Rules of court—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 323.