1998-12-103911SENATE161501998-12-10The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.161510001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:1615162VJ4Watson Sen JohnTo 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 WatsonVJ4Senator Watson(from 162 citizens)161526875K4Faulkner Sen JohnThe petition of the undersigned shows that citizens are aggrieved by the unfair nature of the amendments to the Sales Tax Legislation 1992 which introduced and continues to have a discriminatory and disadvantageous impact on the Greyhound Racing Industry in both rural and metropolitan Australia.The amended legislation removed the exemption from sales tax on food for greyhounds, a working animal purpose bred for racing, but maintained an exemption for sales tax on food for other racing animals.Your petitioners request that the Senate amend sales tax legislation to reinstate sales tax exemption on animal food given to greyhound breeders and trainers prior to 1992. This action would re-establish the parity with other sections of the racing industry who have exemptions, or in the alternative, we request an amendment to allow the same exemptions given in other similar circumstances by redefining `Livestock' under the Act to include greyhounds (or racing animals) or else include greyhounds in the special classification for working dogs.Senator Faulkner5K4Senator Faulkner(from 2,687 citizens)1615502DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in the Parliament.The Petition of the undersigned draws attention to the potentially damaging affects of National Competition Policy on small business such as newsagents.Your petitioners ask the Senate in Parliament to call on the federal government to review the decisions of the Australian Consumer and Competition Tribunal which threaten the viability of newsagents and introduce legislation to override these decisions and preserve the current system of distribution for magazines and newspapers through Australian newsagents.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 502 citizens)Petitions received.Miscellaneous16151615The following notices were given:Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matters be referred to the Procedure Committee for examination and report:(a) whether the giving of notices of motion is being abused through the large number of general business notices being given on broadcast days, many of them of a repetitive nature;(b) whether the standing orders should be amended to provide that general business notices should be given by handing them to the Clerk, instead of announcing them in the chamber;(c) whether senators should be limited to giving no more than one general business notice on a sitting day;(d) whether the original purpose of discovery of formal business is being met; and(e) any other issues relating to the giving of notices and the discovery of formal business which would result in a more effective use of the time of the chamber.Senator Reynolds to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate— (a) notes that 10 December 1998 is the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;(b) gives its wholehearted commitment to working across party lines to implement policies which respect the human rights of all Australians;(c) undertakes to pursue all efforts within the framework of the United Nations to protect the human rights of all humanity; and(d) requests the Government to report to the Senate on its program for implementing a national human rights education program during the United Nations Decade of Human Rights Education.Senator Bartlett to move, six sitting days after today:That the Migration Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 8), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 285 and made under the Migration Act 1958 , be disallowed.Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Bolkus, to move, 12 sitting days after today:That the Regional Council Election Amendment Rules (No. 2) 1998, made under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 , be disallowed.Senator Murray to move, on the next day of sitting:(1) That the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector be varied as follows: (a) paragraph (1)(a), after "small", insert "and"; (b) after paragraph (1)(a), insert: (aa) the social and community impact of retail industry concentration, particularly on rural and regional communities; (ab) the impact of retail industry concentration on suppliers and primary producers; and (c) at the end of paragraph (1), add: ; and (d) such other matters as the committee considers appropriate.(2) That a message be forwarded to the House of Representatives seeking the concurrence of the House in this variation to the resolution of appointment.Senator Denman to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights was signed 50 years ago, on 10 December 1948, in Paris, (ii) the declaration ensures freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, (iii) the declaration is the foundational document for international human rights conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and (iv) Australia's adoption of the declaration has led to domestic legislation such as the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 , the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 ; and(b) congratulates Mr Paul Bini for organising a forum in Burnie, Tasmania, to celebrate the 50th anniversary at which Mr Russell Paterson spoke on employment as a human right and Ms Gwynn MacCarrick spoke on the War Crimes Tribunal.Senator Bartlett to move, six sitting days after today:That the Migration Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 11), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 306 and made under the Migration Act 1958 , be disallowed.Senator Tierney to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) commends the Federal Government on its $17.5 million National School Drug Education strategy released in the week beginning 6 December 1998;(b) notes that: (i) the strategy is designed to rid primary and high schools of drugs and to educate Australia's children about the danger of drugs, and (ii) this initiative will make funding available for schools and communities to develop anti-drug strategies including prevention strategies and educational programs for teachers and students; and(c) congratulates the Federal Government on this latest step in its `tough on drugs' strategy, which is fighting the illegal drug menace.Senator Denman to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) congratulates the Tasmania Parliament for passing its anti-discrimination bill;(b) acknowledges the courageous work of Rodney Croome and Nick Toonen in their contribution to the lobbying for this legislation; and(c) congratulates the Labour Government for its support of this legislation for more than two decades.Business16171617Motions (by Senator Bourne, at the request of Senator Murray and Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notices of motion Nos 61 and 63, standing in the name of Australian Democrats senators for today, relating to drug use by young people, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1617Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notices of motion No. 69 (relating to the national competition policy) and No. 86 (reappointment of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy) standing in her name for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1617Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That general business notices of motion No. 96 (relating to the Jabiluka uranium mine) and Nos 98 and 99 (Ranger uranium mine) standing in her name for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1617Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to:That general business notices of motion No. 90 (relating to indigenous people), No. 95 (Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation) and No. 97 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) standing in his name for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting. 1617Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—proposed:That the following government business orders be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2.00 p.m. this day:No. 4— Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998No. 2— Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1998 —second reading speeches only.09:39:001617Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I remind the chamber that at 12.30 p.m., the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is being acknowledged and recognised. I for one want to be there, and a large number of honourable senators would want to be there for that particular occasion. I wondered whether something could be slotted in at 12.30 p.m. because of this important event. It comes only once every 50 years, and I thought perhaps we could—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I am not quite sure what you mean by `slot something in'.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Slot in some non-controversial matter at that particular time.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—We can look at that.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, perhaps that is a matter that the managers can discuss, taking into account the points you have raised.Question resolved in the affirmative.1617Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notices of motion No. 78 (relating to the Prime Minister and Senator Colston) and No. 82 (Community Education and Information Program) standing in his name for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1617Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request of Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 93 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to the internet, be postponed till the next day of sitting. 1618Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Murphy) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 5 standing in the name of Senator Murphy for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1618Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—as amended, by leave—proposed:That—(1) On Thursday, 10 December 1998— (a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm, 7.30 pm to midnight; (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 till the adjournment shall be government business only; (d) divisions may take place after 6.00 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 two associated bills, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 and two associated bills, and the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1998, or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister. (f) if the Senate is sitting at midnight, the sitting of the Senate be suspended till 9.30 am on Friday, 11 December 1998.(2) On Friday, 11 December 1998: (a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 12 noon, 1.00 pm to 6.30 pm, 7.30 pm to midnight; and (b) if the Senate is sitting at midnight, the sitting of the Senate be suspended till 9.30 am on Saturday, 12 December 1998.(3) On Saturday, 12 December 1998: (a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 12 noon, 1.00 pm to 6.30 pm, 7.30 pm to midnight; and (b) if the Senate is sitting at midnight, the sitting of the Senate be suspended till 9.30 am on Monday, 14 December 1998.09:43:001618Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—I have no objections and I think the terms of this motion that have been redrawn by the Manager of Government Business are reasonable. I think the point that the opposition has made in negotiation with the government in relation to the hours of meeting and the routine of business in the Senate for tonight is this: if the Senate is close to completing its work around midnight, then, as far as the opposition is concerned, we would certainly look favourably at the Senate continuing its deliberations until that work is completed.This particular motion, of course, does not allow for that to occur. I think it is reasonable for me to say that, if that is the case and we can conclude our work in a reasonable hour after midnight—it may be the view of minor parties and other Independents; I do not know—as far as the opposition is concerned, I say this to the Manager of Government Business: we would look favourably at trying to facilitate the Senate's business in that way. It is difficult to make that assessment at 9.43 a.m., but obviously managers and whips can discuss this at a later stage. It might mean that, if that finds favour with the government and the minor parties and Senator Harradine, we can deal with the government's business program in that way.Question resolved in the affirmative.1618Motion (by Senator Mackay) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in her name for today, relating to the disallowance of the Civil Aviation Regulations (Amendment) contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 234, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous1618Motion (by Senator Bourne)—as amended, by leave—agreed to:That the Senate, recalling that 10 December 1998 is the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the General Assembly of the United Nations:(a) reaffirms the deep and enduring commitment of the Australian Parliament and people to the universal and fundamental human rights set out in the declaration as a birthright for all peoples and all nations;(b) deplores the violation of human rights wherever and whenever this occurs; and(c) pledges to give wholehearted support to the principles enshrined in the declaration and to promote the full realisation of human rights for all people throughout the world.Miscellaneous161909:45:001619Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 80 standing in my name for today relating to the reference of matters to a committee be taken as a formal motion.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?09:46:001619Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I do not have an objection, but I seek leave to make a very brief statement.Leave granted.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Honourable senators will realise that I put a similar but different motion to the Senate by way of notice of motion No. 56. The Labor Party were unable to agree to a form of words and have come up with a different motion. I am prepared to support it. I am disappointed that the Labor Party could not come closer to our position. But I guess it does represent a move in the position of Labor Party policy.09:47:001619Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I have just been informed by my whip that there has been, at whips level, discussion that this matter be deferred. Accordingly, I move:That general business notice of motion No. 80 standing in the name of Senator Cook for today, relating to the reference of matters concerning the deaths of six Australian-based journalists in East Timor in 1975 to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Question resolved in the affirmative.Business16191619Motion (by Senator Mackay) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes, with concern, the scheduled closure of Telstra's Hobart Work Management Centre in January 1999 and the loss of up to 35 highly skilled positions because of this closure,(b) deplores Telstra's empty assurances to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston) that the centre would remain open; and(c) calls on the Minister, in accordance with subsection 9(1) of the Telstra Corporation Act 1991 , to direct Telstra to amend the Telstra Business Plan to allow for the centre to remain within Hobart and the retention of the positions within the centre as this is necessary in the public interest.Committees161916191619Motion (by Senator Cooney) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous1619Motions (by Senator Bourne, and also on behalf of Senator Woodley, Senator Lees, Senator Allison, Senator Bartlett)—by leave—agreed to:That the Senate notes: (a) the international focus on wars on drugs, zero tolerance of drugs and combating of crime,(b) that international drug revenues are huge and certainly greater than the revenues of many countries, and(c) the United Nations General Assembly's special session on drugs, which called for a shift in drug control policies from punishment to public health;That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that by 12 years of age, 15 per cent of school children have tried alcohol, (ii) that 70 per cent of female and 50 per cent of male 14- to 24-year olds consume alcohol in quantities which are hazardous or harmful, and (iii) that alcohol is sold as a legal drug in Australia; and(b) expresses concern that the consumption of the drug alcohol among our young people deserves attention to address the causes of alcohol abuse among young people.That the Senate—(a) notes the positive measures taken by the Department of Health and Family Services in producing resources, such as Rethinking Drinking and Candidly Cannabis , which recognise the reality that some young people take drugs; and(b) encourages the Government to make information available which minimises health risks.That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) more than 8 per cent of under 13-year olds have tried tobacco, (ii) governments in Australia raise $4.6 billion in tobacco taxes, and (iii) governments spend less than 1 per cent of the $4.6 billion on smoking prevention programs; and(b) expresses concern that governments are concentrating on catching drug smugglers at Australia's borders and ignoring the open sale of legal drugs like tobacco.That the Senate—(a) notes that the first national survey of illicit drug use in secondary schools, (Australian , 19 November 1998, p.1) revealed that children as young as 12 have access to the full range of legal and illegal drugs, including heroin; and(b) supports the ongoing efforts by many in the community to reduce demand for both legal and illegal drugs.Miscellaneous162009:49:001620Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I would like to apologise for casting any aspersions on notice of motion No. 80. That was not the one I was actually referring to. I was actually referring to No. 87. I must congratulate Labor for moving notice of motion No. 80.Miscellaneous1620Motion (by Senator Margetts) put:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) on 7 December 1998, the Western Australia Environmental Protection Authority released a report on the Department of Conservation and Land Management's (CALM) compliance with the legally-binding ministerial conditions relating to the Forest Management Plan 1994-2003, (ii) the report also included advice on the preparation of the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) for Western Australia, and (iii) the report found that: (a) CALM has not complied with many of the ministerial conditions, (b) CALM is not managing forests sustainably, and (c) there are major problems with CALM's role in the RFA; and(b) calls on the Commonwealth Government to: (i) immediately request the Western Australian Government to implement a moratorium on the logging of old-growth forests in Western Australia, and (ii) halt the Western Australian RFA pending the restructuring of CALM and the implementation of the Environmental Protection Authority's recommendations. 09:54:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)8Bartlett, A. J. J. Bourne, V. *Brown, B. Lees, M. H.Margetts, D. Murray, A.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.47Bishop, T. M. Boswell, R. L. D.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, G.Campbell, I. G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Colston, M. A.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.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. *Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.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.Business1621162109:59:001621Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I seek leave to do something I should have done at the placing of business.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You may proceed, Senator.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I move:That General Business notice of motion No. 72 standing in my name for today proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Region al Services (Senator Ian Macdonald), be postponed till the next day of sitting.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I put the question that motion No. 72 be deferred till the next day of sitting. I think the ayes have it.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I take a point of order. Did you ask the Senate if leave would be granted? I was concerned that leave might not be granted.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—A postponement can be moved at any time and leave is not required, so I didn't do so.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—She does not need leave to go back to the placing of business?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—No, not at this stage. Once the business of the Senate has commenced she would need leave. At this stage she doesn't. Senator Mackay obviously knows what she is doing.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous1621Motion (by Senator Brown) put: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.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I put the question that motion No. 85 be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary say no. I think the noes have it. Is a division required?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—To help the Senate, if it can be registered what both the government and the opposition think about this motion, I would be happy to forgo the division.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—For the assistance of the Senate and Senator Brown, the opposition opposes this motion and has voted against it.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—The government is opposed to this motion.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam President, I accept the weight of numbers and will forgo the division.Question resolved in the negative.Bills1622162210:01:001622Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 91 standing in my name for today relating to the reference of a bill to the Corporations and Securities Committee be taken as formal.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is objection to formality at this stage. Do you wish to defer it to a later hour?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I seek clarification. I spoke to Senator Conroy yesterday and understood that the Labor Party would agree to formality.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—I ask that this matter be deferred to a later hour, until I can get some clarification.Miscellaneous1622Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request of Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Dusseldorp Skills Forum will convene a significant policy forum in Canberra on 9 and 10 December 1998 on `Learning and Work Circumstances of Australia's Young Adults', that is, those aged 20-24 years, and (ii) the forum convened in 1997 by this organisation, `Australia's Youth: Reality and Risk', made a significant contribution to the development of policies relating to young people; and(b) supports the ongoing work of all delegates to this forum and of the organisers in providing such a valuable means by which some of the serious problems facing young people can be addressed. Miscellaneous1622Motion (by Senator Woodley, at the request of Senator Stott Despoja) not agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the health ministers from Australian states and territories and the Commonwealth, together with the New Zealand health minister, are meeting on 16 December 1998 to consider the labelling of food containing genetically-modified materials, and (ii) the Commonwealth Government has proposed a test for labelling based on the distinction known as `substantial equivalence', so that a food is labelled only if it is substantially different;(b) expresses concern the term `substantial equivalence' has an uncertain meaning and does not have meaning for most consumers; and(b) calls on the Government to label all food which is or includes genetically-modified materials.Miscellaneous162210:03:001622Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—At the request of Senator Stott Despoja, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 77, standing in her name and relating to the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations, be taken as formal.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—We would object and ask that it be deferred to a later hour today.Bills1622s1971622Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: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.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.162310:05:001623Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table the explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—This bill continues the process of reform of Commonwealth environmental legislation. It is an adjunct to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 which proposes the most fundamental reform of Commonwealth environmental legislation since the first environmental statutes were enacted in the early 1970's.The Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 has three primary objectives. Firstly the bill provides for the repeal of the five acts to be replaced by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998. These are the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, the Whale Protection Act 1980, the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983, and the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992.Secondly the bill puts in place savings and transitional arrangements for a smooth transition from the processes in place under the existing acts, including environment assessment and permitting arrangements, to the new schemes established under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998.The bill also amends Commonwealth Government legislation that is affected either by the repeal of the five acts, or by the content of the proposed Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998.The bill, together with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998, provides a new environmental law regime which enables the Commonwealth to join with the States in providing a truly national scheme of environmental protection and biodiversity conservation, recognising our responsibility to not only this, but also future generations. It does so by respecting and building upon the strengths of our Federation and the primary responsibility of the States for delivering on-ground natural resource management. It does so also in a way that is "user friendly", with predictable, transparent, and timely assessment processes. By accepting Commonwealth leadership, respecting the role of the States, and providing best process for users, the new regime provides a framework within which to build public confidence and support for its vitally important objectives.I commend the bill.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned till the first day of sitting day in 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Miscellaneous1623162310:06:001623Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I seek leave to present a petition from 574 petitioners which was not presented at the appropriate time.Leave granted.The petition read as follows—To the honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled in parliament:The petition of certain citizens draws the attention of the Senate to the detention of Mr Abdullan Ocalan, leader of the PKK, by the Italian authorities and his call for a negotiated settlement on the Kurdish issue.Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to formally ask the Italian government to grant political asylum to Mr Abdullan Ocalan and encourage the Turkish government to acknowledge his call for a unilateral cease-fire and a negotiated peace settlement.Committees162316231623Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Eggleston) agreed to: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. 16241624Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Payne) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous1624162410:07:001624Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I seek leave to make a very short statement, probably no longer than one minute, in relation to general business notice of motion No. 91 given by Senator Murray in relation to the reference of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 to the Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities.Leave granted.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—The coalition government will support this motion. In fact, we would have moved it ourselves except Senator Murray is quicker off the mark than the government in this respect. I do understand that at the Selection of Bills Committee the opposition did move for the same matter to be referred, so I presume that the only trouble is that the Selection of Bills Committee does not refer bills to those committees. This bill was in fact before this committee prior to the prorogation of the parliament. We would like to see it referred. I indicate that, when that comes up, we will be supporting it.10:07:001624Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—On the same matter, the situation as I understand it with this particular motion is that it has been, because of seeking some clarity on the issues that Senator Campbell just raised, deferred to a later hour this day. I think the sensible thing for us to do—as soon as the responsible shadow ministers and others who have an interest in this matter in the chamber can confirm the facts of the matter and where the process is up to—would be to revisit it and quickly ensure that the matter is referred if that is consistent, as I understand it to be, with the spirit and the intent of the Senate on previous occasions.Motion (by Senator Murray) agreed to: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.Business16241624Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 56 standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, relating to East Timorese asylum seekers, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees162416241624The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—I have received letters from party leaders nominating senators to be members of committees.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Community Affairs References CommitteeParticipating member: Senator Mackay.Economics References CommitteeSubstitute member: Senator Stott Despoja to replace Senator Murray for the committee's inquiry into whether a new reactor should be built to replace the High Flux Australian Reactor at Lucas Heights on that site or on some other site in Australia.Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation CommitteeParticipating member: Senator Hutchins.Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation CommitteeParticipating member: Senator Hutchins.Joint Select Committee on the Retailing SectorAppointed: Senators Boswell and Ferris.Select Committee on a New Tax SystemParticipating member: Senator Colston. 10:11:001625Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—I was going to speak to the motion, but I thought it would be more simple to briefly indicate that there may be a need at a later stage, given that this may be the last day of sitting or the sitting on this day may be suspended, to make one or two other alterations to committee memberships that may also affect the government. But it is certainly a possibility that there will need to be a change of membership for certain committees because a number of matters have not quite been finalised in relation to committees' programs and references. There are also one or two issues that are still being dealt with by the House of Representatives. I would hope that, if that is the case, by leave of the Senate we can return to that and deal with those as a matter formally without delaying the Senate unduly. But I think it is proper that I do signal to the Senate that there might be a necessity to do that before the Senate adjourns at the end of the session.1625162510:12:001625O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Sandy Macdonald, I present the first report of the Standing Committee on Publications.Ordered that the report be adopted.1625162510000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have received a message from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate with the appointments to joint committees. Details of the memberships will be recorded in the Senate Journals and Notice Paper .Bills1625r646162510:12:001625Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I move business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 2 and 3:That the provisions of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 March 1999, with particular reference to:(a) whether the bill, by treating companies differently depending on whether they are in a region covered by a regional forest agreement (RFA), provides for a discriminatory regime between one state and another which is inconsistent with section 99 of the Constitution;(b) whether the bill is invalid to the extent that it refers to instruments not yet in force (RFAs that have yet to be concluded) or to instruments that can be varied without reference to Parliament or without a specific power in the bill enabling the variation;(c) whether the compensation provisions in the RFAs are valid to the extent that they attempt to bind Parliament or fetter the exercise of executive power;(d) whether the bill will limit Australia's capacity to meet its obligations under international treaties, in particular the World Heritage Convention, the Climate Change Convention, and the Ramsar Convention;(e) whether the requirements of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 , the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 have in fact been met, notwithstanding declarations to that effect in the RFAs; and(f) any other matters that the committee considers relevant.That the provisions of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 be referred to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 March 1999, with particular reference to:(a) the relationship between the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998, in particular, the activities regulated by each and the extent of the geographical areas covered by each;(b) whether the bill will fetter the capacity of the Commonwealth to meet its obligations under the World Heritage Convention and the Climate Change Convention, or any other international convention, and in particular whether native forests that are either listed, nominated or identified as being of World Heritage value could be logged;(c) the amount of compensation for which the Commonwealth would be liable if its ac tions directly or indirectly curtailed forestry or mining operations in areas covered by the regional forest agreement (RFA) as a result of Australia's obligation under the Climate Change Convention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions;(d) the amount of compensation for which the Commonwealth would be liable if an action by it resulted in curtailment of forestry or mining operations in areas covered by the RFA for any of the following purposes: (i) nomination or listing of an area for world heritage, for either cultural or natural values, (ii) protection of species or communities that are found to be threatened during the next 20 years, (iii) protection of the quantity or quality of water in a water catchment, and (iv) flood mitigation;(e) whether any remedy is available to the Commonwealth where a state is found to have breached the RFA, such as by logging illegally (as in East Gippsland) or by downgrading the status of reserves to permit mining (as in Tasmania);(f) whether the requirements of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 , the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 have in fact been met (notwithstanding declarations to that effect in the RFAs) and the environmental impact of RFAs overriding those Acts; and(g) any other matters that the committee considers relevant.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—These motions are an effort to have the provisions of the regional forest agreements around the country referred to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee and the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and Arts Legislation Committee. As a result of votes in the Senate yesterday, there is going to be no real scrutiny of the content of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 and the ramifications there are for this nation. I will not go over that ground except to say that this is the opportunity for the Labor Party to at least see that there is some scrutiny of the impact of a bill which is aimed to essentially take away the power of the federal or, for that matter, state governments to intervene on what the woodchip corporations have been doing in our forests for 20 years.We heard yesterday from Senator Murphy that there is gross mismanagement in the forests of Tasmania. To summarise, the woodchip corporations are using Forestry Tasmania as an instrument to rapidly as possible cut down the grand forests of Tasmania and export them for profit, which does not stay in Tasmania but is exported to shareholders of corporations like North Pty Ltd outside the state.The small operators in Tasmania lose out. Senator Murphy sited the Cue River sawmill, which has been operating for 100 years, which is now closing at a time when the forests of Tasmania are being cut at the greatest rate in history. When the Green-ALP accord came to an end, because Labor broke its accord commitment, particularly section 9, by lifting the ceiling on woodchip exports in 1991, the rate was 2.7 million tonnes per annum. That is the limit to which woodchip exports had been capped for 10 years. The current rate is 4.6 million tonnes per annum. It is devastating the forests of Tasmania.There is an added component, which is very important for the Senate to know, if it does not know already—that is, there is job shedding as the carnage of the forest increases. So in the period between 1991 and now, where the forests have been cut at something like double the rate, there has been job shedding because of automation and glomeration. Big corporations are sending 90 per cent of Tasmania's forests to the woodchip mills and, ultimately, the rubbish dumps of the northern hemisphere, while the small mills continue to close. This is gross mismanagement.There is a case to be put for there being corruption in the forest industries of Tasmania. There is a prima facie need for an independent inquiry in Tasmania, if not in the other states. We have seen the uproar in Western Australia in recent days. There is a need, I believe, for a royal commission into the way in which this great resource in Tasmania is being exploited at a loss for Tasmanians. As you will know, Mr Acting Deputy President Watson, the people of Tasmania are getting something like $12 a tonne for the forests; freight on board for the woodchip company, $120 a tonne; when it comes out of the paper mills of Japan, $1,200 a tonne. This is an extraordinary set of figures showing just what an extraordinary loss of value occurs, as far as these forests are concerned, under the mismanagement of serial Labor and Liberal governments in Tasmania and Forestry Tasmania, which is nothing other than an instrument, a handmaiden, of the big woodchip corporations.If we look at the job side of it—and the woodchip corporations always weep crocodile tears and say that they are there to defend jobs—we will see that, while some 2,500 jobs were shed in the logging of native forests in Tasmania, 3,500 jobs were created in the service, hospitality and tourism industries thanks to the native forests left standing. Whereas logging is shedding jobs as they cut faster, tourism is putting on extra jobs, even though the forests are dwindling. It is absurd.It is irresponsible that this process should be cemented in place—a process which allows the forest to be destroyed by job-shedding, out-of-state industries for 20 years under this legislation and which we, in the Senate, will not send to be scrutinised by the proper committees before we vote on it. I want the Labor Party, if it is going to oppose this, particularly the Tasmanian Labor senators, to get to their feet and explain why they don't want this scrutiny, because they have become part of the problem if that is the way they are going to vote.Senator Faulkner has just said to one of his colleagues that they are part of the problem if they do not support this bill going to these committees.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. It is incumbent on a senator not to eavesdrop on other senators' conversations. Senator Brown is quite wrong to have insinuated that I indicated to one of my colleagues that they were part of any problem. He misheard what I was saying and, as a result, has grievously misled the Senate. I would not like that to stand in Hansard in that form. It is unusual for me to do this, but on this occasion I ask that Senator Brown withdraw that slur and insinuation that I would have suggested such a thing of one of my colleagues. It is absolutely untrue. Although I do not take personal affront, one of my personal colleagues might take personal affront. On that basis, I think it might be better to withdraw.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—There is nothing to withdraw. There was no misuse of parliamentary language. I can hear right across the chamber very accurately.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You should not be eavesdropping.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Well, one should not be speaking in such an audible tone that it is interrupting the delivery of a very cogent argument to this chamber.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Unfortunately, I was not able to pick up the full import of what you said. Therefore, I am not in a position to rule, Senator Brown.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. That is a good ruling. I was saying that the Labor Party owes it to the people of Tasmania, if not to every other state, if they are going to vote against these motions to say why. Why on earth, of all things, should there not be Senate committee scrutiny of this matter? I think one of the most important pieces of legislation this government will deal with next year is the regional forest agreements. They have created an uproar in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania, and they will create an uproar in Queensland when they are announced there.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—You have created an uproar in Tasmania; they have not created an uproar in Tasmania.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I am getting further interventions from, in this case, Senator Sherry from Tasmania, who is out of his seat, if I am not wrong, who says that there is no uproar in Tasmania. That blinkered, ostrich like attitude to the majority of Tasmanians that the tearing down of our grand and magnificent wild forests is wrong should have been brought to an end.But even if it is not, I ask this question: why should this legislation not go before these committees? Why should there not be scrutiny? Why should the public not have an opportunity to have input before the Senate deliberates on this legislation? I will tell you what I think. I think it is because of the sway of the woodchip corporations. I am very aware of the fact that, for example, North Broken Hill in the last couple of years has put $80,000 into the election baskets of both of the major parties. That is having an untoward effect on the way in which this whole debate is proceeding. You cannot look at matters like this important move to refer the RFA legislation to committees being blocked by the major parties without standing back and asking why. I believe there is enormous pressure from the logging corporations around this country to prevent such an outcome.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I think that is a clear reflection on the motives of senators. Senator Brown has made that a very clear reflection. The fact is this Senate voted yesterday to refer these very bills to a committee for a period of at least two months. To say that there is some conspiracy and that senators are being manipulated or bribed to stop reference of these matters not only is patently absurd and contrary to the facts but also reflects on the motives of senators and how they vote in this chamber. And I think that any inference in relation to that should be withdrawn immediately and unreservedly.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—On the point of order, I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Ian Campbell. To suggest that people cast their vote on a particular matter on the basis of the allegations that Senator Brown made is certainly alleging an improper motive. It is exactly the same as the sort of scurrilous remark made yesterday when Senator Kemp accused senators of having improper motives when they voted on the superannuation surcharge.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I have made no inference about any particular senator in this matter. If the parties feel fragile about the assertion I have made, then it is for them to get up and debate the matter. I might add that we need to be mindful in debating this matter, as I am sure all senators were yesterday, of the standing orders requiring anybody who has an interest in the matter to have declared it yesterday and to declare it today. That is a rule of this place.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, the imputation does not have to be against individual senators, and I ask you to withdraw your allegation of improper motives.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Sir, I ask you to look at what I said. I said that the corporations—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I do not think the honourable senator can debate your ruling; he can either accept your ruling, and do the proper thing, or he should move a motion of dissent on your ruling. He does not have any other alternatives, as far as I am concerned.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, you have either got to withdraw or make it quite clear to everybody in the Senate that you are not imputing improper motives, either individually or collectively.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—If you look at the record, you will find that I was imputing the motives to the corporate sector, which wants to levy influence on this place, and not to the senators in this place.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—We have senators from either side of the chamber who both feel that you have imputed improper motives.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order, you gave Senator Brown a choice to either withdraw or explain the statement that he made. From the opposition's perspective, from the explanation that he has given, I can only come to the conclusion that that does not impugn individual senators and—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—That is not the issue.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—With respect, I think, given your ruling, it has become the issue, because you in fact asked Senator Brown to either withdraw or explain himself. From the explanation that I did hear Senator Brown make, I do not think that we can draw any further the inference that individual senators are being impugned.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Collectively or individually.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Yes. So, with respect, it seems to me that Senator Brown has complied in his own way with the request you properly made from the chair. I suspect, given that circumstance, the matter is dealt with. But, of course, it remains open for any individual senator to take the issue on in debate if they wish, because there may well be very little support from senators for the case that Senator Brown makes. But in relation to the ruling you have made, I think that has adequately been dealt with, and we ought to just get on with it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, continue your remarks.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I must say that the short debate that has just occurred is a very important one, and it is one that I will be coming back to in the future in this place. I was saying that I believe it is very important for the Labor Party—and the same applies to the government—to explain why, if they are going to vote against these motions, we ought not be seeing reference of this extraordinarily important regional forest agreement legislation to these committees so that the public can have the input that I know it wants to have. I think that the Senate is failing that public if it does not allow those committees to go to the places where there is turmoil over the destruction of forests in this country—and that does not just apply to conservationists; that applies to many businesses around this country of ours and many people employed in businesses which depend on forests being kept standing—so that they can have a say.It is right out of kilter that this legislation will not be subject to far greater scrutiny than what yesterday's motion would on the face of it allow it to have. If these motions go down, I will be one of those who will be trying to bring up constitutional and environmental issues before the committee under yesterday's reference. But it will depend on that committee. As things stand, there could be a total block on such matters being discussed. I do not think it is good enough to leave it to a committee to be good-hearted enough to decide it will accept evidence about the environmental downsides or the potential constitutional problems associated with the regional forest agreement legislation.There is something untoward if the Senate does not send this legislation to these committees. I cannot say much more than that. Let those who vote against these references explain why they are going to do that, not only in this place but to the Australian public at large, remembering that opinion polls over the last decade have consistently shown that the great majority of Australians do not want the wild forests of this country further destroyed and they do want the plantation base which we have in this country, which is totally adequate for the country's wood needs, to be the total basis upon which woodchipping as well as other logging pursuits take place in the years ahead.There can be a win-win situation. We can keep our wild forests and at the same time have a healthy industry based on plantations. Many people in here will not know that already 80 per cent of the wood products used in Australia come from plantations. There is the wherewithal to make that 100 per cent. The Tumut mill, announced with federal government support in the last week, is an example of that. I do not know why on earth Premier Carr in New South Wales was not, as part of the announcement there, saying, `We are putting an end to the cutting of wild forests in New South Wales.' It was a historic opportunity to say to the public, `Here we have got the end of wild forest cutting, the end of controversy and a mill based totally on plantations,' which is the way of the future. It was a political failure on a grand scale by the Carr government, which is the sort of political failure happening at the state level right around the country as far as forests are concerned.That is another good reason why the whole thing should have been opened to much greater public scrutiny. The Senate, ultimately, is not doing itself a good turn if it does not allow that public scrutiny, because I can assure you that this legislation for the regional forest agreements—which is a prescription for wild forest destruction around the country—is going to be a major item for debate when it comes before this chamber some time in the new year.10:33:001630Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I will briefly put the government's point of view on the reference of the provisions of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 to two committees. As I said in a point of order, the coalition rejects the claim that this bill will not get proper scrutiny. We supported a motion yesterday to have this very bill referred to the appropriate legislation committee—the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—which I understand is chaired very well by Senator Crane, who I think is respected by all sides of the chamber.I am quite confident that any of the constitutional and environmental matters that Senator Brown has referred to and any submissions made on those matters will be given due consideration; that people making submissions on these matters will be heard by that committee; and that members of the public who want to make submissions or be heard by the committee from now until 15 February, a period in excess of two months, will be heard by this committee—the appropriate committee, an effective committee, a well-chaired committee and a committee on which a number of honourable senators who have given good service to this place sit.I think it reflects on the committee, the committee secretariat and the members of that committee to suggest that that committee will not be able do its job. It has certainly done its job on a number of contentious, complex pieces of legislation during the term of the last parliament. I have absolute confidence that the members from various parties on that committee will fulfil their duties to the parliament and the people of Australia in giving proper consideration to, as Senator Brown calls it and the government concurs, this very important piece of legislation, which does seek to create a win-win situation for Australia's forests from a conservation point of view, a biodiversity point of view and a resource security point of view.The committee will receive submissions. It will have public hearings. It will have, in effect, over two months to receive those submissions and deliberate on these matters and make a report to this parliament. It will, hopefully, then be a matter for this Senate to deal with when we return in the second half of February. So the coalition will be rejecting these motions. We believe they were debated at great length yesterday. The government believes that the debate has been had and the votes have been had. We would like to see the matter resolved this morning as quickly as possible.10:36:001630Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The opposition does not support the motions of Senator Brown to refer the provisions of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 to two committees. In fact, we also reject quite strongly the assertions that he has made regarding our position on this issue. We, first of all, support the bill being considered by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. That is the appropriate committee that should consider the legislation, and that is indeed what will happen.We do, however, want to make the point, as we did yesterday when the matter was debated, that the ultimate reporting date that was determined by the Senate, by the brutal use of numbers by the government, of 15 February does cause us some concern. There may well be two months between now and then, but everyone knows that it is not that easy to organise public hearings and conduct inspections, if necessary, over the December-January period.We also know that work is being done by many other senators in other committees early next year, particularly those related to the GST. We raised that point yesterday. As I understand it, that was why we put forward the suggestion in the Selection of Bills Committee deliberations that the reporting date would more appropriately be a date in late March—22 March was the date we proposed. I understand that, at the time, the government was prepared to accept 8 March as a suitable reporting date but, as there was no agreement within the committee, it was understood that the issue would be ultimately resolved in this chamber.We were rather surprised and believe it was pretty dirty pool on the part of the government yesterday to have pushed through, by the use of numbers, the date of 15 February as the reporting date. But that is an issue with regard to the ultimate reporting date of a reference which is already before the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. The committee will do everything it can to meet that timetable but, as we know does happen from time to time, if timetables become impossible to meet then it is open for the Senate to revisit that issue on a subsequent occasion. We will be pushing that view strongly in the committee in the hope that we can get more time for consideration of this legislation.Putting that aside, on the central issue of Senator Brown's propositions, we reject them. We reject the allegation that we will not be serious about giving this legislation the scrutiny that it deserves and taking into account all the submissions that the committee receives. The bill is already before the appropriate Senate committee and, on that basis, we will be opposing the motions.10:39:001631Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I rise in support of Senator Brown's notices of motion Nos 2 and 3 and I will speak briefly, aware that there is business of the Senate people wish to go on with. Yesterday, one of the reasons I was called out of the chamber during the ARPANSA bill, which I was deeply involved with, was that I was asked to do a brief interview on radio in Western Australia, which ended up being less than brief. It ended up, unbeknownst to me, that I was debating head to head with the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Wilson Tuckey.The minister said that we were concentrating too much on the environmental aspects of regional forest agreements and that we should be more interested in the economic aspects. I thought that was very interesting from a minister who comes from Western Australia, because the whole process of the regional forest agreements has been given largely to the states. Of course, the mechanisms available within the states are the ones that are part of this intrinsic agreement which is coming together to be dealt with in this bill.The irony in Western Australia is that Mr Tuckey said that economic consequences should be dealt with as well as environmental consequences. I actually happen to agree. I have always believed that the definition of `environment' should include the impact on the local economy. Having sat in on one unit of environmental law, it seems it was the intention—even if it was not written into the law—that the impacts on the environment, especially the local environment, and the impacts on the local economy should be assessed in the environmental impact assessment.But what does that mean? It means that you look at the economy as a whole and not just on one narrow sector. Once you start looking at the economy as a whole—how it works, what fits in and what does not—often you find there are quite different circumstances from what you assumed in the first place. Honourable senators will remember that the Resource Assessment Commission was set up to do just that. It was set up, I suppose, to beat environmentalists around the head on the basis of doing assessments to see what the outcomes would be for communities and for the wider public interest.Ironically they did their job too well. They did their job so well that they produced reports which looked at the balance between the environment and the economy and came out with different results from what was assumed. They asked people what they valued in certain areas like Kakadu. If you were to have a Resource Assessment Commission assessment of the Jabiluka proposal, most of us are quite sure of what people would say when asked what their values would be—what they would be prepared to pay not to have Jabiluka mined for uranium. There would probably be a few people throwing in cash from other parts of the world as well, if you were to do that. But that is not what the Resource Assessment Commission did.Minister Tuckey says that we have it wrong, but he has not looked at the history of his own state. Unfortunately, we have a situation where there is an agreement between both of the major parties in this chamber that we will deal with this as a rural and regional issue—not deal with it as an environmental issue and not look at the legal issues in context. I will be very pleased if the rural and regional committee is able to look at the legal issues, if they can do it properly. But there is very limited time available, and we cannot be sure that the resources will be made available to that one committee even to be able to hold the hearings that may be necessary for the level of interest there is in this issue right around the country.I am disappointed to hear what I have heard today. The numbers are quite clear in what is going to happen. But we have evidence that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, is sitting on his hands in relation to action on regional forest agreements already, even before some of them are signed. We can see that even the mechanisms that are available to the Commonwealth now are not being used. We also know that, after this bill is passed, there is no specific action that can or will take place that will guarantee that any agreements must be abided by. So it looks as though we will have a much worse situation than we have experienced up to now, and that is a great disappointment. These issues deserve to be given greater scrutiny. They are being passed over and shoved under the carpet. I am very concerned that this is the process we have come to. I support Senator Brown's motions.Question resolved in the negative.Bills1632r640Billsr639Billsr6381632Debate resumed from 8 December, on motion by Senator Minchin:That the bills be now read a second time.upon which Senator Lees had moved by way of an amendment:Omit all words after "That", substitute:"the Senate:(a) notes the evidence provided to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee that the rebate scheme will not take the pressure off public hospitals and is an inefficient and inequitable use of public funds;(b) resolves that the bill not be read a second time; and(c) calls on the Government to: (i) introduce a means test to restrict eligibility for the rebate to hospital insurance for people on low incomes; (ii) implement a review process to evaluate the rebate scheme against defined outcome measures; (iii) require health insurance funds to achieve improved performance outcomes; and (iv) address the key areas of need in the public health sector, including coordinated care for older Australians; waiting lists in public hospitals; public dental health services; rural health services; and the health care needs of indigenous Australians."10:45:001632Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—These private health insurance bills are of central importance to the way that we run Australian society. Much has been said already about these bills and about the wisdom or otherwise of devoting over $1 million to private health insurance. In talking about these bills and about health services overall, there are certain questions that should be asked, certain prospects that should be discussed and certain perspectives that should be looked at. Those things have been done in debates so far.This debate is essentially about who should bear the cost of illness and injury in Australia. Once somebody becomes ill or injured, there is a cost. The issue is who will bear the cost. It might be the person who is injured or the person who becomes sick. That person might bear the cost simply by having to suffer for a longer time than otherwise. He or she may have an illness which, if not treated, might be terminal or, at the very least, put people through considerable distress. Society could choose to say that the person who is going to bear the cost of this illness and trauma is the person who suffers it. He or she either bears it by simply going through the pain, distress and torture that illness and trauma can bring or by paying for treatment out of his or her own pocket. That is one alternative that we might take.The doctors might bear the cost. In other words, you might have a health system where the doctors get less than they really ought. Indeed, that happens now, particularly with junior doctors in hospitals, who are paid at times less than they should be paid and who have to work overtime that is sometimes not paid. That is the other alternative; the doctors might bear the cost that comes about through illness or injury. Nurses might do it by working for longer hours than they should. Physiotherapists or dietitians or what have you also might. That is another choice that we could make. We could let the health providers bear the cost.The hospitals might do it. The private hospitals in particular and the public hospitals are saying that they cannot afford to give the treatment that is needed to people who are injured or who suffer illnesses. The community might bear the cost through insurance schemes. In other words, you spread the cost across the community by having insurance schemes. The function of the insurance schemes is to gather money from the community generally and spread the loss that comes about through illness and injury. Everybody puts in, irrespective of whether they are ill or injured themselves, so that the community, as it were, bears the cost. The community could also bear the cost through taxation, either generally across the board or through specific imposts such as, for example, the Medicare levy.They are the choices we face. This legislation must be looked at in that context. It should be looked at not only in the context of who should bear the cost of illness and trauma but also in terms of where the money might come from. That means not only in terms of insurance and taxation but also from other bodies. One thing that seems not to have been looked at in this context is how specialist insurance, if I can call it that, operates in all this. How much, for example, does the Transport Accident Commission in my home state of Victoria contribute to the cost? How much does the Victorian Workcover Authority contribute?In looking at this legislation and in listening to the debate about it, that sort of question seems not to have been answered. I wonder why not. What contribution do bodies such as the Victorian Workcover Authority and the Transport Accident Commission make to the costs imposed upon people through injury and illness? There are bodies like them in all the states around Australia. What sort of contribution do they make? That question could be asked in the committee stage of this debate.What does occur to people as they go through this debate is that the whole system seems not to be in control. There are institutions that cover people injured at work. There are institutions that cover people injured on the roads. There is private health insurance and private insurance, in any event. There are public and private hospitals. There are people who are underpaid. There are people who suffer and who cannot get proper treatment.Those concepts do not seem to be addressed in the bill. What seems to be happening is that we are going to say, `Righto! We will contribute over $1 billion towards helping the private insurance industry.' And no doubt it is argued that, through helping the private insurance industry, a flow-down effect will occur and people will be better looked after. But it seems to me that in this debate that particular approach has been taken without having a wider vision of what it is all about. The explanatory memorandum seems to have ignored the concept of how we can best help health services across the board. It says on page 1, in the `General Outline and Financial Impact' statement:The Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 will provide for a financial incentive for people who take out or maintain private health insurance.It then tells how the incentive works. On page 56 of the explanatory memorandum, the section headed `Assessment of impact (cost and benefits) of the measures' talks about the particular people who will be affected and the particular funds which will be protected.But there is no concept put forward in the explanatory memorandum of what we should be doing in the whole area of health, which is really about trying to get people better after they have become ill or have suffered trauma. It is a bad approach in a policy sense to confine the issue of how we get people better to one particular area. Say that somebody is injured on the road or at work, or gets sick in any particular circumstance. Where does he or she go to get money? To some sort of accident compensation scheme, if they are injured at work? To a fund that is supposed to look after people who are injured on the road? To a private insurance scheme, if they are injured in the home? Do they go straight to a public hospital? Or do they go to the local doctor? Unless we get a concept of what this is all about, we are in trouble.There is one other matter I want to raise while we are talking about this, and I hope I have made the point clear. Legislation dealing with issues of health services should have the care of the sick and the maimed as its prime objective. It is not quite clear what weight the legislation before us gives to the sick and the maimed, as distinct from trying to prop up a system of private health insurance. I have read from the explanatory memorandum as an illustration of what I mean by that.It does seem that the propping up of private health insurance is the prime objective here, rather than the care of the sick and the maimed. The legislation is an answer to a wrong question; namely, how private insurance can be subsidised. The right question should be who should bear the burden of sickness and injury. You can look at society as either a collection of individuals or a community where every member can benefit to the utmost. The legislation here sees society as a collection of individuals who have each got to get what they can out of the system. Unless we start thinking in a communal way, we will not get a solution to the issues that are raised by those who are sick and injured in our community.10:56:001634Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The issue before us today is a choice between playing politics or good health policy. Good health policy demands that the government devote adequate resources to the public health system. It also requires that we endeavour to strike the appropriate balance between the public hospital system, Medicare and the private health insurance industry. The government seems hell-bent on diverting substantial sums of taxpayer funds from the public health system, from public hospitals, from the states—who have the responsibility for managing those hospitals—ultimately into subsidising private health insurance funds.It has been a disturbing trend of coalition conservative governments over many years that, in their ideological objection to Medicare, they have followed this path. It must be remembered that it was a Labor government back in the 1970s that introduced Medicare—then known as Medibank. It was Malcolm Fraser, when he was Prime Minister and John Howard was his Treasurer, who abolished Medibank. Whilst the government stands up and talks about the levels of private health insurance membership today and how they may have fallen, what they do not say is that, when they were in office between 1975 and 1983, they left 30 per cent of the Australian population totally uninsured. There was no universal health coverage system. There was no Medibank, because they abolished it. So many hundreds of thousands and, indeed, millions of Australians had no health cover at all.It was only when the Hawke government came into power in 1983 and Medicare was introduced that once again we had a universal health coverage system, a system whereby all Australians could have access to decent, quality health care, particularly when they most desperately needed it, when illness or accident suddenly struck. It is in those circumstances that you need a decent, high quality, affordable, accessible public health system. Australia today stands, and has done for many years since the introduction of Medicare, as a world leader in providing the best of public health coverage.This government, however, in its short 2½ years stripped some $2.6 billion out of funds available for the health system in this country. It took around $800 million out of public hospital funding in its first budget by slashing funds to the states—and the states were forced to find the money to make up that shortfall. It abolished the dental scheme, a scheme worth around $400 million which provided urgent dental care for persons who were unable to afford it. It took an incredible $1.4 billion out of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, making many necessary drugs and treatments far more expensive.On top of that, they introduced the health incentive scheme, a scheme, they said, designed to encourage people back into private health insurance. They claimed that it would increase the rate that was declining. In reality, private health insurance membership did not increase at all—despite the $1.6 billion or approximately $650 million a year that was earmarked to be provided for that incentive scheme—but fell even further to its now lowest level ever of just over 30 per cent. That scheme was a failure, which was acknowledged by everybody, whether a Labor supporter or a conservative Premier. Indeed, many experts in the health industry recognise that it was a failure.When the last round of Medicare agreements were being negotiated, what were the states unanimously calling for? Whether they were conservative or Labor governments, they were calling for greater funds to be directed into the public health system because needs were not being met through increasing waiting lists as a result of this federal government's failure to provide adequate funds.This current proposal would provide a 30 per cent rebate with no means test to persons with private health insurance. So those people who have had to drop out of private health insurance because they were unable to afford the ever increasing premiums or were unable to afford the huge gaps that exist between the level charged by doctors and the amount refunded through private health insurance will suffer even further. This is a scheme which will reward all of those people who can afford to have private health insurance. The high income earners, and many of us in this parliament who are in private health insurance and who have stayed in it, will be rewarded whilst those who cannot afford it will not be in any greater position in terms of being able to access private health insurance. There is no means test and, furthermore, there is no discrimination at all between the types of coverage for which the rebate will be paid.Coalition ministers such as Senator Herron have talked about how they believe the previous scheme reached a position where health insurance membership had plateaued and was on the increase. That is what we were constantly being told by Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care in this chamber. Yet, at the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee's hearing on 4 December, the evidence of Mr Schneider, representing the Australian Health Insurance Association, was that it was declining and was continuing to decline irrespective of the government's measures.So one has to ask the logical question: why should throwing more money at this system work? Of course the answer is that it will not. Until we are able to address the fundamental problem of private health insurance in this country—that is, the issue of the gap—these sorts of schemes will simply not work. Whilst it might be very attractive and it might be seen as good politics to pay substantial amounts of money by way of a rebate to the 30-odd per cent of people who have private health insurance, it is certainly not good health policy.Everyone knows that the major problem with private health insurance is that you pay your $2,000-odd a year for your family cover and you get your doctor of choice but, after you have had elective surgery in a private hospital, you often find that, whilst your hospital costs may have been met, your medical costs have not been met because the surgeon has charged well in excess of the schedule fee. The private health companies pay a refund of only 25 per cent of the schedule fee. Further, they do not cover the gap between the doctors' fees and the schedule fee. It should be remembered that private hospitals have the benefit of the fact that, for all the medical procedures that are undertaken in private hospitals, 75 per cent of the schedule fee—that is, the costs of the surgeon, the anaesthetist or whomever—are met out of Medicare, they are met out of public funds. So we are already providing substantial support to private hospitals.I just want to finish on two other points. Everyone knows that, whilst we do need, and we on this side support, a strong private hospital system that complements the public hospital system, first and foremost the objective of government is to support the public health system. I hear time and time again of situations where after people have gone into a private hospital for an operation, something serious has developed following that procedure and they have been very quickly transferred, in some cases just across the road, to the public hospital.It is a fact that many private hospitals do not provide all of the facilities that can be obtained in a public hospital, whether they be crash carts or the sorts of intensive care units that patients in a critical condition may need. Essentially, we are providing huge amounts of money to support private hospitals, profit making enterprises, dealing largely in providing elective surgery at the expense of much needed funds that should be in the public hospital system.The final point I wish to make is this: I obtained some information about where in New South Wales private hospitals are located. It is very interesting to note that, of the 85 private hospital licensed establishments in New South Wales, 23 are in the northern Sydney area, eight are in the central Sydney area and 15 are in the south-eastern Sydney area. That is, over 50 per cent of private hospitals in New South Wales are located in areas which are in northern, eastern or central Sydney.It is no wonder that people in rural and regional areas, in western Sydney where they only have five private hospitals, in south-western Sydney, or in the far west where there are none, according to this table, are screaming out, saying that they want decent hospital systems in their regions rather than huge amounts of funds being diverted into private hospitals which ultimately will be accessed more by the higher income earners of this country than by the general public.11:08:001636Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I thought I might begin my contribution on the second reading debate on this legislation by quoting from the 1998 platform of the Australian Labor Party, which says this:Labor remains resolutely committed to universal access to publicly funded health services through Medicare. Labor will work to ensure that health resources are allocated on the basis of need and people are not excluded from necessary services because of their economic circumstances.Labor is committed to maintaining the effective integrity of Medicare as a system of universal health insurance that will finance the delivery of high quality, medical and public hospital services to all Australians.These are the principles that the Labor Party will honour and will uphold, as we deal with this legislation; they will guide the approach of the Labor Party on this matter that is currently being dealt with by the Senate. Our Labor Party platform, in regard to the private sector, also says this:Labor recognises the role of the private health sector and remains committed to a balanced health system making best use of both public and private sectors.The private sector must operate under appropriate government regulation. In particular, Labor remains committed to a private health insurance system which does not discriminate on the basis of age, sex or health.The critical point of this is balance: we want a balanced health system that makes the best use of both the private and the public health sectors. This legislation before the parliament now is unfair: it does not provide balance, and it certainly, I have to say, is not good policy.We think that the best way to boost hospital funding and reduce hospital waiting times for surgery is to directly fund public hospitals. The public hospital system is our priority because that is where the greatest need exists. We believe that spending money directly on treating patients is the most effective way of reducing waiting lists. We encourage people, of course, who wish to take out private health insurance. But we know that for many people in Australia, people on low incomes particularly, the public health system is the only option they have.The hundreds of millions of dollars that are being thrown at this rebate in this legislation would go a very long way to improving the public hospital system—and that would be of benefit to all Australians. The rebate being proposed by the government is inherently unfair. It does not provide balance, nor will it achieve its desired objective of increasing the take-up of private health insurance, and therefore reduce pressure on the public health system—and that is very strongly backed up by the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, which I thought put forward some strong and persuasive arguments against the legislation at the Senate committee hearing last Friday. Just look at what it actually said to the Senate committee. It summarised its position as follows:First, that it will not fix the problem it seeks to fix, it will probably make the problem worse and it is highly unlikely to do anything to improve the quality of health care available to the Australian people;second, that the huge proposed transfer payment would be more efficiently and equitably used in other ways;third, that the problem that has led the government to this point should now be the stimulus for real reform of private health insurance, making it supplementary to, not a competitor with, the publicly funded health care system.There is no evidence that the private health insurance rebate will take the pressure off public hospitals. If you take the example of the government's existing means tested rebate—which, of course, the proposal before us is supposed to replace—you find that it has not increased the number of people taking up private health insurance. The new rebate will benefit primarily people who have existing private health insurance.The government's estimate for increasing the number of people with private health insurance is a mere 2.7 per cent. That is the government's figure—a mere 2.7 per cent increase; up from 30.3 per cent to 33 per cent. That is a 2.7 per cent increase at the cost of $1½ billion. That is what the government is proposing, and we say that it is simply not good enough. Minister Wooldridge, I noticed, boasted an increase to 40 per cent in his second reading speech in the House of Representatives. A private hospital survey has claimed that the rebate would result in a boost to coverage to 45 per cent. Again, you have to ask this question: where is the evidence to back up those sorts of claims?I mentioned the evidence of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health given to the Senate committee. I think they presented a very worthwhile and impressive submission to the Senate inquiry. On the question before us, they said:. . . this is a clumsy and predictably ineffective way to achieve what the government wants to achieve. This approach would lock the government into an inflexible $7 billion spending program which would not produce the desired offsets in the public sector . . . this subsidy is likely to exacerbate the problem for the private funds of adverse selection and differential risk dropouts, without addressing the underlying problem.We say that the government is throwing good money after bad. It is sticking a whopping $1.5 billion into the private health system—money, of course, that is desperately needed in the public health system in public hospitals; money that could really make a difference in the public health system. It is directing this enormous amount of money exclusively to private health insurance owners, and we say that is patently and transparently unfair. It will benefit most those who need it least. It will benefit most high income households, most of whom already have private health insurance. How obviously unfair.In May of this year the Australian Bureau of Statistics produced a private health insurance survey which demonstrated a direct correlation between income and private health insurance. It showed that of those earning less than $20,000, 22 per cent have private health insurance; of those earning between $50,000 and $60,000, 60 per cent have private health insurance; and, of those earning over $70,000, 72 per cent have private health insurance. Most low income families in Australia cannot afford private health insurance. They simply cannot afford it, and that is the case with—Opposition senators interjecting—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Exactly, Senator West and Senator Denman. They cannot afford it with or without a rebate. That is the truth of this issue. That is why we say the priority here must rest with the public health system—and that is Labor's priority—because it is the system that most Australians rely on. That is the fundamental principle that guides the Labor Party in its approach on this legislation.But I do not want to suggest for one minute that the unfairness stops there. Pressure on public hospitals will not be relieved by extending the rebate to all ancillary services. There is no justification at all for doing that. Take the example of what I think is the great injustice on dental health. While abolishing the Commonwealth dental health scheme, which was, as I recall, worth $100 million—a scheme that provided dental health care and treatment to pensioners and low income people—those with private insurance are going to get a 30 per cent rebate on their dental premiums. That is the government's approach. Nearly $200 million of the rebate will go to subsidising private dental treatment. On the other hand, the low income people in our community wait at least a couple of years for treatment.We now have, as I say, this open-and-shut case of the unfairness of the legislation that is now before the parliament, but we also have the spectacle of the government trying to turn debate on this legislation into just another typically tawdry Liberal Party political stunt. As far as the government is concerned: forget about the health system and the health issues—the debate really is not about that. There is an election on the horizon in the state of New South Wales. That is an election, of course, that the coalition obviously desperately wants to win. So the debate no longer is about the policy issues, and I am sure that in particular my colleague from New South Wales, Senator West, has noted this. The debate is not about the policy but it is about the politics—the politics of the New South Wales election in March of next year.I just want to mention this as I conclude my remarks on this bill. John Howard is now less focused on the January 1999 start-up date for this rebate than he is focused upon realising political advantage in forcing the Senate to reject an unaltered or unamended and unnegotiated piece of legislation which the vast majority of commentators and experts agree is bad policy. Mr Howard, the Prime Minister, is perfectly happy to risk his January 1999 start-up—risk it all—for a bit of politics to play in the New South Wales election in March of next year. Of course, he has his pollsters like the discredited Mark Textor. They have, apparently, predicted significant political advantage to the New South Wales Liberal Party in forcing the Senate into some game of brinkmanship on this legislation. We are told that it would suit the New South Wales Liberal Party if the Senate does not pass the legislation in time for a January 1999 start-up so they can reintroduce this legislation in three months time.1X4WESTSenator West—Anything to take the focus away from their leadership problems.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—That's true, Senator West. But also, of course, three months time is right on the eve of the New South Wales election. I am glad you raised the issue, Senator West, of the Liberal Party leadership in New South Wales because you have a situation, which has been demonstrated so clearly during the debate on this legislation, where the Prime Minister is far more interested in matters relating to the internal dynamics of the New South Wales Liberal Party than he is in what ought to be his responsibility—the health of Australian families. What he is on about is the health of his stumbling protege in New South Wales, Ms Kerry Chikarovski, and Mr Howard's and Ms Chikarovski's cronies in the New South Wales Liberal Party.I draw the Senate's attention to last week's article in the Bulletin by Mr Laurie Oakes, who reported that before John Howard committed his government to the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance premiums he had the concept market tested. The results, as reported in the Bulletin, were unequivocal in regard to its popularity. According to—and I use this term advisedly—the `researcher', the only proposal he had ever found to be more popular was the reintroduction of the death penalty.This policy, this legislation, that we are debating has been poll driven from its conception. I put all my money on who did the research. You can bet your life it was Mark Textor, that grubby, unprincipled push pollster for the Liberal Party. No doubt as has been reported, his most recent polling is inextricably linked to both Ms Chikarovski's leadership coup and the politics of the 30 per cent tax bribe for upper income earners. I assume polling was uppermost in Dr Wooldridge's mind when he threatened on the weekend to bring the legislation back to the Senate for a vote a week before the New South Wales election if it did not pass unamended this week.I will be very interested in the Liberals' approach during the committee stage of this debate. I will be very interested to see whether Dr Wooldridge will be delivering on that threat that he made on the weekend or whether it was just a bit of breastbeating and empty rhetoric, as we have come to expect from people like Dr Wooldridge, or whether the Liberals will contemplate no amendment at all to this legislation—whether they happen to consider that that's in their political interest. Don't think for one minute that threats and brinkmanship are going to work with us. They are not. They are not going to work with the Labor Party; they never have. We are going to stand by our principles.1X4WESTSenator West—Our policy.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—What we are going to do is stand by our policy and stand by the public health system in this country. We are not ashamed of that. We are opposing this legislation in the name of fairness and balance. That is what drives the Labor Party's approach on this. We are opposing it because we want to ensure the health of our public hospital system, we want to ensure the health of all Australians and we want to ensure that low income people in our community are not disadvantaged. I commend the approach of the opposition. (Time expired)11:29:001639Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to move an amendment to my second reading amendment.6E4TAMBLINGSenator Tambling—I point out that I wasn't consulted.Leave granted.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—Senator Tambling, this is no major change to the amendment.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Could I just be clear, Mr Acting Deputy President, that Senator Lees is seeking leave to amend her second reading amendment? I assume that is what is occurring.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator Less has leave to move her amendment.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—I shall amend my second reading amendment by adding just two words, `and middle', to paragraph (c)(i), so that it will now read `for people on low and middle incomes'. I move:Paragraph (c), subparagraph (i), omit "low incomes", substitute "low and middle incomes".11:30:001639West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I would like to state very clearly at the outset that I do have a small amount of private health insurance—about the lowest you can buy. I have some insurance that enables me to receive doctor of choice treatment in a public hospital, but I am beginning to wonder about the value and benefit of private health insurance, like so many other people in this country. Let me give an example of why I feel this way. I had my gall bladder removed during the break recently. The doctor's bill was pretty much on par with what I got back from Medicare and Medibank Private, but the anaesthetist's bill took the cake. For two hours of being trundled into the theatre on a trolley and being trundled out of the complex to the ward on a trolley, I scored a bill from the anaesthetist for $500. I had to write a cheque for $223.75, which was the gap.The gap is not a problem for people on my income, which is around $100,000 a year. The Prime Minister, in answering questions on why this proposal is so wonderful, talked about how people are scrimping and saving to be able to purchase health insurance. They need to do a hell of a lot more scrimping and saving if they are going to cover this gap. This proposal is bad policy. It does nothing to address many of the fundamental problems and issues that need to be addressed in the provision of health care. There is nothing in this proposal that will rein in the activity of some doctors. I say `some doctors' because I can give you an example of my surgeon's bill which was quite close to the mark. Probably the only reason it is not closer to the mark is that I am having a disagreement with the HIC over a small amount of money, in the region of $9 to $10.A former neighbour of mine several years ago who had maximum private health insurance and maximum ancillaries—the whole box and dice—had cataracts removed. She wrote cheques for $3,000. She had to have both eyes done, so all in all she ended up writing cheques for $6,000. We are not talking figures that are within the ballpark of being able to be afforded by the average, ordinary person. We are talking figures that can be afforded only by the 70-odd per cent of people earning more than $70,000-odd a year who have private health insurance.This is legislation aimed at greed and not need. This is not good policy. Senator Faulkner has pointed out a number of things that have driven this. I want to look at how this will impact upon rural areas. We know from the submissions to the inquiry last week that the Western Australian government raised a concern that there are only two private hospitals outside the metropolitan area in Western Australia. What incentives are there? Why do people in Western Australia outside of Perth require private health insurance? Their only opportunity for health treatment is in the public system.If you have an accident or you have a major illness, where are you going to end up? You are going to end up going through casualty or emergency into the public health system. For anybody who disagrees with that, let me remind them, as I have done on many occasions, that my background is nursing. I am a member of the two colleges of nursing in this country. I do not speak in this case on their behalf, but I do speak as somebody who has a background in nursing. I am older than most of the advisers in the box. I can tell them that this has been the case for the last 30-odd years that I know of.I can remember working in a public hospital, in a teaching hospital in Sydney, 25 years ago and having somebody who was earning a six-figure sum a year admitted to our ward because he had thrown off a pulmonary embolus from a deep venus thrombosis. He was admitted to a teaching hospital in the middle of the public ward. It was the Royal Prince Alfred that he was admitted to. He eventually moved to the private section in Gloucester House. But for time immemorial that sort of level of acuity has always ended up, and should continue to end up, in our public hospital system because for the most part that is where the best treatment is available.I find this piece of legislation obscene. It find it obscene that somebody like me on an income of $100,000 a year is offered a 30 per cent rebate to encourage me to take out private health insurance which I already have. I find it obscene that included in that 30 per cent rebate are ancillaries such as dental. If this legislation is passed, I think it is an obscenity that $200 to $300 million will be spent to give people who have some form of income, and who are on the whole wealthier, access to dental care through ancillaries and to not give that money to lower income people through the state system. It is an injustice.We will very shortly, if this legislation is passed, not need to ask a person anything about their income, their occupation or their status. We will be able to line them up behind those boards you see at fairgrounds with a hole for the face and ask them to smile. Because it will be quite apparent who has and who has not got money. If you do not have money, you will have holes in your teeth. If you do have money and you have private health insurance, you will have a perfect smile. That to me is an obscenity.I also want to talk about some of the other issues that this legislation does not address. The issues of waiting lists are not addressed. Occupancy in the private health system is very high, as well as in the public health system. This does not address the shortages of doctors in various places and the shortages of specialists. This does not address the fact that a number of colleges that allow access for specialist training have, I would allege, almost monopolistic and cartel-type activities in keeping their numbers restricted. This government is all for competition, but it is not looking at the behaviour of some of those colleges and their restriction of competition. Maybe Professor Fels should look at them and not some of the other areas. It does nothing to address those issues.This legislation does nothing to address the shortages of occupational therapists, speech therapists, dietitians, physiotherapists and social workers in rural areas of Australia. It does nothing to address the problems and the shortages of mental health services in rural Australia. This will not help bring one more of these professional people to the bush and maybe even to the outer areas of some of the capital cities, particularly Sydney. This legislation does nothing to address these fundamental problems that we have to address in health.This is legislation which, as I said, is an obscene and unjust piece of legislation which gives those of us on my income a bit more money and does not give a service that I consider to be an absolute basic service essential to life and human dignity. It does not give that. This is the most unchristian piece of legislation I think I have seen come into this place in some considerable time. This is about giving to the haves and not sharing with the have-nots, and I find it an obscenity. I find it an obscenity that people can get a rebate to buy a pair of Reeboks or running shoes. That sort of business will not help the public health levels in this country and will not do anything to reduce people's usage of the public health system.The money could far better spent in many, many other ways. This, as I said before, is bad policy. It is bad legislation. It has been put forward by a government which is being poll driven and thinking only of political advantage and not the advantage, the benefit and the wellbeing of this country. For that, the government should be roundly condemned.11:40:001641O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I rise to speak in this debate briefly today, firstly, to indicate that my family has private health insurance. I suspect that, as a result of that, I am not paying the additional one per cent Medicare levy as one who falls in the higher income levels that attract the levy. I will be opposing this inequitable legislation which proposes to grant me a significant tax concession whilst I am exempt from paying this additional Medicare levy. This legislation will give a person on the income level of a senator, member of parliament or the many higher income earners in the community a significant advantage over the bulk of the constituents of my state of Tasmania, more than 80 per cent of whom have a family income of less than $50,000. I believe that the recent census information distributed by the Parliamentary Library this year points that out very clearly from my examination of the figures.This legislation will give someone like me a significant financial advantage. I do not propose to canvass figures because I think they have been most eloquently dealt with by my colleagues earlier in the debate. It will give a very small benefit, if any benefit at all, to the bulk of the constituents of my state, and certainly I am talking about those who hold private health insurance. The many thousands of families who do not hold family health insurance, who cannot afford family health insurance or who believe that family health insurance is not attractive because, even if you have the insurance, you still get significant bills—and we have just heard about that from Senator West—are all going to be significantly disadvantaged by this legislation.I also oppose this bill because ultimately it threatens the future of the public hospital system in my state. It means that those hospitals will not be receiving the funding in the future that they need to provide the services that everyone—all Tasmanians, whether insured or not—may ultimately rely upon, particularly in relation to critical care issues or complex medical procedure issues which are not provided by the private health system.After talking to constituents during the last election campaign who are holders of private health insurance, particularly independent retirees who saw some benefit in this government policy, I was heartened that, when they were confronted by the approach of the Labor Party—that is, we support seeing the public health system funded so that the kind of care that particularly elderly Tasmanians may need in terms of deterioration of health issues and medical procedure issues is provided in preference to rewarding only those who have private health insurance—I received an indication that the representatives of the independent retirees found that to be quite a valid concern and one which they thought very worthy of consideration.I am curious about a comment I received from a coalition senator about this legislation. It is an aspect that I had not considered until the point was made to me. The point was that, because members, senators and other higher income earners are paying a higher Medicare levy by virtue of the levy being a percentage of income, the private health insurance rebate was in fact a way of getting back part of that higher Medicare levy that the higher income earners are paying when compared, for example, with the combined effect of paying the Medicare levy and private health insurance between people on lower and higher incomes.I found that comment curious at first. Ultimately, I guess it fits in with the Labor Party's view of where the coalition is coming from in relation to this legislation: this is yet another way of undermining the Medicare system. The Medicare system, whatever the government has been saying about it, exists to provide universal medical services for the community, whether insured or not. Labor has always supported a parallel system. If the ultimate effect of this legislation is to undermine the funding of the public health system to bolster the funding of the private health system, then I do not think constituents of my state will see that as anything other than an anathema to their interests.At the end of the day, people in Tasmania, if they have major problems, rely on the public hospital system. I am sure that is not just the case in Tasmania but all over Australia. People rely upon the public health system, particularly for critical care, as I said earlier. If the funding of the public health system is sacrificed in the interest of funding private health insurance, which will ultimately, I suspect, bolster the private health system to the detriment of the public health system, then that is against the interests of all of my constituents.To the extent that there have been newspaper advertisements and lobbying in my state, I say to the people who placed those advertisements that they should look not at the issue of self-interest but at the interests of the health system for the whole of the population of Tasmania when this matter is considered. I remind my constituents and the Senate that the Labor Party is doing just that in saying that we oppose this legislation as inequitable and a threat to the public health system Australia wide.11:47:001642McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—The Senate is discussing the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 and associated bills. It is a sad moment for the Senate to be discussing such poorly targeted legislation—legislation which was conceived during an election campaign when the government was in some difficulty in making election promises, legislation which the government now seeks to gain some political advantage from in the forthcoming election in New South Wales. This bill is not about health care. This bill is blatant politicking on behalf of a government that does not care.This bill will do nothing to resolve the problem that was headlined in the Perth Sunday Times on 29 November this year, just a couple of weeks ago: `97 die awaiting surgery'. Ninety-seven people died awaiting surgery. The $1.7 billion that the government will hand out to people who do not need it, like me on the salary that I have, would be better served going to alleviate the difficulties of Western Australians and their relatives who cannot get hospital treatment. But, no. Mr Howard and Mr Wooldridge are seeking to put money in my pocket. I am on $100,000 a year. I have private health insurance. I do not need an incentive in the form of a tax rebate to remain in health insurance. I have the money to afford it.Why are you doing this? Mr Howard, why are you spending $900 million in giving tax rebates to people earning more than $70,000 a year? This is absolutely stupid legislation, particularly so when you get headlines such as: `97 die awaiting surgery'. It is even worse when you get a headline such as the one that appeared on the front page of the Australian newspaper on Friday, 27 November 1998: `Health funds reap $300m fee bonanza'. We are going to put more publicly funded money in their direction. What has gone wrong?There is obviously a major difficulty in the Prime Minister's office, the cabinet office and in the government party room if they continue to proceed with this bill and not either send it back for a rethink or accept some amendments on the floor at the committee stage. I understand that your party, Mr Acting Deputy President Watson, is not going to negotiate on that. This is absolutely criminal activity on behalf of the government—propping up health funds which actually need a great deal of scrutiny as to how they operate.Who said they need scrutiny? The Private Health Insurance Ombudsman's annual report, tabled very recently in this place, said they need scrutiny. Complaints against the private health insurers are up by 60 per cent on the previous year. One can understand that when you see the full-page advertisements that appear in the media. I quote from the West Australian newspaper of Saturday, 28 November:An open letter to Members of Federal ParliamentThis is from one Michael Gurry, Managing Director of HBF, Hospital Benefits Fund of Western Australia. Mr Gurry addresses me and my colleagues saying:Members of Federal ParliamentI write on behalf of the 1,056,310 electors and their families in Western Australia who have private health insurance to ask why some of you refuse to allow them a 30% refund . . . Who gave Mr Gurry the authority to put that letter in on behalf of me and my family as members of a private health fund? Neither he, his organisation nor the individual fund which I am a member of consulted me about putting a letter like that in. Mr Gurry went further, though, he wrote direct letters to members of parliament. He sent a letter by way of fax to me—and, I guess, to my other parliamentary colleagues—on 26 November 1998. He said:Dear Senator McKiernanI am writing on behalf of the 830,000 members of the Hospital Benefit Fund of Western Australia to express their concern at the attacks the Labor Party is making on private health insurance.I read the Hansard from the other place, and I did not see any attacks on private health insurance. Perhaps the reason my comments are toned the way they are is because I am replying directly to Mr Gurry about what he did in putting forward that letter to me. I wrote back to him on the same day asking him to confirm the membership. I quote from my letter:Your fax says 830,000 members, but the annual report of the Private Health Insurance Administration Council suggests you have a total membership (hospital and ancillary) of 392,489 at June 1998.I asked him which was the true figure. A week later, Mr Gurry responded by saying:I confirm HBF does have 830,000 individual members. HBF classifies all individuals covered by HBF as members.The babies, the infirm—everybody is supposed to be a member according to him. The letter goes on:The figures referred to in the PHIAC report for June 1998 are for Health Insurance policies not coverage.For your information HBF has 788,000 Health members and 42,000 General Insurance members.Mr Gurry is putting forward absolute lies, without the authority of his members, to me as a member of parliament. He asked for a copy of this speech, and I will ensure that he gets it. I hope that in the fullness of time the Department of Health and Aged Care or the Private Health Ombudsman will do something to bring some respectability into the way in which some of the health insurance funds operate. There are many that would appear to be lining their own pockets at the expense of those insured.Earlier this year, I, like many others in the community, following the last round of increases, gave very real consideration to whether or not I would remain as a member of my fund. As I said in my earlier comments, I can afford to be in it. On the salary that I earn, I can afford to retain coverage. The reason I considered dropping out was the ever increasing cost of the insurance. This particular bill that is before us now—giving away something like $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money—does nothing to address those ever increasing premiums that I and other members of health funds have to pay.The bill does nothing—as previous speakers have said—to address the biggest problem associated with private health insurance, and that is the gap. It does absolutely nothing to address the gap difficulties. Senator West, giving the most recent of the excellent contributions from this side of the chamber, outlined some of the finer details on that and, rather than use the time of the chamber now, I refer people to Senator West's and Senator Faulkner's excellent recent contributions on this. There were other contributions as well.Senator Forshaw interjecting—1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—And Senator Forshaw also made some comments, as I recall. The gap is the major problem associated with the health insurance industry in Australia today, yet we have the government coming into this place presenting legislation which does nothing to address it.The final thing I want to talk about in the limited time that I have imposed on myself—and that we, on this side of the chamber, have imposed in order to progress the legislation—is the letters that I have received from my constituents in Western Australia. I am quite pleased to receive letters such as those. I am very disappointed to receive letters from doctors, specialists and professors which are rote letters, probably drafted in a public relations office in the Hospital Benefit Fund. I expect a little bit better from professional people than that. The Hospital Benefit Fund have been the main leaders of the campaign in Western Australia, and that is a bit disappointing. All of the individuals who have written to me have got a response. Some of them have asked for copies of my speech and, indeed, those who have asked will get a copy of it. I am very disappointed, as I said, that learned and highly educated people should just take form letters and send them on. The campaign just has not had an effect. They have wasted their time and their energy in sending these letters through.It is a crying disgrace that the funds have used the elderly in our society. I have got great sympathy for those who are on pensions who do continue to hold health insurance, who do—as they said in their letters—go without meals in order to keep up their payments because it is something they have always done. The funds have got to be condemned for using people in the way they have used those in Western Australia.I would hope, whether this bill passes or does not pass, or whether it passes in an amended form, that the funds themselves sit back and have a look at their own conduct in this whole thing. The way they have managed themselves in order to line their own pockets, in order to get an increase in membership for private hospital cover of a mere 2.7 per cent—from 30.3 per cent to 33 per cent coverage—is not to their credit. It is appalling what they have done. One would hope that they will learn something from this whole escapade. Perhaps next year, when the parliament has more time to look at them in detail, there might not be the damning reports from the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman that we have seen this year.Debate (on motion by Senator Tambling) adjourned.Bills1645r614Billsr615Bills1645r6131645AUSTRALIAN RADIATION PROTECTION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY BILL 1998Consideration resumed from 9 December.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—The committee is considering the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 and an amendment moved on behalf of the opposition by Senator Forshaw. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.12:03:001645Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would normally ask leave to move the Greens (WA) amendments Nos 1 and 2 together, but we have seen opposition amendment No. 1 incorporate part of the Greens (WA) amendments. So I will be basically asking for the chamber to consider agreeing to Greens (WA) amendment No. 1. This is different in that it actually asks that nothing in the act is to be taken to authorise the construction or operation of a nuclear fuel fabrication plant, a nuclear power plant, an enrichment plant, a reprocessing facility or a nuclear waste storage or disposal facility.Considering the government has made statements on a number of these issues, especially in recent times on waste storage, disposal and so on, then I am sure it would have no problem at all in agreeing to this and indicating quite clearly without any doubt that this is not what this legislation is meant to, or can, be used for in the future. Therefore, I commend this amendment to the chamber. It makes it clear and unequivocal that this legislation cannot be used simply to allow a CEO to rubber-stamp an authority or a licence for any of those mentioned facilities.12:04:001645Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we are prepared to support Greens (WA) amendment No. 1. These fac ilities, such as nuclear power plants, do not exist in Australia at the moment. We understand that there is no either medium-term or long-term intention on the part of the government to proceed to construct such facilities. On many occasions the government has made it clear that, whilst it is determined to build a replacement research reactor located at Lucas Heights, it has stressed that it was not prepared or had no intention of building a waste reprocessing plant at the same site. On that basis alone, one would think that the government should be prepared to support this amendment. As I said earlier, we are happy to support it.12:06:001645Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The Greens propose the addition of clause 9A which explicitly states that nothing in the act authorises the construction or operation of any nuclear power plants, reprocessing plants and so on. The ALP amendment addresses the substantive concerns of the Greens by removing nuclear plants and reprocessing facilities from the definition of `nuclear installation'. Therefore, the further statements proposed by the Greens are unnecessary.However, I indicate to Senator Margetts that, if she were prepared to remove proposed paragraph (e)—which reads, `a nuclear waste storage or disposal facility with an activity that is greater than the activity level prescribed by regulations for the purposes of section 12'—we could accept the balance of the amendment.12:07:001645Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I do not know whether the rest of the chamber supports the whole thing. I could offer to move (1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) separately and then move (1)(e). It is an extraordinarily interesting statement. I was abused on the radio yesterday by Mr Wilson Tuckey about whether there ever would be a major nuclear waste international storage facility via this legislation. He made quite outrageous comments against me, actually. This could be cleared away altogether by saying that this legislation was not used for that. I am prepared to move an amendment regarding 9A(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (2) and then move one regarding 9A(1)(e) and see what the chamber says. I therefore move:(1) Page 4 (after line 21), after clause 9, insert:9A Prohibition on certain nuclear installations (1) Nothing in this Act is to be taken to authorise the construction or operation of any of the following nuclear installations: (a) a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; (b) a nuclear power plant; (c) an enrichment plant; (d) a reprocessing facility; (e) a nuclear waste storage or disposal facility with an activity that is greater than the activity level prescribed by regulations for the purposes of section 12. (2) The CEO must not issue a licence under section 31 in respect of any of the facilities mentioned in subsection (1).12:08:001646Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I am advised that the ALP amendment that has already been agreed to includes the issues raised in proposed sub-subsection (e) in a definitional sense. To have it in this part of the legislation in the manner proposed by Senator Margetts would, in effect, be introducing a contradictory clause into the legislation.12:08:001646Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—On the matter of the opposition amendment, I was wondering whether I could ask the same question that I asked yesterday towards the end of the debate before it was adjourned. I asked the government whether it understood the definition proposed by the opposition to include nuclear reprocessing and power generation. I thank the parliamentary secretary for answering that question. I was wondering whether Senator Forshaw would give us his understanding of the definitions that are covered in the amendment.12:09:001646Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The intention of what we put forward was to ensure that any such facility is one that is contemplated at the moment, such as the intermediate or low level waste storage facility called for in the Senate select committee report. Indeed, we are certainly prepared to support Senator Margetts's amendment. We believe it ensures that the act will not authorise the construction of any larger facility, having in mind, for instance, one which could deal with imported waste and reprocessing to the enrichment stage. That is really what there has been some public discussion about in recent days.The ultimate situation is that, whilst the definition of `nuclear installation' includes a nuclear waste storage or disposal facility, the regulations will limit the operation of any such facility. Clearly, if clause 9A(1)(e) is carried, the act would not authorise the construction of such a facility beyond what is set in the regulations. I hope that is clear. That is why we do not see any contradiction between carrying proposed clause 9A and the amendment that we have just carried.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—The question before the chair is that the Greens amendment which concerns clause 9A subclauses (1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (2) be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—The question now is that the Greens amendment which concerns clause 9A subclause (1)(e) be agreed to.Question put:12:17:00The committee divided. 0Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Denman, K. J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. Lees, M. H.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.0Abetz, 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. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.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.Crossin, P. M. Troeth, J.Crowley, R. A. Macdonald, S.Evans, C. V. O'Chee, W. G.Faulkner, J. P. Chapman, H. G. P.Lundy, K. Brownhill, D. G. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.12:20:001647Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens (WA) oppose clause 7—`Act not to prejudice Australia's defence'—and clause 8—`Act not to prejudice national security'. As always with clauses such as these which appear in legislation from time to time, the problem from our perspective is the lack of definition and the consequent broad powers which are then given to the Chief of the Defence Force and the Director-General of Security.The additional problem is one of perception, particularly international perception. As everyone knows, in foreign affairs, perception counts for a great deal. When those perceptions are intertwined with the often shadowy world of nuclear weapons, then there is cause for concern. As I stated in my speech in the second reading debate, many defence and security analysts acknowledge that the best method for developing nuclear weapons capability is through civilian nuclear technology. This is a great flaw. The great lie that underlies the international nuclear non-prolif eration framework is the belief that you can prevent nuclear weapons proliferation if non-weapon states are provided with assistance to develop so-called peaceful nuclear technology.This is especially so in the current world situation with proliferation, re-proliferation and disarmament, and Australia's standing in that debate. I believe we have got to be seen to be not just with the rest of the world but a good example to the rest of the world—and a leading example. I guess Australia could do that by taking a very positive role in the middle powers initiative. But, unfortunately, we are not.In this particular instance we are using the powers that are available under the ASIO Act. I believe—perhaps the government can tell me if I am wrong—that it potentially enables ASIO operatives to be exposed to levels of radiation to which they normally would not be, perhaps for spying or whatever. Can the government clarify whether that is the case or whether we potentially have a situation where there is a great deal more power under this act to the Chief of the Defence Force and the Director-General of Security? Can the government tell us what assurances there are that that will not or cannot be misused beyond anything which the public would believe is normally given under this legislation?12:25:001647Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we are not prepared to support the position put by Senator Margetts on this matter. Perhaps clauses 7 and 8 could have been drafted more tightly but we are prepared to support the inclusion in the bill of the principles contained in clauses 7 and 8. We note particularly that any declaration made under subsection (2) by the Chief of the Defence Force, after consultation with a minister, is a disallowable instrument. Similarly, any declaration under clause 8 is a disallowable instrument. The opposition will support the clauses of the bill.12:27:001647Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—Clauses 7 and 8 of the bill relate to exemptions on the grounds of national security and defence. The Greens seek to remove these provisions. However, the provisions must remain in the legislation. Removing them would jeopardise the national security and defence of the country. The provisions are standard clauses included in all such Commonwealth legislation—for example, the occupational health and safety legislation. With respect to the issue raised by Senator Margetts, I refer her to clause 8(2) of the bill, which reads:Without limiting subsection (1), the Director-General of Security may, after consulting with the Minister, declare by notice in writing that specified provisions of this Act or the regulations do not apply, or apply subject to such modifications as are set out in the declaration, in relation to: (a) premises or a workplace under the control of the Director-General; or (b) a person who is employed under section 84 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979 ; or (c) the performance of work by such a person for the purpose of carrying out a function set out in section 17 of that Act.Whilst there is a role for the Director-General, it must be related to the purposes of the act.12:28:001648Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I draw the committee's attention, again, to the Director of Safeguards report through Foreign Affairs and Trade. I asked the government yesterday if it could explain the activities of the company Silex Systems, which is developing laser enrichment technology at Lucas Heights. The committee may like to know that on page 23 of the report, under the heading `Laser enrichment research and development', it states:An Australian company, Silex Systems Pty Ltd, is researching a novel method of separating uranium isotopes, using laser techniques. The company has entered into an agreement with the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) to explore the commercial potential of this technology. In the first phase USEC specialists are undertaking a technical assessment in Australia. If this is successful, the technology would be developed further in the US—this aspect is discussed further under Task C.1.We look at that and then at page 31 of the report where, under the heading `Laser enrichment technology', it makes the comment:Reference was made under Task A.1 above—which I have just quoted—to the laser enrichment R&D being undertaken by Silex Systems Pty Ltd. If this technology is classified as "associated technology", then any transfer to the US for further development will require an amendment to the existing Australia/US nuclear cooperation agreement, or a new agreement. ASO officers have been participating in discussions with US officials to develop appropriate arrangements.This relates to what Senator Margetts refers to as the potential of civilian technology to be applied to the manufacture of weapons. I ask the government to explain what is going on at Lucas Heights. Is there going to be a change to the US-Australian nuclear cooperation agreement and, if so, why?12:30:001648Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I would just point out the time and the fact that there are other important functions in and around Parliament House at this time. I would like to return to that issue at a later point, Senator Brown, perhaps when we return to the legislation a bit later.Progress reported.Bills1648r6031648Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Senator Minchin:That this bill be now read a second time.12:31:001648Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I rise to speak briefly on the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 . As my colleague Senator Cook outlined in his speech in the second reading debate, this bill has unanimous support from all sides of the chamber. It is a real problem in the world which many people probably do not focus on enough. The problem was outlined in a speech by my colleague Mr Brereton last year, and Senator Cook referred to some of the statistics from the International Red Cross outlined by Mr Brereton in that speech, and it is worth traversing those again.There are an estimated 119 million active landmines in 70 countries. It therefore becomes an issue of mammoth proportions indeed. The report also said that some 15 countries are, in effect, crippled as a result of the placing of landmines. It is interesting to note some of the places that are listed as being crippled: Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia, Cambodia, Mozambique and Somalia. This is not because of external forces fighting each other but because of internal war, civil war, in many instances. One finds that, once the civil war has been resolved, the mines that were laid are invariably left lying around the place. The effect of that is that they injure, maim and kill innocent people long after the hostility, the internal insurrection, has ceased.The International Red Cross report, as my colleague Senator Cook indicated, states that landmines kill or maim some 2,000 people every month. The figures broken down are 800 killed and 1,200 maimed every month. That, again, is something of mammoth proportions and is completely and totally unnecessary. The International Red Cross report went on to say—and this was as of last year—that, if mine clearing were to proceed and no more mines were to be laid, it would take 1,100 years to clear the entire world of mines laid during civil or other wars that have occurred. That really puts into perspective the problem that is confronting many people in many nations. It is not a small problem; it is a problem of great magnitude.Antipersonnel landmines are an indiscriminate killer, as I said earlier. Long after peace has been brokered within many of the countries where civil war has occurred, the people who laid the mines have invariably gone onto other pursuits. Of course the minefields were laid without any markings and in peacetime they become an indiscriminate killer, particularly of the young and the old and of women and children. That, in itself, should be completely avoided at all costs. People who had no direct input into the violence, people who invariably had no part to play in the warring that took place, are being injured long after the settlement of the melee. In many instances, as the statistics have shown, death occurs quite wantonly for these people.The fact that there are so many landmines out there causes real poverty in some of these nations—nations which really cannot afford to be subjected to additional poverty, because poverty is one of the factors those nations inherit as a result of the protracted and prolonged wars having taken place in them. The existence of vast minefields stops appropriate resettlement within these nations, stops many of their people from being able to return to agriculture to till the land because mines are in the arable land. And all that does is impose further poverty. It also acts as an obstacle to the transportation of people and goods within some of these countries, and it has an effect on the provision of basic services. All in all, one sees in many cases not a very pretty picture being painted as a result of the laying and indiscriminate use of landmines in conflicts that have long been resolved—and, of course, they have wreaked havoc on very innocent populations in postwar periods.I found it of interest to read a publication dated May 1997 called Living in a minefield—a report on the mine problem in Afghanistan, which was put out by—pardon my French—Medecins Sans Frontieres.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Good; eight out of 10.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—It was quite good? I got an eight out of 10 for French there, and I thank the honourable senator for that mark. But that was not the point. The point was not to prove my French but to look at just a couple of excerpts from this publication. I believe that we really have no experience nor real understanding of the problems caused by landmines and, therefore, it becomes a bit of an academic exercise for us. But I find it interesting that outlined on page 12 of the publication are the problems caused by landmines. It states:There are three common patterns of anti-personnel mine injury: one is amputation of the foot or leg from standing on the blast mine; the second is multiple fragment injuries from triggering a fragmentation mine where the legs are injured and often so too are the head, neck, chest and abdomen; and, three, hand, arm, face and eye injuries from handling a mine.What we see are injuries that are not at all pretty, injuries that take a lot of treatment and injuries that, in many cases, absolutely ruin the dignity of the individual living in these communities. This brings with it problems in terms of treatment, problems in terms of rehabilitation and problems in terms of ongoing support. It places a strain on the economy, on the family and on the community. Without being emotional about the issue, one sees landmines really as being a blight on our society and an issue being appropriately addressed by this legislation and measures that are being taken by the government through our expenditure going towards the elimination of mines in different parts of the world.Part of the real problem in this is the finding of the mines; that costs time and money as well. Of course, in many instances, the minefields have not been marked and have not been mapped. So it is not simply a matter of once the war is over the nation returning to normalcy; what one finds is that there is still much work to be done in finding the mines, marking the areas, mapping them and then, of course, clearing the areas. This further disrupts the lives, the lifestyles and the chance of a livelihood of those people within those nations.Part of the problem is educating the locals and making them aware of the problem. This in itself can have its own problems in that many of these people are unable to read or write and, therefore, are not necessarily able to understand signage. Even if signage is placed there, with many of these people being so poor, there is evidence that it is removed to assist them to make basic shelter and homes. As I have said, the Australian government is to spend $100 million by the year 2005, and this is very commendable.As I realise this is non-controversial legislation, the last thing I will do is read from a World Vision document, which highlights the problem in Cambodia. I quote:Between six and 10 million landmines that were laid in Cambodia during or after the 25-year war are yet to be removed. One of every 236 Cambodians has lost an arm or a leg to a mine.I repeat: one in every 236 people. It is something of enormous proportions and it shows the lack of dignity that these people must experience in the injury being inflicted and in the harm that has been caused to them by the landmines that were placed in Cambodia over a long period of time.We are a nation free from this. In this nation we do not have this problem, we do not experience it and, therefore, probably do not understand the disaster it causes at the family and social levels within these communities. The article goes on:Landmines are currently the single greatest causes of poverty in these districts—this is in Cambodia—not only because of the deaths and the injuries but also because of the large areas of precious farming land that cannot be used due to the mines that lie hidden there. Mines are preventing needy families and communities from re-establishing decent livelihoods and futures.The fact remains that, whatever one's view of war might be, landmines should be banned. They should be kept out of the realms of war. We as a nation should seek to assist others in clearing lands that are peppered with these indiscriminate killers. The fundamental thing that we can achieve by helping these people out is to return to them the most precious commodity that we can give them, and that is their dignity as human beings—their dignity as persons. I commend the legislation and I hope it gets the speedy passage it deserves.12:46:001650Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Bourne, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a speech on the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The Anti Personnel Mines Convention Bill is one of the most important we have dealt with in this Senate.The Democrats have a proud record in calling for a total ban on the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of landmines. We join with NGOs here and around the world in believing that the only solution to this terrible problem is a complete and total ban.First, and most importantly, this Bill represents Australia's commitment to the eventual destruction of landmines throughout the world, and their elimination as a legitimate weapon.Former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Gali saidThe landmine, that scourge of the battlefield of World War I, has re-emerged on a scale unimagined, and with hideous unanticipated effects. There is today a global landmine crisis. . . it began as a military problem; it is now an ongoing humanitarian disaster.The United Nations estimates it would take more than a thousand years to clear the 110 million active landmines already in the ground in 64 countries around the world. Two million more mines are laid every year.Poor farming communities bear the greatest load from the deployment of landmines. The burden of injury and loss of income affects poorer women to the greatest extent.The mindless carnage caused by landmines is an affront to the conscience of humankind. Growing public awareness of landmines and the devastation they cause are the best weapons against their continued use.In recent years, landmines have attracted international coverage—they are now recognised as a global catastrophe. In 1994 the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for the eventual elimination of landmines. This led to the Ottawa process and the Bill we have before us today.This Bill is also important for a second reason. It sends a loud message about Australia's commitment to a total ban on landmines. For that, the Minister for Foreign Affairs should be congratulated. I know it cannot have been easy for the Minister to convince the rest of the Cabinet that this was the right thing to do, and it is very much to his credit that he was able to do so.In ratifying the convention and introducing this legislation the Australian Government will encourage other governments in our region to take similar action.The past 20 years have seen new types of warfare, often involving non-conventional combatants such as insurgents, partisans, terrorists and guerrillas. Regular armies fight against these groups and each other. All use landmines. Those mines will kill civilians. In far too many circumstances, mines are beyond military control. They have ongoing political, social and economic effects.Those countries most affected by landmines tell the story—Afghanistan, Angola, Burma, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Iraq, Kenya, Pakistan, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Vietnam and former Yugoslavia. The list goes on.The effects are devastating and the practice is a blatant violation of international humanitarian law.Anti-personnel mines are cheap and very easy to manufacture. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, prices range from $3 to $15 per mine. They might be cheap, but the cost of dealing with their effects is appallingly expensive.Hospital stays, physical and psychological rehabilitation services, are all expensive. Many of the most affected nations don't have the money or resources to provide these services. Artificial limbs are just too expensive for many. Children typically require a new artificial limb every year. Then there are the costs of re-integrating victims into society, making them feel useful and able to feed their families.De-mining is very expensive. Clearing mines, which in most cases must be done by hand, can cost as much as $1,000 per mine.The Australian Defence Force has an excellent record in mine clearance and training. The Government recognised this with a pledge at the Ottawa signing to provide an extra $100 million to aid clearance work. We welcome this. However, we fear the money for mine clearance will be drawn from the aid budget rather than the defence budgets where it belongs.The Democrats and the NGO community have always maintained that funds for mine clearance operations should come from the defence budget. The humanitarian aid budget is already dreadfully depleted.We also believe the Minister could better use forums such as the ASEAN Regional Forum to achieve a total ban on anti-personnel mines in our own region, as recommended by the Treaties Committee in our landmine report.The Minister should be actively encouraging our South-East Asian neighbours to sign the Ottawa convention. Australia has demonstrated leadership in this matter and we should not lose that momentum.The Democrats are keen to know when and how Australia will destroy our own stockpile of these weapons.We welcome the Minister's clarification of clause 7(iii), which we now understand will be applied in instances where an Australian Defence officer carries out one of the prohibited acts under clause 7(i) in the course of combined operations.We are also pleased that Defence doctrinal and operational manuals will be amended to comply with the prohibitions contained in the Bill. We are sure these amendments will be made as soon as possible after this Bill becomes law.In conclusion, I would like to say how pleased the Democrats are to see this Bill before the Senate. It is remarkable to think that we are moving towards an effective total ban on landmines.Lastly, I would like to thank Sister Patricia Pak Poy, Australia's co-ordinator for the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, whose tireless campaigning and encyclopaedic knowledge on the subject of landmines have been absolutely central to Australia becoming a party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and their Destruction. 5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—Also while I am on my feet, I seek leave, on behalf of Senator Margetts, to incorporate in Hansard a speech on the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Today is a particularly satisfying day in my Parliamentary career, seeing the Bill come before the Senate and being met with the support of all Senators.It is an issue which has been close to my heart and one I have tried to pursue from the very early days of time in this place. My first question in the Senate on the issue was about the Australian Defence Force use of mines and Australian compliance with the inhumane weapons convention back in February 1994. The part of the question to do with modification of weapons for use as booby traps wasn't answered at that time and the issue of grenades and other weapons being modified to work as defacto land mines is still a problem.What was different then was the political climate on the issue. In June 1994, when I raised the landmines issue in the context of its effect on the world refugee problem it seemed to me I was very much on my own in this place. There was sympathy but no commitment to getting anything done about it.Australia was being accused of providing Papua New Guinea with grenades which could be easily converted to mines for use in Bougainville—but the government continued to turn a blind eye.Australia's role in this arms trade was a recurring theme of my speeches on the issue and several times I sought to draw the attention of the Senate to the hypocrisy and inconsistency of the Government over its failure to support a total ban campaign. They held to a position that mines were OK if they were mapped and if they went off by themselves or defused themselves after a certain time. I pointed out then that they couldn't be mapped if they were dropped from planes or fired from guns and didn't necessarily do what was expected of them anyway.Then in 1995 there was the infamous Gareth Evens speech which I hope will continue to haunt him till his dying day in which he referred to my call for a total ban on landmines as "hopelessly utopian". He went on in that speech to use the chilling phrase "landmines perform a unique military function".That is an expression that deserves to be rated alongside collateral damage and smart bombs!Well Gareth, maybe now that you have time for reflection from your position in semi-retirement on the backbench, you'll realise that a utopian position is not necessarily hopeless. If a few more people in high office were to take a utopian position we might actually get a few more achievements such as this Bill to ratify the Ottawa Treaty.Over the years that I engaged in a war of attrition with then-Senator Evens, Senator Hill and others, the real battle to put an end to landmines was being fought by the non-government sector which was building up a world-wide constituency pressing governments to go further, to take on the total ban as an achievable aim.In 1995 Australian Catholic Relief, Community Aid abroad, The Christian Centre for Social Action and many others affiliated with the Australian Council For Overseas Aid raised almost a quarter of a million signatures requesting the Government to push for a total ban on Landmines.The turning point was the 1996 Ottawa Conference at which Australia pledged to work towards a having a ban treaty in place as soon as possible. It wasn't long before the Government were backtracking on that position, moving in to line behind the US which preferred the slower approach through the UN Conference on Disarmament. The CD approach was always going to be flawed as landmines got caught up in the complex trade-offs over nuclear weapons—and the commitment of the US was always in doubt anyway.Fortunately the momentum for change was overwhelming. The groundswell of popular feeling could not be ignored. Disgust grew as people became aware of the indiscriminate nature of weapons which lay around for years, sometimes killing children, farmers, anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time. And the wrong place at the wrong time could be any place at any time—in fields, on paths, in forests.Then gradually there was the realisation that—all the more horrible—that this killing of civilians was not always so indiscriminate. That sometimes it was the intentional outcome of the planting of mines. This was the case in many conflicts around the world.This realisation, and the appearance of television coverage of the plight of victims, intensified the movement for a total, global, unconditional ban on landmines. It would never have come about if it hadn't been for the untiring efforts of people such as Sister Patricia Pak Poy and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. I am please to see Sister Patricia was recognised for her efforts with an ANZAC peace prize earlier this year.It is she and the others in the Non-Government sector who are to be thanked for making so much progress on an issue that seemed so intractable only a short while ago. That brings us to the current situation—where what was once "hopelessly utopian" is now Government policy and soon will be Australian law.The Bill to ratify The Convention On The Prohibition Of The Use, Stockpiling, Production, And Transfer Of Anti-Personnel Mines And Their Destruction is very welcome indeed.While there have been some concerns raised about particular aspects of the Bill, particularly in respect of Section 7 (3), on the issue of Australian troops involved in operations with non-signatory states, I understand those concerns have been pretty much addressed in the Second Reading speech by the Minister. I certainly hope that loop-hole is well and truly closed.The issue I wish to focus on is: Where to from here? What happens from now on in terms of action to get the mines out of the ground, to provide assistance to victims and to universalise the Treaty. It is important to know how all of this will be managed and monitored. In this regard I commend the current efforts in Ottawa to establish a Landmines Monitor, but we will also have to be vigilant in our monitoring of Australia's role.The amount allocated by the Government for work on landmines—$100 million—is on the face of it a generous amount. But do we have guarantees that this is `new money'? i.e. not coming out of existing aid budgets. Even with this allocation, there is room for Australia to make further allocations for clearance of mines from priority land, and for assistance to victims and survivors.UniversalisationRatification by Australia now puts us in a better position to seek to convince others in the region, and elsewhere (including the US), to come on board. Vietnam, Laos, Burma, Singapore and PNG are still not signatories. Neither are China, Korea, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Let's make this a high priority in our regional relations.The focus needs to be on total ban. Let's not see our efforts fall back into reliance on the CD process. While the CD is obviously one forum, Government efforts here should not detract from the ban principle. We must continue efforts in UN forums especially the next Review of Protocol II in 2000-2001.Mine ActionKey issues around mine action are the priorities—deciding where and how the remainder of the $100m gets spent. The choices here need to be made in a strategic and transparent way, targeting getting the mines out of the ground, maximising local capacity in the countries affected and maximising Australian expertise in the area. In this context, countries in our region should receive priority attention. Mine Action programs should develop local capacity in mines awareness, management and clearance—not rely on expensive expatriate expertise. In this regard we should capitalise on the potential for the ADF to play a positive role—as part of its training and awareness role—and its moral responsibility.But there are other advantages to the Defence Forces in participation in de-mining and their efforts should be funded out of their budget, not from humanitarian/relief allocations whether on a cost recovery basis or any other.The choice of where to de-mine should be based on proper data, and on practical and humanitarian principles which will maximise the capacity of local affected communities to return to productive and safe livelihoods.Victim AssistanceObviously there needs to be an ongoing commitment to assisting people who have been injured by mines. In an immediate sense, we need to continue with medical assistance etc. But also we need to focus on providing assistance to victims, and their families in developing safe and alternative livelihoods (where people can't farm their land because it is mined, or because they have lost limbs etc). Landmines are currently the single greatest cause of poverty in some parts of the world: not only because of the deaths and injuries, but also because large areas of precious farming land cannot be used due to the mines that lie hidden there.It is most appropriate that this assistance be provided through the non-government sector as much as possible. It is the NGO's who have the experience on the ground and the confidence of local people and organisations and it is they who are best able to provide assistance.Organisations such as Austcare, World Vision, Red Cross and others have well established programs which are deserving of greater government support.MonitoringWe would not want to see the legislation as being the end of this process. Although it has been a good achievement, we should not let the feast of self-congratulation cloud the fact that what matters will be what Australia actually does to further the cause of the elimination of landmines. There are many aspects here: how Defence implements its side (including the destruction of the stockpile—and the importance of openness about progress towards destruction of the stockpile within 4 years), how DFAT approaches the task of universalising both the principle and the fact of the Treaty, how AusAID disburses funds (and against what criteria) and what other efforts the Government and civil society will need to make in scrutinising adherence in the manufacturing/transfers area. There is a role for multipartisan scrutiny here—involving parliamentarians, bureaucrats and NGO's.ResearchThere is also need for research and development of mine detection and clearance technology, but it needs to be stressed that this must not come from the aid budget or humanitarian funds.Finally let us turn to the longer term priorities.In July this year in Rome the international community created a statute for an International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC will come into being once 60 States have ratified the treaty. Unfortunately anti-personnel landmines were not included in the list of prohibited weapons found in Article 8 dealing with war crimes. However there is an opportunity to amend the Statute pursuant to Article 121 and 123 in the future. If the use of landmines was deemed a war crime it would be an extremely powerful tool in the fight to stop these heinous weapons destroying more lives.The first priority there is for Australia to ratify and then start the long term process of getting the use of landmines considered a war crime for which prosecution can be mounted in the International Court.But maybe that is just me being `hopelessly utopian' again.12:46:001654West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I want to associate myself with the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 . This is a very important issue to a lot of people, particularly those who live in developing countries or countries that have seen strife, unrest, fighting and war in the last few years. I think particularly of Cambodia. However, more recently we have had brought home to us the troubles experienced around Honduras and some other Latin American countries as a result of Hurricane Mitch—the worst hurricane ever—dislodging and moving a significant number of landmines to areas that had previously been clear.That is the thing about landmines: they are silent killers and silent maimers. Everyone in some of the rural villages and communities of developing countries—people on low incomes—needs to participate in the labouring work that has to be done in the fields. These instruments of war silently sit buried for any number of years—with some of the later devices and batteries that are operating in them, it could be a century—and, when least expected, they explode, usually maiming rather than killing. This places a large burden on small rural villages because an active worker is removed from that community. If the victim happens to be a child, the effect would be to remove that child from whatever future he or she had. If the child was maimed, their only future would be to beg or be at home, dependent upon other members of the family and other members of the village. When the village is living not much above subsistence, these impacts are very great.The impact of this was brought home to me when, on Anzac Day and the day after, I visited the French and Belgian battlefields of World War I. Tonnes and tonnes of unexploded ordnance are still being dug up 80-odd years after the cessation of those hostilities. When you think that, 80 years later, potentially lethal ordnance is still being found and dug up, you wonder how long it is going to take countries and the world at large to clear so many of the mined areas of Cambodia, Angola and parts of Latin America. The monumental size of that task really impacted upon me when I saw those battlefields of France. While they did not use landmines in those days that are as sophisticated as the ones that are used now, we certainly saw the impact and the devastation. We saw unexploded ordnance that had been dug up from the site of the memorial at Le Hamel. So it is a very important issue. The use these days of smaller and lighter weight components in the mines has made them even harder to detect and has made them more able, of course, to be moved around by floods.I have a friend who is working in Cambodia for an offshoot of the World Council of Churches on community development work related to landmine victims. She has told me stories about travelling in the Cambodian countryside on roads and paths that have been cleared of mines. As Senator Hogg said, people do not read the signs, cannot read the signs or use the material on which the signs are displayed for other purposes. My friend said that she had seen families out ploughing fields that are marked with the signs that warn of landmines. She told me a story about one gentleman who had been partly maimed by a mine being helped by his child to plough a field. The dangers for that family were very great but, obviously, the dangers of starvation, hunger or no income were also very great. So it very much affects those countries that are less fortunate than us.I think it is appropriate that we pass this piece of legislation today, which is the day we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Human Rights. This legislation will help people who have been fighting to maintain their access to human rights. It is important that we pass this legislation so that we do not contribute to the proliferation or the continued use of landmines. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before us. It deserves to be classed as non-contentious legislation and it deserves to get the support it is getting from everybody within the government and this parliament.It is legislation that puts to rest the lie that all we ever do in this place is argue, fight and disagree. This is a classic example of a good piece of bipartisan legislation being passed, one which will benefit many people, I hope. It certainly signifies Australia's commitment to the rights of those people and to not having landmines in a position where they can callously maim, injure and wound people in the future.12:53:001655Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Earlier this year I was in Africa. I met some people of outstanding ability and fame, Mr Acting Deputy President—in fact, I met you there amongst those people. You were not on this part of the journey, Mr Acting Deputy President, but we went to two places: Angola and Mozambique. I must confess that I felt very proud in both places because of the work being done at Australia's instigation. It made me feel very proud to be part of the Australian community. In Angola, Australia was responsible for the making of artificial limbs and feet for people who had been injured by mines. It was tragic to see the people who needed these feet but very `proud making', if I can use that expression, to see Australia trying to remedy a dreadful situation.In Mozambique, the Australian Army had been central in educating local people in how to dispose of landmines. The Australian military force had started disposing of landmines themselves and then had taught others how to get rid of them. At the time, Major McIntosh was there; I single him out because of that. I would like, through him, to pay tribute to all the Australian Army personnel who have gone over there to help de-mine Mozambique. I should also pay tribute to our Kiwi colleagues who were there at the time.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Don't forget the AFP guys who were risking their lives in those areas, too.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I accept that statement and endorse it, Minister; it is now on the record. Australia does great things around the world and the Australian Army does great things around the world. Mines, as everybody has said—the speakers before me, in particular—are the most cruel of weapons and are devastating to many people. It is good that we are known around the world not for laying mines but for trying to help those who are injured by them.12:57:001655Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I would like to thank all honourable senators for their contributions to the debate on the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 . This bill will put in place the necessary domestic legislation for Australia's ratification of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Land Mines and on their Destruction, known as the Ottawa Convention.The Foreign Minister, Mr Downer, took particular pride in signing the Ottawa Convention on 3 December 1997, the day it was open for signature. I know that for a fact because I saw him very soon after he signed it when he visited Ottawa and then came on to New York to meet with Penny Wensley, the Australian Ambassador to the UN in New York.I was equally pleased to deliver a statement on the floor of the General Assembly of the United Nations shortly thereafter. Just after Minister Downer signed the convention I was able to give a statement in which I outlined Australia's commitment to a lasting, effective and comprehensive solution to the global landmines problem, including through enhanced international efforts in the fields of de-mining and victim assistance. I was able to highlight some of the things that have been said around the chamber here today about Australia's role in that, about some of the technology that has been developed in Australia for de-mining, about the role the armed forces and the Federal Police have played and also about the pride we have in what Australia has been able to achieve in de-mining. I also mentioned around the traps some of the partnerships that were going on between community organisations in supporting people adopting fields and de-mining them.So we have a good record. We have a commitment. I also take great pride in having taught some students in prosthetics and orthotics who have contributed to some of the developments in the technology, simplifying the development of prostheses for people who have been affected by landmines. So across the board we have set an example in signing the convention. With this bill we are ahead of the pack compared with some countries. We have a record in contributing to de-mining through technology, through personnel and through assisting people who have been injured. We all have the right to be proud of that but we should never sit back and rest on our laurels. It ought to be noted that this bill has been passed with very strong support on all sides of the chamber. That is not always the case with bills. I have much pleasure in acknowledging that. The passage of today's bill helps bring closer the goal of a solution to the global landmine problem.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills1656r6321656Debate resumed from 30 November, on motion by Senator Minchin:That this bill be now read a second time. 13:01:001656Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition supports the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1998 , though we do indicate that we will be moving an amendment during the committee stage of the legislation. The bill seeks to overcome the problems created for the government by the decision of Justice Spender in the Federal Court in Foster v. Attorney-General on 12 October this year. In that decision, His Honour held that the process adopted by the government in purporting to allow portfolio ministers to authorise junior ministers and parliamentary secretaries to act on their behalf was unlawful. In essence, the Federal Court found that there were flaws in the delegation process. A further flaw in the process was that the authorisation was made directly by the portfolio minister and not through the Administrative Arrangements Order or by the cabinet or the Prime Minister.Justice Spender's decision has a potentially wide impact. It affects the validity of all government decisions made pursuant to authorisations which were made in accordance with the Prime Minister's code of conduct since April 1996 and it affects delegations and decisions made by either junior ministers or parliamentary secretaries on behalf of a portfolio minister by or under, for instance, the following areas: the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 pertaining to foreign investments; some 21 acts pertaining to the Department of Health and Aged Care, including the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989; the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 and 17 matters taken by Australia on behalf of foreign countries; and the Crimes Act 1914 and a whole range of matters pertaining to parole, early release and revocation of parole.It is important to note that Justice Spender's decision affects only those decisions made under a provision that vests statutory responsibility in a specifically named minister. In other words, if a minister, the Treasurer or the A-G is mentioned specifically in legislation, then under the Prime Minister's code of ministerial conduct and delegations of April 1996, quite a range of decisions taken over the last 2½ years under the four acts that I mentioned, in particular, are probably now unsustainable at law.The problem identified in the Foster decision would have been avoided if the government had acted pursuant to section 19BA(1) of the act and sought to regularise the arrangements reached between the relevant portfolio ministers and their junior ministers and parliamentary secretaries through the issuing of amended admin arrangements. Basically, what we have here is the Prime Minister going outside the law and endorsing somewhat sloppy administrative arrangements for his government. As a consequence, in a critical case just a few weeks ago in the Federal Court of Australia, Justice Spender found that such delegations were ultra vires.Since that date, the Attorney-General has had the job of cleaning up the Prime Minister's mess. He has acted, I must say, with appropriate alacrity. This legislation is a sign of that. It must be put on the record as well that the Commonwealth is appealing the decision, and I gather the appeal was heard last Thursday. This legislation is necessary and it is urgent. It is for that reason that the opposition is assisting in the passage of it.The bill, however, does go further than is required. What we have here is a bill which is retrospective in nature. Retrospectivity is always a concern but more so in respect of oral delegations. This government allowed, under the Prime Minister's arrangements, for oral referral of responsibility from a minister to a parliamentary secretary or a junior minister. Oral delegations have a number of problems in terms of ministerial responsibility and in terms of people being able to access their rights against government. Oral delegations are enormously difficult to ensure auditing of and administrative review thereof. The government has removed the ability to make an oral authorisation in future, but this legislation seeks to authorise past oral authorisations. We have some concerns about that, and they were expressed in the House of Representatives by the shadow Attorney-General, Rob McClelland.Our second concern is the ability of a minister to job share even where parliament has prescribed that a particular minister needs to act. The A-G, for instance, has special skills and experience. We would not want him delegating some of his responsibilities to the primary industries minister, for instance.In terms of our second concern, this bill goes much further than the previous custom and practice. What we are seeking to do by way of our amendment is to allow authorisation by a minister to a junior minister or a parliamentary secretary within a particular portfolio, but not jump over the portfolio fences and delegate outside one's portfolio responsibility. That should not be a concept which would appeal to the Senate, though I anticipate that the Democrats are still thinking seriously about whether to support such an amendment.This legislation seeks to redress the administrative problems arising from Justice Spender's decision, but we should also keep in mind that the process we are going through here may very well be a futile one, because Justice Spender in his judgment questioned whether anything short of a formal Administrative Arrangements Order signed by the Attorney-General in this case would be valid. His analysis was based on the concept of the separation of powers, and it is worth putting on the public record the comments he made on this point. In his judgment, Justice Spender said that the intention of the relevant section of the Acts Interpretation Act was to:. . . provide a mechanism by which illness or absence from Australia or leave or other emergency could be met so as to permit the continued orderly administration of the enactments of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.So we say that it is appropriate for delegation to occur in that situation. Justice Spender went on to say:Consistent with the notion of responsible government is the requirement that Ministers of State, appointed by the Governor-General, administer Departments of State, and the cases reflect a "longstanding practice " that the Prime Minister might appoint a Minister to act, for the time being, for or on behalf of another Minister.Again, we are content to support legislation which will confirm, entrench or specifically authorise that acknowledged practice. Justice Spender then proceeded with his analysis of the separation of powers under the Westminster system. He said:There is much to be said . . . that it is for the Governor-General on advice to appoint officers to administer such departments of State as are established, and . . . it is not even for the Prime Minister to determine who should be appointed to administer such departments.So he went specifically to a discussion on the separation of powers and the role of the Governor-General under our Westminster system. He indicated that, basically, the approach that we are taking here may ultimately be found to be ill founded. This bill may turn out to be futile because it may breach the separation of powers concept. In the meantime, it is appropriate that the government should proceed to try to clean up this particular problem, and this legislation does that to the extent that we, at this stage, are assured of the constitutional parameters within which we are working.I indicate that the opposition have one amendment, and it is an amendment I flagged earlier. It basically will ensure that delegations would occur within a portfolio rather than stretching over portfolios, and we will move that at the appropriate time. I also repeat that this legislation is substantially supported by the opposition.13:10:001658Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1998 sets out amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act and deals with the implications, as Senator Bolkus has pointed out, of the recent Federal Court decision in Foster v. Attorney-General. The government says that this decision has serious consequences for government administration. The Australian Democrats agree with that and we are happy to discuss this important issue which we believe goes to the very heart of how government in Australia functions.The Foster case itself has been the vehicle for this change and, in particular, the decision of Justice Spender, as Senator Bolkus has pointed out, makes this debate now necessary. I would like to briefly discuss the details of the Foster case and then move to the contents of the bill. The United Kingdom have request ed that Peter Foster be extradited on a number of fraud related charges. He was arrested last year in Australia and granted bail. He challenged the Attorney-General's decision unsuccessfully and, after a number of appearances in court, failed to attend a listed hearing on 1 December 1997. He was subsequently captured in February 1998 and brought before a magistrate to determine his eligibility for extradition. He was found to be eligible to be extradited on 4 March this year.Foster challenged this decision in the Supreme Court of Queensland, which dismissed his application on 7 April 1998. He then made a number of submissions to the Minister for Justice and Customs seeking to avoid extradition. The minister for justice, Senator Amanda Vanstone, decided on 24 July 1998 that Foster should be extradited. Foster sought review of that decision in the Federal Court. On 12 October 1998, the Federal Court granted Foster's application on the basis that the minister for justice did not have the authority to make the decision on behalf of the Attorney-General. The Commonwealth appealed this decision to the full Federal Court on 15 October 1998, which was heard on 26 November, and the decision was reversed.I received submissions from both Foster and his mother setting out a number of grounds addressing the merits of the case. There is no doubt that Foster is a colourful character and has undertaken activities which have attracted considerable media attention and other attention. I have accepted those submissions from the Fosters in good faith, and I have put their allegations to the Attorney-General.This is an issue that goes to the merits of the case which has been the subject of comment by Justice Spender. The submission to the minister was described by Justice Spender as:. . . a careful and fair summary of the submissions advanced on Mr Foster's behalf in relation to the nature of the offences, the likely penalty that might be imposed, submissions concerning the bona fides of the United Kingdom charge, delay in the prosecution of the United Kingdom charges, and the safety considerations advanced by Mr Foster.Justice Spender found that:. . . it was open to the decision maker to reach a different conclusion than that urged by Mr Foster as to the existence or extent of any threat to his safety on extradition. . . the claims and assertions by Mr Foster were investigated and, in the end, the Minister was not persuaded that any mandatory ground for denying surrender was made out, nor did any other discretionary factor so indicate.This is a merits matter, and I am in no position in this instance to adjudicate the decision of the court, which is still the subject of an appeal. I have been assured of the bona fides of both the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom governments, and I accept that—although I would seek an assurance from the government that they do not have an agenda here, and suggest clear cases of procedural unfairness can have a political component which might in some circumstances warrant the scrutiny of the parliament.Turning to the substance of this amending bill, the bill proposes amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act by inserting a new section 18C. This will provide for a portfolio minister to authorise a non-portfolio minister or a member of the Executive Council who is not a minister to act in the performance of statutory functions or the exercise of statutory powers. This bill makes amendments to section 19A so that all ministers within a portfolio can exercise the statutory powers of the portfolio minister. Amendments to section 19BA ensure the Governor-General may make orders under the section to meet the changes of an administration.These amendments will also validate past authorisations to the extent that they may be invalid. The government, of course, has argued these amendments are urgently needed to overcome the implications of the Foster case. They say this decision would mean authorisations to another minister, to the so-called junior ministers and to parliamentary secretaries are invalid when that person was exercising statutory powers based on that authorisation. We believe that this is a serious matter, as the functioning of government depends on the designated decision maker having the power to exercise the functions available through statute, subordinate regulation rules and cabinet decisions.From the Democrat perspective, the way the executive implements its own structures in order to exercise these powers is often shrouded in mystery. These are complex rules and practices about the appointment, powers and responsibilities of ministers and other members of the federal executive and the other office bearers. The Democrats are keen to see some formalisation of these processes under our general policy of accountability and transparency in appointment and decision making by governments. This is particularly important because the institutions in Australia, such as the cabinet, do not have any legal foundation.However, there are some formalities. Central to this process are the administrative arrangement orders, the AAOs, made out by the Governor-General acting on advice. The AAOs set out the details of the department's and the minister's responsibility. It is under this scheme the Acts Interpretation Act enables the AAOs to take effect in conjunction with the existing statutory and other relevant rules assigned to particular ministers and departments, and the terminology in this debate is important.Delegations are a complete transfer of the decision making power, whereas an authorisation is the decision making taking place on behalf of the decision maker. This debate is about authorisations—the exercise of a decision making power for, and on behalf of, the holder of the statutory power. We are concerned whether these amendments are necessary, and I am assured by the Attorney-General's office a resolution of this issue is essential for administrative certainty. However, I would note that this bill fixes up an erroneous interpretation of the Acts Interpretation Act and that the continued use of section 19 is possible because the Prime Minister might rely on the existing powers to deal with indisposed or unavailable colleagues and the re-making of AAOs.We are also concerned that this bill goes beyond the issue in the Foster case. We are concerned that this bill sets out to retrospectively validate past decisions, which may effectively deny certain rights. I have raised this matter with the Attorney-General's office, and I have been assured that civil liberties and other rights will not be denied by this particular amendment. The government says this amendment puts into effect existing practice. This matter was identified by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. In response to these concerns, the Attorney-General has said that these amendments would in no way prejudice practice that has in the past ensured due process. We are happy to accept this assurance from the Attorney-General, although we would seek a further assurance that where this retrospective amendment does affect due process the government will use their discretionary powers to remedy that or any injustice.I am also aware that the debate in the House of Representatives focused on the place of oral authorisations—again, Senator Bolkus has referred to this. The government now has introduced its own amendment to make all these authorisations in writing. The Democrats support that amendment, recognising the difficulty and often the considerable expense faced by anyone challenging a decision to determine the decision maker and the decision making power. We are of the view that every authorisation and delegation should be in writing and easily identifiable to ensure open and accountable decision making in government.The Acts Interpretation Act has been subject to review by the department and a discussion paper has been prepared. We welcome that review. The issue identified by the discussion paper for section 19 of the act is that what is printed in an act may not have the meaning that the text indicates. The problem then arises in identifying the decision maker and tracing the thread of power through the various orders. This is clearly not satisfactory.The Democrats are also conscious of the changed administration under the previous government that created the mega departments and the new range of junior ministers and parliamentary secretaries. These structures have been inherited; they have been maintained. However, the Acts Interpretation Act was never designed to deal with this structure, and we are effectively imposing a new struc ture on an old framework. The solution is to review the Acts Interpretation Act comprehensively to reflect these new structures. This is under way in part, and we would like to see this involve the parliament to make sure the important issues of transparency, accountability and responsibility are maintained. I am happy to discuss that further in a committee stage whenever that may be.Basically the Democrats are very keen to see reform of the Acts Interpretation Act. We see an act that was made out in 1901, which has been amended to try to reflect modern times but still in many ways is holding onto the past. Government is very different now from what it was back in 1901. We have had a huge increase in the amount of legislation administrated by the executive, and we have had a huge increase in the size of the executive and we have a society that is no doubt becoming more and more complex.The Democrats believe that the Acts Interpretation Act is essential as an interpretative document and a pivotal act in the devolution of powers. It is for this reason alone we need to make sure that the act reflects our needs now as well as into the future. We will be supporting this bill with an understanding that the Acts Interpretation Act is under review. We would expect to see the outcome of this review in legislation before the parliament and, in particular, the entire issue of the distributions of powers between the Executive Council and others. The Labor Party has flagged its support for this proposition, and I look forward to the government making the same commitment.I want to make very clear why the Democrats will support the government's amendments and this bill. We accept the need to remedy the presently invalid authorisations from ministers to junior ministers, parliamentary secretaries and others. But we also see the need to make the Acts Interpretation Act reflect modern times. We are very pleased to see that this process of review is under way in the Commonwealth's review of the act. We support this review and the proposed rewrite.I will say clearly that the need for change to include institutions such as the cabinet in the formal legislative structures is something else that motivates our support for these changes. Another important reason for the rewrite of this legislation is to recognise the evolution of administrative law. The legislation of administrative law has been a great move forward in government accountability, transparency and efficiency. This has required decision makers to be accountable for their decisions and, in opening up the review of these decisions, the powers of decision makers are under scrutiny. From the Democrats' perspective, the powers to make decisions should be easily identified and their scope strictly within the powers that are given according to our laws. Further, for anyone challenging a decision, the scope of power should be an easily resolved issue and should not be a major legal challenge in itself.Finally, we look forward to the review and the rewrite of the Acts Interpretation Act, and we expect to see that legislation before the parliament—hopefully soon.13:23:001661Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—People looking at this situation might well say, `Of course, this act should be passed. Isn't it nitpicking to say that the proper process wasn't gone through? The Attorney-General didn't have power to delegate to another minister. So what? Everybody knows what was intended, and everybody knows that the proper result has been obtained.'The judge in this matter, Mr Justice Spender of the Federal Court, saw that argument and answered it—and, I thought, answered it very effectively—when he said:It might be thought nit-picking and offensive to the efficient and orderly arrangement of the business of the Attorney-General's Department that I have concluded that the Minister for Justice is not a person who satisfies the description in s 19 of the Acts Interpretation Act. However, the liberty of an Australian citizen and our international obligations in respect of extradition highlight the need for a punctilious compliance with the law in this area. Deane J noted in Re Bolton; Ex parte Beane . . ."Any officer of the Commonwealth Executive who, without judicial warrant, purports to authorise or enforce the detention in custody of another person is acting lawfully only to the extent that his conduct is justified by clear statutory mandate. That being so, it is the plain duty of any such officer to satisfy himself that he is acting with the authority of the law in any case where, in the name of the Commonwealth, he directs that a person be taken and held in custody."It would be a terrible thing if we as legislators and the government of the Commonwealth became desensitised, that is, we thought that locking people up was not a terribly big issue. To take somebody from the community and to lock them up in a cell—which, judging from my visits there and from illustrations that are made of it, is certainly not comfortable or big—is a dreadful and fearful thing. We must never forget it is a dreadful thing to arrest somebody and to lock them up in gaol. It is easier to do that to someone who we think is guilty. If you look at the history of what is alleged against Peter Clarence Foster, you can see that people might well say that this person has been in gaol and, on the surface, has been associated with fraud and what-have-you and so it is really not as bad to lock him up as it would be to lock up someone who was innocent.The law in this area and the whole concept of civil rights are tested by our ability to apply them to the unattractive people in the community—the people who have a criminal record; the people who are twisted in mind and body. It is very easy at times to provide civil rights and the rule of law to the attractive, but it is often times less so where the ugly of the community are concerned. I think it would be a bad mistake on our part to say, `Foster'—that is what we would call him; we would not give him his full title—`is guilty anyhow. Therefore, we won't give him the rule of law.' The judge was a bit overenthusiastic in nitpicking about whether the law should apply or not.It would be a bad thing to do that, especially on the day when we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The issues of 50 years ago are still the same as the issues of today. Taking away a person's liberty or going into a person's house without a warrant is a fearful thing. It is a fearful thing, even with a warrant. It is a fearful thing to be put in gaol, if you are put in gaol according to process. It is for that very reason that we need the process. If we are going to do these sorts of things as a community—that is, to take away a person's liberty or to invade his or her house—we should do it only within the strict conformity of the law. It would be wrong of us to think—not that we do think it, but if we were inclined to think it—that Mr Justice Spender was somehow being pernickety, that he was somehow being precious in these circumstances. He was doing what he should have done as a judge, that is, to protect the liberty of the individual.It is proper for us as legislators to think of these things. Indeed, as legislators, we do things about civil liberties and what-have-you. Mr Acting Deputy President McKiernan, I think the committee you are chair of—the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee—has done great work in this area. It has given parliament a real part in the protection of liberties. It has had many a fine secretary. I see Mr Paul Griffiths here in this chamber, and it is very true that having him in the system will ensure that the sorts of things I am talking about are properly listened to. Senator Coonan, an eminent barrister from the Sydney bar, is here too. It is good to have her in the loop.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Will a common senator do, too?SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—An eminent minister has gone beyond the legal toing and froing. But may I say the minister went to a great law school and was there with many other eminent people.Returning to the issue, there is some very good thought going on about how we as a parliament can protect liberties. I refer to two people who have done a lot of work in respect of committees in this parliament. The first is Professor Janet Hiebert, who is a professor at the Queen's University in Canada. She has written several articles, but the one I particularly address my attention to is entitled `A hybrid approach to protect rights? An argument in favour of supplementing Canadian judicial review with Australia's model of parliamentary scrutiny'. This article shows that proper parliamentary scrutiny can overcome problems that might arise in legislation. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which I am honoured to be the chair of, has played its part in that scrutiny. Over the numerous parliaments since I have been here, ministers have cooperated very effectively with that committee in trying to get legislation free of any infringements on human rights. The legislation that does infringe human rights usually does so by accident. When you draft legislation, these things can creep in. I must confess that over the years the executive has usually been keen to see that the legislation does not breach human rights. The other person I want to refer to is Frank Brennan, who is probably known to everyone listening to me speak now. He has written a book called Legislating Liberty: a Bill of Rights for Australia? that has recently been published by the University of Queensland Press. Again, he goes into this issue of how parliament can have its input into seeing that civil liberties are properly attended to through the legislature. He argues that the Bill of Rights is certainly not to be put aside, because it can be a very effective means of looking after the liberties of the citizen, but that parliament itself can and should do more. I think we as a parliament should take up the words of Janet Hiebert and Frank Brennan and take their issues forward.I make the point that the judge on this occasion was fulfilling the grand traditions of the judiciary, that is, he was ensuring that a person—no matter what his background, no matter whether he was good, bad or ugly—was nevertheless given the full protection of the law and that, if his liberty was going to be taken away, then it had to be taken away according to due process and that due process is a very high test—and so it should be.The next point is that the courts over the years have been protective of the freedom of Australians, as has parliament. We should not overlook that. But this is the occasion and the time for the parliament to look more and more at its part—it would have to be a bipartisan approach—in establishing that legislation in any event does not contain problems in so far as human rights go. This is a good occa sion to raise these issues, today being the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The work of both Janet Hiebert and Frank Brennan provides us as a parliament with a way of going forward to ensure that we do walk proud as citizens and that nobody is going to be able to interfere with us, as we do walk proud as citizens, unless the full operation of the law has been called into play. It does mean the full operation. We cannot cut the corners. Once we start cutting corners, then we get instances of injustice, which we want to avoid. I do not want to go through the number of people who have been wrongly convicted and wrongly treated over the years—that will keep going because to err is human. But I think we as an institution can do a lot to ensure that that does not happen as much as it otherwise would.13:36:001663Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Margetts, I seek leave to incorporate her speech on the second reading of the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1998 .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—1. General ThemesThe broad issues in this bill relate to achieving a balance between administrative ease or speed and proper oversight of executive decision making. Administrative law in general, is concerned to ensure that the existence of values of fairness, openness, honesty and efficiency in Commonwealth executive dealings with the general public.Now—I would like to make clear that the Greens (WA) are supportive of the concept of administrative efficiency. Administrative efficiency is beneficial for members of the executive so that they can deal with their business in an optimal fashion without unwieldy red tape. Administrative efficiency is also beneficial for members of the public dealing with the executive. It is not in anyone's interests that government decision-making process should falter on what are no more than mere technicalities. Third parties dealing in good faith with the Commonwealth have a legitimate expectation that arrangements will not be frustrated by administrative oversights beyond their control. In addition, otherwise reasonable and lawful action taken against wrongdoers should not be defeated by technical objections. However, administrative efficiency should in no way be confused with administrative ease and speed. The speediest methods of administration are not always the ones that produce the most desirable outcomes. The Greens are concerned that best practice administrative procedures and protocols are in place in our executive arm of government—so that the executive can do their job with certainty, transparency and effectiveness and that the public can go about their business with certainty without having their rights unnecessarily or harshly or unjustly impinged upon.The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 is one of the central pieces of legislation in this kind of framework. In some instances the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 will operate to confer legal responsibility for particular statutory provisions on persons other than those specifically named in the legislation. Consequently the Acts Interpretation Act in prescribed circumstances works to bring the legal position into line with changes agreed at the administrative and political level. As such, the Greens take very seriously the potentially immense implications of even small changes to this Act.In effect, the Bill asks the Parliament whether (and to what degree) it is prepared to permit the Executive to exercise a wider discretion than is currently available when altering lines of administrative authority and responsibility delineated by legislation.Verbal AuthorisationsOne provision in this amending Bill, which would have had immense implications, is the ability to verbally authorise another Minister. We are pleased to see that the Government has taken on board concerns raised regarding their proposal that a grant of authority may be oral in cases where authority is conferred on a Minister. Oral authorisations are obviously problematic for a number of reasons.The ability to authorise without a written instrument decreases the transparency in administrative decision making—it makes it hard to engage in proper auditing of these decisions; it creates problems in the enforcement of individual rights—as anyone who is aggrieved by administrative actions would run into evidentiary difficulties, and this would make it more difficult to gain redress through administrative appeal. Oral authorisations could also increase the incidence of court and tribunal proceedings being commenced with the wrong respondent/decision-maker being nominated by the complainant.The lack of publicity and the lack of a clear paper trail could result in not only in severe injustices for anyone seeking to review or challenge an administrative decision, but in bad practice in Government decision making. Best practice most consistent with the principles of administrative law would be written authorisations for reasons of transparency and accountability. If oral authorisations are legitimate, there would a temptation to pursue this easier and less specific path—which would undercut best practice.Not only that, but oral authorisations would potentially undermine parliamentary intention in specific pieces of legislation. But I will come back to this point later. For all these reasons—oral authorisations are a good example of where administrative ease or speed would not produce administrative efficiency—and may have produced very poor outcomes all round.For all these reasons, I am glad that the Government has been persuaded by these arguments and has removed the ability to orally authorise.2. What the Bill DoesThis bill is ostensibly a clarification of when it is allowable for a Minister to authorise another Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary to exercise statutory powers on their behalf.The Bill amends the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 in direct response to the decision of Justice Spender in Foster v Attorney-General (1998) that has put a question mark over the breadth of s19 in the Acts Interpretation Act. Justice Spender's decision in the Foster case means that s19 is not sufficient legislative authority for a portfolio Minister to authorise a junior portfolio Minister to exercise statutory powers vested in the holder of a specific ministerial office (ie vested in the "Attorney General"). So in the Foster case, the Attorney General's authorisation of the Minister of Justice was held to be invalid. Consequently, a decision to issue a warrant purportedly made by the Minister for Justice, Senator Vanstone, under section 23 of the Extradition Act 1988 was held to be invalid.This decision, by implication, also means that a portfolio Minister cannot authorise non-portfolio Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries when powers are vested in a specific Minister.Essentially this Bill will do a number of things.(a) It will retrospectively validate past authorisations that may have been made in reliance on section 19 to the extent that they may be invalid.(b) It will provide for a Minister to authorise a non-portfolio Minister or Parliamentary Secretary to act on his or her behalf.(c) And it will ensure that an order can be made by the Governor General under section 19 whenever there is any change to the administration of government business and validates past orders under s19BA to the extent that they may be invalid. 3. ConcernsThe Greens appreciate the concerns expressed by the Attorney General in relation to Foster . The decision does have potentially serious ramifications for the administrative process of the executive and the Greens will not be preventing this Bill from attempting to address these concerns. The Greens see the merits in remedying the defects of the past. However, we do have concerns that a whole raft delegations or authorisations were done in an informal or non-recorded manner. And we would not like to see our acceptance of past validations as condoning informal delegations/ authorisations in the future.Of course the issue of retrospectivity is ever present when we are dealing with past delegations. The issue is of injustices in the past that may no longer afford a remedy to an individual. This is always a difficult issue to weigh up. But on balance, as I mentioned previously, I do appreciate the concerns of the Attorney General and the potential for immense difficulties if these past authorisations are not validated.Parliamentary OversightAnother concern the Greens have is with the removal of the variance between specific and non-specific references to Ministers. This Bill essentially operates to remove the distinction between more general terms like "the Minister" and highly specific terms like "the Attorney General".The situation as it currently stands is that when a piece of legislation uses the term "the Minister" this refers to any Minister with responsibility for that portfolio.However, when a piece of legislation uses the term "the Attorney General" or "the Minister for Finance" or "the Treasurer", this refers specifically to the person currently occupying that position. By naming a particular Minister, there is an assumption that it was Parliament's view that that Minister should be accountable for things done under the Act and should be required to personally perform the statutory functions that the law assigns to her or him.The amendments in this Bill, by homogenising the distinction between these terms, threaten to usurp parliamentary intention when the legislation was written and agreed to. Although the Prime Minister's ministerial code of conduct prefers the generic term to avoid potential complications, the legislation handbook recognises that there are appropriate circumstances where parliament should legislate to name a specific minister because of the special skills needed in undertaking a particular duty or function.Of course, the entire basis of administrative law is that everything requires a specific statutory mandate. Ministers (or anyone else in the executive arm of Government) cannot go off on "a frolic of their own" without reference to a specific statutory authority. So when a piece of legislation says "Attorney General"—it is indicating that there are special skills needed in this area. This should not be overlooked too easily.The Greens (WA) note that the Attorney General's department is currently undertaking a review of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . We shall be watching these developments carefully to ensure a good balance is struck. We shall be watching that changes do not ask the Parliament too go too far in permitting the Executive to exercise a wider discretion than is currently available and when altering lines of administrative authority and responsibility delineated by legislation.While supporting this Bill at Second Reading, the Greens (WA) will carefully consider the amendments in the Committee Stage of this Bill.13:37:001665Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank senators for their contributions to this debate. The bill provides that all ministerial authorisations that may have been affected by the decision of the Federal Court in the Foster case are validated. Because of the implications of the decision, it is appropriate that urgent legislative action be taken to clarify the position of ministerial authorisations.The amendments in the bill will ensure that there is no uncertainty about the legal status of decisions made under such authorisations. The bill also clarifies the legal basis for senior portfolio ministers to authorise junior ministers and parliamentary secretaries to exercise statutory powers on their behalf. As senators are aware, the speedy passage of this bill will restore certainty to government administration and facilitate the continued orderly and efficient conduct of government business.In relation to two matters raised by Senator Stott Despoja, I would say as follows. The government can give the assurance sought by Senator Stott Despoja that there is no political agenda involved with these amendments. Extradition matters or other matters which are sensitive and require review will be capable of review—judicial, administrative and political—in the same manner as occurs at present.In addition, Senator Stott Despoja wanted an undertaking in the same vein as this sentence: `The amendments will in no way prejudice practice that in the past has ensured due process.' On the contrary, the amendments validate past practice. It will not retrospectively disadvantage anyone.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Sitting suspended from 1.39 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice166516651665Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, Senator Ellison. Is the minister aware of a letter dispatched by the former Special Minister of State, Senator Minchin, to coalition senators and MPs in relation to the new workplace agreement for MOPS staff? In particular, is the minister aware that Senator Minchin urged coalition MPs and senators to `support this offer and impress upon their staff the importance of accepting the agreement in their own interests as well as that of the government'? Why was this final paragraph deleted from the letter sent to non-coalition MPs and senators? Does the minister endorse the view that de facto employers should be encouraged to place pressure on their staff to accept for political reasons an offer which the majority agreed by vote was not in their interests?1665Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I thank Senator George Campbell for that question. I am not aware of the difference that he points to. The question of a certified agreement was taken to the staff, and it is well known that that was rejected. We are continuing consultation with both opposition and government staff in relation to this. In fact, today I will be talking to representatives from the Democrats. We are very keen to get this right. We are endeavouring to sort the matter out.1665Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, what are the government's proposals in relation to further negotiation of a workplace agreement for MOPS staff after the government's own staff overwhelmingly rejected the dud deal?1666Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I thought I had already answered that, but what we are doing is talking to staff and finding out what their concerns are. This is very important. It is a fair enough process, one which the opposition always advocates in relation to industrial relations—consultation. That is what we are embarking upon.16661666Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron. The coalition government since its election has concentrated on the key areas of health, housing, education, employment and economic empowerment in addressing disadvantage within indigenous communities. What is then the minister's response to the sweepingly inaccurate claims made on the international stage regarding Australia's policies on indigenous affairs?1666Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Payne for her question and for her interest in this matter. I find some of the criticism directed at Australia very difficult to accept, particularly when it comes from Australians attending overseas events often at public expense. Australia has an outstanding record on and commitment to human rights. As a nation, we take a very strong bipartisan approach to this important issue. Australia strives to be a decent and harmonious nation, with a society fundamentally based on fairness, on appreciation of racial and cultural diversity, on tolerance and on mutual respect. The government is committed to upholding these values.I find it interesting to note that, since 1945, 5½ million people have come to Australia as new settlers and have made it their home. Last year 100,000 people from 150 different nations settled in Australia. I believe we all should be proud of the fact that Australian society is made up of many different races, religions and beliefs and that this society is balanced, harmonious, rich, varied and united. Indigenous Australians are a vitally important part of this society, and those of us whose origins lie elsewhere recognise that they are an important component and rightfully recognise them as the original inhabitants.It also needs to be acknowledged that both this government and the previous Labor government have put enormous resources into addressing indigenous disadvantage. There is no question of that disadvantage. International critics and Australians who go overseas and criticise should consider these facts. There are 352,000 Australians who identify themselves as indigenous. Over the past 10 years, the Commonwealth government has provided $15.3 billion in indigenous specific funding. During the past decade about $3 billion has been provided for indigenous housing and infrastructure. Some $3½ billion has been spent on indigenous employment, education and training, a billion dollars has been spent on indigenous health, and $350 million has been provided for indigenous legal aid.Over $210 million has been provided for native title and land claims. A $64 million package was provided to assist people removed from their families in response to the Bringing them home report. In addition, there has been state, territory and local government funding. There has been support and assistance from churches, religious orders, charitable institutions and foundations and individuals as well as indigenous organisations and individuals. The disadvantage that exists today is not through any lack of government and other resources. The disadvantage exists because of poor outcomes. I think the previous Labor government failed not because of any lack of funding but because it lacked the will to insist on reasonable outcomes from that expenditure.The Howard government has fought hard for decent outcomes and, as a result, we have been criticised. The ill-informed and politically motivated critics of Australia might like to consider this. Neither this government nor the previous one has had direct control over most of the indigenous programs designed to address disadvantage. As part of the process of indigenous self-management and under legislative requirements, the Australian government is the funding body but not the program manager. The critics need to understand that the Australian government will not be held accountable for failures in program areas it has no control over. They should also be aware that the Howard government will not be deflected from aggressively pursuing improved outcomes for indigenous Australians. We will continue to pursue improved outcomes in health, housing, education and employment no matter what the ill-informed or politically motivated have to say.16671667Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Is it true that Centrelink staff have been subject to surveillance of their phone calls and that anyone who has made a call to anyone or any organisation deemed to be out of the ordinary has been interrogated? If so, how does the minister defend such action, particularly when Centrelink staff are under such pressure as a result of the government's disdain for the public sector generally and its determination to contract out to the private sector the delivery of government services? How much is being spent on this surveillance operation?1667Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Before I go to the specifics of the senator's question, can I just say that the constant criticism of Centrelink staff seems to be pretty rough, coming from the Labor Party, particularly those who are shop stewards. Only last night, here in the President's suite, I met a woman, a lone parent, who was sick from her job. Because of the sorts of things the opposition has been running about Centrelink and how dreadful it is to deal with, she went in fear and trepidation to the Woden branch of Centrelink to find that she was seen within 15 minutes, treated with compassion and care and given ongoing service, which is fantastic. That is the sort of response I hear from people all the time, except from the opposition, who seem to find it life's mission to put down the Centrelink staff.As to the specifics of the question, a recent improper release of confidential information to the media resulted in the Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink requesting Centrelink's audit team to investigate whether there had been any misuse of Centrelink property. Standard investigation techniques were ap plied which included reviewing and analysing all outgoing PABX—Opposition senators interjecting—BE4Senator NEWMAN—Do you want the answer to your question?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Just keep reading.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, I want the opposition to have the facts as they are advised to me from the minister for Centrelink.Opposition senators interjecting—BE4Senator NEWMAN—Standard investigation techniques were applied which included reviewing and analysing all outgoing PABX—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left, Senator Bishop is entitled to hear the answer to his question.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, I presumed Senator Bishop did want an answer, but it does not seem as if any of his colleagues do.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—We don't want to hear from Truss's mouthpiece.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Senator Ray is making an art form these days of being the noise from the back seat. I thought better of him when he was a minister.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Come on, Hyacinth.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, this is really becoming quite impossible. I know that, with a bit of luck, it is the last day and everyone is a bit excited, but they only have to last another three-quarters of an hour. If they have asked the question, I would have thought that they would want the answer.AW5CARRSenator Carr—We'd like an answer.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, the interjections are unruly and I would ask that you rule accordingly.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, stop shouting and you might hear something.BE4Senator NEWMAN—As I was saying, standard investigation techniques were ap plied, which included reviewing and analysing all outgoing PABX phone and fax facilities.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Yes—thumbscrews, garrotting, fingerprints—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, people are trying to hear the answer.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Centrelink is completely within its legal rights to investigate any potential misuse of Commonwealth property. Interviews were conducted with a number of staff who were identified as having placed phone calls to a third party. Officers were asked a series of set questions to assist the investigation team to complete their inquiry. The inquiry is yet to be concluded. From time to time, staff's access to internal email services is revoked for misuse of these services. Surveillance of calls is not a standard practice and would only be used with proper authority in the course of formal investigations.1668Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that a Centrelink employee had their email access cut for circulating bits of a Hansard transcript? Is it true that the offending transcript was one of her own inept answers to a question without notice?1668Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I hope they send around a lot of my Hansard extracts, because they tell me as I go around regional offices that they are delighted about the fact that somebody is sticking up for them when they see the attacks that are coming from the other side of the chamber. So that is the answer you will get today.16681668Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question is to Senator Ellison, representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. The Howard government has committed to a three-pronged attack against drugs through law enforcement, health and education. A significant part of the $290 million Tough on Drugs initiative is to ensure that schoolchildren receive education about the damaging impact of drugs. Will the minister outline to the Senate the government's National School Drug Education Strategy and the benefit it will have for schoolchildren across Australia?1668Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I thank Senator Coonan for that very important question.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—Gallery! Gallery!9X5Senator ELLISON—I am sure the opposition would be interested in the answer to this question, which perhaps is one of the most serious issues facing young people in Australia today. The young people of Australia are, after all, our most precious resource. The coalition government has shown a real commitment to addressing the question of illicit drug usage in this country. In the recent election campaign, the coalition committed a further $10 million for the National School Drug Education Strategy over the next four years, bringing the total expenditure in this area to $17.5 million. This school drug education component is part of the Prime Minister's national illicit drug strategy entitled Tough on Drugs. The total expenditure involved is some $290 million and it covers areas such as law enforcement, health and, importantly, education.As the former minister for schools, I had the pleasure of being involved in setting up the National Advisory Committee on Drug Education chaired by Ms Karen Hart, President of the Australian Secondary Principals Association, and consisting of representatives appointed for their expertise from education authorities, health and law enforcement agencies, principals, teachers, parents and other community organisations. The committee provides expert advice and direction to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs on the development and implementation of this strategy.This committee will also monitor, review and evaluate the progress of the strategy, particularly in light of emerging issues relating to drugs and associated drug education. That will be done both nationally and internationally. I am pleased to advise the Senate that the National Advisory Committee on Drug Education has completed a draft strategy and that has been released for comment by my colleague Trish Worth, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. It has been released for wide consultation, and submissions are invited. Those submissions will close on 12 February next year. I urge everyone here to participate in that process.The goal of the draft strategy is to achieve no illicit drugs in schools. This goal has been endorsed by all states and territories. The strategy aims for world's best practice and reflects the best possible advice from health, education and law enforcement experts in the field. The National School Drug Education Strategy is about more than just teaching our young children to say no to drugs; it is about teaching young people to know and understand why saying no is much better and healthier for them than saying yes.Key organisations and interested parties included in wide consultation have been the state and territory governments, the National Catholic Education Commission, the Australian Council of State School Organisations, the National Council of Independent Schools, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, the Australian Parents Council and the Australian Federal Police. The government recognises that community support for schools is going to be vital to the success of this school drug strategy. The government is therefore inviting parents, teachers, key experts and community groups to submit suggestions and make contributions to the consultations on this draft strategy. As I say, submissions close on 12 February next year. The National School Drug Education Strategy and feedback sheet are available on the DETYA web site, and I invite everyone to participate in what is a most important process.16691669Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Is the minister aware that, notwithstanding the assurances she gave the Senate yesterday, Child Support Agency senior management personnel have only recently told staff not to be `paranoid' about their personal safety concerns about having to disclose their full names to disgruntled clients? Is the minister aware that Child Support Agency staff are still being told by senior management that they are in fact still obliged to provide their full name to clients and will be sacked if they do not? How does the minister explain this inconsistency between the supposed guidelines she referred to yesterday and what is actually going on in the agency?1669Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am not aware of the claims made by Senator Collins. The answer I gave to the Senate yesterday was taken on notice some days before and was the answer provided to me by the Child Support Agency. I will certainly refer Senator Collins's response to the Child Support Agency to see whether the information she has been given accords with current practice or whether she is out of date.1669Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister share the view of some senior management in the agency that staff are being paranoid? Can the minister confirm that agency staff have been advised by former military personnel in staff protection security briefings that full disclosure of names could cause security problems? Perhaps also the minister could confirm precisely what Hansard was being circulated on the email that was cancelled.1669Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I think the opposition is suffering from a bit of an ignorance deficit.Opposition senators interjecting—BE4Senator NEWMAN—There is an awful lot of mirth here. I hope that the spirits were not engaged in too much over lunch. The situation is that the opposition knows full well that the service delivery responsibilities for Centrelink and the Child Support Agency are the responsibilities of the Minister for Community Services, Mr Warren Truss, who actually is accountable to the parliament in the House of Representatives. If the opposition were really interested in these issues, then they would be asking the minister directly.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Newman as the portfolio minister, the cabinet minister, now on a number of occasions, repeated today, has suggested the opposition ask questions of her junior minister in the House of Representatives. She is the portfolio minister. A similar situation would be for Mr Costello in answering a question to suggest we ask Senator Kemp in the Senate. That is the equivalent of what this minister, who is the portfolio minister, the responsible cabinet minister, is saying to the Senate. That is absolutely inappropriate. I believe that a demand should be made of this minister to answer questions directed to her in her capacity as the responsible portfolio minister. She cannot duckshove it to a junior minister.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.BE4Senator NEWMAN—If the opposition were not so hell-bent on showing their ignorance, they would have looked at the administrative arrangements laid down by the government.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. The minister is out of order. She is out of order because she is answering by saying `the opposition'. She was asked a question by a senator. A senator is elected to this chamber and is entitled to question in her own or his own right. This is a question to the executive. The minister is an executive member with the portfolio responsibility and is bound to answer to the senator.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. I cannot direct the minister as to how she answers.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Have you been to a Christmas party or something? Madam President, I suggest there is something wrong with the opposition.Senator Alston interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The conduct on my right is absolutely unacceptable.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I am perfectly happy to seek an answer from the minister responsible, Mr Truss, who is responsible for the administration of services in the Child Support Agency and Centrelink. (Time expired)5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You are hopeless! Sit down!LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, it is one thing to take spurious points of order—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Are you taking—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—This is a point of order—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I will determine that, Senator.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I am simply drawing your attention to what is nothing more or less than plain abuse. Saying, `You are hopeless! Sit down!' has got nothing at all to do with anything that is being said in this chamber by Senator Newman; it is simply a tactic on the part of someone who should be setting a good example but who seems to be determined to ensure that no answers can properly be heard. I ask that you ensure that it does not happen again.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on the point of order: first of all, the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate stood up and again abused the chair by just beginning to speak without being called by you or taking a point of order. I believe that you should draw that to his attention and ask him to stop behaving in that fashion. The other thing I mention in relation to the substance—if there was any—of Senator Alston's point of order is the clock. The one-minute time limit for Senator Newman's non-answer had run down—no time left—and it was time she sat down. After all, she is not willing to provide any information to the Senate, because she does not take her portfolio responsibilities seriously.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Madam President—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Just a moment, Senator. I think it is time we got on with question time. There has been shouting on both sides of the chamber, making it extremely difficult to hear. The behaviour is completely disorderly, and disruptive of question time. I now call Senator Bourne.16701670Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Hill. I refer to the announcement yesterday of the minister's plan to revise Australia's action plan on human rights, creating Australia's second such action plan, and I ask: will community groups be consulted in the redrafting? Will the minister be seeking the views of all non-government agencies involved in the promotion and protection of human rights, including aca demics, commentators, lawyers, church organisations and other advocates of human rights? Will the action plan cover the range of rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights? What is the timetable for completion of the new plan?1671Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I am pleased that Senator Bourne read the speech that Mr Downer gave last night on the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which he outlined our position in relation to the international environment and also what we are seeking to do domestically. One of the announcements he made was that he was committed to revising Australia's national action plan on human rights. He said:We will commence work on this, including the processes of consultations, shortly.I remind the honourable senator that the recommendation from the 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights that all states consider drawing up national action plans on human rights led to Australia's development of the first plan in 1994.I understand that there will be extensive consultations. There are two existing forums through which such consultations can be undertaken: one coordinated by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, primarily focused on the international human rights issues; and the other coordinated by the Attorney-General's Department, primarily dealing with the domestic human rights issues. A wide range of community opinion is expressed and input conveyed through those forums. A thoroughgoing process of additional consultations specifically in relation to the national action plan is currently under consideration, involving not only NGOs but also Commonwealth ministers and their departments and the state and territory governments.A working group comprising officers of Commonwealth departments will be established to develop the best possible format for the new national action plan. This will be submitted for approval to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Therefore, whilst the precise coverage of the new national action plan is still to be determined, the government would emphasise that it is committed to the universality of human rights and would expect that this commitment would be fully reflected in the plan.1671Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has not mentioned the last part of my question, and that is: what would the timetable be for completion of the new plan? I understand I am not actually talking to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, so the minister may not have that on the tip of his tongue. But if the minister could get back to us with a timetable, if it is available, that would be appreciated.1671Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I will seek advice on that. I suspect that the timetable has not been settled. It was not referred to in the speech last night nor is it in the briefing notes, but I will see if Mr Downer can give an indication of how long he expects this process to take.16711671Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Newman as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. I refer to a recent article under the minister's name that appeared in the Melbourne Age . I ask whether the minister recalls stating in the article her view that:Leadership calls for courage, risk taking, vision and a sense of community. Australian women are prepared for this, and it is time we used them in the service of our country.In light of her robust views on the qualities of leadership, will Senator Newman now finally commit herself to appear before the Senate estimates committee and answer questions relating to the status of women portfolio instead of abdicating her responsibilities to Senator Hill, whose ignorance on these matters is legendary?1671Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Madam President, they must have been at a Christmas party for lunch. To describe Senator Hill in that form is just amazing—the kindest and most gentle of men, a real sensitive new age guy who has always been totally interested in the rights of all people, particularly the rights of women. I think that was a very unkind cut from Senator Crowley, who should have known better. Senator Crowley, you also know full well—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Her insensitivity is legendary.BE4Senator NEWMAN—That is what Senator Alston says. How could I confirm that? Senator Crowley, my presence or otherwise depends, as you know full well, on other committees for which I have direct responsibility. Senator Hill appears very properly before your committee representing the Prime Minister. The estimates committee that you are talking about is the one dealing with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and that is where the Office of the Status of Women is located. So for estimates purposes, Senator Hill has quite properly been representing the Prime Minister's department at those estimates. I have also represented at another estimates committee the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health and Family Services. Now, of course, my portfolio has nearly been doubled in size to be Family and Community Services.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my left.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Did you ask for double the money?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, cease shouting.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I think they have had tipple. There is no other explanation. I wish them well for their Christmas, but not here, not now.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, remarks like that do not add to the decorum of the chamber.BE4Senator NEWMAN—You have to suspect, Madam President. Where do you think they have been at lunchtime?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, you should not make those sorts of comments about other senators.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Christmas cheer?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I ask you to apply yourself to the question.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Withdraw!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I will not respond to being shouted at.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I think my case rests.1672Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. If Senator Newman does place such store, as she says in this article or seems to suggest, on the questions of concern about women, I am sure we could release her from her obligations in the estimates to address her own portfolio, perhaps during the time when she fails to answer questions on Centrelink. Perhaps the minister would like to comment on whether or not she would make an arrangement to support the questions about women during the hearings of PM&C and find a replacement who will answer questions on Centrelink?1672Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I can only assume that Senator Crowley is asking me to absent myself from my own portfolio's estimates on child care, child support, family and children's services, youth homelessness, disability services and so on. I assume she thinks that these are not matters of importance to women.16721672Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. On the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I want to ask about West Papua, Irian Jaya, again. What further information does the government have on the massacre of an estimated 150 West Papuans on 6 July this year after they raised the Morning Star, the freedom flag, on the wharf in Biak? In particular, is there any follow-up information about the plight of Dr Philip Karma, who has been reportedly shot in the elbows and legs and carted off to gaol to face a life sentence? Is the minister aware that today the traditional council of the Amungme people, meeting near the Freeport mine, have called for the United Nations to reopen the case of the plight of West Papua? Can the minister say whether Australia would be amenable to a new discussion of West Papua in the United Nations and, indeed, to reviewing its own policy? (Time expired)1672Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have just checked the briefing notes that I have been provided with and there does not seem to be anything further than that which I had previously advised Senator Brown of. I have read some material to suggest that the earlier estimates of violence were overstated, but nevertheless any level of violence, particularly if there are deaths concerned, is totally unsatisfactory.The approach of the Australian government has been to support in whatever practical ways it can the process of change that is occurring in Indonesia at the moment. There are a number of ways in which we can be supportive in such a practical way. Basically, we can encourage the forces—particularly the military forces, but other security forces as well—to respect the human rights of all individuals who are under their coverage. We can also provide aid and assistance to try to help them through the time of very severe economic stress, which is no doubt contributing to the difficulties as well. We think this is the best way in which we can be of assistance. I know of no suggestion of any change to the foreign policy of Australia in relation to Irian Jaya.1673Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer, but I draw his attention to the fact there are many political prisoners in West Papuan gaols for supporting the call for independence of West Papua. What further investigations will the Australian government be taking into the plight of those prisoners and their civil rights, and indeed the need for them to be brought to a speedy, open and fair trial? Secondly, again, will the minister put to the foreign minister that Australia should be reopening the question of a debate in the United Nations about the rights and the aspirations for freedom of the West Papuan people?1673Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I do not think the latter will occur, because it is inconsistent with longstanding Australian government policy. In relation to the former, we are obviously concerned about continued imprisonment of political prisoners. There were some releases after the new presidency in Indonesia, but there are still many political prisoners. We are working, both bilaterally and multilaterally, to see their early release and, in accordance with the international declaration, to see that those who are being held be brought to speedy and fair trial. That has also been a longstanding position of the Australian government, and we will continue to press the issue.16731673Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer. In the light of the minister's complete inability to answer my question yesterday regarding whether superannuants will be worse off under the proposed tax arrangements, I ask: can the minister now 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 retiree supplementary bonus, worth $3,000? I also refer the minister to fact sheet A337 of the tax package. Can the minister explain how the government's proposed new 15 per cent tax on the underlying income of allocated pensions and annuities will actually operate, and what effect it will have on the long-term retirement incomes of those self-funded retirees with these private pensions?1673Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Faulkner, your question on self-funded retirees was answered yesterday. I suggest you go back to the Hansard , and you will find that that question was very clearly answered. We pointed out the income tests which are available for the aged person savings bonus and we pointed out the possible effects of other elements of the tax package on self-funded retirees.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You haven't got a clue, have you?WW4Senator KEMP—Well let me make it very clear—I am delighted the question was asked, again, by Senator Faulkner—that in the Labor Party tax package there was nothing for self-funded retirees. No tax cuts available for self-funded retirees; tax cuts available for those in the work force.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That is not true.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Cook, if you do not agree with that, you get up after question time and attempt to correct me.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I'll tell the truth, you can tell the lies.WW4Senator KEMP—We'll see about that. But there was one major effect on self-funded retirees.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. However interesting this may be, I asked Senator Kemp a question about the government's approach in relation to self-funded retirees earning between $30,000 and $40,000 per annum. I also asked him to explain the government's proposed 15 per cent tax on underlying income of allocated pensions and annuities. It is a very clear question and I ask you, Madam President, if you would direct him to answer the question asked.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I cannot direct him to answer it in a way that you might want, Senator. I can only see that his answer is relevant to the matter that you have raised. But I am certainly mindful of the question, and Senator Kemp should be also.WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, the question in relation to self-funded retirees and the benefits that they get out of the tax package was explained very carefully yesterday. The income test in relation to the aged persons supplementary benefit was also carefully explained yesterday. What is the point of answering questions, Senator Faulkner, when you absolutely refuse to read them? I am pointing out that self-funded retirees will note that they got nothing out of the Labor Party tax package except the capital gains tax. They de-grandfathered the pre-1985 assets. That is what the Labor Party attempted to give to self-funded retirees. Labor's real concern for self-funded retirees will come in a vote later today. One of the groups in the community pushing as hard as they could for the health rebate were the self-funded retirees. They are the people that are waiting for the Labor Party to recognise that an election commitment was made, which this government is attempting to deliver. One of the non-government parties which is going to attempt to block this particular item—well, we shall see—is the Labor Party if they stick with their stated position. So don't you get up here and attempt to lecture us-RF4COOKSenator Cook—Don't you lecture us.WW4Senator KEMP—Don't you attempt to lecture us with your polices on self-funded retirees.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, you should direct your remarks to the chair.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Don't you lecture us, you little upstart!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, stop shouting.WW4Senator KEMP—They are an absolute disgrace. The other issue was the impact on the recipients of allocated pensions and annuities. Let me make it absolutely clear that, during the election campaign, there was an attempt by the Labor Party to run a scare campaign on that. A variety of changes were made in this area, and no-one accepted the Labor Party's scare campaign on this particular matter. Under the reforms outlined in our new tax system, from the 2000-01 income year the income of the underlying annuity and pension business of life insurance and superannuation funds would be assessable, and deductions would be allowed for the interest component of the pension payments and associated expenses. The effect of this is that any net profit derived by the life insurance or superannuation fund on an annuity or pension business would now be taxed. The proposal in the new tax system that we are bringing in will not change the tax treatment of allocated pensions or annuity recipients. (Time expired)1674Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Yesterday and today I have asked the minister about private pensioners receiving between $30,000 and $40,000 per annum. I ask the minister whether his dismissive answers both yesterday and today to this question actually change if he knows that his own ministerial colleague, Mr Ruddock, wrote to a constituent of both his and mine saying:Please understand that I truly appreciate your financial position in that you fall between categories.My supplementary question is: do these privately funded retirees fall between categories, and isn't the result of them doing so that they will be fully liable for the GST on all their expenditure and they will have little or no compensatory measures applying to them? Was that deliberate on the part of the government or was it a design fault?1675Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—This is a leader of a party that attempted to penalise, above all, self-funded retirees in its tax package in the last election. One reason you lost that election was the punitive tax that you attempted to impose on self-funded retirees.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. My question related to private pensioners earning between $30,000 and $40,000 per year. I asked Senator Kemp whether this is a deliberate policy on behalf of the government or whether it was a design fault. The question is about, quite clearly, a certain category of private pensioners and superannuants. I ask you to direct him to answer it. Admit what is going on, Senator Kemp. Own up!WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, on the point of order: that was clearly no point of order. Senator Faulkner asked me about the impact of the tax package on self-funded retirees. I have outlined that yesterday in some detail and the benefits that people who are receiving over $30,000 a year could receive. What Senator Faulkner is sensitive about is that I am talking about the Labor Party policy on self-funded retirees.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I draw your attention to the specific question that was asked by Senator Faulkner. Address yourself to that, Senator Kemp.WW4Senator KEMP—I have outlined in detail that self-funded retirees will receive a large number of benefits under the tax package. Many will receive the benefits of the income tax cuts that we have proposed. Many will benefit from the refundable franking credits that we have proposed. Many will presumably benefit from the health insurance rebate, which we are trying to get through this Senate over the opposition of the Labor Party. The point I am making is that this was the group that tried to impose a penalty tax on self-funded retirees. (Time expired)16751675Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—My question is directed to the former shadow minister for the status of women and now Minister for the Environment and Heritage. In May this year, you announced your intention to assess the possibility of a new marine protected area of Tasmanian sea mounts. Could the minister advise the Senate of progress on this matter?Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—If Senator Hill heard the question, I invite him to answer it.1675Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have a fair idea of the question. I commend Senator Gibson for his interest in conservation, which is more than you get from the Labor Party. This is in fact further good news from a government committed to good conservation practice. The Howard government is committed to the development of a nationally representative system of marine protected areas.Earlier this year, I was pleased to declare the world's second largest marine park in the Great Australian Bite. I also announced in May our intention to assess five additional marine park proposals, including the area known as the Tasmanian sea mounts. I am delighted to indicate to the Senate today that the assessment is now complete and that we will be issuing a notice of intent to establish the Tasmanian Sea Mounts Marine Reserve. The notice of intent will be followed by a three-month public consultation period before the reserve is formally declared in accordance with the requirements of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act.The Tasmanian Sea Mounts Marine Reserve will cover an area of some 370 square kilometres 170 kilometres south of Tasmania. This marine reserve is the first exclusively deep water marine reserve in Australian waters and will protect an outstanding aspect of our ocean environment. The Tasmanian sea mounts are a collection of 70 submerged mountains that rise from water in depths of between 1,000 and 2,000 metres from the sea floor to heights of between 200 and 500 metres. This field of sea mounts, which are remnants of extinct volcanos, is a distinctive geological feature not known anywhere else on the continental margin of Australia. Equally, the flora and fauna of the sea mounts contain many animals that are not found anywhere else on earth. Recent research by the CSIRO found a high proportion of species, including eight genera, that are new to science.The Tasmanian Sea Mounts Marine Reserve will protect a representative sample of the sea mounts. While final management arrangements will be determined following the declaration of the reserve, we have indicated that our preference is to establish a unique vertical zoning system for the reserve. Areas under 500 metres will be managed as a highly protected zone while areas shallower than 500 metres will be referred to as a managed resource zone. These arrangements reflect advice from the CSIRO that the sea mounts ecosystem is not closely interrelated or dependent on shallower waters.In conclusion, the development of this reserve proposal has followed extensive consultations with both conservation and industry organisations. I am particularly appreciative of the constructive approach that these organisations have been playing. I would particularly also like to thank my departmental officers and the CSIRO who have helped bring this proposal to fruition.16761676Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that the effect of the proposed health insurance rebate, which is not means tested and which will operate alongside the existing Medicare levy surcharge, will provide a double incentive for high income earners to take out insurance? They will gain a 30 per cent rebate and avoid the one per cent surcharge. Does this mean that a person on a high salary, such as a Prime Minister, of $205,000 per annum who is currently paying the one per cent surcharge would receive an effective subsidy of $2,950 per year for a $3,000 policy? Is it true that a family on $35,000 per year, which already receives $450 under the existing incentive scheme, would gain only an additional $90 per year on a policy worth $1,800? Do you support fully subsidising the health insurance of high income families?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is getting very close to debating matters within a bill that is before the chamber. If the minister has anything to say that does not intrude on the debate, he may answer.1676Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Though I recognise that it is close to what is on the Notice Paper , I want to seize the opportunity to answer this question because it really clarifies something that seems to confuse the Labor Party and has confused the Labor Party ever since it introduced Medicare.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That is not answering the question.VW4Senator HERRON—I have been on my feet for about 30 seconds. The reality is that Medicare is for all Australians, be they wealthy, indigent, aged or young. It is a system that the government fully supports.The tax comes in at a higher level than it does in the normal taxation system. Senator Evans is probably unaware of that. Many people are confused about this, and the Labor Party is obviously confused about it as well. Something that has never been acknowledged but that I think Senator Lees mentioned at one stage is that many people self-insure. If you go into the statistics on people admitted to private hospitals you will find that in many private hospitals, particularly maternity hospitals, people are uninsured but pay the Medicare levy and then pay out of their pocket on top of that.The class struggle and class warfare have always been a chip on the shoulder of the Labor Party. It has always been there. All on the other side feel that they have been badly done by, somewhere or other, and that anybody who earns a few more bob than somebody else does should be cut down. They do not believe in creating wealth; they believe in cutting people down to the mean common denominator. Somehow or other they cannot get over this nonsense that you should not encourage people to earn a few bob, get off the taxpayer's back and take out private health insurance.I am proud to say that nearly all my colleagues have private health insurance. They recognise that they are going to take the burden off the public hospitals, and so they either pay their own way, if they can afford to, or are insured so that they take the burden off the public system. That does not seem to get through. The Labor Party believes in a completely public system and that we should all be lowered to the lowest common denominator.Another point that I would like to make to Senator Evans is that I heard Senator West this morning crying about the cost of the gap. Across the patients admitted to private hospitals, the average number of bills is 6.4 and the average gap is $106. Across all medical services in Australia, the gap is $14 for all Medicare services. In the private hospitals, the gap is $106. Obviously there are outlays. I know of a patient who had a $40,000 heart operation. The gap was $346. There will be outlays. There will always be people complaining about the gap. Everybody wants something for nothing; it is human nature to do so.It is important that the legislation be passed, because it is equitable for every person in this country—for both the wealthy and the poor. It is equitable for the 700,000 people who are below an income of $20,000 who care to take out private health insurance. Of course there may be people on a higher income who will benefit in one way or another, but it is their right.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Just a moment, Senator Herron. There are far too many people on my left who are shouting, and it is totally disorderly. It makes it impossible for people to hear, either in the chamber or through radio or television.VW4Senator HERRON—I want to clarify another fact. The private hospital system subsidises the public hospital system in relation to the medical officers there. I am proud to say that for over 30 years I worked on a sessional basis in the public hospital system. I earned about five times as much in the private system as I did there, but I en joyed lecturing to students, nurses and medical graduates. (Time expired)1677Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I have a supplementary question. Minister, this is not about class warfare; but I note that you represent vested union interests in this debate—those of your own union. Isn't it true that the Prime Minister and you will be among the high income earners who will benefit from over $900 million of the $1.4 billion subsidy? Isn't it true that the vast bulk of the subsidy goes to you, the Prime Minister and your fellow high income earners and does not go to the battlers at all?1677Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The simple answer is no. The longer answer is that I got off my backside, studied and entered a noble profession. Not one of them over there has done that. They are the old trade unionists who bludged off the system and are still bludging off the system. They come in here and attack people who have made a few bob and who go out and work in honourable professions.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, I ask you to withdraw those remarks.VW4Senator HERRON—I withdraw them. In a spirit of goodwill, may I wish everybody here a happy Christmas and hope they have a happy holiday.16771677Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Minister, were the environmental consequences of the tax package considered at any stage of the package's formulation? In particular were you, as environment minister, consulted on the environmental implications of cuts to the diesel fuel excise?1677Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Of course I was. We on this side of the chamber are interested in win-win outcomes. We want good environmental outcomes but we also want to provide people with jobs and economic opportunity. That balanced approach is clear within the tax package. We recognise that Australian industry suffers a disadvantage in excess of industry in other countries, because of the long distances that have to be travelled. The cost of transport in Australia is high in comparison with transport costs for our competitors. We have sought to reduce those costs to help, in particular, the bush and regional areas of Australia but also basically to help all of the economy to grow and to give the benefits that can flow from that to all Australians.We are very pleased that, so far, we have been very successful in that. The rate of growth and the falls in unemployment are something that we want to see, but they have to continue—and that requires further reform and further economic change. One of the areas of reform is taxation. As I said, by reducing the cost of transport we can continue to grow the Australian economy and to provide the advantages that we wish for.1678Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I have a supplementary question. Minister, is it true that Australian Greenhouse Office attempts to have input into the tax reform process were knocked back by Treasury? Is that rebuff one of the reasons that the tax package gives great incentives for using diesel fuel but no incentives—in fact, disincentives—for using renewable fuels? Given that diesel has just been listed by the Californian EPA as one of the top ranking causes of cancer, isn't this part of the tax package a big threat to the health of Australians and to the quality of the air that we breathe?1678Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—There are no disincentives built into the policy for alternative fuels. We have reduced the price of diesel for the economic reasons that I have just stated—to help grow the economy and provide jobs. That might not be of interest to the Australian Democrats, but jobs are of interest to most Australians.The Australian Greenhouse Office reports through a ministerial council that I chair. Therefore, the views of the Australian Greenhouse Office were properly inputted to the deliberation of the cabinet on this matter. So, yes, we want to encourage and support renewable energies. We have a number of programs which do that. If the honourable senator would like to come around to my office, I will arrange a briefing for her.I would like to join with Senator Herron in wishing all senators a happy Christmas. We look forward to their return next year and to a more cooperative mood from the other side, we hope, to ensure the continuation of good government. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Miscellaneous1678167815:03:001678Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Ray asked me questions yesterday relating to the superannuation surcharge. I seek leave to incorporate into Hansard additional responses to those questions.Leave granted.The answer read as follows—RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR RAY ON THE SUPERANNUATION SURCHARGECan the Minister confirm that the Australian Taxation Office is imposing the 15 per cent super tax on deceased Australians?No.Assessments are issued to the holders of for member's contributions, generally superannuation providers. They are based on information given to the Commissioner about members' contributions. Basically, if an assessment is raised in relation to a member's, contributions and that member died before the assessment is received by the provider, then the assessment is taken not to have been made in relation to that member's contributions.How many assessment notices have been sent to deceased taxpayers for the 15 per cent super tax?The Commissioner of Taxation would not send out a surcharge assessment if he is aware the member has died.In most cases, assessments are sent to superannuation providers as the holders of members' contributions. However, if a provider ceases to be the holder of a member's contribution (for example, when a member is in receipt of a pension or annuity), any assessment will be issued to the member. If a member dies before an assessment is received, the assessment is taken not to have been made, that is, there is no requirement to pay any assessed surcharge liability in these cases.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?Surcharge is calculated on the surchargeable contributions of high income earners and is assessed to the holder of the contributions. As I indicated earlier, if a member dies before the surcharge assessment is received by the holder of the contributions, then the assessment is taken not to have been made and there is no requirement to pay the amount assessed.How much does the Government anticipate collecting in this matter?The Government does not anticipate collecting any amount in relation of the surchargeable contributions of high income earners who die before an assessment is received by the holder of the contributions. The law does not allow it.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 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 estate? 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?The Commissioner of Taxation would not send out a surcharge assessment if he is aware the member has died. If the Commissioner is not aware of the death and an assessment subsequently issues, there is no requirement to pay the assessed surcharge liability.167915:03:001679Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Murray asked a question without notice to the minister representing me, Senator Ellison, on 2 December on whether the government would consider legislation allowing the Australian Taxation Office to deem contractors as employees. I seek leave to incorporate into Hansard the additional response to the question.Leave granted.The answer read as follows—RESPONSE TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR MURRAY ON DEEMING CONTRACTORS AS EMPLOYEESThe response read as follows: The Government has proposed legislation as part of its tax reform package that will address the concerns of Senator Murray.Specifically, the introduction of the Australian Business Number (ABN) will provide an opportunity to improve compliance. Businesses will generally be required to issue an invoice quoting their ABN. In most cases this will happen as part of the normal GST arrangements for tax invoices.These quotation arrangements will be complemented by the new pay as you go (PAYG) system. The withholding arrangements under PAYG will apply to payments to employees and other office holders covered by the existing pay as you earn (PAYE) system.In addition payers will withhold:. from specified payments, such as labour hire arrangements;. from a payment for work if the payee agrees to instalment deductions being made; and. from a payment on an invoice that does not include quotation of an ABN.This approach will do away with the need for difficult judgments by the businesses about whether the service providers they engage are employees or contractors.167915:02:001679Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Family and Community Services (Senator Newman) to questions without notice asked today.What an utterly unbelievable performance we had here today. Basically, it is: don't ask me, I'm just the senior minister.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—You lot are so unoriginal.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—It was actually a worse performance than Senator Kemp normally gives. She says, `Don't ask me. I'm just the portfolio minister.' Senator Newman makes Senator Kemp look good. That is how bad Senator Newman is, and that is a very big call indeed.In relation to questions, she does not answer any of them. It is always the big flick to Mr Truss, the Public Service, the secretary to a department or whatever. This minister is utterly hopeless. She is utterly hopeless in terms of her portfolio. She is utterly hopeless in relation to representing her home state. On the one hand she says she does not handle Centrelink anymore—that is Mr Truss's responsibility—but on the other hand she says her workload has doubled, so therefore she cannot come along to Senate estimates. You cannot have it both ways. This is her excuse for not turning up to the status of women committee estimates. The bottom line is that Senator Newman does not have the intestinal fortitude to front status of women committee estimates.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—Oh, Senator Mackay! How could she be in two places at once?9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—It is true, and you know it, Senator Coonan. This is the gossip around the bureaucracy.Senator Coonan interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Coonan! You will get your go shortly.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Senator Newman has often not been available and deliberately not turned up to Senate estimates, to status of women estimates. She does not have the intestinal fortitude to turn up.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. We have just heard what really must be one of the most absurd comments ever heard in this parliament: Senator Newman is somehow afraid to face you, Senator. I can't believe it.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, what is your point of order?WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—That is the point of order, Madam Deputy President.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. You have been here long enough to know that that was a spurious point of order.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—I just wanted to record that that was the most absurd comment ever heard in parliament.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I thought he may have been more charitable having been now named as only the second most incompetent minister on the other side.Since the coalition came to government in 1996, we have witnessed a deliberate rapid decline in positive policies for women and a deliberate rapid increase in policies which have a negative impact on women, thanks to the government and Senator Newman. The coalition has consistently sought to wind back the clock to the bad old days when women were denied access to child care, when women did not have choices because they alone carried the burden of providing care for the children, the sick and the aged and when women struggled for equal pay and equal access to the work force.Well, the coalition should be very proud of what it has done, very proud of its measure of success. The employment figures today paint a very grim picture for women. I repeat: the employment figures today paint a very grim picture for women. Let me just explain to you what they are—and I am sure that at least Senator Coonan and Senator Payne will be interested in what I have to say. Today we saw that the participation rate of women in the work force has declined to 53.8 per cent—twice the fall, as reported today, as having occurred in the male participation rate, thanks to the government and Senator Newman. Women are giving up in the work force, thanks to the government and Senator Newman. Women are also being hardest hit by the squeeze on jobs. Today's unemployment statistics have shown a rise in the unemployment rate for women that is more than double the increase in the unemployment rate for men—I repeat: more than double the increase in the unemployment rate for men. And that is on the back of pretty bad employment figures, anyway.The bottom line is—and I think it was Senator Coonan who warned the coalition, and I agree with her—that there appears to be mounting evidence that the coalition government is losing ground with women voters. I think that is a statement of the absolute obvious, but she was absolutely correct. Make no mistake: this is quite a deliberate strategy. Make no mistake: John Howard's 1950s white picket fence agenda, supported by Senator Newman, is behind all this. And make no mistake: this is why in the last election far more women voted Labor than the coalition—four per cent, in fact. This government, with Senator Newman, has utterly betrayed the women of Australia.15:08:001680Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—What an extraordinary performance from Senator Mackay this afternoon. This is, under the standing orders, as I understand it, a period to take note of answers given by ministers during question time. I think a close examination of the Hansard of Senator Newman's responses given in question time certainly will not provide any support for anything Senator Mackay has said this afternoon.But, in relation to Senator Mackay's last few points, I would just note briefly that in my own state of New South Wales—where we were told time and time again that the women representing my party in that state would not be returned to the parliament—the member for Gilmore, the member for Hughes and the member for Lindsay have all come back into the parliament as proud and strong members of this government. That is a very important aspect that the opposition continues to ignore.However, Madam Deputy President, in relation to the things that Senator Newman did refer to in her responses in question time today, I would like to address some of the issues in relation to Centrelink and the minister's portfolio. Do you know, since its establishment in just September of last year, Centrelink has made some extraordinary advances in service delivery to Australian consumers. It has improved access to government services by having brought together a huge range of service delivery functions from what were previously the departments of Social Security and Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.But those opposite do not want to know about any of those efficiencies, any of those more effective service delivery options. They do not want to know about the new approach to the delivery of government services—an approach that works from the customer's perspective. Centrelink has extended its previous roles beyond just the assessment of entitlements and distribution of payments to providing solutions for customers. It does this by providing a range of services, products, advice and payments on behalf of government departments.What Centrelink currently does is bring together and deliver services on behalf of seven client departments, their services being delivered to customers in a manner targeted to simplify their interactions with government organisations. But the opposition does not want to know anything about that. It does not want to see anything positive in those changes, and it does not want to see anything positive in improving services for the customers who access Centrelink.Centrelink has, in the last 12 months, achieved an enormous success in becoming customer driven—and it has done it in practical ways. It has held value creation workshops where the staff listen to customers providing on the spot feedback. It has set up a popular 1800 customer feedback line. It has drawn up a customer charter and provided customer comment cards for customers to complete. It has been trialling what are referred to as `personalised service initiatives', which take the form of a `one main contact model' where the customers are able to deal with the same Centrelink customer service officer for all their business. That is what being customer driven is all about. It is a model that has been very favourably received by both customers and staff.And Centrelink will build on the achievements of the past year to further improve its delivery of services. A new service delivery model has been developed that Centrelink describes as being based on `a life events approach'. When you talk about life events, what do you mean? They include things like looking for a job, needing help after someone in your family has died, and planning retirement. Under that new model, customers are not expected to walk in off the street and know the wide range of payments that are available; they are not expected to know what each single payment is called or how you specifically access it or fill in the appropriate form; whether you might be eligible or what queue you are supposed to be in. All of those things can be quite confronting, quite difficult for people who are accessing services for the first time.All that those persons need to bring to the office is a knowledge of their own circumstances and a preparedness to tell the truth and give the details of those circumstances. What they receive then is a package of products and services that are tailored in response to that life event, whatever it may be, that take into account their individual situation, their needs and their expectations. That is what responsive customer service delivery is all about.In the new service delivery model, Centrelink will retain the `one main contact approach' so that the customer can represent themselves to Centrelink with whatever life event they are experiencing and have their own situation assessed. They can then continue to do business, if they choose to do so, with that same customer service officer over a period of time. What knowing a customer clearly does is cut out a lot of red tape. It cuts out, for example, the current proof of identity processes where, if you are not dealing with the same person, you do have to prove who you are on each occasion that you present to a different customer service officer in your Centrelink office. They do not have to repeat their story time and time again. That is a flexible customer-sensitive approach to service delivery. (Time expired)15:13:001682Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—One could say that the speech that Senator Payne has just given is the answer we should have heard from the minister before, and it certainly does go some way in defence of Centrelink. Centrelink's ambitions have just been very well described; Centrelink's performance is something else again.Some of us have had the opportunity, as part of a regional employment inquiry which I chaired, to visit and cover many, many places around Australia this year. Again and again, the complaint from the Job Network providers and from the people who were looking for jobs and assistance through the Job Network was that Centrelink was one of the major breakdowns and failings in that process. Centrelink, for something like eight weeks, failed to provide referrals to Job Network agencies. That is why so many unemployed people were disadvantaged, and why so many Job Network providers went to the wall.So you might have listened to Senator Payne's excellent description of what Centrelink might be or might even strive to be, but it is not a description of what it is. Certainly it is not. As for the suggestion that it has a new service delivery model that makes everything wonderful for the community out there, anyone who has ever rung a 1300 number trying to get information from the department will know that the time delays are very extensive.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Not all the time.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—No, not all the time, but one of the most recent calls I made involved a 20-minute wait. That is no service assistance to the community.One of the things that really troubled me when listening to Senator Payne's answer on behalf of the minister was the use of the word `customer'. Most of us do not think of people as `customers' of government services. People who go to Centrelink or the department of social security or Medibank offices are not customers. They are citizens—they are people of this country. They are not there to buy a service; they are there to access what the public sector in this country provides for its citizens, for its people. I think the use of the word `customer' conveys a whole mentality that is characteristic of this government, and one of the reasons why so many women—another responsibility of Minister Newman—in the last election voted overwhelmingly to support Labor.I find the mean spiritedness of Minister Newman interesting. On occasions she has told us of the pride that Mr Howard and the coalition government took in their success in 1996 to have so many women come into office. She has certainly not offered the same congratulations to the Labor Party, with so many women who have been successful in coming into the parliament this time around. I have actually congratulated Liberal women in the past on their successes. I would have thought it was befitting of the Minister for the Status of Women to also acknowledge the success of the Labor Party in getting so many excellent women, along with their male colleagues, into parliament this time around. Many of them, of course, are in safe Labor seats and they are here for the long haul—excellent.Much of what Centrelink is proposing to do with the amalgamation of the service delivery so as to make it customer friendly—building on what the Labor government had instituted and was in the process of implementing—had already started. It is not the policy or the intention that the opposition and I stand here to criticise today; it is about exactly what is happening. This process is fraught with difficulties and, like the Job Network, the minister fails to acknowledge that.Senator Newman is saying, `If you want to know about Centrelink, I am the minister with portfolio responsibilities in the book, but don't ask me any questions. Centrelink stands by itself; you'll have to ask them direct.' Where does ministerial responsibility for the insufficiencies of this organisation stop? They stop with Minister Newman, who is actually stopping thousands of citizens getting easy and proper access. It stops with the 5,000 people who are going to lose their jobs from Centrelink over the next fews years, as people are going to be encouraged—the `customers'—to find out what their services are from a touch screen. I hope they have had lessons in how to use it. Thousands of people who would rather talk to somebody in the department or in Centrelink to assist will, I think, be disadvantaged.Minister Newman, who has responsibility for Centrelink, is failing in her service to the citizens. She has failed to come before the parliament to answer questions that relate to the status of women. There are many things that the Howard government has sneered at that Labor introduced. They have decided to cut the funding, and lots of services for women are no longer in existence. The minister does not support the services to assist women that have continued. (Time expired)15:18:001683Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—I too rise to take part in the debate on the motion that the Senate take note of answers that were given with respect to Centrelink. Just a few moments ago, Senator Crowley disparagingly referred to the use of the word `customers'. I might just mention that, when we came into government, the people who attend these government offices were also referred to as customers.When we came into government, the Howard government was committed to bringing under one roof all those areas that acted independently and were disparate of each other. They were the social security areas—pensions, unemployment, veterans and jobs. And, like everything where there is a radical change, there have been some teething problems. Those teething problems have largely been overcome.The comprehensive area encompassed by Centrelink includes major regional centres in Western Australia—centres like Kalgoorlie, Geraldton, Carnarvon, Albany, Bunbury and Busselton. It was not practicable for the government to fund offices in separate parts of those particular towns. What the government did, I think, was commendable. This was an integral part of the plan, the mosaic, that the government put together shortly after it came into office. It must have been. It lowered the unemployment rate that had peaked during the horrid 13 years of Labor government from 11.2 per cent to the latest figures that I have seen of just over seven per cent. It lowered interest rates in the same areas with respect to that mosaic that I spoke about from over 20 per cent to ones that are now under six per cent. The ANZ survey of job vacancies—a respected survey; one used by most major and small businesses throughout Australia—indicates that expectations have risen, exports have increased and our system has survived the Asian devastation. Centrelink is an integral and important part of that system.The Labor Party seems to have a bent that it cannot get away from. It wants to have Australians dependent on them. Centrelink takes away that dependency. This arrangement has increased the possibility and the practicability of assistance by providing a hub that encompasses a whole lot of offices. Centrelink has survived in most, if not all, of the major centres that I mentioned. With the retreat from the rural and coastal areas of Western Australia, all of those offices could not have survived. Some of those offices would have had to close if they had remained in the form they were in prior to the Howard government coming into office. They have been saved from closure.There seems to be a growing thrust by the Labor Party to ensure that people of Australia remain dependent on government largesse—the government handout; the government trough. Centrelink does not do that. Centrelink takes away that dependency and makes people more independent. It gives them more hope. It is highly successful. The 1800 number does work. The fact that you cannot get through at times is a manifestation of its success. It is so good, it is so busy, that that is a clear manifestation of its success.It is about time the opposition gave some praise where it is due to this government. The success that it has had in weathering the Asian downturn is something that it deserves credit for. Centrelink is part of the mosaic, part of the major plan that has driven Australia forward, that has improved the areas which needed to be improved and that has taken people away from the dependency that the Labor Party desperately needs to maintain its support. Australia is far better off for it.15:24:001684Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—In taking note of Senator Newman's responses to several questions today I would like to go back to the question that I raised in relation to the Child Support Agency. Senator Newman should not be held trussed by Mr Truss as her junior minister and should deal with this issue. She did provide an answer yesterday but, as we have pointed out in question time today, the official answer coming through her junior minister, or through the senior levels of management in the department, are obviously out of kilter with the reality on the shop floor.Given all of the comments that government members are making about Centrelink, perhaps I should suggest also that the minister spend some time in a Centrelink office and actually experience how it is on the shop floor in those offices where, for instance, agencies have to close down for the day simply to catch up with business. I am somewhat amused by Senator Lightfoot's comment that the 1800 number is working because you cannot get through. That is absolutely astounding as a test of the success of service delivery. I wonder what the bases were of his development of logical reasoning.But let me go back to the issue of the Child Support Agency. I would like to refer, so that the minister is fully briefed on this matter, to a letter sent to the national program manager of the Child Support Agency from the CPSU in relation to the issue. The union still has had no response to a letter sent on 3 December on this very important issue. In trying to follow through for a response, they have been told that they will eventually get a response on Monday. That is simply not good enough, particularly given the fact that the minister through her junior minister is meant to be inquiring into the matter. The letter says:The issue of CSA staff identification has been an ongoing one for the union and for the agency management. Concerns have repeatedly been expressed about the potential danger to staff if they are forced to reveal their full names and therefore in most cases give access to their residential address to clients. It is of great concern that with the introduction of the new CSA computer system staff's full names will be automatically printed on letters being sent out.It is one thing for Senator Payne to be talking about wonderful efficiencies and performances and new models and theories, but again we have to get to the issue of how they are delivered in practice. If the minister spent a bit more time in Centrelink agencies she would see that it is pretty obvious that the differential between models and practice is vast. This is a case of another issue raised. The move to the computer system and automatic correspondence is obviously creating very severe security concerns for staff within the agency and they are not being addressed by senior management. The letter goes further:I am aware of a staff petition from Box Hill staff signed by 61 staff imploring you to change your approach on this matter and of your response. Given recent events in the ATO, the union again requests that you urgently review your position on this matter. I will be contacting officers and indicating that we wish to discuss this vital issue and that we meet next week. The union will be examining issues such as employers' possible legal liability if changes are not made to the system, including duty of care issues as well as possible breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.Again, I highlight that this letter has not been responded to. The portfolio minister should now be paying some attention to this matter, rather than referring it back to her junior minister.Let me deal with some of the other comments made about Centrelink today. Senator Lightfoot's contribution I would characterise as denial and optimism. Denial of any of the problems in Centrelink is a bit like the government's denial of any of the problems in relation to CASA and the civil aviation tests, which have been overturned. It is a bit like the government's denial of any problems with the Job Network, which they should at least be aware by now is publicly seen as laughable. The same denial applies to the problems in Centrelink.But then, the optimism was fairly extreme as well: `We have survived the Asian devastation.' Has Senator Lightfoot not seen today's unemployment figures? Does he not realise that the bump that we had last month is not characteristic of a trend but that we are back to eight per cent, that there has been a severe decline in full-time and part-time employment? (Time expired)15:29:001685McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—The performance we have seen today of taking note of answers is nothing more than a renewed attack on one of our ministers. Each day they seem to focus on one. The game is up. The tactics are obvious. I think you need a few fresh minds in your tactics committee. Yesterday we had Senator Kemp. That well and truly flopped over. The one that really flopped over, Senator Carr, was the attack you launched on Senator Macdonald. Today it is Senator Newman, so much so that Senator Mackay came in with a set piece. It wouldn't have mattered how Senator Newman answered the question or what the question was; Senator Mackay came in with a set piece talking about the performance of Senator Newman in relation to the status of women. I don't think Senator Newman even mentioned the status of women issue. She mentioned Centrelink. She mentioned child care. She did not even mention the extra arm of her portfolio in relation to women. Such was the set piece put down by Senator Mackay. It was a blind and unresearched attack.I would like to detail some of that research in regard to Senator Newman. She is the Liberal Party's woman in cabinet. She is the most senior woman we have in government. It is not a token position. I remember only too well when we were in opposition, Senator Carr. How could we forget? We had 13 years in opposition. So there is not much you can tell us about opposition that we do not know. When we were in opposition, there was a certain female politician that was promoted by the Labor Party into cabinet. It was well recognised that that was a token promotion. In fact, a very disgruntled junior minister who thought they should get the position was reportedly going around saying that this promotion was made only because she had the right genes in the right state. Now work that one out!Few on the frontbench have had to make tougher reforms than Senator Newman when she first took over her portfolio. We are now in our second term of government, and she has held that position in cabinet. Anyone—even you, Senator Carr—who knows politics knows that it is pretty hard to hold a position for two terms in cabinet. To her credit, this is her second term in cabinet. Few on the frontbench have had to make tougher decisions in their portfolios than Senator Newman has in hers. When we came into government, we had a deficit of $10 billion. We had to tackle that. Every portfolio had to deliver savings and cuts. One of the portfolios left with the legacy of disaster was the social welfare portfolio.Senator Newman tackled her portfolio with sensitivity. She changed the whole philosophy of social welfare in regard to mutual obligation. That is something that Mr Latham would like you to look at: the question of mutual obligation. That is the great philosophy change in social welfare. There is no longer this handout mentality. Senator Newman's greatest achievement has been a saving of $1.4 billion a year in her portfolio—simply by bringing to hand the unchecked fraud that was going on by the previous government and the errors. An auditing process that went right through that portfolio at the time came up with a remarkable saving of $1.4 billion. That is the record of Senator Newman. That has sent a message right throughout society that the days of rorts and the handout mentality of social welfare are gone.Senator Crowley made some pretty glib remarks about the women supporting the Labor Party in the last election. That is the first time I have seen that statistic put on the table. I do not accept it at all. How could I when your primary vote was as low as it has ever been? You did not advance your vote at all. I am not going to accept that very glib remark by Senator Crowley. The great disappointment that Senator Crowley should have spoken about was the Labor Party's approach towards women in politics. They with great jubilation set down a quota system for I think 30 per cent of women to be in parliament by the year 2000. They are way behind in meeting that quota. In fact, they are not going to, particularly in New South Wales. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees168616861686The DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—The President has received letters from party leaders nominating senators to be members of committees.Motion (by Senator Heffernan)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation CommitteeParticipating member: Senator Murphy.Joint Committee of Public Accounts and AuditDischarged: Senator CrowleyAppointed: Senator Faulkner.Joint Standing Committee on Electoral MattersAppointed: Senator Murray.Personal Explanations168615:34:001686Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I seek leave to make a personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented.Leave granted.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Reported on ABC radio today were comments from Mr Paul Kemp, the Chief Executive Officer of the Trust Bank in Tasmania, saying that statements I had made about him were incorrect and had no basis, and inferring that I may have been drinking when I made them. The facts of the matter are as follows: on 1 October 1991 the Trust Bank, of which Mr Kemp is the chief executive officer, bought a car from Mr Kemp—a Rover Stirling 827 sedan—for the price of $44,000. That car was subsequently sold on 8 October 1993 for $16,000, but at the time the bank purchased the car it had a red book value if in mint condition of some $28,000.As part of my explanation, I seek leave to table some documents. I have shown them to the Chief Government Whip. The document I seek leave to table is a copy of the Trust Bank's asset register, which displays the purchase and the sale of the said car.Leave granted.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—The remarks that I have made about Mr Kemp are not remarks that I have not previously made. Mr Kemp has never denied the fact that a car that belonged to him was purchased by the bank. People in banking have a fiduciary responsibility, and I have questioned the integrity of Mr Kemp. I continue to question the integrity of Mr Kemp because of a number of matters, not the least of which being the selling of a private car he owned into the bank's car pool—something that would not be afforded, and as far as I know has never been afforded, to any other employee of the bank, particularly when the car was purchased by the bank for at least $16,000 more than its market value worth at the time. That raises a serious question of propriety. Moreover, banks have responsibilities in terms of their customers.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Murphy, I would appreciate it if you could show me where you have been misrepresented and seek to correct that please.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Mr Kemp has made public statements that what I have said has no basis or foundation. What I am doing here is providing evidence with regard to the basis of the comments I made.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Keep it tight.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I have to be able to do that to give basis to the comments attributed to me in the Senate chamber during the adjournment speech when I said that he was a crook and that he sold the car into the bank pool. I am now in the process of giving this explanation and providing evidence as to why I questioned Mr Kemp's integrity and propriety. That is what I seek to do. I have to do it by way of giving explanations of the circumstances in which I made those comments.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Keep it to the point.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Yes, I will, Madam Deputy President. I do understand. I do not want to take up the time of the Senate. Bankers are required, in the case of the bank's customers, to conduct themselves in a particular way to ensure that the customers' interests are held uppermost. Mr Kemp's bank repossessed a number of cars. The particular cars in this case were Porsches. There were four of them. The cars in relation to which people defaulted on their loans and which the bank repossessed were supposed to be sold by the bank and, indeed, ultimately were.But one in particular—again, this is part of my explanation in terms of questioning Mr Kemp's integrity—was a 1990 Porsche 944 S2 Cabriolet with which Mr Kemp was photographed in the Examiner in April 1992. Mr Kemp said that the bank entered the car in Targa, a race which is quite well known in Tasmania. He is attributed as saying:"We are trying to sell this one. It's been on the books for eight months," Mr Kemp said, patting the V8 vehicle's brown bonnet affectionately."Meanwhile, I may as well be driving it," said Mr Kemp, admitting that the bank also owns four other Porsches, "all of them for sale if you are interested."That is right, but the other three had been sold. Indeed, it is my information that this one had been sold, but the person who was selling the cars for the bank had been asked to keep the sale back. That is not the part I wish to come to. What happened was that Mr Kemp smashed this car up, doing $40,000 worth of damage, thus devaluing the car in terms of the resale value it would have in terms of recovering debt for both the bank and in the interests of the customer. That is a clear breach of the banking laws of this country.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I think we have been rather tolerant on this side of the house. Senator Murphy asked to make a personal explanation, but we seem to be getting into an adjournment speech now. I am not saying that he should not be able to say what he wants to say, but I think that this is not the right place and time for it. I think an adjournment speech would be much better. Normally personal explanations are usually kept very short and to the point.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—They normally are kept very short and to the point. Senator Murphy, you sought to make a personal explanation because you had been misrepresented. You have given evidence that you have been misrepresented.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Madam Deputy President, I do respect the time of the Senate, but some of these things are not easy to address. I would have endeavoured to put this on the public record by way of an adjournment speech but, because we are at the end of a sitting period, it is likely that there will be no time for adjournment speeches before we rise at the end of this sitting period. So I have to take the opportunity to rectify this as quickly as I can. Primarily, those are the two issues I wanted to raise.I will not continue further. There are a number of other issues which I think should be put on the public record, and I will put them on the public record in due course. I thank the government for giving me leave to make a brief personal explanation. I have put on the public record one of the most important aspects, but certainly not the least important. I thank the Senate for its time.Committees1687168715:43:001687Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I present the government's response to the President's report of 2 July 1998 on outstanding government responses to parliamentary committee reports. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The response read as follows—GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTSRESPONSE TO THE SCHEDULE TABLED BY THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE ON 2 JULY 1998Circulated by the Leader of the Government in the SenateSenator the Hon Robert Hill10 December 1998COMMUNITY AFFAIRS REFERENCESAccess to medical recordsThe Government is considering its response following consultations with key stakeholders. It is anticipated that the response will be finalised in the near future.Housing AssistanceThe Government response was presented out of session to the President of the Senate on 26 November 1998.Public Dental Services in AustraliaThe Government is considering the report and it is anticipated that the response will be finalised in the near future.COMMUNITY STANDARDS RELEVANT TO THE SUPPLY OF SERVICES UTILISING ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES (Senate Select)Overseas sourced audiotex services, video and computer games, R-rated material on pay TVThe Government response is expected to be tabled in the near future.Regulation of computer on-line services—part 2Regulation of computer on-line services—part 3The Government will respond to these reports jointly. This will enable the response to reflect Government decisions on a regulatory framework for on-line content. The detail of the framework is currently being finalised with draft legislation expected to be available in the first half of 1999.Report on the Portrayal of Violence in the Electronic MediaThe Government response is expected to be tabled in the near future.ECONOMICS LEGISLATIONAustralian Prudential Regulation Authority Bill 1998, and ten related billsThe bills were passed by the Senate on 22 June 1998. The Senate Committee noted that the Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998 provided for commencement to be delayed by a period of substantially greater than the period referred to in Office of Parliamentary Council Drafting Instruction No. 2 of 1989. The Committee noted the reason given for this in the relevant Explanatory Memorandum and made no recommendation. The Government does not intend to provide a separate formal response.Provisions of the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998The bill was passed in an amended form by the Senate on 8 July 1998. The Government does not intend to respond further to this report.ELECTORAL MATTERS (Joint Standing)Industrial Elections: Report of the inquiry into the role of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in conducting industrial elections.The Government response was presented out of session to the President of the Senate on 29 July 1998.EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFERENCESA class act: inquiry into the status of teachers and development of the teaching professionThe Government response is expected to be tabled in the 1999 autumn sittings.ENVIRONMENT, RECREATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS LEGISLATIONProvisions of the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998The Committee's recommendations were addressed by debate of the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998. The Government does not intend to table a separate response.Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998The bills were passed by the Senate on 2 July 1998. The Government does not intend to provide a separate formal response.ENVIRONMENT, RECREATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS REFERENCESMarine and coastal pollutionThe Government response was presented out of session to the President of the Senate on 26 November 1998.FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFERENCESProperty Management in the Australian Public ServiceThe Government is considering its response to this report given major changes in Commonwealth property policy and public sector reforms such as privatisation of government businesses and further devolution of responsibility to departmental heads. The response is expected to be tabled in the 1999 autumn sittings.Inquiry on the contracting out of government servicesThe Government response was presented out of session to the President of the Senate on 26 November 1998.FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE (Joint Standing)Defence Sub-committee: Visit to Sydney Harbour foreshores defence properties, 14 November 1997The Government response is expected to be tabled in the near future.Australia and ASEAN: Managing changeThe Government response is close to completion and is expected to be tabled in the 1999 autumn sittings.Funding of Australia's DefenceThe Government response is expected to be tabled in the near future.Improving butAustralia's regional dialogue on human rightsPreparation of the Government response is well advanced and it is expected to be tabled in the 1999 autumn sittings.Australia's trade relationship with IndiaPreparation of the Government response is well advanced and it is expected to be tabled in the 1999 autumn sittings.LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (Senate Standing)Off the record—shield laws for journalists' confidential sourcesThe `Off the Record' report is the only report that has been tabled as part of the committee's wide ranging inquiry into the rights and obligations of the media generally. The report was tabled in October 1994. The report considers only one aspect of the terms of reference given to the Committee (ie whether the media should be able to protect the identity of sources of information). These recommendations were conditional upon the media adopting a new code of ethics and an effective disciplinary mechanism for enforcing the code. The Government has been closely monitoring developments since 1995 towards the adoption of a new code of ethics by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance.The report also raises issues that are related to other aspects of the Committee's inquiry.Given the desirability of a comprehensive Government response to all aspects of the committee's terms of reference, the Government does not propose to respond to the report.LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIONCopyright Amendment (No. 2) Bill 1997On 1 April 1998 the Committee released its report on the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997. By majority, the Committee supported the passage of the bill but raised four matters for consideration by the Government.The bill was subsequently debated and passed in the Senate on 12 July 1998 effectively providing the Government's response to the Committee's first recommendation that the bill be passed. During debate the Government introduced a number of amendments that responded to the Committee's fifth and final recommendation—to examine the effect that the bill might have on music composers where a CD containing their work is imported.The Government also took further advice from the Attorney-General's Department, as recommended in the Committee's second recommendation, confirming that the form of the legislation as passed was consistent with the World Trade Organisation's TRIPS agreement.The two remaining recommendations of the Committee concern matters of more general policy and the Government will provide a response on those matters, as part of the formal response to the report as a whole, by the end of the year.The preparation of the bill for debate and passage, and the subsequent calling of the Federal election in August 1998, has contributed to the delay in not responding to the report within the agreed timeframe.Special benefit provisions—Newly arrived resident's waiting periodAs the report concluded that there was no need to vary the provisions regarding access to Special Benefit, and contained no recommendations for future action, it is not intended to provide a Government response to this report.LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCESInquiry into the Commonwealth's actions in relation to Ryker (Faulkner) v The Commonwealth and FlintThe Government response to the Committee's report is still under consideration.Payment of a Minister's Legal Costs Part 2The Government response was presented out of session to the President of the Senate on 27 August 1998. Inquiry into the Australian legal aid system (3rd report)The Government response is currently being considered by the Government.Inquiry into sexuality discriminationThe Government response is being prepared.MIGRATION (Joint Standing)Australia's visa system for visitorsThe Government is now finalising its response for tabling.Working holiday makers: More than touristsThe Government is now finalising its response for tabling.Deportation of non-citizen criminalsThe report's recommendations are currently being considered by the Government.NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY (Joint Statutory)Third evaluation of the National Crime AuthorityThe Committee's report, which was tabled on 6 April 1998, contained a number of recommendations to the Government concerning the powers and operations of the National Crime Authority (NCA). The complex nature of the recommendations required extensive consultation to be undertaken with a number of agencies, including members of the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) on the NCA.Subject to further consultation with the IGC, the Government is expecting to table its response in the 1999 autumn sittings.NATIVE TITLE AND THE ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER LAND FUND (Joint)The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (11th report)The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 was redrafted taking into account the recommendations of the 11th and 12th reports of the Committee and was reintroduced into Parliament on 12 November 1998. The Government will not be making any further response to the report.Examination of 1996-7 Annual Reports in fulfilment of the Committee's duties pursuant to s.206(c) of the Native Title Act 1993 (13th report)As this report contained no recommendations, the Government does not intend to provide a formal response.PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT (Joint Statutory)JCPAA ReportsAs a matter of general practice this explanatory schedule does not include reports from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit unless such reports contain policy recommendations. Reports that address administrative or operational matters are usually responded to in the form of Finance Minutes. These are normally provided to the Committee within six months of the tabling of the report and are then tabled by the Committee.Aboriginal Councils and Torres Strait Island Councils: Review of financial accountability requirements (Report No. 355)The Finance Minute for this report has been transmitted to the Secretary of the Committee. Tabling of the Finance Minute will be organised by the Committee.Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997 (Report No. 356)The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit made 17 recommendations, most of which related to the technical content of the bill (recommendations 3, 6, 9 and 11 to 17). The Government has already approved and given effect to all of these `technical content' recommendations by sponsoring amendments of the bill in the House of Representatives. The remaining recommendations relate to the Tax Law Improvement Project (TLIP) more generally.In its tax reform package A New Tax System under the heading Subsume the Tax Law Improvement Project (page 149), the Government indicated that it would be giving further consideration as to how to best make use of the considerable experience developed by the TLIP, in developing the proposed integrated tax code. Accordingly, the resources of the Project will be made available to assist in the implementation of the Government's tax reform package. The Government has, therefore, delayed its response until the precise details of the future of the TLIP (and its relationship with the integrated tax code) are settled.The Jindalee Operational Radar Network Project (Report No. 357)The Finance Minute for this report will be transmitted to the Secretary of the Committee shortly. Tabling of the Finance Minute will be organised by the Committee.Review of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97—Third quarter (Report No. 358)The Finance Minute for this report will be transmitted to the Secretary of the Committee shortly. Tabling of the Finance Minute will be organised by the Committee.Review of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97—Fourth quarter (Report No. 359)The Finance Minute for this report will be transmitted to the Secretary of the Committee shortly. Tabling of the Finance Minute will be organised by the Committee.Internet commerceTo buy or not to buy (Report No. 360)The report's recommendations, some of which will be addressed by way of Finance Minute, are currently being considered. The Government's response is expected to be tabled before the end of the year.Review of Auditor-General's report 1996-97—First quarter (Report No. 361)The Finance Minute for this report is not due with the Committee until 25 December 1998.General and specific purpose payments to the States (Report No. 362)The Committee has confirmed that no Finance Minute is required for this report as the Committee made no recommendations.PUBLICATIONS (Joint)Future of the parliamentary papers seriesThe Government response is being prepared.RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT LEGISLATIONPrimary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997This bill was passed by the Senate on 9 July 1998. The Government does not intend to provide a separate formal response.RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT REFERENCESCommercial utilisation of Australian native wildlifeIt is anticipated that the Government response will be tabled in the 1999 autumn sittings.SCRUTINY OF BILLSThe appropriate basis for penalty provisions in legislation comparable to the Productivity Commission Bill 1996 (8th report)The Government response is expected to be tabled in the near future.SUPERANNUATION (Senate Select)Super guarantee—its track record (15th report)Super and broken work patterns (17th report)The Government response is being updated to reflect changes made to the preservation rules and the release of a position paper in relation to Superannuation and Family Law.Super—Restrictions on early access—Small Superannuation Accounts Bill 1997 (26th Report)The Government proposes to reintroduce the bill and will consider issues raised by the report during debate on the bill. The Government does not intend to prepare a separate formal response to the report. Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Bill 1997 and six related bills (27th Report)The Government response was addressed during debate of the bills. The Government does not intend preparing a separate formal response to the report.Taxation of Superannuation—Information paperThis report was released for information only and does not require a Government response.Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1997 and two related billsThese bills were re-introduced into Parliament and the Government response will be addressed during debate on the bills in the Senate. The Government does not intend to provide a separate formal response.Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997The bill to remove superannuation as an allowable award matter will be introduced into the Parliament during the current session.The Government will consider the range of issues (including employer administrative obligations) that would be involved in requiring AG contributions to be remitted on not less than a quarterly basis.The Federal Court decisions of Wilkinson v Clerical Administrative and Related Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd and Brekler v Leshem in relation to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal are Currently under appeal in the High Court.The Government does not intend to respond further to this report.TREATIES (Joint)Treaties tabled on 18 March 1997 and 13 May 1997 (8th report)The required consultative processes are in progress and the response is expected to be tabled in the 1999 autumn sittings.Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation Treaty (12th report)The required consultative processes are in progress and the response is expected to be tabled in the 1999 autumn sittings.Multilateral agreement on investment—Interim report (14th report)The Government response is expected to be tabled shortly.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the usual practice, on behalf of the President, I table a list of parliamentary committee reports to which the government has not responded within the prescribed period. The list has been circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, the list will be incorporated in Hansard .The list read as follows—PRESIDENT'S REPORT TO THE SENATE ON GOVERNMENT RESPONSES OUTSTANDING TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS AS AT 10 DECEMBER 1998PREFACEThis document continues the practice of presenting to the Senate twice each year a list of Government responses to Senate and joint committee reports as well as responses which remain outstanding.The practice of presenting this list to the Senate follows the resolution of the Senate of 14 March 1973 and the undertaking by successive governments to respond to parliamentary committee reports in timely fashion. On 26 May 1978 the then Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) informed the Senate that within six months of the tabling of a committee report, the responsible Minister would make a statement in the Parliament outlining the action the Government proposed to take in relation to the report. The period for responses was reduced from six months to three months in 1983 by the then incoming government. The then Leader of the Government in the Senate announced this change on 24 August 1983. The method of response continued to be by way of statement. Subsequently, on 16 October 1991 the former Government advised that responses to committee reports would be made by letter to a committee chairman, with the letter being tabled in the Senate at the earliest opportunity. The current Government in June 1996 affirmed its commitment to respond to relevant parliamentary committee reports within three months of their presentation.The list does not usually include reports of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works or the following Senate Standing Committees: Appropriations and Staffing, Selection of Bills, Privileges, Procedure, Publications, Regulations and Ordinances and Scrutiny of Bills. However, such reports will be included if they require a response. Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are normally reflected in motions for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered. Responses to reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts are usually made in the form of Finance Minutes which are tabled by the committee. Where a response has been made by way of Finance Minute, the date of presentation has been appropriately annotated.Legislation committees report on bills and on the provisions of bills. Only those reports in this category that make recommendations which cannot readily be implemented through the bill, and therefore require a response, are listed. The list also does not include reports by legislation committees on estimates.A guide to the legend used in the `Date response presented/made to the Senate' column# See document tabled in the Senate on 29 November 1995, entitled Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports-Response to the list tabled in the Senate by the President on 30 June 1995 , for Government interim/further interim response.## See document tabled in the Senate on 27 June 1996, entitled Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports-Response to the schedule tabled in the Senate by the President on 30 November 1995 , for Government interim/further interim response.+ See document tabled in the Senate on 12 December 1996, entitled Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports-Response to the list tabled in the Senate by the President on 28 June 1996, for Government interim/further interim response.@ See document tabled in the Senate on 25 June 1997, entitled Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports-Response to the list tabled in the Senate by the Deputy President on 12 December 1996 , for Government interim/further interim response.++ See document tabled in the Senate on 2 December 1997, entitled Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports-Response to the list tabled in the Senate by the Deputy President on 25 June 1997 , for Government interim/further interim response.@@ Response by presiding officers.@@@ Further response by presiding officers.* See document tabled in the Senate on 2 July 1998, entitled Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports-Response to the list tabled in the Senate by the Deputy President on 2 December 1997 , for Government interim/further interim/final response.** See document tabled in the Senate on 10 December 1998, entitled Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports-Response to the list tabled in the Senate by the Deputy President on 2 July 1998 , for Government interim/further interim/final response.Title of ReportDate report tabledDate response presented/ made to the SenateResponse made within time specified (3 months) Community Affairs LegislationScrutiny of annual reports: No. 2 of 19981.12.98Not required- Community Affairs ReferencesAccess to medical records26.6.97*,**NoHousing assistance2.3.9830.11.98 (Presented 26.11.98)NoPublic dental services in Australia 28.5.98Not receivedNoChild care funding9.11.98Not receivedTime not expired Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies (Senate Select)Overseas sourced audiotext services, video and computer games, r-rated material on pay TV29.6.94#, ##, +, @,++,*,**NoRegulation of computer on-line services, part 230.11.95##, +, @,++,*,**NoPortrayal of violence in the electronic media13.2.97@, ++,*,**NoRegulation of computer on-line services, part 326.6.97*,**No Economics LegislationAustralian Prudential Regulation Authority Bill 1998, and ten related bills13.5.98**NoProvisions of the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 199824.6.98**NoExamination of annual reports: No. 2 of 19981.12.98Not required Economics ReferencesReview of the Inquiry into outworkers in the garment industry2.7.98Not receivedNoCreating opportunities: promoting Australian industry10.11.98 (presented 22.7.98)Not receivedTime not expired Electoral Matters (Joint Standing)Industrial elections: Report of the inquiry into the role of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in conducting industrial elections20.10.97*, 10.11.98 (presented 29.7.98)No Employment, Education and Training ReferencesA class act: inquiry into the status of teachers and development of the teaching profession31.3.98**No Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education LegislationExamination of annual reports: No. 2 of 19981.12.98Not required- Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts LegislationReview of annual reports (No. 2 of 1998)1.12.98Not required- Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Provisions of the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 199827.5.98**NoTelevision Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 and Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 199823.6.98**No Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts ReferencesMarine and coastal pollution27.10.9730.11.98(presen ted 26.11.98)NoAccess to heritage: user charges in museums, art galleries and national parks11.7.98Not receivedNo Finance and Public Administration LegislationReport on annual reports tabled November 1997-June 19981.12.98Not required- Finance and Public Administration ReferencesProperty management in the Australian Public Service29.6.95#, ##, +, @, ++,*,**NoInquiry on the contracting out of government services14.5.9830.11.98 (presented 26.11.98)No Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (Joint)Defence Sub-committee: Visit to Sydney Harbour foreshores defence properties, 14 November 199723.3.98**NoAustralia and ASEAN: Managing change6.4.98**NoFunding of Australia's Defence8.5.98**NoThe Asian currency crisis, report on a seminar on the Asian currency crisis and its effect on Australia, 19 March 199825.5.98Not required-Improving but. . . Australia's regional dialogue on human rights29.6.98**NoAustralia's trade relationship with India29.6.98**No Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade LegislationScrutiny of annual reports: No. 2 of 19981.12.98Not required- Information Technologies (Select)The need for the committee in the 39th Parliament10.11.98 (presented 9.11.98)Not required- Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Senate Standing)Off the record, Shield laws for journalists' confidential sources10.10.94 (presented 7.10.94)2.2.95 (Interim) 21.11.95 (Second interim), *, **No Legal and Constitutional LegislationAdministrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 199720.10.97*NoMigration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 4) 1997 and Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 5) 199730.10.97*NoCopyright Amendment (No. 2) Bill 19971.4.98**NoSpecial benefit provisions, Newly arrived resident's waiting period2.4.98**NoExamination of annual reports: No. 2 of 19982.12.98Not required- Legal and Constitutional ReferencesInquiry into the Commonwealth's actions in relation to Ryker (Faulkner) v The Commonwealth and Flint30.4.96 (presented 29.4.96)+,@,++,*,**NoPayment of a minister's legal costs Part 2, Guidelines, Reporting to Parliament27.2.97++,*,10.11.98 (presented 27.8.98)NoInquiry into the Australian legal aid system, 3rd report25.6.98**NoInquiry into sexuality discrimination2.12.97**No Migration (Joint Standing)Australia's visa system for visitors30.4.96 (presented 27.1.96)##, +, @,++,*,**NoWorking holiday makers: more than tourists3.9.97*,**NoDeportation of non-citizen criminals29.6.98**NoImmigration detention centres inspection report10.11.98 (presented 27.8.98)Not required- National Crime Authority (Joint Statutory)Third evaluation of the National Crime Authority 6.4.98**No Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund (Joint)The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (11th report)2.4.98**No Examination of 1996-7 Annual Reports in fulfilment of the Committee's duties pursuant to s.206(c) of the Native Title Act 1993 (13th report)24.6.98**No Public Accounts and Audit (Joint Statutory)Aboriginal Councils and Torres Strait Island Councils: Review of financial accountability requirements (Report No 355)25.11.97**NoTax Law Improvement Bill (No 2) 1997 (Report No 356)12.3.98**NoThe Jindalee Operational Radar Network Project (Report No 357)24.3.98**NoReview of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97, Third quarter (Report No 358)31.3.98**NoReview of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97, Fourth quarter (Report No 359)31.3.98**NoInternet commerce. . . To buy or not to buy? (Report No 360)24.6.98**NoReview of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97, First quarter (Report No 361)25.6.98**NoGeneral and specific purpose payments to the States (Report No 362)29.6.98Not required-Asset management by Commonwealth agencies (Report No 363)10.11.98 (presented 17.7.98)Not receivedTime not expired Publications (Joint)Future of the parliamentary papers series2.12.9710.11.98 @@,**No Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport LegislationPrimary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 199724.6.98**NoMatters relating to Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and Integrity Rural Products Pty Ltd (Messrs D & H Hewett)(interim report)10.11.98 (presented 28.8.98)Not required-Examination of annual reports: No. 1 of 19981.12.98Not required- Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport ReferencesCommercial utilisation of Australian native wildlife30.6.98**NoIncidence of Ovine Johne's disease in the Australian sheep flock (First report)2.7.98Not receivedNo Scrutiny of BillsThe appropriate basis for penalty provisions in legislation comparable to the Productivity Commission Bill 1996 (8th report)24.6.98**No Superannuation (Senate Select)Super guarantee,its track record (15th report)8.2.95#, ##,+,@,++,*,**NoSuper and broken work patterns (17th report)28.11.95##, +, @,++,*,**NoSuper, Restrictions on early access, Small Superannuation Accounts Amendment Bill 1997 (26th report)23.9.97*,**NoSuperannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Bill 1997 and six related bills (27th report)10.11.97*,**NoSuper taxing—Information paper on taxation of superannuation4.3.98Not required-Choice of fund (28th report)26.3.98Not required-Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1997 and two related bills (29th report)1.4.98**NoWorkplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 (30th report)26.5.98**NoResolving superannuation complaints (31st report)12.7.98Not receivedNo Treaties (Joint)Treaties tabled on 18 March and 13 May 1997 (8th report)23.6.97++,*,**NoAustralia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation Treaty (12th report)1.12.97*,**NoTreaties tabled in Parliament on 25 November 1997 and 3 March 1998 (13th report)6.4.98Not required-Multilateral agreement on investment, Interim report (14th report)1.6.98**NoTreaties tabled 1 April and 12, 13 and 26 May 1998 (15th report)2.7.98Not receivedNoOECD Convention on Combating Bribery and Draft Implementing Legislation (16th report)2.7.98Not receivedNoUN Convention on the Rights of the Child (17th report)10.11.98 (presented 28.8.98)Not receivedTime not expiredBills1697Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General were reported, informing the Senate that he had assented to the following laws: Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed Investment Company) Bill 1998 States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1998 States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1998 Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Amendment Bill 1998 (No. 2) Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1998 Business16981698Motion (by Senator Ellison)—by leave—agreed to:That the order of consideration of government business for the remainder of today be as follows:No. 2— Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1998No. 1— Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 and two associated bills.No. 3— Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 and two associated bills.Bills1698r6321698The bill.15:46:001698Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 1:(1) Schedule 1, items 1 and 2, page 3 (line 5) to page 4 (line 23), omit the items, substitute:1 After section 18B Insert:18C The Prime Minister or Cabinet may authorise a non-portfolio Minister or a member of the Executive Council who is not a Minister to act on his or her behalf in the performance of statutory functions or the exercise of statutory powers (1) The Prime Minister or Cabinet may during the temporary absence or incapacity of a Minister (the portfolio Minister ) who administers (whether alone or jointly with one or more other Ministers) an Act or a provision of an Act authorise: (a) a Minister who does not administer the Act or provision; or (b) a member of the Executive Council who is not a Minister; to act on behalf of the portfolio Minister in the performance of functions, or the exercise of powers, that the portfolio Minister may perform or exercise under the Act or provision. (2) A portfolio Minister with overall responsibility for the portfolio (the senior portfolio Minister ) may authorise: (a) a Minister who is responsible for certain matters within that portfolio (the junior portfolio Minister ); or (b) a member of the Executive Council who is not a Minister and who is responsible for certain matters within that portfolio; to act on behalf of the senior portfolio Minister in the performance of functions, or the exercise of powers, that the senior portfolio Minister may perform or exercise under an Act or a provision of an Act. (3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) in relation to an Act or a provision of an Act extends to the performance of functions, or the exercise of powers, that the portfolio Minister or senior portfolio Minister may perform or exercise under an instrument (including a regulation, rule or Proclamation) having effect under or for the purposes of the Act or provision. (4) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), an authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be expressed: (a) to have effect only during a period or periods, or during the existence of a circumstance or circumstances, referred to in the authorisation; or (b) to take effect immediately, or at a time referred to in the authorisation, and afterwards to continue to have effect until another person is appointed to the office held by the authorising Minister. (5) Despite subsection (4), an authorisation under subsection (1) may be revoked at any time by the Prime Minister or Cabinet. (6) Despite subsection (4), an authorisation under subsection (2) may be revoked at any time by the senior portfolio Minister. (7) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) given to a Minister or member of the Executive Council, and the revocation of such an authorisation, must be in writing. (8) This section does not affect the giving, under a power existing apart from this section, of an authorisation to a Minister or other member of the Executive Council to act on behalf of another Minister. (9) Either the portfolio Minister or the senior portfolio Minister, or the Minister or member of the Executive Council who acted on behalf of the portfolio Minister or the senior portfolio Minister, as the case may be, may be named as respondent in any proceeding to review the decision. (10) In this section: Cabinet refers to the group of Ministers who are designated as Cabinet Ministers in details of the Ministry issued by the Prime Minister. function includes duty.Validation of past authorisations(1) Any authorisation that a Minister (the authorising Minister ) purported to give before the commencement of item 1 to another Minister or member of the Executive Council to act on behalf of the authorising Minister in the performance of functions, or the exercise of powers, that the authorising Minister was empowered to perform or exercise under an Act or a provision of an Act is taken to have been, at all times before that commencement when the authorisation purported to be in force, as valid as it would have been if that authorisation had been made by the Prime Minister or Cabinet in accordance with item 1 and the section inserted by that item had been in force when the purported authorisation was given.(2) If an authorisation that a Minister (the authorising Minister ) purported to give before the commencement of item 1 to another Minister or member of the Executive Council to act on behalf of the authorising Minister in the performance of functions, or the exercise of powers, that the authorising Minister was empowered to perform or exercise under an Act or a provision of an Act purported to be in force immediately before that commencement, the purported authorisation has the effect after that commencement that it would have if that authorisation had been made by the Prime Minister or Cabinet in accordance with item 1 and the section inserted by that item had been in force when the purported authorisation was given.As I indicated in the second reading debate, the opposition's concern is that the government goes too far in what it is attempting to do here. We understand that there is a problem. We understand that the government wants flexibility, but we think the government goes too far and, in doing so, in some ways may give authority for ministers to in fact override laws passed by this parliament.Our concern is that ministers should not be able to delegate or authorise outside of their portfolio areas. That should be a responsibility of the Prime Minister or cabinet. We think that should be so for good policy and administrative reasons. There needs to be certainty. Individuals need to know who is taking decisions as to their existence, their businesses and so on. The current government proposal does not do that.We are also concerned to keep in mind the words of His Honour when he tackled the case of Foster v. Attorney-General. In the judgment, as I cited earlier, Justice Spender made mention of the separation of powers under the Westminster system. Our amendment would offer protection against impingement on such separation of powers. I indicated before lunch that we would move this amendment. The Democrats indicated they would not support it. As a consequence, I will not be putting it to a vote.15:48:001699Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise to speak on the amendment moved by the opposition. As Senator Bolkus has indicated, the Democrats will not be supporting the amendment in its current form. Clause 18C makes provision for the Prime Minister or cabinet to authorise a non-portfolio minister or a member of the Executive Council who is not a minister to act for or on behalf of the portfolio holder. Although the Democrats have some reservations about the way this amendment operates in that it may not achieve its intended purpose, we are certainly quite glad that it is being proposed as a matter of discussion and debate.The Acts Interpretation Act was assented to on 12 July 1901 as the second act in the new Australian Federation. Since then, the sections covered by the government's bill have been amended a number of times to deal with changes in the way government operates. The idea supporting interpretation legislation has been a significant reduction in the amount of legislation because commonly used words and phrases can be relied upon. This was evident from a number of submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report entitled Clearer Commonwealth law in September 1993. That report recommended the Attorney-General's Department and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel publicly review and rewrite the Acts Interpretation Act.As I have set out before, the Democrats are keen to see this process advanced and encourage the government to rewrite this important act to reflect modern day times and needs and responsibilities. However, we also want to see that review and rewrite go further than just the interpretation measures. We want to see the Acts Interpretation Act deal with the institution of government and the way the executive organises itself and distributes the powers granted to government by our laws. We acknowledge the importance of the Acts Interpretation Act, and we want to ensure its continuing relevance and to promote legislative clarity so that those relying on legislation can know and understand what our parliament does and how laws are to take effect. More importantly, we want to make sure those challenging governments or who are subjected to the action of a government can ensure our laws are properly and appropriately administered.The constitution makes provision for ministers and the federal Executive Council, but it does not distinguish between senior ministers, junior ministers and parliamentary secretaries. The Labor amendment, in many ways, is a welcome recognition of the central place of cabinet in the Australian government as well as these additional roles which reflect the changing way that government is administered. This recognition is now probably as important as ever before. This is because the changes to mega departments by the previous government, as I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate, have been carried on by this government. It is also important to realise the increasing scope of government in Australia.The constitution makes provision for only seven ministers. At the time the Acts Interpretation Act was assented there were 10 ministers. In 1998 there are some 30 ministers. Perhaps more interesting is the rise of parliamentary secretaries. They first appeared in the Lyons ministry in 1938, with parliamentary secretaries for defence and Treasury. Since then, they have existed in a number of government departments. In 1980 they became statutory office holders, and from 1990 they have become members of the Executive Council.The Democrats are keen to see a reflection of these changes in the Acts Interpretation Act. We welcome the Labor Party's recognition of these issues and their attempts to put them into effect. Unfortunately, we have some concerns about how these amendments have proposed to achieve their goal. We are of the view that they do not cover satisfactorily the complex issues. However, I understand we have a common interest in reviewing the Acts Interpretation Act to deal with this and related issues. I look forward to hearing the result of this reform process.The Democrats will not be supporting the amendment in its present form with an understanding from the government that the Acts Interpretation Act is under review and that that review will be completed soon, we hope. We would expect to see the outcome of this review, as I stated in my speech in the second reading debate, in legislation before the parliament, addressing, in particular, the entire issue of the distribution of powers between the Executive Council and others. The Labor Party have flagged their support for this proposition, and I look forward to the government making the same commitment.15:52:001700Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Stott Despoja for indicating the support of the Democrats for the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1998 . I freely acknowledge that there are wider issues to be canvassed under the review, and I expect the Democrats and others will want to make submissions to that review of the Acts Interpretation Act, but their approach is a sensible approach to a potential problem we face. It has been well canvassed in the speeches in the second reading debate that a Federal Court judge has drawn an unexpected interpretation of the Acts Interpretation Act which has put a number of decisions at risk across a number of portfolios. That matter is under appeal, but the judgment has not yet been handed down. In the meantime, there is an absolute need to protect those decisions that have been made, obviously for the longer term, irrespective of the decision to deal with this matter.I thank the Democrats for their support and confirm our commitment to the proper review of the Acts Interpretation Act that is already under way. I thank the opposition for their interest, in the sense of coming up with alternative amendments, but simply indicate, for reasons I think that are obvious, that they are not satisfactory.Amendment not agreed to.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.1701Bill (on motion by Senator Vanstone) read a third time.Bills1701r640Billsr639Billsr6381701Debate resumed from 8 December, on motion by Senator Minchin:That the bills be now read a second time.upon which Senator Lees had moved by way of an amendment:Omit all words after "That", substitute:"the Senate:(a) notes the evidence provided to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee that the rebate scheme will not take the pressure off public hospitals and is an inefficient and inequitable use of public funds; and(b) resolves that the bill not be read a second time; and(c) calls on the Government to: (i) introduce a means test to restrict eligibility for the rebate to hospital insurance for people on low incomes; (ii) implement a review process to evaluate the rebate scheme against defined outcome measures; (iii) require health insurance funds to achieve improved performance outcomes; and (iv) address the key areas of need in the public health sector, including coordinated care for older Australians; waiting lists in public hospitals; public dental health services; rural health services; and the health care needs of indigenous Australians."15:55:001701Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I rise to speak on the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 , the Private Health Insurance Incentives Amendment Bill 1998 and the Taxation Laws Amendment (Private Health Insurance) Bill 1998 . I indicate on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, the opposition in the Senate, that we support Senator Lees's second reading amendment to the private health insurance bills. That amendment provides:"the Senate:(a) notes the evidence provided to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee that the rebate scheme will not take the pressure off public hospitals and is an inefficient and inequitable use of public funds; and(b) resolves that the bill not be read a second time; and(c) calls on the Government to: (i) introduce a means test to restrict eligibility for the rebate to hospital insurance for people on low incomes; (ii) implement a review process to evaluate the rebate scheme against defined outcome measures; (iii) require health insurance funds to achieve improved performance outcomes; and (iv) address the key areas of need in the public health sector, including coordinated care for older Australians; waiting lists in public hospitals; public dental health services; rural health services; and the health care needs of indigenous Australians."These measures highlight the concerns that have been expressed about the inadequacies of this bill. We think the amendment ought to be supported by the Senate. The problems with the proposed bills have been widely canvassed in the second reading debate. It is clear that this is bad public policy. It will not relieve the pressure on the public hospital system. Most of the funds will be directed to those on high incomes who are already in private health insurance. A myth has been perpetrated by the government in this debate that somehow this measure is about assisting, via the rebate, low and middle income families who are battling to meet their insurance costs. The reality is that they will have a very small increase in the rebate that is available currently under the old scheme. Most of the money in this proposal goes to high income earners. Those earning over $70,000 a year are the ones that benefit most. The majority of the funds go to them.We think that is inequitable. There are major problems in our public hospitals system and this sort of money would go a long way to addressing them. It would not only address those problems but mean that 100 per cent of the Australian population would have the benefit of those funds; that 100 per cent of the population could access good quality public hospital care, rather than just supporting the 30 per cent who are in private health insurance, as is proposed by the government.It also does not solve the problems with the industry. The gap payments, the out-of-pocket expenses, are so high that a lot of people just cannot afford to use their insurance, even if they have it. That is a real problem in the industry. It is a problem that is not addressed in the bills. It means that this rebate will just get eaten up without solving the very real problems that exist in the health industry.The other major problem it does not address is rising premiums. People in private health insurance know that their premiums have gone up 16 to 20 per cent in the last two years each year. That means that at this rate any benefit they get out of this measure proposed by the government would get eaten away in higher premiums within a couple of years. People will be no better off.The measure is also highly inequitable, as I said. About $900 million of the additional $1.4 billion will go to families that already have insurance who are on high incomes. We are throwing money at the well-off in the community while denying funding for services, such as emergency dental care, for those who cannot afford to get treatment otherwise. It is just a wrong set of priorities by the government. They are throwing money at a scheme with no real idea what it will do to the industry and with no real idea whether it will halt the slide. The government claimed the last scheme would halt the slide in private health insurance participation, and it did not. They have no statistical or economic modelling to suggest that this will be any more successful, but they will have wasted $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money by throwing it at the problem, not knowing whether it is going to work or not. They got it wrong last time and I suspect they will get it wrong this time.The proposed amendment by the Democrats seeks to ensure that the pressure on the public hospital system is relieved, that the Dental Health Scheme is reintroduced and that the health needs of indigenous Australians and those in rural areas are addressed. It would ensure that the rebate would be means tested to ensure that it is targeted at middle and low income earners, at the people who need the help to pay the premium, not at John Howard, who does not need the help.John Howard and people like him will benefit most from this measure. We will basically pay their private health insurance as a result of this measure. That is not what the health needs of this country are. That is not the priority. John Howard and other ministers in this government do not need help to pay their premiums, but people do need to get access to public hospitals and they do need to get off waiting lists to have operations performed when they are in pain. There is a whole range of health needs that are a far more urgent priority for this parliament than subsidising wealthy people to have health insurance.We are not opposing support for those who need it, but we are opposing providing support for those who do not. As I say, there are some very good things in the Democrats' second reading amendment. It provides a much better direction for public policy in this area and the opposition will be supporting it.Debate (on motion by Senator Tambling) adjourned.Motion (by Senator Tambling) proposed:That the resumption of the debate be an order of the day for a later hour.16:03:001703Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—As the government has been pressuring us to bring on this debate for weeks and has been saying how important it was we get on with it, I think it is only reasonable that this chamber have an explanation as to why the government is not ready to proceed. I am not opposing the adjournment, if that is the government's view, but it seems to me that we are entitled to an explanation as to why it is not ready to proceed.16:03:001703Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—Whilst we have certainly sought to accommodate a good timetable and to accommodate the wishes of the Senate in meeting an adequate timetable today, it is important that the views of all senators be properly taken into account. I understand that there is some problem with Senator Harradine being available at this particular time. Of course, his views are vitally important on this legislation. I hope that we would be able to resume the debate as soon as possible, but at this stage it is in order to accommodate Senator Harradine.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills1703r614Billsr615Billsr6131703AUSTRALIAN RADIATION PROTECTION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY BILL 1998Consideration resumed.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering the Australian Radiation Protec tion and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 as amended. The question is that clauses 7 and 8 stand as printed. (Quorum formed)16:07:001703Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I wanted to check with the minister—I did ask a question, but I did not get a response from him—whether ASIO officer operatives would potentially be exposed to almost unlimited levels of radiation in the course of their job as a result of this legislation. It seems to me that there is the ability for entire health and safety issues for particular categories of people, such as those people working for ASIO, to be isolated in this legislation.16:08:001703Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—These issues had been addressed prior to lunch in the answers I gave at that point in regard to the role of the Director-General and the objectives of the act.16:08:001703Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I understand that the government argues that this amendment is impossible to support because defence and national security will in some way be prejudiced. The Democrats have always been fairly sceptical about the defence and national security requirements every time we happen to deal with something that involves radioactivity. I understand that the Minister for Foreign Affairs met yesterday with a group to discuss nuclear weaponry. By all reports, he was disappointed that they failed to appreciate how much good he is doing to prevent the defence uses of nuclear weapons. Recent surveys highlight the very clear difference between public sentiment about nuclear weapons and the activities of governments all around the world, but particularly the nuclear weapons nations. We believe the Australian government is out of step with the community here. Despite the good intentions of the foreign minister, we do not believe that he is doing enough or that he is necessarily going far enough.It was significant that the group who met with the foreign minister pointed out last night on the radio the failings of the BJP government in India to focus on the nuclear detonations as a success of their office. This is significant, because we have been led to believe that there was great community support for those detonations and for the escalation of nuclear weaponry in India and in Pakistan. Clearly, the community does not necessarily share the same level of joy or have the same agenda as their government's. This was also obvious in the Rajasthan elections where the chief minister campaigned on the bomb, only to be ousted because the community was more interested in social problems such as whether or not there was enough food.I suggest that the same thing is likely to happen in a nation like ours. It is probably time for our government to take a lead and do something to force the nuclear weapon states to get rid of their nuclear weapons.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Hear, hear!3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Thank you, Senator Margetts. It is good to see the Greens support this notion. We certainly support your amendment, Senator Margetts.This brings me back to the reliance on the defence and national security clauses in this bill. There is no place for these provisions in this bill, because the community does not want them there. Both subclauses 7(1) and 8 (1) are so broad that their application is uncertain. It is quite nebulous as a result. They effectively apply to anything that may affect Australia's defence or national security. What this means is pretty unclear. Add to this the obvious public disenchantment with the use of nuclear material in defence and national security, and we cannot support these incredibly broad provisions. If the government want to do this, then they should at least define what they mean and set this out in other legislation. We believe everyone in Australia should comply with the same standards, and exceptions need to be clearly identified and defined.16:11:001704Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The comments of both Senator Margetts and Senator Stott Despoja have been noted and will be passed to the relevant ministers. As I said earlier, the role of the Director-General is one that must take account of the objectives of the legislation.16:12:001704Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—You will remember that before lunch I raised the matter, because it is pertinent here, of the Director of Safeguards report for this year through Foreign Affairs and Trade. The report points out that there is research and development being undertaken at Lucas Heights into the uranium enrichment process under the auspices of Silex Systems Pty Ltd, which has now combined with a United States company and a South African nuclear corporation. I asked the minister what he could tell the committee about this matter as I had raised it before in the chamber. I particularly drew his attention to the following comment on page 31 of the report to his government:If this technology—which is being developed in Lucas Heights—is classified as "associated technology", then any transfer to the US for further development will require an amendment to the existing Australia/US nuclear cooperation agreement, or a new agreement.I asked whether that was so. I also asked whether, in order to accommodate this research into uranium enrichment, the government is moving to throw out, dismantle or change the nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States and, if so, why.16:13:001704Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I will address the specific issue put by Senator Brown but, before doing so, can I have the indulgence of the committee for a moment to comment on some related matters that he raised in the debate yesterday about mining at both Kakadu and Pine Creek. I advise Senator Brown that his concerns on both these matters have been passed on to the relevant minister. With regard to Kakadu, oral advice has been received from the Office of the Supervising Scientist that the recent weather conditions in the Northern Territory have not caused any environmental problems at Ranger.The senator would, of course, be familiar with the very satisfactory record of the Rang er mine in that area over 18 years. I do not have particular information on the issue regarding Pine Creek. However, I assure the senator that it has been passed to a number of both Commonwealth and Northern Territory ministers for their early attention. As soon as I have any information on it, I will make it available to Senator Brown.With regard to Silex and the laser issues, I am advised that the Silex project is a private sector project researching a possible method of enriching uranium for use in power reactors. This research is still at an early stage and it is not yet established that the Silex process will be effective in enriching uranium. The Silex company has a contract with the United States Enrichment Corporation for the commercial development of the process in the US if the research is successful.It is too early to say whether the Silex process is of possible proliferation significance. However, security measures have been put in place to ensure that the technology is protected against unauthorised access. The Australian Safeguards and Non-proliferation Office is monitoring the process of the project to ensure that appropriate security is maintained.Australian and US officials have been discussing a new agreement to ensure that if the technology is transferred to the US it will be used for exclusively peaceful purposes under international atomic energy safeguards. There is nothing inconsistent with Australia's non-proliferation commitments in undertaking this research. On the contrary, this enhances Australia's capacity to evaluate nuclear developments in other countries and to contribute to the development of effective non-proliferation controls. Examples are international safeguards and controls on the export of relevant technology. For these reasons, the research was authorised by the previous government.The project does not represent any risk to the environment or public safety. It is extremely small scale. Silex is authorised to process no more than one kilogram of uranium. In practice, much less than this is being used in the process. Information on the project and safeguard arrangements applying to it is given in the annual report of the Director of Safeguards, the head of ANSO.I trust that that provides Senator Brown with information. I ask him to address any other questions that he may have specifically to this legislation, which we are keen to process in a reasonably ordered timetable today.16:17:001705Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I assure the parliamentary secretary that I will not take much longer. I recognise that he had a written response. I wonder whether I could have a copy of it.6E4TAMBLINGSenator Tambling—Yes.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I thank the minister for agreeing to that. I recognise that the parliamentary secretary may not be able to answer these questions. If he cannot, I would again be happy to receive a later reply. Specifically, what in the Australia-US nuclear cooperation agreement would need to be changed to accommodate this research into uranium enrichment and, I am told, potential plutonium enrichment at Lucas Heights? Will there be a transfer to the US for the further use and development of this technology? Why is the research not being done in the US?When the minister says that special safeguards are being put in place to make this research safe, what exactly are those safeguards? In what way are they being implemented? Finally, is there any other known case of research of this variety which has the potential to enhance the production of nuclear weapons occurring at Lucas Heights or anywhere else in Australia? Can the government be more specific in saying what it means by it not being known whether this has the potential for nuclear weapons development when prima facie it does?16:19:001705Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I will take those questions on notice and provide a detailed response to Senator Brown. I also take this opportunity to offer to him the availability of a comprehensive briefing on this by the safeguards office and other government officers, if necessary.16:19:001706Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I thank the parliamentary secretary for that. I accept the offer. I am very keen to follow up this matter.UNKNOWNThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—The question is that clauses 7 and 8 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.16:20:001706Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—In the interests of progressing the debate, I ask that the opposition of the Greens (WA) and of Senator Brown to this motion be noted.16:20:001706Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—by leave—I ask that the opposition of the Australian Democrats to this motion also be noted.16:21:001706Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—by leave—I move Government amendments Nos 2 to 10:(2) Clause 14, page 10 (after line 21), after paragraph (e), insert: (ea) to monitor the operations of ARPANSA, the Council, the Radiation Health Committee and the Nuclear Safety Committee; (eb) to report on the operations of ARPANSA, the Council, the Radiation Health Committee and the Nuclear Safety Committee.(3) Clause 20, page 13 (after line 2), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) Before appointing a member, the Minister must consult such consumer groups and such environmental groups as the Minister considers appropriate.(4) Clause 23, page 14 (after line 8), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) Before appointing a member, the CEO must consult such consumer groups and such environmental groups as the CEO considers appropriate.(5) Clause 26, page 15 (after line 15), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) Before appointing a member, the CEO must consult such consumer groups and such environmental groups as the CEO considers appropriate. (6) Clause 31, page 19 (line 11), at the end of subclause (3), add ", and must also take into account international best practice in relation to radiation protection and nuclear safety".(7) Clause 32, page 19 (line 19), at the end of subclause (3), add ", and must also take into account international best practice in relation to radiation protection and nuclear safety".(8) Clause 40, page 23 (after line 16), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) As soon as possible after giving directions under subsection (2), the CEO must provide a copy of the directions to the Minister. (3B) The Minister must cause a copy of the directions to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the directions have been given.(9) Clause 58, page 32 (lines 9 and 10), omit "the operations of the CEO during that year", substitute: the operations during that year of: (a) the CEO; and (b) ARPANSA; and (c) the Council, the Radiation Health Committee and the Nuclear Safety Committee.(10) Clause 59, page 32 (lines 18 and 19), omit "the operations of the CEO during that quarter", substitute: the operations during that quarter of: (a) the CEO; and (b) ARPANSA; and (c) the Council, the Radiation Health Committee and the Nuclear Safety Committee.The purpose of the amendments to clauses 14, 16, 20, 23, 31, 32, 40, 58 and 59 is to ensure that the CEO adopts best practice when carrying out his or her statutory obligations under the legislation. This includes being appropriately accountable to parliament for the operations of ARPANSA, the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council and committees, providing that the minister and the CEO consult in relation to appointments to the statutory bodies, and ensuring that the CEO applies the principles of best practice in his or her decision making so that Australia remains a world leader in radiation protection and nuclear safety.16:23:001707Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank the government for moving all of these amendments together. I commend the government for trying to incorporate the issue of consultation into these amendments. It was certainly one of the criticisms that came out at the Senate inquiry into this bill. When the government talks about consultation before appointing a member to the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council, and when it talks about consultation with environmental and consumer groups, does the government have specific groups in mind and how wide-ranging does the government anticipate those consultations being?16:23:001707Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I indicate that the government is always happy to seek advice in these areas. I invite Senator Stott-Despoja to make any appropriate comment or nomination that she might like to do so.16:24:001707Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—On behalf of the opposition I indicate that we will support the government amendments that have just been moved by the parliamentary secretary. These amendments reflect issues that came out of the committee inquiry. They are certainly improvements to the original legislation and on that basis we will be happy to support them.16:24:001707Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will also be supporting the amendments before us, and I am glad that the government has taken into account some of the issues that arose at the Senate committee hearing. In relation to clause 31, which refers to international best practice being taken into account in relation to radiation protection and nuclear safety, exactly how will the government take into account international best practice? Can the parliamentary secretary specify what the government means by that in this amendment?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—The question is that the amend ments be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, against say no; I think the ayes have it.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Mr Temporary Chairman, I understand that we want to speedily resolve this issue, and I appreciate your prowess in putting the question so quickly, but I did have a question before the parliamentary secretary, and I think he was seeking advice. I am certainly not having a go at you but I would like an answer as to whether that or any other amendments are being addressed.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I will give the parliamentary secretary the opportunity to answer and then I will put the question again.16:26:001707Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I appreciate the comment and I appreciate that Senator Stott Despoja did pick up that I was seeking advice. I am advised that we will seek advice on basic benchmarking by international best practice around the world. We will seek advice from other agencies and we will certainly seek to achieve the best possible system.Amendments agreed to.16:27:001707Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move Greens (WA) amendments Nos 3, 4, 6, 8 and 15 to 17:(3) Clause 14, page 10 (after line 21), after paragraph (e), insert: (ea) to monitor compliance with Division 1 of Part 5 and make recommendations to the Director of Public Prosecutions;(4) Clause 19, page 12 (line 21), at the end of the clause, add: ; (f) to report to the CEO on matters relating to radiation protection and nuclear safety.(6) Clause 22, page 13 (line 21), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (d) from time to time, to review national policies, codes and standards in relation to radiation protection to ensure that they continue to substantially reflect world best practice; (e) to consult publicly in the development and review of policies, codes and standards in relation to radiation protection. (8) Clause 25, page 14 (line 27), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (d) to report to the CEO on matters relating to nuclear safety and the safety of controlled facilities.(15) Clause 58, page 32 (after line 12), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The report must include details of any breach of licence conditions by a licensee during the financial year, of which the CEO is aware. (2B) The report must include details of all reports received by the CEO during the financial year under paragraph 19(f) or 25(1)(d).(16) Clause 59, page 32 (after line 19), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) The report must include details of directions given by the Minister during the quarter under section 15. (1B) The report must include details of any breach of licence conditions by a licensee during the quarter, of which the CEO is aware. (1C) The report must include details of all reports received by the CEO during the quarter under paragraph 19(f) or 25(1)(d). (1D) The report must include a list of all facilities licensed under Part 5 during the quarter.(17) Clause 60, page 33 (after line 3), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) If a serious accident or malfunction occurs at a nuclear installation, the CEO must cause a report about the incident to be tabled in each House of the Parliament no later than 3 sitting days after the incident occurs.This is one of those areas where the outcome of the Senate committee inquiry and the tick-tacking backwards and forwards has led to an improvement in the way the legislation has been put together. So as not to delay this Committee of the Whole unnecessarily, I am happy to say that these amendments relate to the compliance monitoring by the Chief Executive Officer of ARPANSA, arrangements about council and committees, and matters about the accountability and the CEO reporting to Parliament. If I am correct, there is agreement that, in order to speed up the debate, and where there is agreement, I can incorporate the Greens explanation as to why these amendments were necessary. I seek leave to do so.Leave granted.The explanation read as follows—SPEECH NOTES FOR GWA AMENDMENT 3 ON SHEET 1183CEO TO INITIATE PROSECUTIONClause 14, p10 after line 21 insert (ea) . . . .This is an amendment to clarify who has responsibility for initiating a prosecution in the event of the most serious breaches of the Act.It is essentially technical, rather than a matter of principle.The offences in Part 5 Division 1 relate toe construction and operation of nuclear facilities and prescribed radiation facilities without a license. We acknowledge that it is highly unlikely that a controlled person might construct a nuclear reactor without a license, however prosecution for failure to comply with the conditions of a facility license or a source license is not such a long shot.While the prohibitions in Division 1 of Part 5 specify the offences, they make no reference to the process by which such prosecutions would be initiated.Making it a `Function of the CEO' to monitor compliance and recommend prosecution is consistent with the rest of the Bill which creates the role of the CEO as the main regulatory authority. We think this is what would happen in practice anyway but we believe the CEO needs to be specifically authorised to initiate a prosecution.It is similar in effect to the granting of powers to the CEO to apply to the Federal Court to obtain injunctions (See Section 42) under various circumstances. It does not make sense for the CEO to be able to seek injunction but not have the authority to refer matters for prosecution.SPEECH NOTES FOR GWA AMENDMENTS 4, 8 & 15 ON SHEET 1183REPORTINGClause 19, p12, line 21 add(f); Clause 25, p14, line 27 add(d); Clause 58, p32 after line 12 insert 2a & 2b.The purpose of these amendments is to strengthen the reporting requirements in the Bill.The Bill sets up a Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council, A Radiation Health Committee and a Nuclear Safety Committee. Each of these has the role of advising the CEO on various matters. This amendment adds a reporting requirement so that the advice to the CEO is formally recorded and included in the CEO's reports to the Minister. We believe this is important because this may be the only way the Parliament gets to hear of minority or dissenting reports (particularly from the community representatives on the Council or Committees).This will only happen if there is a requirement on them to report to the CEO and for the CEO to be required to include their reports in the CEO Annual reports referred to in Clause 58.SPEECH NOTES FOR GWA AMENDMENT 6 ON SHEET 1183ROLE OF COMMITTEEClause 22, p13, line 21, end subclause 2The Radiation Health Committee is charged with `developing policy' and `drafting policy, codes and standards', but it is equally important for the Committee to review from time to time the existing standards to ensure they meet with world's best practice.This process of review of policies, codes and standards is one, which we believe should be done in the public sphere. There should be a process for identifying priority areas for review, public notice requirements, consultation periods, draft proposals, publication of drafts and so on.This will allow the Committee to draw on the widest possible range of sources of advice and give the public greater confidence in the outcomes.The outcomes will, then, be better policies, codes and standards in the nuclear industry and improved protection from the hazards of radiation.SPEECH NOTES FOR GWA AMENDMENTS 15 16 & 17 ON SHEET 1183REPORTINGClause 58, p32 after line 12; Clause 59, p32 after line 19; Clause 60, p33 after line 3.These amendments each have the effect of specifying categories of matters about which the CEO is required to report, either annually, quarterly or to Parliament.In summary they are: any breaches of license; reports received from the Council and committees: directions by the Minister to the CEO; and urgent reporting to Parliament of any accident or malfunction at a nuclear installation.While we would like to see these matters in the Act, an assurance from the Minister that they would be included in the Regulations would probably suffice. 16:28:001709Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—Mr Temporary Chairman, I advise that the government has agreed to support the proposed amendments from the Greens in relation to clauses 14, 19, 22, 25, 58, 59 and 60. All of these matters were implicit in the bill introduced into parliament. The government is happy to address these issues explicitly.Amendments agreed to.16:28:001709Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move Australian Democrats amendment No. 3:(3) Clause 57, page 32 (lines 3 to 6), omit the clause, substitute:57 Staff and consultants (1) The staff necessary to assist the CEO are to be persons appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 . (2) The CEO has all the powers of or exercisable by, a Secretary under the Public Service Act 1922 , so far as those powers relate to the branch of the Australian Public Service comprising the staff referred to in subsection (1), as if that branch were a separate Department of the Australian Public Service. (3) The CEO, on behalf of the Commonwealth, may engage consultants to assist in the performance of any of the CEO's functions.This amendment relates to the staffing of ARPANSA. It was apparent during the Senate committee inquiry into this piece of legislation that stakeholders are particularly concerned that this agency should be independent. The question of the staffing of the agency was a specific issue for a majority of those people, whether they were community or environmental groups or independent experts present at the committee. We also believe that the staffing of ARPANSA is a vital issue.If the CEO of the agency relies on the secretary of the department of health for staff, we do not believe it is really credible to claim that the agency is independent of the department. Clearly, the CEO must be able to control the staff of the agency who will ultimately be responsible for the day-to-day work which gives effect to the substance of this legislation. The Democrats were pleased to see that the report of the Senate committee recommended that the CEO be given direct power over the staffing of ARPANSA. I was surprised that this amendment was not one of the government's amendments to this bill, but I am happy to move it on behalf of the Australian Democrats.16:30:001710Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—This is important, and the Greens (WA) believe that this is an issue which must be addressed. We are happy to support the amendment moved by the Australian Democrats.16:30:001710Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I indicate that we will support the amendment.16:30:001710Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The amendment provides the CEO of ARPANSA with the power over staffing. The government's position is that the bill provides flexibility in staffing and avoids the proliferation of differing industrial relations and other arrangements. It does not affect the independence of the CEO. However, the change to the staffing powers was a recommendation of the Senate committee. While the government does not support such a proposal, it will accept it.Amendment agreed to.16:31:001710Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move Greens (WA) amendments Nos 5, 7, 9 to 11, 14 and 18:(5) Clause 20, page 12 (line 29), at the end of subclause (2), add "and in accordance with the prescribed procedures for public consultation".(7) Clause 23, page 14 (line 6), at the end of subclause (2), add "and in accordance with the prescribed procedures for public consultation".(9) Clause 26, page 15 (line 13), at the end of subclause (2), add "and in accordance with the prescribed procedures for public consultation".(10) Page 16 (after line 6), after clause 27, insert:27A Public interest disclosures Despite any other provisions of this or any other Act, it is not an offence for a member of the Council or a committee established under this Part to disclose any information about radiation protection and nuclear safety if the person: (a) has a genuine concern about an issue relating to radiation protection or nuclear safety; and (b) has first discussed his or her concerns with the CEO; and (c) believes the disclosure is in the public interest.(11) Clause 28, page 16 (after line 10), before paragraph (a), insert: (aa) procedures for public consultation before the appointment of members, including procedures for public nominations;(14) Clause 40, page 23 (line 16), at the end of the penalty, add "for each day during all or part of which the person contravenes this subsection".(18) Clause 79, page 47 (lines 4 to 25), omit "Imprisonment for 2 years" (wherever occurring), substitute "30 penalty units".The government has indicated that it will not be supporting these amendments, but I will still endeavour to explain them briefly. Amendments Nos 5, 7 and 9 on sheet 1183 relate to prescribed procedures for public consultation. This is still an issue which has not been resolved. It is to give effect to the stated intent of the government following the committee hearing to have a transparent and consultative approach to the appointment of members of the advisory council and committees. By all means, leave the detail to be worked out in the regulations, about which there is still to be further consultation, but let us have this locked in at this stage rather than leave it to the goodwill of the government over the next few months.Amendment No. 10 relates to public interest disclosures. It is essential that the council and committee structures work effectively. In going onto a council or committee, persons must be responsible to the people to whom they must provide advice (the CEO), to the people who appoint them (in this case the minister), to the rest of council, to the industry which relies on them and, most importantly, to the Australian community who rely on them to be their eyes and ears in the nuclear industry. From time to time—hopefully only rarely—it may be necessary for someone or a number of people in one these councils to break ranks with the orthodoxy of their colleagues.These committees, honourable senators will remember, are charged with monitoring radiation protection and nuclear safety. There is an obligation to err on the side of caution. We believe that it is necessary to make known concerns so people can make up their own minds and take appropriate action. If someone does have a concern and it is too urgent to wait for the annual or quarterly reports, what can they do? Clearly, they can raise it with the CEO, but more probably they have discussed it at council.If the concern is genuine and is not shared by the majority or not shared by the CEO, it would be, we believe, in the public interest to disclose it, and this amendment will allow them to do so without fear of prosecution. This is particularly important for the community representatives on the council or committees because they represent a constituency of some kind as well as being council or committee members. The concern may be genuine. The issue has to be first discussed with the CEO and the person must believe the disclosure to be in the public interest. Then and only then can they publicly disclose any information about radiation protection and nuclear safety. If it were not for the culture of secrecy that surrounds and has surrounded this industry, this kind of specific amendment might not be necessary, but there still needs to be a way to move before the communities who have already been associated with industries, such as those associated with ANSTO, can gain that confidence.Amendment No. 11 relates to public nomination and basically confirms in the bill a commitment given by the government to include in the regulations some process for public consultation before the minister chooses the representatives of the general public or of the community and environmental groups in the case of the committees. It takes that commitment one step further by requiring that the process include some form of nomination from the relevant community. In practice, this could be done by placing an ad in the papers or by contacting relevant local government authorities. How it is done is still a matter for the regulations, but this amendment will ensure that the process of identifying community representatives includes an opportunity for the public to be involved in nominating suitable people. You would not think that would be too difficult.Amendments Nos 14 and 18 relate to penalties and they highlight an inconsistency in the bill dealing with penalties. Section 40 deals with the power of the CEO to issue directions to a controlled person. There are two occasions on which this applies. The first occasion is where the person is not complying with the act or regulations. When someone is not complying with an act to protect the community from radiation, or when someone is in breach of a regulation about nuclear safety, you might assume that it is a pretty serious matter. Not so, if you go by the penalties of this bill. The second occasion is where the CEO believes a direction is necessary to protect the health and safety of people or to avoid damage to the environment.The penalties come into play where the CEO's directions are not complied with. Let us consider the seriousness of that. The CEO believes there will be a harm to people if a direction is not carried out. If the person does not carry it out for whatever reason—it is too expensive, it is impractical, tomorrow is a holiday or whatever—what happens next? The penalty is 30 penalty units, which in today's money equates to $3,300. That is hardly a disincentive if the alternative is an expensive upgrade. So then what happens? Under this regime, nothing. There is a power for the CEO to undertake to do those things required if a controlled person will not, but imagine the complications that arise then, not the least being the arguments over cost and who will pay and the difficulty people will have getting information about this at the time.When we consider that we have a situation where—and we will deal with this in more detail later—a person can be put into prison, according to the government, for two years if they get their warrant wrong, this is way out of proportion. This is an instance where, quite clearly, the community require and need the assurance that there will be some very firm ability to make sure that those people under ARPANSA do feel the necessity to obey the legitimate instructions of the CEO—and this certainly is not good enough.I do urge the support of the Senate for these amendments. If the government does not support these amendments, I urge the majority of the Senate to see the commonsense in them.16:38:001712Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The Greens have proposed a number of amendments which are unnecessary because of amendments already agreed earlier in this debate. They include Greens amendments to clauses 20, 23, 26 and 28. Other of the Greens amendments would cause significant problems in the operation of the legislation, such as the proposed Greens amendment to clause 27A which proposes that council and committee members may publicly disclose any information that comes before them, including confidential submissions from members of the public and others.The Greens have also suggested that we change various of the penalty provision under the bill. These have been drafted in consultation with the Attorney-General's Department and are consistent with criminal law policy, where appropriate. The government opposes the proposed amendments to these clauses.16:39:001712Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The opposition will not support the proposed amendments. Whilst we recognise and endorse some of the sentiments behind the proposed amendments, we do believe that they, firstly, are unnecessary and, secondly, probably go too far in terms of what is required. We accept otherwise the observations made by the government regarding the current state of the bill dealing with these issues. Accordingly, we are not prepared to support the amendments.16:39:001712Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will be supporting the amendments.16:39:001712Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would add just a little in relation to part 7 of the bill, which deals with the powers of inspection; I mention it in relation to nuclear safety inspectors. This is where we have got way out of kilter with what we want the industry to do compared with the precautionary role we think we should be playing in relation to important nuclear health and safety issues. Part 7 of the bill deals with the powers of inspection—inspections crucial to the monitoring of any installation. Unless you can get in and have a look around, you cannot be sure that the information you are being given is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.But here, remember that we are hearing from the government and the opposition that it is all right if you hold back on the truth and do not allow the community to get it. Unless they can get in and have a look, basically clause 62 requires the inspector to have either the permission of the occupier of the premises or a warrant before going into a controlled facility. This is reasonable enough, I guess. One would expect that in the normal course of events a warrant would not be necessary but from time to time it might be.Personally, there are other industries where inspectors, if you have a free and open case of health and safety, would not have to get permission or a warrant; that that would be part of their job. So I am not sure that it is reasonable—let us start off with that. I believe that perhaps there should be the powers of inspection and maybe there should be the powers of spot inspection. So we have already created a problem in relation to the powers of spot inspection.There could be a part of an installation that an inspector wanted to get to or perhaps something in a facility—a computer simulation in a worst case scenario, for instance—which would require a warrant. There are procedures laid out by which an inspector gets such a warrant and they are, as you would expect, quite thorough. They require an inspector to provide information on oath that it is reasonably necessary to gain access to the premises to see whether the act is being complied with. Well, that is all well and good. The problem arises when we come to clause 79, which sets out the penalty for making, in an application or a warrant, a statement known to be false or misleading in a material particular. Yes, it would be naughty for an inspector to spin a yarn or beef up a case for a warrant when there was only suspicion to go on, or exaggerate the credibility of a source or information to get access to check it out.But are we talking about the kind of offence of an overzealous inspector that could or should lead to a two-year imprisonment, or the kind of offence that might be committed by an inspector who is willing to serve the community in the way the community would be expecting him to which has been brought about by a threat or concern? There are, at worst, offences which led to a bit of inconvenience for the operator of a controlled facility; at best, they could lead to the uncovering of otherwise hidden dangers. Either way, they should not incur a two-year gaol term. Compare the seriousness of this offence with the seriousness of the failure to apply with a safety direction, as I mentioned before, of the chief executive officer—a small fine for a person under the law who does something dangerous compared with the maximum of a two-year gaol term for someone who has an exaggerated concern for safety.Where are we getting at and why is the Labor Party sitting there, allowing this to happen? The priorities are all wrong here. The more severe penalty should be for unsafe practices, for failing to put dangerous situations right—and not for the safety inspector. We are trying to have the regime administered by ARPANSA to be one that encourages a culture of safety in the nuclear industry. These penalties send the wrong message entirely and have had the effect of putting a muzzle on the inspectors before they even get started.During the committee, one of the issues raised was: what kind of notice was given in relation to things like the regulations involved that are attached to this legislation? The answer was that there has been substantial consultation in relation to the industry. So, in effect, one of the major industries that we are attempting to regulate in Australia—and that is ANSTO—has been in there, helping to draft the legislation and the regulations. Is it any surprise to anybody that they have written in to have greater penalties for inspectors than for themselves? Of course not.It is time that the parliament of this place realised that that is not an acceptable practice to be taken by those groups, and we would never accept it under any other circumstances. We realise that, in the Australian situation, we have become, or allowed ourselves to become, dependent on ANSTO for advice on nuclear issues.This is what we are trying to move away from—to have an independent body. I wonder, with the acting CEO of ARPANSA being in the chamber giving advice to the minister, how independent that has become. We have to start right, and we are not doing that with these kinds of proposals in the legislation.16:45:001713Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The Greens propose to reduce the penalty for inspectors falsely applying for warrants. The provision is included in all legislation whereby such significant powers are provided to individuals such as the Australian Federal Police. The provision simply mirrors the Crimes Act, and I am advised that the penalty for a breach of the legislation can be up to $1.1 million.16:46:001713Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—If fraud is covered in the Crimes Act—and I am sure it is—then I am sure the Crimes Act is quite capable of handling fraud. We are dealing with intimidation and, in this case, intimidation should not be written in legislation in respect of people who have a precautionary principle role. They should not be intimidated when they have reasonable concerns. They should not be worried about putting those reasonable concerns on a warrant in case they may have got something wrong or in case a rumour turns out to be incorrect. If I were on an aircraft, would I want somebody to be threatened with imprisonment for following a precautionary principle if a small light indicated that something was not working? Quite frankly, if I were in that aircraft, I would want them to check out the light. Even if they, in every intellectual way, knew nothing was wrong, I would want them to check out the light, and that is what the community would want as well.Amendments not agreed to.16:47:001714Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—In the interests of time, I would like the strong support of those amendments to be registered from the Greens (WA).16:47:001714Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—by leave—I move Democrats amendments Nos 1 to 9:(1) Clause 20, page 12 (line 29), at the end of subclause (2), add "and on the basis of merit".(2) Clause 20, page 13 (line 3), after "member", insert "except in accordance with a code of practice determined under section 28A and".(3) Clause 20, page 13 (after line 9), at the end of the clause, add: (7) In making appointments, the Minister must ensure that the balance of interests on the Council is such that no one interest may dominate the Council or derogate from its independence.(4) Clause 23, page 14 (line 6), at the end of subclause (2), add "and on the basis of merit".(5) Clause 23, page 14 (line 9), after "member", insert "except in accordance with a code of practice determined under section 28A and".(6) Clause 23, page 14 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add: (7) In making appointments, the CEO must ensure that the balance of interests on the Committee is such that no one interest may dominate the Committee or derogate from its independence.(7) Clause 26, page 15 (line 13), at the end of subclause (2), add "and on the basis of merit".(8) Clause 26, page 15 (after line 20), after subclause (4), insert: (4A) The CEO must not appoint a person as a member except in accordance with a code of practice determined under section 28A.(8) Clause 26, page 15 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add: (7) In making appointments, the CEO must ensure that the balance of interests on the Committee is such that no one interest may dominate the Committee or derogate from its independence.(9) Page 16 (after line 14), at the end of Part 4, add:28A Procedure for appointment of members (1) The Minister must by writing determine a code of practice for the appointment of members of the Council and of committees established under this Part that: (a) sets out general principles on which appointments of members are to be made, including, but not limited to: (i) merit; and (ii) independent scrutiny of appointments; and (iii) probity; and (iv) openness and transparency; and (b) sets out how these principles are to be applied to the selection of members. (2) After determining a code of practice under subsection (1), the Minister must publish the code in the Gazette . (3) The code of practice has effect accordingly. (4) Not later than every third anniversary after a code of practice has been determined, the Minister must review the code. (5) In reviewing a code of practice, the Minister must invite the public to comment on the code. (6) A code of practice determined under subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .These amendments, as I explained in my speech in the second reading debate, relate to accountability and transparency. They are not unlike amendments that the Democrats move on a number of occasions where boards such as this are involved. As I noted in my speech, Senator Andrew Murray, who is the Democrats accountability spokesperson, most recently moved similar amendments to the operation of the Wheat Marketing Board. It is part of our concern that we restore faith in governments, our boards and the parliamentary processes for the community, and that means appointments are not to be based on mateship or nepotism but directly and only on merit.I cited in the second reading debate the experiences of the United Kingdom and its Nolan committee, which has also sought to overhaul and redress ministerial and other appointments in the UK. It is something that the Democrats have sought to do a number of times here in Australia. We will continue to move amendments of this nature.16:50:001715Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I indicate that we will not be supporting the amendments. As Senator Stott Despoja correctly pointed out, this is a fairly standard set of amendments that have been moved on a number of occasions by the Democrats, particularly Senator Murray, in respect of other legislation. We have outlined on previous occasions our reasons for not supporting amendments, and on this occasion we will adopt the same approach.16:50:001715Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—We have taken note of the comments made by Senator Stott Despoja. However, the government does not support the Democrats' proposed amendments to clauses 20, 23, 26 and at the end of part 4.These amendments are twofold. Firstly, they provide that a member of the council or committees should not be appointed except in accordance with the code of practice under section 28A, which describes a very complex procedure. Secondly, the amendments require the minister or the CEO to ensure there is a balance of interests on the council and the committees, and that no single interest dominates these bodies. I understand that the Democrats are on a crusade to try to control government appointments from the Senate. The government will not be supporting the Democrats' proposal to establish this complex and unnecessary vetting system.The government amendments moved earlier in this debate ensure there will be appropriate consultation before the appointment of any members to the council or committees. However, anything that moves beyond this mechanism usurps the legitimate right of the government of the day to make its own decisions regarding appointments and to be accountable for them.With regard to clause 20—as I referred earlier in relation to this block of amendments proposed by the Democrats—the government believes that the proposed amendment to clause 20 undermines the legitimate right of the government of the day to appoint members to advisory bodies such as these. The government is, of course, committed to consulting appropriately and has demonstrated this by including relevant provision in the legislation. In respect of clause 23, the Democrats are proposing the same procedure for the appointment of committee members as they proposed for the council. The government opposes these changes on exactly the same grounds.With regard to clause 26, the Democrats are proposing the same procedure for appointment of committee members as they proposed for the council. Again, the government opposes these changes on the same grounds. At the end of part 4, the Democrats are proposing the insertion of an additional section, which describes procedures for appointments of members as previously discussed. As the government does not support the proposal in relation to this appointment process, it does not support this further amendment either.16:53:001715Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank the opposition and the government for outlining their reasons for rejecting the Democrat amendments. I express my disappointment that they are not willing to support amendments which we see as providing clarity, transparency and accountability. If the parliamentary secretary believes that we are on some kind of crusade, well so be it. I suppose the Democrats are associated with keeping various groups and parties honest, if you like. We see it as still very much a part of our mandate, to use that oft bandied around word. The government talks about a legitimate right to make appointments and says that the government should be accountable for those appointments. That is exactly what we are suggesting—that there be increased mechanisms that ensure that governments are accountable for those appointments and that they explain those appointments.The government's reference to the procedure for the appointment of members and its dismissal of that is quite discouraging. While it may be claimed that it is a complex process, the general principles that we outlined on which appointments can be made include merit, independent scrutiny of appointments, probity, and openness and transparency. I hardly think that those principles are incredibly challenging for any government. We simply seek to enshrine not only in this legislation but in other legislation these very general and appropriate principles which we believe would be to the benefit of any organisation. If you have a system of appointment on principles of merit, independent scrutiny probity, and openness and transparency, those principles are to the benefit of any organisation. I express again my disappointment that the amendments have been rejected by both parties.16:55:001716Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens (WA) will be supporting the Democrats' amendments.Amendments not agreed to.16:55:001716Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—by leave—I wish to have recorded, in the interests of time, the fact that the Democrats moved those amendments and voted for them and our disappointment that they were lost.16:55:001716Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move Greens (WA) amendments Nos 12 and 13:(12) Clause 31, page 19 (line 4), omit "The CEO", substitute "Subject to this section, the CEO".(13) Clause 31, page 19 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add: (4) The CEO must not issue a licence to a controlled person to construct or decommission a nuclear installation unless all of the following steps have occurred: (a) the Minister has caused to be established in the prescribed form a public inquiry into the need for the construction or decommissioning of the nuclear installation; (b) the public inquiry recommends that the construction of or decommissioning of the nuclear installation is necessary; (c) an environmental impact assessment of the proposed construction of decommissioning of the nuclear installation has been undertaken; (d) the environmental impact assessment concludes that the construction or decommissioning of the nuclear installation is unlikely to have a significant, adverse environmental impact. (5) The environmental impact assessment mentioned in subsection (4) is to be undertaken in accordance with the procedures set out in the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 .These amendments go to the heart of accountability in relation to new installations. Clause 31 empowers the Chief Executive Officer of ARPANSA to license a nuclear installation. In order for this to be anything like acceptable to the Greens, there need to be some changes. For indications of community concern about nuclear issues you only have to look at what has come up recently in the public eye and the level of concern that was unleashed by the video last week outlining the plans of a private company, Pangea, to turn Australia into the world's waste dump for high level nuclear waste.I saw an article today in the West Australian newspaper regarding Hendy Cowan, the Deputy Premier of Western Australia, who did speak to representatives from Pangea. When I read his words very carefully I realised that they did not actually rule out Australia accepting nuclear waste from other countries' nuclear power stations or imply that he was against that. We are talking about enriched uranium or reactor cores. What he said was that it would be difficult for Australia to accept nuclear waste from countries to which we had not supplied uranium. When you translate that, it means that the Deputy Premier of Western Australia, a National Party Deputy Premier, has said that it would be reasonable—and I am paraphrasing here—for Australia to take nuclear waste from reactors from other countries so long as we have supplied the uranium. That leaves us pretty open. He is saying that if we have exported uranium we should be prepared to accept the nuclear waste.So whilst we have had various statements from the federal minister saying what we will not do, when you scratch a little deeper about what has or hasn't been said at the state level, we are not looking at a fantasy scenario; we are hearing in the public arena the Deputy Premier of Western Australia say that nuclear waste would not be acceptable if we have not exported the uranium. How much uranium has Australia supplied over time? What does that potentially mean in terms of sheer volume of high level and medium level nuclear waste, including plutonium, enriched reactor cores and so on? What does that mean in terms of what could happen in the future?The community wants some say in regard to scrutiny in the nuclear industry—for example, the existing research reactor at Lucas Heights. We have noticed that the minister never answered that question from Senator Brown about the new technology being researched there. Even in the context of this current bill, how can they have that confidence when we know there is that wave of secrecy over here? There was no advertising in relation to the Senate committee on this bill because it was a short committee. We were able to get a number of people to express concerns.The amendments recognise that the community is interested—and has a legitimate interest—when any new installation is being considered. If you do not think the community of Australia is interested, just try any community in Australia and say: `By the way, you are going to make lots and lots of money out of being an international waste dump' and see what happens.As the bill stands at the moment, the CEO of ARPANSA can licence a new nuclear installation with a minimum of fuss. This is clearly not sufficient. It is especially not sufficient when you consider that the definition of a nuclear installation includes a number of issues like nuclear reactors, nuclear filled storage facilities and nuclear filled fabrication plants.We would like to see the strictest possible licensing and monitoring regime to make sure that it is as safe as it can possibly be. This amendment seeks to put commonsense pre conditions into the legislation so that licensing is not seen as some sort of short circuit, a quick and dirty way of getting nuclear installations authorised. This amendment seeks to ensure that the stages have been gone through before the licensing process starts. It is carefully constructed so that it does not involve the CEO in policy matters about whether there should be this or that installation. It does not involve the CEO at all in any of the matters which should be the subject of public debate. It simply says that the CEO must not issue a licence unless the minister has set up such an inquiry and the need has been demonstrated.At that stage, the normal environmental impact assessment process cuts in, and if there is not likely to be a significant adverse environmental impact then the CEO can proceed with the licence process. The effect of this will be to stop the issue of a licence unless the minister has set up an inquiry into the need for the installation. If there is a need, there is an environmental impact assessment, and it is unlikely to have adverse impact. Some of this includes matters which may well be the province of other legislation, especially the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. However, the need for the inquiry is new.It should probably go into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998. In the absence of current legislation, the only way to ensure such an inquiry is done is to have it referred as a prerequisite to licensing in the ARPANSA bill. I urge the Senate to support these amendments. I indicate in advance that we will seek to divide on this issue, because quite frankly we do not know where the Senate stands on this issue, and it is important to put it on the record.17:02:001717Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The opposition will support amendments Nos 12 and 13 moved by Senator Margetts. We have an amendment on the running sheet which substantially seeks to do the same thing—that is, to ensure that there is a process in this legislation whereby any decision to construct a major nuclear installation would be the subject of a public inquiry or an independent inquiry.In our amendment we proposed that the Chief Executive Officer of ARPANSA would not be permitted to issue a licence pursuant to this section unless, firstly, the CEO had obtained from the minister a certificate in the minister's opinion having regard to the objects of the act that there was a need for the nuclear installation and, further, such certificate must not be issued unless there was either an independent inquiry or a public inquiry pursuant to section 11 of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. Senator Margetts has put forward a proposition which certainly has the same intended result but which is in a different form. Whilst there are some subtle differences between the two, the end result is the same as that which we have been seeking to achieve.The need for this is self-evident. Anybody who understands what is happening within the nuclear industry in this country today recognises that the government has made a decision to build a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights to replace the current HIFAR reactor due to be decommissioned in about 2003. The government has made that decision without any proper consideration of the views of the scientific community, the medical community or the wider community, particularly the community of the surrounding areas of the Sutherland shire.I appreciate that there is a major debate as to whether or not Australia needs another nuclear research reactor. The Labor Party has made it clear that that is a matter still to be properly resolved. There are arguments for and against the proposition. For instance, it is argued that we should have another reactor to replace HIFAR; that the best place and the cheapest place to put it is where the current reactor is; that it has a value with respect to the manufacture of medical radio isotopes; and that it is in Australia's national interest. That is a very brief potted summary of those who support the proposition.There are some within ANSTO, I would suggest, who support the proposition simply because it means that ANSTO as an organisation will continue in perpetuity into the future. It guarantees they have another reactor to operate and, consequently, a large injection well in excess of $400 million or $500 million of public funding over the next 40 years. The argument that we should have one because we already have one is one that some people support, notwithstanding what the merits of the case might be.There are arguments from people within the local community who believe that, if we are going to have another nuclear reactor in this country, it should be located well away from any suburban residential area. The area around Lucas Heights is not the same as it was 40 years ago, when the establishment was built. It is no longer remote bushland some reasonable distance or long distance away from the city of Sydney. It is within about three to four kilometres of a thriving, growing part of the Sydney metropolitan region, with a population in excess of 150,000. If there was not a nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights today, no government in its right mind would contemplate putting one in that location. The fact that there is already one there is not of itself a reason why it is the best site for a reactor in the future.I wanted to particularly address my remarks to the issue of why we need a public inquiry process. The 1993 Research Reactor Review, the McKinnon review, which I have referred to earlier in this debate, concluded that there were a range of issues that should be resolved before any positive decision for the new reactor was made. I quote from the conclusions of the report. It said:If, at the end of a further period of about five years,. a high level waste site has been firmly identified and work started on proving its suitability. there is no evidence that spallation technology can economically offer as much as or more than a new reactor. there has been no practical initiation of a cyclotron anywhere worldwide to produce technetium-99m. there is good evidence of strong and diverse applications of neutron scattering capability in Australian science, including many young scientists, and a complex of industrial uses. the national interest remains a high priorityit would be appropriate to make a positive decision on a new reactor. The most suitable site would need to be identified. If any one of these onerous requirements is not met, either a negative decision, or a decision to delay further, would be indicated.That was the report of the Research Reactor Review issued in August 1993. What that report said was that, if any of those very onerous conditions were not met within five years—it is appropriately just on five years since that report was handed down—a decision should not be made to build a new reactor or, at the very least, it should be delayed. But this government ignored the recommendations and conclusions of the McKinnon review. It made a decision to build a new reactor at Lucas Heights. In one of the most cynical political exercises I have ever witnessed, it announced that decision on the very day that it announced to the community of the Sutherland Shire and southern Sydney that it was not going to build the proposed airport at Holsworthy. It was a bit of good news, bad news. As I said, it was a highly cynical approach.Efforts to obtain information from this government as to what alternative sites were being considered by the government have been refused on the grounds of cabinet confidentiality. There has been no proper assessment made, as Professor McKinnon called for in his report, about the value of alternative technologies such as spallation technology. There has certainly been no decision made about the suitability of any site to take high level waste.The report recognises, despite what ANSTO might say and despite what the government might say, that there is high level waste stored at Lucas Heights. Recent proposals by the government to ship that waste overseas have come to nought because of decisions made in Dounreay in Scotland that they are not prepared to take that waste. So there is clearly a major gap to be filled in terms of what is ultimately going to be the approach adopted in dealing with the waste currently stored at Lucas Heights.Frankly, the position we have is that this government has proceeded to make decisions contrary to the recommendations of that very thorough inquiry and has done it in a most cynical way with minimal consultation with local government bodies in the area and the community generally. It is a major decision to build another nuclear reactor in this country. Whatever one's view—whether one supports it or does not—it is appropriate that it be subject to the most vigorous scrutiny, and not just by an environmental impact statement.Frankly, most people have absolutely no faith in environmental impact statements anymore. We all know that about 99 per cent of proposals subject to an EIS eventually get approved. People have very little faith in the process that has been undertaken for the EIS to this point in time. It has been subject to very severe criticism by the Sutherland Shire Council and internationally recognised consultants they have engaged. It has been subject to severe criticism by Environment Australia itself.For instance, there is no design for the new reactor even on the table at the present time. So one wonders how an EIS could be properly conducted. But, in any event, there still needs to be a proper public inquiry before any such decision is made. We believe that such a major issue involving the expenditure of $500 million or more which commits this nation and particularly that area to the existence of another reactor for the next 40 years, on top of the decommissioning of the existing reactors, is such a serious issue that it should be considered by a public inquiry.These things do not come along every day of the week. That is what the provisions of the Environment Protection Act are specifically there for—that is, section 11 for the conduct of public inquiries. I am advised that there have only been some four inquiries conducted under that act since it was enacted. At least two of those related to most serious issues. The very first one was the Ranger inquiry conducted by Justice Fox, known as the Fox inquiry. The second one was the inquiry into sandmining on Fraser Island. Both of those are major issues of environmental significance, public health and safety significance and so on. We believe this is a similar case.The issue has been raised as to the potential for major waste reprocessing facilities. We are very disappointed with the attitude the government adopted in respect of an earlier amendment. We support very strongly the proposals contained in the Greens (WA) amendments. As I said, they reflect the intention of our amendment; that is, before any major nuclear installation, such as a new reactor at Lucas Heights or any others that may be contemplated—we hope they will not be—it should be subject to the most thorough scrutiny, including provisions for a public inquiry. We support the amendments.17:16:001720Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—On behalf of the Democrats, I support the amendments moved by the Greens (WA). For many of the reasons outlined by Senators Forshaw and Margetts, the Democrats support these amendments. We believe that the concept of needs assessment is a particularly positive one, as are the environmental impact assessments that are often undertaken.Our concerns have been on record for a long time now about the concept of a new nuclear reactor, not a replacement reactor, at Lucas Heights. For that reason, my party is opposing that particular reactor for a number of reasons, apart from environmental and health hazards—lack of community consultation, not to mention lack of scientific consultation. This is also the single biggest amount of money ever allocated from the Australian science budget. I believe it was done so with minimal—negligible—consultation with the chief scientist.Our views are very much on record. I look forward to hearing from other senators in this place—from opposition as well as government senators—as the debate rages further as to what their views are when it comes to the Lucas Heights reactor. We certainly support the amendments before the chair.17:17:001720Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The Greens (WA) amendments propose that a new and additional process of public inquiry be instigated which must demonstrate the need for a nuclear installation before the CEO makes any licensing decision for that installa tion. The first point to make is that the purpose of the bill is to provide for the safety of nuclear facilities and use of radiation when the government and the community have decided that such facilities are needed.This legislation is not the place to try to change the ways in which proposals are assessed and proceed. The Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act still applies, and it can be expected that any substantial proposal would invoke the procedures under this act. Further, as was the case with the proposed replacement research reactor at Lucas Heights, substantial proposals for nuclear facilities will be assessed over a period of time in ways in which the government of the day considers appropriate. Second, it is clear that the real purpose of these amendments, and those proposed by the ALP, is to delay the replacement research reactor project.Whilst I noted Senator Forshaw's comments—and I know his particular personal residential interest and genuine interest as a New South Wales senator—it is also important to note the comments of the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Gareth Evans, on 11 May 1998 when, in correspondence, he said, on the new reactor: I am afraid that the realities of politics in an election year, and in particular our need to win Hughes, have led us to a position of opposing a new reactor at the Lucas Heights site—as difficult that may be to justify in objective safety-focused terms.I also note the degree of cynicism in many of Senator Forshaw's comments. This project has been assessed exhaustively, including through the Australian Science and Technology Engineering Council inquiry in 1992, the McKinnon report into the need for a replacement reactor in 1993, the current environmental impact statement and the current Senate Economic References Committee inquiry. The government absolutely refuses to implement a further resource intensive, wasteful process, which is nothing more than an underhand attempt by opposition parties to further delay key government initiatives.17:20:001720Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I do not wish to delay this debate more than is necessary. The minister said when the `government and the community' deems it necessary. Quite clearly, from what Senator Forshaw said, that has not been proved. The McKinnon report said exactly that it was necessary to establish the need, and that has not been established. The government has not done it. None of the processes that have taken place have done it. It is not an accountable process. There is a lot of money involved in this, apart from anything else. We are dealing with community health and safety, which cannot and should not be rushed in terms of that.If there has been no demonstrated need, why are we getting into it, except that some people involved with ANSTO think this is the way for Australia to be involved in the international fora on nuclear issues. That is not good enough, Minister. It is not good enough to make a decision on this basis. How dare we point at India and Pakistan and say, `Your argument that you want to be considered part of the international community is irrelevant.' We are doing the same thing here—even the concept that Australia should be contemplating continuing to have a nuclear reactor because we get to sit in on the international atomic debates!We are pointing the finger at India and Pakistan saying, `Don't continue your nuclear testing. This is not going to make you an important nation.' But we are doing the same thing in Australia by continuing to have some form of nuclear reactor because that gives us a seat at the table with the big guys. It is ridiculous. It is puerile, and it is not the basis upon which we should get into it when there is no demonstrated need. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Margetts's ) be agreed to.17:26:00The committee divided. 0Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Carr, K.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.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.0Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. * Crane, W.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Herron, J.Campbell, G. Eggleston, A.Collins, J. M. A. Brownhill, D. G. C.Denman, K. J. Chapman, H. G. P.Gibbs, B. Macdonald, S.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.17:30:001721Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—by leave—On behalf of the Democrats, I move amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Clause 31, page 19 (line 4), omit "The CEO", substitute "Subject to this section, the CEO".(2) Clause 31, page 19 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add: (4) The CEO must not issue a licence to a controlled person that authorises persons to do some or all of the things referred to in subsection 29(1) in connection with a nuclear waste storage or disposal facility operated for commercial purposes. (5) It is the intention of the Parliament that subsection (4) has effect to the extent possible under the Constitution.These amendments relate to the issuing of licences. I mentioned in my speech during the second reading debate that we, like all members in this place—and I suspect a number of people in the community—were quite concerned to see that recent promotional video that was produced by Pangea Resources nominating Australia as the best country in the world to store high level nuclear waste.We were also disturbed by the assertions by members of that organisation that they had had meetings with ministers. Again I acknowledge that federal ministers in this government have not been involved in those meetings. Certainly, we had an assurance from Senator Nick Minchin in question time when the Democrats asked questions about this issue. The statement given by the minister was unequivocal. He said:. . . 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 Democrats welcomed that assertion by the government and the minister and, of course, his further claim that government policy was clear on this and that it would not be changed. I indicated that we would be seeking to enshrine this commitment in legislation. That is the purpose behind these amendments—essentially, to protect members of the community from the harms associated with any commercial nuclear waste disposal facility. I commend the amendments to the chamber.17:32:001722Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I seek a little point of clarification—and perhaps the parliamentary secretary can make a clear and unequivocal comment. If Australia sells uranium to another country and that uranium is used in the nuclear cycle, say, in a nuclear reactor, is the radioactive waste from that reactor the waste of another country or could it technically be considered the waste created by Australia?17:32:001722Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—With regard to the comment just raised by Senator Margetts, I am advised that it is the waste of another country. With regard to comments made by Senator Stott Despoja, the Democrats' amendments provide that the CEO must not issue a facility licence in connection with a nuclear waste storage or disposal facility operated for commercial purposes. The purpose of this bill is to regulate all Commonwealth radiation and nuclear activities. The issue whether an activity is commercial or not is completely irrelevant. Further, the meaning of the term `commercial' is not defined and could be expected to impinge on the government's capacity to appropriately recover the costs associated with, for example, any waste repository.By opposing the amendments, the government is ensuring that, regardless of the commercial footing of any activity, it will be controlled and regulated—a significant improvement on the current situation. I also wish to reiterate Senator Minchin's comments in this chamber that it is not government policy and will not be government policy to accept radioactive waste from other countries.17:34:001722Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank the parliamentary secretary for reiterating the government's policy. I also thank him for outlining why he will not be supporting the amendments, although I understand that we have revised and changed these amendments in order to ensure that there are no constitutional difficulties with these amendments. I understand that subclause (5) of amendment No. 2 in relation to clause 31 has that intention in mind.So there are no constitutional impediments to agreeing to such amendments. Given that the parliamentary secretary has taken this opportunity to reiterate the government's commitment to its current policy, wouldn't this be a wonderful and exciting opportunity for the government to enshrine that in legislation? 17:35:001723Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I have a further question for the parliamentary secretary. If the government opposes these amendments, is it leaving the door open, for instance, for the Pangea proposal to be ultimately approved if there is a change in government policy?17:36:001723Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I reiterate the comments of both Senator Hill and Senator Minchin in the last week or so. Both have given unequivocal commitments of the government. Senator Hill said:. . . the government is under no pressure; furthermore, it is not intending to build a facility for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste.And Senator Minchin said in answer to a question:. . . 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.17:36:001723Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Most people obviously wanted to get those kinds of assurances. However, we did get similar assurances on the GST. When is `never', `never ever', `will not' or `won't ever'? We know there are times when policies change. The Australian Democrats are asking—and I am supporting this—if `ever', `never ever' or `won't be' ever changes to `will', `maybe' or `well circumstances have changed'—and that does happen, we know it does; we have seen it happen with the GST—then there will need to be a change in the legislation. That is not unreasonable.Why the government would not accept that, if they were going to change that major policy area they would have to make a change to legislation, I do not know—except that they want to leave that door open. And that is exactly what they are doing. The public will see it as a door left open by leaving this unclear in the legislation.17:37:001723Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I do not mean to delay the Senate but I do not believe that Senator Forshaw's question was answered specifically. I do not think Senator Forshaw feels that it was answered specifically—I do not know what the head nodding means. The government has reiterated a commitment not to make Australia a nuclear waste dump. I am wondering whether the parliamentary secretary could answer specifically: would this leave the door open? I am interested in the legal implications of this amendment being defeated. Does it not allow those commercial dumps, if you like, to come into this country? I am just wondering whether it leaves the door open legally—not whether or not the government has a particular policy at this stage because, as Senator Margetts has stated, that can be changed pretty much at the whim of government.17:38:001723Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we support Senator Stott Despoja's amendments. Whilst it is very gratifying to have the assurance of the parliamentary secretary on government policy, he has not responded to the question. I took it that he did not intend to respond because it is either a yes or a no. In the absence of saying no, the answer must be yes. We do not think that is good enough and we will support the amendments.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's gallery of former Tasmanian senator, Brian Archer. I welcome you to Canberra. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Stott Despoja's ) be agreed to.17:44:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)31Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. *Crane, W.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Macdonald, S.Cooney, B. Herron, J.Evans, C. V. Eggleston, A.Faulkner, J. P. Chapman, H. G. P.Mackay, S. Brownhill, D. G. C.Sherry, N. Hill, R. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.17:47:001724Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 1:(1) Page 19 (after line 11), after clause 31, insert:31A Minister to issue certificate(1) The CEO must not issue a licence under section 31 for a nuclear installation unless the CEO has obtained from the Minister a certificate that, in the Minister's opinion, having regard to the objects of this Act, there is a need for the nuclear installation.(2) The Minister must not issue a certificate under subsection (1) without first causing to be held: (a) an independent inquiry into the need for the nuclear installation; or (b) a public inquiry under section 11 of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 .(3) In this section: independent public inquiry means an inquiry undertaken by persons who: (a) in the Minister's opinion possess appropriate qualifications to undertake the inquiry; and (b) include one or more persons who are not employed by the Department of State administered by the Minister, or a related Commonwealth authority, and have not, in the 5 years immediately before the commencement of this Act, provided services to the Department or the authority under, or in connection, with a contract.I do not need to go through all the arguments. They were put in respect of the Greens amendment earlier.While I am on my feet, I wish to respond to a rather cheap shot from Senator Tambling. It was something to do with declaring a residential interest. Everyone in this chamber knows that I happen to live within a reasonable proximity of the Lucas Heights reactor. If I need to declare that again, I will. I invite him and all the other honourable senators opposite to declare their residential interest, which is that they do not want the nuclear reactor in their backyard.17:49:001724Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move two amendments to the Labor Party amendment:(1) After paragraph 31A(2)(a), omit "or", substitute "and".(2) Paragraph 31A(2)(b), before "a public inquiry", insert "if the independent inquiry recommends that the nuclear installation is necessary,".These are simple amendments. They include the category of decommissioning amongst those areas which should receive full assessment and consultation. Basically, they are an extension to the categories included in the ALP's amendment. I am pleased to see that the ALP seems to think that is acceptable. It originally had just the provision of a new reactor facility. We have agreed that the decommissioning is a major event and must be done with great care and consultation, so an inquiry should be involved in it. I am happy to support opposition amendment No. 1 with the Greens (WA) amendment Nos 1 and 2.17:49:001725Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Australian Democrats will be supporting the amendments.Amendments (by Senator Margetts) not agreed to.Amendment (by Senator Forshaw) not agreed to.17:50:001725Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—by leave—In the interests of concluding this matter, we do not seek to divide. However, I record our support for the amendment.Bill, as amended, agreed to.AUSTRALIAN RADIATION PROTECTION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY (LICENCE CHARGES) BILL 1998AUSTRALIAN RADIATION PROTECTION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1998Bills agreed to.Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 reported with amendments; Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Bill 1998 and Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 reported without amendment; report adopted.1725Motion (by Senator Tambling) proposed:That these bills be now read a third time.17:52:001725Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Very briefly, I do recognise that the government has come a substantial way in response to community concern. It took a number of people to do quite a lot of work in relation to that, and I would like to say that that movement was appreciated. It was obviously a very useful thing to get people together in relation to the committee process. This is one of those instances where the committee process did actually result in a better procedure and in improved legislation—to the point where it is far from perfect but it scrapes over the line as far as the Greens (WA) are concerned.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a third time.Committees1725172510000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of committees.Motion (by Senator Tambling)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be appointed to and discharged from committees as follows:Legal and Constitutional References CommitteeParticipating member: Senator Bartlett.Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation CommitteeSubstitute member: Senator O'Brien to substitute for Senator Mackay for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998.17251725Motion (by Senator Cook)—by leave—put: (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 1975.18:00:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)32Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hutchins, S.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. *Crane, W.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.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. Macdonald, S.Collins, J. M. A. Brownhill, D. G. C.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Hogg, J. Chapman, H. G. P.Mackay, S. Hill, R. M.Murphy, S. M. Herron, J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.18:04:001726Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—by leave—I indicate that the government is not opposed to the principle of the motion. The government believes the inquiry should commence following the release of the second Sherman report, and the government would be happy for the inquiry to be held next sitting.18:04:001726Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—by leave—I note the remarks of the government. I will seek an opportunity between now and the next sitting of the Senate to confer with them about the detail of what that might mean and, on the basis of that discussion, consider recommitting the motion.Bills1726r640Billsr639Billsr6381726Debate resumed.18:05:001727Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—It may have been thought from comments that I have made over recent weeks that I have some sort of opposition to the health funds in the private health system. I have some questions about them, as I have questions about the public health system, but I am not ideologically opposed to the dual system, provided it is fair and properly run. I am becoming less confident in the funds as a result of their inane campaign which was run recently. I am less confident in their capabilities. But, because it is usual to do so, I need to declare that I am a member of a health fund and have been for 40 years. I understand how people feel when they are struggling on a very insufficient income to try to keep up the payments—even then it was difficult.Let me come to the package of legislation itself. The rebate proposal does not go far enough to meet sound public policy requirements. There is no evidence by any modelling that has been presented to us that that proposed rebate will work and achieve the objectives of the government; in other words, there are no guarantees that it will work. There are no guarantees that premiums will not rise—in fact, we have heard that premiums will rise next year. There are no guarantees that the rebate will not get gobbled up in the payment of extra costs created by specialist doctors, operating on private patients in private or, indeed, in public hospitals.There are no guarantees about anything, except that 70 per cent of the taxpayers of Australia will contribute to delivering an amount of $5.4 billion to assist the other 30 per cent of the population who are privately insured—though I suppose 100 per cent, if you like, will do that, rather than the 70 per cent. There are no guarantees that the 30 per cent rebate will result in the eradication of extra medical fees beyond the insured costs—those medical out-of-pocket expenses which are very much the concern of fund members.Honourable senators will know from their own experience that the two major complaints of fund members are the ever increasing premiums and the extra charges in costs they are hit with once, after having been in hospital, they get home. Once they get home, in come the bills, one after the other; it also might be that even three or four months later a bill comes in. Multiple medical fees not only are aggravating but also leave many patients with onerous bills.This legislation does nothing to address this problem. Many of the elderly who are treated in private hospitals could be cared for in other more suitable settings, such as convalescence and rehabilitation services. The coordination of better health care services should be associated with a measure like the one that is before us today, the rebate. Then health insurance could be more user friendly, particularly for the elderly and chronically ill.There are no guarantees that health funds will not continue to raise their premiums after the introduction of this package of legislation containing this rebate. This begs the question of whether the rebate is in the interests of the members or administration of the funds. The government has not been able to encourage health funds and doctors to strike effective arrangements to eliminate out-of-pocket fees and set premiums. There are some examples of where this has been achieved, and honourable senators during debate have been informed of those by various government senators—and I acknowledge that.The government maintains that the rebate will help reduce public hospital waiting lists; yet there is no guarantee that this will occur. In fact, there is no guarantee that privately insured patients will not enter public hospitals; they have that right. And I guess that, if nothing is done about the gap, there will be more and more privately insured people—that is, members of health funds—going into public hospitals so as to avoid those out-of-pocket expenses. At the same time low income elderly people who cannot afford insurance are resigned to waiting on public hospital lists for treatment. The government should seriously consider instigating a special program to meet these needs.Madam Acting Deputy President, I must say that I stand before you in a somewhat difficult situation. The speech I have given thus far was going to come to certain conclusions which perhaps do not reflect discussions that have taken place today. I point out again that the government—and I have indicated this previously—should seriously consider instigating a special program to meet the needs of low income elderly people who cannot afford insurance, including their need to have quicker access to hospital and other health services. It is conceivable that such a program, conducted along with a rebate scheme, could reduce public hospital demand and better meet the needs of the elderly in particular.The government should consider some way to ensure that health funds move towards the elimination of gaps. I will move an amendment, which is currently being drafted, to go some way towards that particular objective—and I apologise to honourable senators that that is not as yet ready to be distributed. It is a simple amendment that will give an incentive to health insurance funds to come to agreements with hospitals and doctors for that purpose.There should be an attempt to address the burden of unknown medical fees, so the proposal I am going to present to the Senate will include the not known aspect. For many patients, procedures are performed on them not knowing what the gap is, not knowing that it will cost far more than what Medicare provides or what their health insurance funds provide.I must say that we are extremely fortunate that Australia is blessed with a highly qualified and dedicated medical profession. I appreciate that private health care has developed under a fee-for-service system. I also appreciate the value of the doctor-patient relationship and its intimate role in quality health care. However, it is incumbent upon the medical profession to understand that the lack of attractiveness of health insurance also rests with some of their number charging unreasonable fees.I understand that there are no easy answers to these problems. However, the solution proposed by the government in this legislation does not go far enough—it needs to go further. A 30 per cent rebate for the purchase of health insurance has merit if it is associated with other tangible measures which will alleviate the demand on public hospitals, do something practicable for the health of the elderly and lead to the elimination of out-of-pocket expenses, out-of-pocket fees.I have concerns that the elderly, particularly the chronically ill, need a better coordination of their services, and their complex needs must have greater attention from our general practitioners. I am particularly concerned that low income, uninsured elderly people have little choice but to wait on the public sector lists for urgent care. We need to do more to ensure access for them to services in both hospitals and convalescent home care.I am particularly perturbed by the lack of progress on out-of-pocket expenses and believe a more concerted effort by government and the private health sector is needed. The rebate proposals need to be advanced only if real reforms on these other measures are actively progressed. I do hope that, during the course of this debate, there will be an indication by the government of precisely that. At this stage, I am prepared to support the bill into the committee stage.18:18:001728Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—At the outset, let me declare a personal interest of 37 years of holding private health insurance. At the same time, let me also reflect on the last 10 months. As many of my colleagues in this place will know, I had heart surgery in August and that required extensive financial support and obligation from many people, and I appreciate their assistance. There were eight specialists, two GPs, many pathologists, X-Rays, echocardiograms, angiograms, et cetera. But in financial terms, at the end of the day, my 10 months has cost $30,378. It is very important to note that the health insurance contribution to that was $21,284; Medicare, $7,135; and the gap, to which Senator Harradine has just referred, $1,959. In all, some 134 services were rendered to me in the course of this year, and it is very important to note that principal of $21,284 met by my private health insurers that otherwise would have been met by the public purse, and without the degree of choice that I did enjoy under the circumstances I had.The government is committed to maintaining a balance between public and private sector health so that Australians have a choice when it comes to health care that is fair, affordable, customer-friendly and good value for money. The Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 and related bills allow for all members of private health funds to be eligible for a rebate of 30 per cent of the cost of their health insurance contributions. For example, a family with an annual health insurance contribution of $2,000 will be entitled to a rebate of $600. This policy was taken to the recent election by the Howard government and roundly endorsed.It is ironic that, after two decades of seeking to keep the bastards honest, the Australian Democrats are now seeking to prevent the government from honouring this commitment. They have lost their perspective of what honesty is all about and have become captives of political bastardry themselves. It is also ironic to see the Australian Labor Party carping on about gaps and billing for private health insurance, after spending 13 years doing nothing. Talk about political hypocrisy. The ALP have shown their hand as nothing but poker card players.The Australian Private Hospital Association has said that without private hospitals the public system would have to treat an extra 1.8 million patients per year, perform twice as much surgery as now, provide 23,000 more beds and require $3.5 billion extra funding every year. If private health insurance participation declines further, the public system will have to provide more and more of the services and care that the private sector is providing. The ALP and the Democrats have conspired to wipe out that great Australian value of individual choice from the people they purport to represent.The current trend shows that private health insurance will decline to around 20 per cent by the end of the current Australian health care agreement. This dreadful scenario would cost the government an additional $2.5 billion over the life of these agreements. Even more damaging to the bottom line is the fact that the base for the new agreements would be $5 billion more than the current agreements.The alternative being offered by the coalition is to support choice, support quality care and support private health care to continue the balanced health system that has served Australia so well. It is important that we note the issues that have been raised in this debate, particularly those that have been raised this evening by Senator Harradine. The government has undeniably done more to reduce the incidence of medical gap fees than any other government. I know that Minister Wooldridge is currently embarked on a major campaign with a number of issues to advance that important area.Senator Crossin got it very wrong the other evening about the Northern Territory. She did not focus on the impact of this legislation on people who live in rural and remote parts of Australia. This is one of the most important tenets of this legislation. There is so much that needs to be offered for all of these people to get the balance right. People who come from rural and remote areas often need access to special services, not in their own area but in other areas. They need the reimbursement that private health insurance can offer to so many of them. And those people living in the bush are not rich.The constitution of Australia prohibits any government's control of doctors' fees. However, through encouraging negotiation and partnerships between doctors and hospitals and health funds we have produced the first successes ever achieved in this area, for which Dr Wooldridge can take the credit. Legislation has been introduced to allow health funds, hospitals and doctors to negotiate over the entire medical fee, including any charges above the medical benefits schedule. The promotion of simplified billing has been a major lever in changing the culture of doctors, who are now recognising the importance of providing a better service to their patients. Labor did nothing during their 13 years to address the gaps. We certainly have, and some of the initiatives proposed by Senator Harradine tonight will go a long way in that regard.I acknowledge that more needs to be done. We will continue to work hard to promote these issues, despite the moaning and the carping of those opposite. In summary, these bills provide for sensible incentives to com plement recent and upcoming structural reform. The government's 30 per cent rebate makes sense economically, supports the choice that is one of the strengths of the great Australian health system and is expected by the Australian electorate.18:25:001730Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I seek leave to make a brief statement on the interests of certain senators in relation to this legislation.Leave granted.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I thank the Senate. To expedite debate on the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 , I wish to inform the chamber, at the request of my colleagues and before the second reading of the bill, that the following Labor senators hold private health insurance: Senators O'Brien, West, Bishop, Hogg, Ray, Forshaw, Conroy, McKiernan, Schacht, Bolkus, Collins, Crowley, Gibbs, Cooney, George Campbell, Lundy, Mackay, Crossin, Reynolds and me. I invite the Senate to accept this as a suitable form of declaration of interest for the purpose of its consideration of the private health insurance bills.18:26:001730Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I declare my interest as a long-term holder of private health insurance and one who doesn't expect the community to pay further for my subsidy.18:26:001730Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—by leave—Madam Acting Deputy President, with your leave, I think I should indicate that those who are known to me on the government side to hold private health insurance are: Senators Hill, Alston, Newman, Minchin, Vanstone, Herron, Kemp, Ellison, I. Macdonald, Campbell, Troeth, Tambling, Boswell, Calvert, Coonan, Patterson, Heffernan, Abetz, Knowles, Parer, Ferguson, Watson, Synon, Gibson, Payne, S. Macdonald, MacGibbon, Eggleston, Tierney, Crane, Lightfoot, McGauran and Brownhill. I have not been able to ascertain any interest in respect of Senator Chapman, who is overseas.18:27:001730Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I am afraid I have not got the information in front of me as to which of my colleagues are in private health insurance. I shall ask them to let us know individually before the end of the evening.Sitting suspended from 6.28 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.19:30:001730Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—Just prior to the recess, Senator Faulkner and I read a number of names into the Hansard record of respective senators from our sides who had private health insurance. I omitted in reading the list from this side to include Senator Reid, the President of the Senate. I would appreciate it if that could be added to the record.19:30:001730Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I wish to read onto the record the Democrat senators who have an interest in this issue. The following senators have private health insurance: Senator Bartlett, Senator Stott Despoja, Senator Woodley, Senator Bourne and Senator Murray, who pays two families private health insurance—his own family and his parents' family. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Lees's ) be agreed to.19:36:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)31Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. Lees, M. H.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Sherry, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Coonan, H. *Crane, W. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. 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. Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Conroy, S. Payne, M. A.Forshaw, M. G. Herron, J.Lundy, K. Hill, R. M.Murphy, S. M. Eggleston, A.Schacht, C. C. Brownhill, D. G. C.Stott Despoja, N. Chapman, H. G. P.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.In division—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam President, I have private health insurance.19:37:001731Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:At the end of the motion, add: "and that the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in November, 1999: Australia's health system, with particular reference to the issues outlined in Recommendation 22 of the Industry Commission's report on its inquiry into the Private Health Insurance Industry (Report No. 57, February 1997)".I move this motion for a proper inquiry, as was called for by the majority of people giving evidence.Question resolved in the negative. Question put: That these bills be now read a second time.19:39:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)32Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H. *Crane, W. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. 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. Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.31Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. Lees, M. H.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Sherry, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Schacht, C. C.Chapman, H. G. P. Stott Despoja, N.Eggleston, A. Murphy, S. M.Herron, J. Forshaw, M. G.Hill, R. M. Lundy, K.Payne, M. A.Conroy, S.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.1732Progress reported.Personal Explanations173219:45:001732Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I wish to make a personal explanation on that grounds that I believe I have been misrepresented.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—The honourable senator may proceed.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—In question time today in the House of Representatives the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Alexander Downer, answered a question about APEC. I do not have a copy of the House of Representatives Hansard , but I have heard a recording of the answer Mr Downer gave to the question. In that answer he said:I noticed on Monday an article written by Senator Cook, the opposition spokesman on trade, who argued that at the APEC meeting, APEC—and, indeed, the Australian government, in encouraging APEC—made a mistake by concentrating on economic issues and should have more narrowly focused the whole meeting on trade alone.I did not say the words that the foreign minister has said I said, and I claim to be misrepresented by that statement and the conclusions Mr Downer then proceeded to draw from this false premise.On Monday, 7 December the Australian Financial Review published an article by me on its opinion-editorial page headlined `Trade issues in hibernation'. The editors made it clear that I was the author and the shadow minister for trade. The relevant passages in the article state:Inexplicably, just days before the KL summit the Prime Minister announced Australia was going to switch its approach from trade to economic issues. Why? Isn't trade a central economic issue? Or do we believe trade liberalisation is something to flirt with only in the economic good times?This is peculiar thinking. Surely what we are on about is encouraging an economic renaissance in Asia. Opening markets and liberalising trade will help achieve that. It is clear from these remarks that I was not arguing, as Mr Downer has said, that Australia should concentrate narrowly on trade issues to the exclusion of economic issues, but in fact by concentrating on trade issues the economic issues would be more readily resolved. It is facile and untrue to propose that the Labor Party has not even noticed the Asian economic crisis, when my trade remarks were clearly discussing how best to deal with it.APEC is pre-eminently a trade forum with an agenda, a timetable, for trade equalisation. Therefore, it is remarkable indeed that these issues could have been shunted aside in the interests of discussion about economics and in some way to obviate the need to address the tough and complex trade issues. Mr Downer claims all this demonstrates a lack of intellectual rigour. It does but not on behalf of the Labor Party and me; it does on behalf of Mr Downer and the government.Bills1732r640Billsr639Billsr6381732Consideration resumed.PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE INCENTIVES AMENDMENT BILL 1998The bill.19:48:001732Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—by leave—I move Democrat amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4:(1) Page 6 (after line 11), after clause 4-5, insert:4-6 Income test, policies covering only one person (1) If the policy covers only one person, the income test is satisfied in respect of the financial year in question if the sum of the taxable incomes of all of the persons whose incomes are required by subsection (2) to be taken into account is less than the maximum amount under subsection (4). Note: For taxable income, see section 4-8. (2) The persons whose incomes are to be taken into account are: (a) if the person covered by the policy is not a *dependent child during the financial year—that person and the *partner (if any) of that person; or (b) if the person covered by the policy is a dependent child at any time during that year—any *parent of that person, and the partner (if any) of the parent, but only if, in respect of that year: (i) the parent, or his or her partner, made one or more payments of premiums in respect of the policy; or (ii) a person (other than a parent of the dependent child or the partner (if any) of that parent) made one or more such payments, under an arrangement entered into with the parent or partner. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a person is the *partner of another person only if, on the last day of the financial year, the person is the partner of that person. (4) The maximum amount is: (a) if at all times during the financial year the person covered by the policy is not a *dependent child and is not the *partner of another person—$30,000; or (b) if at any time during the financial year the person covered by the policy is not a dependent child and is the partner of another person—$50,000; or (c) if at any time during the financial year the person covered by the policy is a dependent child—$50,000.4-7 Income test—policies covering more than one person (1) If the policy covers more than one person, the income test is satisfied in respect of the financial year in question if the sum of the taxable incomes of all of the persons whose incomes are required by subsection (2) to be taken into account is less than the maximum amount under subsection (4) Note: For taxable income, see section 4-8. (2) The persons whose incomes are to be taken into account are: (a) each person covered by the policy who is not a *dependent child during the financial year; and (b) the *partner (if any) of each such person; and (c) if all of the persons covered by the policy are dependent children at any time during that year—any *parent of any of the persons covered, and the partner (if any) of the parent, but only if, in respect of that year: (i) the parent, or his or her partner, made one or more payments of premiums in respect of the policy; or (ii) a person (other than a parent of the dependent child or the partner (if any) of that parent) made one or more such payments, under an arrangement entered into with the parent or partner. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a person is the *partner of another person only if, on the last day of the financial year, the person is the partner of that person. (4) The maximum amount is: (a) if the persons covered by the policy do not include 2 or more *dependent children at any time during the financial year concerned—$50,000; or (b) if, at any time during the financial year, 2 or more dependent children are covered by the policy—the amount worked out as follows: $50,000 + ($3,000 x (Number of dependent children—1)) Example: If the policy covers the members of a family that has 3 dependent children, the maximum amount under subsection (4) is: $50,000 + ($3,000 X (3—1)) = $56,0004-8 Meaning of taxable income In section 4-6 or 4-7: taxable income , in relation to a person, means the person's taxable income, within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 , for the financial year in question, and includes any share in the net income of a trust estate: (a) to which the person is presently entitled as a beneficiary; and (b) in respect of which the trustee of the trust estate in that capacity is liable to be assessed under section 98 of that Act; and (c) that is attributable to that financial year.(2) Clause 10-5, page 18 (after line 6), before paragraph (a), insert: (aa) you satisfy the income test under section 4-6 or 4-7 (whichever is applicable) in respect of that year; and(4) Clause 4-5, page 6 (lines 4 to 8), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) You are entitled to a payment under this Chapter if: (a) you have paid, or your employer as a *fringe benefit for you has paid, a premium under an *appropriate private health insurance policy for the whole or a part of the financial year that began on 1 July 1998 or a later financial year; and (b) you satisfy the income test under section 4-6 or 4-7 (whichever is applicable) in respect of that year;Most of these issues were covered fairly thoroughly as we went through the second reading stage. We must reach some reasonable compromise on this legislation. It would be the Democrats' preference that we did not support private health through this mechanism, but this is one the government has chosen so we will try to make the best we possibly can out of it. By means testing this in this way would mean that roughly half of this extraordinary amount of money, about $1½ billion a year on average, would be able to be directed into the public system. At least if we could not make the government put it into the public system, we would actually make a reasonable saving so that hopefully, when it came to budget time, their consciences would dictate that that money be directed into things such as the dental health program, rural health and public hospital waiting lists.19:49:001734Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I want to make a contribution at the beginning of the committee stage of this debate about the way the committee stage is to be handled. I think a number of senators, certainly opposition senators, would have noticed that Senator Herron, who is the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, apparently is not going to handle the committee stage of this debate. Perhaps Senator Tambling can indicate whether he is going to handle it for the government. Senator Tambling, the parliamentary secretary, nods. So I assume that means he is going to handle this. I think this is a very concerning development indeed.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—It is not concerning that Senator Tambling is handling it.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—No. Senator Ray, if you would allow me the courtesy—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Ray, if you would cease interjecting and, Senator Faulkner, if you would address the chair.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Thank you for your protection, Madam Chairman. This is a serious issue. Who could forget over the last few weeks of sitting of the Senate the contributions that Senator Herron has made in question time in this chamber, attempting to answer serious questions about the issue of health insurance and a number of other issues relating to the health and aged care portfolio? We have heard Senator Herron time and time again attempt to outline what he believes is the government's position in relation to this important issue, and a range of others, to be proved comprehensively that he has a total incapacity to deal with issues of substance in the chamber.Today we saw what could only be described as a completely incoherent performance from Senator Herron. It is not as if Senator Herron has an awful lot of work to do. It is not as if he has got an enormous ministerial load. This is the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs who has not had responsibility for the issue of stolen children, who has not had responsibility for the native title debate, who now does not have responsibility for the issue of reconciliation, because that is now, as a result of the new ministerial arrangements, in the hands of Mr Ruddock, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. This is the minister who cannot come in at the committee stage of this debate and deal with this issue on which he has been the spokesperson in this chamber.Regardless of any other commitments that he might have, the truth of the matter is that this is a very important piece of legislation, the responsibility of the minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, and Senator Herron does not have the capacity to deal with the detail of this legislation or the focus that is required of a minister during a committee stage debate. And, as far as the opposition is concerned, it is absolutely unacceptable, for a committee stage debate on legislation that the government believes is as important as this, that the minister representing the minister for health in this chamber cannot front up to the Senate and handle the committee stage debate on behalf of the government.That says it all. It is not just that he cannot handle himself during question time on the range of issues on which he has had questions asked of him not only by opposition senators but also by minor party senators and Senator Harradine, it is not just that he cannot go the hard yards in question time, but that, here in this important and crucial committee stage debate, Senator Herron is missing in action. The point I want to make is that that is not good enough. We have had Senator Herron plead for the representational responsibilities that were previously handled by Senator Newman, whose approach always on these issues was to say, `I don't know anything about it. I will just refer it to the minister in the other chamber.' Senator Herron's approach is to say the first thing that comes into his head, and it is normally nonsense. It is normally incoherent psychobabble.I think it is important that the record shows that in this committee stage debate, which the government claims is of such significance on such an important issue, the minister representing the minister for health cannot front up after lecturing senators, the parliament and the people of Australia day in and day out during the parliamentary sittings since the election. He cannot be bothered or is not interested enough to come in and handle this committee stage debate in the parliament.Senator Tambling, as the parliamentary secretary, is doing this job and, obviously, he is struggling with the detail. I do not expect Senator Tambling to have the same level of familiarity with this particular issue. No reasonable person would expect Senator Tambling to be able to take over this responsibility in the chamber at short notice and handle the debate when, of course, you have got the minister representing the minister for health squibbing it.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator, please do not reflect upon ministers.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I think we have had enough of lectures from Senator Herron, the sort of flaky performances that we have seen from him in question time today and over the last few weeks. I think that if Senator Herron wants to have the responsibility of a minister representing, then he ought to come in and do the job. This is a disgraceful performance in relation to the handling of this bill in the committee stage, and Senator Herron and the government stand condemned for it.19:57:001735Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I will not delay the committee long, but I still want to add a couple of points, to which Senator Faulkner has alluded, before we get to the substance. The attitude of the opposition is that if Senator Herron wants to get up day in and day out and lecture us on how important this bill is—and there is no doubt he has done that in the past—he really should be here to handle it. I am pleased Senator Faulkner put it in such a way as not to reflect on Senator Tambling. What is Senator Tambling's position? He is a parliamentary secretary, who does not get 1c more for all the work he does, and he does a lot of work. He gets one medium-level adviser and one receptionist and, if he is lucky, he might get a DLO.Meanwhile, we have another minister working in his second job as Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, getting $50,000, about seven staff and about 100,000 platitudes and cliches a year, yet he is not here to handle this bill—the only bill that he will probably have of any complexity or of any importance between now and when he gets appointed High Commissioner to London or to wherever he is heading off.This is starting to become a bit of a pattern. I do not mind the fact that parliamentary secretaries are used as workhorses. But, really, they are not the front-line troops; they are the reserves, they fill in the gaps, and you should not expect them to take on the responsibility of shepherding through very complex legislation, given the poor resource base and the lack of remuneration. What parliamentary secretaries are getting is all responsibility and nothing else.It is true that some people may see the taking of a parliamentary secretaryship as a way up the greasy pole—that is, you do your apprenticeship as a parliamentary secretary and you might eventually be promoted into the role of minister and eventually to cabinet. I think that is true to a point. I am not going to point to anyone that disproves it because there are always hurtful examples on any side of the chamber at any particular point in time.When it comes to crucial legislation—and I suppose the coalition would put this as one of its four or five centrepiece pieces of legislation in its three-year term; no doubt the GST would be their key one, but I would have thought this one would be in the top five of the remaining ones—we do not have Senator Herron here today. Why don't we? He may have a genuine excuse for not being here today, but, if he did not, I suspect he still would not be allocated the handling of these bills. You have got a minister who the Prime Minister picked, frankly, because he was a friend and he liked the look of him. That is basically why he was made a minister, the same as Mrs Moylan was in Western Australia. That mistake was rectified.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—How did you get one?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—It is hard to understand, Senator Ferguson, why you did not get a berth. I absolutely concede that. It is almost impossible to conceive—no, hold on; you don't meet some of the criteria: you are not vacuous and you probably have a grasp of detail. If you could give that up, we might see you on the front bench. You might be a regular feature there.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—You are ruining my preselection.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Don't provoke me because I know we have got an important debate to get on with. But I really think, as a matter of principle, on the key piece of legislation in the health area for the next three years, the person who asks for the job of representing health in this chamber should be here to put it through. It is no reflection on Senator Tambling. In fact, I think he will do a much better job of handling this. I am not trying to embarrass him in this way, but he will do a better job than Senator Herron. But, Senator Tambling, so would a telephone pole, so do not get too keen on that particular analogy.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—For the benefit of honourable senators, can I say that there is no running sheet for these bills. There is sheet 1215, which is the five Australian Democrats amendments, and there is sheet 1221, which is Senator Harradine's six amendments. I think it is fairly straightforward to work through the Democrats amendments and then Senator Harradine's amendments, which is the way I would plan to proceed.20:02:001736Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I wish to clarify one point with Senator Lees. When she started speaking to the amendments on sheet 1215, she drew attention to amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4. Am I right in assuming that her initial comments were in respect of amendment No. 1?20:02:001736Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I was mainly speaking about amendment No. 1, yes. But if you look down further at amendment No. 2, you look further at the actual income test and other details that are needed. If you go down further, amendment No. 4 is further entitlement relating to the means test.20:03:001736Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I appreciate that. However, the initial comments were with regard to the first amendment. The critical issue that the senator is raising in these amendments is that the government's private health insurance rebate should be means tested. I have no doubt that this rebate is the most equitable way to encourage people who can afford to take out private health insurance and to reward those who already have it. I completely reject the proposal by the Democrats that the rebate should be means tested. The government will not be doing any deals to compromise the integrity of this policy.Australia's private health insurance system complements our universal health care system and funds around 80 per cent of all private hospital care. It is entirely reasonable for those people who choose to fund part of their own private care to get back part of the funding from the public system they would otherwise draw on. The rebate is in essence a tax concession designed to reflect the extra cost burden borne by people across all income levels for private health insurance which is not carried by others who rely solely on the public system.The government decided not to means test the rebate for several reasons. Firstly, the universal nature of the rebate reflects the universal nature of Medicare. Every taxpayer pays the Medicare levy whether or not the taxpayer uses it. It is only fair that every taxpayer who chooses to pay extra for private health insurance is entitled to the rebate.Secondly, means testing the rebate would have an adverse impact on increasing private health insurance membership—the government's main objective in offering the rebate. The largest falls in health insurance participation rates have been in the middle to high income bracket and these people are generally lower risk members who are essential to balancing the cost of sicker members and helping control the escalating costs of premiums. The limited success of the current Private Health Insurance Incentives Scheme illustrates the likely effect means testing would have on the success of the 30 per cent rebate.Thirdly, the universality of the rebate recognises that, for some people, private health insurance is the only way they can be assured of a reasonable level of choice. For example, in rural communities, although publicly funded services are available, private health insurance provides a wider range of health care choices, especially if their condition requires transfer to a metropolitan facility. I certainly referred to that when I talked about my own personal health experience this year. I am not trying to transpose myself as someone special. I appreciate that there are many other people in lower income levels than me who would similarly draw on that area.The government supports people's right to choose between Medicare and private health care services. It is essential that people making the choice to choose private health care are treated equally, just as Medicare users are.20:06:001737Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—It is a good opportunity with the parliamentary secretary referring to his own experience earlier this year—and I say thank goodness he is looking so healthy—to ask if he can tell us, in regard to the $30,000 or so expenditure that was required for that heart operation procedure, what the cost would have been in the public health system. If I remember correctly, the parliamentary secretary Senator Tambling said in his case some $21,000 was covered by insurance, $7,000 or so was covered by Medicare and the rest was out of pocket. That gives a very clear measure of the costs of this procedure with private insurance available. I would like to know what would have been the cost had the same procedure been undertaken in the public health arena and whether it would have been as readily and quickly available?20:07:001737Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I can only reflect on my personal experience in this area. As I said, that $21,000 that was contributed by my personal health insurance certainly reflected the extra costs of a number of specialists. It was largely the component of the health provisions at the private hospital of my choice and included all of the special facilities that were made available, such as intensive care and specialist treatment.If I had not elected to have that surgery in Sydney, then I would have had to have been evacuated from the Northern Territory to Adelaide into the system where the cost would then have been borne by taxpayers. I assume it would have been at a similar cost factoring, but it certainly would have cost substantially more because of the extra requirements that would have had to have been imposed on the government for that provision, particularly with regard to the transport costs. Again, I would not have had the choice of specialists—some eight of them—who were required to administer to me. I would have had no choice in that regard. I would have naturally been a public patient in Adelaide.20:08:001738Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—This is a very important point. If I can remove it from the personal arena, I would like to get from the government what the actual costs would have been both for the medical procedures involved—all of them—and separately for the transport because that is another matter. When it comes to people who do not have the income level that we senators have, such things as availability of air transport become much more problematic. Access to the diagnostic services of specialists themselves also becomes much more problematic. There is great concern in the community that, if you join an insurance scheme, the price of the procedure goes up. At all levels there is a premium that is taken by the private system which makes it much less attractive for people to take out insurance. That is one of the major factors why we are seeing the tumbling participation rate in private health insurance. What I would like the government to do—if you cannot do it now, I would like an assurance that the work can be done on this—is to give a cost comparison for a very expensive medical procedure (one that has been very successful, very important and, I daresay, lifesaving) as against what it would have cost in the public health system. It is important that we get a measure on these things so that we see the premium, the mark-up, that occurs once you move across into the private system.If the government has figures to show what the premium is for the delivery of a private health service—we are talking about legislation which is going to put billions of dollars over the years into supporting that health service and therefore that premium—I think the public needs to know the facts of the matter. Here is a very good example that, due to the grace of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, we have before the committee. It will serve the purpose of this exercise—seeing what the difference is between the costs in the public arena and the costs once you take out insurance and move into the private health arena.20:11:001738Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The important issue to be addressed here is the particular matter in the legislation before us, and I would draw all senators' attention back to that. I would merely make the point with regard to the personal example that the fact that I chose private health insurance means that there were no costs on the public sector—costs which would have been borne if I were in that alternative health care service.20:12:001738Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—That is a very curious claim because the public sector, Medicare, covers the large part of your health costs up to the medical benefits schedule fee. Indeed, I do believe that what was previously 75 per cent cover went to 100 per cent some time ago—maybe I am not right on that. No adviser is nodding; perhaps you can check whether that is right. A very significant part of your health care cost was borne by the public sector. That needs to be clearly put on the table. I rise to ask not about your health but about this matter in general. As a doctor myself, I have long since learnt that you never ask or never talk about other people's health in the public arena. If you wish to talk about your own, that is fine. I do not know what operation you had—and I do not want to know—or what procedures you had. I would like to talk about this in the general.In the course of my second reading contribution, I said that I would like to know what is the state of play of casemix. Is the department still working in the area of casemix? Can the department say what happened to casemix, if you are not continuing with it? It was understood that an effort was being made to try to put a cost on a surgical procedure or a procedure, and therefore you would be able to say that this cost should be more or less the same in the public or the private sector.It is curious to me that any surgical procedure, any operation—according to much of the evidence of people who have to pay the gap—costs more in the private sector when the private sector does not have anything like the add-on costs that the public sector has. If there were to be a case for a more costly procedure, it ought to be in the public sector where our large public hospitals carry the burden—happily—of educating our doctors, educating our nurses, educating our pathologists and educating all sorts of health professionals. Very often they carry the burden of providing ancillary costs such as pathology in times past and morgues—whatever else was necessary for an adequate and thorough delivery of comprehensive health care.What people were trying to do in casemix, as I understand it, was to factor out those extra costs from the cost of the procedure so that we could have a more accurate understanding of the comparison between procedures in one sector and another. I ask the parliamentary secretary for an answer on what is the state of play of that kind of study. Is it continuing and, if so, can you give us some comparative costs?20:14:001739Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I believe that it would be much more appropriate for Senator Crowley to raise these issues in the next round of Senate estimates. Estimates is much more relevant to the issues that she raises.20:14:001739Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—This is highly relevant. This is what we are actually dealing with. We are dealing with a huge amount of money that you want to throw at the private sector without checks and balances and even the knowledge of what procedures really cost there. We know that the government does not have these figures. That is why they cannot supply them. It just further adds to our argument that we should not be dealing with this partially blindfolded, which is what the government wants.I return to some comments Senator Tambling made about how we have to have this because we have to acknowledge that all Australians, if they are earning, pay taxes and Medicare. I want to pick up on the point that Senator Crowley just made. A lot of the costs were covered by Medicare. A lot of the costs that someone who goes into the private system has are covered by Medicare. People need Medicare to go to their GPs. They tap into the public system when they get a prescription or have radiology or pathology tests. The issue is that you do not get anything back at the moment for the bed. That is the way in which I believe, if we want to support private hospitals—and we certainly should be—we can support them. It would cost a fraction of this measure.If the right checks and balances are put in place, we might tackle some of the other difficulties we have in the private sector. At the moment, there are no cost controls there. This is the battle the Labor Party fought when it brought in the contracting system, which fell into a hole because doctors said, `How dare you interfere with the doctor-patient relationship.' They wanted to charge what they liked. We had no right to know what they were charging.I stress here and acknowledge that we are only talking about a minority of doctors. But the problem for the pensioners is knowing which doctor will come out of the hat and how much they are eventually going to end up with. Certainly speaking for doctors in my home state, I congratulate particularly those working at places such as Ashford in the private system, who seem to be able to manage with the Medicare rebate and the schedule fee. People do not get gap payments with them. However, you only have to go through our mail and the calls we get to know that, unfortunately, there are a lot of different doctors out there. I had better not mention particular specialties here tonight.It is highly relevant to this bill that we have no cost controls on the private system. This money could simply be going to further feed those doctors who want to charge more. They know now that their patients are getting money back for their private health insurance. So I argue that some of the constraints that may have been there may be lifted. Again, it is a minority of doctors, but they give the private system an incredibly bad name. They are ones that the private hospitals do not have any control over. The funds also do not have any control over them.I understand what Senator Harradine is trying to do. However, this is where the second part of his amendments fall down. If we are going tonight to put in restrictions on gaps and make the funds pay them, all the doctors will do for some of them is charge the absolute earth. I imagine that it will drive premiums up—I will ask these questions later—between seven and 10 per cent to be able to guarantee that there are no gaps. Tonight we are giving a 30 per cent rebate. We will see these funds increase their charges by eight or so per cent next year. Add on 10 per cent for the gaps. Where are we then? We are almost back to square one, and we could put $1.5 billion into the public system.20:18:001740Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I thank Senator Lees for her comments, which I think make my case very nicely. Senator Tambling's answer was, `Why don't you ask those questions in estimates.' I will tell him why. If he does not have the answer now, what is he going to do between now and estimates? If we are at least going to get some kind of answer, that is encouraging. But my question is exactly pertinent to the bill before us. Indeed, I signalled during my speech on the second reading debate, which happened to be some days ago, that I would be asking this question. Here now or later—I do not really care—I think it is pertinent for the department to provide to Senator Tambling and for him to provide to the Senate some evidence about the relativities of these costs. Does it cost more to have the same surgical procedure in the private sector? If so, why?20:19:001740Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I will draw the senator's comments to the minister's attention and ensure that she receives the information she seeks.20:19:001740Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I would like to add a couple more questions to the list. I am looking at some of the information that came to us during the committee process. Another concern in the private system—this has some real basis in fact—is that certain procedures are available there far more regularly than they are in the public system. One example is caesarean delivery. Women who go into the public system have a quite small chance of having a caesarean compared with women who end up in a private hospital. Rather than there being any overservicing in the private system, there may be underservicing in the public system. So, whichever is true, we need some answers. I put on notice this question for the minister: what have you done to actually look at the level of servicing in the private system? If we tonight put measures on gaps without some of these checks and balances, all that that small percentage of doctors will do is order more procedures.20:20:001740Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—What we have heard in the last few minutes very well illustrates why what we should have done as a parliament, and what I believe we should still do, is have a full inquiry into health care funding and the whole kit and caboodle of what is going right or wrong. There is a lot of hairy-chested stuff being put by the government; I am not referring to anybody in this chamber. Basically, in the public arena, there is a lot of stuff going on which is based on a lack of proper knowledge. This relates to the lack of a proper inquiry into the issues involved in health funding.We have had inquiries into health insurance but not a proper inquiry into health funding and the issues concerning gaps, for example. How are they created? Will anything we could do tonight within this legislation really and honestly deal with that situation? I do not think it is possible simply by concentrating on health insurance. That is why, from my point of view, as I mentioned in my speech on the second reading debate, I have difficulty passing amendments at this stage which in effect give legitimacy to a policy direction based on private health insurance products. In fact, the overwhelming evidence in the committee was that this was not the way to proceed.20:22:001740Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I have a question to ask—I am sure I know what the answer will be but let me ask it anyhow. Parliamentary secretary, is there a cost differential between a surgical procedure done in a public hospital on a public patient and the same procedure done in a public hospital on a private patient? We are looking at the relativities between a private patient in a private hospital and a public patient in a public hospital. As we know, one of the reasons that there is considerable strain on our public hospital system is that so many private patients are having their procedures done as private patients in a public hospital. Indeed, very often it is as a public patient in a public hospital.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—As is their right.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—Indeed. It is also the right of the private patient. You will be pleased to know that very few public patients have the opportunity to be treated as public patients in private hospitals. That was tried by the previous Labor government and, with rare exceptions, the doctors did not want to operate on public patients in private hospitals because they were unable to charge above the medical benefit schedule. Senator Lees reports well of Ashford Hospital in our state but it was not the case when the doctors in South Australia refused to operate and use the spare beds in the private sector some years ago, when they could have run down the waiting lists in the public hospitals.I congratulate the doctors in the Illawarra region who did contribute, through the private sector, to reducing the pension waiting lists for eye operations. Is the parliamentary secretary going to continue to tell us tonight that he does not have any detail, and come back some other day, when tonight we are supposed to be voting on the expenditure of $1.7 billion of precious taxpayer dollars—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Year after year.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—Exactly. It may not be that figure because, if the government's proposal is that more people take up private insurance, and it is an open-ended cheque for 30 per cent for everybody's private health cover, that figure will be even more. I would like to know what the government puts as a guess on that. Before we get to that question, can the parliamentary secretary give us an answer to the first question: is the cost of an appendix operation or an open heart operation in a public hospital different for patients who are public patients and patients who are private patients.20:24:001741Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I can only vouch for one open heart operation and that was in a private hospital. The issues that have been raised this evening I think are better placed in other committees and other considerations of this parliament. I can assure you that the Minister for Health and Aged Care is actively pursuing all of the areas and all of the issues that have been canvassed. What we are dealing with tonight is legislation that is to provide a private health insurance rebate and the effects of that. Whilst I appreciate that Senator Crowley and Senator Margetts, and to a certain extent Senator Lees, are coming at this matter from a philosophical point of view on which we probably do have major differences of opinion, I draw their attention back to the actual legislation and its effects. That is the purpose of our being here tonight.20:25:001741Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Just briefly, I am basing my opinion on the evidence—not on a philosophical or ideological position but on the basis of the evidence that has been presented to us and to the people who were sitting on that committee on Friday. Nobody could justify the direction that the government is taking. The figures were not there, the models were not there, and even the health department people there had a lot of difficulty explaining the report that supposedly they had written. The reality is that my opinion is not based on a philosophical point of view, it is that there is no evidence to back up your claims—you have presented no evidence to back up your claims. The parliamentary secretary presented his own situation but the questions relating to the comparisons have not been answered. That is because they cannot be answered to support these claims.20:27:001741Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—The response from the parliamentary secretary is not disappointing: it is shameful. I think the points made by my colleagues are absolutely critical. The govern ment is not providing any hard data for us, and that is really a disgrace.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—I ask Senator Crowley to be very careful.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—It was a disgrace, no person was a disgrace. I understand the finer distinctions here. I think it is appalling that we are being asked to vote on the expenditure of this amount of money and the government is unable to provide the critical data for us. The evidence, again and again, is from the people who write to us and say, `I have done the right thing. I have paid for my private health insurance for 10, 30, 40 years. I have finally had to use it and what do I have? No protection against health costs but a huge bill.'I will not labour this any more. It is late and people want to get on. I am glad that the parliamentary secretary can speak of one operation in the private sector, but I would hate that to be taken that there is no good standing for such procedures to be done in the public sector. The majority of open heart operations are done in the public sector. The patients who have had them are walking, talking and recovering beautifully and they are not out of pocket one cent.20:28:001742Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Mr Temporary Chairman, you will be relieved to know that I do not intend discussing Senator Tambling's medical conditions except to say that the only point of interest that came out of Senator Tambling's example of his medical experiences is that from now on, if this bill is passed, the taxpayers of Australia will be helping to fund his private health insurance. They will be subsidising his taxation by about $800 a year because he will be paying less tax because he is in private health insurance. He will be $800 better off and we will be contributing $800 for a rebate for Senator Tambling's health insurance, or something of that order, because we will be paying 30 per cent off his private health insurance. For someone who is on a salary of $80,000 per year, I think that is a national disgrace.I do not think people earning $20,000 or $30,000 a year ought to have to subsidise Senator Tambling's private health insurance. He talks about choice and I agree with him that he has the choice to take it out but we have the choice not to pay for it for him. That is what this debate is about. It is about who pays for Senator Tambling's health insurance and who pays for John Howard's health insurance. I am happy for them to have health insurance but they should pay for it themselves. The taxpayers of Australia should not pay for their health insurance. They have the means and the wherewithal to make that decision and pay for it themselves.The bill tonight says, `All of you out there in Australia who pay taxes, whether you are on $18,000, $25,000, $30,0000 or $40,000 a year, have kids and are struggling, your taxes will go into a pool so $1.5 billion can be paid to prop up the private health insurance of people who choose to take it out.' We are not talking about the money going in to prop up the private health insurance of the battlers; $900 million of this goes to people earning over $70,000 a year. The vast bulk of it goes to the top end of town. It goes to the Senator Tamblings and John Howards of Australia. This is a disgrace. The government will learn to regret this decision because it is inequitable. It is unfair.Every time someone on a waiting list at a public hospital rings you up and says, `I can't get into hospital—why?' tell them it is because the money is paying Senator Tambling's private health insurance instead. That is why. That $1 billion plus that could end waiting lists in this country and that could mean that nobody waits in pain to go into hospital for an operation could be used so they would not have to wait, so they would get their operation in the public hospital and they would not be in pain. It could be used so pensioners who cannot eat because their teeth are broken could get their teeth fixed. But no, what are we saying tonight? We are saying the priority of the parliament of this country in health care is to subsidise Senator Tambling's and Mr Howard's private health insurance so they can pay less for their private health insurance. That is what this is about. It is a priority.Whether we choose to spend $1.5 billion on this or on something else is the conscious choice of this parliament. We decide tonight whether this is a good use of $1.5 billion. I say it is not a good use and, when the 70 per cent of Australians who are not in private health insurance understand what this means—understand what it means for public health, understand what it means for waiting lists, understand what it means for nurses' wages, understand what it means for services in public hospitals—they will turn on this government.Also, the 30 per cent who pay will begin to realise. The government has been very clever at trying to convince the 30 per cent who are in private health insurance that this is all about them, but they have to understand that for the vast majority of them this is a very marginal increase. The current scheme provides them with up to $450. Most of them will get, at best, around $600 to $700 out of this. It is a marginal increase. This money is going to the top end of town. That is what this is about. The government says we have to get the young rich people back into the scheme. That may be right, but do we have to pay to get them back in?On John Howard's salary of $200,000 a year, he gets a tax discount of $2,000 because he does not pay the one per cent surcharge. So he pays $2,000 less tax than he otherwise would and we are also going to throw in $700 to $800 worth of rebate. So we are going to pay $2,800 to $2,900 of public subsidy so John Howard can take out $3,000 worth of health insurance. We are going to pay 95 per cent of John Howard's and Senator Tambling's health insurance. Why? Can't they afford it? I reckon they can afford it. We would be better off spending the money on helping the pensioners waiting to get their hips replaced so they can have an operation in a public hospital. I think that is a much better use of the money.If the government want to defend this move, they have to say to Australians why this is a better use of Australian taxpayers' money than what the opposition is proposing. You cannot argue the case. This is not the best use of the money. This is an election bribe that the government put up at the last election. It sounded like smart politics—I think it will turn out to be sour politics—but it is very bad economics. They did not get one public health economist to come and defend the scheme. They have not found one bit of methodology or calculation to support it. It is an absolute rort. It should not happen. It is a complete waste of taxpayers' money. I am extremely disappointed that we did not knock it off at the second reading stage, but I hope the Senate will reconsider. This is a gross misuse of taxpayers' money and it should not go ahead.20:34:001743Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I do not know whether Senator Evans has any children, but it was his side that, with both hands, grabbed the child-care payments that were made to every millionaire and every other family in Australia. That is what was voted in by the Labor Party, but that is not the issue we are discussing tonight.Similarly, when Senator Evans wants to take a swipe at me because I pay $2,000 a year in health care premiums, he should do some homework about the surcharge issues. He should also look at the costs of people who do take their services in private health insurance. He might like to revisit the comment that I made in the summing up where I made the point that, without private hospitals, the public system would have to treat an extra 1,800,000 patients a year, perform twice as much surgery as now, provide 23,000 more beds and require $3.5 billion extra funding every year. There is a certain degree of hypocrisy in what Senator Evans is getting at.However, I would like to return to the issue that is germane to tonight, that is, we are discussing legislation with regard to the private health insurance rebate. Specifically, we are discussing Senator Lees's amendments. People should not start making second reading speeches because the broadcasting button has been turned on but should deal with the issues before us which are the amendments—and on this occasion they are the amendments moved by Senator Lees.20:36:001744Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Senator Tambling, I do not think this has anything to do with the broadcasting button but a lot to do with this government's inability to argue their case. As for your previous comments, private hospitals are not about to close down. I suggest you go and check the Stock Exchange. You will find that private hospitals are making record profits. If you do consult with those who advise on how to invest money, that is one of the top investments in this country at the moment. Indeed, shares have had a steady increase over about the last five years. Looking at new beds, in my home state in particular a new private hospital attached to Flinders is about to open. Looking at the number of new private hospitals established over the last 18 months, I think we have a surplus of something like 17 new private facilities, both bed day facilities and hospitals. We are far from the end of the private hospital system.Again I would just make the point: this is not the way to support them anyway. If we do want to acknowledge that people pay Medicare and wish to use a private hospital, there is a bed-day subsidy which is putting health money into health; it is not putting health money into an insurance product.Drawing our attention back to the amendment—as you keep wanting of us so that we will not ask too many more embarrassing questions—the amendment actually says that, while we do not want a bar of the measures you are putting before us tonight connected with the rebate, at least we should be quarantining the rebate to those Australians on low and middle incomes so that high income earners do not get something that they do not need.20:38:001744Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I just indicate that the opposition will not be supporting these amendments. As I have tried to put, we think there is a need for greater equity in the scheme. But the problem with the amendments of the Democrats is that they reduce the benefits below those currently provided in the PHIIS—8U4LEESSenator Lees—No, they do not.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—On the basis of the evidence I have seen, Senator Lees, you lower the means test to below the means test levels provided in the current scheme. On our analysis, you will be taking away benefits that people enjoy under the current scheme. Obviously that has caused us a difficulty. On that basis, we will not be supporting the amendments.20:39:001744Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—If I can draw senators' attention to the amendments, you will see that we have left in place—and I think we need to go over to some later amendments—the actual existing scheme for those from the current threshold to the new threshold.Amendments not agreed to.20:39:001744Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I move Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill amendment (3):(3) Page 43 (after line 23), after clause 19-40, insert:19-41 Review of operation of Act (1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be undertaken of: (a) the operation of the private health insurance incentives scheme as provided for by this Act and the Taxation Laws Amendment (Private Health Insurance) Act 1998 ; and (b) the extent to which the scheme has met the following performance objectives: (i) the provision of gap insurance by health insurance funds; (ii) the development of simplified billing arrangements between patients, providers and health insurance funds; (iii) the reduction in health insurance premiums; (iv) the increase in membership of health insurance funds; (v) such other performance objectives as the review considers appropriate; and (c) the impact of the scheme on the public hospital system, as measured by: (i) the impact on public hospital waiting lists; (ii) the impact on public hospital waiting times; (iii) such other measures as the review considers appropriate. (2) A person who undertakes such a review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 2 years after the date of the commencement of this Act. (3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days after receiving the report. (4) In this section: independent review means a review undertaken by persons who: (a) in the Minister's opinion possess appropriate qualifications to undertake the review; and (b) include one or more persons who are not employed by the Department of State administered by the Minister, by the HIC or by a related Commonwealth authority and have not, in the 5 years immediately before the commencement of this Act, provided services to the Department, the HIC or the authority under, or in connection with, a contract.19-42 Cessation of operation of Act This Act, unless sooner repealed, ceases to be in force at the expiration of 3 years after the date of commencement of this Act.I will speak to this amendment very briefly. Hopefully, the government will be interested in at least this one. This amendment puts in place a review. We would envisage a review by independent experts, including consumers as well as health economists, and no doubt the department would be involved. This would be specifically to look at the government's claims that this will reduce pressure on the public system. Also, it would look at the ability of this measure to hold down the costs of private health insurance over the two years and to do something about the number of people in private insurance. In other words, we are looking basically at what the government is claiming will happen. Surely the absolute minimum requirement would be to have a review to see whether or not this is working at all.20:40:001745Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I just ask of Senator Lees: I understood that you were proposing to split this amendment—and correct me if I am wrong—into two sections. I think we had indicated privately that we were happy to support one but not two. This is amendment 3 which deals with the review of the operation of the act and the cessation of the operation of the act; am I correct on that? I understood that you were going to consider moving them separately. Perhaps I could indicate that we were prepared to vote for the first part and not the second part, and that was why we were suggesting that you might move them separately.20:41:001745Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My advice is that the cessation in the act actually relates to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1998 and—the Clerk may wish to help me here—looking through the amendments, that is the only one that actually relates to cessation of the operation of the act.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—There are two parts, as I understand it: review of the operation of the act; and cessation of the operation of the act.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—Yes, I acknowledge that. I will need therefore to simply move the section on page 43 dealing with 19 to 41, the review of the operation.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will put them separately, Senator Lees.20:42:001745Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Just for clarification: could somebody—perhaps Senator Lees—just advise us which of those includes the sunset clause. I think that is what you have been trying to establish. Which of those we are about to vote on does include some element of sunset clause?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We have not come to the sunset clause. It is in this amendment but it is the second part, and we are putting them separately. It is under the heading `Cessation of operation of the act'.20:42:001745Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I indicate again on behalf of the opposition that, as Senator Lees is moving just sections 19 to 41, which deal purely with the review of the operation of the act, we think that is a very sensible measure. While we do not have much confidence about the bill generally or how the numbers are likely to fall tonight, clearly that is a measure worth supporting, and we will be voting for it.20:43:001746Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I think there is a need for a review of the legislation. My personal view is that this could better be undertaken by a Senate committee; it then could be done in a more rigorous fashion than an independent review, run by a reviewer appointed by the minister. Under those circumstances, I would foreshadow that there should be, in the Senate, such a decision about it at this particular stage. Whether tonight or next year when we come back or, indeed, after 30 June, Senator Lees presumably can nominate whom she likes in that respect.But quite seriously, I think it would be better if we did it through our committee system and did a thorough job on it. I would certainly be supporting that in due course. I can understand the point that Senator Lees has put, and I acknowledge what she has said: there does have to be a review. But let us conduct the review and let us deal with it in a thorough manner, as of course our committees do in any event.20:45:001746Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I had envisaged that that was where we would go after 1 July next year. After listening to Senator Margetts's comments earlier—and I believe her amendment should have been supported—I must say that some of these other roads will be pursued later next year, and I put the government on notice there. We saw this as simply the first stage of a longer process that would review how successful this measure had been. I take Senator Harradine's point. As long as we have Senator Harradine interested and he will be with us after July next year, then we can all be involved in the process of fully reviewing exactly what is happening with this legislation.20:45:001746Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—I want to endorse the comments of Senator Harradine. I think the parliamentary committees would be an ideal forum for a full and proper review of this matter. They have undertaken this requirement in parts previously, and a further extension of that would certainly be desirable.20:45:001746Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—It is interesting that Senator Knowles should say that because, when she was on her own trying to defend this situation on Friday, she quite clearly indicated that she did not think an inquiry was necessary.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—That is quite incorrect and I ask you to apologise and withdraw that.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I was at the inquiry on Friday.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—Yes, but you weren't listening. It is quite incorrect and, if you don't apologise and withdraw it, I will speak and put the record straight.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Feel free. If we were going to have a review on health funding, we should have had it before this nonsense tonight of trying to piece together something workable.20:46:001746Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—I need to set the record straight. Senator Margetts has not been involved in the previous inquiries the committee has undertaken and which I have chaired. Also, there was the Productivity Commission inquiry. That is the statement I made at the committee the other day. There was no reference to there being no requirement for further inquiries. Unfortunately, Senator Margetts left the committee meeting early and did not bother to stay until anywhere near the end.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—The question is that the amendment in respect of clause 19-41 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—The question now is that the amendment in respect of clause 19-42 be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.Amendment (by Senator Lees) proposed:(5) Clause 20-5, page 44 (lines 13 and 14), omit ", *ancillary cover or *combined cover". 20:48:001747Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we will be supporting this amendment. The government has not made out a case for subsidising ancillary cover. As we know, 60 per cent of ancillary cover is in dental care. I have made the point in debates previously on this issue that the government's priority in this area is ironic. We are going to fund up to $200 million worth of ancillary care, which largely consists of dental care, for those in society who can afford it, while we as a community cannot afford emergency dental treatment for pensioners and others on low incomes because we have seen fit to abolish the Commonwealth dental scheme and remove the $100 million that was provided for that purpose.So we have a very stark contrast. We can find $200 million to subsidise dental care for people of all income levels with ancillary cover, but we cannot find $100 million to provide emergency dental care for those people who sometimes cannot even eat because their teeth are in such bad condition but they cannot get care. It is an important representation of the government's priorities in this bill. It is an important representation of the choices confronting the Senate. I do not want to labour the point, but I do not think the government has made a case at all for us underwriting the provision of ancillary care.Clearly, the government's major argument in all of this—however unconvincing—is that it will take the pressure off the public hospitals. This would do nothing to take the pressure off the public hospitals. These services are not generally provided in public hospitals. In terms of priorities for the use of money, the opposition cannot see any need to support the government's position. We therefore support the Democrat amendment.20:49:001747Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I would like to make a few comments. The government's argument in committee on this was that ancillary services are very important. We have no problem with that whatsoever; they are very important. They are sometimes a part of a hospital procedure but, as Senator Evans has already said, the majority of them are dental and a lot of them are optical.I have great difficulty with this when there has not been a drop-off in ancillary services. The pattern of private health insurance from 1995 shows that the number of people with hospital insurance dropped from 6.3 million to 5.7 million, but ancillary services remained stable. Roughly six million Australians are covered for those. As Senator Evans has pointed out, I have great difficulty subsidising mostly high income families and individuals, and remember there are already support mechanisms with the old system for those on low to middle incomes.If this bill is passed tonight, what will really happen is this: of the $290 million that will go into subsidising ancillary services, a good $200 million will probably be spent on those on middle to high incomes, when we cannot find the money for dental treatment for those who are on waiting lists. They were once on waiting lists in the Commonwealth public dental scheme, but that has now been handed back to the states. In some states, such as Tasmania, that scheme is almost inoperable; that is true also for many rural areas across the country. In New South Wales, waiting lists for the public dental scheme are around three years and anyone could imagine what it would be like for someone to have to wait three years to have basic fillings attended to. In many instances, it is a case of having to extract their teeth by the time they reach the front of the queue.20:51:001747Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The critics of the rebate are arguing that the rebate should not apply to ancillary cover. To claim that only wealthy people use ancillary services is nonsense. Ancillary products cover such things as dental, optical, physiotherapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, podiatry, emergency ambulance transport, speech therapy, hearing aids and non-PSB pharmaceutical prescriptions. These services are used by all Australians, not just the wealthy. Indeed, 76 per cent of all people with health insurance have both hospital and ancillary cover, which shows that Australians across all income levels value ancillary cover. It is not just the high-flying football players. It covers all people, especially those who are terminally ill with cancer, children with disability illnesses, the aged and the infirm, paraplegics and quadriplegics.The majority of ancillary services are not covered by Medicare. Excluding ancillary services from the rebate would deny many less wealthy Australians access to these essential services. These are the very services that can prevent people from needing to go into hospital for acute care. For example, being able to access podiatry services can prevent a person with diabetes from being admitted to a hospital for a limb amputation. For those reasons we are certainly opposed to this amendment.20:53:001748Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The parliamentary secretary suggested that 76 per cent of those people holding health insurance have some form of ancillary cover. Perhaps he can tell us how that 76 per cent pans out in terms of income levels.20:54:001748Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I do not have that information readily available. I will seek to get it for you.20:54:001748Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—This is another example of where a figure is thrown into the debate and, if there are specific questions on that figure in this debate to the parliamentary secretary representing the minister, then there should be some means of backing up those figures. It might be just a debating point or it might have been something that was planned to put into the debate, but it is obvious that if the parliamentary secretary puts figures into the debate somebody is going to ask him about what makes up those figures.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, against say no. I think the noes have it.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Sorry. I am unaware of how Senators Colston and Harradine are voting on this one. Therefore, I am going to need to put it to a division unless I am able to get some indication of that, because in the chamber I think we are dead even at the moment. No indication? Therefore, I say that the ayes have it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The ayes have it? Division required. Ring the bells. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Lees's ) be agreed to.20:59:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)31Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Cook, P. F. S. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. Lees, M. H.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. 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. Crane, W.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.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.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Eggleston, A.Conroy, S. Payne, M. A.Cooney, B. Hill, R. M.Gibbs, B. Brownhill, D. G. C.Lundy, K. Herron, J.Murphy, S. M. Chapman, H. G. P.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.21:03:001749Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6):(1) Clause 14-15, page 30 (line 5), omit "subsection (2)", substitute "subsections (2) and (3)".(2) Clause 14-15, page 30 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add: (3) The Minister must not approve an application by a *health fund for the financial year beginning on 1 July 2000 or a later financial year unless the health fund provides its members with the choice of one or more of the following types of policies: (a) a *no gap policy; (b) a *known gap policy.(3) Clause 20-5, page 45 (after line 22), after the definition of hospital cover , insert: hospital treatment has the meaning given by section 3 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 .(4) Clause 20-5, page 45 (after line 25), after the definition of incentive payments scheme , insert: known gap policy means a private health insurance policy that covers all but a specified amount or percentage of the full cost of hospital treatment and associated professional attention for the person or persons insured.(5) Clause 20-5, page 45 (after line 28), after the definition of Managing Director , insert: no gap policy means a private health insurance policy that covers the full cost of hospital treatment and associated professional attention for the person or persons insured.(6) Clause 20-5, page 47 (after line 4), after the definition of private health insurance policy , insert: professional attention has the meaning given by section 3 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 .The legislation before the parliament provides for certain access options to the 30 per cent rebate from 1 January 1999. It provides for access reductions of private health insurance premiums—namely, 30 per cent received by either of three areas: a reduction of private health insurance premiums, a tax rebate or a cash rebate from a government office, presumably the Medicare office. That is precisely what it is in the legislation at the moment.The rebate could be used to put pressure on funds in negotiation with the medical profession to offer no gap or known gap policies to health fund members. National Mutual already offers such policies to its members in South Australia and in Victoria, and some 30 to 40 per cent of insured South Australian residents have such policies. Under simplified billing arrangements, there are now over 25 simplified billing agents across the country, and many of these also offer known or no gap arrangements for privately insured patients using both public and private hospitals.These policies require negotiation between funds, hospitals and procedural specialists. Now over 5.7 per cent of all claims are going through simplified billing agencies. National Mutual has processed over 200,000 claims on its own. This amendment attempts to build on this achievement, and that is exactly what this incentive scheme should be doing. I have argued all along that the 30 per cent rebate should deal with the gaps issue. This has been a critical question in my mind in coming to the conclusion that I have come to within the last few hours: that is, to support this measure.There were other factors which influenced my considerations thereon, but the issue of the gap is one which we have to deal with sooner or later, and the sooner the better. What these amendments do is deal with funds that do not offer these options to their members. These funds would no longer be permitted to offer the 30 per cent rebate as a premium reduction. In other words, any fund that does not offer to its members a no gap or known gap policy would not be able to offer the 30 per cent rebate as a premium reduction.Therefore, the members could only access the rebate as a tax or cash rebate. Many who would be aware of this would move to other funds that did meet the target and therefore could offer the 30 per cent premium reduction. The government cannot provide the committee with modelling to see how this would finally pan out, but anybody with any commonsense would realise that, in a competitive field such as private health insurance, the funds that could offer the no gap or known gap policies and therefore the 30 per cent rebate as a premium reduction would be at a considerable advantage in the marketplace as against those funds which would be unable to do that.Those funds which would not offer that sort of policy would not be able to advertise or offer a cheaper premium based on the 30 per cent reduction in premium costs. Of course, the membership would be attracted to those that could. Clearly, it would provide an incentive to insurance companies to enter into agreements with private hospitals and with doctors, particularly specialists, so that they could offer the no gap or known gap policies. This is an advantage which should be considered by the committee as a step in the right direction to try to grapple with this vexed question of the gap.I remind the committee that the thing that concerns members most is the cost of premiums, but this question of the gap is a matter that comes forward time and time again. People are complaining to us as members of parliament about it. You hear around the place in general conversation, `Yes, I had to go to the hospital. I was on top cover and thought I would be covered and now I'm receiving bill after bill after bill,' and those bills represent the amounts which were not picked up by Medicare or the fund and the person has to pay up out of their own pocket.This is an attempt to overcome that situation. I appreciate that the funds would need a little time to ensure that this is worked out and to undertake the necessary negotiations with the private hospitals and with the medical profession. If the medical profession does not accept and cooperate and if they then do not themselves bring down their fees, then they are likely to face a real problem. If they do not do that, the whole private health system will be under so much pressure that it is likely to collapse. I therefore submit these amendments to the committee in the hope that, though they are not the optimum, they are at least achievable with goodwill on all sides.8U4LEESSenator Lees—That's what's needed.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Yes, I agree, Senator Lees. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work you have done in the committee work and other areas. But at least these amendments are trying to address the problem. It might be argued that the doctors will just grasp this and say, `Oh, well, the funds will be responsible to pick up our tab, so we don't mind if we raise the fees. At least we won't have to send the bills to the patients. The health funds will have to pick up the tab.'Those that do that I think would be seen as traitors to the private health system by their colleagues. There will be, I believe, a considerable incentive on the part of funds to ensure that costs are kept down, because if they are not then the members have to pay increased premiums. If the members have to pay increased premiums, that is the primary concern of members. That will lead to the destruction of the private health insurance funds and, ultimately, to the private system itself. Those doctors surely would be regarded as traitors to that particular cause.I submit this as workable and also constitutional. There are other ways to try to pull the doctors, the medical profession, into line. That has been tried in a number of fields. Much of the work therein was useless because it was considered to be unconstitutional. This is not an unconstitutional provision. I urge the Committee to at least accept this as a start.21:16:001750Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Firstly, I say to Senator Harradine that I am pleased to see we have a step in the right direction. Just on that basis we would support it. However, unfortunately I see within this many problems—first of all, the way in which this amendment is worded. It says:. . . unless the health fund provides its members with the choice of one or more of the following types of policies: I think virtually every health insurance company already fulfils this, and I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if that is not indeed true.My preferred option would have been that the 30 per cent rebate could only be available on policies where there was going to be no gap—in other words, if we could really have driven down the cost of those policies that really did offer everything. Looking at my home state, I congratulate the largest fund there. It has managed to do that, and a lot of people are now using that option. But my worry is that, given that in each state, except one state, there is a dominant insurer, the no-gap policy could indeed end up costing $6,000 and the premiums for ordinary existing policies for everyday hospital cover, which the minister has the final say in, would manage to stay down because the gaps will still be there. Those full hospital policies are the ones where you often get surgical and other gaps added on at the end, whereas with some policies there are absolutely no gaps.I ask the parliamentary secretary: is it not the case already that most funds do provide the no-gap policy? In relation to the known gap, I ask the parliamentary secretary a second question: is it not the case already, and it is has been proven at law, that if a person wants to pursue a bill that they had no prior knowledge of they do not have to pay it anyway?21:18:001751Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I would like to respond to the comments of both Senator Harradine and Senator Lees. The government supports Senator Harradine's important amendment, as it goes a long way to supporting initiatives the government is already pursuing to address the issues of the gap. In fact, the Howard government has done more to reduce the incidence of the medical gap fees than the previous government. In the last 18 months we have seen major successes which would have been unimaginable only three years ago. HIC statistics show that an increasing number of in-hospital medical claims are being processed through agreements with health funds and through simpli fied billing agents, many of which have eliminated gaps or shown known out-of-pockets.I draw attention to this whole issue of the success that we have had in Victoria and South Australia with a number of admissions to hospitals with a no-gaps basis rising exponentially. We have a real prospect of making major changes nationally within the next 18 months. Certainly, in the calendar year 1998, we have gone from no no-gaps product existing in the country to no-gaps products being common place in two states and in early stages of start-up in others.I know that Dr Wooldridge has talked at length about how we can hasten this. He, of course, has referred to the areas where we will be providing money for computer software development, which is one of the limiting factors, to changing the reinsurance pool to provide greater incentives for funds to offer no-gap products. Within the last week, Dr Wooldridge has brought Medibank Private to his office and instructed work in this area as a matter of urgency.You will recall that the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 has just passed through the House of Representatives, and it has a number of measures to help costs, such as attempting to create a wholesale market in private health insurance and removing incentives for in-hospital treatment when a procedure could be done in rooms or as day surgery. Certainly much more needs to be done. Senator Harradine's amendment will help immeasurably in this regard, and we acknowledge its important contribution to this part of the legislation.Senator Lees asked about the issue of existing policies. I am informed that current covers are only in the area that relates to hospital costs and cover such issues as accommodation, whereas the extension of what is now envisaged in Senator Harradine's amendment picks up new and innovative products that will be available and will move into the wider areas of medical assessment and medical need. We are certainly pleased to support Senator Harradine's amendment.21:22:001751Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I will start by congratulating Senator Harradine. I thought his second reading contribution was cogent, reasoned and convincing. I am sure anyone listening would have been convinced—if they had not been convinced when they heard the debate earlier—to vote down the bill. Unfortunately, he then reached a different conclusion to the one the whole logic and force of his argument had taken him to. I do not quite understand why, but I accept that he did.What we have here is, it seems, a result of some discussions between the government and Senator Harradine this afternoon. The parliamentary secretary has indicated that the government is responding to what I think he described as `Senator Harradine's initiatives'. I suppose that goes to confirm the letter that I was given recently which purports to be from the Prime Minister to Senator Harradine confirming arrangements that they have reached between them regarding health insurance. I want to ask a couple of questions about those matters shortly.This amendment is a very meagre step in the right direction. And, given all the criticisms that Senator Harradine and others made which highlighted that the bill did not tackle the real issues of private health insurance, this amendment did not tackle the funding of health care in this country. This amendment is a very unsatisfactory sole sign of moving to deal with one of those problems. What we are doing here is providing a $1.7 billion blank cheque and saying, `In addition to that, we might have this small amendment moved, and carried by the government, that would provide some signal that there would be some serious attempt to deal with the problem of the gap.'I agree with Senator Harradine that the gap is one of the major issues. I think all minor party and Labor senators have stressed that this does nothing for that major issue, that we are throwing good money after bad without any of the reciprocal obligation that the government demands of social security recipients or unemployed persons in this country. In return for $300 a week of pension, all sorts of reciprocal and mutual obligations are demanded. But in return for $1.7 billion we demand nothing. We say, `Take the money and we will have a look at some of the other problems down the track.'Quite frankly, if Dr Wooldridge was in business, he would go broke very quickly. You never give them the money before you get the service. You certainly do not give them the money before you get some sort of sign of their commitment to provide some service in return. What we have done is provided an underwriting of 30 per cent of whatever the private health insurance funds choose to charge over the next however many years. They can increase premiums, knowing that we will always pay 30 per cent of the bill. I think that is an outrage in terms of public policy. While this amendment has some worthy objectives, it takes us no real way towards meeting our obligation to deal with the real problems or ensuring that we get a proper response from the health insurance industry.Senator Harradine referred to the problem of modelling and costing that we found with the government's proposals, and I think he indicated that he had similar difficulties in costing this proposal. I think it is important that he or the parliamentary secretary provide some explanation, because the evidence given to the Senate committee of inquiry into this matter indicated that the cost of providing gap insurance would actually increase premiums by some 7½ per cent. I am not sure what the government and Senator Harradine are saying about this measure but, on the evidence of the private hospital industry, gap insurance would increase the total cost of premiums by 7½ per cent. Is that right? Is that the estimate of the cost of this measure—an increase in premiums of 7½ per cent? Is that the government's estimate as well?And, will we be subsidising 30 per cent of that increase in cost? Is there any limit on the charges that can be applied to gap insurance? Surely it is going to be quite an expensive product, by anybody's reckoning. I would be interested to know what sort of restrictions or flexibility apply in that regard. Will any measures be taken to cap the cost of gap fees? I understood that Mr Chalmers of the private industry stated in his evidence at the committee hearing that there are no mechanisms by which gaps can be quantified or capped. It is unclear to me how this measure is to work, how it is to be funded, or what the government estimates the cost of the measure to be. Obviously, some answers to those questions would assist the committee greatly.21:28:001753Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—There are several issues that arise. I am surprised at Senator Evans's cynicism with regard to the bona fides of this particular amendment and the advantages that it certainly will bring. Whilst everyone has acknowledged the role that Senator Harradine has been able to play in brokering this important issue, I am sure there are many other parties whose willingness to reach real solutions should be acknowledged, such as the Australian Private Hospitals Association, the AMA and, in particular, the chairman, Dr Brand—I hope that he will not be undermined by people within his own area that have perhaps a different view to the executive of the AMA; we have certainly been cooperative and willing to pursue this matter very carefully and very properly—and, of course, the Private Health Insurance Association, which naturally has vested interests.I think the leadership and the cooperation of those people need to be particularly commended. I believe that the challenge of this particular amendment will impose disciplines and special requirements on each of those areas. The doctors themselves, we acknowledge, will have an important role to play in the partnership, as will the hospitals and the various insurance companies.Senator Evans asked a question with regard to intended premium rises. I am informed that it has been generally indicated that increases in premiums would certainly be much lower than any figures you have used—the seven per cent or so.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—No, as a result of this measure.6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING—I am sure as a result of this measure that increases would be lower—and also that they would not necessarily be implemented in the normal program of dates, which I think was intended to be about March. It will probably be later. Any deferment in that area will, of course, have advantages as well.21:31:001753Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I want to ask Senator Harradine about the modelling that no doubt understraps these amendments and the health minister's statement that the government's rebate proposal would increase participation in health funds by three per cent and also prevent a projected fall in participation from 30 to 20 per cent over the coming five to 10 years. How will this measure enhance those figures? If it does not, it will be a failed measure. In other words, is it going to increase the participation rate in the health funds by more than three per cent?21:32:001753Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—If I could add to that question, I wonder if Senator Harradine might advise whether he believes a decline in private health insurance is per se a problem or the problem, and whether or not the survival of the private system depends on private health insurance. We have had issues about figures and the inability, as we have all seen, of the government to be able to justify the modelling. We have had dubious claims about the rebate taking pressure off the public health system for all the reasons given to us, including the fact that it is inevitable that money gets taken out of the bottom if there is money going out the top, equity measures, opportunity costs and so on. I wonder if that basic question might be addressed by Senator Harradine: is it his belief that the decline in health insurance is a problem or the problem?21:33:001753Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—If I could respond to the matters that have been raised with me in the order in which they have been raised. Senator Chris Evans indicated that he has a letter to me from the Prime Minister. He has been pretty sharp. I received that letter at 8.10 p.m. on 10 December, which is today. I understand the Prime Minister's office has released that letter, and I gave the okay for that. I think it would be desirable, since the letter is now in the public domain, to have the letter incorporated into Hansard . I seek leave to incorporate it into Hansard .Leave granted.The letter read as follows—Senator Brian HarradineSenator for TasmaniaSuite S1.38Parliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator HarradineI refer to our recent discussions on the Government's private health insurance rebate legislation.I consider that you have raised quite legitimate concerns about the `gaps' paid by people receiving treatment as privately insured patients. The Government believes that the amendment you have circulated would substantially address this problem and, accordingly, will support it. I note that the amendment would have the effect of setting a target of all private health insurance products having no gaps or known gaps by 1 July 2000. Funds that did not meet the target would not be permitted to offer the 30 per cent rebate as a premium reduction after that date. All fund contributors would, of course, retain access to a taxation or direct cash rebate.I can also confirm that the Government will promote the facilitating measures concerning out of pocket costs and medical gaps previously discussed with Dr Wooldridge. These include:. providing money for computer software development which is one of the limiting factors;. changing the reinsurance pool to provide greater incentives for funds to offer no gap products; and. asking Medibank Private to work on this area, as a matter of urgency.We also discussed the provision of measures to alleviate the health problems of the aged and chronically ill. As you know, I made a major commitment at the recent ACOSS Congress to advance substantially the quality of health care delivered to older people, in the context of the International Year of Older Persons. Specifically, we will be:. providing through Medicare for general practitioners to be involved in multi disciplinary care planning in case management for those with chronic and complex needs;. giving incentives at the practice level for Gps to achieve multi disciplinary care plans for those over 65, or with chronic or complex need; and. for those over 75, pay doctors to undertake an annual health assessment to focus on issues of prevention and better management of chronic illness. Further, we talked of the provision of a coordinated care plan for disadvantaged elderly people. This would be a very substantial change in our health care system and the Government is prepared to trial it seriously. It is dependent on being able to cash-out hospital costs for a given group of people or a defined geographic area. The Government would also be willing to cash-out Medicare or pharmaceutical costs. I can confirm that in the next Budget, the Government will provide funds in the order of $25 million to run additional coordinated care trials in capital cities and selected regional centres to address the health care needs of older people who are chronically ill or disadvantaged.The Government would, of course, appreciate your support in securing passage of the legislation in its amended form.Yours sincerelyJohn Howard6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Senator Evans raised questions about possible increases in premiums that the covering of the gap would entail. I suggest to Senator Evans that that has not been the experience of the National Mutual company in South Australia, as I understand the situation. These figures are available. I do not have them with me. As I understand it, you have got National Mutual already offering those policies to its members in South Australia.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Why do we need these amendments then?6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—To encourage that sort of activity elsewhere. Perhaps I can deal with Senator Margetts's question in regard to this matter at the same time. The whole point about it is that the medical profession does acknowledge the fact that, if there is a breakdown in the health insurance system, the public hospital system will also go down the drain. We do have to look at the effects not only on those hospitals and on the membership of the funds—and let us understand that 30 per cent of people are now in funds—but also on the public hospital system itself if the other system breaks down. That is something that has been concerning me for some considerable time.In response to Senator Margetts's question, the decline of the health insurance industry is not per se a problem, if you talk about per se, but the effects of that on both the members of the organisations and the public hospital system would, I believe, be quite disconcerting, if not devastating. Senator Brown, I am not sure I understood your question correctly. Maybe you could clarify it for me.21:37:001755Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The question comes out of the figures that the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, gave to me where he predicted that his measures in this legislation would increase the participation rate in insurance by three per cent. We would go from 30 per cent to 33 per cent. I know you were keen to have modelling on what the legislation was going to do. I wonder whether you have had modelling or whether you have had it from the government as to what improvement in that participation rate above 33 per cent your amendment will mean.21:38:001755Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—No, I have not. Obviously the legislation does not consist of my measures. In fact, Senator Evans was correct when he referred to my speech. I indicate to the chamber that I prepared that speech—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—A couple of days ago.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Well, I have been pretty flat out today. It has been a bit of a problem to change it.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—The last paragraph was different.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Honourable senators might like to have a look in due course at the letter that I have incorporated in Hansard . It might indicate something as well.In answer to Senator Brown, no, I have not. Surely it stands to reason that, if funds can make arrangements with the private hospitals and with the medical specialists, particularly in certain areas, then clearly it is going to mean that the funds will be more and more attractive—those funds that at least have that no gap or known gap policy. They will be more attractive because they will be able to offer the cheaper premium rates—the rates which are discounted by 30 per cent—whereas those that do not have those policies will not be able to offer the rates. You might see some adjustment amongst those particular funds. There would then be even more incentive for them and others to undertake the necessary discussions and negotiations with the medical profession and with the private hospitals. 21:41:001755Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The difficulty with Senator Harradine's response is that it does come down to a supposition that there is going to be improved participation in health insurance because of the amendment he has made. The opposition has already made the point that one outcome is likely to be higher premiums, which has exactly the opposite effect because it would see more people shedding their private insurance. We are in the situation here of not knowing and that means, to some degree, flying by the seat of our pants.It is a very important matter, because the alternative that the opposition and the Greens have been putting quite strongly is that it would be better for the $1.7 billion to be going into the public health system. This would have a very clear impact for the good on the medical health services delivery to the Australian populace as a whole.The problem with Senator Harradine's amendment is that while it appears on the face of it that there may be some beneficial effect in increasing the participation in health insurance, beyond that we have nothing to go by. We are being asked to give up the alternative of a much improved public health system—if the money went in that direction—in the hope that there will be some degree of improvement in participation rates in private health insurance.We have already heard Senator Harradine say that it would be traitorous for doctors to increase fees on the back of this measure. But there is nothing in this amendment or in the legislation to stop that happening. Doctors—and I am one of them—are human beings and past practice has shown that some of them at least will move to take monetary advantage from a system that allows them to do so. The only way we can stop that is by regulating. I would be much happier as a member of the medical profession if that were an outcome that we were entertaining here tonight. But we are not. Therefore, what the argument for this measure comes down to is that it sounds like a good idea.One thing I would like to know, which might help the committee in deciding whether this idea is going to be effectual, is what the participation rate in South Australia has been compared with other states. Has the participation rate in South Australia improved in recent times because of the availability of the no gap or known gap alternatives or hasn't it? If we could have those figures, it would give us some indication—even though it would be broad brush—as to whether in effect offering that policy option generally to the Australian populace is going to make a difference.21:44:001756Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—At the risk of being accused of cynicism, I share Senator Brown's doubts about some of the claims being made for the proposition. Not much can be expected of propositions drawn up in haste without public scrutiny. This suffers from some of those faults. Senator Harradine has already admitted that this can be done and is already occurring, so I am not quite sure what the great impact of this alleged legislative support will be. I will return to it in a minute. There is no implementation for 18 months, so this is not a measure that will have any immediate impact. It suffers from a lack of review and defined objectives. But, as I say, there are some worthy sentiments contained in it.I raised some concerns earlier. I think the parliamentary secretary may have misunderstood. I was not asking him what the costs of the measure are in terms of the package of the government's legislation; I was asking him what the costs will be of the amendment from Senator Harradine that has been agreed to by the government. Senator Lees asked the very question that Senator Harradine seeks to answer by this measure tonight. Mr Chalmers, from the Private Hospitals Association, provided the answer. This is not one of those witnesses who so upset Senator Knowles; this was Mr Chalmers from the Private Hospitals Association. When asked by Senator Lees about gap payments, he said at page 42 of the Hansard:Senator, while my colleague is thinking about that, we have just done some quick `back of the notepad' calculations at the table. To answer the question of what would be the premium effect of covering existing medical gaps, that would require a premium increase in the order of 7.5 per cent. However, that would not necessarily ensure that the gap problem would be eliminated because there is no mechanism by which gaps can be quantified or capped.So Mr Chalmers from the Private Hospitals Association seemed to be indicating that the idea was a nonsense and that it was not feasible.The parliamentary secretary may or may not agree with that. Given that he is voting for the amendment and co-sponsoring it, I assume he does not accept that view. But does he accept, and has the government done the calculations on, the cost to premiums of the gap insurance? Do you agree with the private hospitals' estimate that it will cost a 7.5 per cent increase in premiums? Senator Harradine has now put this letter into the Hansard. I appreciate his doing that. I was not sure how I would come by it. I wanted to be a bit careful. I was not even sure that it was genuine, even though it was handed to me by Senator O'Brien, who is usually a most reliable source. It just got handed to me a few minutes ago. I am glad that Senator Harradine has corrected the public record.In this letter from the Prime Minister to Senator Harradine, the government seems to have agreed to a whole range of measures in addition to the one provided for in the amendment. They go to a number of trials, incentives, a reinsurance pool and computer software development. They include $25 million to run additional coordinated care trials in capital cities and selected regional centres. In addition to the question I asked about the cost of the premium increase, I ask: what is the total cost of the contents of the letter to Senator Harradine? What is the financial impact of these commitments on the Commonwealth government?21:47:001756Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I am pleased to note that Senator Evans once again notes how his introductory comments are often couched with cynicism. However, I do take seriously the questions that he has raised. One of the very important issues that must be addressed when we are dealing with private health insurance is the retention rate within the funds themselves. For many years now, the fall-off in membership has been one of the most serious factors influencing the continuation of premiums and, in fact, rising premiums for members who stay within the funds.Senator Brown referred to the South Australian experience. I know that National Mutual in South Australia has acknowledged that, in the changes to the system this year, the retention of membership has been one of the key goals. It is a very major economic factor in keeping the premiums either stable or as tightly measured as possible.Senator Harradine's amendments now reinforce that opportunity for the funds to have innovative, new and special products that will not only appeal to retaining membership but also, hopefully, to expanding it and encouraging people in different areas. It will certainly be very focused in that area. The costs will have to be measured by the funds. Naturally, there will be normal economic adjustments based on their membership and participation, which are so vitally important. I believe that this amendment will go a long way to stabilising that area.Senator Evans referred to the letter from the Prime Minister to Senator Harradine of today's date which acknowledges and puts on the record a number of the government's very important initiatives, not only those that Dr Wooldridge has been keenly pursuing now for some time in a number of particular areas and which I mentioned earlier in the debate this evening. The fact that Dr Wooldridge has been working for some time now in the area of gaps naturally meant that he, Senator Harradine and the Prime Minister were able to reach some very important agreements on this whole matter of the objectives that have surfaced in Senator Harradine's amendments.Senator Evans refers to the other parts of the letter in which the Prime Minister acknowledges, very properly, to Senator Harradine that there are a number of other ongoing government programs to which he has alluded previously, particularly at the recent ACOSS Congress. Certainly, I am aware of the directives and the determination of both the Prime Minister and Dr Wooldridge in changing the areas of quality health care and how that is to be achieved, particularly measuring outcomes in a number of ways. The Prime Minister has quite rightly set out that there will be initiatives in the context of the International Year of Older Persons and has named a number of specific projects that the government was in the course of developing and has put on the record.With regard to the area that Senator Evans mentioned, the coordinated care trials, I am pleased to note that the Prime Minister has confirmed a particular amount—and it may even be larger when the budget comes around—for these important projects. The coordinated care trials will have tremendous advantage not only for aged and elderly people but also for people in regional centres throughout Australia. I can speak from personal experience, as there are currently two such coordinated care trials operating in the Northern Territory, specifically in Aboriginal communities. They will have a major impact in delivering important health care outcomes.I for one would certainly acknowledge that it is important that coordinated care trials should be expanded and built up to address the area of care for people in regional centres. If they are as successful as those that are operating in the Territory and elsewhere in Australia, I am sure that the advantage to people—particularly older people—who are chronically ill or disadvantaged will have a major impact.I am sure that Senator Harradine welcomed the letter. I would say that most people in the community certainly would have. Many more of the items will be advanced in budget considerations and will certainly appear in full detail in the forward estimates in the budget.21:54:001757Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I will ask the parliamentary secretary two questions but before I do that I will comment on something Senator Harradine said about his concerns at the way the level of private health insurance is dropping. Senator Harradine, even if we went down to only 20 per cent insured, that would cost us only $830 million to $900 million per year and not the $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion in this spending.Parliamentary Secretary, I asked you earlier if it was not the case already that if people wished to pursue unknown gaps—in other words, if they went in for an operation believing they were fully covered but then got a gap payment—they could take that through the process and find out that they did not have to pay. Hasn't that already been tried at law? Secondly, the minister has to approve increases in the cost of premiums set for the funds. Will the minister agree to an increase of what I suspect Mr Chalmers is right in saying is going to be about 7½ per cent on top of the increase that is already in the pipeline for next year—an increase that we understand is somewhere between five per cent and eight per cent?21:55:001758Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Whilst the parliamentary secretary is seeking advice on that matter, perhaps I could add a further question. Part of the premise upon which the amendments are based is, I believe, that there will be a choice and an option, once there are further incentives, for health schemes to offer `no gap' or `no known gap' insurance. It sounds a bit like a product for sticking windows together, doesn't it? Once there is that extra incentive, what does it mean for states if they have very few choices already in health insurance packages or products? Does the parliamentary secretary have any specific figures on the coverage of health insurance and the numbers of health insurance products that are available in each state? I believe that in Western Australia we may have three. If that is not true, perhaps you can clarify that. What would happen? Is the government able to take any action if all three funds get together and decide not to offer this package?21:56:001758Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—First I will address the two issues raised by Senator Lees. Her first question was in regard to unknown gaps. I am advised that that particular area would be treated as for any other debts. The second question posed was whether the government would agree to any increases on top of what may already be contemplated. Again, I am advised that we do not anticipate that any increases would be in the same proportion as those of previous years. In fact, Senator Harradine's amendment opens the area for negotiation to militate against this.Senator Margetts raised the question of how the impact would influence states and the agreements. Certainly, the recently negotiated arrangements with the states have been important. With regard to the public health systems area, I would remind Senator Margetts that the Howard government has provided the biggest ever increase in funding for public health systems: over $7.2 billion, an increase of 19 per cent. In forecasting that into the future, we have to be very mindful of the impact on national budgets. Any improvement in the area of private health insurance will militate against those future imposts on states.21:58:001758Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I thank the parliamentary secretary for his answer, but that was not actually the question I asked. I may have said `packages' when I meant `funds'. Does the parliamentary secretary have some information he can provide to us about the number of funds that exist in states or territories? What would happen if, in a state or territory which had only a few funds, none of those funds offered a package for no gaps?21:59:001758Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—We will certainly make that information available to Senator Margetts. With regard to the arrangements in states, I am firmly of the view that the innovation proposed in these amendments is going to create a special market pressure on funds, no matter where they are located—in any state or territory—and I am sure that it will be a very competitive market.21:59:001758Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I will just follow that up because Senator Margetts raised one of the scenarios. I want to take us back to one of the clauses in the amendments that Senator Harradine has moved. The proposed clause states:The Minister must not approve an application by a *health fund for the financial year beginning on 1 July 2000 or a later financial year unless the health fund provides its members with the choice of one or more of the following types of policies:(a) a *no gap policy;(b) a *known gap policy.In effect, that looks like a sanction that is to be applied against the health funds—that is, unless they provided this choice, there would be some sanction. The letter that Senator Harradine received today from the Prime Minister, which has been incorporated, states:I note that the amendment would have the effect of setting a target of all private health insurance products having no gaps or known gaps by 1 July 2000. Funds that did not meet the target would not be permitted to offer the 30 per cent rebate as a premium reduction after that date. All fund contributors would, of course, retain access to a taxation or direct cash rebate.It seems to be a slightly different understanding of the sanction. So I would like some clarification as to whether the sanction is to be applied against the health funds if they do not provide this choice or, as it appears in the Prime Minister's letter, whether the only sanction is that they would not be able to offer that particular rebate as a premium reduction, that people would still be able to get the taxation or direct cash rebate.Is the sanction on the fund really only restricting them in terms of one of the three options of paying the rebate to people but not restricting them from continuing not to offer the policies that you are suggesting are vital? I just want to get it clear what Senator Harradine thinks the amendment does.22:01:001759Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—That is precisely what the amendment does. That is a penalty. Is that not a sufficient penalty? You could then have a number of funds offering the no gap or known gap policies having their premiums presented to potential fund members at a particular rate; others would not. Those that did not so offer could not provide on any of their tables a cut rate from their premium.In the marketplace—if you are talking about the marketplace—it is an enormous advantage and an enormous incentive for funds to make sure that they offer this particular product, and it is what I propose in this amendment. To do otherwise would be to penalise the fund members for the failure of the fund to do what it ought to be doing. It would be unfair to penalise the fund members by taking away their 30 per cent reduction provided either by cash or through the taxation system. When advertising, the funds that were not participating and were not offering these particular policies would be at a great disadvantage because, in particular tables by comparison with the other funds, their premiums would have to be advertised 30 per cent above the others.I come back to a point that you made. You are concerned about the failure of this to cap the fees that are charged by specialists. I think it will have the effect of capping them because there will be a lot of pressure on the funds to come to arrangements with public hospitals, particularly with medical specialists. But, let me make it clear to the committee, as most members of the committee must know, that it is, unfortunately, unconstitutional for the parliament to cap the fees of medical specialists. Senator Brown said we ought to be regulating them. Quite frankly, I tell you right here and now that I would be the first one doing that. But we cannot. I have been through it the last few weeks and you cannot do it. The states do have the powers to fix fees, but we do not. I know it is not perfect, but at least it is an advance. I am putting it to the committee and am hoping that it will be carried.22:05:001759Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—We ought to have the states come together with the Commonwealth for that purpose. We do it on so many other things, so I cannot see why we cannot do it when coming to an arrangement on capping medical fees. That seems to me to be an extremely good goal.I want to raise two things. What improvement has there been in the participation rate in South Australia, which has this system that is being advocated or promoted in this amendment, vis-a-vis the other states? Margaret in my office tells me that, in 1997, hospital cover in South Australia—this is an average sort of scheme—had gone to 267 per cent of 1989 levels compared with 220 per cent for the country as a whole. In other words, premiums have gone up faster in South Australia than they have in the rest of the country. Is this related to the fact that South Australia had this rapid change across to a known gap option? I do not know, but that is the sort of thing this committee should know.It is a pity that we do not have time here to look at the ramifications of this amendment. I suggest, Senator Harradine, that it would have been a more assured outcome for you had the analysis and scrutiny that should have taken place on this amendment been made before we had the vote on it. As it is, nothing is going to change.The other point evident here is: sure, as Senator Harradine says, some funds will be able to say, `Look, our premiums are 30 per cent lower.' But what is to stop the other funds from saying, `Look, our premiums are higher, but you're going to get a cheque in the mail or a tax deduction as a result of this new scheme coming in, and overall our premiums will be lower.' If the only thing to come out of this is to be an advertising advantage that will induce people into the funds, all of us in this committee know that a good advertising person will be able to put the argument in the other direction if fund participants themselves are to be able to get the benefit of the rebate—even if the fund cannot give it in reduction of cost of premiums.I think we will not see much good result at all come out of this amendment. But we will see a heck of a lot of money go from the government coffers, into the rebate incentive, into the private system. As a committee, we are left with no figures, no modelling, no argument essentially, other than this being a good advertising way of increasing membership. I just do not think that is good enough, particularly considering the amount of money that is involved.22:09:001760Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I agree with Senator Brown, but his arguments against Senator Harradine's amendment hold true of the whole bill. While I think it is a good argument, as I say, the government has not provided any modelling for any of this, so I do not think it takes us much further. Yes, we have another amendment that is uncosted, unmodelled, with no real idea of impact—but then the whole bill is like that. So I have given up on that argument. That has had no weight and no success in moving the Senate more generally.I do not want to spend too much time on this because, quite frankly, I think it is a very modest minor amendment that does not go to the heart of this bill nor to the heart of the problems of private health insurance. I think the sort of thing that Senator Harradine talked about in terms of sanction is more of a minor inconvenience to the funds. Nevertheless, that is not really essential debate on the bill. I do not think we ought to delay the committee stage too long on that issue. I think there are much bigger issues in terms of the bill.I think it is unfortunate that we have not got any costings out of the parliamentary secretary in relation to this measure, nor in relation to the undertakings given to Senator Harradine. They obviously add to the total cost of this package; they add to the money that the government is throwing at getting this package through the parliament—and I think it is not unreasonable for us to expect to have that properly costed and be put before the parliament. But that is obviously not going to happen.Again, I do not want to labour the point, but it is more money thrown at the problem in order to get the bill passed, because that is the political imperative. There is no health imperative, there is no economic imperative. It is just, `Throw money at the problem, get it fixed, get it passed; if we need to give $25 million for coordinated care, we'll throw that in as well; when you've got $1.5 billion, what's another $25 million? It's all big numbers and it's all got out of control, and there's no basis for any of it, there's no modelling for any of it—so, what the heck, what's a bit more? But the failure of the government to provide any costing on that I think is a sad reflection.I just want to make this clear: the Labor Party is most concerned about gaps. They are a major issue. They need to be treated seriously. They need to be treated more seriously than was possible, it seems, in a couple of hours of discussions this afternoon in order to get a compromise to get the bill passed. What we proposed—and what the Democrats and the Greens proposed—was a proper look at these issues; that we would not pass this bill until we dealt with the gaps issue, until we dealt with the premium rises issue and had a coordinated thorough look at how to get good health policy. What we have instead is a slipshod bill that is throwing money at the problem, throwing money at people who do not need support, and denying that health support to people who do need it.As I say, I do not want to labour this issue any longer. I do not disagree with the objectives; I think they are worthy. It is a major issue that needs to be tackled. I do not think this amendment goes anywhere near far enough in dealing with that. But that is not to say that it is not worth supporting, in the sense that it is at least giving some recognition to the problem and some recognition to the fact that we need to do much more about gaps and premiums. But, as I say, we will not solve those problems tonight because there is no serious attempt to deal with those problems in this bill.22:12:001761Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—Senator Brown raised the issue of the statistics based on South Australia. Obviously he has put them together based on anecdotal comment, whether in his office or elsewhere. But I appreciate his concern. I will seek that information for him. I was under the impression that what he was seeking was rather like comparing apples and pears, particularly with regard to the time scales covered. Looking at the prospective nature of what is intended in this legislation and the advantages of keeping people in a good and proper and balanced system, I thought they would be more the objectives and the purposes that we ought to be focusing on.Both Senator Evans and Senator Brown have raised a number of commercial and economic issues in that area, whether relating to the sanctions or other issues. All I can say is that, from my experience in business, obviously there is a big difference between us: with their appreciation of the factors of commerce and economic priorities and business operations, I would say that they are way off the track.22:13:001761Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Just quickly, I would put one little perspective on this. If the competitive market is used as the model for the way this particular measure will work, you have to keep in mind that a competitive model works on full information. So I guess that people actually would have to go off and find out the information from the various health funds.But also with the ability to quickly transfer, I believe—and, okay, these are my personal feelings—that people generally stick with a fund, unless they make a major decision to change. If I am not mistaken, that usually happens because there are substantial penalties with what you can claim and what you cannot claim. I do not know that you can transfer those over from one fund to another, but for many kinds of health care you have to wait a certain number of years.The private health insurance market operates in such a way that people will not transfer from one fund to the other, like in superannuation, because they are concerned about losing benefits they have to wait several years to obtain. The reality is that this market does not operate in the way a lot of other markets operate—not even in the way superannuation funds operate—and we have to keep those issues in mind when we think about incentives we are offering to create a market situation or to keep people in a market. It might have an impact on attracting new people to the market, but this has been unproven in all the statistics we have been asked to believe. In reality, it will not necessarily operate as a real market incentive for those existing clients of health insurance, because you are unable to easily move from one fund to the other without losing some of the benefits you have to wait for.22:15:001761West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I am looking at the Prime Minister's letter and the third paragraph states:I can also confirm that the Government will promote the facilitating measures concerning out of pocket costs and medical gaps previously discussed with Dr Wooldridge. These include:. providing money for computer software development which is one of the limiting factors;What precisely is meant by `one of the limiting factors'? I do not understand what is meant by that. What are these limiting factors? Can somebody identify more clearly what is meant by that sentence?22:16:001762Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I am advised that it is electronic transfer of information for billing purposes.22:16:001762West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I will pursue that one at estimates with a great deal of interest to look at the privacy aspects in a few of those. It is the third point that really interests me, which states that the government will be:. . . asking Medibank Private to work on this area, as a matter of urgency.What compensation is going to be put in place for Medibank Private to undertake this work? What are the guidelines and the terms of reference for the work that Medibank Private will undertake?22:17:001762Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—Given that Senator West is quoting from a letter of today's date, I think it is quite appropriate to point out that these are matters that will be developed between the various parties.22:17:001762West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—It is a bit like a pig in a poke. Medibank Private was separated from Medicare some time ago as far as its accommodation was concerned, because there was a need, we were told, for it to be able to compete and it had to be put on a level playing field. I want to ensure that Medibank Private remains on a level playing field. I would have thought this had already been considered and, according to this letter, this is not the first time this discussion has happened. What guarantees can the government give to ensure that Medibank Private remains on a level playing field?22:18:001762Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—This is not a matter that really relates to this particular legislation. Whilst the Prime Minister's letter and my comments earlier this evening referred to the conversations between Dr Wooldridge and Medibank Private, they are matters that will be pursued and Medibank Private will be competing with other funds already offering no gaps. I am sure the matters of detail will be addressed between Dr Wooldridge and Medibank Private.22:19:001762Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I do not understand how the parliamentary secretary can make that point. We have in our possession a letter from the Prime Minister to Senator Harradine, which has kindly been provided, that commences:Dear Senator HarradineI refer to our recent discussions on the Government's private health insurance rebate legislation.And it concludes:The Government would, of course, appreciate your support in securing passage of the legislation in its amended form.The issues of substance that Senator West raised happen to be in the body of the letter. How can the parliamentary secretary seriously say to this committee that this matter is not relevant to the legislation that is being debated by the committee at this time? It is obviously an element of the deal that has been struck between Senator Harradine and the government. That must be obvious to everyone. I am sure even Senator Harradine would accept that is the case. I think it is quite disingenuous for the parliamentary secretary to come into this place and make that point in response to a serious question raised by Senator West.22:20:001762Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—It is a pity Senator Faulkner has not taken the time to read the letter very carefully. In the third paragraph of the letter, the Prime Minister says:I can also confirm that the Government will promote the facilitating measures concerning out of pocket costs and medical gaps previously discussed with Dr Wooldridge. These include:And then three points:. providing money for computer software development which is one of the limiting factors;. changing the reinsurance pool to provide greater incentives for funds to offer no gap products; and. asking Medibank Private to work on this area, as a matter of urgency.I mentioned earlier in the debate this evening that the minister for health is pursuing those matters at length and has been for some time. The Prime Minister's letter confirms to Senator Harradine that those important objectives have a good standing. They are matters of government activity that very rightly were confirmed to Senator Harradine.22:21:001763Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—We know that the negotiations have not just been limited to one discussion between Senator Harradine and the Prime Minister and one letter from the Prime Minister to Senator Harradine. Surely the parliamentary secretary is not going to suggest that is the case. Really and truly, you cannot con all of us all of the time, Senator Tambling. It is quite clear what has occurred here.These things happen in politics. Deals are struck. Arrangements are come to. This is a done deal, Senator Tambling. Don't try to con me that this isn't an element—and it might even be quite an important element—of the deal that has been struck. Don't suggest for one minute, just because there were preliminary discussions and negotiations, that they don't form part of the deal. That is why I happen to believe that Senator West is entitled to a proper response to a serious question in relation to this matter when a letter like this is made public in the fashion it has.We all know why it has been made public. We all know that, in order to get this piece of legislation through this committee, through the Senate, these arrangements have been come to between the government and Senator Harradine. A lot of people would say, `Well, that is the way the place works.' It is not that unusual in politics. It is part of the political process for a deal to be struck. But let's not have sanctimonious hypocrisy from the responsible parliamentary secretary handling the bill for the government suggesting that that is not an integral part of the arrangement that has been come to.22:24:001763Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—It is strange that Senator Faulkner would want to play theatre in an Alice in Wonderland type of environment. Surely he is aware from his experience, both as a minister and in this place, that governments do operate multifaceted and complementary policy initiatives. The Prime Minister's letter merely confirms that there are a number of complementary policy initiatives in this area. It is quite within very good grounds to establish that in any letter to Senator Harradine, as he would with many other constituents on health issues.22:25:001763West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—We know that initially the government was saying that this 30 per cent tax rebate was going to cost $1.4 billion to $1.5 billion. We found out last Friday from the department that there was a mistake; it is now $1.7 billion. But on the Medibank Private work area alone, what is this going to blow the budget out to? Where is this going to take the additional costs out to?22:25:001763Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I think the Labor Party is engaging in catch the trick type questions. This is irrelevant to this legislation. The issues relating to Medibank Private are matters relating to other areas of government policy and will be appropriately funded in those areas of government.22:26:001763West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I say to the parliamentary secretary that this is not irrelevant to this legislation. We are talking about the gap part of the insurance. We are talking about private health insurance rebates. There are costs in this to the government. What we want to know is what are the costs to the government. Is there an estimate, a guesstimate? Or are we just buying, as I said earlier, a pig in a poke—you don't have any idea what it is going to do to the budget? We have the right, as a responsible opposition and as a responsible parliament, to ask what the ramifications are for these changes in terms of cost.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE AND HEALTH INCENTIVES AMENDMENT BILL 1998The bill.22:27:001764Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I had listed some amendments, but as these were contingent on the passage of earlier amendments I now withdraw them.Bill agreed to.TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE) BILL 1998The bill.22:27:001764Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Again, the amendments that I was to move to this bill were contingent on earlier amendments passing. As they didn't pass, I withdraw these amendments.Bill agreed to.Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 reported with amendments; Private Health Insurance Incentives Amendment Bill 1998 reported without amendments; Taxation Laws Amendment (Private Health Insurance) Bill 1998 reported without amendments; report adopted.1764Motion (by Senator Tambling) proposed:That the bills be now read a third time.22:29:001764Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I don't want to delay the Senate long, but I do want to indicate formally on behalf of the opposition that we will be opposing the third reading of these bills. We have consistently opposed this initiative by the government because it does not solve any of the problems of private health insurance. It is a complete waste of public funds.We also put the government on notice that we will be closely monitoring the use of those public funds and drawing to the attention of the Australian public what a gigantic waste of money this proposal is. We will keep the government up to the mark, if this is carried, to ensure that it is widely understood that in order to pursue some political advantage the government has wasted $1.7 billion of public funds. If it does not meet the objectives the government sets for it, the government will have to explain why such money has been wasted in the pursuit of an objective they cannot define against performance criteria they cannot produce.So we retain our opposition to this legislation. We will be voting against it on the third reading. I do not wish to re-cover all the ground as to why the opposition maintains its opposition to the bills. That has been covered adequately during the debate. We oppose the third reading of these bills. Question put: That these bills be now read a third time.22:35:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. *Crane, W.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.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.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.31Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.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.Brownhill, D. G. C. Mackay, S.Chapman, H. G. P. Hogg, J.Eggleston, A. Murphy, S. M.Herron, J. Crossin, P. M.Hill, R. M. Hutchins, S.Payne, M. A.Ray, R. F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a third time.Committees1765176510000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have received letters from party leaders nominating senators to be members of committees.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Community Affairs References CommitteeSubstitute member: Senator Crane to replace Senator Eggleston for the committee's inquiry into the impacts of the Government's taxation legislation proposals on the living standards of Australian households and on the provisions of the bills implementing the proposed new tax system, from 11 December 1998 till 15 February 1999.Joint Select Committee on the Retailing SectorAppointed: Senator Murray.Select Committee on a New Tax SystemSubstitute member: In the event of Senator Murray being unable to attend any committee hearings or meetings, Senator Lees to replace him.1765176522:38:001765Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional References Committee on a matter referred to the committee during the previous parliament. I seek leave to incorporate the report in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—The References Committee met on 10 December 1998 and considered references not disposed of at the end of the 38th Parliament.The Committee resolved to recommend to the Senate that:The following inquiry of the 38th Parliament not be re-adopted:The Rights and Obligations of the Media.The Committee first reported on this matter in 1994, with its report `Off the Record: Shield Laws for Journalists' Confidential Sources'. Although the Committee believes this issue is important, it does not consider it appropriate to continue with a matter that was first referred in May 1993. It would prefer to start with a new reference on the matter and will consider this at a later time.Senator J. McKiernanChair10 December 1998AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—by leave—I move:That the report be adopted.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—I think it is always good that, when a motion is sprung on, we know what we are adopting. A report being noted is one thing. In relation to a report being adopted, it is nice if we know what we are adopting.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is renewal of references from the last parliament.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Senator Margetts, I was handed this particular matter on behalf of Senator McKiernan, who I see is in the chamber. My understanding is that the references committee met on 10 December 1998 and considered references not disposed of at the end of the 38th Parliament. The committee resolved to recommend to the Senate that, firstly, the following inquiry of the 38th Parliament—the rights and obligations of the media—not be re-adopted, the committee's first report on this matter in 1994, and its report of off-the-record shield laws for journalists' confidential sources. Although the committee believes the issue to be important, it does not consider it appropriate to continue with a matter that was first referred to it in May 1993. It would prefer to start with a new reference on the matter and will consider this at a later time.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Thank you for that clarification. You can imagine why I, over the last couple of days, have been a bit careful about what I am adopting and voting on in relation to committee reports.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I understand it was circulated before dinner, but it is better to clarify it. I put the question that the motion be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.Leave of Absence1766Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.Bills1766Messages received from the House of Representatives returning the following bills without amendment: National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill 1998 National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1998 National Transmission Network Sale (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 Messages received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bill: Payment Processing Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 Committees176617661766Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendment made by the Senate to the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector.Bills1766r648Billsr612Messages received from the House of Representatives forwarding the bills for concurrence.Ordered that consideration of the messages be made separate orders of the day for the next day of sitting.Bills1767r703Billsr667Billsr666Billsr702Billsr699Billsr698Billsr697Billsr665Billsr664Billsr660Bills1767r658Billsr657Billsr701Billsr663Billsr659Billsr7001767Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.176722:43:001767Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Brown moving a motion to provide that further consideration of the bills be postponed until the first day of sitting after 1 July 1999.I do this because it is my belief that the Senate has got the process wrong on some of the most important legislation, in the Prime Minister's own words, that there will be in his period of government. This package is going to have enormous ramifications for the people of Australia and their environment. There were two better options than the one of a committee system being set up to provide for a vote in this place before 1 July next year. The best option was that this whole matter should have been investigated before the election, and the results of those investi gations ought to have been before the Australian people when they voted at the election. After all, the Prime Minister did say that he got a mandate from the election. I know there are figures to show that that is wrong.The second best option was for us to ensure that, seeing the vote of the people is so important to the Prime Minister, the Senate which was voted in at the election is in place when this matter is determined. That of course will happen on 1 July next year. That is why it is very important that we follow through the logic of the Prime Minister himself to make sure that the vote in the Senate reflects the vote of the people when they went to the election. That will not be possible until 1 July.I would have thought that the Democrats, who are not here at the moment, would have welcomed this provision because they will clearly have the balance of power. If they wanted to really influence the impact this package will have on the people of Australia—and the Leader of the Democrats has said that she will not accept it if it is not fair—then they could assure that by supporting this motion. They could ensure that by making sure the Senate holds over the vote on this important package until 1 July next year. That is impeccable logic. That is the Prime Minister's own logic being followed through from the House of Representatives to the Senate.I gave notice of this contingent motion to the Senate for consideration before the debate we had in the last few weeks, which came up with the committee system. But I want to finally say that it is my belief that after all the committees have sat, after all those community groups, interests and business houses have brought forward their evidence, it will come down to a numbers result in this place not too different from the one we saw a moment ago. That concerns me greatly. I think we should do better than that.I ask honourable senators to look carefully at this motion and the good sense behind it. I ask honourable senators to consider that it should be supported. I cast my eyes around the Senate to see whether there is anyone who will second the motion so that it can be put to a vote.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—We removed seconding 10 years ago.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, but you miss the point, Senator. I want somebody to say that they will second it, if they will, because I think it is an important motion. However, that said, I also want to take this opportunity to wish everybody a Merry Christmas.22:47:001768Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—It will come as no surprise to honourable senators that the government will oppose the motion to suspend standing orders. The Senate has voted to create one of the most extensive and lengthy inquiries in Senate history. I am informed by the Clerk that it may not be the longest inquiry but certainly, with a number of committees looking into it, it will be an extensive inquiry which will allow virtually any Australian with any interest in the reform of the tax system the opportunity to communicate to their elected representatives on these matters.The final committee will report on about 19 April. To accept the logic of Senator Brown, firstly, that we need to suspend standing orders and, secondly, that we need to suspend the vote on this historic package of bills till 1 July would mean that you really could not seek to put anything through the parliament, except for old legislation, until 1 July after any election, which I think is a ludicrous proposition. If you apply the logic of Senator Brown, you would really have to wait for a further three years until the next set of senators came up for election. The Senate was designed by our founding fathers. They may have made some mistakes, but one of the reasons they designed it was not to reflect the same mandate that was given—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Because every Liberal elected in 1996 opposed the GST.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Senator Ray says that every Liberal who was elected in 1996 said that they would not vote for a GST, just as those senators elected in 1993 on the Labor side stood on a platform that they would vote for a GST in the Senate. We can have this argument all night. The reality is that there is a different mandate in the Senate from that in the House of Representatives. It is quite ludicrous to say that you cannot pass any legislation through the Senate until the new senators come in. We have already shown here today and in this session—and I take this opportunity to thank honourable senators for their hard work during this short session—that a lot of constructive work can be done. A lot of constructive work has been done. The work of the committee system and the Senate as a whole, as we lead up to the debate of this historic package, is vital. I oppose this motion.22:50:001768Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The opposition will not support this motion to suspend standing orders that has been moved by Senator Brown. Let us be frank. As far as we are concerned, we have already agreed to a timetable for a Senate inquiry into the GST and related legislation. That timetable, if I recall correctly, will see the legislation available for debate in the Senate some time after 19 April 1999.The opposition is not about delaying debate on the government's GST proposals; we are and always have been about a very serious level of parliamentary and public scrutiny of these particular proposals. We have also been very serious about providing an appropriate forum to allow the public, particularly those who are going to be affected so adversely by the goods and services tax, to have their say before the committees of this Senate.The other point that needs to be made in relation to the progress of the inquiry is that any Senate inquiry like this, in large measure, depends on some level of willingness on the part of the government to cooperate in providing the committee with adequate information. I think it is very disappointing to have seen this government's rejection of my proposed return to order for the modelling studies and the assumptions and other documentation on which the GST proposals are based. I think that was a very ominous signal to Senator Cook and his colleagues on the select com mittee and those who are serving on the references committees inquiring into these particular proposals.As for the opposition's attitude, we remained, of course, resolutely opposed to a goods and services tax. It is, as we have said consistently, an extraordinarily unfair burden on those Australians who can least afford it. Let me turn to the other element of Senator Brown's motion, which goes to the composition of the Senate after July 1999. It does change. In one sense, it will be a very significant change because no longer will we have the government accepting the vote of Senator Colston, which they have consistently done since the last election.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—A sleazy, corrupt deal!5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Of course it was, Senator Schacht. Mr Howard did not announce his approach in relation to Senator Colston at any stage either during or before the election campaign. No, he just snuck around and did a deal after the election in relation to accepting Senator Colston's vote. That really means that we are going to have six months more of timeserving from Senator Colston—that is what you can expect until July 1999—six months more of the venal bloodsucking approach that Senator Colston has to politics.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, I ask you to withdraw those words.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—If I mentioned an unparliamentary word, I will withdraw it. There will be six months more embarrassment to this parliament and to the Australian Senate and, of course, six months more of ridicule and contempt, which is most deserved in the case of Senator Colston. The government stands condemned for accepting this tainted vote from this tainted individual.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you should not use that expression.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—What expression, Madam President? I will withdraw `tainted' from the front of `individual'. The government, in accepting this tainted vote, misled the Australian public before and during the election campaign and stands condemned for the approach it has taken in relation to this particular matter. So, of course, things will change in the Senate after July 1999, and in relation to Senator Colston they will certainly change for the better.22:55:001769Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Never in the history of the Senate has there been such a thing as a `pure Senate'. What Senator Brown is saying is that he prefers the numbers after July 1999. I do too; nevertheless, historically, this chamber has got on and done its business, because we have six-year terms. That does not recognise the parties and the change of power in this place. That is the way we do business.You cannot actually say that a government cannot try to bring in its program with a certain timing. That is up to the executive. It is one of the privileges of the executive to put matters that it considers important before this chamber. Our responsibility then as an opposition is to give it public scrutiny. The scrutiny process eventually achieved through a whole lot of argy-bargy and caving in by the government was a multifaceted committee system making inquiries and then agreeing to a timetable when this legislation can be put and considered over a reasonable time span—as I understand it, from 19 April—so that there will be a result one way or the other before 1 July.Senator Brown is wrong to say that the Democrats will have the balance of power next year. On some occasions we will have the balance of power. On some occasions he will have the balance of power. On some occasions either Senator Harradine or—depending on other matters—Senator-elect Hill may have the balance of power. It is not just one party that will have the balance of power in this chamber.But one thing this chamber will do is make sure that this legislation is given good and proper scrutiny. Compare that with the farce of the last three days in the House of Representatives; compare that to the guillotining through of 16 complex bills—the centrepiece of the government's strategy, they say, for the next three years—belted through with only the most cursory debate, consideration and scrutiny. I have never been a Senate chauvinist, but I think in any democracy we should have had a slightly longer consideration than that which occurred in that farce over in the House of Representatives.But you will never get a pure Senate in terms of mandate or anything else. In 1993, we had senators elected—one lot supporting the GST, another lot opposing it—who said that they would not block an incoming government. That was the strategy that people went to the election with. In 1996, we had the Labor Party saying they would not introduce a GST; we had a Liberal Party saying they would not support a GST. Several people sitting opposite went out and campaigned on the `never, ever' pledge of their leader, Mr John Howard, saying they would never have a GST.So there is no such thing as a pure Senate. You only have a mandate in this place if you have 39 votes. That is the only definition that you can have in the end. I do not think Senator Brown's motion would ever be acceptable to me, simply because of the history of this place. You deal with the numbers in existence.Those opposite did not particularly like Senator Faulkner's comments, but the fact is that since August 1996, and especially in the last four weeks, this Senate voting process has been totally perverted, because one person elected as a Labor senator six years ago on the full resources, the platform and the pledge of loyalty to the Labor Party has left. Those on the other side say, `Do not criticise him. You are being a bit harsh before Christmas. You are just poor losers. You should just roll over and forget it.' But when the boot goes on other foot and someone from the Liberal Party deserts, see if they take that same avuncular attitude. See if they say, `That is all right. Senator Heffernan has decided to leave the Liberal Party. Good old Bill. See you later, Bill. We don't mind. You are still going to be invited to the Christmas party, even though you are a traitor. Don't worry about it.' That is the Liberal attitude.The Liberal Party has always treated deserters kindly. Look at Francis and Jennings in Victoria who got expelled. Have a look at the current South Australian Liberal Party. Have a look at anyone who has deserted the conser vative cause. They get the same degree of contempt that we would offer to anyone who leaves the Labor Party.Senator Ferris interjecting—UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Senator Ferris interjects, given the mess that she has got the South Australian branch of the Liberal Party in. You will never get a purist Senate. We deal with what we have got. Senator Brown, an executive has the right to put its program and it has the right to expect it to be considered in a reasonable time span. Our duty—your duty, my duty and everyone else's duty—is to make sure it is scrutinised to the maximum. Then we have to put it with whatever the numbers are. (Time expired)23:00:001770Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The only reason I rise is that it strikes me as extraordinary hypocrisy that we should be subjected to this sort of behaviour. I can well understand those who regret the fact that there have been defections from the ranks and I can well understand that you might complain about it from time to time. But that in no shape or form ought to excuse the vitriol and the constant vituperation that comes from Senator Faulkner in particular.Senator Faulkner, you may not like Senator Colston. In fact, you probably do not like half your colleagues. You only have to talk to them when you meet in the caucus room. But at least you manage to control yourself. It seems to me extraordinary that you have to continue to berate Senator Colston in the way that you do for no good purpose.Senator Newman interjecting—LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Not only is it gratuitous but it is the ultimate in mean-spiritedness. You have no concept of the milk of human kindness.Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Just ignore the fact of his health. By all means have your views. You have made it abundantly clear that you did not like someone leaving the Labor Party. That is fine, but why continue? It is symptomatic of the problem you have. You cannot come to terms with opposition. You cannot do the very thing that will get you back into government—that is, do the hard yards and address policy. You simply cannot hack it.So you trawl in the gutter, ask all these questions about travel allowances and get into Senator Colston. You have to get it off somehow. You have to be out there pouring it out. You cannot be belting your own colleagues in factional punch-ups or rorting branches. You have to be really sinking the slipper into people. It does absolutely no good. It does not change anyone's attitude. All it is designed to do is humiliate one particular individual. I think Senator Colston is big enough to cope with that. I just wish you would get back to the main game.Question resolved in the negative.177123:04:001771Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I move:That the 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—A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) BILL 1998The bills I introduce today establish A New Tax System for Australia. This is the most comprehensive reform of taxation in the history of the Federation.This is A New Tax System for a new century. Today's legislation sweeps away an outdated, inefficient, tax system that does not serve the needs of the modern nation. The New Tax System re-writes Commonwealth-State financial relations. The New Tax System will lighten the burden of income tax for families and average wage earners.At the last election the Government put this plan to the people. And the people of Australia endorsed it.The Government asked for a mandate. And the people of Australia gave it.This is a plan not for a new tax, but for a new tax system. It encapsulates those changes necessary to make our great country more productive and more competitive. It will help our exporters, deliver more jobs and increase standards of living.The bills being introduced today are the first part of a package. The Government proposes to enact the whole package by the end of this financial year to meet the timetable outlined to the Australian people at the last election. When the package is enacted, Australia will have a new tax system from 1 July 2000.A Modern, Broad Based, Low Rate, Goods and Services TaxThe bills before the House will enact a broad based goods and services tax that will be levied at 10 per cent and will start in July 2000.The GST will apply to most goods and services consumed in Australia.When a business purchases goods and services it will be entitled to full input tax credits. This means that the tax burden on business inputs will be significantly reduced.With the introduction of the GST, the wholesale sales tax is to be abolished.In consultation with the States, the following nine types of taxes are also to be progressively abolished:. financial institutions duty;. debits tax;. stamp duty on marketable securities;. conveyancing duties on business property;. stamp duties on credit arrangements, instalment purchase arrangements and rental hiring agreements;. stamp duties on leases;. stamp duties on mortgages, bonds, debentures and other loan securities;. stamp duties on cheques, bills of exchange and promissory notes; and. `bed taxes'.The abolition of the wholesale sales tax and other taxes is vital to reduce the cost of doing business. At the moment over half the money raised from the WST comes from taxing goods purchased by business. It imposes a hidden tax on exports and import competing industries.The introduction of the GST will change this. As businesses are entitled to full input tax credits the hidden burden will be removed. In fact business costs will fall by more than $10 billion as a result of the GST and abolition of current inefficient and unfair taxes.The GST will also lead to a $4.5 billion fall in the cost of exporting. Lifting this burden will increase the competitiveness of Australia's export industries.The bill provides for some activities to be GST-free which include:. exports of goods and services;. international air and sea travel, and domestic air travel, purchased overseas by non residents; . taxes and charges at all levels of government (including local government rates and water and sewerage rates and charges).The price of GST-free services will fall because tax will be removed from the purchases of those supplying them.The GST will be broadly based, providing simplicity for business and consumers.Madam President, the Government has not neglected important community services.In its tax plan, the Government proposed that virtually all health, education and childcare services; charitable activities and religious services would be GST-free.On 27 October a Tax Consultative Committee was established and charged with the task of making recommendations on the appropriate scope of four key GST-free areas—health, education, religious services and the non-commercial activities of charities—and, transitional arrangements for motor vehicles.The Committee received over 300 submissions from interested parties and made recommendations to the Government based on these submissions and its own expertise.We consider the recommendations provide sensible boundary lines which are clear and based on sound policy principles.The recommendations extend the GST free areas further than those proposed in the Government's tax policy.They recommend GST-free treatment for a wide range of medical and allied health services.They provide for comprehensive GST-free treatment for residential and community care for the aged and the disabled, provided the care is at a sufficiently high standard.They provide for GST-free treatment for a wide range of aids and appliances specifically designed for people with illness or disabilities.They provide for GST-free treatment for all secondary and tertiary courses, including vocational courses, provided students are eligible for income support.And they provide for generous rules for charities.Accordingly, the Government has no difficulty in accepting the vast majority of the recommendations. In some areas the Government has gone further, with more generous treatment of religious services and professional education.The bottom line is that the Committee tried to promote clarity and simplicity and in doing this has recommended good policy which we will adopt.We will apply international best practice to the treatment of financial services, which means that banks pay tax on their purchases, but home mortgage payments and the supply of most financial services is not taxed.No GST will be charged on residential rent and rents will be input taxed only. Houses will only be taxed when first built and sold.A First Home Owners' Scheme will be introduced to offset the net impact of the GST on the price of new homes and entitling those eligible to a lump sum payment of $7,000 from 1 July 2000.The Government has at every turn considered the impact on business.Very small businesses with a turnover less than $50,000 per year and non-profit organisations with a turnover of less than $100,000 a year will not have to register (but may choose to do so).A special Small Business Consultative Committee will be involved in consultations to ensure that financial incentives, worth up to $500 million, for small and medium businesses and other bodies registered for GST will be delivered in the most effective way.Gains for rural and regional AustraliaThe reform package also acknowledges the high cost of transport particularly for rural and regional Australia. A new diesel fuel credit scheme will effectively reduce diesel excise for all off-road (including marine) users from around 37 cents per litre to zero, and for larger transport users (including rail) from around 37 cents per litre to 18 cents per litre.This is on top of savings of 7 cents per litre for business users of petrol and diesel through their access to a refund of the GST paid on fuel.Alternative fuels will remain excise free on the introduction of the GST.Transformation of Commonwealth-State financial relationsFrom 1 July 2000, the Commonwealth will provide States with a secure and growing source of revenue by giving them the revenue from the GST, conditional on the States abolishing inefficient taxes (such as the Financial Institutions Duty, the debits tax and various stamp and conveyancing duties), and not re-introducing them. Financial Assistance Grants will be abolished.The States will be required to take responsibility for the payments of general purpose assistance to local government currently made by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will make the payment of GST revenue conditional on the States making these payments in accordance with existing conditions. This will ensure that local government is not worse off in that respect.In fact, overall, local government will gain from the removal and reduction of Commonwealth and State taxes that currently increase their running costs. Local governments will also benefit from rates and water and sewerage charges being GST-free.The Special Premiers' Conference on 13 November this year reached an historic agreement on the principles that will transform Commonwealth-State financial relations as promised in the Government's tax plan. The Commonwealth, and all State and Territory governments, agree that the current financial relationship between levels of government must be reformed to facilitate a stronger and more productive federal system for the new century.Locking in the GST ratePart of the Commonwealth-State agreement is a process to lock in the rate of the GST. Any request for a change to the GST rate would need to be made to the Commonwealth unanimously by all State Governments: it would need to be endorsed by the Commonwealth Government of the day; and relevant legislation would need to be passed by both Houses of Federal Parliament.Price oversightThe community has a right to expect that reduced business costs are passed on to consumers in the transition to the new tax system.We will amend the Trade Practices Act, to give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission special transitional powers to monitor prices for 12 months before GST starts, and 2 years thereafter. There will be penalties of up to $10 million per offence.The Commonwealth will consult with the States and Territories, to ensure these measures apply across the economy. The amending legislation for this measure is expected to be introduced next week.Transitional ArrangementsMadam President, the abolition of Wholesale Sales Tax, and the introduction of GST, could result in difficulties for business if appropriate transitional rules are not put in place.Without such rules, there might be double taxation, or large falls in the value of stock held for resale. Consumers and businesses may delay purchases to take advantage of price falls when the higher Wholesale Sales Tax rates cease to apply. Business may delay high value purchases, to obtain input tax credits.Without special measures the benefits of tax reform would be delayed. The Government has designed transitional arrangements to ensure that this kind of disruption does not occur so that the benefits of tax reform can flow immediately to businesses and the wider community.When the GST commences, businesses holding stock for sale on which sales tax has been paid will be able to claim the sales tax against their GST. This will ensure that GST does not apply to stock that has already paid WST.The Government recognises that large price changes can disrupt markets. Accordingly the 32 per cent luxury WST rate will be phased down to reduce market disruption. Except for furs and jewellery, goods currently taxed at 32 per cent will be subject to the standard 22 per cent rate from the date the GST is passed by the Parliament. That is, goods such as cameras, televisions, video recorders and watches would all become cheaper, prior to the introduction of the GST.Madam President, the introduction of the GST could result in major disruption to the motor vehicle market if businesses were able to claim input tax credits straight away. The Government will reduce the incentive to delay vehicle purchases until after GST starts by denying input tax credits for purchases made in the first year of GST, and by reducing the input tax credit by 50 per cent in the second year.Importantly, this measure does not apply to organisations, such as schools and farmers, that can buy cars and 4WDs WST free. They will get a full input tax credit for motor vehicle purchases from day one of the GST.Of course, consumers will get the benefit of substantially lower car prices as soon as the GST comes into effect.Goods and services sold or performed after 1 July 2000 will be subject to GST.Where a contract has been entered into before today goods and services sold or performed pursuant to it will not be subject to GST even if sale or performance is to be on or after 1 July 2000.However, if such a contract has provision for a review then GST applies after the first opportunity for review arises. Otherwise GST will apply to the sale or performance under the pre-existing contract only on or after 1 July 2005.GST will apply to goods and services supplied to consumers after 1 July 2000 under any contract entered into from today.If a construction contract spans the start date of 1 July 2000, the part completed before that date, will not have GST applied to it.Many businesses will need to consider the GST-implications of contracts that they enter into after today. The Government recognises legitimate concerns that businesses will need some time to consider the precise impact on their operations. Businesses that enter into contracts with other businesses (which will be entitled to input tax credits) for the supply of goods and services, will provide those goods and services GST-free until the first opportunity for review, provided the contract is made before the date the GST legislation gets the Royal Assent.Personal tax cuts and increased family assistanceFrom the outset, one of the Government's guiding principles for tax reform was that there must be no increase in the overall tax burden. We will do better than that. The tax reforms will actually reduce the overall tax burden on Australians by $4 billion.The tax cuts will more than compensate taxpayers for the introduction of the GST, and will also make it possible for ordinary Australians to save and invest.The Personal Income Tax Bill gives effect to the cuts in rates of income tax and provides extra assistance to families by increasing the Family Tax Assistance tax-free thresholds.The tax-free threshold increases to $6,000 and the lowest tax rate decreases from 20 per cent to 17 per cent. This helps all taxpayers but is of relatively greater benefit to low income earners.Under the old system, incomes between $20,700 and $50,000 are subject to rates of 34 per cent and 43 per cent. The new system applies one lower rate of 30 per cent on all income between $20,000 and $50,000. This will mean that around 81 per cent of taxpayers will have a top tax rate of 30 per cent or less compared to 30 per cent of taxpayers at the moment.Low and middle income taxpayers, in particular, will keep more of their wages. This incentive encourages Australians to seek promotion, extra training, and overtime. More effort will now mean more reward for individuals as well as a more productive Australian economy.The top rate remains unchanged at 47 per cent for those with annual incomes of more than $75,000.The $75,000 threshold will be equal to around 1.7 times average earnings. This will ensure that average earners do not drift into paying the top marginal tax rate, which would otherwise have occurred early in the next century.Increased fairnessMadam President, some high earners are avoiding obligations and taking advantage of Government assistance given to low income earners, by converting income into fringe benefits. This way they get their monetary income down to qualify for income support even though their actual remuneration (including benefits) is much higher.From the 1999-2000 income year, group certificates will show the full value of fringe benefits received, when the taxable value exceeds $1,000. These benefits will be taken into account when liability for surcharges and eligibility for assistance is being determined. ConclusionMadam President, the Government has received strong endorsement for its management of the Australian economy. We are committed to pushing ahead with economic reforms to build on our achievements and to continue to strengthen the economy so that we can continue to withstand external crises like those affecting our region and other areas of the globe at present.Madam President, this package of legislation represents a fundamental economic reform. The need for tax reform has been recognised by governments of both persuasions over the last 30 years. But this is the Government that has acted on it. This is the Government that intends to fix the problem and reform the system notwithstanding opportunistic opposition contrary to the best interests of the nation. These reforms relieve the tax burden for business and exporters, allow scope for substantial personal income tax cuts, and will contribute to a more stable and prosperous Australian economy.These are the reforms which will strengthen our economy, our prospects, our living standards, our financial arrangements and secure better opportunities for the future through A New Tax System .Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX IMPOSITION—EXCISE) BILL 1998This bill is part of the package of 7 bills that ends the wholesale sales tax and introduces the Goods and Services Tax.The A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill is one of the 3 Imposition bills in the package which will have the effect of imposing GST on importations and supplies that are liable to GST. Separate Imposition bills are necessary because of the requirement of the Constitution that a law imposing taxation shall deal only with one subject of taxation and that laws imposing customs duty and laws imposing excise duties deal only with those duties.The Imposition bill dealing with excise will impose GST on supplies to the extent that it is a duty of excise.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX IMPOSITION—CUSTOMS) BILL 1998This bill is part of the package of 7 bills that ends the wholesale sales tax and introduces the Goods and Services Tax.The A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1998 is one of 3 Imposition bills in the package which will have the effect of imposing GST on the importations and supplies that are liable to GST. Three Imposition bills are necessary because of the requirement of the Constitution that a law imposing taxation shall deal only with one subject of taxation and that laws imposing customs duty and laws imposing excise duties deal only with those duties.The Imposition bill dealing with customs will impose GST on importations to the extent that it is a duty of customs.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX IMPOSITION—GENERAL) BILL 1998This bill is part of the package of 7 bills that ends the wholesale sales tax and introduces the Goods and Services Tax.The A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1998 is one of the 3 Imposition bills which will have the effect of imposing GST on the importations and supplies that are liable to GST. Three Imposition bills are necessary because of the requirement of the Constitution that a law imposing taxation shall deal only with one subject of taxation and that laws imposing customs duty and laws imposing excise duties deal only with those duties.The Imposition bill dealing with GST which is neither a duty of customs nor a duty of excise will impose GST to the extent that it is neither a duty of customs nor a duty of excise.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1998This bill is part of the package of bills that will give effect to the Goods and Services Tax compo nent of the New Tax System proposed by the Government. It will need to be read together with the other bills in this package and with the act it amends, the Taxation Administration Act 1953.The purpose of this bill is to provide for the administration of the Goods and Services Tax.The Commissioner of Taxation will have the general administration of the GST law and GST-specific machinery provisions will be contained in a new Part to the Taxation Administration Act.The bill will provide for the usual collection and recovery procedures that the Commissioner employs. The Commissioner will have the same powers as under other taxation laws to gather information necessary to ensure compliance with the GST laws. Moreover, the Commissioner and taxation officers will, as they are under other taxation laws, be bound to keep GST information confidential and to disclose it only for the purpose of carrying out taxation functions or for other purposes expressly provided for in the law.The bill will also provide a mechanism for self-assessing GST payers to correct errors in their GST returns or to avail themselves of objection and review rights if they disagree with the Commissioner's interpretation of the GST law. Assessments of GST will be made by the Commissioner if there is reason to believe that a liability to GST has not been correctly returned.As part of the framework of measures to encourage voluntary compliance with the GST law a combination of new and existing penalties will apply to breaches of the various obligations the law will place on participants in the GST system.GST payers will be able to rely on written advice and rulings given by the Commissioner. Underpayments of GST and associated penalties will not be payable if the Commissioner's interpretation of the law as expressed in public rulings or private rulings or advice is relied on. This will promote certainty in the GST system.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX TRANSITION) BILL 1998Madam President, the abolition of Wholesale Sales Tax (WST) and the introduction of GST could result in difficulties for business if appropriate transitional rules are not put in place.Without such rules, there might be double taxation, or large falls in the value of stock held for resale. Consumers and businesses may delay purchases to take advantage of price falls when the higher WST rates cease to apply. Businesses may delay high value purchases to obtain input tax credits.As outlined in my earlier speech, the Government has designed transitional arrangements to ensure that the benefits of tax reform can flow immediately to businesses and the wider community.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (FRINGE BENEFITS REPORTING) BILL 1998Madam President, some high earners, are avoiding obligations and taking advantage of Government assistance given to low income earners, by converting income into fringe benefits. This way they can be assessed on nominal income to qualify for income support that they do not need, and which was not intended for them.From the 1999-2000 income year, group certificates will show the full value of fringe benefits received, when the taxable value exceeds $1,000. These benefits will be taken into account when liability for surcharges and eligibility for assistance is being determined.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (MEDICARE SURCHARGE—FRINGE BENEFITS) BILL 1998This bill is the second of two bills which implement the fringe benefits reporting measure.The bill will ensure that the Medicare levy surcharge applies to high earners who do not have private health insurance and receive substantial fringe benefits.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS NUMBER) BILL 1998This bill introduces the Australian Business Number. All businesses will be able to deal with Government using one identifier. This will reduce compliance costs for business. It will make it possible for business to provide information only once, to one agency, and to get help from different parts of Government, in one place.This measure was first recommended by the Bell Committee, which was asked by the Government to find ways of reducing red tape for small business.In addition, the combined affect of the business number, the GST, and the pay-as-you-go reforms, that will be introduced next year, will make it harder for unscrupulous businesses to get out of paying their fair share of tax.The ABN will be available to all businesses. An ABN will also be available to other entities that need to deal with government, such as charities and religious organisations.Businesses, particularly small businesses, currently have to deal with numerous regulatory bodies across all of government. By introducing the ABN, and making it available to the States, Territories, the Government will make it possible to significantly reduce the burdensome number of registrations and reporting requirements.The ABN will make it possible for business to get information, help and assistance from one place removing the time consuming and frustrating task of locating and contacting different agencies. If circumstances change for a business, for example a change of address, the business will only need to notify one authority and the new details will be automatically recorded for all government agencies.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS NUMBER CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1998This bill is the second of the two bills which implement the Australian Business Number.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (END OF SALES TAX) BILL 1998Madam President, this bill abolishes the wholesale sales tax.The wholesale sales tax is an outdated system which Australia shares with only a handful of other countries in the world.When introduced, the wholesale sales tax was at a single rate of 2 ½ per cent. The general rate of sales tax is now 22 per cent and the highest rate is 45 per cent. Rates can be 0, 12, 22, 32, 37, 41 or 45 per cent.The wholesales sales tax needs to be abolished because it has no logic or design.It was introduced in the 1930s and was appropriate for a 1930s economy. But the economy has changed.Multiple rates were introduced in 1940 as a war-time measure to encourage resources to flow to "essential" war-related activities.Goods were classed according to the standards of the time.Radios, watches, and tape recorders which are currently taxed at the `luxury' 32 per cent rate were perceived as war-time luxuries.Ad hoc changes to classifications, by both the Parliament and the Courts have resulted in anomalies. And as the economy increasingly becomes a service based economy our indirect tax system applies to a narrowing base, with even higher rates needed to preserve revenue.This penalises our manufacturers and exporters. We have a tax chasing an economy long gone:- an absurd system which has no place in a modern economy entering the 21st Century.This is the tax the Labor Party is pledged to preserve.Goods production now represents less than a quarter of the economy.The economy has transformed. The sales tax system has not. Neither has Labor.The contribution to tax revenue from income taxation and indirect taxation has changed significantly over time.This change has been particularly marked over the last 20 years since the deregulation of many sectors of the Australian economy.Over the 1980s, indirect taxation (comprising principally excise and sales taxes on goods) represented 7.2 per cent of GDP compared to 5.8 per cent of GDP over the 1990s.In comparison, direct taxation (individuals and companies) increased from 16.4 per cent of GDP to 17.2 per cent of GDP.Over the same period, the composition of revenue to the Commonwealth budget has also changed, with the share of indirect tax falling from 27 per cent to 24 per cent, whilst the share of income tax has increased from 63 per cent to 70 per cent.There are two approaches to addressing this automatic and continuing shift in the tax mix.The Government's approach is to replace the complexity and unfairness of the WST with a simpler and fairer broad based, low rate, indirect tax which will ensure a secure and stable revenue base to fund government services.The alternative approach would be to maintain an outdated and unfair system which cannot provide the revenue required to sustain the level of government services Australians demand and deserve.In 1993, the Labor Government told the Australian people before the election that they could have tax cuts without reform of the indirect tax system.After it was re-elected it took away the tax cuts and increased WST rates across the board, without any compensation whatsoever.This bill will abolish the wholesale sales tax. It will put to an end and finally bury that sorry episode.Madam President, this bill provides an opportunity to sweep away the outmoded, outdated complex 1930s style wholesale sales tax.Those senators who oppose tax reform and support the Wholesale Sales Tax will vote against this bill. They will vote for the indirect tax system of the 1930s. But they will also be voting against a secure indirect tax base growing in proportion to the economy, securing growth revenue for essential State services and removing the extraordinary high tax burden which will otherwise be imposed on average earners.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (PERSONAL INCOME TAX CUTS) BILL 1998Madam President, after winning the 1996 election, the Government inherited a $10.3 billion deficit which has now been turned into a surplus. This sound fiscal management has provided the ability for all Australians to share the benefits from sound economic policy through $13 billion of income tax cuts delivered by the Government's new tax system.The tax cuts will more than compensate taxpayers for the introduction of the GST, and will also make it possible for ordinary Australians to save and invest.They will also deliver substantial income tax savings to families and average earners.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (COMPENSATION MEASURES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT) BILL 1998This bill gives effect to a number of important measures which are part of the Government's new tax system.First, extra assistance will be provided to families in recognition of the additional costs in bringing up children and the sacrifices that families make.The tax-free thresholds of the Family Tax Initiative introduced by this Government in 1997 are to be doubled. This increase will benefit eligible families with dependent children by at least $140 a year per child with extra benefits of at least $350 a year flowing to eligible single income families with one child or more under the age of 5.In addition, the family allowance income test will be eased by increasing the level of income that a family can earn before maximum rate payments are effected. The income test free area will be increased to $28,200.When the income test free area is exceeded, the new taper which applies to reduce a family's rate of payment will be 30 cents in the dollar, a significant decrease on the current taper rate of 50 cents in the dollar.The changes to the family income test, combined with the personal income tax cuts, will increase greatly the rewards for low-to-middle income working families from working harder. It also ensures families are substantially better off when moving to full-time employment.Secondly, this bill provides for the maximum rate of all income support payments provided to social security and veterans' pensioners, other social security recipients and students in receipt of income support to be increased by 4 per cent on 1 July 2000.The 4 per cent increase will raise the level of these payments by significantly more than the expected impact of tax reform on prices, as measured by the CPI. The increase incorporates a component that represents an advance on future CPI increases that result from the impact of tax reform on the CPI. That is, this arrangement is considerably more beneficial to income support recipients because indexed payments are being provided `up-front' rather than later, as occurs under current indexation arrangements.The overall effect is that not only are indexation increases being provided up-front, but income support payments will be 1.5 per cent higher than they would have, had normal indexation arrangements applied.In addition, Madam President, the income and assets test free areas that apply to social security, veterans' and student income support payments will be increased by 2.5 per cent.The income test for pensions will also be eased by reducing the current 50 per cent taper rate to 40 per cent. This measure will enable pensioners to keep an extra 10 cents of pension for every dollar of income they receive over the income free area. It will be of particular benefit to age and service pensioners and to self funded retirees with modest incomes who will, as a result, be eligible for part rate pension and associated benefits.Madam President, this bill is an important plank in the new tax system. Taken together with the other elements of the new tax system, it ensures that all Australians share in the benefits of tax reform.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (BONUSES FOR OLDER AUSTRALIANS) BILL 1998This bill recognises the special circumstances of older Australians with savings and investments, including those who receive income from superannuation pensions and annuities.In addition to other measures associated with the new tax system, such as the income tax cuts, increases in income support payments, refundable imputation credits and increased tax rebates, this bill provides further compensation to help maintain the value of the savings and retirement income of senior Australians.The bill will assist both age pensioners and self funded retirees. Australian residents aged 60 years or more with income from a range of savings and investments, and with incomes of up to $30,000 a year will be able to receive a savings bonus of up to $1,000. If they are of age pension age, or above, and do not receive any income support payments, a bonus of up to $3,000 may be payable.These amounts will be tax-free and will not be counted as income for the purposes of the social security or veterans' income tests.In claiming their bonus, senior Australians will have the security of dealing with agencies they already interact with in relation to tax or income support payments, and will have the usual rights of review and appeal.The measures in this bill, particularly when combined with the other measures associated with the new tax system that I mentioned earlier, gives effect to the Government's clear commitment to reforming the tax system in a manner which is fair and generous to senior Australians. Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (INCOME TAX LAWS AMENDMENT) BILL 1998This bill will amend the income tax law so that the aged pensions bonus payments will be exempt from income tax, and will not be taken into account in calculating their net exempt income for the purposes of determining deductibility of tax losses of earlier income years.This will ensure that persons entitled to receive the bonus payments will receive the full benefit of those payments.This bill also amends the Income Tax Regulations to provide further assistance to senior Australians by increasing the maximum pensioner tax rebate and the tax rebate for low income aged persons. These rebates will be increased by $250 (for single people) and $175 (for each of a couple) per year. These increases will come into effect from 1 July 2000. The higher rebates will ensure an extra 70,000 pensioners and self-funded retirees are not required to pay tax and will provide an extra tax cut to 330,000 senior Australians.The last income tax measure associated with this bill removes the savings tax offset.Under the new tax system this rebate will no longer be necessary as elements of the package—including the increase in the personal income tax threshold, significantly reduced marginal rates and refundable imputation credits—will have a major impact on incentives for Australians to work and save. Taxpayers will still be able to claim the offset in their income tax returns for the 1998-99 income year.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (AGED CARE COMPENSATION MEASURES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT) BILL 1998This bill reflects the Government's commitment to ensure that older Australians will benefit from a better and fairer taxation and income support system. It demonstrates that the needs of older Australians remain a priority for this Government.The Government announced, as part of the taxation reforms, a 4 per cent increase to the full age pension. Increased rates of assistance will be provided to ensure that recipients receive a real (after CPI) increase in their pensions of 1.5 per cent, thereby enabling them to receive a fair share of the benefits of the new tax system.The Government is committed to quarantining this increase from the formula used to calculate residential aged care fees. This bill amends the Aged Care Act 1997 to implement these commitments.Currently, the basic fee is 85c in the dollar of the maximum single rate age pension. While the pension is being increased by 4 per cent as a compensation measure, the basic fee will not rise. Effectively, the fee becomes 85c in each 104c of pension. Accordingly, the proportion of the pension represented by the fee falls from 85 per cent to 81.5 per cent. Thus, setting the proportion of pension payable in residential care fees at 81.5 per cent ensures that the full 4 per cent increase to pensioners is passed on.It also removes the possibility that residential care providers could seek to gain a windfall by charging care recipients extra in fees. Providers will be limited by legislation to only charging 81.5 per cent or face the possibility of sanctions being imposed if they exceed this amount.This bill also ensures that non-pensioners are protected from increases in residential aged care fees as a result of the pension increase. Currently non-pensioner fees rise in line with indexation to pensions. This bill breaks this nexus with pension indexation ensuring that the 4 per cent increase in pension does not cause the non-pensioner fee to rise.Lastly, this bill ensures that war widows and widowers will continue to pay the same in income tested fees as other care recipients with the same total incomes. This amendment is necessary to maintain parity in fees as a result of changes to the pension withdrawal rate under the taxation compensation package for older Australians.Not only does this bill guarantee that no older Australian will be worse off, it ensures that pensioners will be considerably better off as a result of the taxation reforms. The pension increase will see single aged pensioners receiving an extra $15.50 per fortnight and pensioner couples an extra $25.50 per fortnight—which is a large increase in income for older Australians. This increase lifts the full pension rate above the minimum level of 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings that is already guaranteed in legislation by the Government.This bill demonstrates that the needs and aspirations of older Australians continue to be of primary importance to the Government. Older Australians will continue to benefit from access to quality residential care based on need. Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned till the first sitting day in 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Adjournment1780178023:04:001780Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I move:That the Senate do now adjourn.It has been a momentous year for all sorts of reasons. The election result was one that I am sure many opposite did not expect. In fact, they were very confident that they would get the opposite result. They did not and they now consign themselves to three more years of hard labour.I do want to pay tribute to my colleagues, particularly those in the Liberal and National parties—Senator Boswell in particular for his sterling leadership of the junior coalition partner. He was there shoulder to shoulder when he was needed. He did understand the real benefits for rural Australia in a number of the policies that we took into the last election and he was prepared to see it through. So I think he deserves a particular commendation.I would also like to pay tribute to the work of Senator Hill, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and to you, Madam President, for the way you have conducted yourself under very difficult circumstances on many occasions from the likes of me and others. You have always managed to control proceedings in a manner that has ensured that people at the end of the day respect the chair and all that ought to be respected in this chamber.I would also like to pay particular tribute to the work of the whip and the whip's clerk, Senator Calvert and Claire Dace, who is taking leave of absence—this is well earned and I hope that we will be seeing her back here in the not too distant future. I also pay tribute to Senator Coonan for her rapid ascension to a position of high eminence and her great enthusiasm and enjoyment for the role. We have certainly appreciated the work that she has carried out on our behalf.I also pay tribute to the tremendous work of the Senate PLO, Gail Bansemer, and her assistant, Jacquie. They go beyond the call of duty, but nonetheless they are always there when needed. I would also like to thank the officials and the clerks, John Vander Wyk in particular, all Senate staff, the attendants, security, transport, Hansard and Library officers—all of whom ensure the smooth running of the Senate.I simply conclude by hoping that the Christmas season will enable all of us to have a well-earned rest, to reflect on what might have been and what is ahead of us in the year to come. I trust that those on the other side of the chamber will come back to this Senate chamber refreshed, aware of the errors of their ways and prepared to be constructive and embrace sensible government policy. If that is the case, then we will not be having any more late night sittings. We will simply be able to get on with delivering more good government for Australia. Merry Christmas to all.178023:07:001780Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—There have been some notable events during 1998 including the Constitutional Convention. Also I suppose, if you like, the double dissolution brinkmanship of the coalition government on Wik, on Telstra, on unfair dismissals and on the public service bills. We had a phoney election campaign around those sorts of issues for a long period of time. We then had the real election campaign for the election on 3 October.In a debate like this, the magnificent performance of Kim Beazley as Leader of the Labor Party ought to be recorded. It was the most successful performance ever by a first-term opposition in the history of Australian politics. I know that all my colleagues in the Labor Senate team, all our caucus members and also all the rank and file members of the Labor Party are very proud of the way our leader performed during that election campaign. We are also very grateful for the leadership that he has demonstrated since our election defeat in 1996.Can I also thank, as is traditional in speeches of this nature, those who support the work of parliamentarians and senators in particular. I thank the Clerks, Harry Evans and Anne Lynch, who as we know work most diligently and have done so for the last year. I particularly want to single out Rosemary Laing and her assistant, Kathleen Griffiths, because they have a particular role and responsibility with non-government senators. We do appreciate what they have done. We also appreciate a range of other Senate officers: the Black Rod and his staff, the Department of the Senate, all the office services, the Senate committees, the information services, the research section. We should record that Shiva Sabihi of the electronic publishing unit was awarded the Department of the Senate's meritorious service medallion and certificate for exceptional and outstanding performance in her work on the Senate Internet site. The Parliamentary Education Office was a joint national winner in the secondary school category of the Australian's Awards for Excellence in Educational Publishing, presented by the Australian Publishers Association, for the education resource kit entitled Your Future—Your Say: the Constitution in your life. This year we have also seen a couple of long-serving and valuable members of staff move out of the department: Gordon Kimber, I recall, went to the ANU and Martin Blyth-Marshall from records management left after more than 20 years of service. We need to acknowledge that, very sadly, Greg Kelly of the human resource management section passed away in August after a 10-week battle with cancer. I also acknowledge the Table Office, the Senate PLO and her assistant, the attendants and those involved in the security of this place. Phil Botha, a security attendant, also passed away on 20 July this year. Our sympathy and condolences go to both Phil and Greg's families again. The Senate committees have worked diligently over the last year, as we have come to expect. I have most contact with the finance and public administration committee. I suppose I can be—at least in part—blamed for them sitting so late at night during estimates hearings and the like. We appreciate in all the committees the committee staff who chase answers to questions on notice, while as everyone knows the government sits on these answers for months on end. We ought to recognise again that Stewart Rendell, the estimates officer for the Economics Committee, won a gold medal in hammer throwing at the Commonwealth Games in Kuala Lumpur. I think his throw was 74.88 metres. That was a fantastic thing for Stewart—and for all of us. It is worth remembering that Stewart is supported by the Department of the Senate as a participant in the Olympic Job Opportunity Program. This means that Stewart, like other elite athletes participating in this program, can fit in his work hours around his demanding training and competition schedules. I do not think we really understand how he manages to do all that, but we know he does. We know we subject him to hours of estimates hearings and the like, but he has really delivered for Australia at KL. We all appreciate it. To you, Madam President, and your staff and to Madam Deputy President and her staff, we appreciate and acknowledge the efforts that have been put in. We also thank the Library, Hansard, the Procedure Office, the Commonwealth drivers and many others around this building whom I do not have time to acknowledge by name. But I want to say on behalf of the opposition that we sincerely appreciate the support that we receive from them throughout the year. We would like to take the opportunity that this debate provides us in thanking them for that assistance and support. Turning to the opposition in the Senate, let me thank my colleagues for their tremendous dedication, commitment and support over the past 12 months. I want to thank the opposition whips—Senator Evans prior to the election and Senator O'Brien since the election—for their great dedication and efforts. They have been very ably assisted by Senator Denman, by Senator Conroy prior to the election and by Senator Quirke since the election. One of the real indications of their success is the fact that it is very rare for the Labor Party to have to come in and say, `We have fouled up a division; we have to do something about it.' We appreciate all that they do.I thank the Manager of Opposition Business, Senator Carr, for his great support and assistance over the year. I acknowledge the government office holders. The opposition whip's clerk, Ruth Webber, left in Christmas last year and Rachel Nilon took over. We welcome Lara Giddings to one of the most difficult jobs in this building. We appreciate all that Lara has done since she picked up the cudgels on our behalf. We also appreciate her predecessors, who worked so ably in the same job. We acknowledge the government whip's clerk, Claire Dace, the staff of Senator Calvert and the government whips.The opposition has two new senators this year, Senator Hutchins from New South Wales and Senator Crossin, both of whom have already made a very important contribution to our Labor Senate team. We should acknowledge that they have replaced two senators, Senator Bob Collins and Senator Belinda Neal, whom, of course, we miss.The Senate opposition team had a number of staff who left after the election. They include Jill Hardy and Mark Hough, who worked for Senator Schacht; Jo Scard, who worked for Senator Cook; and Toni Moreton and Anne Holmes, who worked for Senator Neal. We miss them and wish them well in the future. I particularly acknowledge my deputy, Peter Cook, for his advice, support and assistance over the past 12 months. We wish that all have a well deserved holiday and hope that everyone comes back renewed for more vigorous warfare in the year ahead.I do not think those senators and staff who are involved in the GST inquiry will get much of a break. But to everyone who has assisted to us over the past 12 months, let me say on behalf of the opposition that we sincerely appreciate it. We wish everyone a happy Christmas and best wishes for the New Year.178223:17:001782Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—It is time to wish everyone a happy Christmas. Unfortunately, the contribution of a couple of senators has poured a bit of cold water on what should be a fairly happy occasion tonight as we depart for our various homes. I think I will do my best to ignore that contribution in the spirit of Christmas and say thank you to the many people who serve this parliament: Kate, the person who looks after us at meal times; the attendants; the car drivers; Hansard; and all the staff. My personal thanks go to my own staff, including Joanne and Pru and all the people who work in my office.It has been a particularly hard year for the National Party. We started in the Constitutional Convention in February and went through a very hard native title debate, which was particularly pertinent to our constituents. The latest findings by a judge in Western Australia have put up for grabs all the hard work we have gone through here. I do not know where we will go from there. We will have to readdress that in the future.I thank Senator Hill and Senator Alston. We have tried to work together in the best interests of our constituents. We have our differences from time to time, but we always honour the coalition. One of the hardest times I had here was in the Telstra debate, where the opposition guys gave us plenty. Senator Schacht said that we were getting led down the garden track. But there is $670 million now locked into legislation in Telstra. Whether it goes through will depend on the Senate.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You sold out for two-and-six.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—We sold out for $670 million.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Telstra brings in $3 billion a year. You have given it away, never to be seen again.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—We are in the Christmas period. I ask you to put your sword and shield into ploughshares for the night so that we depart shaking hands. We do not want any interjections across the chamber at this time of the night.I was trying to highlight the legislation that we have gone through this year. It has been a pretty sad year for the National Party. We took on the brunt of One Nation up-front, and we fought it out. With every battle, you suffer a bit of collateral damage. This will be Sandy Macdonald's last Christmas with us. We hope that he will come back, either as a senator or a member. We would love to see Sandy back here in the National Party representing the state of New South Wales and all the rural constituencies that depend on the National Party.Thank you, Madam President, for the firm way that you have controlled the Senate. I ask you to pass on thanks to all the people who are under your supervision in the Senate. I say to my colleagues, Julian McGauran and Sandy Macdonald, thanks for your support. I will now take the opportunity of wishing everyone a very happy and holy Christmas. Let us come back in seven or eight weeks when we are rested and we have had a holiday with our families. All the best to everyone.178323:22:001783Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—Madam President, the government whip's job is not, as I found out, the easiest job in the world but I want to thank you for the leadership that you have shown the Senate during the sittings. I know it has not been easy for you either, but you have shown a lot of leadership from the chair and that has been most important in getting through the sittings in such an efficient manner.I would like to thank the members of the Table Office who have helped me so much—Gail, John, Angie and Bev. I would like to thank my deputy whip Helen Coonan and Bill O'Chee, who is the National Party whip, for the wonderful cooperation that they have given me. Of course, the reason that I stand tonight is to pay particular thanks to Claire Dace, who is going overseas for 12 months next year and abandoning her office and leaving me on my own. But I am pleased to say that I have managed to poach Suzanne Ferguson from Bill O'Chee's office, and I am sure that she will fill Claire's shoes very aptly.I also thank my colleagues from Tasmania, Kerry O'Brien and Kay Denman, for their cooperation. They are the two Tasmanian opposition whips and they have been very cooperative and very helpful. The trio of Tasmanians is completed by Lara Giddings, the whips' clerk for the opposition.To the clerks Harry, Anne, Rosemary, Peter, Terry and Neil Bessell, and all of the others, as always their wise council has been very handy. As I said, we have had a few difficulties but I will look back on this year with a lot of satisfaction. One of the major things I will be doing over Christmas is spending some time with my new grandson. I am very pleased to say that I had my first grandson this year and that I will be enjoying Christmas, as I am sure everybody else will be.I would like to pass on to all of you my best wishes for Christmas and the New Year. My leader, Robert Hill, who rang me earlier wished me to pass on his best regards to everybody tonight. He is spending a bit of time tonight in one of the best states in the world, Tasmania. I hope he enjoys it there tomorrow. To Richard and all of my other colleagues, thank you for a wonderful year and I look forward to 1999.17831783The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—I think probably short speeches now are in the best interests of those whom we wish to say thank you to. I wish to say a few words before concluding, particularly to the people in the Joint House Department, many of whom work in the basement of the building. We tend to focus on ourselves, the chamber and those who are most closely associated with what we are doing, but I think from time to time we should all remember that there are a large number of people in the rest of the building without whom the whole of the parliament, and the building itself, would not function. Many in the Joint House Department, in the Library, in Hansard and in the Parliamentary Information Systems Office are absolutely vital to the running of the Senate, and of the whole building, but their paths do not cross with ours very frequently.More particularly, I thank the Senate clerks with whom we all have a close association, and especially to Frank and the attendants in the chamber who so unobtrusively take care of the needs of the chamber, of the running of the chamber and see that things go smoothly in here. We are greatly indebted to you all.Mention has been made of the whips. I think being a whip is one of the most interesting jobs in the parliament. I certainly remember with great affection my time in the whips office but I also recognise that you cannot have good whips if you do not have good staff in the whips' offices. That is very important indeed. I thank my own staff and, in particular, Senator West, the Deputy President. We work very happily together and we work well together. In some ways, you might say we do not interface on a daily basis on serious matters but we are able to communicate easily.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—A good unity ticket.10000The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—A good unity ticket—that is, I think, the greatest compliment that you could pay, Senator Schacht. To all of those in the building who enable the parliament to function as it does, and who enable us to present this building to the public as we do so that they can come and see the parliament functioning and see the great features of this building, we are indeed indebted. My hope would be that all of those who work here, particularly my colleagues in the Senate, will return next year when the Senate resumes in good health and in good humour.178423:27:001784Senator GEORGE CAMPBELLSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLUNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWN00—I want to make some comments on the adjournment debate in relation to a matter of some concern to me. It will be a bit of an anticlimax after all of the comments that have been made, and the best wishes for the Christmas and New Year period, but I do feel a necessity to put on the record my comments in relation to volunteer organisations. As you would be well aware, Madam President, volunteer organisations are the backbone of the Australian community, particularly in rural and regional Australia. They represent the best qualities of Australian culture—that is, self-sacrifice, mateship, support and reliability.The Australasian Assembly of Volunteer Fire Brigade Associations is one of those organisations. As a peak body, it represents a combined membership of around 330,000 volunteer firefighters, through 12 volunteer fire brigade associations represented from both Australia and New Zealand. These volunteers place their personal safety at risk every time they volunteer their services. They are not paid for the risk, or for their time and effort. In the Australian on 4 December 1998, the New South Wales rural fire service Commissioner Philip Koperberg said:If the state had to pay for its 77,000 firefighters across 2,400 brigades, it would cost $1.5 billion instead of the current $70 million budget. With 74,000 in Victoria, 17,000 in South Australia, 5,000 in Tasmania and thousands more in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland, the national costs would be astronomical.The Leader of the Opposition has proposed that a monument be built to honour these volunteers and the valuable service that they have provided to Australia. This proposition has been fully supported by the Prime Minister. These volunteers, though thoroughly deserving and long overdue for it, have never asked for any form of recognition. They would rather have an adequate level of funding so as to be able to protect their safety than a stone monolith on a hill somewhere. I would hope that our government is supportive enough to provide both.The Australasian Assembly of Volunteer Fire Brigade Associations is attempting to access funding from the federal government so that it can attend important standards safety committees for its members. The assembly acts as a representative body at national level on issues that affect these volunteer fire brigades. It participates through representations to the Australasian Fire Authorities Council and federal government standards committees on safety equipment.Currently, the assembly is represented on six federal standards committees that deal directly with firefighting safety equipment. It is required to attend committees on helmets for firefighters; occupational protective helmets, which include the new bush firefighters helmets; protective clothing; clothing for protection against thermal hazards; clothing for protection against hazardous substances and breathing apparatus for firefighters. Some recent practical examples of the effectiveness of the work of the Assembly of Volunteer Fire Brigade Associations show the valuable role that it plays.A recent issue that has arisen is which type of material a helmet chinstrap is manufactured from. Manufacturers indicate that it is cheaper and more comfortable to make elasticised chinstraps but, from experience, the volunteer firefighters can show that, under severe heat in fires, an elasticised chinstrap will melt. The practical result of this is that a firefighter could have it burnt into their throat.Recently Standards Australia drew up a new standard for identification of LPG powered vehicles. Several of the state associations asked the assembly to represent them collectively so there would be a uniform approach to the standard across Australia. This achieved an outcome where the markings are more visible so those emergency service workers can recognise a vehicle with LPG on board. This achievement has gone into a draft standard that is out for public comment at the moment. This change has a potential to avoid death and injury at both accident and fire scenes through confusion over unrecognisable markings.The assembly has recently held discussions with the Federal Office of Road Safety. Volunteer associations of South Australia and Victoria brought to its attention that it takes a significantly longer time to extricate people from heavy transport accidents than other accidents. Due to this longer time taken, the patient outcome has been very poor. The assembly has suggested safety changes which include changes to limit injuries when vehicles roll over in accidents.More and more volunteer fire brigades are being utilised to carry out roadside accident rescue. As a result of the approach by the assembly, the Federal Office of Road Safety will now keep separate data on heavy vehicle accidents. This data will support an application for a design ruling from the Federal Office of Road Safety to have mandatory rollover protection for heavy transport vehicles. It could take up to five hours for a brigade to cut a driver out of a heavy haulage vehicle. If this could be shortened, in many instances lives would be saved.These examples highlight just a few of the valuable contributions that this organisation has achieved so far. With government funding and adequate support, firefighters will be able to contribute their knowledge and practical experience and in this way save the lives of their colleagues. The assembly raises its own income solely from affiliation fees of $500 per association per year, which is not enough for it to adequately do its job. It can effectively run its organisation with affiliation fees but cannot meet the additional expenses associated with its representation on various standards committees. When approaching governments about funding for these projects, it is inevitably faced with politicians passing the buck. It is continuously told that bushfires are a state government responsibility. No-one wants to take responsibility for this matter and just provide the money.The standards committees that it is represented on meet several times per year in different capital cities. Currently the assembly has only barely enough funds to pay travel costs in order to attend some meetings. It cannot attend all meetings, and its representatives must meet their own accommodation expenses. This organisation plays a most valuable role in providing information that directly affects the lives of volunteer bush firefighters. The safety equipment that is designed from these standards will help protect lives in the future, and it is essential that those people who use that equipment are represented in determining the standards.This association is asking for a small amount of $15,000 per annum in order to effectively represent volunteer firefighters on these committees. It is about time that the federal government took responsibility for this matter and provided the assembly with these funds. The ability of firefighters to contribute to the development of standards that will protect them and the onerous tasks that they carry out would be a much more effective monument to their significant contribution to the Australian community than some concrete monolith.178623:35:001786Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I rise tonight to outline to the Senate the many advantages of private investment in Australia's transport infrastructure. We hear over and over again about the congestion in our cities. Of course, in such a large country, businesses right across the country face the problem of the tyranny of distance and have faced for many decades an inadequate road and general transport system. There is a great need to improve Australia's transport infrastructure.When I was in the United States 20 years ago, I came across a man who berated me for the very poor state of Australia's roads. He had travelled around the United States on their magnificent expressway system. When he went round Australia in the early 1970s, he just could not believe the state of our roads. But, with a country the size of the United States and with a tax base one-twentieth or five per cent of that of the United States, obviously we have a great deal of difficulty keeping our infrastructure system up to scratch. What has made it particularly difficult is we have insisted for so many years that this sort of infrastructure be totally government funded, that it all be funded out of the public purse. We have to ask ourselves very seriously whether this approach has delivered us the best possible outcomes.Increasingly, the private sector is getting involved in this sort of investment. So a major policy decision that faces us in this parliament—and, indeed, in all the state parliaments—is: what is the appropriate mix of government, private and combination of government and private in the development of Australia's infrastructure?Unlike the previous ALP government, which scrapped the essential black spots program, this coalition government is committed to maintaining and improving Australia's transport infrastructure. The key question to ask is: is it really—as the Labor Party and many of the public say—best way to go through public investment only?About 40 years ago a private American company put forward a proposal to build the Sydney to Newcastle freeway; it proposed to build it at no public expense. The only condition that company put on the proposal was a toll which would be on the freeway for 20 years, and then the company would hand it back to the government. The then Cahill Labor government refused on ideological grounds to allow this proposal to go ahead. It then took governments over 30 years to complete that project.One of the advantages of private money is that the money is up front straightaway, and the project gets built at a very fast rate. Private developers have to do this to get a proper return on their investment. We were deprived for many years of proper roads between Sydney and Newcastle. Fortunately, after 35 years that situation has been corrected. It needs correcting in many other areas of Australia, and that is why we need to embrace more enthusiastically private money in public infrastructure.It is starting to become more common, as a number of the projects around Sydney show. The building of the M2 motorway in northern Sydney is an example. The current eastern distributor is another example. A matter that was raised this week in this parliament, in terms of Sydney's transport, was the western orbital road which would complete the link road around Sydney; and decisions have to be made on that as to what is the most appropriate mix of public and private investment.There are several reasons why private investment is becoming more common. There are ownership conflicts between government as the owner and government as the regulator. It reduces government deficits and it improves international competitiveness. Also, people are starting to question why the government should own assets such as power stations, telecommunications facilities and transport infrastructure. By putting a lot of government resources into these things that are often much better run by the private sector, we tie up valuable and scarce capital and, therefore, deprive other sectors that are very much within the purview of government from the benefits of that money. So moving towards a system where we have more private investment in public infrastructure frees up more money for the health system, for the education system and for the welfare system.One of the best examples and state-of-the-art practices in terms of the way in which this private infrastructure money is working for Sydney at the moment relates to the eastern distributor. This is the main route that will occur in the next few years between Sydney and the airport. It will alleviate major traffic problems and the very worst bottleneck in Sydney, which is at Taylor Square. It will be a very important conduit during the 2000 Olympic Games. There is an expected opening two-way traffic of 80,000 vehicles per day. But here is the big bonus: the company that is building it and the financiers have, under the contract, agreed to transfer this eastern distributor back to the government for nothing after a period of 48 years. So, despite making no outlays at all for this project, the government will own the road.Allowing private sector investment in these types of projects also transfers inherent risks, such as project cost overruns, to the private sector, saving the government money. Macquarie Bank has outlined the benefits from private sector participation in the eastern distributor as follows: the liberation of public funds for social infrastructure; the private sector being better equipped to deliver and manage economic infrastructure; the $600 million freed up to be used for other social infrastructure projects, such as hospitals and schools; and the fact that the road will be handed back to the government free of charge at the end of the concession period.Private sector investment also helps get infrastructure projects under way that much more quickly. The eastern distributor that is now being built is well ahead of schedule. Macquarie Bank has argued that, without private investment in the eastern distributor, it would not have been completed prior to the commencement of the Olympic Games. This scenario would have been an absolute disaster for Australia's hosting of the games and would have led to the sort of traffic complaints that we saw in Atlanta.So why don't we see even more private investment and less public? The reality is that, out there, the public is not sure of the benefits of private investment over public. Popular criticism is that it is `selling off the family jewels', that it will result in a loss of service and lower safety standards and a loss of job security. However, in reality, there are many more advantages than disadvantages. It can deliver to the community infrastructure way ahead of the time that it would have come into being with public funding. The projects are completed more efficiently on time and on budget and on a more economically viable basis.The advantages of private investment in public infrastructure far outweigh the disadvantages. The challenge before us in this parliament and certainly in the private sector is to work very hard to sell that message to the public.23:44:001787Senate adjourned at 11.44 p.m. until 12.30 p.m. on Monday, 15 February 1999Documents17871787The Special Minister of State (Senator Ellison) tabled the following government documents:Anti-Dumping Authority Act—Anti-Dumping Authority—Report for 1997-98 (Final report).Australian Political Exchange Council—Report for 1997-98.Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Repeal Act—Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council—Report for the period 1 July 1997 to 18 December 1998 (Final report).Australian Securities Commission Act—Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board—Report for 1997-98.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Reports for 1997-98— Nuclear Safety Bureau. Tobacco Research and Development Corporation and Tobacco Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee.Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act—Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation—Report for 1997-98.Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—Responding to diversity: Progress in implementing the Charter of Public Service in a Culturally Diverse Society —Access and equity report for 1998.Department of Industry, Science and Resources—Energy use in Commonwealth operations—Report for 1997-98.Freedom of Information Act—Report for 1997-98 on the operation of the Act.Members of Parliament (Staff) Act—Report for 1997-98 on consultants engaged under section 4 of the Act.National Crime Authority Act—National Crime Authority— Correspondence by members of the Intergovernmental Committee of the National Crime Authority. Report for 1997-98.Natural Resources Management (Financial Assistance) Act—Australian Landcare Council—Report for 1997-98.Pooled Development Funds Act—Pooled Development Funds—Report for 1997-98.1788The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act— Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Sheepmeat and Goatmeat Export to the European Union) Order 1998—Meat and Live-stock Export Order No. MQ2/98. Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Sheepmeat and Goatmeat Performance Recording—Exports) Order 1998—Meat and Live-stock Export Order No. MQ1/98.Carriage of Goods by Sea Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 324.Defence Act—Determinations under section 58B—Defence Determinations 1998/39-1998/41.Income Tax Assessment Act 1936—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 325.Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 326.Migration Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 322.Product Ruling PR 98/3.Taxation Ruling SST 15.Answers to Questions on Notice1789The following answers to questions were circulated:1789(Question No. 10)101789Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray3M6WAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 10 November 1998:(1) With reference to unfair dismissal claims under federal law, the annual report for 1996-97 of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia highlighted major outcomes in the federal jurisdiction as follows: (a) 74 per cent of unfair dismissal claims cases were settled by agreement; (b) 75 per cent of cases were finalised within 6 months and 99 per cent within 12 months; (c) 62 per cent of trials were completed in one day and 84 per cent within 2 days; (d) 58 per cent of contested cases were decided in favour of the employee, with 42 per cent in favour of the employer; (e) reinstatement of the employee was ordered in 7.5 per cent of contested cases; and (f) the median amount of compensation awarded was approximately $6 000:Can comparable information on unfair dismissal claims for the 1997-98 financial year be provided for the following jurisdictions: (a) Federal; (b) New South Wales; (c) Queensland; (d) South Australia; (e) Tasmania; and (f) Western Australia.(2) With reference to the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia's guess that 50 000 jobs would be created by exempting small business employers employing 15 or fewer employees from federal unfair dismissal laws: (a) how many of the estimated 50 000 jobs will be created in each state and territory; and (b) can the methodology and empirical data used to arrive at the jobs estimate creation in each jurisdiction be provided.(3) With reference to the answer to paragraph (1) of question on notice no. 1005 (Senate Hansard, 4 March 1998, p.421), for each of the jurisdictions outlined in the table provided, can numbers be given, accompanied by evidence and methodology for: (a) jobs created or lost as a result of increases or decreases in unfair dismissal applications; and (b) separate answers for federal, state and territory jurisdictions based on comparative 1996-97 data.1789Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Answers for each of the five State unfair dismissal regimes are unavailable.The 1997-8 Annual Report of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission contains some statistics in relation to resolution of unfair dismissal claims. However, the Australian Industrial Registry does not collect data on all of the subjects on which the Industrial Relations Court of Australia previously collected data. Therefore, statistics in relation to federal unfair dismissal claims can only be provided for parts (a), (d) and (e).(a) There were 8,092 termination of employment applications lodged under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 in 1997-98. Of those applications, 6,303 (78 per cent) were settled by agreement (ie had been withdrawn, settled or otherwise discontinued prior to conciliation or settled at conciliation or withdrawn, discontinued or otherwise settled after conciliation but prior to final orders).(d) There were 774 contested federal cases decided in 1997-98, with 311 (40 per cent) decided in favour of the employer and 463 (60 per cent) in favour of the employee. (It may be noted that 282 of the decisions in favour of the employee involved applications against Gordonstone Coal Management based on the same fact situation; if these 282 applications are treated as one class action, then 63 per cent of contested cases would have been decided in favour of the employer and 37 per cent in favour of the employee.)(e) Reinstatement was awarded in only 17 (2 per cent) of the 774 contested federal cases.(2) The Chief Executive of the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, Mr Rob Bastian, based his estimate that 50 000 jobs would be created if small businesses were exempt from federal unfair dismissal laws on the, in his view conservative, premise that 1 in 20 small businesses would hire at least one more employee if the exclusion was to come into force.Applying this formula to the percentage of small businesses in each State or Territory (according to data published in Small Business in Australia 1997, ABS Cat No. 1321.0), approximately 16 500 jobs would be created in NSW, 12 500 in VIC, 9 500 in QLD, 4 000 in SA, 5 500 in WA, 1 000 in TAS and 500 each in the ACT and NT.(3) Figures for the number of jobs created in each State and Territory in 1996 and 1997 (trend series annual averages) are as follows. (Source: ABS Labour Force Survey.) NSWVICQLDSAWATASNTACTAUST1996`00036.932.026.55.310.41.01.9-1.9112.5%1.31.61.80.81.30.52.3-1.21.41997`00013.417.531.92.919.3-6.81.91.680.7%0.50.82.10.42.3-3.42.21.11.0There are a number of factors that contribute to the differences in labour market performance across the States and Territories. For example, the States and Territories generally rely on different industries for economic and employment growth. As such, any changes in policy or economic conditions which affect sectors in a non-uniform manner can be expected to have different impacts on employment. Similarly, characteristics such as population size and growth, natural attributes and climatic conditions also contribute to the differences in employment growth.The reduction in the number of unfair dismissal applications indicates that progress has been made under the current legislation in discouraging inappropriate applications. This in itself would not be expected to create additional jobs in the small business sector. The Government considers that further change is required to recognise the particular circumstances of small businesses as well as to provide greater certainty for employers about the length of an employee's employment before that person can initiate an unfair dismissal application (no change is proposed in respect of unlawful dismissal applications). It is necessary to provide security for employers that they will not be subject to inappropriate applications. This is provided for in the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998, presently before the Parliament.1790(Question No. 14)141790Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray3M6WAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 10 November 1998:How many workers are there on youth rates: (a) by industry; (b) by State and Territory; and (c) by each of the 6 industrial relations systems operative in Australia.1790Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:There is no source of data that can provide all of this information. However, it is possible to generate indicative estimates of the proportion of employees on junior rates using unpublished data from the ABS Survey of Employee Earnings and Hours, the ABS Labour Force Survey and the National Centre for Vocational Education Research Ltd.Based on data from these sources it is estimated that approximately 56 per cent of the 724,000 non-farm employees aged under 21 in May 1996 were paid junior rates.(a) The attached table provides indicative estimates of the industry distribution of employees (ie. wage and salary earners) who were paid junior rates in May 1996.(b) Data is not available to enable estimates to be made by State and Territory.(c) Data is not available to enable estimates to be made by each of the industrial relations systems operative in Australia.Industry distribution of employees on junior rates—May 1996Number of employees on junior ratesANZSIC(`000s)B Mining0.405C Manufacturing22.299D Electricity, gas and water supply0.405E Construction2.838F Wholesale Trade17.839G Retail trade251.373 H Accommodation, cafes and restaurants33.652I Transport and storage6.082J Communication services0.811K Finance and insurance9.731L Property and business services23.110M Government administration and defence3.244N Education4.460O Health and community services14.190P Cultural and recreational services6.082Q Personal and other services8.514Total all industries (excl Agriculture)405.035* Unpublished date from the EEH Survey—excludes apprentices and trainees.1791(Question No. 17)171791Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 November 1998:(1) How many Indonesian military personnel were trained in Australia from July 97 to date.(2) What was the nature of the training and which Australian military colleges or institutions provided the training.(3) What are the identifying names and/or numbers of the Indonesian army, navy and airforce units that have received training in Australia.(4) Is the Minister concerned that the training provided will be used against East Timorese people in the continuing military conflict in East Timor.1791Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honorable senator's question:(1) to (4) Information on training provided to Indonesian military personnel at Australian military establishments during the period 1 July 97 to 10 November 98 is detailed in the following tables. I do not intend to discuss details of individual personnel trained by the Australian Defence Force (ADF).Training provided to Indonesian military personnel is aimed at developing a modern and professional Indonesian armed forces, with the accountable and responsible codes of conduct that professionalism entails. Training provided by the ADF is not designed to assist the Indonesian armed forces in its internal security role.TRAINING PROVIDED TO INDONESIAN MILITARY PERSONNEL IN AUSTRALIA BY ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY (RAN) 1-7-97 to 10-11-98EstablishmentTraining TypeNo. Indonesian PersonnelHMAS Cerberus, MelbourneRadio Frequency Management1HMAS Watson, SydneyNavigation2HMAS Penguin, SydneyHydrography, Staff College, Underwater medicine, Clearance diving4HMAS Creswell, Jervis BayMaritime Studies1Training Centre East, SydneyTraining Analysis and Design, Training Quality Control6Total RAN14TRAINING PROVIDED TO INDONESIAN MILITARY PERSONNEL IN AUSTRALIA BY ARMY 1/7/97-10/11/98EstablishmentTraining TypeNo. Indonesian PersonnelArmy Command and Staff College, QueenscliffCommand and Staff training1School of Artillery, North HeadOffensive Support4School of Infantry, SingletonInfantry Training1School of Military Engineering, HolsworthyEngineering Training4School of Military Intelligence, CanungraReconnaissance, intelligence training4Total Army14TRAINING PROVIDED TO INDONESIAN MILITARY PERSONNEL IN AUSTRALIA BY AIR FORCE (RAAF) 1/7/97-10/11/98EstablishmentTraining TypeNo. Indonesian PersonnelSchool of Air Navigation, East SaleNavigation Training2Central Flying School, East SaleFlying Instructor Training3Directorate of Flying Safety, CanberraFlying Safety Training1RAAF Staff College, FairbairnCommand and Staff training2RAAF School of Technical Training, WaggaAircraft Life Support Fitting3501 Wing, AmberleySurface Finishing2Institute of Aviation Medicine, EdinburghMilitary Aviation Medicine1Total Air Force14TRAINING PROVIDED TO INDONESIAN MILITARY PERSONNEL IN AUSTRALIA BY CENTRAL DEFENCE AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS 1/7/97-10/11/98EstablishmentTraining TypeNo. Indonesian PersonnelAustralian Defence Force Academy, CanberraDefence Studies, Defence Management14Australian College of Defence and Strategic Studies, CanberraStrategic Studies4Australian Defence Force Warfare Centre, WilliamtownMaritime Air Surveillance, Overseas Joint Warfare Course, ADF Peacekeeping Course 10Joint Services Staff College, CanberraCommand and Staff training4Defence International Training SchoolEnglish language teaching and language training, Audiovisual Laboratory Technician Training28Integrated Logistics Systems Management Course2Total Central62Total Indonesian Military Personnel trained in Australia from 1/7/97 to 10/11/98 1041793(Question No. 214)2141793Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What is the total expenditure on conferences both: (a) in-house, that is, held within the department or agency; and (b) external, held by the department or agencies within the portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996.(2) For conferences fully funded by the department and portfolio agencies, and costing in excess of $30 000: (a) where was the venue; (b) what was the reason for each conference; (c) how many participants registered; (d) were consultancy fees paid for the organisation of each conference; (e) towhom were the consultancy fees paid; and (f) what was the cost of each consultancy.(3) For conferences part-sponsored or part-funded by the department and portfolio agencies and costing the Commonwealth in excess of $30,000: (a) what was the cost to the department or agency; (b) what was the proportion of Commonwealth funding as against the total cost of the conference; (c) what was the rationale for the sponsorship or part-funding; (d) what was the venue; (e) how many participants registered; (f) did the Commonwealth contribute to any consultant organising the conference; if so, who was the consultant; and (g) how much was the Commonwealth's contribution.1793Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:This answer was prepared prior to the election and reflects expenditure for the then Industry, Science and Tourism portfolio.(1)1996a) In House Conferences ($)b) External Conferences ($)March19,040April20,000May33,298June128,015July6,700August100,400September36,000October566580,790November35,539December201,0001997January28,410February33,092March64,100April19,176May86,996June46,360 July72,300August500043,706September40,212October24,609November32,561December350062,7041998January19,579February68,221March3198201,296April89383,092May8926303,429June448,645July87,763AugustNote: The above figures are monthly totals of expenditure on conferences for the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, the Australian Customs Service, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the Australian Sports Drug Agency, the Australian Sports Commission, the Australian Tourist Commission, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation and the National Standards Commission. These totals include expenditure from both parts 2 and 3 of the question.(2)ConferenceParalympic Preparation Program Planning Workshop—July 1997a) VenueAustralian Institute of Sport, Canberrab) ReasonTo review the high performance/athlete preparation programs for each of the eighteen summer Paralympic sports competing on the program of the 2000 Paralympic Gamesc) Participants103d) Consultancy fees?Noe) ConsultantN/Af) Consultancy CostN/AConferenceAsia Pacific IP Office Workshop—March 1998a) VenueRydges Capital Hill, Forrest, ACTb) ReasonThe workshop was held in conjunction with the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Intellectual Property Rights Experts Group meeting held in Canberra on 4-5 March 1998. The workshop was seen as an ideal opportunity to mutually explore the circumstances and challenges facing offices in the regionc) Participants75d) Consultancy fees?Yese) ConsultantConference Logistics f) Consultancy Cost$12,000ConferenceThe Korean-Australia Technology Workshop—March 1998a) VenueHilton Hotel, Melbourneb) ReasonTo establish close commercial relations between Australian and Korean automotive firms in the area of light metal technologies and componentsc) Participants60d) Consultancy fees?Yese) ConsultantAustralian Conference Research and Advisory Service P/Lf) Consultancy Cost$4,764ConferenceBuilding for Growth Innovation Forum—May 1998a) VenueSydney Hilton Hotel, Sydneyb) ReasonA draft consultation strategy paper, Building for Growth was released in February 1998, to assist in the development of a strategy and Action Agenda for the building and construction industry. The objective of the Forum was to provide an opportunity to draw together the feedback on the draft strategyc) Participants160d) Consultancy fees?Yese) ConsultantFACET management (Conference Coordinator) & Herson Communication Service (Communications Consultant)f) Consultancy CostFACET Management total cost $19,017.38 & Herson Communication Service total cost $66,343.89ConferenceCompeting in Global Markets: The Strategic Partnership of Government and Australian Industry—June 1998a) VenueCentrepoint Conference and Convention, Centrepoint Tower, Sydneyb) ReasonTo present to high level industry representatives the extent and implications of the Asian crisis for Australian firms, and to convey what export and other assistance is availablec) Participants185d) Consultancy fees?Yese) ConsultantConference Plus, a division of JRS Marketing Network Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Victoria f) Consultancy Cost$7,430ConferenceDIST/ANU Workshop on "Policy for Australia's Industrial Future"—June 1998a) VenueHyatt Hotel Canberrab) ReasonTo encourage debate and the exchange of ideas on the broad theme of potential policies for Australia's industrial futurec) Participants80d) Consultancy fees?Yese) ConsultantA consultancy fee was paid to the ANU for their services in planning the conference, arranging invitations to speakers and delegates and managing the commissioning of papers from speakersf) Consultancy Cost$10,250(3)ConferenceAustralian Copyright Council—Copyright and Multimedia Workshops—June 1996a) Cost$30000b) Proportion of Funding51%c) RationaleFunding was provided through the Multimedia Forums Program. The objective of the program was to assist the development of the Australian multimedia and online services industries. The need for information on copyright in multimedia was repeatedly noted in the evaluation forms that were returned from previous forums heldd) VenueCo-operative Multimedia Centre, 211 Rundle Street, Adelaide Advanced Manufacturing Centre, 140 Royal Street, East Perth QANTM,143 Coronation Drive, Milton, Queensland Mirambeena Hotel, 64 Cavenagh Street, Darwin Westside Hotel, 156 Bathurst Street, Hobart Royal Botanical Gardens, South Yarra, Victoria Gorman House, Ainslie Avenue, Braddon, ACT The Terrace, Australian Museum, College Street, Sydneye) Participants376f) Consultancy?Nog) CostN/AConferenceBuilding Bridges Project—June 1996a) Cost$70,000b) Proportion of Funding23%c) RationaleFunding was provided through the Multimedia Forums Program. The Department committed funds in May 1996. The objective of the program was to assist the development of the Australian multimedia and online services industries. It identified and addressed the most significant issues to stimulate demand and raise awareness for multimedia in Australia. The Commonwealth seed funding has resulted in an ongoing program of seminars run by AIMIA. The initial four seminars, were held in 1997 d) VenueSydney Regent—June 1997 Conrad Jupiters Hotel Gold Coast—August 1997 Adelaide Hilton—August 1998 Hyatt Regency Canberra—September 1998e) ParticipantsOver 400 as advised by AIMIAf) Consultancy?The Commonwealth did not directly contribute to a consultant. However, $44 000 was paid by AIMIA to Jim Belshaw Consulting Group for a research reportg) CostN/AConferenceSecond World Fisheries Congress: Developing and Sustaining World Fisheries—August 1996a) CostThe cost to CSIRO was $50,000b) Proportion of FundingCSIRO was part sponsor and does not have access to this informationc) RationaleThe Congress was considered an excellent opportunity to demonstrate CSIRO's expertise in and support for world fisheries issues. Support accentuated CSIRO's profile as one of the leading fisheries research organisations and presented an opportunity to showcase internationally CSIRO expertise in leading edge research programs to assist fisheries managementd) VenueBrisbane Convention and Exhibition Centree) ParticipantsApproximately 920f) Consultancy?CSIRO was a part-sponsor and is unaware of consultants being hiredg) CostCSIRO is unaware of the total Commonwealth contributionConferenceSugar 2000 Symposium—August 1996a) CostThe cost to CSIRO was $38,400b) Proportion of Funding13%c) RationaleCSIRO Tropical Agriculture hosts a significant international science conference each four (4) years to showcase its technology advances to an international audienced) VenueSheraton Hotel, Brisbanee) Participants350f) Consultancy?As far as CSIRO is aware, nog) CostN/AConferenceThe ATC Taiwan-Korea Summit—October 1996a) Cost$35,460b) Proportion of Funding88%, excluding cost of organising consultant, which is not knownc) RationaleThe Summit was an excellent opportunity to enhance Australia's tourism potential from this market in association with ATC's business partnersd) VenueFar Eastern Hotel in Taipei, Taiwan and Hotel Lotte in Seoule) Participants28 f) Consultancy?Yes. Robin Giasson & Associatesg) CostThe Commonwealth contribution for the consultant listed in (f) above was $8,400ConferenceNational Trade and Investment Outlook Conference— December 1996a) Cost$200,000b) Proportion of FundingInformation on the proportion of Commonwealth funding as against the total cost is not available to the Department. Funding included contributions by the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, other Commonwealth departments and agencies (DFAT, Austrade), the Government of Victoria and private sector corporate sponsors c) RationaleNTIOC was developed as a Government led response to perceived gaps in market information and export development strategies. At the time of NTIOC's development, exports were becoming more important as a component of Australia's GDP; NTIOC's focus on target markets and industries was seen as a way of supporting the development of key Australian trade and investment priorities, thereby encouraging the development of a more prominent trade profile for Australiad) VenueWorld Congress Centre in Melbournee) ParticipantsThe total number of delegates registered for NTIOC in 1996 was 1076f) Consultancy?Not known but the conference was organised by Conference Australiag) CostN/AConferenceMuseums Online Forum—March 1997a) Cost$41,500b) Proportion of Funding87% (excluding significant "in kind" contributions)c) RationaleFunding was provided through the Multimedia Forums Program. The objective of the program was to assist the development of the Australian multimedia and online services industries. The main theme of the forum was the use and potential benefits for the museum, tourism, local government and educational sectors of online servicesd) VenueAustralian War Memoriale) ParticipantsThe Department of Communications and the Arts have advised there were approximately 250 participantsf) Consultancy?Nog) CostN/AConferenceInsights `97 "Electronic Commerce Helping Small Business" Seminar—May 1997a) Cost$35,600b) Proportion of Funding74% c) RationaleFunding was provided through the Multimedia Forums Program. The objective of the program was to assist the development of the Australian multimedia and online services industries. The seminar met the objectives of the program, in particular, promoting the uptake of multimedia and on-line services by usersd) VenueThe Victorian Department of Education's SoftNet Unit at the Rialto Classroom of the Future projecte) Participants722f) Consultancy?Nog) CostN/AConferenceHIA INTAbuild 98 Conference and Convention—May 1998a) Cost$50,000b) Proportion of Funding0.15%c) RationaleTo establish a business matching program/connections lounge to facilitate networking and business linkages between Australian and international building and construction firms.d) VenueKuala Lumpur, Malaysiae) Participants1234f) Consultancy?N/Ag) CostN/AConferenceAustralia Summit- June 1998a) Cost$208,672. This amount includes $83,672 for construction of a re-useable display stand which was used at the eventb) Proportion of FundingInformation concerning the proportion of Commonwealth funding as against the total cost of the conference is not available to the Department. Funding included contributions by the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, other Commonwealth departments and agencies, the Governments of Victoria and Western Australia, private sector organisations and the convenor of the event (International Herald Tribune)c) RationaleThe event benefited Australian business by providing an opportunity for industry leaders to obtain an authoritative briefing on strategic issues from a large and diverse range of Australian and overseas speakers, including both Ministers and business people. The theme of the event was Regional Renewal—Opportunity in a Time of Challenged) VenueMelbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre. A Welcome Reception for delegates was held at Government House, Melbournee) ParticipantsThe convenor (International Herald Tribune) has advised the Department that there were 536 registered delegatesf) Consultancy?The Department's contribution towards the cost of the event ($125,000) was paid to the event convenor, International Herald Tribune. The Department's payment for the re-useable display stand ($83,672) was paid to AALTO Pty Ltd, Melbourne, and associated contractors g) CostThe total cost to the Department was $208,672ConferenceThe Singapore Australia Business Alliance Forum—June 1998a) Cost$54,500 (total budget $59,500)b) Proportion of Funding100% Commonwealth Funded (92% DIST, 8%DFAT)c) RationaleTo promote joint activity between Australian and Singaporean business in infrastructure development and to provide opportunities for networking and liaison between business executives through the Singapore Australia Business Alliance Forumd) VenueMelbournee) Participants72f) Consultancy?Creative Conferences Internationalg) Cost$12,000