1999-02-153912SENATE180101999-02-15The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Bills1801r6531801Debate resumed from 7 December 1998, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.12:31:001801Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 does almost nothing to enhance the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It is highly partisan and it is politically motivated. It was first introduced into the Senate in May last year on the eve of the election with so many of its measures devised with the sole intent of manipulating electoral law so as to provide advantage for the coalition.In particular, the bill incorporates the Liberal Party's long obsession and paranoia about unsubstantiated electoral fraud, measures to disenfranchise large numbers of electors and massive increases in electoral funding and disclosure thresholds to allow large sums of money to go undisclosed. Yet, despite the government's best efforts and a lot of encouragement from the Liberal Party's Federal Director, Lynton Crosby, they just could not manage their legislation program well enough to get it in before the last election.I would like to take this opportunity to flag that the opposition will be moving amendments designed to end once and for all the Liberal Party's chances of exploiting any real or apparent loopholes in the Commonwealth Electoral Act with regard to dodging full and transparent electoral funding disclosure. I am talking in particular about the Liberal Party's most recent money laundering vehicle, the Greenfields Foundation.The Liberals, of course, are notorious for their devious attempts to rort the disclosure provisions of the Electoral Act. Where there is a will there is a way, and we want to make sure that there is no way that the Liberal Party can dodge full and transparent funding disclosure. I believe we have had some success in exposing Greenfields for the rort it is, and we have also been successful in placing enough pressure on the government to address recommendation 10 of the March 1998 report of the AEC into funding and disclosure—that is, to broaden the investigative powers of the AEC in dealing with and determining whether or not an organisation is an associated entity.Of course, the AEC has recently utilised these powers for the first time to serve a notice on the Greenfields Foundation on 15 January 1999. I note that Greenfields had one month to appeal that notice. If they have not done so by today, we can assume that the AEC will be able to access the information it requires. I look forward to the results of the AEC's investigations.However, while those government amendments were sufficient for the purpose of broadening the investigative powers of the AEC in pursuing suspected associated entities, they have not gone far enough in closing the loophole. In brief, our amendments tighten the definition of associated entity; they close the loophole in the event of the loan being forgiven, ultimately becoming a gift; and they prevent loans from being received from anyone other than a registered financial institution unless certain information, such as terms and conditions of the loans, is disclosed.Let me go to the legislation in detail. Items 1 to 9 deal with the provision of elector data to members, senators and political parties. The electoral rolls and habitation indexes are currently provided either in print, on tape or on disk to members, senators and political parties under section 91 of the Electoral Act. We do think it is useful for parliamentarians to have access to further information such as the elector's date of birth and salutation details in order to more accurately address constituents and target information more directly. There currently exists a range of permitted purposes for which information from the electoral roll and habitation index may be used. They include such things as any purpose in connection with an election or referendum, the monitoring of the accuracy of the information contained in a roll and the performance of a member or senator in relation to their constituents. The government is proposing to add a new permitted purpose—that of research regarding electoral matters. This measure will be supported by the Labor Party.However, given potential privacy concerns, the sensitivity of this information and its value to commercial marketing companies, it is important that sufficient penalties exist for misuse of such information. The government's proposal to increase the penalty to 100 units—that is, $11,000—is a step in the right direction. However, we believe a more severe penalty should be imposed.On behalf of the opposition, I will be moving an amendment to increase the number of penalty points to 1,000 for disclosure or using electoral roll information for a commercial purpose. This would currently attract a fine of $110,000—a sum which would more accurately reflect the value of the information provided to politicians. The disclosure of this information to marketing companies could offer enormous commercial advantage and it is essential that a penalty exists to act as a serious deterrent to such commercial advantage. We believe that 100 penalties units, or $11,000, does not do that. We hope that $110,000 will.Items 10, 18, 29, 36, 49, 59 and 69 provide that prisoners are not entitled to enrol or vote. The Commonwealth Electoral Act currently prohibits anyone serving a sentence of five years or longer for an offence against the law of the Commonwealth or of a state or territory, or who has been convicted of treason or treachery and has not been pardoned from being entitled to have their name placed on, or retained on, any roll or to vote at any Senate election or House of Representatives election. The Labor Party will be opposing item 10 which prohibits a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for any offence against the law of the Commonwealth or of a state or territory from voting or from remaining on the electoral roll. We will propose in its place amendments to tighten the current provisions.It should be noted that denying the right of all prisoners, irrespective of sentence, would present a breach of our obligations under the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 25(b), as well as the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights 1948, article 21, which was recently re-signed by the current government. I would also draw to the Senate's attention recent developments in Canada where the Canadian Federal Court held that the disenfranchisement of prisoners was unconstitutional. The government indicated during Senate estimates last week that no legal advice had been sought on this matter and whether the proposed measure would be subject to challenge in the courts as unconstitutional.Denying all prisoners a vote would mean a person sentenced to eight weeks in gaol coinciding with an election period could not vote, yet another prisoner sentenced to two years in gaol coinciding with a favourable electoral cycle would be able to vote. Parliament has previously accepted that certain classes of prisoners should not be able to vote, and we do not oppose parliament's previous view. It is possible to distinguish between major and minor crimes, as the parliament has previously done. We believe that the five-year rule should remain but that it should be somewhat tightened so that, if any prisoner is being continually imprisoned from the return of the writs of the previous election to the issuing of the writs for the next election, their vote would not be admitted to the count.Items 11, 12, 14, 28, 30, 31, 53 and 54 provide for the early close of the rolls. As we said in our Senate minority report, these clauses represent an extremely undemocratic, crassly partisan and cynical approach by the government of the day. They signal the government is willing to entertain mass disenfranchisement. Evidence given shows that 80,000 new enrolments occur in the one-week period before the close of the rolls in an election period. Depriving these people of a vote adds nothing to the democratic process. It is no coincidence that the government believes that coalition voter support amongst new enrollees is not strong.Each election, there is a rush of people who either apply to get on the roll or who need to update their change of address. It is often not until an election is called that many people consider their election enrolment. Evidence given by the AEC to the Senate committee shows that a majority of the 320,000 notify a change of address at the last available opportunity. Further, about 80,000 new enrolments occur once the election is called. Closing the roll so quickly would disenfranchise a large number of first-time voters, most of whom would be young people. The restriction of three days for change of advice prior to an election will be massively distorting. It could lead to more than 200,000 people voting as at their previous address, which would be completely contrary to the spirit and intention of the Electoral Act.The legislation also inserts a postponement period during which names cannot be added to or deleted from the roll as a result of enrolment applications. The postponement period commences at 8 p.m. on the day of the closure of the rolls until close of polling, if the AEC is satisfied the applicant has previously been an elector. However, for new electors, the postponement period commences at 6 p.m. on the date of the issue of the writs until the close of polling. This means that no new electors can get on the roll once the election has been called. The rationale is that the new proof of identity and other crosschecks for new electors will take too long to carry out and will not make the three-day limit. So those 80,000 new voters who apply to get on the electoral roll when an election is called will all be disenfranchised. That is a travesty, and we will be opposing this measure.Items 13, 15 to 17 and 19 to 27 deal with enrolment reform. The coalition have had a long, and what I would call paranoid, obsession with the issue of electoral fraud—as if the only reason they failed to win elections between 1983 and 1996 was supposed massive electoral fraud. We all want accurate rolls, and the opposition believes strongly in the integrity of our electoral system. However, when questioned in the Senate inquiry, the AEC could not provide any evidence that the electoral rolls are rorted, nor can the Liberal Party come up with anything other than vague innuendo.These provisions seem to be based more on a potential for electoral fraud rather than on any actual cases. They will lead to an enormous rise in bureaucratic procedures and will cost $3.9 million annually. Such funds would be better spent on habitation reviews. The AEC gave evidence to the Senate committee regarding new enrolment procedures being currently adopted. These procedures will substantially reduce any possibility of fraud.The opposition will also be opposing measures providing that an elector must re-enrol within one month of moving to a new address. We think this would disenfranchise a number of voters, particularly itinerant electors. Previously, people were required to reside in their new electorate for a period of one month before being eligible for enrolment in that electorate. They then had 21 days to notify the AEC of their change of enrolment. This cuts that time back to only four weeks.However, a much greater concern exists for itinerant electors. Item 17 seems to actually eliminate the entire category of itinerant electors. Item 17 states:. . . Subject to subsection (9), a person ceases to be eligible to be treated as an itinerant elector under this section as soon as the person becomes entitled to be enrolled for a Subdivision.The other items in this group of amendments provide that a person becomes entitled to be enrolled for a subdivision immediately with no one-month waiting period. Therefore, an elector would cease to be treated to be an itinerant elector as soon as they moved elsewhere. We raised this anomaly during the debate in the House of Representatives and the minister provided a response on behalf of the AEC. He said:. . . while the proposed amendments would appear to severely limit an elector's ability to claim itinerant status in the application of the current provisions, the AEC has based the determination of eligibility not solely on the length of residency at a particular address but on whether that address is considered to be a permanent address of the elector—that is, one to which the elector has a fixed intention of returning to live on a permanent basis rather than just a temporary abode for a fixed period of time. The AEC advises that it will continue to adopt this approach in considering applications if the proposed amendments are passed into law.We just do not think that is good enough, frankly. It is not a sufficient response to a problem that the AEC would have missed but for the opposition's alerting them to it. We will be opposing the measure.A range of other measures relying on as yet unseen regulations will also be opposed by the opposition. They include: witnesses to enrolment applications must be electors as prescribed by the regulations; the lodgment by hand of enrolment applications with a prescribed person—for example, post office or semi-government organisation; and verification of identity and citizenship for enrolment with at least one original form of proof of identity documentation.The provisions also rely heavily on the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs' records, and their accuracy. We fear that not everyone will have records of their citizenship. An example may be someone whose parents were made Australian citizens, and they were on the certificate but may not have a copy of that certificate.The success of these proposed changes would be dependent on these regulations that the Senate committee and the parliament are yet to see; nor have we been approached to give input into their make-up. We have said since May last year, when this was first introduced, that we are not able to support these provisions until we are satisfied that the draft regulations are acceptable.Items 44 to 46 increase the funding and disclosure thresholds. The Liberal Party have a lot of form when it comes to pushing the limits with electoral funding and disclosure. The Liberal Party have a history of sidestepping the disclosure provisions of the Electoral Act for party political reasons. And now they are taking advantage of their numbers to massively increase the electoral funding and disclosure thresholds in the knowledge that it will allow huge sums of money to be donated without disclosure.Item 44 increases from $1,500 to $10,000 the amount above which a donor to a political party must furnish a return for the financial year, and item 45 increases from $1,500 to $5,000 the amount received from a person or organisation that political parties are required to disclose during a financial year.The Labor Party will be opposing these items. We believe that these increases would allow for significant sums of money to go without disclosure, particularly when com bined with item 46 which provides that the $5,000 figure does not have to be made up of individual amounts of less than $1,500. Even the Australian Electoral Commission conceded the problems with these measures. During the Senate inquiry into the legislation the head of funding and disclosure at the AEC conceded the following:The way that a donor can make such a large donation without being disclosed is by donating up to the threshold to each state and territory branch of a political party. So, for a party that is organised nationally in every state and territory plus with a national secretariat, you are looking at nine separate identified parties, in effect, for disclosure purposes.He went on to say:A donor can make separate donations to each of those parties. Because they are not aggregated across the party across Australia, only within each state and territory, they will not be disclosed. So. . . they could donate $4,999 a year to each state and territory branch of a political party and go undisclosed. That would add up to just short of $45,000.The AEC also conceded that there were a number of other ways in which donors could split their donations so they would not be disclosed; for example, by each member of a family or a company donating up to the disclosure limit. Or another scenario may see a donor donate $4,999 to individual candidates. For example, if all the 37 Victorian seats attracted such donations from a single donor, that would add up to $184,963, undisclosed.Items 44 and 45 are basically another attempt by the coalition parties to weaken disclosure. That is a policy that they have consistently pursued for the past 15 years. The coalition parties' tacit approval of the Greenfields Foundation rort does nothing to inspire confidence in the arguments they have brought to bear in the case of these clauses. The Labor Party have always advocated very tight and transparent funding and disclosure provisions, and we will not allow these items driven by the Liberal Party national secretariat to undermine the integrity of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.In item 46 amounts of less than $1,500—an increase from $500—need not be counted when calculating disclosure amounts. We believe that those amendments to item 46 are sensible, and they are supported by the opposition.There are a number of minor and non-controversial measures that will be supported by the opposition. They include: items dealing with assisted voting; items dealing with the preliminary scrutiny of declaration votes; the repeal of section 332, already covered by section 328; and items dealing with the failure of delivery of postal ballots.While there are a few minor measures proposed by this legislation that are sensible and non-controversial, as I said at the outset, overall it does very little to enhance the integrity of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. In fact, it is a highly partisan piece of legislation. Many of its measures have not been proposed or advocated by the Australian Electoral Commission, and some are actually opposed by the AEC.The AEC's submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill before the election made the following points. In regard to the entitlement of prisoners to enrol and vote the AEC said:The AEC makes no comment on the policy relating to this issue. . . there will be some practical difficulties in implementing this policy.In regard to the use of elector data they stated:The AEC has no view on the policy to provide salutation and date of birth details to Members, Senators and political parties, or to allow for the use of elector data for research purposes.In regard to assisted voting they stated:The AEC has not been on the public record about this issue. However there could be some difficulties experienced in some polling places. . . In regard to thresholds for reporting of donations the AEC stated:The AEC advised against such changes in a submission to the JSCEM inquiry into the conduct of the 1996 federal election.As I mentioned earlier, further opposition was expressed by the AEC at the Senate committee hearing.I will be moving the amendments I have outlined when we get to the committee stage to ensure the integrity of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I urge the Senate to support the amendments. (Time expired)12:51:001806Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—This is the first piece of legislation that I have had carriage of since I was given the portfolio of electoral matters for the Australian Democrats. I look forward to working in this area with the rest of the Senate in a constructive way for some time.With this legislation, as with all electoral legislation, we in this chamber find ourselves in the unusual position of being both the legislators and also a major interest group. It is a position that the Democrats openly admit. However, we cannot underestimate the position of trust that is vested in us here when dealing with what is, for all intents and purposes, the basic machinery of our democratic system. It is obviously important that we do it in a way that is seen to be as fair and impartial as possible.Having said that, the Democrats remain sceptical about most of the measures in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 and are disinclined to support this legislation. As has just been outlined by the previous speaker, many areas of this bill give rise to great concern for the Australian Democrats as well. Broadly, it has been stated that this legislation is seeking to minimise electoral fraud as well as removing the right of prisoners to vote. It makes a number of other administrative changes which are potentially very far-reaching, such as changes to the disclosure provisions. Just a moment ago I spoke of being cynical about the motives behind this legislation. That cynicism was only strengthened when I read the House Hansard on this bill where the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, Mr Slipper, had this to say in his second reading contribution:The purpose of the legislation currently before the chamber is to ensure that when the result is declared following an election, that result as declared represents the intention of the Australian people as cast on polling day.If that had been the case in the 3 October poll last year, Mr Slipper would be on the opposition benches. As we all well know, despite 51.3 per cent of the population voting against it, this incumbent government has been able to cling to power because of its dominance in a handful of marginal seats. In terms of the principle enunciated by Mr Slipper, the 1998 federal election was the low-water mark for Australian democracy. The Democrats would like to see an examination of changes to the Electoral Act which will stop that problem occurring, rather than some of the other measures that are contained in this legislation.In real terms, the term of this government has been underwritten by an electoral system that fails to deliver representation to over two million Australians, which is the equivalent of denying representation to all the voters of South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. This bill does nothing to remedy that situation. Indeed, in some parts, it only exacerbates that situation. The Australian Democrats have made a career out of amending legislation to make it and the government open and operate with integrity and honesty. Electoral law and transparency in funding and donations to political parties is a fundamental part of that.This legislation deals with measures to enable greater information from the electoral roll to be provided to various people. Most contributors to the debate in the lower house and, I am sure, most senators would desire to keep the electoral roll and its use restricted to people who can be said to have a genuine interest in that information. The proposed amendments, which allow the provision of electoral data to members, senators and political parties, would be particularly attractive to commercial marketing companies. The amendments in this bill relate to giving federal MPs and all registered political parties the details of electors' dates of birth and salutations. I am not sure whether people would be terribly worried about their salutations being made available, but I am quite sure that a number of Australians would be concerned about their dates of birth being made available not only to members of parliament but also to every registered political party.The Democrats do not support the extension of this information—and for very good reason. One needs only to look at who and what is registered as a political party to see there is a long list of parties, many of which are barely known to the Australian public let alone to the people behind them. Many people would be concerned about that sort of information being made available to organisations that are barely known and, in many cases, difficult to even get in touch with.Not the least of those political parties that would get access to this extra information is Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party, a party that many people from all sides of politics have been concerned about in terms of their lack of accountability in their structure and their quasi-commercial operation style. Throughout this debate, there has been the talk of not allowing commercially sensitive material to fall into the hands of people who may profit from such information. The Democrats support moves to extend the penalties for such misuse, as contained in the foreshadowed amendment mentioned by Senator Faulkner. It is right and proper that we are intent on preventing any commercial entity from gaining an economic advantage through the electoral roll of this country.Another aspect of this legislation deals with the expansion of donations. The previous speaker has again outlined very clearly why the provisions contained in this legislation would leave major holes in the intent and operation of the disclosure provisions that have been put in place over many years. Let us not forget that part of what has driven that need and that desire for greater accountability and greater openness in terms of who funds political parties in Australia is the desire of the public to know such information. It is no secret to say that public confidence in political parties is very low and trending further downwards. Measures such as this, which seek to make it easier for donors to hide their donations to political parties, can have no other effect than increasing the level of cynicism amongst the Australian public. Surely that is something that none of us would wish to encourage.Another serious aspect of this legislation that the Democrats are greatly concerned about is the move to curtail the ability of people to enrol or to change their existing enrolment once elections are called. Again, as the previous speaker outlined, this has the potential to disenfranchise up to as many as 80,000 new voters whenever an election is called. The rationale behind such a measure—the need to prevent electoral fraud—has not been proven, despite extensive investigation by a number of parliamentary committees. With such a lack of evidence of any widespread electoral fraud, there can surely be no justification for producing an amendment which will clearly disenfranchise such a huge number of Australians. This will affect mainly younger people—people we are trying to encourage to get involved in the political process—many of whom, to the detriment of our democracy, are feeling more and more disconnected from it.There are a couple of measures, mainly minor administrative matters, in this bill that the Democrats are willing to support. If the bill gets to the committee stage, I will indicate those measures then. However, we believe that, on the whole, as the bill contains sufficient negative and serious measures, those few measures that are positive should be removed and put in another piece of legislation rather than being tacked onto something, the vast majority of which is, in the Democrat's view, completely unsupportable. For that reason, we believe that this bill should be voted against at its second reading stage.13:00:001807Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The Greens oppose the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998. The outcome of the provisions, the amendments, incorporated in this legislation would be to leave this country less democratic, and to leave the country's citizens with less equality in their approach to the ballot box and, indeed, more vulnerable to the approaches of the political parties—and in all cases this would be discriminatory.Firstly, this legislation contains provisions that would allow electors' dates of birth and salutations—that is, titles such as Mr, Ms, Miss, Mrs, Dr, and so on—to be made available to political parties. The caveat there is that there would be provisions to ensure that no-one gets an economic advantage or allows the information to be passed on to business interests.Questions need to be asked at the outset. Are not the political parties in themselves business interests? Are not members of parliament interested in the business in which they are engaged? There is no dividing line between the role of parliamentarians and the fact that they are sustained by the public purse on good salaries and provisions with amenities and staff. The aim of approaching electors in a discriminatory fashion through groupings based on their dates of birth, their particular interests perhaps relating to their ages, or their salutations is to particularly inveigle those voters in a more honed down way, in a more market research based way, if you like, to gain favour to help politicians and parties to stay in power.It is an insidious process, and I defy anybody in the Senate to say where the demarcation line is beyond which we will not go in the future if this process continues. This measure should not be allowed. It simply is a stepping stone to further measures whereby incumbent politicians and parties who are represented in the parliament gain an advantage in a political system which is already very much lopsided in their favour.I note that the ALP will support this provision. But that speaks volumes in itself because, in particular, it will help the major parties in the business of getting to the electorates in a way in which people who are not already in the parliament have no chance to get to them. It will help those major parties to get to electorates with, no doubt, selective information—because all politicians and members of parliament do that—and to put themselves in an advantageous position. We ought not allow this legislation because, through this measure, we would be putting forward a matter of self-interest, and I do not think that should be the case. We, the Greens, will strenuously oppose it.The next measure, which the ALP does oppose, is the provision for prisoners who are serving sentences of less than five years to be struck off the roll; effectively, to be denied a vote. It has already been pointed out that this provision is discriminatory in that those prisoners who happen to be in gaol serving short sentences—maybe as short as a month—at the time the Prime Minister calls an election will lose their vote. Those who are serving a month just before that or who get a sentence of a month after that or, indeed, have suspended sentences for the same crime will not lose their vote.It is already wrong that the laws of this country discriminate against long-term prisoners in taking away their vote. It is easy to have a reaction which says `vengeance is ours; we ought to be denying prisoners basic civil rights'. But it is muddle-headed at best, and it is bad civic practice; it is bad for the whole of the community when you analyse it fully.Let me put a couple of specific points about this. Firstly, it is up to the courts to judge people and penalise them by sending them to prison. That is where the penalty should start and finish. It should not be up to us to be legislating in a general way to take away the rights of people who go to prison—in particular, basic civil rights and the right to vote. If this were being done in a proper fashion, we would be handing to the courts the right to deny prisoners the vote. I believe that it is being done simply because the coalition has looked at the demographics and the voting patterns of prisoners and decided that prisoners do not vote for the coalition, by and large—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—They vote against incumbents.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—and incumbents, as Senator Ray says, so, `Let's deny them the vote.' That is what this is about. It is not about getting a better rehabilitation rate. It is not about protecting the wider interests of society against crime. It is about getting political advantage.As to what this might do for society at large, there is a strong case to put that if you deny prisoners the right to vote you send a message to them that society has rejected them. You take away—and I have been in prison on a number of occasions—the tendency there is to discuss politics, like all other people in society do, and to feel part of the process, and therefore to feel the want to get back into society and to continue to be part of that process as wanted and full citizens.It is a muddle-headed amendment, but it becomes worse when you look at who is in prison. In this country, unfortunately, the statistics show that, from detention centres for young people through to prisons for adults, indigenous Australians are incarcerated at somewhere between 10 and 20 times the rate of other Australians. Whatever the seat of that discrimination—and I would say it has a lot to do with the taking of the lands, the destruction of culture and the robbing of hope from the indigenous people in this country, allied to the extraordinary poverty in general the indigenous people live in compared with the rest of the community—this denial of the vote is going to hit indigenous people at a rate 10 to 20 times that of the rest of the community.It is racially discriminatory. I would like to hear arguments from the other side if they disagree with that. The Greens will be moving an amendment to the legislation to ensure that the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 has precedence over these amendments—in other words, to ensure that if there is racial discrimination it is challengeable in the courts. This legislation is subsequent to the RDA and, if we do not do anything, it will escape the aegis of the RDA. I want to make sure that that does not happen. I would put it to all other members of the Senate that they support this amendment, because we do not want to extend the discrimination there is in this country against indigenous peoples, particularly in the fundamental matter of their having the right to vote.Until the referendum in the sixties there was a shameful history of universal denial of the right of Australia's indigenous population to vote. This legislation echoes back to that shameful history. This legislation is going to take away the rights of indigenous people disproportionately. It is racially discriminatory, therefore, and we need to make sure that that discrimination is expunged. I put it to the government, in particular, but to all senators that they support the amendment that I will be moving to make sure that the Racial Discrimination Act has aegis over this legislation.The matter of early closure of the rolls was referred to by both previous speakers. In short, some 80,000 young voters are likely to be unable to cast a vote at future federal elections where the Prime Minister says, `We are having an election three weeks from now. The writs will be issued tomorrow.' The information is that, given the opportunity, some 80,000 people would enrol in the week. What does this mean? If you average it out, about 500 voters in each electorate would lose their right to vote. They will be stymied by this amendment being brought in here for quite clear political motives. There were some five electorates at the last election decided by less than 500 votes—Bass, Dickson, Herbert, Eden Monaro and Hinkler.Clearly, in any election there is real potential for the result in marginal seats like those to be altered by this measure, and therefore who wins government in a close election. You cannot tell me that the officials in the coalition party offices have not been pouring over this legislation to see that that is the result, and that is the totally wrong basis for bringing forward amendments to the way in which this country works at election time. This is not free of political bias. These are politically biased electoral amendments which have the aim specifically of keeping the coalition in office at any future close election. Nothing could point to that more than this particular means of disenfranchising tens of thousands of young Australians, many of whom will be young Australians on the move, many of whom will be poorer young Australians. I have no doubt that the analysis at coalition head offices was `likely in the main not to be coalition voters'.The final matter I want to speak about is the provision to raise the requirement for the disclosure of donations to political parties upon individuals from donations of $1,500 or more to $10,000 or more. Once again, this is a measure to help cover the donations going to the major political parties, particularly the coalition. It is designed to increase the opportunity for major individual donors particularly—although it need not necessarily be individuals; it can be from the corporate sector—to put, as Senator Faulkner showed the Senate, much larger donations, donations of over $100,000 spread out through the states, into the party political coffers without that being revealed to public notification and therefore public analysis.This goes totally against the spirit of electoral disclosure legislation. It is a move towards protecting people who make donations to political parties. I have said this before, but I will say it again: people do not make large donations to political parties without having in mind favour in return. That particularly applies to the corporate sector. And if it applies to big donations in big amounts, it applies to smaller donations in smaller amounts. I only have to point to the fact that somewhere between half a million dollars and $1 million coming from the woodchip companies to the big political parties per annum is enough to sway both of the big political parties to support woodchipping in wild forests in this country, though all the opinion polls show that 70 to 80 per cent of the Australian electorate does not want that to happen.I only have to point out as well that it is irresponsible for executives or boards of corporations making donations to do so without expecting a result. That is not a proper way to be using shareholders' money. There is a lot of deliberation behind large donations to political parties. But, in particular, the government of the day is expected to return a favour, and in the main it does return a favour. That, Mr Acting Deputy President, is against the interests of the average Australian. I believe it is corrupt and corrupting not to call a spade a spade.We have, at least, in this country moved to have these donations disclosed. But this amendment is a move in the opposite direction—to start to reintroduce the veil of secrecy, to start to cover up the approach to political parties by people with money in their back pockets to curry political favour. We start to move back to the large brown envelopes, brown paper bags, with money inside, with no name ever registered for the public to look at. It is anti-democratic. It goes against the interests of the average Australian—that is, it is against the public interest—and we will be opposing it.I again say that there is little to commend this legislation at all. In almost every respect it is against the wider public interest. It is against the average Australian's interest. It is therefore democratically negative. I also believe is racially discriminatory. We will be moving to at least try to ensure it is not. In particular, we will be testing the government, who I am sure will say it is not racially discriminatory, by putting forward an amendment which they should not have any trouble with if that is the case.13:18:001810Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I have listened with interest to the contributions of Senator Bartlett and Senator Brown on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 , and I commend them on their speeches. There is no doubt that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries Australia led the world when it came to electoral reform. Many of the innovations that occurred in Australia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries are now the political norms around the globe. I think we can look back with pride at our country's history in this regard. For instance, I think we were the second country in the world to enfranchise women, one of the first countries in the world to pay our MPs and one of the first countries in the world to set up a proper electoral roll system. Certainly we were the first country in the world to introduce a properly controlled secret ballot—so much so that even in the United States in the 1990s the secret ballot there is referred to as `the Australian ballot'.So in that early part of our formation around Federation, we led the world. We can also say that at a federal level throughout that history for the most part we have had a very fair electoral system. For instance, unlike states, there has been very little gerrymandering in the federal process since Federation. The only major criticism that exists is that malapportionment was embedded into the system and was only rooted out in 1983-84—it took that long to get rid of malapportionment from our system.But if you look at the history of the Liberal Party, remembering the Liberal Party was founded around 1944-45, you will see that they have an absolutely disgraceful record in regard to electoral reform at a national level. Between 1949 and 1983 they let this current Electoral Act ossify. They did virtually nothing in the way of improvements. They took the attitude: this is a system that might favour us, any change will not favour us so we will leave it as it is. For instance, in the 1966 federal election—this is only 30-odd years ago—we had electorates in Melbourne of 28,000 and 29,000 voters and two other electorates with 140,000 voters because the Liberal Party would not apply themselves to think about electoral reform and update the previously existing act.The only real change they made in that time was the introduction of a 5,000 square kilometre provision, introduced by the Fraser government. And this was just to entrench malapportionment in this country. This was to favour country electorates—not even provincial electorates, because they put a size in—so that there would be some sort of bias within the electoral system from which they could take political advantage. This is the Liberal Party of Australia, which regularly accepted that the Senate informal vote would be well into double figures and there was no need to do anything about it. Why? Because it suited their self-interest.It is true that most political parties approaching the electoral system always put self-interest at the front. I think one of the great moves made by the first Hawke government was to set up the joint select committee to look at our electoral system, to review elections, and to bring forward recommendations. They have not always had unanimous consent—there are some issues of principle that will always divide political parties—but that committee, since its inception in 1983 to the current day, has brought forward many sensible bipartisan suggestions that have been incorporated in the Electoral Act and justify some sort of claim at the moment that we still have one of the best electoral acts and democratic systems anywhere in this globe.But we did have to tackle the more contentious areas of electoral reform, for instance, public funding. Senator Brown mentioned before he does not like the dependence of political parties on donations; neither do I. Public funding, at a national level, has helped relieve that burden enormously and probably constitutes 70 to 75 per cent of Labor Party campaign expenditure in any federal campaign. I am not sure whether there would be much difference in the Liberal Party, although their corporate fundraising goes much more to supporting their own administration rather than campaigning. But the Liberal Party oppose public funding.Of course, the National Party always went one step further. They opposed it on moral grounds. I ask the Senate: can anyone recall the Liberal or National parties not taking public funding? After every election, can you imagine Lightweight Lynton over at Robert Menzies House saying, `Here is a cheque for $12 million, I will send it back. I do not want public funding, we oppose it.' The National Party opposes public funding on moral grounds but they always take the money. They oppose public funding, but the real core of their opposition—and at least you can say the Liberal-National Party are being consistent—is that they have always opposed disclosure of donations. The only trite argument they can come up with is, `If the Labor Party in government knows who donated to us, they will persecute us.'Anyone who has examined the record of this government and its petty Nixonian persecutions of the last three years would know it is much more likely to come from that side of the chamber. Right through the 1980s, when disclosure laws came in and were tightened up, the Liberal Party opposed them. They set up their Free Enterprise Foundation and they set up the McCormack Foundation to channel donations through so that they would never be revealed. This parliament has faced a constant battle to try to catch up with the latest chicanery of the coalition in terms of disclosing donations. They used to say once, `It does not matter about donations because our politicians never know about them.' They said their politicians had no role in fundraising but, in the weeks before a federal election, what do you think former Prime Minister Bill McMahon did? He visited every boardroom in Sydney. He was known as `the vacuum cleaner' because, once he had been through, there was no money for anyone else's political donations. That was always the grand farce of the Liberal Party, that their upper echelon people did not know where the donations were coming from. Here in this Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 is at least part of that aspiration—the lifting of the threshold on donations from $1,500 to $10,000 in terms of party and up to $5,000 in terms of individuals. What have they got to be ashamed about? Are they ashamed of their corporate donors or of their individual donors? What have they got to be ashamed about? Why not have them on the public record and why not have it at a reasonable level? People say, `Why have any level at all?' That is simply a processing issue: you only really record the relatively significant donations.What we know about the coalition is that when they were getting into financial strife in 1996, they had to devise a new method to bring money in. They used the old Greenfields Foundation trick—essentially, I think, to hide who the donor was. Once they got caught out on the loan and the similarities and whether it was an associated entity, they finally—at least on the surface—came clean and said, `I am sorry. It was Ron Walker who donated the money.' Ron Walker apparently donated $4.6 million to the Liberal Party to get them out of debt and then assigned the debt, in their terms, across to Greenfields. Who is the federal treasurer, to be donating that sort of money? He happens to be the absolute beneficiary and current mendicant of the Victorian state Liberal government, because they have put all their dough into the casino. It has not fired up terribly well and they are constantly requesting concessions from the Victorian state government. I reckon Ron Walker's $4.6 million is a bit mean, because he has basically got at least $73 million in concession out of one state government decision. If you percentage that out, he has not even paid his 10 per cent to the deduct box. He has not even done that. This bill, in miniature if you like, reflects the constant coalition objection to disclosure. They will continue it by trying to put forward this bill here.This government has had two electoral bills so far. The first one really fits the description of a bipartisan bill. We virtually all agreed with what they put in it. I think it was sensible for the government to divide that bill from its more contentious bill because the other one was able to go through in time to operate in the last federal election. I must commend the Electoral Commission—and I hope this will be passed on—for getting the Senate results by computerisation this time. It was a revelation. They were much quicker and much easier to follow. I think they did a terrific job in getting those Senate results out. I am not speaking out of personal interest here, because I have never actually had to run in the death seat—at No. 3—and to worry about it. I have always believed in being on top of the ticket and dragging my colleagues through on my own personal vote rather than necessarily having to expose myself to the death seat.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Five weeks is a long time.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Senator Patterson, speaking from the heart, may, I think, have been in the death seat at one election. You would agree with me, Senator Patterson, that that was a good reform. I also suspect it saved a lot of money.But when you come to the bill itself, as other colleagues have mentioned, it does have some very odious aspects. I take a slightly different attitude to Senator Brown and the Democrats and even, probably, Senator Faulkner, on the question of prisoners voting—only because I have got form on this! Back in 1983-84, when I was on the joint committee, I believed one to two years was a fair cut-off point. It was arbitrary, there was not a lot of science to it, but I thought that was a reasonable cut-off point in terms of prisoners having rights.Provided people know before they commit crimes that if they are sentenced to more than two years gaol they will lose the right to vote, it is not double jeopardy. Later that was moved out to five years without much consultation with me. I am not sure I would have supported that. The points being made in this chamber today are absolutely valid. This particular cause does not have fair application. If someone is fined and cannot afford to pay the money and has to spend six weeks in gaol, they do not get the vote. If some other character facing the same choice forks out the $10,000, they do get the vote. Where is the fairness in that?Several speakers today have said: what happens if you are committed for a vicious assault and you serve two years in gaol but you actually started serving that sentence on 10 May 1996 and you got let out on 10 May 1998? You can vote in the federal election. Where is the fairness in someone who serves two years and gets the vote but someone else serves six weeks over a maintenance order they cannot afford or a speeding fine they cannot pay and they lose the vote?I think Senator Faulkner summed it up when he said to leave the five-year provision as it is but disqualify a further group to bring it back to more like the 1983 reforms where, if you are continuously in gaol from the issuing of writs to the return of the writs, you do not get a vote. That seems to me a very fair compromise. Why don't we adopt that? You could not get on the redneck talkback radio shows and blow this up as an issue. Senator Brown gave an eloquent defence of prisoners. Do you know what is going to happen, Senator Brown? You are going to be blackguarded on talkback radio. The old rednecks are going to rip you to shreds. They are not going to properly run the articulate arguments you put here today; they are going to distort them and use them as political capital against you and anyone else who expresses these views because they are arguing a very emotive issue.Prisoners are not just there to serve time. Prison is about—we hope—rehabilitation, playing a role in society. As such, we should encourage them to take their civic duty. I disagree with Senator Brown when he said that he did not think prisoners voted Liberal. My experience in looking at figures from mobile booths in prison is that they vote against incumbents. If it is the Labor government, we cop a thrashing because they see us as responsible for putting them there. I have not seen many in the mobile booths voting Green. So I think it is very noble that you have come in here to support their rights. Really, it should not be blown up as a redneck issue.There will have to be compromises made in terms of the parliament determining who has a right to vote and who does not. I think about a two-year period is the fairest possible period. If we want to make it five and exclude those who are in prison continuously between the issuing of the writs and the return of the writs, then I think that is a good compromise.The real rort in this is closing the rolls 24 hours after the writs are issued. Does anyone here know why the one-week period is there? I agree with it. Who pushed it hardest? Which senator from this chamber on the joint select committee actually pushed this harder so we have a 33-day election? The reason why we have a 33-day election period is that we have a one-week period for people to get on the rolls. It was not Senator Richardson or Senator Ray; it was former Senator Carrick. Having had that fixed timetable for elections, he argued—and we agreed with him—that you need a week to close the rolls.Why have the coalition included closing the rolls 24 hours after the writs are issued within the legislation? The fact is all people should enrol the moment they turn 18. We know that. I should not smoke. I know that, but I do. Young people put off enrolling because it is not at the forefront of their minds when they turn 18. Can you think of many 18-year-olds who wake up on their 18th birthday and start thinking about going on the roll rather than the party that night? What triggers them to go on the roll is when an election is called.We have evidence that 80,000 new people enrol before elections. Their enrolment is triggered by the election. This government wants to deprive every one of them from having a vote. That is pure demographics. They have done their polling. This is a group that even now they are not doing well with. The coalition will punish them and get an electoral advantage out of it. The by-product of that is there are another 323,000 people who, having moved address, regularise their position in that one week. When Senator Brown talked about 500 per electorate, this extends to a much higher figure.They will vote but they will vote in the wrong electorate because of this legislation. They will not be taken off the roll because they have not changed address; they will just vote in the electorate they were in previously. That is not about cleansing the roll. That is not about representation. Surely you can give them that week to move to their proper address. That should be encouraged. Again, the coalition and the hatchet men up at Menzies House have worked out that they may get some minor electoral advantage out of this, and therefore they should support it.This leads them then to the more draconian sections of the bill, on identification. This falls short of having to do a DNA test to get on the electoral roll. It goes back to outmoded regulations that existed in the fifties. The philosophy of the AEC in the 1980s is very easy to sum up. They used to say: easy to enrol, easy to vote. That was their philosophy. It is not anymore but not of their own volition, I might add; it was of this government's volition. I think it is a very sad thing that they have to bring in these sorts of regulations.I want to finish on one other note that is not in this bill. When people reflect on our Electoral Act and our electoral system, I want them to think back on the reforms brought about in the 1980s as to the distribution of electoral boundaries, because it is in this area when you look around the globe you see that Australia, at a national level, leads the world. I would say that we have the fairest redistribution system—or redistricting, as they call it in the US—anywhere around the globe. It was basically a combined effort between the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Democrats at the time to bring in a whole series of reforms—and it was independent people doing this—that, in the end, has given us this particular system.When you look at the problems that exist even today in the United Kingdom, with malapportionment, to gerrymandering in the US, to arguments right around the globe about the drawing up of boundaries, you will see that those reforms put in place in the 1980s still stand the test of time today. They are still the best anywhere around the globe. This shows that this parliament, when it applies itself in a bipartisan way, can produce electoral legislation that is envied by others.13:37:001814Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise as the Democrats' privacy spokesperson as well as the youth affairs spokesperson. I am aware that the Democrat concerns with the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 have been most eloquently outlined already by our new electoral matters spokesperson, Senator Bartlett. I will only speak briefly on a couple of matters, in particular the issue of privacy and the details proposed to be provided in relation to salutations and date of birth details. I believe that that is a major privacy concern for this parliament and for the community. The Democrats, with our long-running commitment to ensuring the rights of individuals and that private information is kept safe, have led the campaign to extend privacy laws to the private sector. But that is a debate for another day.In this context, we have already raised our grave concerns about this information being provided, for a number of reasons. It not only relates to privacy implications such as when it comes to salutations—whether it is to do with providing information about a person's status, such as married, professional or otherwise—but also can be argued against as being elitist. Apart from that, the details proposed to be provided are a major privacy concern, given that these details are often sufficient for banks or other organisations to identify a customer by phone and to release account balance and other information. So there are broad-ranging privacy implications as a result of the legislation before us.I thought it was interesting that Senator Ray suggested that, at the rate we are going, we will need a DNA test in order to qualify for registration on the electoral rolls. I might add for the interest of the parliament that that will not happen before this parliament at least debates or considers or passes the Democrats' private member's bill in relation to genetic privacy and non-discrimination—another area where we have failed blatantly to ensure that people's personal information (in fact, their most personal information: their DNA, their genetic make-up) is safe.In relation to, as the previous speaker referred to, one of the major rorts of this bill, I refer to the change in the registration requirements and the reduction in the amount of time between the issue of the writ and the close of the rolls. Clearly the Democrats oppose that measure quite strongly. This effectively closes the roll on 6 p.m. on the date of the issue of the writ for new enrolments or three working days after the issue of the writ for those updating their enrolment because of the change in their circumstances.We believe this can have quite a deleterious effect on especially new and younger voters—not necessarily the same category—who will potentially be disfranchised by this measure. We know that there were more than hundreds of thousands of new, young voters who were eligible to vote for the first time at the 1998 federal election. This figure is significant for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the federal government won the 1996 election by less than 100,000 votes. Clearly, this is a significant number of people who will be disfranchised.Despite the power of their vote, many young Australians are not necessarily familiar with how the voting system works. I do not necessarily think that that is something restricted to young Australians. I suspect there are a lot of people in our community—I am sure we all encounter this in the lead-up to elections and during campaign periods—who ask for more information about how the voting and electoral system work. But, in particular, new voters, younger voters, are sometimes unsure as to how to vote or how to make their vote reflect their voting intentions.We believe this bill will exacerbate this situation. We believe that for that reason it is quite an affront to the Australian democratic system. The Australian Democrats are strong advocates of a compulsory voting system. It is a tradition that we value very strongly. It is a tradition we believe strengthens the democracy in which we live. It ensures that participation is at its highest possible in all state and federal elections.However, there are recent figures that show that voter turnout has fallen by almost one per cent between 1993 and 1998. When we examine those figures, this bill seems to further restrict, not increase, participation. We have a record of voter participation which stands in stark contrast to voter turnout in other Western democracies where the political system is one most similar to our `Washminster' model but not necessarily a compulsory system. Places like the United Kingdom and the United States are two examples. In the United Kingdom in 1993 and 1996 some 22 per cent of enrolled voters turned out to the polls. This fell to 96.20 per cent in 1996—I might clarify those figures—and 95.33 per cent in 1998. So that was 96.20 per cent in 1996 and 95.33 per cent in 1998. So that is a small reduction, but a reduction in voter turnout nonetheless.This is a trend. We should be reversing that trend. How do you reverse that trend? Obviously education plays a role. I do commend the government's recent attempts to introduce or bolster civics education in this nation. I think it has been shamefully overdue. I recognise that a lot of the money that has been put aside by the relevant minister is actually not new funding but funding that was held over from the last government. I think it was the former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, who allocated funds towards a civics education program in this country. Nevertheless, that is beginning to happen.However, I note that, as far as I know, apart from some of the Australian Electoral Commission first-time voter information, mostly in the form of advertisements and other appropriate propaganda, the Australian Democrats are the only party that produce a non-partisan guide for first-time voters specifically aimed at young voters, new voters, that looks in a non-partisan fashion at how the voting system works. For example, it looks at proportional representation and looks at how preferences are distributed. It answers some of those very basic questions that a lot of Australians, young Australians in particular, are not familiar with. I do commend to the chamber the So it's your first time booklet. I wish other political parties would see fit to produce similar broadsheets. I would hope that the Australian Electoral Commission will continue to provide funding for first-time voters.We are unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, where political parties and advocacy groups spend a lot of time and money mobilising young and first-time voters with campaigns like `Choose or Lose', `Lead or Leave' and the MTV `Rock the Vote' campaigns—a whole range of strategies designed to mobilise young people. Thankfully, we don't have to mobilise young people in the same way, but we cannot afford to be complacent. The administrative measures before us today will act as a disincentive to young voters and new citizens—to new voters generally.Potentially 80,000 people are disfranchised. Again, we have yet to see any evidence that demonstrates that this will necessarily lead to a reduction in fraud. I do not think we have seen justifiable evidence that fraud would be minimised in any way as a result of a reduction in the amount of time between issue of the writ and the close of the rolls. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that new and young voters participate in elections at a state and federal level—at all levels of government—ensuring that they are valued citizens and that their concerns are taken seriously. Editorials and shock jocks love headlines which suggest that young Australians are particularly apathetic about, are not interested in, the workings of government. We should be wary of confusing cynicism with apathy. Our own Senate standing committee, formerly Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, which you would be more than familiar with, Madam Acting Deputy President, has conducted a couple of inquiries into the issue of citizenship. Its finding was quite the contrary—that a majority, I believe over 80 per cent, of school age students are particularly keen to know more about the work ings of their democracy. They want to know more about how parliament operates. They want to know more about how they can be politically interested and active. The best way to foster that, to encourage that, is to provide education at both a school level and a general community level.I commend to the chamber those reports and organisations like the YMCA and the CCF, who are working on a daily basis to ensure that young people are introduced to our democracy and that they understand how the voting system works. Measures like the one before us today will do little to ensure that young people have an understanding of the way the system works or that they are registered to vote and can exercise that very powerful right. So on those grounds I am concerned about the legislation before the chamber today, both because of the privacy implications and its impact on new, first-time and, in particular, young voters. We should be doing everything in our power to ensure that young Australians are empowered and understand the right to vote and the power of their vote. This bill, with some of its measures, does exactly the opposite.13:48:001816Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—There are a number of provisions in this legislation which are non-controversial. There are some points in it that we can support. There are, however, some major areas of division between the two sides where we cannot find common ground. I will go through each of these in turn. They basically come down to three of the principal parts of this proposed legislation. Firstly, there is the question of disclosure, which I will have more to say about in a moment. Then there is the question of the integrity and the encompassing nature of the electoral roll. This legislation attempts to wind back measures which have given Australia one of the best electoral rolls in the world, and the Electoral Commission a very accurate document. If these measures are carried through they will certainly disfranchise a large number of people.The other question is the vexed question of gaols. We heard Senator Ray make a number of statements about gaols. He said that originally, in 1983-84, the then Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters investigated this proposal and came down with the view that a person serving two years or more should not be entitled to vote at elections. He said that some time during the late 1980s this was changed and the benchmark became five years: if a person was serving five years they lost the right to vote. In all the court cases I have followed, in the ones that I have seen, and when they are reported in the newspaper, the judge does not say at the end of it: `You are not only sentenced to so many years but you have lost the right to vote as well.' I don't know that it is a big issue amongst a large number of prisoners.But in any democracy, if a person is denied the right to vote we should be clear and precise as to why we are doing it. I do not think the principles in this legislation come to grips with that debate. I agree with Senator Ray; it is an issue that we have set arbitrary limits on before. At least some of the comments he made about a person who would be in prison for the whole of a period of a particular parliament being excluded from the right to vote probably have some merit and could be looked at.But this legislation is about excluding a group of voters who, it is thought, will predominantly vote Labor. Senator Ray made a few comments. He said that he didn't think that prisoners voted Green. He said he thought that they probably voted against whoever the government was at the time. I now need to declare to the chamber that I was a state member before I came here, as everyone knows. I actually had a gaol in my electorate in the 1989 state poll, and the only box I lost in that state poll was the Yatala Labour Prison box. So I conducted my own investigation afterwards. I wanted to find out why I had lost the box. The Robert Ray theory, which he announced here today, was that it was because at the time we were in state government.But I must tell the minister, who is finding some mirth at this, that we found out that the sorts of people in prison who actually did vote were more the white-collar criminals—the lawyers and accountants who could not keep their hands out of the till—and they were much more likely to be coalition voters.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Sounds like Labor lawyers to me.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—There may well have been some Labor lawyers in there; there may well have been some lawyers doing hard labour, Minister. But, at the end of the day, the white-collar criminals in goal continue with the same voting patterns that they have always had. To disenfranchise all prisoners, regardless of what the person is sentenced for, the length of time of that sentence and the severity of the crime, is, I suspect, a principle which is dedicated more to taking people off the roll rather than making the democracy inclusive.I suspect that this legislation is only part of this debate—that, in fact, we need to look at this much more thoroughly. Maybe we should look at the suggestion that has been made today regarding a person who is in prison for the whole of a parliament. I do not know that that actually satisfies all of the conditions. I suspect a prisoner, who may well have been in for an entire parliament, is not voting for the government that they have had but is voting for the government that they are going to get in the future. Again, I think that is an unsatisfactory condition.I would like to refer to the other parts of this legislation. I think the question of the closure of the rolls is a rather interesting one. The last election was called at about 8.30 or 9 o'clock on a Sunday morning. That was when I was made aware of it. The 33-day mechanism leading up to the poll—which was conducted in October last year—then took place. If this legislation goes through, that process could be truncated somewhat—certainly at least in respect of getting people on the rolls. In fact, unless I am wrong about this legislation, instead of having the entire next week through until, as I understand it, the Monday of the second week for persons to go on the electoral roll and to sort out their electoral enrolments, what would happen is that that process would actually be complete early in the first week.So if an election is called early on a Sunday morning, by the early part of that week it is going to be too late to change enrolments, it is going to be too late to get on to the roll. Indeed, what is going to happen is that the roll that will be used at the subsequent poll will not be an accurate and fair representation. There have been figures given in the Senate today that as many as 300,000 people in one form or another will be affected by this process. On previous figures, at least 80,000 will be closed off. 300,000 or more persons will be voting in an electorate in which they currently do not live. They will not be able to vote in the electorate where they will be living for whoever is in government and whoever will be representing them in the near future.I think that is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and for it to be put to the Senate shows the cynicism of this. In fact we on this side of politics have taken the view that this is simply a cynical exercise to take out as many Labor votes as possible. Indeed, it probably could have quite an impact. The results at the last federal election were determined by only a handful of votes in quite a large number of seats. From memory there are something like 10 seats that will fall or stand at the next election with only something of the order of 600 or 700 votes in each one of those electorates. So a measure like this can have a significant impact, and I think it would be a shame to see the rolls treated this way.Other senators have made comments about the question of privacy. I am not going to go into that. I want to talk about disclosure, but I think the clock is going to close me off and I will do that at a later hour today. But I just want to say here and now that this legislation is a miserable and miserly attempt to try to win a handful of votes or, more precisely, exclude a handful of votes that are not in the interests of the governing parties. As a consequence, the Labor Party will not be supporting those measures. I shall have more to say at a later hour today on the question of disclosure and Greenfields. In the meantime, I have asked Greenfields to send me a loan application form because I am shopping for a housing loan too, and they have the best conditions I have seen.Debate interrupted.Questions Without Notice181818181818Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration. Minister, with regard to the missing $8 million from DOFA—and I do not want to canvass operational matters—could you inform the Senate when the matter was referred to the Australian Federal Police and by whom? Was DOFA's internal fraud unit involved in investigating the matter and/or in the referral to the Federal Police? Given that this an AFP operational matter, why did a spokesman for the Minister for Finance and Administration contact the Canberra Times to specifically deny that the investigation related to outsourcing arrangements? Who was the minister's spokesperson and on whose authorisation did he or she make comment on this operational matter?1818Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—This matter is operational, as Senator Ray has correctly stated. I am not aware of any representative of the Minister for Finance and Administration contacting the court or making any statement, as mentioned by Senator Ray, and I am not aware of when this was referred to the AFP. I would say, with respect, that the referral of this matter would constitute part of the conduct of this matter by way of the operation of it and the prosecution of it and certainly in relation to the person who referred it. In relation to those other matters mentioned by Senator Ray, I will take them on notice and see what I can do.1818Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. In relation to the referral, I was seeking whether it was the department or the minister who referred the matter to the police, not the individual in the department. So you might look at that part of the question. The minister must have been otherwise occupied if he did not read the front page of the Canberra Times on Saturday where it specifically said `a spokesman at their own initiative rang us'. I am asking you who that spokesman was that transgressed the very prohibition you have put on discussing operational matters.1819Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will take that on notice.18191819Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Given that the Australian economy continues to perform strongly under the Howard government despite the turmoil being experienced by other economies in our region, will the minister inform the Senate of any recent data which further indicates the underlying strengths of the Australian economy?1819Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Yes, there has been further good news on the economy since we last met as a result of the sound economic policies of the Howard government. The strength of the Australian economy is remarkable in some ways given the turmoil that is being experienced by other economies in our region. The latest growth figures for the year through to the December quarter showed the Australian economy growing at a rate of five per cent—a figure that makes us the envy of the region, some would say the envy of the world. To that background we all remember the words of the then shadow Treasurer Gareth Evans in only September of last year who said—and I remind all senators—`All the evidence is that the Australian economy is on a precipice, hanging on by its fingertips.' Now we have five per cent growth, which is the envy of the world. I have to refer to him as the former shadow Treasurer because the current shadow Treasurer, like the rest of his party, officially does not have any policies on the economy. The Labor Party has wiped the slate clean on policies. One hundred years of history and there is not a policy at the federal level. Yes, there are some principles like equality before the law and the like, but nobody disputes that. The issue of politics is an alternative policy recipe. The choice of the voter is to choose between policies. Now we have the Labor Party three years into opposition with not a policy on the table.As I said, the government can take great credit for the recovery of the Australian economy, particularly with the background that less than three years ago we inherited a massive $10 billion budget black hole. The difficult decisions which our government had the courage to take at that time have laid the foundations for the current strong economic performance. We continue to enjoy low inflation—a 1.6 per cent annual inflation rate to December of last year. Australian home owners continue to enjoy the benefits of low interest rates. Home mortgage rates are now the lowest for 30 years, with savings on a $100,000 variable home loan now worth some $330 a month.Australian business also shares in the benefits of low interest rates. The National Australia Bank business survey for January shows that business conditions have improved for the sixth consecutive month in trend terms. The survey also shows that business confidence has returned to the high levels recorded prior to the Asian financial crisis. That is good news not only for business but obviously for all Australians, particularly those looking for work. On that subject, during the break there was further good news as well. Unemployment for December and January came in at 7.5 per cent—the lowest level in eight years. Almost 400,000 jobs have been created since the Howard government was first elected.We still need to do to more work for those who remain unemployed but, unlike the opposition, the coalition government at least has policies. We will see where the opposition stands this time on our changes to unfair dismissal laws, which will provide many jobs, and also where they stand on support for youth pay rates—a major issue in terms of the job market as well. Our exporters continue to perform strongly, with the annual trade outcome statement revealing a record $114 billion in exports of goods and services. (Time expired)1819Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister provide the Senate with further information about how the government is committed to driving the changes needed to keep the Australian economy strong and to benefit the Australian people?1819Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I was just going to say that because really what has been achieved, whilst it is excellent, is not the question for the future. The question for the future is: what further can be done? Of course, the parliament has before it reforms to our taxation system that will give great advantage to Australian business vis-a-vis its competitors to build on the solid base of low interest rates, low inflation and low debt which has enabled the achievements to date. Not only will we be giving back under this tax reform some $13 billion in much needed personal tax cuts but also the removal of the tax upon exports will make our exports more competitive and build upon the solid base that has been set. The challenge is there for the future. We have put in place a sound economic foundation to build upon the achievements of the last three years. We have the opportunity to continue to grow the Australian economy and to provide jobs for Australians who are still out of work, and it is largely up to the Labor Party whether it is prepared to be part of it. (Time expired)18201820Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State, Senator Ellison. Given that both Senator Minchin and Minister Fahey claim that there is no illegality in the charter claims that the minister has repaid, will the minister now table in the parliament: one, all papers related to the first departmental investigation; two, all legal advices sought on this matter; and, three, the full details of the further repayments made and the circumstances surrounding them? Further, will the minister table all of the guidelines applying to charter flights from the period 1993 to 1998?1820Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—It might help if by way of background I preface my answer with the fact that, for some time, there has been some uncertainty in relation to these guidelines that Senator Faulkner has referred to. In fact, this has been the comment not only of people on my side but all around the chamber. In particular, the Remuneration Tribunal indicated in December last year when it changed the guidelines that, in order to remove any ambiguity and clarify entitlements, it recognised that the taking of passengers in certain circumstances could constitute a legitimate exercise in the service of one's electorate. That was a distinct change in the rules and it was a recognition by the Remuneration Tribunal that there had been some uncertainty and ambiguity in relation to these rules. As well as that, we have also had the comments of various senators from all sides, I would submit, in relation to the uncertainty of these guidelines.In relation to my situation, I made a payment last year in late September and, as a result of that, then searched my records. It became apparent that a payment was due and, when I had undertaken a search of those records, I contacted the department and my senior minister and went through those instances with the Minister for Finance and Administration. I stress that I did that of my own volition and on my own initiative. This was not requested of me; it was something which I took upon myself.Subsequent to that, the department obtained legal advice from the Attorney-General's Department and a leading private law firm. That advice was that there was some doubt as to whether the Commonwealth had a legally recoverable debt. Consequently, I was advised that no payment by me was required. Despite that, I elected to make a payment. I felt that, in my position as the Special Minister of State, it fell upon me to make that payment and, in particular, to avoid the perception that there had been some change in the rules which might suit me or some legal advice which benefited me. I wanted to make it very clear that this was not the case. In relation to the legal advice obtained, it has long been a practice that ministers do not divulge legal advice obtained by the government. That is a longstanding practice which the Labor opposition adhered to when it was in government.I believe that I have acted appropriately as the Special Minister of State, and I have sought to clarify this matter. There has been no payment to me, and I reject the notion that there has been any repayment as such. There has been no payment to me in relation to these entitlements. I am a senator from Western Australia and I have to serve a very large state, a state which is the size of continental Europe. Of course, members and senators who have large electorates do have a charter entitlement, and that charter entitlement is so that the more remote areas of their electorate can be serviced. The charter allowance which I used was within entitlement and, as I say, my actions were entirely appropriate in the circumstances. I therefore believe that, in the circumstances, the advice is not relevant and would not normally be tabled. I can say that the costing of this matter was done by the department, and I have now paid the sum of $9,063 as a result.1821Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, given that you are the minister in the Commonwealth responsible for the administration of parliamentary allowances and entitlements, I would have thought that it would be both in the public interest and in the interests of the parliament if the details relating to the first departmental investigation were tabled, if the second and further repayments were tabled and also if the advices were tabled. In relation to the advices, Minister, is it not true that the reason you are refusing to table—YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. You have chastised Senator Faulkner on many occasions. He is again addressing the minister on this particular issue when he should be addressing you. I know you have told him a number of times—and it is very hard for him to get it through his skull—but could I ask you to oblige him to stand by the standing orders? 10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I would ask you to address your remarks through the chair and not directly to the minister, Senator.5K4Senator FAULKNER—Thank you, Madam President. I ask the minister if it is true that the reason he is refusing to table the legal advices is that he and his colleagues have been scrabbling around desperately trying to find a legal opinion that lets the minister off the hook. Why are we not entitled to come to the conclusion in relation to this issue that, as far as this minister is concerned, he is poacher turned gamekeeper?1821Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I totally reject that. As I said earlier, I have made this payment in order that it is made absolutely clear that I have not taken the benefit of any legal advice or change in rules. I want that to be absolutely clear. I say that in this chamber because that is why I made that payment. It is a longstanding practice that legal advice is not tabled, and when the Labor opposition was in government it did not table legal advice it obtained.18211821Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Given that the Howard government has adopted a clear and logically consistent position during the public debate over the issue of government ownership of Telstra, is the minister aware of other policy positions in this debate? Have these other policy positions been moving towards the stand which the Howard government has consistently taken?1821Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Senator Tierney is dead right. We have been utterly consistent in all of our pronouncements and policy commitments in relation to the privatisation of Telstra. In relation to 1996, of course, we were out there seeking a mandate to sell one-third of Telstra against ferocious opposition from the usual suspects. We got that through. In March 1998 the Prime Minister again announced that we would seek to go further. We then accordingly proposed in the last election campaign that we would in fact seek a staged sale of Telstra.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—He didn't even tell you he was doing it. He treated you as a doormat, as usual.LD4Senator ALSTON—Our position has been crystal clear. This is where it starts to get interesting, Senator Schacht, so if I were you I would just listen. What do we have by way of contrast? We have a constantly shifting policy position designed to defend the indefensible, knowing all along that this is what every other country in the world is doing. The Labor Party in government would be no different to anyone else around the world; they would be privatising Telstra as soon as they possibly could. On Sunday Mr Beazley said: Labor's policy is to defend the maximum possible public ownership of Telstra.Classic weasel words. Having studiously refrained from endorsing Mark Latham, whose book he actually launched, he then came out and said some nice words in favour of Mr Tanner, whose book he did not actually launch. What he said about Mr Tanner's idea was that it was interesting that Mr Tanner was proposing to break up Telstra. This is the union agenda, as we all know, because the unions have long said, `There aren't too many members of ours in the new and emerging areas of Telstra, but it is the infrastructure—the network, the techs and the linesmen—where we have got our membership, so we want you to hang on to that.' Of course, Mr Tanner—being a captive of the union, like all the others—has gone down that path to some extent.Mr Beazley said that Lindsay said in his book `extract the net from Telstra.' I would be amazed if Mr Tanner said `the net', but it shows that Mr Beazley does not understand the difference between the net and the infrastructure, and he said nationalise it. If you nationalise it, you would have to pay compensation on just terms. So put a number on it. It could be $5 billion, $6 billion or $8 billion, which you would immediately have to give back to Telstra shareholders. Then he says that you can have competitive arrangements. Of course, we do have competitive arrangements. Mr Beazley is clearly utterly oblivious to competition law and the way in which bottleneck theory has emerged. We do actually have high levels of competition and 25 new carriers.Whilst Mr Beazley is out there saying those sorts of things, Mr Tanner is running a million miles away from that very policy proposition, because in an article in today's paper, which is an extract from the book, he says:Defining what basic telecommunications capacity entails is not quite so simple in a world of rapidly changing technologies. Separating Telstra into privately owned and publicly owned companies would be a complex task.Mr Tanner is disowning the very idea. What are we left with? Mr Beazley says this:The past is a foreign country as far as our previous policies were concerned.In other words, the true believers are now dilettante agnostics; they do not believe in anything any more. They were passionately opposed to Telstra, but now that is all out the window; that was the last election. Why do you need to oppose it when it comes on for debate here? Of course you do not. It is utterly opportunistic. You have no policies. Mr Beazley talks about a foreign country, but he is really parking himself offshore in wonderland where you sit and look at all these interesting policy proposals being thrown up in the air and say, `Isn't that interesting? What a good idea. Must have a think about it.' But the headline to Mr Tanner's article was, `It's time to lead the IT revolution.' Who normally does the leading in political parties? The leader. Where is Mr Beazley? He wouldn't have a clue. He is sitting there blindly endorsing proposals which people are disowning. (Time expired)18221822Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. I refer to the Prime Minister's revelation on Lateline on Tuesday, 9 February that he knew of Senator Ellison's repayment of charter flight costs prior to Senator Ellison's appointment as Special Minister of State. When was the Prime Minister informed and by whom? When was the Prime Minister informed of the second repayment and by whom?1822Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—They are questions of detail on which I will have to seek advice.1822Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the Prime Minister has been informed of Senator Ellison's repayment of charter allowance, was he similarly informed of Mr McGauran's repayment prior to his reappointment as a minister? If so, when was he informed, by whom and what was the amount involved?1822Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I will just correct one aspect which I thought Senator Ellison had corrected. In his instance, it is not an issue of repayment, because there was no legal debt in the first instance. It is a voluntary payment that he has chosen to make. In relation to the payment by Mr McGauran and when the Prime Minister was informed of that, that is another question of detail that I would have to check.18231823Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer. Did the Treasurer recently hold a secret meeting with industry groups such as the BCA, ACCI and the Business Coalition for Tax Reform, as was reported in the Financial Review ? If so, did the Treasurer urge these groups to launch a new partisan public campaign against the exemption of food from the GST? Were capital gains taxes also raised as an issue at this meeting? If so, was the Prime Minister made aware of this meeting before he singled out capital gains as an issue in his public comments at the weekend?1823Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In relation to the first part of Senator Lees's question, the Treasurer meets with a very wide range of groups—as indeed the Treasurer should. One of the Treasurer's jobs, one of the jobs on our side—I think one of the jobs of everyone in parliament—is to liaise closely with groups in the wider community on public policy issues. Senator Lees, I am not aware of any so-called secret meeting. If the Treasurer was meeting with people from the business groups, what I can say is: good on him. That is exactly what one would expect the Treasurer to do. It follows then that, in relation to the second part of the question, I am not aware of what was discussed at any such meeting, if such a meeting occurred.What I can say to you is that this government is a government of reform. This is a government that went to the election on a program of tax reform. It is a government which was quite explicit to the Australian people on what it sought to achieve with its tax reforms. I would urge the Democrats to make sure that we keep our promises on tax reform and to make sure we pass our program—the program we went to the Australian people with—in its entirety.1823Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, given that in the document on a new tax system you took to the election you say very clearly you do not propose to change the capital gains taxes unless they are revenue neutral, given that the government repeatedly tells us that that tax package is non-negotiable and given the evidence to the committee this morning from Chris Murphy that taking food out of the GST has no negative economic effect, can you explain why your government is apparently prepared to give ground to business on capital gains tax but not prepared to give ground to the church and welfare groups on food?1823Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In the tax package that we went to the election with, we announced that the Ralph committee would be looking at issues such as capital gains tax and, as far as I am aware, that is precisely what is happening. In relation to the second part of your question, there would be major problems for the tax package, as you are aware, if food were extracted from that tax package and made GST free. I think the experience in other countries around the world has shown that it would lead to major issues of compliance and major costs of compliance. What the Democrats have to do, as I said, is to make sure that we keep our promises on the tax package. That is what you should do. I would have thought it was the traditional role of the Australian Democrats to do that. (Time expired)10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I would remind the minister of the necessity to address the chair.18231823Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the minister aware that the Prime Minister has stated that he was only following public service recommendations when he watered down his ministerial code of conduct? Is it a fact that the advice referred to by the Prime Minister was the incoming government brief prepared by departments on the basis of the stated intentions of the parties prior to the election? Is it a fact that this advice was a direct result of comments attributed to the Prime Minister in an article by Mike Seccombe during the federal election campaign? Will the minister now correct the gross untruth disseminated by the Prime Minister in trying to pretend that the watering down of his code had its origin in the bureaucracy?1824Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Not surprisingly, my brief does not specifically address the question that Senator Faulkner raises, but I also do not accept his description of a watering down of the guidelines. They have been restructured in a way to better reflect contemporary circumstances. Within government there are people who have had successful careers before parliament and have accumulated wealth—something that the Labor Party hates, seeing that most of the other side come from a trade union background or occasionally have been party officials. But our side of politics better reflects the broad range of occupations—UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—Lawyers!AW5CARRSenator Carr—Yeah, lawyers.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many interjectionsBH4Senator HILL—It better reflects the broad range of occupations within the Australian community.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Lawyers!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, stop shouting.BH4Senator HILL—Yes, some lawyers, some teachers, some doctors—a whole range. We don't apologise for that. The question is, then, how an incoming minister should appropriately deal with that wealth so that there cannot be an issue of either conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest. The Prime Minister has now put down a code of conduct that will ensure that such interests are at arms length but at the same time ensuring that the family of the relevant member or senator is not disadvantaged.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—How can you keep a straight face?BH4Senator HILL—I welcome Senator Bolkus. It is good to see you here today. It is a sensible, rational set of rules that can provide the safeguards that are necessary to demonstrate public probity. As I said, they reflect the circumstances that indicate that it is not just trade unionists that are now members of the Australian ministry.1824Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister now admit that it was not the bureaucracy's idea to dilute the code; in fact, it was Mr Howard's own idea? Won't the minister concede that the revised code represents a very significant slide in the standard that was demanded of ministers and represents a further nail in the coffin of the Prime Minister's now laughable claim that he made prior to the 1996 election that he, John Howard, would raise standards in Australian political life?1824Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—No. The Prime Minister demands high standards, and this code of conduct will give the public confidence that such high standards will be maintained. In relation to the source of advice, of course the Prime Minister takes advice from his bureaucracy and from other sources as well. I am sure that all of that was properly taken into account in the development of these new contemporary guidelines.18241824Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government. It arises from the fact that Australia Day is celebrated on the day rather than as part of a long weekend. Is it not a fact that, if you were to take a poll of or have a yarn with ordinary working Australians, you would find that most of them want to see a return to the old Australia Day weekend? Is it not a fact that the uniform approach resulted from former Prime Minister Hawke and some sort of belief in `loyalty to Australia'? Doesn't the current Prime Minister feel that it would be good if we had a comfortable and relaxed population? Is it not a fact also that that population would be far more thankful and loyal to Australia if they could enjoy the Australia Day long weekend? What about the disruption to small business that occurs as a result of abolishing the Australia Day long weekend and instead celebrating Australia Day on 26 January?1824Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Certainly we want a more comfortable and relaxed Australian communi ty, and we are pleased that, through low interest rates—AW5CARRSenator Carr—That's right—when the Government front bench has a big share portfolio.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, cease shouting.BH4Senator HILL—falling unemployment, low inflation and lower debt, there is a better chance of achieving those objectives. In relation to the time for relaxation that is related to the celebration of Australia Day, I am sure that that is the sort of matter on which the Prime Minister would wish me to come back with a considered reply. I must say that I myself have not been giving it a lot of thought just of late, but no doubt the Prime Minister has and would have a view that he would like to express to Senator Harradine and the Senate. I will get that response and bring it back as soon as possible.18251825Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Minister, can you confirm that you requested use of the database of Veterans' Affairs pensioners to post out GST junk mail in the lead-up to the last federal election campaign? Is it a fact that Dr Johnston, Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, stated, `I and my minister would have preferred to have been aware of it before it occurred.' Can it be true that the minister requested this mail-out without any prior notification to, let alone seeking the agreement of, her colleague the Minister for Veterans' Affairs or his department? How does the minister justify this gross breach of both common courtesy and the law?1825Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—As Senator Schacht knows full well, he has been given substantial answers to those questions in the Senate estimates committee. So he is trying to beat a dead cat. The answer to Senator Schacht's first question is: no, I did not request the use of the DVA database. In fact, from the answer that was given in the Senate estimates committee, Senator Schacht, if he had been listening to other people rather than the sound of his own voice, would have learned that the procedure for this mail-out of the tax reform information for pensioners was for people on income support, whether in Veterans' Affairs or the Social Security portfolio. They were people who were on income support payments such as age pension and service pension, not in receipt of disability payments. These are all details that Senator Schacht was given the other day. In addition, it was practice which had been followed over many years, including innumerable times by his own government, that the database was used for such mail-outs.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Without consultation?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Schacht, there is an appropriate time to ask a supplementary question.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It has never happened before, and you know it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner!BE4Senator NEWMAN—The departmental secretary did not say it had never happened before; I think he said that he would have a look and take it on notice. Senator Faulkner, you were not present, I think, at the time. The important thing to understand is that Centrelink now, and Social Security in the past, maintained a database for the purposes of age pension news. That included the DVA database as well for service pensioners. Periodically, as the Senate estimates committee was told, DVA updates the database, previously for Social Security and now for Centrelink. There was no special treatment on this occasion; it was the normal procedure. There was not an age pension news due to go out at the time, and it was important that—with the confusion that was being created, partly by some members of the opposition—people who needed to get information about changes to age pension and compensation arrangements through the changes to the tax system should get that information rather than disinformation which so frequently comes from the mouths of members of the opposition.Therefore, that was the procedure. There was not a gross breach. It might have been helpful for the minister to have had information ahead of time. But Senator Schacht should recall that, during the Veterans' Affairs estimates, Dr Johnston said he believed that he was informed or his department was informed as it was about to go out, and he was going to check those facts.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Or after it went out.BE4Senator NEWMAN—He corrected himself and said that he would get advice and answer the question on notice. That is something which I am sure Senator Schacht would know if he had been listening to others instead of only to himself.1826Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you say that you did not make the decision to send out the letter. Who did then make it; who was responsible for the decision to mail out the letter to the veterans? Will you take this opportunity to publicly apologise to your colleague for not letting him know that this letter was going out, and to publicly apologise to his department? And, more to the point, will you take this opportunity to apologise to the 350,000 veterans who received the unsolicited GST junk mail in flagrant breach of their privacy?1826Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Schacht for his supplementary question. My office asked the department to prepare a mail-out to the people on the age pension news database.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Your office!BE4Senator NEWMAN—This information was provided by Dr Rosalky at the Family and Community Services estimates hearings last week. It is all there on the Hansard for anybody to read. I am not misrepresenting the situation. I think it would pay Senator Schacht to go back and read that.18261826Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Is the government's industry policy focused on creating jobs through investment and innovation? Is the minister aware of alternative policy proposals? What would be the impact of these policies on investment and jobs?1826Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator Chapman for his question. Senator Chapman is right—the government's policy is very clearly focused on programs to support the key drivers of growth, higher living standards and jobs. They are about supporting innovation; they are about attracting a greater level of investment to Australia and greater market access for Australian businesses. Our industry policy is about maximising the competitiveness of Australian businesses. That is against the background of getting the macro-economic fundamentals right: budget surpluses, low inflation, low interest rates, sustainable growth and the one big area left untouched by Labor, tax reform.The opposition's approach to industry policy is very interesting. We had Simon Crean in the job of shadow minister for the first 2½ years. He could not think of any bright new ideas, so he advocated a return to the 1970s—highly interventionist, backward looking, dead-end 1970s policies. There has been a refreshing change in the opposition. Bob McMullan now has the job, and one of his first tasks was to abandon the Simon Crean approach. But, regrettably, nothing has been put in its place. It is just a blank page now. I gather that Mr Beazley has told the caucus there will not be any policies until the conference in 2001. So you are a blank page for another couple of years.This morning in the Melbourne Age we had Bob McMullan, of all people, actually criticising the government for not moving faster on the reform of capital gains tax—a capital gains tax system created by Paul Keating. I do welcome Bob McMullan's conversion to the cause of reform of capital gains tax, and that is very much part of the Ralph review, but it is a bit rich for the industry spokesman for the ALP, when the ALP's election policy was not only to keep the existing capital gains tax but also to make it retrospective, to attack us for not moving fast enough to reform it.Labor want to keep the wholesale sales tax—the most anti-industry policy imaginable, the policy that is most biased against the manufacturing industry in this country. That is the one policy you have, and you want to keep it. You also have a policy of opposing $13,000 million worth of personal income taxes. You are hopelessly divided on industry policy. We have the Crean interventionists on the one hand, and now we have the Lindsay Tanner and Mark Latham economic realists who have suddenly popped up. Lindsay Tanner roundly criticised the Crean approach in his book when he said:Instinctively interventionist, the Australian Left is now functioning in a theoretical vacuum in economic and industry policy . . . The risk we now face is the prospect of return to the 1970s, with policy prescriptions based on ad-hoc remedial actions, instinctive impulses and occasional fads.Mark Latham was even more critical last year when he said of your industry policy:Now federal Labor is offering corporate Australia a break from competition and a chance to slip back onto the public teat.Those were his words, not mine. As the government industry minister, I certainly welcome the conversion of both Mark Latham and Lindsay Tanner to the government's approach to industry policy. If you read what both of them have said, it is a clear endorsement of the government's approach to industry policy. I do think this is an area where bipartisanship would be a very good thing. The big question is, will Mr Beazley have the courage to support the only two people in his party who seem to have any policy ideas at all?18271827Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron in his capacity representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister explain why he told the Australian Cancer Society that their $800,000 grant was to be cancelled because the government had been angered by its lobbying for increased resources for anti-smoking campaigns targeted at young people? Does the minister believe it is appropriate to use the weapon of public funding to browbeat respected, independent community organisations into signing on to the government's political agenda?1827Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Evans for the question. I am sure I can respond on the minister's behalf to say that he does not use the Labor Party's standards in relation to browbeating community organisations to follow the party line. I totally reject that implication in the question that was asked of me. However, there is no answer in the briefs that I have been given in relation to the Australian Cancer Society, and I will send that on to the minister for an answer for Senator Evans.1827Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. My question asked the minister why he told the Cancer Society that, not why Dr Wooldridge did. Can he assure us that the government's vindictiveness has nothing to do with the Australian Cancer Society's distribution of a leaflet which was critical of the government in the electorate of Casey where the health minister, Dr Wooldridge, was a Liberal Party candidate? Is that not related to the decision?1827Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I have had no communication with the Australian Cancer Society, but I will check the records to see whether my memory is deficient in that regard. I am sure that it is not. Senator Evans appears to have some communication. I do not recall writing to the Australian Cancer Society. I thought the question related to the minister, but if he believes that it relates to me I will check the record and get back to him.18271827Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State, Senator Ellison. I ask the minister: given that the Prime Minister is prepared to consider a second question to be put in the referendum on the republic, would the government consider using the wording of the resolution moved by the late Senator Bonner and passed unanimously by the Senate on 20 February 1975? I have asked an attendant to provide a copy of that resolution to you.1827Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In its communique last year the Constitutional Convention recommended that a preamble be put to the people of Australia and that that preamble be dependent on Australia becoming a republic. Part of that preamble included reference to the indigenous people of Australia and their prior custodianship of Australia. The question of the preamble, how it is worded and how it is put to the people of Australia is under consideration by the government and by the referendum task force, of which I am a member. The government realises that this is a very important question, and it is certainly one which will be the subject of consultation once we release the legislation, and it will be available for scrutiny by all parties.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—When's that?9X5Senator ELLISON—I hope that it will be in the very near future. But I can say to Senator Woodley that I will take up his question with the referendum task force.1828Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I thank the Minister for that answer. It may be useful, Madam President, if the Senate heard again the wording of that resolution so that I can be sure that the minister is—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—This should be a supplementary question, Senator.HX5Senator WOODLEY—Yes, I realise that. My supplementary question is whether this is the wording that the minister, and I think it is critical that he do so, will in fact put to that task group:. . . the Senate accepts the fact that the indigenous people of Australia, now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, were in possession of this entire nation prior to the 1788 First Fleet landing at Botany Bay, and urges the Australian Government to admit prior ownership of the said indigenous people and introduce legislation to compensate the people now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for dispossession of their land.Minister, that wording of Senator Bonner's motion was acceptable to all parties in 1975. Can you ask the government if it would be acceptable now?1828Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Madam President, I have undertaken to Senator Woodley that I will convey his comments to the government, and I will do so.18281828Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Will the minister confirm reports that the first the Department of Finance and Administration heard of the $100 million Victorian gas relief fund was via a press release from the Prime Minister? Does it therefore follow that no proper costings or advice were sought from DOFA, despite the fact that they were to be the administrative body for that fund? Given this shambles, is it surprising that more than four months after the fund's announcement only $7 million has been distributed to those affected? Does this explain why the Victorian government is attempting to grab $42 million from the Commonwealth for gas relief? Isn't it just a further indication that the entire package was merely a last-minute attempt by a desperate Prime Minister to obtain political mileage out of the Victorian gas crisis?1828Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Far from it; it was a response to an emergency situation in Victoria where a growing number of Victorians were becoming distressed by their personal and their business circumstances, and the Prime Minister believed that it warranted urgent action. The figure that was placed as a maximum was an estimate, that is true. As it has turned out, only a relatively small proportion of that sum was expended—a little over the figure that Senator Carr referred to in his question.In some ways that is good news, obviously, because the announcement of the funding was intended to be a safeguard for those particularly in need. The fact that fewer suffered loss is something for which we should all be thankful, and the fact that it will cost the Australian taxpayer less is something for which we also should be thankful. So I would have thought that Senator Carr would recognise that to be a good thing, as he ought to recognise the willingness of the Prime Minister to respond to particularly anxious Australians in difficult circumstances as something that should be applauded.There is no question of `grabbing' any other part of that sum. Certainly the Victorian government has made submissions to the Commonwealth government seeking support in relation to gas infrastructure, which they say will better ensure that such a disaster does not again occur, and that will be considered by the government according to the normal timetable. So the outcome was fairly good all round, I think, in this instance, and Senator Carr ought to be pleased with that circumstance.1829Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Rather than being an indication that the losses were in fact less than anticipated, is it not a fact that the $7 million figure that has been quoted as being the amount of money that was expended on claims for compensation indicates that this was in fact a cynical political exercise by this government, that there was not any attempt to seriously address the real needs of the Victorian community, and that this program was designed to save the hide of the Liberal government rather than to compensate Victorians for the gas crisis?1829Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I would have thought Senator Carr would have been more concerned about anxious Victorians in those difficult times. If he cast his mind back, he would recall that there was growing distress within the Victorian community. Certainly, yes, there were strict safeguards within the announcement of the Prime Minister, and he would not apologise for that. He is responsible for public money and would not want it to be unnecessarily spent. But it did give the public greater confidence in a time of need. It met urgent losses that were in fact incurred. It did not cost as much as was anticipated might be the case, but that is a good thing.AW5CARRSenator Carr—People didn't know about it.BH4Senator HILL—They certainly did know about it because we advertised it, and you condemned that as well, Senator Carr.18291829Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—My question without notice is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. The coalition has broadly based policies to strengthen and sustain both families and relationships. Will the minister outline any new initiatives which demonstrate the government's continuing commitment towards both the social and economic welfare of all Australians?1829Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—It is refreshing to get questions from this side of the chamber because they focus on policy issues as distinct from those of the opposition, who seem to be in policy-free zones. This government, as all Australians would recognise, has been particularly focused on improving both the social and the economic status of Australia's families since we came into government nearly three years ago. I only need to remind the Senate of the family tax initiative which was introduced immediately we came into government, which was a major help to Australia's families.That was followed, in August, by the announcement of the family tax changes—the family payments—which will reduce poverty traps for families, particularly those working families on relatively low incomes. This is a substantial improvement in their situation, as are tax cuts for those who are in the work force, and there is health insurance help et cetera. So in many ways the financial circumstances have been focused on very strongly. It is important not to forget that, at the same time, this government has been responsible for a substantial reduction in the cost of a family's mortgage because of low interest rates. You put all those things together and you can see that, financially, families have a much better chance than they did when we came into government. Importantly, there have been a couple of initiatives over the last couple of months which I think bear drawing to the attention of the Senate. One is the announcement by the Prime Minister last December that the youth homelessness pilot scheme would be expanded to 100 services around Australia, with a substantial increase in expenditure. It will draw community organisations into partnership with government to try and make sure that the reasons for homelessness are prevented to the extent possible. Where homelessness is a fact, we will try to deal with the crisis but also, at the same time, we will try to involve parents in all these activities. That is something which Australian parents have been wanting to see for a long time.Yesterday I announced the Relate Program, which is focused on trying to help people of all ages with their relationships. This is particularly important, of course, for the group of 18- to 24-year-old Australians who believe most firmly in marriage as a life-long com mitment and, yet, are the ones most concerned that their relationships might fail. I think it is also true to say that a very high proportion of the people who have actually found their way to relationship services in the past say that they have learnt new skills to apply to their current relationship, that what they have learnt in the training courses will be of lasting value and, importantly, that they would recommend marriage and relationship education to someone else. But a survey was done which, sadly, found that something like a quarter of couples did not know who provides services and where to find them. Many senators would realise that it is provided by Centacare Australia, by Relationships Australia and by Family Services Australia.I would be delighted to give the Senate more information if Senator Payne would like to ask me more about this subject. There is so much to talk about. One of the concerns that I have is that about 50 per cent of marriages are celebrated by secular celebrants and their referral rate to pre-marriage education courses has been particularly low. One of the purposes of the Relate Program is to help civil marriage celebrants refer more people to courses by providing them with information about the services available in their local area.1830Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question of the minister. I was fortunate to attend the Prime Minister's announcement of the extension of the youth homelessness pilot in Sydney last year and I would be interested, Minister, if you could outline any further initiatives on that area and, through you Madam President, in relation to the launch of Relate yesterday, whether there are any further steps the government is taking in that area.1830Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Relate Program recognises that there are some very significant points in people's lives where they need to hone their skills to maintain a happy and a stable relationship. There are courses about becoming a couple in the first place; on adjusting to life with your first baby—traumatic for most of us, I think; the role of fathers and their family involvement—which has been neglected so much in the past but, thankfully, many fathers are now wanting to take their place in the caring role; combining work and family life—which is no longer an issue for women but an issue for mothers and fathers; the complications of that combination of work and family life; and the very relevant issue of dealing with blended families and stepchildren. These courses are designed to help people with those circumstances in their lives. It cannot all be done by government, so community organisations are being subsidised to provide these services. It is up to the individuals themselves, to the marriage celebrants and to the community organisations, as well as the government, to turn this thing around. (Time expired)18301830Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to the Leader of Government in the Senate, Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister. Is the minister aware of reported comments by the former Senator, Jim Short, and current backbencher, Senator Brian Gibson, that neither of them would have had to resign if the Prime Minister's revised code of conduct had been in place in 1996? Can the minister confirm that this would be the effect of the debased code of conduct if a minister made a decision which materially affected a company in which the minister had a shareholding, as was the case in the Gibson and Short cases?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I want you to know I am on your side, no matter how many times you gag me.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, you have been persistently interjecting today.1830Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—As I said earlier today, the Prime Minister makes no apology for the fact that he demands the highest of standards and that the codes of conduct, both for this government and the previous government, are highly demanding. There is no question about that at all. The circumstances of the resignations of both former Senator Short and Senator Gibson were unfortunate in that neither gained any personal advantage whatsoever. Both are extremely proper and highly respected parliamentarians and Australians and the fact that they were prepared to resign in those circumstances is a great credit to them and something which we recognise with appreciation. The guidelines will be adhered to by ministers of this government and the Prime Minister, as in the past, will ensure that they are adhered to.1831Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I note, Senator Hill, that you were not prepared to actually answer the question put to you about whether they are right in saying that a debased code would have let them off. In view of that, would you please try to answer that question and not duck, weave and hide from it? Would you also answer this question: in light of the likely outcome of the gelded code of conduct, when will the Howard government apologise to Mr Short and to Senator Gibson?1831Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—You must have spent a lot of time thinking of that one, Cookie. It is not my job to apply any set of circumstances to these guidelines. That is the Prime Minister's job. He will apply circumstances to the current guidelines if and as is required. That is his job. He has done it in the past, and he will not shy away from that. He will continue to be determined that his government, the second government, will uphold the high standards of the government of the past. Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice1831183115:00:001831Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Evans asked me whether I had written to the Australian Cancer Society. I have checked with my office. As I said, I have no memory nor do we have a record of a letter to the Australian Cancer Society. In relation to the other matter, I will get back to him with a response from the minister.183115:01:001831Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill), to a question without notice asked by Senator Faulkner today, relating to senators' interests and the Prime Minister's `Guide on Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibility'.Many media commentators and editorialists have recognised that the latest prime ministerial code is a very significant dilution of the requirements on ministers in the Commonwealth parliament regarding conflict of interest—conflict of public duties and their private interests. Of course the Prime Minister still continues with the pathetic and the untruthful excuse that he is only following advice from the Commonwealth Public Service in relation to bringing down his new code of conduct. The truth is that this dilution in standards is just the most recent of a long line of failures, a long line of falling standards, on the part of this government; and the propriety of this government has been very seriously questioned not only in the parliament but also by the Australian public.Over the past three years, standards of public accountability have fallen because of this Prime Minister's either unwillingness or inability to enforce his own code of conduct. There was nothing wrong with the code of conduct that John Howard tabled in the House of Representatives when he first became Prime Minister in 1996. The failure was John Howard's own failure to enforce the code. We need a tough code and we need a Prime Minister who is tough enough to enforce a tough code. We have neither. Now the Special Minister of State, Senator Ellison, is being questioned over the issue of repayment of charter entitlements. This is the minister who is responsible for the administration of parliamentary entitlements in the government. He is the person responsible for the administration of allowances and entitlements.He was not willing in question time today to say that he will table, for the benefit of the parliament and the public, all the details related to the first repayment of $1,027.29. He has indicated he is not willing to provide details of the repayment of $9,063 to the Commonwealth, and he said he will not table legal advices. I think we are entitled to come to the conclusion that the reason the minister will not front up with these legal advices is that ministers and the government are scrab bling around desperately making three or four attempts to get legal advice that lets the Special Minister of State off the hook on this issue. That is simply not good enough.We are concerned that the situation with the new Special Minister of State is that we have a poacher turned gamekeeper appointed by the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, to this very sensitive portfolio with responsibility for the administration of parliamentary allowances and entitlements. Senator Ellison's case is probably a very pale imitation of the parliamentarian who set the example for the misuse of charter flights entitlements. We await the outcome of the Mellors report and the Kennedy report, which we have been questioning about in Senate estimates.Mr Peter McGauran, who has been resurrected to the front bench because of the paucity of National Party talent, also has an awful lot of questions to answer. We want a comprehensive explanation of the situation relating to Mr McGauran as well as Senator Ellison put on the public record. A full disclosure in relation to Mr McGauran now ought to be coming forward from the Prime Minister. You will not see the issue of standards and accountability and propriety disappear while ever this evidence of rorts and abuse of public moneys continues. (Time expired)15:06:001832Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has raised this issue from the Labor Party perspective. The Labor Party when in government had no code of conduct whatsoever. There was no tabled code of conduct. One does not have to go far back to remember some of the conflicts of interests that happened. For example, Alan Griffiths, a Labor member, owned a sandwich shop while Minister for Industry. That was a huge conflict which caused great problems for him in the end. Graham Richardson, who was a director of 2HD while a minister, did not declare his interests. Graham Richardson also used his position as a minister to try to influence the President of the Marshall Islands on behalf of his cousin, Greg Symons.John Dawkins's mother owned Bell shares while Holmes a Court was trying to take over BHP. Bob Hawke was a personal friend of Sir Peter Abeles when Abeles was trying to crush the pilots union. Bob Hawke used his personal position as PM to collect $1 million from four WA business leaders at the gold tax lunch. The list goes on and on and on. The difference with the code of conduct that Prime Minister Howard has now set in place is that it takes into account the situation as it is today. The Labor Party would dearly love to disfranchise anyone who has been successful or not a trade unionist from coming into the parliament of Australia. There should be no penalty associated with anyone purely and simply because they are successful.The difference is that this government has made sure that things like shares are more available to Australians. Approximately 750,000 Australians have entered the share market for the first time in the last eight months. Since 1995, a total of 2.3 million Australians have invested in the share market for the first time. In less than four years more than one in 10 adult Australians have become shareholders for the first time. What this government has done is try to encourage more and more people to become shareholders. Therefore, we should not penalise people for doing so and then say, `You cannot enter parliament until such time as you get rid of every asset that you have possibly got.'One only needs to look at the registers of senators' and members' interests at the moment. Have a look at former ministers. What have they done with their incomes? Where have they hidden their incomes? One can only ask the question because the register clearly does not identify where former senators have stashed 13 years of ministerial salaries.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Oh, dear, dear!TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—You might go, `Dear, dear, dear.'AW5CARRSenator Carr—What about spending it?TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—Oh, they are big spenders, are they? Senator Carr says that they are big spenders and they have spent it all. It is a good socialist attitude to say, `Yes, you just spend over $100,000 a year for 13 years and have no assets whatsoever.' The total share ownership in Australia now stands at 40.3 per cent of the Australian adult population. Yet the Labor Party are saying that we should not have share ownership.With regard to Senator Ellison, there is a very distinct point in his case that the Labor Party cannot get their brains around. Unfortunately, most of the journalists cannot get their brains around it either. Senator Ellison did not personally get one red cent out of any of those airline charters. There was not one single solitary charter that was outside entitlement. There was not one single solitary flight that was not meant to be taken.It was interesting to note at question time today the cheer squad behind Senator Ray and Senator Faulkner when they were asking those questions. I think it is now up to the Labor Party to examine each and every one of their own histories as to what they have done, because it was the Labor Party that also went to the minister and expressed concerns about the ambiguity and the lack of clarity in the rules that have now been cleared up by the Minister for Finance and Administration. So I suggest the Labor Party has a long hard look at itself. Senator Ellison did not benefit personally one red cent. There is not one skerrick of rort about what he did. He has voluntarily paid back money when he did not have to do so. It should be taken into account in that form. (Time expired)15:11:001833Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Senator Hill's answer to Senator Faulkner's question today bordered on the vacuous, the glib and almost the slimy. He was asked this: on what basis did the Prime Minister change the code of conduct? If you look at his answer in the other place, the Prime Minister said that he acted on departmental advice on the incoming government brief. There is the real distortion in all this. There is the real dissembling. The fact is that the incoming brief for a government was based on government stated policies during the campaign.The fact is that Mr Howard did flag the watering down of the code of conduct during the campaign. I read an extensive article by Mr Mike Seccombe in the Sydney Morning Herald to that effect. Any competent Public Service would have picked up Mr Howard's views and put them in the incoming government brief. That would have been the advice based on Mr Howard's comments. Mr Howard's attempted justification that he was acting on the advice of the bureaucracy is absolute nonsense. The bureaucracy was acting on the basis of Mr Howard's views. So he cannot justify the changes to the ministerial code from what was in the incoming brief to the government.Senator Knowles boldly says that there were no such governing principles when Labor was in government. I suggest Senator Knowles goes back and gets a copy of the cabinet handbook, where all the restrictions in terms of conflict of interest and behavioural requirements were listed. They were listed in the cabinet handbook. They also existed in letters sent to ministers when they first became ministers explaining what matters they had to declare and how they should declare them. For those in the know, the guide to ministerial responsibility was not written by Mr Howard. It was written by the then deputy secretary of PM&C—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Drawing on all public documents.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Yes, drawing on all public documents, and basically does not vary from the ministerial guide back in the cabinet handbook. It is exactly the same standards placed on the parliament with a great amount of publicity by John Howard and then never, ever enforced.There are always going to be difficulties with people who own assets and shares, et cetera, that could conflict with their ministerial responsibility. That is why we have a register in the Senate where people can see what they own. What we found in the last parliament was that they were not all declared. That is what caused so many difficulties in this regard. But for Senator Hill to argue that the code has not been watered down is nothing more than a joke. Of course the code has been watered down. Let the Liberal Party at least attempt, like Senator Knowles did today, to justify the watering down. Do not blame the public servants. Do not say that you were acting on Public Service advice when that is patent nonsense if you were relying on the incoming government brief. It just will not stand up.The reason why Mr Howard has taken such a high fall on this matter is that he puffed himself up and pretended that the incoming government would be more moral than the previous government. The fact is that it is probably more immoral than the previous government. I don't think there is any doubt about that, with all the cases that have come to light.A final point, regarding Senator Ellison, has been raised. I have some advice for Senator Ellison which is straightforward. Senator Ellison has made claims in this chamber that he committed no illegality, that it was all based on confusion. My advice to Senator Ellison is that this issue will plague him as long as people think there is a cover-up. This issue will drive and ruin his career. If, as he claimed, he has acted with total propriety, he needs to do three things to put the issue behind him. Firstly, he should table the departmental report on the first issue—that he has repaid the money and the department has accepted his explanation. He should put that down, put that behind him. Secondly, he should table the legal advices. It is not right for him to say today that you never table legal advices. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't.Thirdly, he should put down a full statement about the circumstances of his second repayment. If he does that, he puts the issue behind him. People won't accuse him of covering up. But as long as none of that material is available, those accusations will continue. I doubt he has committed a hanging offence. I don't accept the rather vacuous explanation we had today, but I don't think it is a hanging offence. Put it on the table and move on. (Time expired)15:17:001834Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—The ALP's fascination with the ministerial code of conduct amazes me. We can be sure of one thing: Senator Ray won't be in this place at the time the Labor Party ever have to implement a code of conduct. It will be one hell of a long time, Senator Ray, when you have no leadership, no policies and no ideas, before you will ever have to imple ment a ministerial code of conduct. Senator Faulkner introduced his taking notice of the answer given by Senator Hill in relation to the code of conduct but then moved on to talk about the repayment by Senator Ellison of the money that he said he was prepared to repay—although, to use his own words, there was no requirement for him to do so. That differs significantly from the attitude of Labor Party members when they were in government and also when they have been in opposition. We have had admissions in the past from Labor senators that, although they hadn't legally broken any rules, morally they had. I don't know that any of that money has ever been repaid to the government at any stage.When it comes to the guidelines, Labor's Senator Mark Bishop himself, a newer member of this place, agreed that the guidelines were vague. These were the guidelines that were in place all the time that the Labor Party was in power, from 1983 to 1996. They were `vague'. Senator Mark Bishop, one of your own senators, said that the guidelines were vague. He is quoted as saying that he understood that it was acceptable to fill empty seats on charter flights if the purpose of the flight was for electoral business.In the case of Senator Ellison, not one cent of any money that he has paid back to the department was ever of benefit to him personally. He has never had one dollar of personal benefit from any of the situations that he has found himself in. Yet he said that because of his special position as Minister of State and the person in charge of administering these guidelines, in order to clear even the remotest possibility that there was any form of conflict of interest or any mis-spending of the electorate's money, he was prepared to repay that $9,000.Not only did Senator Bishop say that the guidelines were vague; Senator Murray from the Australian Democrats, also from Western Australia, said that the guidelines were quite vague. He said that he knew of one who had breached a charter allowance and claimed that it was inadvertent, or as a result of not knowing the rules—that it was an unwitting mistake—and therefore the money was repaid. To the best of my knowledge, when I first came into this place in 1992 I also was unaware of the extent of the guidelines which supposedly existed for the taking of people on charter flights. A number of my colleagues have said that at the time of their entry into the Senate they had no idea of how the guidelines were to be applied.So in the case of Senator Ellison there was no illegality whatsoever in the things that he did in relation to flying and using charter flights. But in order to make sure that there was absolutely no public perception of anything that could possibly have gone wrong, Senator Ellison has agreed to voluntarily repay that money.When it comes to the ministerial code of conduct, it is obvious that the people on the other side of this chamber are very concerned about what happens to the shares that are owned by government ministers, ministers who are prepared to invest in Australia—much more than we have ever seen from anybody on the other side. Very few Labor senators have ever been prepared to invest in shares or invest in Australia. We can note that by reading the Register of Senators' Interests. I don't know what they do with their money. Some of them have been ministers for quite some time. How they hide any returns they may have got or any savings they may have made while ministers, I have no idea. But the one thing they don't do is invest in Australia by way of investing in public companies—except, of course, for Senator McKiernan, who was quite pleased to take up some Telstra shares when they came on the market. I forget the other one. It was possibly Senator Murphy, but I stand corrected if it wasn't. (Time expired)15:22:001835Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I begin by drawing to Senator Ferguson's attention the facts in regard to the issue of the old guidelines that operated regarding the charter travel of members of parliament. Those guidelines made it absolutely clear who could travel. That was the senator, his or her spouse, their staff or other MPs. They were absolutely clear in regard to that matter. Therefore, there should be no confusion or attempts to draw red herrings across things.The public is naturally very cynical and, of course, disappointed at the way in which governments have behaved in recent times. In the last parliament, in particular, there was a serious issue raised about the level of government integrity. Naturally, this cynicism is not just confined to the work of government. We see public attitudes in regard to the way in which the churches operate, the way in which the law operates and, of course, the way business operates. There is a deep and abiding concern being expressed about the apparent fall in ethical standards.However, the difference in regard to this government is that, in 1996, the Prime Minister made it clear, in the most sanctimonious of styles, that new standards were going to be set, that there would be a new model of integrity in government. Of course, we saw that this new standard was very sick in the last parliament. Towards the end of that parliament, he indicated that these new codes of conduct were just guidelines, that they should not be regarded as the immovable principles that he first established.What we saw a week ago, however, was that this whole process, these guidelines, were finally laid to rest by the ministerial code in the person of `Penthouse Pete'—Mr Reith indicating—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr, please refer to honourable members in the other house by their correct titles and names.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business slipped in very late on Friday afternoon, 9 February and laid down a whole series of government documents. One of those documents was this new ministerial code. No fanfare, no prior warning, no circulation, no discussion, no consultation, not even a decent burial from this undertaker who, of course, is now trying to present that this government's new policy is more realistic and more expedient.The question of expedience is very much on the mind of this government when it comes to addressing these issues. We are entitled to ask why it was necessary to change these codes of conduct that the Prime Minister had indicated had such a pride of place in the formation of the new government. Quite clearly, this government had a choice to make. It had a choice to make between principle and shame. This government chose shame simply because the price of principle was getting too high; the cost of shame and humiliation was quite clearly more acceptable.The government's code of conduct is now characterised by shame and embarrassment. The shambles created by the various shifts in position that the Prime Minister has initiated essentially arise from the very weakness of this government when it comes to the question of principle itself. Quite clearly, the price of principle was far too high for this government. It was able to be demonstrated that six ministers and, of course, many of his close personal friends had not fulfilled the requirements that the government had entered into, had breached the ministerial code of conduct and could not be sustained in the ministry.That position, of course, was quickly changed and the government now finds itself presenting a new set of guidelines which quite clearly are totally inadequate. Who of us could possibly believe that this government's new codes of conduct would not allow for a situation where ministers can convert their private wealth to adult children and can continue to enrich themselves? Who is to suggest that they have instantly forgotten what shares they had? Who is to suggest that they would not consult with their children about the changes in the stock market? Who is to suggest that they have the capacity to transfer shares back into their ownership once they have left office? Who is to suggest for a moment that ministers—unlike the rest of the people who actually engage in the share market—have a direct capacity to make decisions in government about the value of shares?It is no wonder that the public is extremely cynical about the way in which this government has treated these basic questions of principle and integrity. As I have said, the choice was very clear for the government—the choice between principle and shame, and the government has quite clearly chosen shame. In those circumstances, one has to wonder what Mr Howard genuinely means by being relaxed and comfortable. In my judgment, he means by that that there is no need for him—and he is quite relaxed about this—to sack millionaire ministers. It also means that he is comfortable that those ministers can enjoy a rising share balance. (Time expired)15:27:001836Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I would have to agree with Senator Carr about one thing—that people are becoming cynical about what goes on in politics. Here we are back in parliament after being away for nearly two months, and lots of things have happened since 8 December last year. We have an economy that is going along very well, but we do not hear anything about that from the opposition.All we have heard from the opposition over the last two months is that they are all writing books on how the Labor Party should operate. Talk about conflict of interest! One would have to wonder what sort of interests a lot of members on the other side have with publishing companies. That is the only way they seem to be able to make any money.As for this code of conduct business that has been going on today, I suppose we could trawl back over the history books and look at all those things that happened in the past with former members and ministers of the Labor Party. My colleagues have mentioned a lot of those today. We could talk about the perceived conflict of interest that the former Prime Minister had with the piggeries and all those sorts of things. I do not want to go into all of that. I do not want to come in here and make the obvious comment.Talking about conflict of interest, when people are elected to this place, they have to declare their interests. Do the majority of the Labor Party on the other side declare their interests in the trade union movement, because 82 per cent of the ALP senators on the other side are associated with trade unions? Nineteen of the last 20 senators elected to this place are trade union members. Do they represent the people or do they represent the trade union movement? Where is the conflict of interest there?The point I am trying to make is that, after the amount of time that we have been away from this place, I would have thought we would have had some sensible debate today about things that affect people in the community—like unemployment, law and order, and the high incidence of drugs. We have seen over the Christmas break much publicity about the drug situation in New South Wales. With an election coming up in New South Wales, I would have thought we might have heard something about what is happening there from both sides of politics. No. What do we have?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—A broken record.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—We have a broken record on a perceived conflict of interest because a minister has been open and clean and come forward and made the points about what he may or may not have done. He did that quite openly and, I believe, quite fairly. Yet here we go trying to denigrate another fine member of this side of politics.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Playing the man and not the ball.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—Absolutely, it is playing the man and not the ball. I hope that we get some more sensible debate today and get back to what we are supposed to be doing—that is, running the country, not running each other down.Question resolved in the affirmative.Condolences1837183710000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on Friday, 5 February 1999 of former Senator Neville Thomas Bonner AO, a senator for the state of Queensland from 1971 to 1983.15:31:001837Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—by leave—I move:That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on Friday, 5 February 1999, of Neville Thomas Bonner AO, a senator for the State of Queensland from 1971 to 1983, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.Neville Bonner's life was one of extraordinary treatment. He was born in the most humble of circumstances. He was orphaned at the age of nine. During his earlier working life he worked as a dairy hand, stockman and carpenter. Ultimately, he entered the federal parliament when he was chosen to fill a casual vacancy in the Senate in 1971. He was then elected to the Senate a further three times and served as a Queensland senator until 1983.As is well known, he was the first Australian Aboriginal to serve in the federal parliament. A Jagera elder, Neville had a lifelong commitment to recognition for Aboriginal people and was outspoken on Aboriginal rights. He served on many committees and in various offices of this Senate. After he left the Senate, he was named Australian of the Year for outstanding personal achievement and for efforts on behalf of the Aboriginal people. He was appointed an Officer in the General Division of the Order of Australia in 1984.His remarkable life was well chronicled by his grandson Mitchell Kunde at his funeral service last Friday. As he expressed it better than I would be able to, I seek leave to incorporate a copy of that eulogy in the Senate Hansard. Leave granted.The eulogy read as follows—A few months ago, I accompanied my grandfather on his last official engagement to the men's reconciliation committee dinner in Brisbane. Grandfather was presented with an award in honour of his outstanding contribution to the process of reconciliation. When he announced that to be his public swan song, all 550 men, without exception, rose to their feet and gave a deafening acclamation, many with tears in their eyes.More recently, the state government honoured my grandfather by naming a large and impressive government building in William Street, Brisbane, `The Neville Bonner Building'. On Monday, in his honour, the flags flew at half mast on all state government buildings.The outpouring of sorrow throughout the nation since his passing last Friday has been astounding. And here today are gathered Her Majesty's representatives, our Prime Minister and our State Premier, past and present state and federal parliamentarians, leaders of commerce, clergy of all denominations, elders of Aboriginal tribal `countries' from across this land, and those he loved and served so willingly—the people of the State of Queensland.So who was this man who could walk with kings nor lose the common touch. . . Neville Thomas Bonner was born on a government issue blanket under a loan palm tree on Ukerebagh Island at Tweed Heads, on 28 March, 1922. His mother was visiting from her Jagera country. He was the grandson of `Jung Jung', the last fully initiated member of the Jagera tribe, whose tribal `country' takes in the entire watershed of the Brisbane River. Neville Bonner, by right of inheritance was the elder of Jagera country.His early life was that of a fringe-dweller, and he experienced hunger and cold, cruel racial discrimination, despair and a lack of schooling. When he was 11 years old, his mother died and he was taken into the care of his maternal grandmother. When he was 13, his grandmother took him to Beaudesert where he received his only formal schooling for one year. Neville Bonner was of necessity, self-taught. He was always a strong advocate of education for all young aborigines.The following year Neville Bonner's grandmother died and the young Neville Bonner began working on a dairy farm. At age 15 he became his own man and he hit the road with a swag. Over the years he worked on banana plantations, ring-barking and scrub felling. He became an expert cane cutter and later worked as a rough-rider and stockman. Then he rose to a position as head stockman on various large cattle stations. This is where his attachment for his trademark R.M. Williams boots began.In July 1943, he married the now late Mrs Mona Bonner. In 1945, after the birth of their first son, who became very ill, Neville Bonner and his little family moved to Palm island Aboriginal community Queensland. It was on Palm Island, realising the plight of his people, that he became actively involved in community affairs. He learned about racial `togetherness'—that indigenous Australians could trust the non-indigenous Australians and to a certain extent be guided by them.He rose to the position of Assistant Settlement Overseer, responsible for the administration of a work force of 250 people. But after 15 years he left Palm Island, motivated by the desire to further the cause of `togetherness'. He brought his wife and, by this stage 5 sons and 2 foster daughters to live at Lake Manchester where he managed a dairy farm for three years.He finally settled in Ipswich, the heart of his Jagera country and he became involved in an organisation known as the Ipswich Coloured Welfare Council which he saw as doing something positive to help Aboriginal people. Neville Bonner felt that he could achieve worthwhile results for his people through this organisation. Since his time on Palm island Neville Bonner had been committed to the notion of justice and the advancement of his indigenous people through the common sense approach. He was always strongly opposed to violence as an answer. Another member of the Ipswich Coloured Welfare Council was my grandmother—Mrs Heather Bonner. Eventually this organisation became affiliated with OPAL—the One People of Australia League—of which Neville Bonner later became state president for 7 years, then patron, then life member.In 1966 he established his own boomerang manufacturing business under the name `Bonnerangs'. The business produced authentic boomerangs handcrafted from the roots of the black wattle tree. He also made nullah nullahs, bull roarers and other artefacts.Following this, in 1968, he commenced work with the then Moreton Shire Council as a bridge carpenter.In 1969, Mrs Mona Bonner passed away, and Neville Bonner threw himself wholeheartedly into his cause of the advancement of indigenous Australians. Around this time he became a member, reportedly the first Aboriginal member of the Liberal Party and he had a remarkable rise through the party ranks. In May 1971, Neville Bonner won the endorsement to the casual Senate vacancy in Queensland and when he flew to Canberra on the 15th August 1971 he had $5.00 in the pocket of the only suit he owned. When he was sworn in as a senator later that day, he became the first Aboriginal member of the Australian Federal Parliament.The following year, two important things happened. Firstly, on 29 July (1972), he married my grandmother and secondly, in December he was overwhelmingly elected as a senator by the people of Queensland.In 1976 Senator Bonner was the first Aborigine to introduce his own private member's bill, entitled `Aborigines and Islanders (Admissibility of Confessions) Bill 1976 into the Australian Parliament. Also, he was the first back-bencher to introduce a government bill and carry it through all stages, namely the `Aboriginal Development Commission' Bill. He served and chaired numerous Senate committees and also sat as president of the Senate on occasions.Senator Bonner was appointed a life member of the Queensland Young Liberals movement in January, 1978. Life membership of the Liberal Party was later bestowed upon him.Neville Bonner remained a senator of Queensland for 12 years through four elections. A large painting of `Senator Neville Bonner' displayed in Parliament House, Canberra, is a tribute from the nation to the first Aborigine in the federal parliament of Australia. Buildings valued at $9m, named `Bonner House' and `Bonner Court' located in Canberra are another tribute, this time from the Aborigines of Australia. On the 26th January, 1979 Neville Bonner was presented with the Australian of the Year award by the Australia Day Council. In July of that year a biography by Angela Burger titled `Neville Bonner' was published.In the 1983 elections, Neville Bonner stood as an independent Senate candidate and narrowly missed re-election.In January 1984, Neville Bonner was honoured by the award of `Officer in the General Order of Australia' (AO).When he left politics Neville Bonner took up a position on the board of directors with the Australian Broadcasting Commission which he held from 1983 to 1991.He was then appointed by the Queensland government as senior official visitor to state correctional centres. Upon completion of 6½ years as senior official visitor, in January 1997, Neville Bonner undertook full time duties as chairman of the Queensland Indigenous Advisory Council. In this role he was responsible for advising the Queensland government and the Minister for Families, Youth and Community Care, on all indigenous issues.In 1996 he was awarded a doctorate of the University—Griffith University, by his friend Chief Justice MacRossan. The following year Neville Bonner was involved in a landmark sittings of the Children's Court of Queensland when the then Children's Court President, Judge Maguire, invited him to jointly conduct court proceedings at the Aboriginal community of Cherbourg.And last year Neville Bonner was made honorary adviser to the Queensland police service.Throughout the course of his official duties, Neville Bonner always made time to be actively involved in a number of worthy associations and organisations. He was:Honorary Vice President of National TOC H (Inc)The patron of World Vision from 1976-1990A member of the Mayor's task force, for the Ipswich campus of the University of QueenslandA member of the Purga Aboriginal Elders CommitteeA member of the Council of the Griffith UniversityFoundation member and director of Australians for Constitutional MonarchyThe Chairman of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Committee of the Griffith UniversityThe patron of Rivermount College at YatalaA Deputy-Commissioner of the Queensland Aboriginal Land TribunalThe patron of One People of Australia LeagueAnd, the patron of Community Aid Abroad. Throughout his parliamentary career, as patron of World Vision, and also privately, Neville Bonner travelled the world visiting 27 countries. He met with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth (II), presidents of the United States of America and other world leaders and yet he remained such a down to earth gentleman, a man who delighted in the simple pleasures of life. When he enjoyed better health, his main sources of recreation were public speaking, listening to country music, a round of golf at the Rosewood Gold Club or feeding the magpies in his backyard at West Ipswich just down the road from here.Neville Bonner was an extremely humble man. He would not have been comfortable with the praise which has been given him since his passing. He once said that he would like to be remembered as `A good man who tried his best and did his best'. . . with respect, that is greatly understating his contribution.Neville Bonner served all people, irrespective of their colour, class or creed, to assist in bringing about the true togetherness of all Australians with ethnic identity retained where desired. From desperately humble beginnings, and with determination, dedication, great dignity and distinction, Neville Bonner fought tirelessly his whole life for justice for his people and the togetherness of all Australians. His achievements against incredible odds, have assured him a place in history and in heaven.Neville Bonner made a truly outstanding contribution to this country but more relevant to me personally, he lived his entire life as a shining example of racial harmony.He is survived by his wife, Mrs Heather Bonner, 5 sons, 2 daughters, 2 foster daughters, 31 grandchildren and 33 great-grandchildren.When Neville Bonner married my grandmother in 1972, I became a part of this large multicultural family and he shared his love equally, without favour, between us all. Considering his many achievements outside his family life, one might wonder that he had any time for us at all—but he did. And I have great memories of our Christmases in the park and at his home, birthdays and other special occasions. Grandfather was one of those special people who profoundly touched the lives of everyone he met. . . but to have him as my grandfather was such a special privilege.It has been said that Neville Bonner was a role-model and an example to Aboriginal people, but, by the way he lived his professional and family life he should be an inspiration to all people. And today I pray that every Australian will learn the spirit of togetherness from the life of this remarkable man—a genuine Australian legend—my grandfather.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—From my own personal observations and I think in the unanimous view of all, Neville was an extraordinary man and his life was a lesson to us all: the way he overcame personal adversity; the inspiration he offered to all who refused to be shackled by disadvantage; the guidance he offered on values, in particular tolerance and compassion; and the way in which he accepted disappoints without bitterness. In terms of a lesson, his legacy particularly lies within indigenous issues.To Aboriginal people he said: be proud of your heritage, Aboriginality, language, culture, values and spiritual knowledge; recognise the special capacity of Aboriginal people to enrich the total Australian society; do not accept that you are of necessity disenfranchised within that broader society; you are entitled to full opportunities and benefits of that society and the responsibilities which come with that opportunity; accept the personal effort which will be necessary to achieve your full potential; and it will not be easy, as Neville personally demonstrated.To non-Aboriginal Australians he urged the mirror image: appreciate the unique history of Aboriginal Australia; recognise that embracing Aboriginal heritage will enrich Australia; appreciate the disadvantage suffered by continuing generations of Aboriginal Australians arising out of dispossession not just of the land but of a way of life and the responsibility that flows to help overcome that disadvantage; and accept the legitimacy of Aboriginal people to the broader aspirations of all Australians. At his funeral service, Neville was spoken of as a bridge builder. Today we call that reconciliation. Whilst Neville made a unique contribution to reconciliation, he would recognise the extent of the unfinished business. Neville's life and example have motivated many individuals to work a little harder towards achieving genuine reconciliation. That is an impressive legacy in itself. On behalf of the government, I extend to his wife, Heather, and to his large family our most sincere sympathy in their bereavement.15:36:001840Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I wish to support the condolence motion that has been moved by Senator Hill on behalf of the government and to associate the opposition with it. The Labor Party and opposition senators express very deep regret at the death of Neville Bonner. He was not only a distinguished senator but also an elder of the Jagera people. Neville Bonner will always have a place in Australian history as the first Aborigine ever elected to the Commonwealth parliament, but more than that I think he will be remembered for the very significant contribution he made to our nation. I do not think there was any doubt that he was a great inspiration to many others in the community.While I entered the parliament well after Neville Bonner lost his Senate seat, I certainly was fortunate enough recently to be able to share the floor of the House of Representatives chamber in Old Parliament House with him at the Constitutional Convention at the beginning of last year. I suppose it comes as no surprise that we were on opposing sides of the debate at that time and on opposing sides in politics but, like so many others, I will remember his address to the convention. I do not think there is any doubt that his address at that convention was one of the most passionate and memorable that was delivered in that forum.As Senator Hill has indicated in his speech on this condolence motion, Neville Bonner was born in 1922 in a blacks' camp on an island of the Tweed River in New South Wales. His parents died when he was still a young boy. He was raised by his grandparents and, I am told and I have read, it was from his grandfather that he learned his heritage and beliefs and from his grandmother that he learned to appreciate education. Regardless of those very difficult circumstances surrounding his early childhood, in later life he certainly became a most effective parliamentarian and a very respected member of this parliament.Also as a young adult he decided that he would very much take a course of standing up for himself and standing up for all indigenous Australians. In 1970, he made history by becoming the first Aborigine to contest a Senate election. He was placed third on the Queensland Liberal Party ticket at that time. He was not elected but in 1971 was chosen to fill a casual vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin. So Neville Bonner did become the first Aboriginal person to be elected to the federal parliament, and he went on to serve in this place until 1983. During the period he was a senator, I do not think there is any question that he did work tirelessly for the welfare of Queenslanders. He gave a lot of his time to issues like indigenous health, housing and land rights. He very much became a very effective advocate for justice for and understanding of indigenous people.He was also an outspoken senator who, at times, felt that the proper course of action on an issue of principle was to cross the floor, and that was mainly on issues of great significance to indigenous people. Later in his political career, he was dropped to an unwinnable position on the Liberal Party Senate ticket in Queensland but went on to contest the 1983 federal election as an Independent. I think he received around 90,000 votes in Queensland, not enough to get him over the line and win him a Senate seat but, nevertheless, a very significant indication of the level of support there was for him in the community.Australia at that time lost a fine representative from the parliament but, after leaving politics, he continued to fight for the equality of indigenous people and respect for Aboriginal culture, and I think it is fair to say that, in Neville Bonner, here was a man who was an inspiration for very many Australians. On behalf of the opposition, I join with the government in expressing our sincere condolences on his death and our sincere sympathy to his wife, family and friends.15:42:001841Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I rise to associate the National Party of Australia with the condolence motion moved by Senator Hill, the Leader of the Government in the Senate. We were all very saddened when we heard of the passing of Neville Bonner, although it was not a surprise to us. Shortly after the Constitutional Convention, it was announced that he was having a life and death struggle with cancer. He won another 12 months of life, but he succumbed to that battle a couple of weeks ago.Neville Bonner will be remembered warmly not only because he was a senator and because he was the first Aboriginal in parliament but also because he filled those roles with dignity and tried to bring together the two cultures. Madam President, you were at the funeral with many of us last week and you could not have failed to be impressed by the blending of the two cultures: the many Aboriginal people and the many leaders of the white community coming together to pay respect to this great Australian.He was a great Australian. As his grandson said in the eulogy, he was born on a government issued blanket under a tree on an Aboriginal reserve. He had one year's schooling. He was brought up by his grandparents. He spent a great deal of his life on Palm Island with his first wife. But, with all these setbacks in life, with one year's schooling, he came into this federal parliament where very few people do not have at least one, two, three or four degrees, and he represented Queensland. It is ironic that, in political life, 1983 was the time of the National Party Senate. I believe that I actually replaced Neville, because the National Party ended up with one more senator and the Liberal Party ended up with one less.I met him from time to time around the traps, at the various significant political rallies and Constitutional Convention rallies. I met him at the Queensland Governor's house where he and I were invited for dinner on some occasions. He certainly never carried any grudge against me, and I never heard him ever say anything derogatory about the Liberal Party.For someone with so little schooling or education, he made up for it with a great deal of determination. He was determined that he was going to represent Queensland, and he did it well.It is a remarkable story. He went from a dairy farm to one of the biggest cattle stations in Queensland where he became head stockman. He then married an Aboriginal lady, went up to live on Palm Island, had five sons and adopted two daughters. I was told by his family that he went to Palm Island because he believed that he would get better health treatment for one of his children who was sick. From there he went down to Ipswich where he became a bridge builder. Sir James Killen made much of that in his eulogy at the funeral on Friday, and how he built bridges between the white and black communities.I believe that Neville Bonner will be well remembered in Australia. He has carved out a unique place in history. His name will be remembered. From 1971 to 1983 he represented Queensland. Some would say that maybe he was a little bit before his time in what he did for the Aboriginal community, but he certainly built that bridge across the two communities. Nowhere better did we see it than at his funeral where there were white people. His adopted grandson from the white part of the family gave the most wonderful oration about the deeds of his step-grandfather. Some of his family sang, others recited poetry and one son even played the didgeridoo as we all marched out of the funeral.I know it is very unusual to say that a funeral is spectacular, but this was a spectacular funeral. Both the black and white communities gave Neville a great send-off. I am sure he would have been looking down on us in the church last Friday and would have seen so many of his friends from parliament and so many of his indigenous friends, and his wife and all his family. I think there are about 130 great-grandchildren; it is a very extensive family, many of whom have been adopted as is the custom of Aboriginal people. Many of them were there; many Aboriginal people were there.I extend my condolences to his family, his extended family, the Aboriginal people who were there in such great numbers, and all his friends.15:49:001842Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I also rise to support the condolence motion. I would certainly extend the thoughts, prayers and support of the Democrats to the family of Neville Bonner.I have known Neville Bonner for 30 years and during that time I have known and respected him deeply. I would like to say that he was my friend. I believe he was, but it is very easy to say that someone is your friend; it would be better if they would say that you were their friend. I do not lightly claim friendship, but I do believe that we were close friends.Neville Bonner was a controversial person, but you need to understand what and who he was against the background of Queensland politics over the last 30 or 40 years, because that is the only way you can understand where Neville was coming from.In the end all of us would have to say that Neville was his own person. We sometimes say that of people, but if it was ever true of anyone, it was true of Neville Bonner. He was never owned by anybody, certainly not the Liberal Party, the conservative side of politics or the radical or conservative sides of the Aboriginal movement. It was impossible to put him in any category. That is why I was reticent about easily claiming that he was my friend.We first met through OPAL, which was an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander welfare organisation which began in the 1960s and still operates today. We need to understand some of the background to OPAL because that helps us to understand Neville Bonner. It was set up in the early 1960s with the support of the state government and originally to counter alleged communist influence in other Aboriginal organisations, such as the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.In fact, it is a fascinating story that I might tell some time and shows how FCAATSI, as it was known, was sidelined at one stage in order for the state government to ensure that OPAL would be set up. The state government, the National Civic Council and various people were involved in the sidelining, but we do not have time for that story today.OPAL really was set up to counteract the subversive influence of people like my friend Senator Margaret Reynolds, who was very active in the federal council as an alternative organisation. As far as I am concerned, any idea that Senator Reynolds is subversive would be very much tongue in cheek. But, nevertheless, as one of the people in the federal council she was seen to be so in the 1960s.It was in the context of Queensland politics that Neville Bonner became President of OPAL in 1967, some years after it was first inaugurated. If the state government felt that Neville Bonner was going to be a safe president, they discovered, as I think everyone who knew him discovered, that he could not be owned by anybody—or controlled by them for that matter. I myself had been a member of OPAL, first of all in the early 1960s in Mitchell, then in Cloncurry and then in 1972 as a director on the board of directors for a couple of years. Neville soon showed, however, that he was not controlled by anybody, not by any state government or by anyone else. OPAL began to be a much more independent organisation under his presidency. There was one incident that I was involved in which underlined his independence very well. When I was the secretary of OPAL in Cloncurry, we had an Aboriginal railway worker who applied for membership of OPAL but was rejected. So I went to my friend former Senator Stan Collard and said, `We have to find out what this is about.' He arranged for me to have an interview with Pat Killoran, the then Director of the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs.I then discovered that every application for membership of OPAL had to be processed through the special branch of the police department. I talked to Mr Killoran, who nodded his head, mumbled in his beard and said things about trade unionists, communists and so on, which we were very used to in Queensland in those days. That was given as some sort of reason for refusing the membership of this particular Aboriginal man. I appealed to Neville Bonner as president of OPAL, and his response was something like, `What nonsense.' That Aboriginal railway worker's application was then approved. Neville was very much an independent person.When Neville Bonner became a senator, I invited him on a number of occasions to address youth groups for which I was responsible. In 1974 he came to speak to the youth group in the Sandgate parish where I was the minister. Heather and Neville came to dinner at our place before we went to meet with the youth group. I remember how delighted my small daughters were that Heather brought along—somehow or other she knew about young girls—a box of beads and other jewellery. My daughters have never forgotten that. They think Heather and Neville Bonner were the best people in all the world. But that was the sort of kindness that both Neville and Heather demonstrated so often to other people.I remember during the dinner that I thanked Neville and Heather for giving up their time and I remarked that they must have many invitations to dinner. Neville said to me then that he was rarely invited to the homes of white Australians. I was very sad about this, but I hope that, in the years following, there was a change to the lack of invitations.In 1982 during the Commonwealth Games, I remember how hard Neville Bonner worked to try to stop the protest—which, I might add, I approved of; I was in disagreement with him. But I was so impressed with the tremendous dignity of his appeal to his own people and to others of us who were involved in those protests that he certainly made me stop and rethink the position I had taken. That was the kind of effect Neville had on people, even when you disagreed with him.In 1991, as the chaplain at the Queensland University of Technology, I organised an interfaith celebration as part of the multicultural festival and invited Neville Bonner to come and represent the spirituality of the Aboriginal people. I was impressed by the way in which he welcomed the contribution and the rich diversity of the many faiths which were represented at that particular celebration. Neville was unashamedly a Christian but he was not an exclusive Christian. He was one who had not a narrow understanding but rather a broad understanding of the spiritual dimensions of life and of the wide diversity and cultural richness of all the people who now make up the nation of Australia. That was underlined by his participation on that occasion and by his welcome to all of those people at that multicultural celebration. In 1975, as I pointed out this afternoon in asking a question of the Special Minister of State, Neville Bonner was instrumental in having a resolution passed by this Senate which was a significant resolution, given that it was passed in 1975, long before the gains of Mabo were achieved. Let me, as part of this tribute, read the resolution again:. . . the Senate accepts the fact that the indigenous people of Australia, now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, were in possession of this entire nation prior to the 1788 First Fleet landing at Botany Bay, and urges the Australian Government to admit prior ownership of the said indigenous people and introduce legislation to compensate the people now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for dispossession of their land.I was thankful that the minister said he would take seriously this wording in the consideration the government gives to the idea of another question during the referendum on the republic. I believe Neville Bonner set for us a precedent and a platform for a real, honest and proper recognition of Aboriginal people in this country. Wouldn't it be great if we were able, in some way, to use the wording of the resolution which he had passed in 1975 as a suitable memorial in honour of the late Senator Bonner?16:00:001844Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I rise to support Senator Hill's motion of condolence on the death of former Queensland Senator Neville Bonner. Anyone who is the first of any group to take a big step such as being the first Aboriginal person to represent their state and the first Aboriginal person in federal parliament is very courageous. Reading through the biographical details of the political life of former Senator Bonner, you get a small taste of the difficulties that may have been part of not only his life but the life of numerous Aboriginal people, many of whom did not have the ability or the position to speak out as strongly as he did. Even though he held a prominent position, I noticed that there were two occasions published on which he was refused service in a hotel simply for asking for a beer. On one occasion two parents withdrew their daughters from a debutante ball because they were being presented to an Aboriginal senator; the parents were adamant that they would not allow their children to be presented to a black person.It would have taken an extraordinary person with an extraordinary amount of composure to deal with these kinds of setbacks. But, from what I hear, from what I have seen and from what I have read, he was that kind of person. He was able to continue to do the job that he believed he had to do.In 1973 Aboriginal justices of the peace were appointed to sit with magistrates and judges in all cases involving Aboriginal defendants. Neville Bonner did that because of an element of personal concern about a member of his family. However, even today in 1999, a close friend of mine in Western Australia is still finding difficulty, as an Aboriginal justice of the peace, in being treated as an ordinary human being while trying to do the job that he believes is so important in being able to be there and available for Aboriginal people when elements of the law do not understand the particular problems. To quote Senator Bonner, `Aboriginal culture and customs usually weren't understood by courts, though they might play some part in an Aboriginal defendant's action.' That was recognised by Senator Bonner in 1973. He was a voice for a people whose voice is still not being heard by many people today.A couple of the people who have spoken to this condolence motion have mentioned former Senator Bonner's political courage in taking action based on his beliefs on a particular issue—even if his party was voting differently. This was not just demonstrated on issues of Aboriginal rights. There was at least one occasion when Senator Bonner crossed the floor on the issue of human rights in East Timor regarding a request for a full inquiry into the deaths of the journalists at Balibo.I believe that former Senator Bonner made an extremely important contribution to Australian politics, and it is extremely significant that from 1 July we will have Senator-elect Aden Ridgeway taking his place as the next Aboriginal senator. Although we know that there is a long way to go, I think we all owe a debt to the courage and tenacity of former Senator Neville Bonner in taking that first step. So, on behalf of the Greens (WA), we warmly share in the motion of condolence.16:05:001845MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—I had the privilege of serving with Neville Bonner for seven of the 12 years he spent in the Senate, and so I support this condolence motion this afternoon. Few people have started life with more disadvantages than Neville, but that was not a hindrance to what was a very successful and productive life.He took his place here as a Liberal senator for Queensland in 1971. He was a very conscientious senator, well known and well liked throughout Queensland. Through those years we did many a visit together around Queensland. One in particular I remember with pleasure was a visit to Fraser Island to inspect the logging and forestry practices in what would prove to be a very long lead-up to the cessation of logging on the island.Neville's greatest contribution to the community was, however, as an Aboriginal leader, particularly after his parliamentary career. Unquestionably, he was the best and most effective Aboriginal leader this country has seen. And that was very much a consequence of his personality and his character.It would be remiss of me to only refer to his activities as a senator and an Aboriginal leader. He was very committed to serving his community. He was a commissioner for the ABC and a senior visitor to prisons in Queensland, amongst his other duties.Neville was naturally a quiet person. Not for him the shouting, blatantly aggressive confrontationalist approach in human relations. He always had the courage of his convictions, which he maintained with dignity. He always chose his words carefully, and those words were words of reasonableness and moderation. Above all, the sincerity with which he approached everything shone through. It was these qualities, so often lacking in public life today, which made him the respected figure that the nation mourned last week. To his wife, Heather, and his wide family, I extend my deepest sympathies.16:07:001845Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLP10—I rise to support the condolence motion moved by Senator Hill. Today we are mourning the death and celebrating the life of a remarkable Australian, Neville Bonner, who passed away on 5 February and who was honoured last week with a state funeral because of his life's work and service to the Australian community. A former Liberal senator for Queensland from 1971 to 1983, Neville Bonner served in this place drawing much admiration.It is no secret that Neville grew up under hard conditions. Born on 28 March 1922, his beginnings were, to say the least, meagre. He was born on a government blanket in a camp under a palm tree that stood among the lantana on Ukerebagh Island just off the Tweed River. His mother died when he was a boy and he was raised by his grandparents. It was a difficult start to life, a life that was to be filled for Neville with many challenges, difficulties and triumphs. Yet his early life circumstances would form the foundation of his strong sense of fairness, justice and compassion. The qualities of this man forged during his youth would last a lifetime.Neville was a good orator and an avid reader despite only receiving one year of formal education at the age of 15, where he excelled by graduating three grades. By the age of 18, he packed his swag and set off on his early working career, which took him to many parts of Queensland. Over this time he tried his hand at dairying, ringbarking and scrub-felling and as a meat worker and a stockman. It was while he was working at Palm Island that his leadership skills began to emerge. Managing a large work force, he formed several committees to serve local needs, and he lived on Palm Island for some 17 years with his first wife, five sons and two foster daughters.On his return to Brisbane in 1960, Neville established a manufacturing business in Ipswich producing boomerangs. In 1961 he joined the Queensland division of the Liberal Party. His interest in community affairs was increasing, and in 1965 he joined what Senator Woodley referred to as OPAL, the One People of Australia League, becoming its state president in 1967. He had by this time closed his manufacturing business and was working for the Moreton Shire Council as a bridge carpenter, a skill he acquired on Palm Island. This was alluded to by Sir James Killen in his eulogy of Bonner the bridge builder, meaning not just physically building bridges but as a bridge builder in other aspects of life in his career.Sadly, in 1969 Neville's first wife, Mona, died. Then in 1970 he made his first run for office, contesting the 1970 federal election as No. 3 candidate on the joint Liberal-Country Party Senate ticket. Though his first Senate bid failed, he was selected in 1971 under section 15 of the constitution to fill a Senate vacancy caused by the resignation of Dame Annabelle Rankin. Neville Bonner won his preselection convincingly on the first ballot from a field of seven candidates, and he was re-elected to the Senate three times until 1983.Neville Bonner was a conservative Liberal. He knew his own mind, he knew what he believed in and he knew what it took to succeed. He had an unshakeable faith in his core beliefs, and he knew that reward for his people and for all Australians lay in patient, steady and prudent challenge using the due process of law and the political system. For his quiet outspokenness, he suffered at times the ridicule of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, preferring to follow the wisdom inside passed down to him from many generations.A Jugarah elder, Neville Bonner was outspoken on Aboriginal issues, never losing touch with Aboriginal law, beliefs or traditions and always ensuring that future generations were educated and mentored in the ways of Aboriginal custom. A man of great integrity who stood up for his own convictions never toeing any political line to buy friend or favour, he saw himself first and foremost as an Australian, an Australian who had ancestral responsibilities, an Australian who had community responsibilities. He never let up despite illness or other setbacks. He was a gentle soul who always showed a cheerful and peaceful demeanour which was indicative of his positive attitude to life.As you know, Madam President, Neville Bonner was the first Aborigine elected to parliament. Ever cognisant of his early years, Neville Bonner was highly interested in matters of indigenous significance, yet he was adamant that he would be a senator for all Queensland saying:But I am to represent the State of Queensland and my loyalties and responsibilities will be to the people of Queensland.A strong believer in tradition and the responsibility of office, he professed a concern for his country, its people and the quality of life that Australians could enjoy. This is clearly articulated in his maiden speech, when he reminded us that he was educated in the school of hard knocks, with his teacher being experience. He pledged as a senator to play his role which his state of Queensland, his race, his background, his political beliefs, his knowledge of man and circumstances dictate. This he said he would do through the grace of God to the benefit of all Australians.From the moment he stepped into the political arena as a Liberal senator, Neville Bonner became one of Australia's best known politicians—no, I guess you cannot say `politician' because Neville always wished to be referred to as a parliamentarian. He achieved this great success because he was true to himself and was listened to by the broader community, which is testified by his significantly increased majority in three successive elections. His service and interest in the Senate included but were not limited to areas related to health, housing, education, employment, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander matters and employment.In the parliament he brought an Aboriginal voice to the heart of the nation, speaking out on issues to close the divide between black and white Australians. It was a voice we will hear in our hearts forever because he knew how to temper truth with dissension. Neville Bonner was always a modest peaceable man. He was a man you could not help but like, and his success was always through his own endeavours. He was a gentle man. He stood by his principles. He was a passionate man, having no fear to sincerely follow his heart. And he was a loyal man, never forgetting his purpose.His life of public service and concern for his fellow man endured throughout his life and, despite his recent illness, Neville Bonner continued to champion causes. Many will remember his high involvement in last year's Constitutional Convention, taking up a position with the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy. In fact, his life after leaving the Senate was full of public service and recognition, such as his appointment as a board director of the ABC; he was awarded the Order of Australia in 1984; a senior official adviser to Queensland Prisons from 1990-97; chairman of the Indigenous Advisory Board from 1997; and honorary adviser to the Queensland Police Service on indigenous issues in 1998. He was also a patron to a number of organisations and readily gave advice to a number of community organisations.Neville Bonner was much loved and highly regarded in the Liberal Party. He was a good speaker and quickly rose through the Party political ranks from his membership of the One Mile Branch in the Oxley-Ipswich area to area chairman, member of state executive and then to Senator for Queensland. In 1978 he was awarded special life membership by the Queensland Young Liberal Movement and was subsequently made a life member of the Liberal Party of Australia.Neville Bonner's path from a poor youth to an adult of public distinction was no accident. He worked hard, used his experience as a learning curve and knew not to carry any hate or bitterness in his heart. This was very much part of the secret of Neville's success. I draw your attention, Madam President, to one particular comment in his maiden speech to this chamber which had a perennial ring of truth when he spoke of acceptance and equality, saying Australia:. . . will be a grand country only when those who sit in this Chamber, and in another place, really and truly believe in this aim and work to achieving it. I believe we should forget our petty differences and really work for those who put us here and have entrusted the nation to our hands. I was one of the thousand or more from all walks of life who attended Neville's funeral last Friday, as did you, Madam President, and other senators in this chamber. I think it was referred to by somebody, maybe Senator Woodley, as a `grand occasion'. I have to say that Neville Bonner would have been extremely proud of the part played at his funeral by his children, his grandchildren and his nieces. This is a time of painful sorrow made worse by the loss of Neville's son Patrick last July from bone cancer. To his wife, Heather, his children and grandchildren, I extend my deepest sympathy at this time of great sorrow.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!16:18:001847Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—For those of my generation, Neville Bonner was an outstanding Australian, a legend in his own time and a household name. Nothing I can say in this condolence motion will further add to the recognition, respect and admiration that was given to this great man. I will very briefly comment on a couple of minor but very personal experiences that I had with Senator Bonner.I was always so proud that Neville Bonner was a Liberal—and, to a degree, it reinforced my commitment to the Liberal Party as a party for all people. I was ever so proud of the party when Neville Bonner came to be elected as Australia's first Aboriginal parliamentarian. He always used to emphasise in those early days—and I was only a bit of a kid then—that he was `a Senator for all Queenslanders'. He was always very proud of his Aboriginality, but he emphasised that he was in the Senate as a Queensland senator and he was there to represent all of Queensland.I remember when I was a bit of a young thing, still floating around in my home town of Ayr, I had a flat that had become renowned for the parties that used to be held there—this was before I was married, of course. And I remember Neville Bonner coming to town one day in his travels as a Liberal Senator for Queensland and he stayed in my flat. I always thought that that showed what a great man he was—he did not really care where he stayed, and he was as happy to stay in my flat, even with its reputation for wild parties, as he was to stay anywhere else. He was that sort of a person, and you could relate to him. I barely knew him, but he called on me because he knew I was involved in a very small way in Liberal politics and I was so pleased that he did that and was able to stay with me overnight.The other incident is a little amusing, but it showed what a great man Neville Bonner was and what great respect people had for him. I was in the Apex Club, which is a young man's service club. We were having our North Queensland convention in Innisfail—I think it was in the cultural centre, which had several big auditoriums in it—and 200 or 300 young men were attending. On the Sunday morning—this was after a heavy Saturday night, as those things tended to be—we were discussing fairly mundane business when, suddenly, there was a bit of a stir at the back of the hall and in strode Neville Bonner with a couple of minders. He walked straight up to the front table. In the middle of whatever we were discussing, the Apexians stood as a person and applauded him so warmly. He got to the top of the table and sat down. The chairman of the meeting looked at him and he looked back. The chairman eventually got up and whispered to him and it became obvious that Neville Bonner had come in, quite uninvited, to the wrong room in this centre. Never to be outdone, Neville, with a bit of encouragement from the audience who started clapping him when that was explained, got up and gave a 10-minute off-the-cuff address about his role and the role that service clubs played. It was a warm experience for both the Apexians and, I think, for Neville Bonner, that he was so well-regarded and such a significant figure that he was able to get away with what would, for other people, have been an embarrassment. I am happy that Neville Bonner got his life membership of the Liberal Party in recent years. It is, indeed, great recognition for a great Australian. I am honoured to have known Neville Bonner and I extend to Heather and his family my condolences. 16:23:001848Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Madam President, I was honoured to be with you and other honourable senators and members of the House of Representatives at the funeral of Neville Bonner—this great Australian. I was also honoured to have served with him in this parliament from 1975 until the election of 1983. Neville Bonner said, in his first speech to this parliament:Too long, too long, we have been crying out and far too few have heard us.Although Neville Bonner knew, and his heart cried out for his people, he did not at any time attempt to undermine the fundamental institutions of a democratic society to achieve that end. He worked with one and all to achieve that objective. Even though he was criticised on the one hand by certain militants and on the other hand by racists, he sought and pursued the goal of what is right. He hungered for what is right. Very often, he would talk about his people and the years gone by.On a personal note, my young children, on the odd occasion when they came up to Canberra, were fascinated by Senator Neville Bonner and they learnt a lot from him. He took the time to talk to them. On their behalf, I am so grateful that he did take that time because it reinforced in them the importance of achieving justice for the Aboriginal people of Australia.He did not attempt to undermine the institutions of a democratic society. He did believe that a critical mass of moral virtue was indispensable for the proper functioning of a democratic society. He believed, very firmly, in the transcendence of individuals in society over the government—in other words, the government was not there other than to act in the best interests of those who are governed. The basis of that was his belief in the inherent dignity of every human being. He realised it to be untouchable by the state because it was God-given.He not only exercised his functions as a parliamentarian, as was described here a moment ago, on behalf of the Aboriginal people. He did so for all citizens of Australia. And not only Australia but also others in the world who experienced persecution, racial discrimination and the thuggery of dictatorships. He went to refugee camps in Kampuchea. When he came back he expressed that these were the worst living conditions he had seen human beings subjected to. Here was a man who had been through pretty poor sets of living conditions where he was brought up, but he came back and said that he had never seen anybody living in such deplorable conditions. He also criticised government on the Timor matter. It is interesting to note that he was a person before his time.I would like to congratulate the Liberal Party for their foresight in nominating Neville Bonner, which could not have been terribly easy in Queensland in those days. I think they deserve recognition on the occasion of this condolence motion for Neville Bonner. Unfortunately, in 1983 Neville Bonner got third on the ticket and decided to stand as an Independent. If I recall correctly, in 1983, before the election, I had something to do with the balance of power situation. Had Neville Bonner been returned, Neville and I would have exercised that, no doubt very responsibly. The Democrats benefited from Neville's defeat in that regard. I am not saying that you campaigned against Neville, but that is the fact of political life.But he did not go out with too bad a result. On that occasion, as an Independent, he got 92,000 votes, almost 100,000 votes. Somebody says: why did he not get elected? I have heard people talk about the number of primary votes I got too. But I wonder who of those elected from the second position in political parties got more. Unfortunately, despite getting nearly 100,000 votes, he did not get in. That did not deter him. There was no lasting bitterness. He was prepared to forgive, as he forgave that person for refusing him and two of his friends a drink in the pub. He was a man, poor in spirit, whose essential humility came out. He was a man who mourned for what happened to his people. I just hope and pray that he and his family—I pray for Heather and for all of the extended family—are comforted.16:32:001849O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—As someone who had a passing acquaintance with Neville Bonner, I do not intend to delay the chamber long, but I think it is appropriate to make a few observations about the impact that former Senator Bonner could make on my generation and people of my generation. I remember as a young boy our family would make not infrequent excursions to Murwillumbah or northern New South Wales and when we drove down the Tweed River my parents pointed out to me the island on which Neville Bonner was born. It was a significant fact to them, and it was made a significant fact to me. The reason why they did it was to say to me that people from humble beginnings could in fact rise to greatness. That was undoubtedly the case with former Senator Bonner. He was a great Australian.The fact that I would remember it so many years later shows the impact that Neville Bonner could have even on the formative mind when one did not necessarily understand exactly what a senator did. People of my generation growing up in Queensland knew that Neville Bonner was a significant man, a significant Australian. That, I think, is testimony to the enduring nature of his legacy, because for my generation Neville Bonner was a real live character who strode the political world with greatness.The other observation I make is that Neville Bonner from time to time came to Canberra and you would see him in the dining room or you might come across him in Queensland. He might talk to you or you might be at a meeting with him. He always had a wonderful capacity for self-effacement, which I find is a rare characteristic in politics and one which I find very endearing. It was undoubtedly part of the success that he had as a person that he could be so self-effacing, that he never took himself too seriously, but at the same time he never undermined the credibility of what he was saying. To achieve that requires a rare balance that few people actually attain.Neville Bonner was also a man who, when the occasion demanded, could make very incisive observations about a particular situation or about a particular problem that was present at the time. Those observations were made not off the cuff and without forethought; they were made clearly from a great degree of consideration. He thought through a problem before he spoke about it. Therefore, when he did speak he could be so much more effective.Sadly, we will not hear former Senator Bonner speak any more, but I think the legacy he left will last with Australia for many years to come, if not for generations to come. So for that I think we should all be very grateful. To his widow, Heather, his children, his grandchildren and his larger extended family, I offer my condolences and also my thanks that we had the services of Neville Bonner in creating a better Australia.1850The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—As has been mentioned, I had the opportunity to join many of you in attending the service of thanksgiving for the life of Thomas Neville Bonner in Ipswich last Friday. Many things have been said about his life. I shared just 22 months of being a senator while he was still here and he befriended me during that time—something that I valued greatly.In the service there was a letter written by Dr Belinda Penglis Stebbing. His granddaughter, Roxanne Venner, I thought with great courage, was able to sing I will sing the wondrous story, not an easy thing to do on such an occasion, I would suggest. There was the eulogy by his grandson, Mitchell, which Senator Hill referred to, and the Jagera Funeral Chant, which was played to us and introduced by his grandson, Thomas Bonner.But it was the poem by Margaret Armstrong (Daylight) that I particularly related to on the day and I think a number of others at the service would have also. She had written it quite recently. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate in the Hansard record the poem `Uncle Neville', which she had written and which she read to us and in which she refers to a number of things but, in particular, in referring to her uncle says, `My special friend'.Leave granted.The poem read as follows—Uncle NevilleYou came into my life when I was just a childA face so gentle and caring with your golden smile I can remember when we would go on the OPAL campsYou were always there to comfort and support us; you are our little champMany years have passed and you have watched me growSomeone in my heart to be proud of, for it was you who did showHow to have respect for all and believe in who I amA proud Aboriginal woman because into my life you cameYou went on to do brilliant things and look what you have achievedOur very first Parliament member even though you grievedYou have always tried your best to bring a better life to all peopleBecause in your heart you were chosen by someone specialMany awards you have received but you didn't ask for muchBecause my Uncle Neville I believe you, have that magic touchNow as silver hair lines your graceful faceLined with dignity and so much graceYour pain should be mine to bearBecause you have always helped me in my despairMay the spirit of our Mother Earth give you strength on your special journeyFor a star will shine in heaven to guide me in my learningMy special friend I know in my heart you can bear the painThen one day we shall walk hand in hand together once againFor in our Jagera Land you will always have your placeI know, in my heart I shall cherish precious memories of your dear loving faceWritten by Margaret Armstrong (Daylight)30th January 1999Newtown, IpswichI thought the service of thanksgiving was a splendid occasion to recount for all of us the life of Thomas Neville Bonner, from his humble beginnings and for all of the things that he achieved, speaking of him as many knew him—though I did not—sitting in a particular corner of the lounge room of his house where people would come to see him, to talk to him, as it was put, to sit at his feet and listen to what he had to say. Although I had not been there, I felt I could envisage that scene. I could imagine and wish that perhaps I had had the opportunity to be there. I offer my condolences to Heather, to his children and grandchildren. I invite honourable senators to stand in silence to signify their assent to this motion.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places.185110000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on Saturday, 16 January 1999 of former Senator the Hon. James Robert McClelland, a Senator for the state of New South Wales from 1971 to 1978, and Minister for Manufacturing Industry, Minister for Labour and Immigration and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Matters Relating to the Public Service in 1975.16:39:001851Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—by leave—I move:That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on Saturday, 16 January 1999, of the Honourable James Robert McClelland, Chairman of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Weapons Tests in Australia from 1984 to 1985, Chief Justice of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales from 1980 to 1985, Judge of the New South Wales Industrial Court from 1978 to 1980, a senator for the State of New South Wales from 1971 to 1978, Minister for Labour and Immigration and Minister assisting the Prime Minister in matters relating to the Public Service from June to November 1975 and Minister for Manufacturing Industry from February to June 1975, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.James Robert (Jim) McClelland was born on 3 June 1915 at Richmond, Victoria. A conscientious student, he earned scholarships to study at St Kevin's College and later at Melbourne University. He completed his studies towards a Bachelor of Arts by working as a builders labourer and later as an ironworker. During World War II Jim served as a leading aircraftsman in the Royal Australian Air Force. After his discharge in 1946, he enrolled at Sydney University, where he completed his law degree. On completion of his study, he went into practice as an indus trial lawyer and was widely considered to be a leader in the field.His parliamentary career began in 1971 when he was elected to the Senate for New South Wales. He was appointed to the ministry and cabinet on 10 February 1975 as Minister for Manufacturing Industry. In June of that year he became Minister for Labour and Immigration. He was a member of several parliamentary committees and Chairman of the Senate Education, Science and Arts Legislative and General Purpose Committee, the Senate Constitutional and Legal Affairs Legislative and General Purpose Committee as well as Senate estimates committees at various times during his parliamentary service. He was a member of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1973 and the parliamentary delegation to the 32nd session of the UN General Assembly in New York in 1977.There has been much public comment on Jim's parliamentary activities both at the time and in the years since. He regarded two of his achievements as a backbencher of particular significance. These were the introduction of FM radio and his association with the family law bill. Having been a member of the Australian parliament during one of its most turbulent periods, Jim retired from politics in 1978. From 1978 to 1980 he was a member of the New South Wales Industrial Court and from there went on to become Chief Justice of the New South Wales Land and Environment Court from 1980 to 1985.In 1984-85 he was chairman of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Testing in Australia. On leaving the bench, Jim decided that another career lay ahead of him and, having been offered the opportunity to try his hand as a newspaper columnist, he jumped at the chance. He had long held an interest in writing but entered the work force during the Great Depression and at that time was unable to follow this path. At the age of 70, when most people would be enjoying retirement, Jim became a regular columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald. His last column was published on 9 November last year. On behalf of the government, I extend to his wife, Gillian, and his family our most sincere sympathy in their bereavement.16:43:001852Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I want to take this opportunity to support the condolence motion that has been moved by Senator Hill and associate the opposition with it. It is fair to say that Jim McClelland, who so many of us in the Labor Party knew by the name of Diamond Jim McClelland, was quite a unique character in the Labor Party and quite a unique character in Australian political history. There is no doubt that he was a very colourful person. He was very much a controversial figure in politics. There is no doubt also that he was a highly intelligent and talented man.There are, of course, many who still smart from his barbed tongue. I think it would be fair to say in a condolence debate like this that many of those who have been the target of that barbed tongue would have been in the Labor Party and would sit on this side of the parliament.Jim McClelland came from a working class background and, after service with the RAAF and studying at university, decided to make law his career. He is famous in the New South Wales Labor Party for his role as an industrial lawyer. He became a senator in the early 1970s. He was first preselected in 1970 and came into the Senate to fill a casual vacancy. He began his political career at a more mature age than most do. He did not become a minister in the Whitlam government until he was 61 years of age. He only had a very short time to fulfil that role which, I think it is fair to say, was the highlight of his career and public life. Even though he was only a minister in the Whitlam government for a very short period, many would acknowledge the significant contribution he made to the Whitlam government and to Australian public life during the period of that government.One thing which I think ought to be said about Jim McClelland is that he was one of those who did not forget the actions of Sir John Kerr in the sacking of the Whitlam government. He was one who did maintain the rage—not surprisingly, because the sack ing of the Whitlam government ensured that his ministerial career was so brief. Although at times he was, after his retirement from the parliament, critical of some in the Labor Party and critical of some of the policies that the Labor Party espoused, he always maintained his rage in relation to the dismissal of the Whitlam government.After his retirement from the Senate he took up a position as a judge in the New South Wales Industrial Court. In 1980 he became the first Chief Judge of the New South Wales Land and Environment Court and served there until the mid-1980s. He is very well known for his chairmanship of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Testing in Australia. He will be remembered for those significant contributions to the Australian parliament, to politics and to the law.He will also be remembered by many, particularly by Sydneysiders, as a columnist with the Sydney Morning Herald. Those contributions were never quite predictable. You were not always entirely sure who Jim's targets might be in his columns for the Sydney Morning Herald. But universally I think it is fair to say that whether one agreed with the sentiments of the columns or not—and that is in the eye of the beholder—they were accepted as being brilliantly written by someone who was an extraordinarily talented writer. He was known for and will be remembered for an acerbic wit and a brilliant way with words.On this side of the chamber we will remember all those aspects of Jim McClelland's life. Many of us in politics and in parliament probably would not be aware of the very significant contribution he has made in the area of the arts, which was emphasised, quite properly, at the memorial service at the Sydney Town Hall, which I attended representing Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition. At that time all those present—and it was a very large gathering—heard of the significant contribution he made to Australian cultural life, which perhaps some in the parliament would not be aware of.The passing of Jim McClelland, or Diamond Jim, as so many of us knew him, certainly is a significant event in Australian politics. It means that we have lost one of the most effective parliamentarians from the era of the Whitlam government. There is no doubt that not only was Jim McClelland a significant figure in politics and in parliament, but also he was a significant figure in the law and made a great contribution in many other areas of his life. Our sympathy goes to his wife, Gill, to other members of his family and to his friends.16:51:001853Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I wish to associate the National Party with the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. We were saddened to hear of the death of former Senator McClelland during the parliamentary recess.James McClelland was a unique character in Australian history, and his contribution to Australian law and politics came through a variety of careers—firstly, as a builder's labourer and an ironworker; as a legal representative for right-wing union interests; as a New South Wales Labor senator from 1971 to 1978, including a short period as a minister in the Gough Whitlam government; as Chief Judge of the New South Wales Land and Environmental Court; as chair of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Testing; and, finally, as a columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald.Jim McClelland attend St Kevin's College before entering university and shared a desk for a short period with another well-known Australian—B.A. Santamaria. But while Santamaria followed a path of politics guided by religion, Jim McClelland replaced religion with a political theory. After leaving school, McClelland became interested in Marxism and Trotskyism, but returned to a more moderate view of politics when he joined the ALP and served as Minister for Manufacturing Industry and then as Minister for Labour and Immigration.He was known for his skilled and witty use of the English language. Jim McClelland contributed a style of debate in the Senate that was both clever and humorous. He used the term `banana republic' in reference to spiralling inflation long before Prime Minister Paul Keating made the phrase famous. Jim McClelland will, of course, always be associated with the events of 1975 because of his close association with both the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, and Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. He was reportedly personally deeply affected by the actions of the Governor-General.However, even after the dismissal and a few years in opposition, the former senator continued to contribute to public life. As chair of the royal commission into nuclear testing by the British at Maralinga, he produced a report which was critical of the British government for their role in the injustices caused by nuclear testing. His inquiry travelled to England as well as South Australia, ensuring a first-hand understanding of the lasting effects of nuclear testing on local communities. After handing down the report, Jim McClelland retired from public life, but was lured out of retirement when he was offered a column in the Sydney Morning Herald.Jim McClelland will always be remembered for his participation in Australian public life, and will be missed by many people. I am sure all honourable senators will join with me in extending sympathy to his wife, Gillian, his children and family and friends.16:55:001853Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise to pay respect, on his passing, to the memory of former Senator Jim McClelland. I do so particularly because of his very important role in the introduction of FM radio in Australia. But before I get to that, I, like others, want to pay tribute to Jim's iconoclastic role in politics.As Senator Faulkner has said, Jim wrote articles and made speeches that, at one stage or other, probably attacked everybody in the Labor Party as well as everybody in the Liberal Party and every other institution, sacred or not so sacred, in the Australian community. After he left politics and left the court and was writing articles, I think Jim often became a victim of his own reputation—always wanting to write provocative and controversial pieces—and at times I thought he may have been unfair in some of his more colourful descriptions of former colleagues on all sides of politics. But one thing you can say about Jim is that he was extremely even-handed in handing out some of those colourful expressions.I certainly remember—as a staff member of the Whitlam government working for another one of his colleagues, Senator Reg Bishop, a minister in the Whitlam government—that Jim, both as a backbencher and as a minister for the last eight or nine months of the Whitlam government, certainly added some dash and style, if nothing else, to the Senate. He also took on, in some controversy, issues relating to industrial relations when the Prime Minister made him the minister for industrial relations.He should also be given credit for the monumental work he did after he left politics in chairing the royal commission into the Maralinga nuclear tests—a controversial issue, indeed—inquiring into the impact of the radiation on the service people who were there, the impact on the Aboriginal community and, of course, the disgraceful attitude displayed for a long time by the British government by not cleaning up the nuclear waste and material left at Maralinga. It was as a result of the royal commission that we finally got some restitution from the British government and commitment that they would clean up the Maralinga, Monte Bello and Emu sites. I have to say, as shadow minister for veterans' affairs, that there are still veterans who served there in the Australian services and who are still claiming that their health was affected by the careless way in which they were used—at the time not seen as careless because not enough was known about the dangers of radiation. There is still ongoing controversy in the veterans' community that some of these service people have had their health badly affected by radiation, by being too close to the site of the tests, et cetera. Jim's role in that royal commission was certainly important.I want to pay full regard to Jim's contribution and role in the introduction of FM radio. If it were not for Jim McClelland and the work he did as chairman of the appropriate Senate committee, Australia would not have had the introduction of FM radio into this country in a simple way that was user friendly for both consumers and broadcasters. We would not now have many hundreds of FM radio stations operating in the commercial sector, the national broadcasting sector—ABC and SBS—and in the community radio sector if it were not for Jim McClelland.In the early 1970s there was pressure from some groups in the community to introduce FM radio because of its higher quality and the fidelity of its sound, particularly for music. The Australian Broadcasting Authority, as it was then called, recommended—I think, unfortunately, under pressure from some of the existing AM radio licensees—that, if introduced, the FM broadcasting should be introduced in the ultra high frequency band. This was promoted as being the technically most efficient way to do it.There was some controversy about that decision. Senator Jim McClelland, as chairman of the appropriate Senate committee around that time of 1972-73, had some inquiries into that and found that, if FM radio had been introduced on the ultra high frequency band, it would have meant that the cost of radio receivers to consumers would have been prohibitive, it would have meant that the reception range would have been greatly reduced and it would have been more expensive for the commercial, public and community broadcasters to put the equipment in.Jim McClelland made a very clear report. If you read it even today—and I read it about a week or so ago, after his death, when I got it from the Senate records—you will see that it is a very clear, non-technical description of why it would be stupid and counterproductive to introduce FM radio on the ultra high frequency band. He recommended this needed more detailed research and investigation by appropriate technical people. As a result, the Whitlam government appointed Professor McLean, I think it was, to conduct an inquiry based on what the McClelland committee had found. The McLean report made it clear that, if we wanted decent FM radio operating in Australia, it would have to be in the very high frequency range, not the ultra high frequency range. The Whitlam government accepted that and the first licences were introduced in 1975.In all the obituaries that were written about Jim, his achievements and his controversies, unfortunately none mentioned this, apart from the couple of letters I had published in the Australian Financial Review. I pay tribute to Mr Max Keogh of Killara in New South Wales, who on 22 January wrote a letter similar to my own about the introduction of FM radio. It can be said without contradiction that, if it had not been for what Jim McClelland had taken on, we would not now have a national Triple J network, we would not now have community radio stations numbering into the hundreds around Australia operating on behalf of their communities and we would not have the diversity in our radio broadcasting sector where a whole range of views can now be heard every day, every night, 24 hours a day, all over Australia, whether it is in the ethnic community, in the Aboriginal community, in regional areas or in specialised broadcasting. In 1978 I amongst others in South Australia started the first community contemporary music radio station called 5MMM. We would not have been able to operate across the whole metropolitan area of Adelaide if we had had to use the ultra high frequency band. By being able to use the very high frequency band, we were able to run a very effective community contemporary music station.I think Jim prided himself on being iconoclastic. By promoting the changes to the recommendations of the ABA about the introduction of FM radio, he probably did more than any other person to ensure a broader range of iconoclastic views were heard every day in Australia, to the advantage of our community. My only disappointment is I am not aware that any existing FM radio station in Australia—there were many hundreds of them at the time of Jim's death—paid tribute to the fact that they would not be on air today and having the success they are having if it were not for the late Jim McClelland.To him and his family I pay tribute for all of his achievements. The one I had a particular interest in was the introduction of FM radio. Australia, not only in broadcasting but also in the community, is forever in his debt for having the guts to stand up to the ABA and vested interests way back in the early 1970s. FM radio is forever in his debt. To his family and friends I pay my condolences.17:04:001855Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I rise today to join the Democrats in this motion of condolence on the death of former Senator Jim McClelland. Jim McClelland was what we call these days a renaissance man. There have been few renaissance people around the parliament, but he was one of the first that I remember, at any rate. He recreated his own sphere of influence. We have heard previously this afternoon that he had several spheres of influence. He recreated himself several times during his lifetime. From what I know of him it seems that each time he gave substantially more to the community than he got back.I dealt with him myself on two issues. The first was on the results of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Testing in Australia. At that time I was working for our former Senator Colin Mason. Colin was very interested in the whole thing. I must say that Jim was more than helpful in telling him about the results, in telling him what was going on and in making sure that he had the real facts behind decisions he had to make over that.The second thing I dealt with him on was the Sydney monorail. I think it is interesting to note that, even though the monorail was a product of the New South Wales Labor government, Jim was by no means swayed by that. He detested the monorail as much as I do still. I remember him saying to a rally, I think—in fact, he was quoting somebody else and I cannot remember who the original was—that the way to get rid of the monorail was to paint the monorail stanchions to look like trees, to call in a few Queensland loggers and give them chainsaws and that would be the end of the monorail.The by far larger and more substantial issue that I dealt with him on was, as I said, Maralinga. That was something that was agreed to by a federal Liberal-National government, but I do not think it would have made any difference who agreed with it to Jim McClelland. He disagreed with it. He was very thorough and he was very strong in the way he dealt with that royal commission. I think he was the first—I am not sure—to take a royal commission well and truly out into the bush, into the outback of Australia, to sit down with the Aboriginal people and with others who had been affected, to deal with them on their own terms and to make sure that he had all the evidence that he possibly could get that was useful to that royal commission. He did that, and I think he had a huge impact on the way he carried out the royal commission. He gave it so much more credibility than it would otherwise have had. So, from my point of view, that royal commission will be the most lasting legacy of Jim McClelland.I always found him extremely nice to deal with. Having heard Senator Faulkner, I was a bit surprised because I never found that he was anything but charming with me, and that was when I was a staffer as well as when I was a senator. I must say that, even though I did read many of his columns in the Sydney Morning Herald and I knew he could get stuck into people if he felt like it, he never did that with me. He was a good person. He believed that we need food for our souls as well as for our bodies, and he always made sure that, wherever he could help, it was not just an economy we were living in but a society as well.17:08:001856Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The recent passing of former Senator Jim McClelland is a sad event and one that should be noted by this Senate. I note it because I had the good fortune to work for former Senator Jim McClelland in late 1975. Whilst there has been a fair amount of public debate and discussion regarding the latter years of Senator McClelland's life, particularly the iconoclastic nature—I think that is the word that is being used—that he possessed, I fondly remember the few short months that I worked for him. I came to work for Senator McClelland when he became the Minister for Labour and Immigration in the second half of 1975. I certainly believe that, if it had not been for the events of 11 November 1975, Jim McClelland's career would have been even more distinguished.Those events cut short what was heading towards being the magnificent political and parliamentary career of an outstanding, intelli gent and professional minister in the Whitlam government. Indeed, when you think back and look at the array of talent that was assembled on the front bench in 1975—people such as Jim McClelland, Paul Keating, John Wheeldon, Joe Riordan and Bill Hayden, a range of individuals who were appointed to the ministry towards the end of the Whitlam government—it is quite clear that Malcolm Fraser, the then Leader of the Opposition, saw a far more formidable array of talent on the front bench and moved, no doubt quickly, to end the Whitlam government by means other than democratic ones.During the short time that I was employed on his staff, because 11 November meant that I ceased to have a job on his staff or certainly a job on the staff of a minister of the government at the time, he was nevertheless involved in some very important issues. Firstly, he handled the immigration portfolio at a time when there were major problems in the Middle East, particularly the war in Lebanon, and there were many persons seeking to migrate to this country from that area. I can recall that daily we would have deputations and requests from families seeking to obtain residence in Australia for their families back in Lebanon. He handled that issue with great professionalism and sensitivity.Secondly, and more controversially, he was the minister for labour as well as immigration. I am sure some will recall that he was charged with the responsibility of introducing wage indexation into the industrial relations system. There had been substantial wage increases throughout the preceding years and some argued that this had fuelled inflation. Whatever the merits of that argument, the government of the day decided that a form of regulation should be introduced into wage fixation, and that was wage indexation based on quarterly cost of living adjustments.I had the task at one stage of organising a function for Jim McClelland to meet with trade union leaders in Sydney. It was just prior to the state council meeting to determine the order of the Senate ticket—something I am a bit familiar with at the moment. I remember trying to organise this function and such was the hostility of the trade union movement to the government's decision, particularly to Jim McClelland, the then minister, that nobody came to the function. They all rang up and declined. They had a few words to say about the minister and his proposal to promote wage indexation. This was seen as the great evil. This would prevent trade unions from being able to obtain wage increases. I found it rather ironic that, many years later when the Hawke and Keating governments were in power, I was a trade union official and we were arguing to try to maintain wage indexation, that to lose wage indexation would be a disastrous result. It is interesting how times change.Jim McClelland was certainly a tough, fair and professional minister for labour. Even his critics in the union movement came to understand that and came to understand that the changes that were being put in place were in their interests, particularly when compared with what was in store for them when the Fraser government came to power.That then leads me to the fateful events of November 1975, and I will just relate two quick stories. Firstly, prior to 11 November, I recall one particular day when I was in the Sydney office and we received a phone call from the Prime Minister's office. His office needed to talk urgently to the minister. Jim had the habit, certainly when he was in the Sydney office, that he was not to be disturbed in his lunch hour. That was a time when he had a bit of quiet time to read the papers and catch up on some other reading. I was only ever to disturb him—as I was the junior in the office—if he had a phone call from either the secretary to the department, Peter Wilenski, or the Prime Minister's office.On this day, the phone rang and I put the Prime Minister's office through to Jim. I am not sure what transpired in that conversation, but I know that afterwards Jim came out and indicated that, in the Age newspaper of the following day, a copy of a telex that the late Rex Connor had sent to Mr Khemlani would be published. I cannot repeat Jim's words, but in two short words he summed up what he felt the fate of our government was at the time. Then we came to 11 November. I well recall getting a phone call on that day from Kerry Sibraa to tell me that we were going to have a half-Senate election, that he was going to be on the ticket and that we should go and celebrate that with a good Chinese lunch in Dixon Street, as was the wont of members of the New South Wales ALP on rare occasions. Anyway, we went off to lunch. I got back to the office shortly after the usual lunch hour to be greeted by the private secretary who said, `Have you heard the news?' I said, `Yes. Isn't it great? We're going to have a half-Senate election. I've just had a great lunch with Kerry.' She said, `No, that was the 12 o'clock bulletin. The 2 o'clock bulletin is that you're sacked.' Of course, we all know what happened.Jim McClelland, who clearly had some inkling of what was to happen, and that has been reported, never forgave the actions of the person who had been a lifelong friend up to that point, Sir John Kerr. Just as there is humour in everything, that is one thing that stands out in my memory of what otherwise was a pretty horrific day for the Labor government and the Labor Party.Jim McClelland passed away recently. Two former members of his staff preceded him in their passing, and I just wish to mention them. They were outstanding public servants. One of them was Dr Peter Wilenski, who was the head of Jim's department at the time he was the minister. He went on to a magnificent career both within Australia and internationally. The other one was his personal private secretary, Geoff Baker, who, if it had not been for the fact that he died at a young age of leukemia, would also I believe have had a very distinguished career.I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by earlier speakers. As we know, in his latter years, Jim was a controversial figure who often wrote articles in the paper which most of us did not agree with, and it has been reported that he had some notable disputes with former colleagues. That happens in politics to many of us. I suppose the old adage `you forgive, but you never forget' is appropriate. I certainly will never forget the fact that Jim McClelland gave me my oppor tunity to get started in the political arena. As I said, he had a distinguished career. He certainly would have had an even more distinguished career if it had not been for those untimely and undemocratic events of 11 November 1975.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places.185810000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on Wednesday, 20 January 1999, of former Senator Cleaver Ernest Bunton, OBE, a senator for the state of New South Wales in 1975.17:20:001858Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—by leave—I move:That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on Wednesday, 20 January 1999, of Cleaver Ernest Bunton, OBE, a senator for the State of New South Wales from February to November 1975, places on record its appreciation of his public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.Cleaver Bunton was born at Albury, New South Wales, on 5 May 1902. He was educated in Albury but left school at 13 to work for a local solicitor. Studying at night school and then by correspondence, Cleaver qualified as an accountant at 23, although by this stage he had already been in business for himself for six years.Cleaver was dedicated to his home town and indeed became known as `Mr Albury'. He was an alderman of the local council for over 45 years and mayor for 30 of those years. His feelings for Albury were recognised by its citizens—he had both a street and a hospital ward named after him, Charles Sturt University awarded him an honorary Bachelor of Arts and a local gardener produced a `Cleaver Bunton chrysanthemum'.In 1954 Cleaver was awarded the Office of the Order of the British Empire and in 1979 he was appointed as an Officer of the Order of Australia for service to local government. Cleaver was appointed to the Senate in 1975 to fill the casual vacancy caused by the appointment of Senator Lionel Murphy to the High Court. At the time, Cleaver's appointment was the subject of some controversy as he was an independent. Cleaver's parliamentary career was a relatively short one as he was not elected at the 1975 election. During his time in the Senate, he was a member of a Senate estimates committee for seven months. In his maiden speech, Cleaver's background in local government was evident as he spoke of regional development and issues concerning the Albury-Wodonga region in particular. Cleaver will be remembered fondly by all who knew him and particularly by the people of Albury. On behalf of the government, I extend to his wife, Corrie, our most sincere sympathy in her bereavement.17:22:001858Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I wish to associate the opposition with the condolence motion that has been moved by the government on the death of former Senator Cleaver Bunton. There is one sense in which I believe we should not actually be having this condolence debate, and that is that Cleaver Bunton, in the view of the Labor Party, should not have become a Senator. But having said that—and I will return to those events of 1975 in a moment—it is important that we acknowledge the extraordinary civic and community contribution that Cleaver Bunton has made. The controversy in relation to Cleaver Bunton was that he was appointed at a joint sitting of the New South Wales parliament on 27 February 1975 to take the seat of former Senator Lionel Murphy who had resigned after his appointment as a High Court justice. This was an event in politics at both state and Commonwealth levels which caused an enormous amount of debate, concern and disquiet. Not because of the capacity of Cleaver Bunton—I don't think anyone was ever going to argue that here was a man who had not made an extraordinary commitment during an enormously long period of time in public life—but because, in the view of the Labor Party, ex-Senator Lionel Murphy should have been replaced by the Labor nominee at the time. I reminded myself by looking back at the Hansard of the joint sitting of the New South Wales parliament about the nature of the debate that took place there. It was a very acrimonious debate indeed, as you could imagine. At one stage there was an attempt to eject the former Labor Premier of New South Wales, Jack Renshaw, from the joint sitting. The police were called but he refused to go. Jack Renshaw was a pretty quiet bloke, but he refused to leave the joint sitting and eventually voted against Premier Lewis's nominee. Mr Wran, the then Leader of the Opposition, said in that debate in the Legislative Council chamber during the joint sitting, `I regard Mr Bunton as a minor figure in a gross political tragedy.'Apart from the nature of Cleaver Bunton's appointment by the New South Wales Premier, Tom Lewis, to that casual vacancy, it is appropriate in a debate like this that we acknowledge the effort and work that Cleaver Bunton has put in on behalf of the people of Albury. He has made an extraordinary contribution to Albury and its environs. He played a very significant role—I think the most important role—in seeing Albury grow from a country town in New South Wales to a major inland centre.His dedication was just extraordinary. At the age of 22 he was the youngest person ever elected to Albury council or to a local government authority at the time in New South Wales. He served as an alderman for 45½ years and he was mayor for almost 30 years. These are just amazing statistics. He was first elected mayor in 1945, stayed as mayor until 1972, except for a six-week break in the early 1960s. He was again elected mayor in 1974 and continued until he resigned from the council in 1976. This sort of record is unlikely to be repeated again by any individual.During his lifetime he was appointed secretary to more than 40 organisations. He was just involved in so many aspects of community life. For example, he was an executive member of the New South Wales Local Government Association for 27 years and an office holder of that association. So this was a remarkable career, particularly at the local government level. To give this balance, even though I am critical of his appointment to the Senate, I think we need to make the point that, during the period when the budget was effectively before this chamber and the then Malcolm Fraser-led coalition opposition would not pass the budget, Cleaver Bunton, throughout that crisis of October-November 1975, on all occasions consistently voted—as Gough Whitlam recalls in his book The Whitlam Government—with the government to pass the budget. I happen to believe, even though I have made my comment about his appointment, that is the action of a very principled person and I think it ought to be acknowledged in a debate like this.As time went on after the joint sitting in February 1975, the Bjelke-Petersen Queensland government nominated Arthur Patrick Field to fill the vacancy of Senator Burt Milliner who had died on 30 June that year. These are events that many of us recall in our history; they are, I think, very important events. At a time like this, I think we do remember the nature of Cleaver Bunton's appointment to the Senate. The fact that, when Cleaver Bunton came into this Senate, he did, on all occasions, vote to pass the Whitlam government's budget should be acknowledged.Also, I think we ought to properly acknowledge what has been a most significant contribution in local government and in his support for the Albury community. It is absolutely unparalleled not only in Albury but also in the history of country New South Wales—if not more broadly. He is a person who genuinely has stamped his mark on the state of New South Wales. I know that he will be long remembered by the people of Albury for, literally, a long lifetime of dedicated service to that community. He was a remarkable man; there is no question about that. On behalf of the opposition, I extend our sincere sympathy to his family and friends on his passing.17:31:001859Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I wish to associate the National Party with the condolence motion moved by the government. Cleaver Bunton died at the very great age of 96 years in Albury, where he had served for almost half a decade on the local council, including 30 years as mayor.At 22 years of age, after setting up an insurance and real estate business and while still studying accountancy by correspondence, Cleaver Bunton became the youngest town councillor to be elected to local government in New South Wales. From the modest beginnings, he built up a successful accountancy practice, which he later gave to his staff in 1965 on his retirement. Not only was he a successful businessman, he also found time to read the local ABC news, often reading stories about his own activities.In addition to his many careers, Cleaver Bunton's devotion to community and sporting activities gained him the title of `Mr Albury'. Cleaver Bunton was a staunch supporter of regional autonomy for local governments. He served as an executive member of the New South Wales Local Government Association for 27 years and was president in 1955 and 1956. As a keen sportsman, Cleaver Bunton not only organised local Australian Rules football but also continued to play the game until the age of 35. He was an avid participant in many sports, including tennis, cricket, snooker and bowls.At the beginning of 1975, with the appointment of Lionel Murphy to the High Court, New South Wales Premier Tom Lewis was called upon to fill a casual Senate vacancy. After a drawn out public debate on the refusal of the New South Wales government to appoint a Labor senator, which Senator Faulkner has alluded to, Cleaver Bunton was chosen to fill the vacancy as an independent and neutral candidate.In the Senate, Cleaver Bunton approached each piece of legislation on its merits and voted accordingly, declining his support for the Liberal Party's plan to block supply. With the dismissal of the Labor government later that year, Cleaver Bunton returned to Albury to retire.Throughout his life, Cleaver Bunton received numerous awards, including an OBE and membership of the Order of Australia. His achievements in such a wide variety of areas are remarkable. While his Senate term was short, he will be remembered for his lifelong devotion to community development. I wish to extend the sympathy of the National Party to his wife, Corrie, and his family and friends.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places.18601860The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—Order! It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on Wednesday, 3 February 1999, of the Hon. James Francis Cope, member of the House of Representatives for the division of Cook, New South Wales, in 1955; for the division of Watson, New South Wales, from 1955 to 1969; and for the division of Sydney, New South Wales, from 1969 to 1975; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives from 1973 to 1975.17:35:001860Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—by leave—I move:That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on 3 February 1999, of the Honouable James Francis Cope, a member of the House of Representatives for the division of Cook in 1955, the division of Watson from 1955 to 1969, and the division of Sydney from 1969 to 1975, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives from 1973 to 1975, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.James Francis Cope was born on 26 November 1907 in Sydney. He was educated at Crown Street public school. Before entering federal politics, Jim worked as a glass-blower and was Federal Treasurer of the Australian Glass Workers Union from 1952 until 1955, and an alderman of the Redfern Municipal Council before its amalgamation with the Sydney City Council.Jim entered federal parliament when he was elected to the House of Representatives in the seat of Cook in 1955. He had the distinction of being the member for three electorates, following redistributions. In an active parliamentary career, he was Deputy Chairman of Committees from 1967 to 1972, served on several committees and was, at times, chairman of the House standing committees on standing orders, the library and the House as well as the Joint Statutory Committee on Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings.Jim Cope was also a member of various delegations during his parliamentary career. He was joint chairman of the Australian branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Association. Jim's politics were formed by the Depression. In his maiden speech in the House, he spoke passionately about the plight of age pensioners and other low income groups. The sincerity with which he delivered these sentiments was acknowledged by members of the government congratulating him on his first speech. He was a conscientious worker for his constituents and is remembered fondly by those who knew him. He was proud of his inner city electorate which he defended passionately against any disparaging remark.He is known to have been a dedicated parliamentarian. It is perhaps unfortunate that those who did not know him best remember the events which culminated in his resignation as Speaker of the House, but this in no way diminishes his achievement in rising to the office of Speaker of the House. To put it in its proper perspective, it would perhaps be prudent to remember that he served as Speaker in one of the most volatile periods in parliamentary history. On behalf of the government, I extend to his wife, Myrtle, and their family our most sincere sympathy in their bereavement.17:38:001861Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I associate the opposition with this condolence motion that has been moved by the Leader of the Government. I think in any condolence motion it makes a very big difference to those who participate in it if you actually know well the former member or senator whose life in the parliament we are celebrating. In relation to Jim Cope, I did know him well. I had a very high regard for him indeed. He was, as the Leader of the Government has said, a product of inner metropolitan Sydney Crown Street public school. He probably did not have all the educational opportunities that he would have wanted. After leaving school, he worked as a glass tube fabricator and went on to become a senior official of the Glass Workers Union.His history in the parliament in relation to those seats that he represented was a rather chequered one in one sense. He won the seat of Cook in Sydney in a by-election in 1955. After a redistribution he became the member for Watson and again, after a redistribution, became the member for Sydney. He held the seat of Sydney until 1975. I suppose it is fair to say that he had more luck after redistributions than some others in the House of Representatives have had.Jim was a very staunch advocate for the underprivileged people in our community. He genuinely cared for the underprivileged and the unemployed. Throughout his period in the parliament, I think it is fair to say that his contribution was characterised by an immense loyalty to the Labor Party and the labour movement. That was a loyalty from which he never flinched. He was admired by many on both sides of parliament for a pretty quick wit and a dry sense of humour. He was often able to diffuse in his early days as Speaker some pretty ticklish situations with a very effective quip from the chair.He will be remembered for his time as Speaker of the House of Representatives. The way things are in politics, I suspect as much he will be remembered for what occurred on 27 February 1975. I have spoken a little about that day in an earlier condolence motion today in the Senate. At the same time that joint sitting was taking place in the New South Wales parliament on 27 February there were some pretty amazing scenes down here in the Commonwealth parliament.He served as Speaker from 1973 until 27 February 1975, and he resigned immediately as Speaker when he lost the support and confidence of his Labor colleagues on the floor of the House of Representatives. I think his approach during that time, his actions during that time, were typical of someone for whom the cornerstone of political life was absolute loyalty and commitment to the Australian Labor Party. I think so many of us appreciate that that is the case and would want to acknowledge that level of commitment over so very many years.I had the opportunity last week to ring his wife, Myrtle, and have a chat to her on Jim's passing. Unfortunately, I was not able to go to his funeral service in Sydney because of parliamentary commitments here last week. But I know that very many of my colleagues in the Labor Party and many others from all sides of politics were able to celebrate the life of a very dedicated and committed servant of the Australian Labor Party. I think he was a real gentleman. I think he was a person who remained on friendly terms with almost all his colleagues—perhaps all his colleagues. He had this absolute commitment in terms of his loyalty to the party and those that he served with.I discussed some old times with his wife, Myrtle, on the telephone. I know very many of us in the Labor Party are thinking of her at this time, her daughter, Bonnie, and other members of Jim's family. To Myrtle, Jim's family and friends, on behalf of the opposition in the Senate, I express our sincere condolences on the passing of this very loyal servant of the Australian Labor Party.17:45:001862Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I wish to associate the National Party with the condolence motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and supported by Senator Faulkner. I never knew Mr Cope, but in those heady days of 1974 and 1975 those of us who were interested in politics at the time drove around with one ear on the parliamentary radio broadcast. So, while I never knew him, I knew that he was the Speaker of the House in the 1970s.Jim Cope passed away at the age of 91 years on 3 February. He was from a working class background. He had been a member of the Australian Labor Party for over 70 years at the time of his death. Before entering parliament in 1955 Jim Cope worked his way up through the unions and the Labor Party and served as a federal treasurer of the Australian Glass Workers Union for three years.Early hardship, including a period of unemployment during the Depression, shaped Jim Cope's period of parliamentary service. After serving as an alderman on Redfern's council, Jim Cope was first elected to the safe Labor seat of Cook, then, due to redistributions, to the seats of Watson and Sydney. He fought vigorously on behalf of the poorer section of the community during his time in parliament, with his maiden speech calling for an increase in government pensions.On one occasion, when an author insulted Jim Cope's home suburb, Redfern, he leapt to the suburb's defence, speaking of the area with pride in an address to parliament. Jim Cope was known for his dry humour and, after studying the standing orders of the House, became an apt and entertaining participant in parliamentary proceedings. These characteristics helped earn Jim Cope the position of Speaker in 1973, which he held for two years until his resignation in 1975.Jim Cope is, of course, remembered for the controversial circumstances surrounding his resignation from the position of Speaker. After naming colleague Clyde Cameron, Jim Cope was confronted with Prime Minister Gough Whitlam's refusal to support his Speaker's ruling, and it was left to the Country Party deputy leader, Ian Sinclair, to move for Mr Cameron's suspension—and that was considered at the time to be one of the most daring tactics seen in the parliament. At the completion of the vote and with the defeat of the motion, Jim Cope resigned as Speaker. However, as a sign of his true loyalty to the party, he never spoke harshly about the incident. Jim Cope retired before the general election of 1975 after 20 years of service and returned to his home in Redfern. I am sure all my colleagues would wish to extend their deepest sympathies to Jim Cope's wife, Myrtle, his daughter and his family and friends.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places.186210000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I inform the Senate of the death on Saturday, 6 February 1999 of the Honourable Donald Allan Dunstan, AC, a former Premier of the state of South Australia.186310000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I also inform the Senate of the death on Sunday, 7 February 1999 of His Majesty King Hussein bin Talal of Jordan. I ask honourable senators to stand in silence as a mark of respect to the deceased.Honourable senators having stood in their places—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I thank the Senate.186310001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:1863388DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows: That Australian citizens oppose social, legal and economic discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality or transgender identity and that such discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society.Your petitioners request that the Senate should: pass the Australian Democrats Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate or vilify on the basis of sexuality or transgender identity so that such discrimination or vilification be open to redress at a national level.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 388 citizens)186321DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned shows:Opposition to the Live Sheep Export Trade on the grounds that it is inhumane in the extreme, is a contributing factor to unemployment within Australia, has adverse effects on residents and is environmentally harmful.Your petitioners request that the Senate call upon the Australian Government to ban the export of live sheep immediately and actively pursue the frozen carcass alternative.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 21 citizens)1863601M6 DT6Allison Sen Lyn; Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled:The Petition of the Undersigned shows that we believe that the current Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme provides benefits to retired members which are overly generous and unfair.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:Act swiftly to bring the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme in line with community standards by:(1) Reducing the taxpayer subsidy which currently stands at an average of $6 contributed by taxpayers for every $1 contributed by Senators and members;(2) Instructing the Remuneration Tribunal to substantially reduce benefits;(3) Removing the early payment of benefits, so that they are payable at the age of 55 in line with the rest of the community;(4) Supporting the Australian Democrats' Private Members' Bill to overhaul the politicians' superannuation scheme to achieve these aims.Senator Allison1M6Senator Allison(from 20 citizens)Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 40 citizens)186360VI4 GX5Reid Sen Margaret; Troeth Sen JudithTo 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 private health care 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 ReidVI4Senator Reid(from 20 citizens)Senator TroethGX5Senator Troeth(from 40 citizens)1863839DT6Bartlett 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 effects of National Competition Policy on small business such as newsagents.Your petitioners ask the Senate in Parliament to call on the federal government to review the decisions of the Australian Consumer and Competition Tribunal which threaten the viability of newsagents and introduce legislation to override these decisions and preserve the current system of distribution for magazines and newspapers through Australian newsagents.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 839 citizens)186426VI4Reid Sen MargaretTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned shows:That services and goods provided by natural and traditional therapy practitioners are an integral component of Australia's health care system and should be included in the health care exempt (zero rated) category under the Government's proposed Tax Reform Package. Preclusion implies a discrimination and could seriously restrict the choice of affordable health care available to Australians.Your Petitioners request that services and goods provided by natural and traditional therapy practitioners be included in the health care exempt (zero rated) category under the Government's proposed Tax Reform Package.Senator ReidVI4Senator Reid(from 26 citizens)18641533I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaTo the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned demand the Australian Government implement regulation for the mandatory labelling of all food or food components which are genetically modified and/or irradiated.Senator Stott Despoja3I6Senator Stott Despoja(from 153 citizens)186418247G6Lundy Sen KateTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. The petition of the residents of Australia respectfully showeth that funding cuts in the area of health throughout Australia are causing increased pressure on sexual assault services.Sexual assault services are largely under-funded and under-staffed. Referrals to some sexual assault services have increased at an average rate of 40 per cent over the last year. For example, two large metropolitan services have reported that referrals have increased at a rate between 35 per cent and 45 per cent.Enormous and unrealistic caseloads are leading services to turn away 15 referrals a week asking for counselling for trauma suffered as children. Statistics further show that one in three to four girls and one in seven to eight boys are sexually assaulted before the age of 18. Sexual assault must be put back on the political agenda.The Australian community humbly demands that the Federal Government immediately restore and increase overall funding to sexual assault services throughout Australia. Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will advise the Minister for Health and Family Services, the Honourable Dr Michael Wooldridge, of the facts mentioned above. We hope he will intercede on our behalf to put an end to this denial of essential services permanently, by ensuring that sexual assault services are adequately funded to meet the Australian community's needs.Senator Lundy7G6Senator Lundy(from 1,824 citizens)Petitions received.Notices186418641864Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Madam President, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3, and I seek leave to make a brief statement.Leave granted.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I thank colleagues for granting leave, and I just state that I have withdrawn the notice I gave on the last sitting day of the last calendar year, as I have asked you, Madam President, to refer to the Procedure Committee the matters covered by that notice.1864Senator Bolkus to move, on the next day of sitting:That item 3 of Schedule 2 of the Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 [1999] be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 March 1999, with particular reference to whether the deeming provisions in proposed section 16AA of the Customs Administration Act 1985:(a) are an acceptable abridgement of the normal principles defining criminal responsibility;(b) are consistent with the objective of developing a model criminal code;(c) are capable of effective and just administration in a trial conducted before a jury; (d) give rise to convictions that may be regarded as prior convictions in subsequent proceedings;(e) are fair, just and consistent with constitutional law; and(f) raise any other matter that the committee may consider relevant.Senator Margetts to move, on the next day of sitting:That the item 1301 of Schedule 1 of the Migration Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 9), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 304 and made under the Migration Act 1958 , be disallowed.Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Payne, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998 be extended to 30 March 1999.Senator Mackay to move, on the next day of sitting:That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Senator Ian Macdonald), no later than 5 pm on 8 March 1999, the following document:The Hawke Review into the roles and responsibilities of the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Airservices Australia and the Department of Transport and Regional Services in airspace regulation and management, which the minister directed Dr Hawke to provide to him by Tuesday, 22 December 1998.Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Crane, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 be extended to 23 March 1999.Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Knowles, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Community Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 17 February 1999, from 3.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998.Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Gibson, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 17 February 1999, from 6.30 pm to 8 pm, to take further evidence for the committee's inquiry into the additional estimates for 1998-99.Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Chapman, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 17 February 1999, from 4 pm to 7 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into matters arising from the Company Law Review Act 1998 .Senator Murray to move, on 17 February 1999:That the Senate calls on the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to convene a new working party, consisting of members and senators from all parties and groups represented in both Houses of the Parliament, to prepare a report for tabling by 30 June 1999, on the following:(a) the adequacy of existing guidelines or codes of conduct for ministers, parliamentary secretaries, senators and members of the House of Representatives;(b) the appropriateness and desirability of establishing new bodies to supervise the operation of parliamentary standards or codes of conduct, including: (i) an independent commission or commissioner, and/or (ii) committees of each House of the Parliament or a joint committee, and(c) the appropriate functions and powers, including enforcement powers, of the bodies mentioned in paragraph (b).Senator Chris Evans to move, on 18 February 1999:That the Social Security (Meaning of Seasonal Work) Determination 1998 and made under subsection 16A(2) of the Social Security Act 1991 , be disallowed.1865Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 63 standing in her name for today, relating to drug use and abuse, be postponed till 9 March 1999.Motion (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 18 February 1999.Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 56 standing in her name for today, relating to East Timorese asylum seekers, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Murray) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 102 standing in his name for today, relating to a variation to the resolution of appointment on the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector, be postponed till 18 February 1999.Motion (by Senator Murray) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 61 standing in his name for today, relating to drug use and abuse, be postponed till 17 February 1999.Motion (by Senator Mackay) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 72 standing in her name for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, be postponed till 8 March 1999.Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja, at the request of 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 the name of Senator Allison for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 86 standing in her name for today, relating to the reappointment of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator O'Brien) agreed to:That business of the Senate order of the day no. 1, relating to the reference of matters to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, be postponed till 30 April 1999.Committees186618661866Motion (by Senator Eggleston)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee on Australian content as contained in paragraph 160(d) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 be extended to 17 February 1999.Motion (by Senator Eggleston)—by leave—proposed:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 and four related bills be extended to 18 February 1999.18:00:001866Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—by leave—I move:Omit `18 February', substitute `8 March'.It is worth while to give a little background to this amendment moved by me on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. The bills under consideration in the motion and subsequent amendment are the Telstra privatisation bills. When the matter was referred by the Selection of Bills Committee late last year, two full days of hearings were originally set down. Those two full days of hearings, one in Canberra and one in Sydney, were truncated at the wishes of the government, despite me, on behalf of the Labor Party, raising a series of concerns principally going to the scheduling of witnesses and the ability to hear from all of the witnesses in one day as opposed to two. Nonetheless, the hearing days were truncated from two days to one day.The one day scheduled was for 3 February here in Canberra and the agenda for the day that was circulated some days beforehand indicated that the hearing would conclude at 4.45 p.m. On that basis, I and other senators made arrangements to return to our home states on the 5.30 p.m. planes. Early in the afternoon, some time after lunch, it became quite clear that, because of extensive questioning by the senators present and comments made by the various parties, the business on the agenda would not be concluded on that day.I had a couple of preliminary and then final discussions with the chair of the committee, Senator Eggleston, and indicated to him that this was a problem as the Labor Party wished to engage in extensive questioning of both the department and Telstra and that there appeared to be insufficient time for that course to occur. Accordingly, I suggested to Senator Eggleston that the matter be adjourned at 4.45 p.m. at the scheduled close of business and the matter be reconvened today in Canberra, Monday, 15 February. Senator Eggleston agreed to that course of action, and I vacated at around 4.45 p.m. or 4.50 p.m. to catch my plane back to Perth. Adjourning the hearing on Wednesday, 3 February, Senator Eggleston said in conclusion, at page 77 of the Hansard:It is proposed to have another hearing on the morning of 15 February.Later on he said:In any case, I have advised that there will be another hearing on the 15th. I thank everybody for attending today and close this hearing.Those comments by Senator Eggleston reflected the discussions that he had with me, being the permanent representative of the Labor Party on the relevant committee. I indeed returned home to Perth that evening on the understanding that the matter would be set down for 8.30 this morning or some time today.Last night I went to the airport to board the plane to come to Canberra at 5.00 p.m., as scheduled, on the VIP flight out of Perth which is put on for members of parliament and staff in that state. We boarded the plane and on the plane prior to take-off we were advised by the pilot or his representative that the rudder had broken down and the plane would not be able to take off. We immediately vacated the plane. Some members got on the midnight horror out of Perth last night and others got on the early plane at 6.00 this morning. As a consequence, it was not physically possible for me to be in Canberra this morning at 8.30 to participate in the discussions on the Telstra bill and hear from the department and Telstra. I left a message to that effect with the secretary of the committee via the security system of the parliament at around 10.00 p.m. eastern standard time last night: firstly, I would not be able to be at the committee meeting in Canberra this morning and, secondly, I asked that it be brought to her attention that, if a permanent representative of the ALP was not present, the meeting would not necessarily be quorate and should not proceed.On arriving in Canberra today at around 2.30 p.m. I was advised that the meeting had gone ahead this morning, that there were two or three government senators present—one of them was late and could not make it. There was one representative, Senator Allison, from the Australian Democrats and neither I nor Senator Bolkus was able to attend. I think Senator Carr attended and made a few comments. The pertinent point to make is that the meeting was non-quorate. It started late and finished early, and the ALP did not have any opportunity through their Senate spokesperson to ask important questions of both Telstra and the relevant department.I understand that the committee is going to reconvene tomorrow evening some time after 8.00 p.m, although I have not been formally advised of that fact. Nonetheless, if the meeting does proceed tomorrow evening, it leaves us with only one day or a maximum of two days to draft our report, give it to the secretariat and have it tabled in this place by the close of business on Thursday at around about 5.00 p.m.In this discussion there are major issues at stake—something in the order of $14 billion or $15 billion of taxpayers' money. The issues are clear: privatisation, USOs, competitive tendering, the cost of capital, consumer protections and the desirable regulatory regime to look after Telstra in the future. These are complex issues. They raise major policy matters and, as we all know in this place, the Senate is very evenly divided on the progress of this bill.The ALP report, when it is tabled, will obviously guide the deliberations of many senators in this place and it is important that we have sufficient or adequate time to prepare our report, for me and Senator Bolkus to discuss it and get the report writing done. Two days is simply inadequate and insufficient to draft a lengthy minority report, putting forward the position of our party for the future of the debate on that issue in this place. The delay—if it is properly characterised as delay—has been occasioned, one, by govern ment actions, two, by government agreements to adjournment and, three, by acts of God. If the hearing is going to go ahead tomorrow evening, I will be available. We seek to have the opportunity to ask important questions of Telstra. We seek to ask important questions of the department. We seek something more than 24 hours to review the Hansard and to prepare our draft report. Accordingly, the amendment that I have put forward is to delay the report by the committee from this Thursday until the first sitting date when we return, which is Monday, 8 March.18:08:001868Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—If ever there was a debate where there was a huge element of hypocrisy involved, it is this one. The fact is that the Senate reference was first provided to the committee in early December with a report date of 15 February. In other words, more than two months were available. Hearings were originally scheduled, as Senator Bishop said, for 2 and 3 February. On 3 February, when it was quite clear that Telstra was there ready, willing and able to give evidence, for one reason or another the committee managed to ensure that they did not reach Telstra until late in the afternoon. Senator Bishop at no stage has indicated any reason why he was not prepared to sit beyond that time.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—He had an appointment at quarter to 12 at night, did he?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—He has not said he did.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Like you. You did.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—If he had to go and ring his wife, as I did, that might be a good reason and he would advance it. But he has not, and that is the point. All he did was get up and walk out, leaving Telstra there ready, willing but unable to give evidence. What is critically important is this: although it was agreed that the committee would then resume on the 15th, which is today, that was followed up by a request by the chairman to Senator Bishop. Bear in mind that Senator Bolkus has never been near the place, so Senator Bishop has effectively been the only ALP senator involved, even though Senator Carr, no doubt on instructions from the union, has been required to attend. Senator Bishop has been the linchpin on this.Senator Bishop was asked whether he would be able to participate on 8 February by the committee chairman and indicated that he could participate initially but then informed the chairman that he would not be able to participate but gave no reason. Late on 5 February, as a result of further attempts to persuade him to be available, he indicated that he would in fact be in Perth on 9 February. It was proposed that he could participate by conference call. Senator Bishop indicated that he would be available to go ahead for a conference call but he would not be able to agree unless he got approval from the shadow minister for communications. It has been perfectly clear that there has been a pattern of obstruction and a deliberate attempt being made on a regular basis to stall proceedings.As I understand it, Senators Bishop and Allison have worked in tandem. Senator Allison has made it clear that unless Senator Bishop is there she will not be there even though she has a capacity to make a quorum if the Liberal members are in attendance. If she chooses not to, then once again it is back to Senator Bishop. Hearings were called on two days last week. The meetings did not proceed due to a lack of a quorum because both Senator Bishop and Senator Allison declined to attend, as I understand it, without providing reasons but simply said that they could not attend.A further hearing was scheduled, as we know, for 8.30 this morning. The facts again as I am informed are that the VIP was certainly cancelled but everyone else of relevance was able to get the commercial flight later that night. Why is it that Senator Bishop did not manage to get that commercial flight? Again, he has not given a reason why; he just said that, because the VIP flight was cancelled, he came over the next morning. But everyone else who was on the VIP flight, as I understand it, did come over, including Mr Smith. What is highly relevant is that Mr Smith was heard saying to Senator Bishop prior to the departure of the VIP that he would be able to use the fact of the cancella tion of the VIP flight as a reason for not attending the hearing this morning.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—What is your source? Who said that?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—A direct source. I have had that evidence.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Yes, but who?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I am not naming them for your benefit. Let Senator Bishop deny it.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Typical! You never name the source. You just make it up.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—No, I am not making it up at all. It would be utterly improper.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You always repeat private conversations in this chamber. You are notorious for it.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—For what?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—For repeating private conversations.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—It is very interesting that you should say that, Senator Ray, because I listened very carefully to see how far Senator Bishop would go. Senator Bishop made a very special point of telling us about conversations he had had with Senator Eggleston and proposals and agreements that Senator Eggleston had made and rung him with. In other words, Senator Bishop is perfectly happy to put on the record the discussions that have occurred about availability. I would not under any circumstances, and I do not believe that anyone in this chamber would, come along and fabricate a conversation that did not exist for the purposes of advancing the argument. That is what is called a classic verbal. I can assure you that that is not the case here.The fact is that Senator Bishop himself has provided no reason why he could not have caught the commercial flight. It is very convenient, isn't it, that the one person who is going to be required to make a quorum was the person who could not get the flight over last night? Why? We have not heard. He did not give us a reason. All he said was something about an act of God. He said, `Because the VIP flight was cancelled, therefore I didn't come over until today.' He did not say, `Therefore, I could've got the commercial flight but didn't.' That is what has happened, you see.Again, as I understand it, and Senator Bishop can contradict this if he likes, it was an agreement made last week that if the government allowed the committee hearing to proceed today Senator Bishop would guarantee that the reporting date would be Thursday—that is, the 18th. Reluctantly, that may be a date that we have no choice but to accede to because of the fact that, by one means or another, this committee has only managed to have one day of hearing between early December and 15 February. If that is the fact and the meeting had to take place today, then I can understand why you would argue for a report date of Thursday.But if that is right, if you agreed last week, if you guaranteed that if there was a hearing today you would allow the committee to report on Thursday, what possible justification have you now got for seeking to move it to 8 March? It is because Mr Smith, who is calling the shots, is basically saying: `Do whatever you can to string this out as long as possible and make it as difficult as you can.' The fact is that with all this nonsense about, `We want to hear arguments, we've got important questions to ask', there is virtually nothing new third time around.If you look around the world you will find that the arguments in favour of privatisation and the arguments about consumer protection and USOs have all been canvassed endlessly. You have had more than two months to read them all up. You have no doubt written your draft report already in any event, because we know you are implacably opposed to everything that is contained in the bill. So what possible justification can there be for stringing it out? It is simply because you hope to get political advantage from making it all too difficult: `With a bit of luck this will run into the debate on the tax package' and `Suddenly they won't able to take a full hearing on Telstra if we can string it out for long enough.' It is so obvious I would have thought Senator Bishop would have great difficulty in keeping a straight face arguing for yet another adjournment. Those are the facts of the matter. There is no justification for extending the reporting date beyond this Thursday. You have agreed, as I understand it, to be there tomorrow night, presumably for the reason that you have no choice because the Senate is sitting. You were here last week, or could have been, because we had estimates on. For one reason or another we have got to the stage where you had a short hearing this morning, you will be able to complete the hearing tomorrow night and you have then got until Thursday to produce the report. If you somehow want to extend it beyond that date for another two weeks or more, then the inevitable inference will be drawn by everyone else—8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—The next sitting day.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Not the next sitting day at all, but more than a fortnight, another 18 days—all for the sake of stringing it out. If it is only one sitting day, what's wrong with the Thursday? The Thursday was all right last week. Nothing has happened to change that, other than Senator Bishop choosing to absent himself from this morning's hearing. We rectify that by having a hearing tomorrow night but no, here we have, late in the afternoon—no doubt again on instructions—Senator Bishop informally advising us that he isn't going to go along with a decision that had been made even today to proceed with that report.Senator Bishop interjecting—LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—You knew. You didn't attend the committee meeting, as I understand it, today at lunchtime.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—I didn't get here till 2.30.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Again. Senator Bolkus wasn't there, I presume.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—He was on the plane with me.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Yes, I see—all very convenient. You don't have to be into conspiracy theories on this one. The facts speak for themselves. If ever there were a case of circumstantial evidence creating overwhelming inferences, this is it. You knew that the report date would be this Thursday. You choose to announce to us informally late in the afternoon that you are going for the eighth. I don't suggest that you came up with that. Once again, it was acting on instructions. But let that hypocrisy be exposed for what it is.18:18:001870Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I speak in support of Senator Bishop's amendment. Senator Alston makes aspersions about my interest in this matter. It should be quite clear that I have participated in all three inquiries on this question. I have pursued matters, I think, as thoroughly as one is expected to do in this place—Senator Alston interjecting—AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—And with a keen interest in the issues, Senator Alston. This is a substantial question concerning the issues that have been raised in this matter, not the histrionics that you want to pursue here today.Senator Bishop has thoroughly pursued some of those matters. He was prevented from appearing before the committee this morning and asking questions as a result of an aircraft breakdown in Perth. The ridiculous notion that you are trying to put to the Senate that somehow or another he was involved in making sure that the plane didn't get here, that he was capable of engineering a breakdown—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I take a point of order. We don't mind robust debate, but it is an infantile insult to anyone's intelligence to suggest that I was accusing Senator Bishop of having arranged for the VIP flight to be delayed. In no way, shape or form did I say it. Senator Carr is simply insulting our intelligence if he persists with it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—There is no point of order.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—What we have seen here is the government's attempt to push through this bill without proper discussion. The implications of this bill are quite profound. We have already heard of the amounts of money involved. That in itself makes it a significant bill. There are substantial policy questions. Many issues remain unresolved. Today, for instance, Telstra revealed their deep concern about aspects of the govern ment's legislation. Only one question was allowed to be asked on that point owing to the limited time available. That is clearly a matter that needs to be pursued. There are a range of issues that I placed on notice and that I would like to see answers to. They require the attention of the Senate in some detail. The government's legislative program spells this matter out. The government doesn't intend to pursue this matter as of next Thursday. The opposition is proposing that there be an extension of time to allow for proper consideration of and debate on these matters.Senator Alston talks about a range of meetings that were called last week. During the estimates sessions a number of meetings were called last week without consultation with the opposition before those meetings were set down. I had a series of notes put across my desk about meetings being called and then subsequently cancelled as a result of the government's actions in that regard.The opposition is proposing that there be an extension of time to allow us to examine these matters and properly consider them. I have seen Senator Harradine at a number of these committee meetings. I would be very surprised if he were of the view that there has been filibustering or an attempt not to pursue these questions with the thoroughness with which they deserve to be pursued and which is appropriate. It ought to be understood, even by Senator Alston, that these are matters that cannot be quickly flicked under the carpet to allow his sweetheart deals to be organised in such a way as to prevent proper debate in this chamberWhen the bill is introduced, there will be proper discussion about it, but there ought be a proper report from the Senate committee on these matters. There ought be a proper evaluation of the evidence that has actually been put before us. That is the critical issue that we have before us.Senator Alston is only too happy to reveal what he considers to be his interpretation of various private conversations that appear now to have occurred around this country. He talks with great expertise about the issue of verballing. I do not have your legal training in such issues, but the practice is quite apparent. You are quite capable of presenting to this chamber your version of events, which is every bit as consistent as the pattern of police verbal from the lowest forms of police operators that I have heard about. Frankly, that is what you are talking about here. Your attempt to verbal Senator Bishop is beneath contempt. Your attempt to abuse the process of this parliament is beneath contempt.The senator has pursued this question diligently and thoroughly and he has tried to exercise his duty conscientiously. You have sought to abuse that. You have sought to abuse his goodwill, and he has learnt the hard way about what it is like to deal with people like you, Senator Alston. I am sure the level of cooperation in the future will, of course, be informed by this experience.What is being proposed here is a very short extension of time on the preparation of the committee report. It is entirely appropriate, given the gravity of the issues that are under debate. What we have seen by this government, on the other hand, is an attempt to truncate public discussion on this issue, to prevent proper debate on these matters, to reduce the number of days available for consideration of the submissions that have been put in from two days to one day. Bear in mind, the submissions were called over the Christmas period when there was very limited opportunity for people to submit. Nonetheless, I found the submissions that were presented very interesting. Senator Alston, you might find them tedious, boring and repetitive.Quite frankly, given the urgency of these matters, it is appropriate that there be a proper discussion about the government's regulatory framework, a proper discussion about the impact of privatisation. Wherever I go in this country, there are grave concerns expressed about the impact of privatisation. Right throughout Victoria, people have lost their jobs as a direct result of your policies on privatisation. The policies of your government have led to a substantial reduction in the services provided by Telstra. Serious implications arise as a result of your selling off Telstra dirt cheap and the extraordinary plunder of one of the great public assets of this country.These are matters that require substantial debate within the committee, and that has not occurred. Senator Bishop, I trust that an opportunity will be provided for you to prepare a decent report to this Senate. There should be an opportunity for this Senate to have a thorough discussion of the implications of this government policy, which is quite clearly wrong in principle, wrong in policy and fundamentally wrong in terms of the future directions this country is taking.I will make one final point. I will never forget the way in which you sold off the first portion of Telstra—the sleazy arrangements you entered into to secure the passage of that bill through this chamber. No-one should ever forget one of the most disgraceful episodes that has ever occurred in the history of this parliament. The manner by which you secured that majority will be remembered, and ought be remembered, by everyone in this country.18:26:001872Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I will be brief. I am speaking on behalf of my colleague Senator Lyn Allison, who was referred to by the minister in, I suggest, disparaging terms. We believe she was adversely reflected upon in his comments—suggesting in fact that she was somehow in cahoots or in league or in some kind of conspiracy with the opposition. We regard the minister's comments as a particularly cheap shot.For the record, we indicate that last week Senator Allison was tied up in estimates committee hearings. Senator Allison, like all other Democrats, treat estimates committee hearings with some seriousness. I am not quite sure what the suggestion is—that somehow by being unavailable for another committee meeting, she was somehow in cahoots with the opposition on this particular issue. I am sure that Senator Allison will take the opportunity to respond to the minister's allegations, if you like, at a later stage. But let me say at this point that that adverse reflection was unfair, inappropriate and indeed a cheap shot.18:27:001872Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—The strangest question here today is: why is the very busy Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Alston) coming in and wasting his time on committee business? What prompts him to come down to the chamber? Bit bored up in the office, were you? Hadn't sewn your oats this week? Hadn't won an argument? Probably given in to the Prime Minister on a few more appointments. Needed to do something just to let it get out and off the liver. The fundamental question that you, Senator Alston, did not answer is why the initial hearings were cut from two days to one. This was not at the behest of the opposition, but was done by the government. The government controls the legislation committee. They cut the hearing dates down from two days to one day, which put all that pressure on. But imagine the amusement it causes on this side when Senator Alston criticises Senator Bishop for not being available for committee work. Where were you on Thursday night?LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Busy.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Yes, busy. You could not attend the DOCA estimates even though you knew about them months in advance. But as soon as old David Barnett's name comes up, who broke the Senate 100 metres dash record? Senator Alston—straight down into the committee to defend the grubby political appointment.But you did not even have the staying power, Senator Alston. It gets to 20 to 12 and you have to pack up because you have an appointment somewhere—you have to take an early mark. It does not end with you. We were all sitting around at foreign affairs at a quarter past four and, even though there had been weeks of notice, Senator Hill shoots through. So that committee had to be reconvened. These are committees you control and organise and we try to cooperate in terms of the government.When was the last time Senator Alston got on the midnight special from Perth? Tell us that, Senator. When did you last get on the plane at midnight, go to Sydney and then come on? Never—yet you have the gall to criticise Senator Bishop for not doing that.Senator Alston reflects on Senator Bishop's ability to write a minority report. Do you know how you do it if you are a minister? You get hold of a copy in breach of privilege, you send it over to the department, they write the minority report and you give it to the dumb government senators to put in as your report. That is what you do. That is what Senator Alston did—absolutely.This fight should have been left between Senator Eggleston, who can look after himself, and Senator Bishop. It did not need you to come down and verbal and put private conversations on the record like you always do. My advice to you, Senator Alston, is: just butt out and let them fight it out and we will get a result.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I take it that Senator Bishop is not proposing to respond to anything that has been said.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—It appears not.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I just wanted to clarify that.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. It is not competent for the minister to stand up and address the chair like that. He knows it and he consistently abuses the processes of this place. Call him to order and discipline him. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Bishop's ) be agreed to.18:35:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)35Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.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.33Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Crane, W.Hutchins, S. Abetz, E.Lundy, K. Hill, R. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Motion, as amended, agreed to.Sitting suspended from 6.38 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Notices18731873Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 69 standing in her name for today, relating to national competition policy, be postponed till 17 February 1999.Motion (by Senator Denman) agreed to:That general business notices of motion no. 103 (relating to the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and no. 105 (anti-discrimination legislation passed by the Tasmanian Parliament) standing in her name for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Murphy) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 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 8 March 1999.Committees187418741874Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator McKiernan)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional References Committee on the Commonwealth privacy legislation be extended to 9 March 1999.18741874Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Crane)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 be extended to 25 February 1999.Notices187418741874Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—by leave—On behalf of Senator O'Chee, I give notice that, 15 sitting days after today, he will move:That the Financial Management and Accountability Orders (Amendment) 1998, made under paragraph 63(1)(b) of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, be disallowed.I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the matters raised by the committee.Leave granted.The summary read as follows—Financial Management and Accountability Orders (Amendment) 1998 made under paragraph 63(1)(b) of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997The Orders established Comcover as a managed insurance fund, administered as a unit within the Department of Finance and Administration. Comcover will insure, or arrange insurance, for all insurable losses for member organisations except employers' liability risk already covered by Comcare. It will be responsible for the collection of premiums, accumulation of reserves and payment of claims out of those reserves. The fund is intended to provide a dividend to the government at least comparable to industry standards.The Act, however, does not appear to contemplate such a substantial operation and the second reading speech made no mention of it. Indeed, the second reading speech advised that Orders would be used for the day-to-day application of the principles of the Act, not to establish what appears to be a significant financial body. The Committee is particularly concerned about the effect of the Orders on agencies established by their own enabling Acts The Committee also noted that Comcare was established by detailed provisions of an Act, whereas Comcover was established by six lines of a legislative instrumentThe Committee has had lengthy correspondence with the Minister on these and other important issues and has been briefed by officials from the Department of Finance and Administration. However, it still has concerns with the validity and propriety of the operation of the Orders and has written again to the Minister for advice. After the Committee has completed its scrutiny of the Orders it will make a detailed statement to the Senate.Leave of Absence1874Motion (by Senator Calvert)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence be granted to Senator Colston for the period 15 to 18 February 1999, on account of ill health.Notices18741874 Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 93 standing in her name for today, relating to the internet, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees187418741874Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) endorse the findings contained in paragraphs 2.10, 2.27, 2.36, 2.56, 2.66 and 2.72; and (b) adopt the recommendations contained in paragraphs 1.54 and 2.75, of the 74th report of the Committee of Privileges.1875Pursuant to the recommendation in paragraph 1.54, the following matter was referred to the Procedure Committee:Use of unpublished documents in dissents to committee reports.Notices1875187519:37:001875O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Reynolds, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 101 standing in her name for today relating to the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be taken as a formal motion.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—From memory, that is unacceptable. It appears to restrict our working for human rights to the framework of the United Nations. I feel that, had we had time to discuss this with Senator Reynolds, she might have seen that.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—Can I seek leave to return to the placing of business and move a motion to defer this matter?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I think you can do that, Senator O'Brien. With the motion not being taken as formal, you can certainly move that motion.Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Reynolds) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 101 be postponed till the next day of sitting.Matters of Urgency1875187510000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 15 February 1999, from Senator Faulkner:Dear Madam President,Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The need for the Senate to express clearly and firmly its opposition to any attempt to manipulate the Senate voting system in order to advantage the government of the day.Yours SincerelyJohn FaulknerIs the proposal supported?More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.19:39:001875Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The need for the Senate to express clearly and firmly its opposition to any attempt to manipulate the Senate voting system in order to advantage the government of the day.We have a situation now where on a number of occasions over the last couple of years members of the Liberal Party have floated proposals to manipulate the Senate voting system. The general thrust behind these proposals—they are all somewhat different—is to make it harder for Independent and minor party candidates to be elected into this place.There is a little bit of history behind this now, as I have said, and it is important to note that this is quite recent history. There has been a very different view expressed in relation to the Senate voting system and also the issue of so-called Senate obstructionism since the Howard government was elected in 1996.The first person to enter the fray was Senator MacGibbon, who in September 1996 proposed at the Liberal state convention in Brisbane that a party or Independent should be required to win at least 11.42 per cent of the primary vote in order to have a chance of winning election to the Senate. So any candi date ought to ensure they meet that 11.42 per cent threshold. That was the first foray into this issue and, as I said, it was by Senator MacGibbon back in September 1996.Then, in May 1997, the federal Liberal Party President, Mr Tony Staley, proposed in a speech to the National Farmers Federation that the Liberal Party should seriously consider amendments to the Electoral Act to curb the power of minor parties in the Senate. He is quoted as saying:If the Senate Electoral Act remains unchanged, no popularly elected government has a hope of getting a mandate of its own in the Senate.Mr Staley did not go on to outline what particular mechanisms he was supportive of in relation to manipulating the Senate voting system, but he made it absolutely clear what his commitment was in this regard. About the same time, around May and June 1997, we had the then federal Director of the Liberal Party, Mr Andrew Robb, also arguing very publicly for a change—in this case an absolutely open-and-shut case of a rorted Senate voting system. In an article in the Financial Review on 12 June 1997 headed `A bad break from the Senate', Mr Andrew Robb said:A simple act of parliament altering the system of voting for senators would allow any one of three options: a Labor majority, a coalition majority or a minor party controlled Senate. This could be achieved by splitting each state into six regions with each region electing two senators, one senator elected at each election.That was Mr Robb's idea of how you put the fix in to the Senate's voting system to ensure that the government has a majority in the Senate. Now the last person from the Liberal Party to make a foray into this in a serious way was Senator Coonan, who in early February this year made a speech to the Sydney Institute and also had published in a couple of major metropolitan newspapers in this country her views about what she described as the overwhelming need for electoral reform in the Senate. She said:The introduction of a formal threshold for Senate candidates is consistent with the principles of representative democracy. This is because no vote is wasted and no voter disenfranchised. An effective threshold system would continue to recognise the legitimacy of minority representation while enhancing the prospects for strength and stability of government. It offers a solution to the rule of minorities that has characterised the Senate in recent years.So Senator Coonan proposed a threshold without detailing what she felt would be an appropriate level for such a threshold. This has been, as you can see, quite a consistent theme from the Liberal Party over recent years. Of course, it only became the view of senior Liberals after the Howard government was elected in 1996. It is tied to the allegation that the Senate now is more obstructionist than it has ever been at any other time in its recent history.It is true that governments of all political persuasions become frustrated with Senates they do not control. I would be the first to admit and acknowledge that both the Hawke and Keating governments were absolutely no exception to that rule. But you have to ask how obstructionist is the Senate that we currently sit in. Since the change of government in March 1996, the Senate has rejected a total of three government bills. You might care to compare that to the record of the coalition controlled Senate during the years of the Whitlam government. Let me quote Gough Whitlam in his book The Whitlam Government, and I commend the book. Page 737 states:It is true that, throughout our three years, the opposition in the Senate used first its inherited and then its accidental majority to obstruct, delay and reject legislation in a way never experienced before or since.He talks about accidental majority. He talks about issues that were canvassed just today in the condolence debate on ex-Senator Cleaver Bunton and, moving on from that issue, the replacement of Senator Bert Milliner by Albert Patrick Field. On the same page of this book, Gough Whitlam goes on to say:In the first 71 years of the Senate's existence, it had rejected a total of only 68 government bills. During our three years alone, it rejected 98.This is the level of the hypocrisy we hear from the Liberal Party. The truth is that, since 1996, the rate of Senate passage of legislation in terms of bills passed per sitting days has been 2.1, almost the same as it was in the previous parliament, 2.3. We have a situation now where we have never before had the level of cooperation that this government has received from the opposition—and also, I think to some extent, from the minor parties—in accepting government proposals to deal with legislation and to extend the sitting hours of the Senate. We have a situation where the average time devoted to government legislation increased from 41 per cent of total Senate business time in 1995 to 60 per cent in 1998. We say that the charge of Senate obstructionism—which is the reason the Liberal Party wants to manipulate, rort and fix the Senate voting system—just does not stand up to a reasonable analysis.Beyond that, we have from the Liberal Party, in arguing this case for change to the Senate voting system, a move to pollute the proportional representation system—which, I might say, is already based on one of the most unrepresentative bases you could imagine. We still have a situation where this chamber is incredibly unrepresentative, because you have as its basis equal representation from all the states. In the case of senators from the state of New South Wales, their vote is worth less than a 10th of the value of, say, the vote of a Tasmanian senator. That is a fact of life. This is an unrepresentative chamber, and why build upon that unrepresentativeness another artificial pollution and debauchment of the proportional representation voting system? We see no argument that can be sustained for that at all.We do, however, say—and I think we have been very reasonable in this regard—that there is a case for examination of the Senate powers, particularly so we can have constitutional change to prevent the violation of democracy that occurred courtesy of the coalition in opposition in 1975 when they brought an elected government down. The coalition have an awful lot of form on this issue. Why is it that, during the whole period of the Hawke and Keating governments from 1983 to 1996, we did not hear one peep out of any of them about this particular matter? Of course, we have heard many senior Liberals lauding the Senate from opposition for their involvement in disrupting the then Labor government's programs. Take Mr Howard back in 1987. He lauded the Senate as:. . . one of the most democratically elected chambers in the world—a body which at present more faithfully represents the popular will of the total Australian people at the last election than does the House of Representatives—What hypocrisy from Mr Howard. At the same time, we had Mr Reith with his pledge of what the opposition would do. He said:We will fight to ensure the maintenance of the powers of the Senate. The reality about the Senate is that it is one of those checks and balances against excesses of executive power by governments.Again, what transparent hypocrisy from Mr Reith. What about Mr Fischer? A year later he proclaimed:Both the Liberal and National Parties are totally opposed to destroying in any way the independence of the Senate or introducing artificial shackles on its powers which do not stand up to proper scrutiny.Where are these voices today in support of Senator Coonan, Mr Staley, Senator MacGibbon and Mr Robb's proposals? You do not hear them.A fundamental point to be made in relation to any manipulation, rigging or rorting of the Senate's electoral system—which is what the coalition is about—is this: it does not matter what you do to the voting system, if you only get as many votes as the Liberal and National parties got at the last election, you should not get and you do not deserve to get a majority in this house of parliament. Why should you have a majority of coalition senators when you can only get about 40 per cent of the vote?How are you going to manipulate and rig the voting system for this chamber in order to see a system come forward which will mean that governments that poll so badly in Senate elections will find themselves in a different situation? This is hypocrisy. But if you really want change, if you really want reform, if you really want to do something about this Senate, have a look at the powers. That will give you the approach that the opposition has taken and will continue to take. But we are not going to get into the business of putting the fix in a system—however imperfect it is—based on an unrepresentative Senate that at least ought not to be polluted at the whim of coalition sena tors when they find themselves in government. (Time expired)19:54:001878Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—I suppose, at least on a superficial level, I should either feel very flattered personally or a little bemused that Senator Faulkner believes that a matter that was raised generically for debate deserves such prominence as to be the underlying subject of an urgency motion. On a more serious note, however, it is disappointing, firstly, that Senator Faulkner should have so fundamentally missed the point of what I actually said about the broader issue of Senate reform; and, secondly, that the Labor Party is now such a policy free zone, so completely devoid of ideas and so completely devoid of policy that, on this first sitting day this year when there is an opportunity to debate some of the really serious issues that face this country, it is a little disproportionate that the most urgent issue that springs to mind is some far-off attempt to allegedly—and I say `allegedly' advisedly—manipulate the Senate voting system. I can only assume that Labor thinks that nothing the government is doing requires any other urgent scrutiny. Is the Labor Party really so brain dead, I ask, that the best it can do is to fabricate some perceived threat to the Senate voting system when it is not even government policy and it was the subject of a speech—for goodness sake—over the vacation? I know the ALP is not really interested in important issues such as the creation of jobs. It is not interested in a sensible review, which is what the Senate should be about, of the coalition's job creating policies which are presently before parliament. If it were interested in the job prospects of battling Australians, the ALP could do a number of things. It could pass the unfair dismissals legislation which, in the words of small business, is worth more than 50,000 jobs. It could, for instance, preserve the youth wages structure legislation which will protect the real jobs of 230,000 young Australians. Perhaps we could have a decent debate about what to do with the available work we have in this country, and what are properly thought-out national goals on youth unemployment. Another thing the Labor Party could do would be to pass unamended in the Senate the government's tax reform package, which would not only add to the economic growth in Australia and boost jobs and job opportunities but also provide a fair and simpler tax system. My most profound disappointment with the motion is that Labor continues to oppose in the Senate a range of measures that will help with real and justifiable concerns that Australians do have about their future.Secondly, I must say I do not oppose at least the sentiment behind the motion—I think it is entirely supportable. I would hope all senators would be opposed to any manipulation of the Senate voting system—or any voting system—in order to advantage the government of the day. If that is what Senator Faulkner thinks my proposal is about, then he seriously misrepresents my proposition. My proposition is that, with the current numbers in the Senate admitting not even the possibility for the foreseeable future of a government majority in the Senate, there is merit in considering ways of restoring at least the prospect of a government gaining a majority from time to time. It is, in my view, a perfectly legitimate matter to discuss; it is a perfectly legitimate matter for public debate. Were this to happen, it would need to be a clearly articulated policy adopted by government and taken to an election, otherwise it would be open to the allegation of self-interest—and that is certainly not what I am proposing.The third reason why this motion is deeply disappointing is the breathtaking hypocrisy—Senator Faulkner talked a bit about hypocrisy and I am very glad to reciprocate—of the Labor Party on the broader issue of Senate reform. While privately, of course, many senior Labor Party figures agree that Senate reform is necessary, no-one on Labor's side has had the courage of their convictions to bring forward a clear proposal. That is not to say that Labor has been quiet about its desire for Senate reform, because not so long ago Labor was keen to abolish the Senate. It was part of Labor Party policy to abolish the Senate.Even Senator Faulkner did his bit last year, under our very noses, to try to lessen the influence of the minor parties by successfully moving a motion for the rotation of senators in the event of a double dissolution. That would have favoured lower ranking major party senators at the expense of minor parties.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—No, they supported it. They actually voted for it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Order! Senator Faulkner.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—Everyone voted for it. But, Senator Faulkner, during an MPI you said:. . . the traditional arrangement favours minor parties.And you were not in favour of that. You then said:It ensures that they will receive a long-term senator as soon as they achieve quota. In a double dissolution election, this means that, provided they get over 7.69 per cent of the vote, they will receive a long-term senator, whereas a party which attracted 44 per cent of the vote may only receive two long-term senators. Such a result is inconsistent with the principle of proportional representation. Order of election and voting strength are different concepts.I could not agree more. You continued:Order of election simply reflects the order in which successful candidates reach quota. Voting strength more closely resembles proportional support for parties contesting the election.Although the half Senate recount method is not perfect, it is a more accurate measure of voting strength. It is a more accurate measure of the will of the electorate than is the traditional method.As I said, I could not agree more that, where the method of proportional representation does not deliver an accurate measure of voter strength, it is legitimate to at least discuss a more accurate measure of the will of the electorate.Perhaps not surprisingly, I have been able to find many public statements made by Senator Faulkner and some Labor luminaries that suggest a strong desire for comprehensive Senate reform, even to reform of the voting system. For instance, former Senator McMullan in July of last year in the Courier- Mail was quoted as saying `a comprehensive high level and public examination of the Senate's future relevance and role is of critical importance for the future functioning of the federation'. He seems to be going a bit further than we are suggesting.Senator Ray on 3 April 1994 appeared on the Sunday program. Admittedly, he was a bit more circumspect about voting, but he was no more reverential about the Senate when he there said, `I much prefer to approach it in the long term to reducing some of the powers of the Senate, because proportional representation is a great way of distributing representation, an appalling way of distributing power.'Then, of course, there was former Senator Gareth Evans with his very memorable statement on proportional representation, when he said:. . . you've got a situation where 50,000 votes are determining the capacity of a government with nearly five million votes to get on with the business of governing. You've really got something to ask yourself: is this really the way the democratic system is supposed to operate?Former Senator Gareth Evans, on the abolition of the Senate, was also quoted as saying:. . . if one believes, as I do, along with all good Labor men and women true, that the Senate ought to be abolished, or at the very least deprived of its capacity to destroy properly elected governments, there's surely no better forum in which to promote these insidious heresies than the institution itself.Who could forget former Prime Minister Mr Keating? He reduced us all to `unrepresentative swill' and, on changing the Senate, said on 3 March 1994 in the Australian , `The Senate's voting system of proportional representation is a major and legitimate issue in our public and national life.'I would not want to sell Senator Faulkner short, because he has had plenty to say about his displeasure with the Senate in the past. In fact, he said, `The ALP believed there was a strong case for a constitutional referendum to change the make-up of the Senate which gave an equal number of senators to each state, regardless of population.' Interestingly enough, we never saw a proposal for a referendum from Labor, notwithstanding that it had 13 years in which to bring it forward.It is at some stage time to square the circle here. Any proposal for reform would need to improve the quality of government in Australia. Of course, while opinions differ as to how that might be gone about, what utter arrogance to think that we senators should not even ask questions about whether we can do better. (Time expired)20:04:001880Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—It is a bit disingenuous of Senator Coonan to suggest that this is not an urgent matter; that, somehow or other, we should think that her proposals are just some idle things raised for us to ponder in our spare moments; and that, when we are in this place, we should just get on with some of the legislative proposals that the government and others have put forward.The trouble is that, clearly, Senator Coonan's proposal is not the first, but in fact only the latest, in a very long line of similar proposals from coalition members over the last three or so years. At various strategic times, they have floated such proposals to undermine and threaten to gut the ability of the Senate to keep a check on the executive, on the government. And these proposals tend to coincide with times during which the government is trying to press through important pieces of legislation which it knows it does not have majority community support for. There is no clearer indication of the fact that the government does not have majority community support for its economic program than the fact that it received just 37.7 per cent, less than 38 per cent, of the vote in the Senate at the last federal election. As Malcolm MacKerras pointed out at a seminar on the weekend, that is actually the worst ever result for conservative parties in the Senate in the history of federation. So the coalition—on the basis of it getting its worst ever result from the Australian people voting for members of the house of review—is trying to argue some sort of mandate to push through whatever it desires, without any sort of check at all, any sort of consultation, any form of consideration of alternative viewpoints.It is no wonder that, when the coalition is trying to push through a program from such a completely tenuous position, suggestions such as this are raised to try to provide a smokescreen to draw attention away from its own incredibly weak position. Senator Coonan is not the first from the coalition to argue such suggestions—to gut the Senate and try to reduce its ability to be representative of the views of the Australian people. And these sorts of suggestions always come out at times such as this.The simple fact is that under a proportional system—and the Senate, whilst not being perfectly proportional, is certainly well and truly in advance of the House of Representatives in being representative and proportional of the Australian public's views—if a party gets a majority of the vote from the public, if they have majority support from the public, they will get a majority of the seats. Malcolm Fraser proved that back in the seventies. The other simple fact is that it is very rare for any party to get the majority of the vote from the public, particularly in the Senate, because the public knows that the government needs the parliament to keep a check on what it is doing. That is, after all, what the parliament is meant to do.The parliament is there to legislate. The government or the executive is there to propose legislation—two very fundamentally different roles that together with the judiciary underpin our entire system of government. That is why this is an urgent matter. It is not just some idle ponderings of an apparently high ranking and up-and-coming coalition member—so I read in the press. It is actually a proposal that strikes at the very heart of our system of government. I do not think you get anything more serious or more urgent than that. Our entire system of democracy as Australia was established, the principles of the constitution that the coalition are supposedly sworn to uphold and believe are greater defenders of than the rest of us, are being blown apart by proposals such as that which Senator Coonan puts forward. It is a deliberate attempt to try to disenfranchise significant sections of the Australian community to make their vote worth less than those people who do the so-called right thing and vote for the major parties.It is pretty obvious what the motive of Senator Coonan and the coalition is in raising these sorts of issues whenever there is a significant piece of legislation coming forward. They have managed to get the orchestrated media chorus behind them, saying that the Senate should get out of the way, the parliament should get out of the way and let the government govern. Unfortunately, the government is still able to govern. I wish they would not do some of the things they are doing. The parliament is here to legislate, and the government should get out of the road and let the parliament do its job.It is not surprising but nonetheless worth pointing out that suggestions such as this from the coalition were not raised when the Democratic Labor Party held the balance of power and supported the coalition. There was no attack from the coalition then, suggesting that they were unrepresentative and had undue power for a minority party. It is not surprising given the role that party played. It shows the hollowness of proposals such as these.It is worth pointing out again that the previous parliament passed 427 pieces of legislation for the Howard government and I believe opposed only two bills. Ninety-nine per cent in anyone's language is not a bad average. Not many things can be said to have remained the same since Federation. In a fast changing world, the role and function of the Australian Senate, in particular, as a house of review and as an important house of the parliament keeping a check on the operations of government, endures.There is one very good reason why the coalition or, for that matter, the ALP when in government will never have to worry about an obstructive Senate operating in a destructive way—the single occasion that it has done so was the well documented case of 1975—and that is because the Democrats have pledged never to block supply to an elected government. We believe it is important to be responsible, and we have made proposals many times to ensure that the Senate can operate in that way—well back to former Senator Michael Macklin in the 1980s proposing legislation to clarify the Senate's role to ensure that it does not obstruct the government in such a basic way.On such a basic matter as this, it is clearly and absolutely urgent that the Senate expresses its concern that any member of the coalition can freely float something that would blow apart the fundamentals of our parliamentary democracy and the system of government and that there be not a single voice of concern raised by their parliamentary colleagues in the coalition. (Time expired)20:11:001881Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—There is no official coalition policy on voting systems in the Senate. What they do every now and then is they get one of their colleagues to go out and bell the cat on this particular issue. First of all, it was Mr Andrew Robb in the Bulletin , then Senator Minchin and now Senator Coonan is the designated hitter on this particular issue. It is a handy issue for an ambitious backbencher, albeit a junior one, to serve their political masters by making these suggestions.The fact is that—and I think Senator Bartlett summed it up very well—they have lost three bills in three years. All I can say as a former manager of government business is that that is sheer luxury. Three bills out of 450-odd have gone down. When you consider what the government designated as their big bills—Wik, private health insurance, the one-third sale of Telstra, the industrial relations legislation—unfortunately, they have got all those bills through this chamber. What they have managed to do is build up the big straw man. They have built up the Senate as the bogey. Senate obstructionism is the reason for this government not performing well. It is all talk.The fact is that there has been very little Senate obstructionism. No government has been given the privilege of the extra days, hours and weeks that this government has been given. We, coming out of government, understand the difficulty of a legislative program and we have cooperated in extending the hours, the days and the weeks—cooperation that we rarely received when we were in government. Nevertheless, we offer it because we believe this is a legislature that must deal with government business at a reasonable rate. The only couple of times we have not cooperated is when the government has acted in a very unprincipled way to break previous agreements, and then we have dished out the punishment. The examples of that is always moving censure motions on general business and that sort of thing. Naturally, we use the devices of the Senate, as we have to, to punish the government to re-establish the balance of power in this particular chamber.The ALP had to learn to live with not having a Senate majority for 13 years. We had to learn that we could not get everything through. I think the big difference between the Labor government and this government is, often having made that assessment in the cabinet room, we did not present things in this chamber that were going to be rolled on. Maybe we made a mistake. Maybe we should have bowled up a lot more stuff to this chamber, had the chamber reject it, and then we could have run the big Senate obstruction argument out there. But we used to make an assessment, especially Senator Faulkner and me. When issues came before cabinet, we often advised them, `This has got a snowball's chance in hell of getting through the Senate. Why don't we drop it now rather than go through all that effort and see it go under? Let's try to come up with alternative proposals.'But what I really remember, of course fondly, between 1983 and 1996 is how often colleagues on the other side extolled the virtues of the plurality of the Senate, how they told us that the Senate was the real chamber and not the House of Representatives, how they thought a government not having a majority was a wonderful thing. They are all on record—the current Prime Minister, Mr Reith, a whole range of them—extolling the power of the Senate during the time they were in opposition.And when the Australia card came to this chamber for the joint sitting, what did the coalition do? Even though it had been endorsed by the Australian people in 1987, they continued to oppose it. So all this argument that has come in that we need to restructure the Senate's representation merely comes through a frustration of unprofessionalism by the current government that they do not have the patience and are not willing to spend the time to steer material through the Senate.So what do they provide as an alternative? `Let's rort the voting system'—that is basically it, pure and simple; `Let's introduce artificial devices to try to eliminate minor parties.' I have never been accused of being a sentimentalist. I do not particular care for minor parties, especially the National Party, which is becoming a very minor party in this place. After 1 July, they will have four members. You would make up 25 per cent of the caucus of that party, Senator Brown. And Senator Bartlett is in a party that is going to be double the size of the National Party. So I really have to come in here protect the interests of the National Party, when Senator Coonan and others—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Wait a minute, they won't even have party status.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—They will not even have party status—you are absolutely right, Senator Faulkner. So the poor old National Party is one of those minors that may get affected by this because they want maybe a 10 per cent threshold. Do you think Senator O'Chee got a 10 per cent threshold at the last poll? So if he had actually just survived his way through, under the old Coonan amendments to the voting system, boom, out he goes. Sooner or later in Victoria, and it is not far away, the Liberals are going to be sick of carrying Senator McGauran and they are going to say, `No more joint tickets. Spend your own money. Get back here.' Senator McGauran has done it once, but he would not do it under this proposal because he would not get 10 per cent of the vote. When did the National Party last get 10 per cent of the vote in Victoria? You would have to have a really good memory to remember that.There is, however, no pure system of proportional representation. It always involves some compromises on the way through, that is true. So the quota can, depending on the amount of senators elected, vary between seven and 14 per cent at the moment. So there is no absolutely pure thing. If it was absolutely pure, we would use Australia as a total electorate and wreak the federation, and go to an Israeli-style PR election.But, of course, politics is about more than representation; it is also about the distribution of power. And in the social compact and political compact we have in this country it is a combination of both that makes the system work. Too often we hear the minor parties only talk about representation and not about the distribution of power, which often leaves them in a position of all power and no responsibility. But that, again, is a function of the adversarial nature of politics that we all in this chamber can alter at any particular time we want to so that the minority parties would have no power whatsoever. It depends on the circumstances at the time. But one thing is certain: no-one on that side, no-one on the coalition side, is yet smart enough to come up with a system that will give them a majority in this chamber when they get 40 per cent of the vote. None of them are that clever. It does not matter what system you go to, you will not get a majority in here with 40 per cent of the vote.Let's say we even went through the process of ganging up on the minor parties, put the fix in, put all these things in. What would happen? My bet is we would still have a hung Senate. The difference would be that there would be just a few less people with the balance of power than currently is the case. So what advantage would there be in shifting to that system?What this debate should be fundamentally about is: what power should exist in the Senate? What should be the functions of the Senate? That is where the debate should shift to. It is the view of the Labor Party, in particular, that this chamber should not be able to block supply—not a relevant question at the moment, but it may one day be a relevant question again.We in the Labor Party are also quite happy to look at what other powers this Senate has that may in fact be given up to assist in the efficient running of a government. But the power that no-one wants this chamber to give up is its power of scrutiny—its power to be able to scrutinise government actions, administrative actions and the behavioural modes of coalition senators. That is what the government resents. You go along to estimates committees or raise issues in this chamber. They do not want to be benchmarked by community standards, they do not want their political actions tested and examined, they do not want government documents to be demanded and put the table that may disprove their political actions. That is what they hate about this chamber, not the legislative blockage. It is not about the time it takes to get legislation through. It is the fact that someone has the utmost cheek to examine their actions in detail. And that will only occur, we know, if there is a non-government majority in this particular chamber. Do you think it ever happens over in the House of Representatives, no matter who is in control? Do you think any minister is put under any pressure there? It is because they can use their numbers at any particular time.Senator Coonan made the point that `The Labor Party will get involved in manipulation. Look at their attitude after double dissolutions.' The fact is the constitution gave this chamber the right to determine long- and short-term senators. We took the attitude that there should be a predisposed position and not an opportunist one taken after every election. And if that disadvantages minor parties, it is because they have such a massive advantage in the way proportional representation is currently allocated. That is why we take that particular action—not to particularly manipulate the system but to bring in something fair. It is a little like the old Sheridan saying: `I don't mind beating my head against a brick wall. Don't build one for that purpose.' (Time expired)20:21:001883McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—The first thing to say about this urgency motion is that it is not urgent at all. It is an irrelevancy and it is cutting no mustard tonight. I think the whole Senate wishes it would finish up.Senator Coonan was quite right when she said you have given her a notoriety she may well not deserve. She made this speech outside the Senate to a private audience. It is hardly relevant to elevate it to an urgency motion in this Senate. Even Senator Coonan would concede that it does not warrant an urgency motion in this Senate. You have simply debased matter of urgency motions. Okay, you could raise it in an adjournment debate, or in general business at best, but, as I say, it is an obvious sign that the opposition have no policy to bring into this Senate, so they are clutching at straws. They again rely on Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray to run the issues in this Senate. They never run policy issues. When are you going to wake up to the fact that those two are never going to get you into government? They may be good hit men but they will never get you into government. They will never, as Kim Beazley said, build a policy from the ground up—which is apparently the exercise you are now going through—or, as Mark Latham said, get you out of the rut. Even George Campbell has contributed to the policy debate in the Labor Party, but not Senator Faulkner, not Senator Ray—nor will they ever have the credibility to do so. You have got to wake up to that sooner or later, Senator; and don't you hitch your star to Senator Ray, either, because that way you will come down very quickly.As I said, even Senator Campbell has contributed to the debate. He wants centralised wage fixing. He wants a more powerful Industrial Relations Commission. He wants super unions. They are all utterly wrong, idiotic policies of the past, but he is trying to contribute to the policy debate. Talking about the approach and the culture of senators on that side of the chamber allowing Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray to take over, and talking about seminar papers—Mr Latham had something to say about that. He said that there are two types of opposition:The first represents what I would call scab lifting . This is an Opposition which sees its role as exploiting the change process. It tries to feed off the discomfort governments inevitably encounter in having to manage the consequences of economic and social change. It constantly tries to lift the scab off the wounds of change . . . Since 1996, federal Labor has been in scab-lifter mode.The two leading scab lifters spoke here tonight. Never have they contributed to the policy debate for the Labor Party, nor will they ever contribute. You will rot in opposition while you let them lead your tactics. It is an absurdity to bring this matter of Senator Coonan's paper up. Many would see it as visionary but, as Senator Coonan herself has admitted, it does not warrant an urgency motion in this parliament this evening. There is no argument from this side of the House with regard to the important role that the Senate plays. We believe it is a house of review. It deserves to check the legislation. We know only too well that, whoever is in government, legislation often comes up here which has been rushed. We have managed to fix it up. There is no trouble with that. We believe in the powers of the Senate as enshrined by the constitution. Those powers have allowed the Senate to block supply. That was an issue raised tonight, but we will not go into that old red herring of a debate. It is over with. The people spoke in the 1975 election. They spoke again in the 1977 election. That is a dead issue. It is something the Labor Party have never let go of and have never forgotten. But the point is, they do not even want a Senate. When I first came into this parliament Senator Button was the leader of the Senate. He was then followed by Senator Evans. They both stood on a platform of abolition of the Senate. Senator Faulkner is no different. You do not even want a house of review. So do not come in here and tell us that we are trying to subvert the processes.Senator Faulkner, again, in his usual form—he is becoming very predictable in opposition—tried to put a bit of spice into this dull debate by using words, which I have written down, such as `rort', `fix', `manipulate', `pollute', `debauched' and `violation'. This is a typical approach by Senator Faulkner, who does not even want a Senate. He would abolish it, yet now he comes in here waxing lyrical about defending the rights of the Senate as a house of review. The coalition supports the Senate in all its constitutional powers. You do not.In our second term, the opposition have obstructed—as they did in our first term—the legislation and the processes of government and the mandate we were given. Straight after the 3 October election, between 23 November and 10 December 1998, more than half the Senate sitting hours were dedicated to non- government business. That is, around 60 hours of the 108 sitting hours was dedicated to non-government business. As a measure of the lengths to which the opposition parties will go to avoid a vote in this House and to avoid meeting their democratic responsibilities, let us go back to Saturday, 11 July—the Telstra debate—when the opposition pushed the Senate into a Saturday sitting. Not only did they cost the parliament extra tens of thousands of dollars by pushing the Telstra debate into a Saturday, but the whole morning was wasted on whether this Senate should say the Lord's Prayer or not. So do not say you do not filibuster and you do not obstruct in this Senate and you do not cost the taxpayers money by doing that.Senator Coonan's paper was born out of that sort of frustration for the government, of not being able to achieve the mandate for which they had gone to the people in two elections. As for time taken to debate government legislation, all the records have been broken. Let us take the top three. The Telstra bill took 32 hours to debate. This does not count the months of lead-up with committees—which could have been hundreds of hours. Running second is the workplace relations bill, which took over 50 hours of debate in this House. That does not include the 50 hours of debate which Cheryl Kernot had with Peter Reith in his office, let alone all the committee meetings and hearings prior to that. But the record is the native title bill: 106 hours to debate this bill. You quote figures that say 90 per cent of the government legislation has gone through, or greater. But you have amended it, you have delayed it and you have made a great deal of it ineffective. (Time expired)20:30:001885Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I have only three minutes, so I will make some brief points. Firstly, this is an important matter. I congratulate the Labor Party for making it very clear that they are not going to support the clear effort of the coalition in government to degrade the standard of democracy which leads to the Senate being a more representative body for the people of Australia—on a one vote, one value basis—than the House of Representatives.Senator Coonan used words to the effect that any proposal for reform should try to improve the governance of Australia. If she were true to that, the first place she would go to would be the House of Representatives, where we currently have a government with a majority elected by 40 per cent of the voters and where we have single member electorates, which means that an average of 50 per cent of people in many electorates around Australia do not have anybody whom they voted for representing them. The single-member electorate system is far less democratic than proportional representation, which we have here in the Senate.When you look at Senator Coonan's proposal as it appeared in the press, you see that she is really trying to give a different voting status to those who vote for the big parties as against to those who vote for Independents and minor parties. For the first, your preferences count. For the second, if you are below the threshold she sets, your preferences do not count. The end result of this—Senator Coonan can try to deny this—is that her prescription would mean that I would not be in here, although I got eight per cent of the vote in my electorate, but she would be elected, although she got—and listen to this—0.0005 per cent.She received less than one-ten thousandth of the vote that I got, but her prescription has me out and her in because I am in a minor party, the Greens, and she is in the big party, the coalition, which has some God-given right to a greater say in representation. That undercuts the whole tenet of democracy. That undercuts the rule that there should be one vote, one value. It is a flow-on indication of her vote to overrule the parliament of the Northern Territory on the matter of euthanasia in the Andrews bill that came before this parliament last year. One step into the pool of cutting democracy is taken and then the next one is taken.I want to finish by again congratulating the Labor Party for standing up to this kite-flying exercise from the Liberal Party. It is not irrelevant, as Senator McGauran described Senator Coonan's move to fly kites. It is very important, and a great stand has been taken by people on this side of the chamber. (Time expired)20:33:001886Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—In addressing this motion there are various questions I think we first need to have answered. Firstly, does this abject negativity set the scene for the rest of the year? For the sake of a good debating chamber, I hope not. Secondly, is this motion part of a conspiracy theory that we hear so much about in this chamber, particularly from Senator Faulkner, who moved this motion? Thirdly, where is the enlightenment coming from in this so-called repository for good ideas? Surely, this is an attempt to scotch it.On the first day back we have an opposition which, I would have thought, would seek to take the initiative, to be positive, to endeavour to be productive and to enhance the workings of the Senate. But, no, we see no such creative thinking. Would it not have been a good thing to move a forward looking motion rather than such a negative motion? There seems to be an attitude around here that automatically there must be something wrong with a new idea. Senator Faulkner's dog in the manger urgency motion states:The need for the Senate to express clearly and firmly its opposition to any attempt to manipulate—Note the word `manipulate'; that was an unnecessary word, reinforced by a second point about a conspiracy theory, which seems to dominate so much of the Labor Party thinking of this day. It goes on:the Senate voting system in order to advantage the government of the day.The Labor Party when in government knew all about moving motions to advantage itself. There is a litany of those.The first day back in the parliamentary year we see a priority in debate not on some of the great issues of the day but on a head in the sand type of motion. Let us ask why this matter arises today. It is not because of a party platform. It is not because of a statement from the Prime Minister. It is because of Helen Coonan's address to the Sydney Institute—a think tank organisation and an appropriate one in which to discuss such ideas. It was not even an address to a Liberal Party branch or a convention.The nerve of these people! They are worried about a good idea in case it develops, grows and is debated. What is wrong with this country? Are we frightened to debate new ideas, different ways of doing things? Let me say loud and clear: congratulations to Helen Coonan on raising this matter in detail. Naturally, I do not agree 100 per cent, but it was a great presentation on which to build debate, not to stifle it, which we are attempting to do today.Let us look at the contrast between what the opposition is doing here and the rest of Australia. Right around our great country we have entrepreneurs with vision, operating successfully and forward-planning businesses. We have some of the very best scientists in the world creating new inventions, and our constituents are adapting to new ways of doing things. As a result, our products are becoming more marketable on the world scene and our service deliveries are becoming more innovative and cost effective. Australians everywhere have been matching and passing benchmarks for world's best practice. Yet here in this Senate chamber, where we and our constituents expect national leadership and something better of an opposition than what is presented here, we find such reactive thinking. The reactive nature of this opposition is rather worrying in a so-called enlightened world.Were we not reminded in question time this afternoon by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Robert Hill, and the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Richard Alston, that in economic matters the ALP at present has no policies? Something has gone wrong. Regrettably, the Labor Party at the present time has a very negative attitude towards the Senate. I suppose that has gone on, but we are seeing it here again today reinforced in this motion. Manipulation is okay if it serves the Labor Party's so-called best interests. Remember Paul Keating in 1992 when he referred to the Senate as `unrepresentative swill'? Now proportional representation is a good thing. Also in a talk to students from the De La Salle College, former PM Keating said, `We shouldn't have a Senate. It's an impediment to the smooth operation of the parliamentary system.'Senator Coonan's thought-provoking document entitled The Senate—safeguard or handbrake on democracy is a pretty apt description. I think it is a pretty sound study, certainly on which to build a platform for further debate on how it could be reformed. Let us look at some of the positives of Senator Coonan's study. She said that the Senate is not a law unto itself. It must exercise co-equal powers within a system of responsible government that recognises the broad parameters of the government's right to govern and the overwhelming public interest in having a stable parliamentary system that is capable of managing day-to-day institutional conflict in a coherent way. What is wrong with that? Why not build on that sort of debate? Those issues are petty important.She quite rightly points out that the introduction of proportional representation in 1948 entrenched a system that favoured minority parties and Independents. What is wrong with debating that? Why try to stifle that? It is a fact of life. But, because our time is drawing to a close, we must not stick our heads in the sand. We must think beyond the square and we must strongly attack what I believe in this motion is a dog in the manger attitude that we see as reactive, negative and, unfortunately, most untimely.20:40:001887Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I seek the leave of the Senate to make a contribution of 60 seconds on this matter.Leave granted.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—We are debating and voting on `the need for the Senate to express clearly and firmly its opposition to any attempt to manipulate the Senate voting system in order to advantage the government of the day'. That is motherhood stuff.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You support it then?6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I go along with that, but so can anybody, I suppose. I would like to remind the chamber, particularly those who have taken pretty high ground around the place, about the powers of the Senate. In fact, in 1970 the then opposition led by the Hon. E.G. Whitlam voted against supply—the appropriation bills on their third reading in this chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous1887188710000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Pursuant to standing orders 38 and 166, I present documents listed on today's Order of Business at item 12 which were presented to the President or Deputy President since the Senate last met. In accordance with the terms of the standing orders, the publication of the documents was authorised. In accordance with the usual practice and with the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the government responses be incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The list read as follows—COMMITTEE REPORTS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT SINCE THE LAST SITTING OF THE SENATE1. Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit—Report no. 364: An Advisory Report on the Delayed Provisions of the Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997 (presented to the President, 21 December 1998 ).2. Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—Interim report on paragraph 160(d) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (presented to the President, 8 February 1999) .GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT SINCE THE LAST SITTING OF THE SENATE1. Economics References Committee—Report—Promoting Australian Industry: Creating opportunities (presented to the President, 10 December 1998) .2. Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies—Report—Portrayal of violence in the electronic media (presented to the President, 10 December 1998) . REPORTS OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT SINCE THE LAST SITTING OF THE SENATE1. No. 21—Financial Control and Administration Audit: Costing of Services (presented to the President, 11 December 1998) .2. No. 22—Performance Audit: Selected Commonwealth Bodies—Management of the Year 2000 Problem (presented to the President, 15 December 1998).3. No. 23—Performance Audit: Accountability and Oversight Arrangements for Statutory Bodies in the Former Primary Industries and Energy Portfolio (presented to the President, 16 December 1998) .4. Nos 24, 25, 26 and 27—Performance Audit—DAS Business Unit Sales: Sales Managements; DASFLEET Sale; Works Australia Sale; DAS Interiors Australia (presented to the President, 18 December 1998) .5. No. 28—Performance Audit—Sale of SA Rail, Tasrail and Pax Rail (presented to the President, 21 December 1998) .6. No. 29—Performance Audit—Provision of Migrant Settlement Services by DIMA: Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (presented to the Deputy President, 22 December 1998) .7. No. 30—Performance Audit—The Use and Operation of Performance Information in the Service Level Agreements: Department of Social Security, Department of Employment, Education Training and Youth Affairs, and Centrelink (presented to the Deputy President, 15 January 1999) .GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT SINCE THE LAST SITTING OF THE SENATE1. Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986—Review—Report—Promoting equal employment opportunity for women (presented to the President, 16 December 1998) .2. Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation—Annual Report 1998 (presented to the President, 17 December 1998) .3. Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 1998-99—Statement by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) (presented to the President, 17 December 1998) .4. Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act 1990— Data matching Program—Commissioner of Taxation- ATO's Interaction with the Data-Matching Program (Assistance and Tax) for the financial years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 (presented to the Deputy President, 22 December 1998) .5. Refugee Review Tribunal—Annual Report 1997-98 (presented to the Deputy President, 22 December 1998) .6. Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act 1990— Data-matching Program—Report on progress 1995-98—Centrelink, Data-Matching Agency, Department of Social Security, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (presented to the Deputy President, 23 December 1998) .7. Employment National Limited—Annual General Meeting Documentation, 19 November 1998 (presented to the President, 7 January 1999) .8. Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation—Annual Report 1997-98 (presented to the Deputy President, 13 January 1999 ).9. Employment National Limited—Statement of Corporate Intent 1998/99—2000/01 (presented to the Deputy President, 20 January 1999 ).10. Australian Industry Development Corporation—Annual Report 1997-98 (presented to the Deputy President, 27 January 1999 ).11. Guide on Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibility (presented to the President 9 February 1999 ).The government responses read as follows—GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE REPORT BY THE SENATE ECONOMICS REFERENCES COMMITTEE PROMOTING AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY: CREATING OPPORTUNITIES1. OVERVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S INDUSTRY POLICYIntroductionSince the Senate Economics References Committee conducted its inquiry into Australia's industry policy, there have been a number of significant developments that have helped shape that policy.In December 1997, the Government delivered Investing for Growth which contained a$1.26 billion strategy to help revitalise the Australian economy, cut unemployment and build vibrant, internationally competitive industries.In August 1998, the Government released its plan for taxation reform—A New Tax System. The Government also announced that it would consult with business on the business tax reform proposals released as part of the tax package.During the 1998 Federal election campaign, the Government announced a range of initiatives in its Making Industry Stronger statement. Following its re-election, the Government announced a number of portfolio changes designed to deliver a more coherent and integrated approach to industry development.In addition, the unfolding of the Asian economic crisis has highlighted the importance of sound macroeconomic policy, ongoing microeconomic reform and industry policies that let winners pick themselves. The Government's commitment to such policies has helped insulate Australia from the worst effects of the crisis.OverviewThe Government will continue to build on its approach to economic growth contained in Investing for Growth and remains committed to its goal of securing sustainable levels of higher economic growth for Australia. As such, the Government's approach is based on sound macroeconomic policy settings, continued microeconomic reform and business programs based on the key drivers of growth—innovation, investment and exports.Central to the Government's industry policy is its commitment to strengthening the competitive advantage of Australian industry by further enhancing the business operating environment and by pushing for better market access for our products.The policy initiatives under the Government's election commitment, Making Industry Stronger, and the tax reform plan are designed to reduce business costs, attract investment and secure jobs, foster innovation, encourage the provision of capital to business for growth, develop industries of the future, and increase the international competitiveness of Australian industries.Key Industry Policy InitiativesInnovationInnovation is crucial to achieving improved productivity, increased competitiveness, and sustainable economic and job growth.The Government has a number of policies and programmes which provide support for innovation, create better links between public sector research and industry, and encourage technology diffusion through the economy. These initiatives include the direct funding of research institutions such as the CSIRO and Cooperative Research Centres and the provision of tax incentives to encourage businesses to undertake research and development.Other initiatives to encourage innovation include increased support for the research and development Start Programme to provide industry with support for industrial research and development, from the early stages of innovation through to the development and commercialisation phases and on to production maturity. The Innovation Investment Fund has had its funding increased to further assist technology-based businesses access equity finance to fund the commercialisation of their research. The Government has also recently announced that it will foster a national system of innovation based on linkages between industry, research institutions and government.InvestmentThe competition for international investment funds is acute, with many economies offering locational incentives which distort international investment flows. To help redress this, the Government has established Invest Australia—an investment promotion, attraction and facilitation agency. It has also appointed a Strategic Investment Coordinator to facilitate investment in projects of major national significance and advise the Government on the need for investment incentives in limited and special circumstances.The Government has also introduced several programmes to facilitate investment in key areas—such as the establishment of the Pharmaceutical Industry Investment Programme and the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme. Such programmes provide an environment that is conducive to long-term investment decisions and for developing internationally competitive industries.Market AccessAustralia has a small domestic economy in world terms and its industries need to participate in overseas markets to grow. However, no matter how competitive industry becomes, export success will not be achieved unless Australian goods and services have open and fair access to overseas markets. The Government is therefore pushing for freer and fairer trade so that Australian goods and services have better access to overseas markets and sees its memberships of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) as key opportunities to pursue this agenda. Australia is also pursuing the removal of trade and investment barriers through bilateral negotiations.Structural AdjustmentReductions in the levels of protection, combined with reforms to the economy, require industry to continue to adapt to a new business environment in order to prosper. The Government understands the need for some structural adjustment measures to help industry to restructure and to become world competitive while the level of protection is steadily reduced. Structural adjustment measures form an integral part of the Government's policies for key industry sectors and are aimed at facilitating the reform process while minimising transition costs.An example of such assistance is the adjustment measures (ie the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme and Market Access Development Strategy) which accompanied the recent decision to maintain passenger motor vehicle tariffs at 15 per cent between the years 2000 and 2004, before reducing them to 10 per cent on 1 January 2005. The decision reflects the Government's desire to achieve balanced outcomes in the interests of the community as a whole and to provide predictability and certainty for industry, while maintaining Australia's commitment to its international obligations.Other Key InitiativesThe Government has announced that it will strengthen the partnership between government and industry through the continued strategic application of Action Agendas in key industries. Action Agendas are formulated jointly by industry and government, and provide opportunities for industry representatives to communicate and consider best practice, tackle sectoral priorities and plan for the future. Action Agendas can also be used to clarify the balance of responsibilities between industry and government, enabling both parties to overcome impediments to growth. As Action Agendas are based on a whole-of-government approach, they allow for more effective coordination and integration of government policies that impact on the business sector. For instance, the broad ranging Action Agenda for the information industry is designed to foster the development of this key enabling industry.The Government has also announced that it will encourage capital for growth through the introduction of a Venture Awareness programme and proposes changes to the Pooled Development Fund programme to increase patient equity capital for small and medium sized enterprises. In addition, to ensure that Australian industry is well placed to take advantage of the opportunities for growth that lie ahead, the Government will introduce Australian Industry 2010 which comprises three elements: (i) the Australian Industrial Structure Project—a major study of Australian industrial structure which builds on the Action Agenda initiative; (ii) the Industry Outcomes and Outlook Statement—which will review the performance of key industry sectors, report on the effect of industry programmes and articulate the priorities for industry policy; and (iii) institute a new annual National Industry Outlook Conference to bring together academic, business and government analysts to promote ideas and debate on directions for Australia's manufacturing and service industries.2. THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION AND COMMENTS ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REPORTRecommendation:A fundamental problem facing Australia today is the continuing high level of unemployment, including structural and regional unemployment. For Australia to address this issue effectively requires us to adopt a successful high growth strategy, based on improving the productive performance of all Australian enterprises, especially those which export or compete against imports.Government's position:AgreeComment:The aim of the Government's industry policy framework, announced in the Investing for Growth statement, is to deliver Australia an annual growth rate of more than 4 per cent on average over the decade to 2010.This framework is helping to create a more competitive business environment for all Australia enterprises—one characterised by low interest rates, stable prices, a more flexible and efficient labour market, competitively-priced infrastructure facilities and the identification and removal of market impediments and unnecessary government regulation. Future reforms to improve the competitiveness of the business environment include reform of the taxation system and increasing competition in areas like energy, transportation and telecommunications.An integral part of this framework is initiatives to encourage innovation and investment, factors which are essential to upgrading technology and improving productivity and competitiveness. Other elements of the framework include initiatives to help Australian business to develop and expand their export markets (eg, the Export Access and TradeStart programmes will boost opportunities for regional and smaller exporters), make Australia a more attractive site for international manufacturing and warehousing and help specific industries restructure to meet the challenges of globalisation and increase their international competitiveness.In addition, the Government is actively fostering the development of the information industries and business uptake of online technologies. These policies offer the prospect of increased productivity and access to innovation and new market opportunities for all industries across the economy.Recommendation:Such a strategy should be based upon the Government developing a long term (5 to 10 years) industry policy framework with a clear definition of its economic and social objectives.Government's position:AgreeComment:The Government's industry policy framework has a long term focus and clear objectives. In particular, its economic growth objective will over time generate higher employment growth which in turn will reduce unemployment and poverty. At the same time, the Government's industry policy framework includes a mixture of long, medium and short-term initiatives. The longer term initiatives are aimed at providing a skilled labour force and predictability and certainty for industry to undertake long-term investment and restructuring to meet the challenges of globalisation. Such initiatives include the apprenticeship scheme, Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, R&D Start and Textile, Clothing and Footwear programmes and the establishment of Invest Australia. These are complemented by short and medium term initiatives which are required to allow flexibility to respond to rapid changes in circumstances such as those experienced in the information industries and the traded sector. Such initiatives include the Information Technology Online Programme, assistance provided by the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation and anti-dumping measures.Moreover, the framework is based on a whole-of-government approach. Policies on industry development, trade facilitation, macroeconomic settings, microeconomic reform, investment attraction, innovation promotion, education and training, and business assistance programmes are integrated into a framework to foster a more internationally competitive Australia.In summary, the Government recognises that there are impediments to the efficient operation of markets, such as the ability of Australian firms to fully capture the returns on their R&D investment. In addition, specific industries may need help in restructuring to meet the challenges of globalisation. As such, the Government has adopted a targeted approach to providing assistance to specific industries, intervening only in clear instances of market failure, and only where the benefits from intervention outweigh the costs.Recommendation:Within the context of a consensual national policy framework, government should accept a role, within and across key industry sectors, where intervention is deemed appropriate. This may include government, in conjunction with industry, developing action agendas and formulating specific goals at industry sector level, under which both parties can clearly identify their obligations.Government's position:The Government supports the development of Action AgendasComment:The Government is building a durable partnership between industry and all levels of government through its programme of Action Agendas. Action Agendas are formulated jointly by industry and government, and provide opportunities for industry representatives to communicate and consider best practice, tackle sectoral priorities and plan for the future. Action Agendas can also be used to clarify the balance of responsibilities between industry and government, enabling both parties to overcome impediments to growth.As Action Agendas are based on a whole-of-government approach, they allow for more effective coordination and integration of government policies that impact on the business sector.Recommendation:Possible models could include the Wine 2025 plan, the Supermarket to Asia plan, the TCF and Auto industry plans and the forthcoming plans of the Information and Tourism Industries. Particular focus should be given to industries that provide the greatest potential for growth in high skilled jobs and in employment opportunities.Government's position:AgreeComment:The Government's model for Action Agendas is not prescriptive. It is important that each Agenda is developed in a flexible way that is appropriate to the needs and characteristics of the particular industry sector. In general, Action Agendas comprise the following elements: analysis of current industry performance; identification of impediments to growth; and development of priorities for reform.The primary focus of Action Agendas is to lift the growth prospects of important industry sectors. Action Agendas have already been implemented for agrifood, information industries, automotive and tourism and are being developed for chemicals, building and construction, textiles clothing and footwear, liquefied natural gas, downstream petroleum products, renewable energy and digital broadcasting. In addition, action agendas have recently been announced for furniture, biotechnology, sport and recreation, heavy engineering and infrastructure, and printing.Recommendation:The key objectives of such a national approach to industry development must be to improve the ability of firms in Australia to compete in the domestic and global marketplace, as well as providing Australians with high skilled, secure jobs and employment opportunities. To achieve these objectives Australia must become an attractive investment location where:(a) the operation of Australia's Venture Capital Industry must be kept under constant review, and new initiatives taken to continually expand our Venture Capital Market. In that context, an evaluation of the small business Innovation Investment Fund (IIF) should be undertaken prior to the May 2000 Budget in order to evaluate its effectiveness and to allow any new initiatives to be implemented at that time. (b) a major element in our ability to foster growth opportunities among Australian business will be our capacity to attract investment funds that are focused on the longer term as opposed to short term profit taking investments. Therefore, Australia needs to adopt policies, including a capital gains tax regime, that are distinctly biased towards long term investment.(c) Attracting investment should be a key element of any tax reform package. The Committee considers that any comprehensive review of the taxation system should include a focus on its ability to attract investment as well as its broader impact on business (ie, Capital Gains Tax could be applied on a sliding scale, reducing over a set time period; arrangements for Limited Partnerships could be reintroduced to encourage investment from offshore). The system should not unfairly penalise business and deter innovation.Government's position:Agree-in-partComment:(a)The Government agrees that the operation of Australia's Venture Capital Industry must be kept under constant review to see if new initiatives need to be taken to expand our Venture Capital Market. There is limited value in conducting an evaluation of the IIF, a ten-year programme, within two years of it becoming operational. The programme will be evaluated in 2001-02 when the effectiveness of the programme in achieving its objectives is more likely to be apparent.(b) & (c)The Government will consider options for the reform of business taxation, including capital gains tax, in its Business Income Tax Review. The Review will make recommendations on the fundamental design of the business tax system, the processes of ongoing policy making, drafting of legislation and the administration of business taxation.The recommendations will be consistent with the aims of improving the competitiveness and efficiency of Australian business, providing a secure source of revenue, enhancing the stability of taxation arrangements, improving simplicity and transparency and reducing the costs of compliance. The Review will adopt a comprehensive approach to reform driven by clear, sound principles involving a move towards greater commercial reality.There will be consultation with business on the proposed reforms. The process of consultation will include an assessment of the design and the administration of the tax regimes affecting business to identify their main shortcomings and their impediments to productive activity and innovation.Recommendation:In considering the future development of Australian industry, the focus should be on industries which add substantial Australian value to products and services; have a high degree of income and market elasticity of demand; have the capacity to provide substantial employment in medium/highly skilled occupations; and where industry programmes are established they should have to meet clearly established goals. In working toward those goals the results must be regularly reviewed and benchmarked against agreed and soundly based performance criteria, including job creation goals and other commitments entered into by both government and industry.Government's position:Agree-in-partComment:A major focus of the Government's industry policy framework is to facilitate the growth of high value added, high wage industries by creating an internationally competitive environment for all Australian industries. The aim is to provide the conditions for higher levels of long-term investment and innovation, leading to higher economic and employment growth. To help support this objective, the Government has instituted a programme of Action Agendas to lift the growth prospects of important industry sectors, including high value-adding industries. An example of this is the Government's approach to fostering the development of the information industries. The Government recognises the role of information technology as an enabling technology and has established an Action Agenda to facilitate the more rapid development of a domestic industry base in software, information technology services and manufacturing.That said, too much emphasis on developing high value added goods and services at the expense of lower value added ones where Australia may have a competitive advantage, could detract from wealth creation and employment growth. Also, the promotion of goods and services that have a high degree of income and market elasticity of demand should not be at the expense of niche high value added products often characterised by strong brand identification and relatively stable market demand (eg, high quality wines).With respect to business programmes, the Government's objective is to ensure that they are delivered efficiently and achieve effective outcomes. Current policy requires that all programmes have clear objectives and measurable performance indicators that focus on end results; should avoid duplication with other programmes; should be of a scale and duration that are consistent with the market impediments being addressed; must have clear eligibility and entitlement criteria; and should have risk management strategies that match the size of the risk and potential for fraud. Business programmes are regularly reviewed as a matter of course and outcomes benchmarked against performance criteria where appropriate.Recommendation:Promotion of Australian industrial products be given a high priority. This could be achieved by diversification of promotion targets and export markets and by identification of growth markets for Australian products. The Export Facilitation Scheme should be retained in a form acceptable to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), with consideration to be given to improved flexibility, eligibility and limits. Duplication in the regulations applied to industry at the various levels of government should be eliminated. A central source of information should be established which will give Australian industry access to current information about the policies of Australia's trading partners which could affect the export potential of Australian products.Government's position:Agree-in-partComment:The promotion of Australia as a source of competitive goods and services in the international market is viewed by the Government as vital.Trade related promotional initiatives undertaken by the Government include:. the establishment of the Market Development Task Force to facilitate wider market access and export promotion and to address market access barriers;. the implementation of a National Trade Fairs Strategy which harnesses the efforts of the Commonwealth and States to help Australian firms gain maximum impact from their participation in trade fairs;. the extension of the Export Market Development Grants scheme which provides assistance to Australian companies to seek out and develop overseas markets through the partial reimbursement of promotional and marketing expenditure;. the establishment of TradeStart, a programme to improve export outcomes for regional Australia which will draw on the resources of the private sector and links with State government bodies to ensure that Australian businesses outside the major metropolitan centres have improved access to export assistance; and . the extension of funding for the Export Access programme which assists small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to undertake export activity on a sustainable basis, and its expansion to increase its focus on rural and regional exporters.To facilitate the growth of an export culture in Australia, the Government has integrated the Duty Drawback and Tariff Export Concession schemes with TRADEX, which will provide relief from customs and excise duty and sales tax on imported goods intended for re-export or used as inputs to exports. And the Manufacture in Bond scheme will allow firms to use Australia as a base for hub operations servicing the Asia Pacific region without incurring duty liabilityon goods intended for re-export or used as inputs to exports.The Export Facilitation Scheme is to be replaced by the, WTO consistent, Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme. The Government will also introduce the Automotive Market Access and Development Strategy. The aim of these initiatives is to provide certainty for new investment in the automotive industry while enabling Australia to meet its international obligations.The Government has also encouraged the development of national regulation review programmes for industry sectors (eg, the Blair Review of Food Regulations) which has facilitated the identification of duplicative regulation and the recommendation of a coordinated response across jurisdictions. In addition, sectoral projects have been undertaken (in industry sectors such as aquaculture) to streamline regulations across all levels of government and to develop integrated and efficient processes for regulatory approval.Mechanisms are already in place to enhance government-business communications and consultation on trade-related issues (including, at the national level, through mechanisms such as the Trade Policy Advisory Council, consultation with Australian members of the APEC Business Advisory Council and APEC Business Forum, National Trade Consultations and the Agricultural Trade Consultative Group). In addition, the Government:. has initiated specialist market access teams to help the food, information, textile, clothing and footwear and automotive industries;. has appointed a Special Envoy for the Automotive Sector, with extensive industry contacts and the capacity to generate strong government/industry collaboration on automotive matters;. has established sectoral market facilitation teams based in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which are working with industry in developing market access and trade strategies; . has held a series of roundtables in major regional centres around Australia involving the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and selected SMEs to discuss trade and liberalisation issues;. is consulting closely with Australian industry in formulating Australia's position on APEC's process of early voluntary sectoral liberalisation; and. is holding extensive consultations with business on developments in East Asian economies, particularly in assessing the impact on various industries.With regard to a central source of information, Austrade has established the Export Hotline as the main entry point to Austrade for the price of a local telephone call from anywhere in Australia. The Hotline provides readily available information and internal and external referrals. Austrade also operates an easily accessible website which provides information about Australia's trading partners.Recommendation:An independent body should be established at arms length from the Government (but reporting directly to Government) for the purposes of advising on and evaluating the effectiveness of the national industry policy framework in achieving its economic and social objectives. Such a body, in evaluating the effectiveness of the national approach would be required to examine and advise on alternative policy options which may be desirable and which could lead to more effective outcomes.Government's position:DisagreeComment:The Government has already established the Productivity Commission which advises on all aspects of microeconomic reform, including industry policy. The Commission's work covers all sectors of the economy. It extends to the public and private sectors and focuses on areas of Commonwealth as well as State and Territory responsibility. The statutory functions of the Commission are to:. conduct independent public enquires into matters relating to industry, industry development and productivity;. undertake economic research about matters relating to industry, industry development and productivity;. provide advice on request from the Treasurer into matters relating to industry, industry development and productivity;. promote public understanding into matters relating to industry, industry development and productivity; . receive and investigate complaints about the implementation of competitive neutrality arrangements in relation to Commonwealth government business and business activities through the Competitive Neutrality Complaints Office;. provide secretariat services to government bodies, including monitoring the performance of Government Trading Enterprises and Government Service Providers; and. provide advice to government about regulatory issues through the Office of Regulation Review.The Government also receives input from industry advisory councils such as the National Building and Construction Council and the Automotive Trade Council. The Government has also announced that an annual National Industry Outlook Conference will be held to bring together academic, business and governmental analysts to promote ideas and debate on directions for Australia's manufacturing and service industries.Recommendation:The adoption of a consensus approach to industry development, which clearly defines national goals and objectives, would provide a solid foundation for long-term planning by individual companies and a stable policy environment, within which long-term investment decisions can be made.Government's position:Agree-in-principleComment:The Government recognises the importance to industry of consistency in policy formulation and application in regard to industry development. It is for this reason that the Government regularly liaises with other levels of government through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) on matters of national importance or where clarification of roles between governments is required. COAG functions include:. increasing cooperation among governments in the national interest;. cooperation to achieve an integrated national market; and. consultation on major issues of an inter-governmental nature.In addition, government programmes such as TradeStart routinely make use of Commonwealth and State programme delivery agencies or mechanisms and require a high degree of inter-government coordination and cooperation.The Government has also introduced a system of Action Agendas through which, in partnership with industry, the development of specific sectors is addressed. Action Agendas are built on a partnership between business and government, but are also based on a whole-of-government approach, allow ing for more effective coordination and integration of government policies as they impact on the business sector.To build on the progress that is being made through Action Agendas, the Government has announced an Australian Industrial Structure Project which will seek to analyse the influence of globalisation and technological change on Australia's industrial structure over the period to 2010 and beyond. The National Industry Outlook Conference will also contribute towards fostering a consensus approach to industry development.Recommendation:The Committee believes that a significant feature that defines successful companies in both the domestic and global markets is the quality of management and managerial processes. The Government needs to ensure that effective resources are targeted at the development of human capital, with particular emphasis on managerial capabilities.Government's position:AgreeComment:The Government is committed to strengthening the competitive advantage of Australian industry through initiatives to upgrade and update workforce skills to meet the challenges of globalisation. These initiatives include:. the Enterprise Education Strategy and the Innovation Culture programme, both designed to foster an enterprise culture;. the Enterprise Development Programme which delivers a range of enterprise improvement services;. the AusIndustry Environmental Management Programme which includes energy management and environmental accounting modules;. Quality Management for Business programme which has a focus on SME needs;. Strategic Planning for Business; and. a mentoring trial to assist businesses to engage a mentor.In addition, the Government plans to initiate a new Venture Awareness programme to assist investor funds to understand the potential of venture capital. The programme will establish a set of investment benchmarks for Australian venture capital to help Australian investment funds improve their evaluation of venture capital investments and better inform Australian investors of opportunities in venture capital.Recommendation:Consideration to be given to the establishment of a process to oversee government procurement and outsourcing practices in key industries, which can lay the basis for developing industries to compete in the global economy. Due consideration should be given to the effect of those practices on local industries (particularly in regional Australia) to ensure that the local industries are not disadvantaged. To the extent permitted by the WTO, and consistent with cost effectiveness, the government should use procurement and outsourcing policy as a tool of industry policy.Government's position:AgreeComment:Government policy, as articulated in the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines: Core Policies and Principles requires agencies to seek value for money in procuring goods and services for the Commonwealth so buyers can choose the most cost-effective outcome. Value for money is the essential test against which agencies must justify any procurement outcome. It is not an attribute or criterion in itself but is a basis for comparing alternative solutions. Notwithstanding this, to the extent possible under Australia's international obligations, and consistent with cost effectiveness, the Government will continue to use government procurement and outsourcing policy to support industry objectives.The Government requires Commonwealth officials involved in procurement to have regard to its requirement to support industrial development through their procurement activity, as outlined in the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines: Core Policy and Principles. The Government will continue to assist industry development through procurement activities such as, leveraging government purchasing through the Partnerships for Development, Fixed Term Arrangement and Endorsed Supplier Arrangement programmes. For instance, the Telecommunications Carrier Industry Development Plan has been an important element of information industries development policies. In addition, the outsourcing of the Government's information technology infrastructure needs, as announced in the 1997 Budget, has provided significant opportunities for the development of Australia's information technology industry. By requiring strict contractual industry development commitments, the size of the Government's purchasing power has acted as a catalyst to attract international activities and operations to Australia. There is also a strong preference for high value added Australian products and services and maximising participation in information technology outsourcing by Australian SMEs. This has assisted SMEs to develop skills and relationships which have helped them develop an international focus, gain access to international markets and build internationally competitive capabilities. It should be noted that Australia is not a signatory to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement and therefore, procurement policies and practices are not subject to the agreement. However, Australia does have international government procurement obligations relating to its membership of APEC and the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Although GATS coverage does not currently extend to government procurement of services, the WTO is currently looking at extending GATS coverage to government procurement, which may result in international obligations for Australia in this area.Under the Australia New Zealand Government Procurement Agreement (ANZGPA), New Zealand products and suppliers are accorded the same treatment as Australian products and services.Recommendation:The Committee urges rapid legislative implementation of the Government's decision to adopt the recommendations of the Willett report on anti-dumping and countervailing duties.Government's position:AgreeComment:The Government has introduced a new anti-dumping and countervailing system in response to the Willett report. This came into effect on 24 July 1998. Under the new arrangements:. the time taken to investigate and complete an anti-dumping inquiry has been reduced from up to 220 days to 155 days at which point the Minister is able to apply duties. In addition, provisional measures can apply from 60 days after an investigation has commenced. The faster investigation process remains consistent with Australia's obligations under its agreements with the WTO;. industry has increased opportunity to respond to a statement of essential facts. This statement will be published by day 110 of the investigation, with interested parties having 20 days to respond;. duplication of investigations has been removed, with the abolition of the Anti-Dumping Authority (ADA). Formerly there were two separate investigations—the ADA and the Australian Customs Service. These have been replaced by one investigation process undertaken by Customs; and. greater transparency of the investigation process will be achieved through an independent appeal mechanism administered by the Trade Measures Review Officer within the Department of Industry, Science and Resources. This officer will be able to review the Customs investigation but not institute a further investigation. Recommendation:A major factor in the ability of firms to compete in the domestic and global market place is their ability to be innovative in all aspects of the business, including production methods, new products, marketing and provision of services. Therefore, the promotion of research and development must be a key priority for government. Government initiatives in this area should include:(a) policies that maximise expenditure on research and development not only by government but by individual companies and institutions. This may require linking the level of government support for research and development to the level of commitment to research and development expenditure by individual companies.(b)i. establishing or maintaining appropriate tax concessions for expenditure on industrial research and development;ii. introducing policies which maximise the opportunities for, and the likelihood of, the commercialisation in Australia of the outcomes of government-supported research and development;iii. the formulation of industry/research consortia; andiv. continuation of technology transfer programmes, such as the Partnerships for Development Programme.The Committee notes that the Government has acted to remove the duty differential between imported computer components and pre-assembled.Government's position:Agree-in-principleGeneral Comment:The Government has identified innovation as one of the key drivers of growth and agrees that it is a major factor in enabling industry to be competitive. The Government provides substantial support for science, innovation and R&D. Support is estimated to be about $3.7 billion in 1998-99, a real increase of 0.4 per cent over the previous year.Specific comments:(a)This recommendation is in accord with current Government policy. A range of market-driven programmes is in place to encourage R&D in industry and institutions. For example, the R&D Tax Concession and R&D Start. A strong commitment to R&D by industry is required to achieve the objectives of these programmes. For example, the R&D Tax Concession benefit is claimed through the taxation system, after R&D expenditure is incurred, and the benefits received are in direct proportion to the amount expended. R&D Grants provide a maximum subsidisation of 50 per cent, with the remainder of funds committed by firms or their collaborators.b)i. The Government has confirmed its support of an R&D tax concession in the December 1997 Industry Statement Investing for Growth.ii. The new Innovation Investment Fund programme is designed to increase the flow of venture capital for the commercialisation of new technology in small high-technology businesses.iii. There are substantial opportunities for the formation of research and industry consortia under current policies, including the Cooperative Research Centres programme, and the R&D Tax Concession and the R&D Start programmes.iv. Investing for Growth announced the enhancement of technology transfer programmes with a commitment of $108 million over four years for the Technology Diffusion Programme. The programme has three related components which target international technology collaboration, industry access to leading edge technology and industry uptake of electronic commerce.As noted by the Committee, the Government announced in the 1998 Budget the removal of tariffs on imported computer components (effective 1 July 1998). This decision corrects an anomaly whereby fully assembled information technology equipment was imported duty free but inputs to the manufacture of those same goods in Australia attracted a duty. The decision lowers the cost of manufacturing in Australia and improves the international competitiveness of Australian industry.GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE REPORT ON THE PORTRAYAL OF VIOLENCE IN THE ELECTRONIC MEDIA BY THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS RELEVANT TO THE SUPPLY OF SERVICES UTILISING ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES.IntroductionOn 9 July 1996, the government announced its decisions on the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers on the Portrayal of Violence in the electronic media (the Ministerial committee), which had been established in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre. Over 700 submissions and letters were received by the Ministerial committee which had to report to Cabinet within a short time-frame. The government decided to adopt the Ministerial committee's recommendation to refer matters arising from the public submissions to the Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies (the Select Committee) for further consideration. This recommendation was intended to ensure that the government was fully apprised of community expectations, and to enable all submitters to have an adequate opportunity to be heard.On 22 August 1996, the Senate referred these matters to the Select Committee. The Select committee tabled its Report on the Portrayal of Violence in the Electronic Media on 13 February 1997 (the Report).The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts sought comments from all organisations affected by the recommendations in the Report: the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA), the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC), the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations (FACTS), the ABC, the SBS, the Australian Film, Television and Radio School (AFTRS), the Federation of Australian Narrowcasting and Subscription Services (FANSS), the Confederation of Australian Subscription Television (CAST), Young Media Australia (YMA), Australian Record Industry Association (ARIA), and the Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. The Department also received comments from the Child Health Council of South Australia. These contributions have been taken into account in the government's response to the Report.During the 1998 Federal election, the government made a commitment to direct the ABA to decide whether viewers would be better served by a uniform code of practice across the free-to-air industry. The government expects to implement this commitment in the near future and anticipates that the ABA will have regard to relevant recommendations of the Select committee and the government's response.RECOMMENDATION 1The committee recommends that organisations such as Young Media Australia, the Australian Broadcasting Authority and the Australian Film and Television School be given a financial allocation to run seminars for script writers and film and video games producers aimed at highlighting the need for a more balanced and realistic portrayal of the long term effects of violence.The government supports the recommendation in principle and considers that industry should also bear some responsibility for the training of its professionals. In this regard, the government noted the interest expressed by those organisations mentioned in the recommendation to conduct such training. The production industry and the ABA might wish to consider the development of industry codes of practice to address this issue.RECOMMENDATION 2The committee recommends that the ABA undertake, at different times and for different periods, a review of television stations practice in the area of program promotion between the hours of 3.30pm and 8.30pm against their written codes to assess the extent of compliance (or otherwise) with their Codes of Practice.Under the provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (BSA), the ABA has a clear obligation to monitor compliance with codes of practice. The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has written to the ABA and the relevant radio and television industry bodies responsible for codes of practice expressing his concern about the content of broadcast programs. The government is confident that the ABA will continue to address community concerns about program content, consistent with the government's commitment to ensuring that broadcasters comply with codes of practice, and to the protection of children from unsuitable material. The government also notes that FACTS has addressed the appropriate scheduling of program promotions in its draft revised code of practice.RECOMMENDATION 3The committee recommends that :(a) a telephone/fax Hotline be re-introduced by the ABA for the public to register complaints about television programs. The Hotline could work in a similar way to the one operated by the former ABT.(b) that the ABA report on the operation of the Hotline in its annual report.The Select committee has identified a degree of public concern about the effectiveness of the operation of the complaints system under the BSA and industry codes of practice. This concern appears to arise from the requirement to lodge complaints about code breaches with the broadcaster in the first instance, and the experience that some broadcasters do not provide a satisfactory response to those complaints.The complaints process is designed to ensure that broadcasters, by being the first point of contact for alleged code breaches, are directly accountable to the public, and that they are aware of and respond directly to community concerns. The ABA will investigate any failure by a broadcaster to provide a satisfactory response to a complaint and take action if a breach has occurred. The government notes that the ABA already operates an 1800 number, and is required by the BSA to respond directly to complaints alleging breaches of the BSA or standards.In June 1998, the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations (FACTS) agreed to consider a national phone number for program-related complaints. FACTS has now agreed to implement this proposal by providing a national information line accessible for the price of a local call from anywhere in Australia.This national information line will provide callers with:. Summary information on the commercial television industry Code of Practice and how to obtain a copy;. Information on how to make a complaint; and. The telephone numbers of commercial television stations (for making complaints).FACTS has also agreed that the commercial television stations will run an advertising slot on average of once a day about the FACTS Code of Practice.It has also indicated that the commercial television stations are willing to include the contact details of relevant individual television stations when they mail out copies of the Code of Practice to members of the public who request them.FACTS has also agreed that, in future, individual television stations will take complaints about both programming and advertising matters, whereas previously complaints about advertising matters had to be made directly to the Advertising Standards Board (ASB). Where appropriate complaints will be referred on to the ASB for investigation.These undertakings represent a significant enhancement of current arrangements for informing viewers about the relevant complaint mechanisms.The Minister will ask the ABA to monitor these new arrangements and to report periodically on the extent to which they have raised the public's awareness of the relevant complaint mechanisms.RECOMMENDATION 4(a) The committee recommends that the BSA 1992 be amended to allow the ABA to impose penalties, including "on the spot " fines of up to $100,000.00 on television stations on proven breaches of their own codes of practice.(b) A decision on whether non-compliance had occurred would be required to be made within a 48-hour period.The government remains committed to an effective system of co-regulation supported by appropriate community safeguards. As indicated in its response to the Select committee's Report on Operation of Codes of Practice in the Television Industry Part 1, the government is aware that there is a concern that there be appropriate sanctions available to deal with breaches of codes of practice. The BSA provides a range of sanctions that can be applied by the ABA, subject to the statutory requirement that it use its powers in aa manner commensurate with the seriousness of the breach'. This is a matter for the ABA's judgement, informed by its assessment of contemporary community standards.The government will encourage broadcasters to give serious consideration to alternative approaches to addressing community concerns. These might include: providing a mechanism to direct an apology or retraction for minor code infringements; the requirement for broadcasters to retain records and complaints for longer periods; and the reduction of the time period which broadcasters currently have to respond to complaints under the codes of practice. In this regard, the ABA has commented that it believed there were benefits in formalising the role of swift `on air' corrections and apologies as soon after a specific episode as possible. The government will consider, in the light of industry responses, whether any changes consistent with the co-regulatory framework are required to supplement existing sanctions and strengthen the effectiveness of the system.RECOMMENDATION 5The committee recommends that the ABA be made responsible for the classification of all children's programs (including cartoons for children).One of the objects of the BSA is `to ensure that providers of broadcasting services place a high priority on the protection of children from exposure to program material which may be harmful to them'(s.3(j)). This object is given effect through industry codes of practice and, more particularly, through the ABA's Children's Television Standards, (CTS) determined under s.122 of the Act.Under present arrangements, only programs to be broadcast by commercial television broadcasters specifically in fulfilment of the CTS (with which compliance by licensees is mandatory), are submitted to the ABA for classification. Responsibility for classifying the balance of programming, including other programs for children, rests with the broadcasters, consistent with the co-regulatory scheme of the BSA.The government would be reluctant to remove the responsibility for classifying children's programs generally from broadcasters to the regulator, as it is a key element of the co-regulatory scheme that broadcasters be responsive and directly accountable to their audiences for their programming decisions.The government is confident that there are adequate mechanisms in place to safeguard the interests of children in respect of programming not covered by pre-classification requirements of the CTS. These include the ABA's powers to require compliance with industry codes, and to widen the scope of matters covered by mandatory standards if the codes fail to provide appropriate safeguards. The ABA is also empowered to conduct or commission research to inform its regulatory responses to public concerns about children's programs. The government therefore does not support the recommendation.RECOMMENDATION 6The committee recommends that the current on-air information campaign by the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations (FACTS) be modified so that, in addition to telling viewers that classification and consumer advice is available, information should be given about the meaning of each classification symbol.The government reaffirms its response to the Select committee's Report on Operation of Codes of Practice in the Television Industry Part 1 that it considers action by broadcasters to regularly inform their audiences about the operation of codes of practice and related complaints processes is an important part of the co-regulatory system. The government notes that FACTS' revised draft code provides for 360 on air information spots per year. The current code provides a general obligation to provide on-air information about the availability of the code and also the complaints procedures.The government therefore considers that the intent of this recommendation has been met by FACTS, but strongly urges the industry to continue to examine ways of ensuring audiences receive adequate information to make informed viewing choices.RECOMMENDATION 7The committee recommends that separate guidelines be introduced for the classification of videotapes to ensure that higher standards are applied to videotapes than for the equivalent categories of film for cinema release.As previously advised (refer Senate Hansard of 2 July 1998 page 4080) in relation to an identical recommendation contained in the Report on R-rated Material on Pay TV Part 2 and the Review of the Guidelines for the Classification of Film and Videotapes which was tabled in the Senate on 17 October 1996, the government does not support this recommendation.The government's Law and Justice policy for the March 2 1996 election stated that it would ". . . .work with States and Territories in pursuit of clear standards for film, television, literature, computer and video games, audiotext and bulletin boards that operate to prevent the excessive portrayal of violence or obscenity." Current policy sets the film and video criteria at identical thresholds.Research reveals that there is clear support for the idea of having a similar classification scheme operating for television, film and video (79%). There are persuasive arguments that the system should continue in its present form to promote community understanding of, and confidence in, the classification process and to provide business certainty on a national basis.The situation already exists where a free-to-air TV M, a film and video M and a computer game M may differ. Considerable consumer confusion is likely to follow if further differences are introduced, for example, a difference in content between a video M and a cinema M. This is particularly so as the content is invariably the same and the video version is usually released shortly after the end of the cinema season.The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 also makes provision for consumer advice giving information about the content of films and videos. This enables adults and, in particular parents, to make informed choices about what they view and allow their children to view.The hire or purchase of a video involves a conscious choice by a person. In relation to denying access by children to unsuitable material so obtained, this is a matter which falls directly into the area of parental responsibility. There are definite limits to what governments can do or be expected to do in controlling what occurs in individual homes.The fact that some parents may act in what some may consider to be an irresponsible manner in this area is not an adequate excuse for curtailing the availability of material to adults generally (which could be the case if `R' rated material is to be classified at a higher threshold for videos) or parents who do act responsibly.RECOMMENDATION 8The committee recommends(a) that the ABA, in association with the OFLC undertake at different times throughout the year a random audit of films classified for television by the television stations themselves and require the television stations to state:(i) how much footage they have cut in the process of modifying the film for TV broadcast(ii) their reasons for the classification they chose to give to the film under review, and(b) that the ABA report on its findings in its annual reportThe government considers that under the existing co-regulatory arrangements the classification of programs is a matter for broadcasters to implement through their codes of practice having regard to the classification requirements of section 123 of the BSA. The BSA obliges the ABA to monitor compliance with codes of practice, and to periodically review the operation of those provisions of the act that relate to program classification. The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has written to the ABA and the relevant radio and television industry bodies responsible for codes of practice expressing his concern about the content of broadcast programs. The government is confident that the ABA will exercise its existing powers to ensure that classifications reflect prevailing community standards.RECOMMENDATION 9The committee recommends that television stations vary the use of the symbol V to indicate the level of violence in a film ranging from V low level violence to VV-medium level violence and VVV- to indicate high level violence.The government notes FACTS' intention to include in its code a new AV classification. The revised Code states: "Material classified "AV" is suitable for viewing only by persons aged 15 years or over. It is unsuitable for "MA" classification because of the intensity and/or frequency of violence, or because violence is central to the theme. In other respects, the classification's requirements are identical to the "MA" classification." The AV classification will be accompanied by both spoken and written consumer advice concerning the level of elements such as language, violence, sex and nudity or drugs contained in the program. The FACTS code already requires brief consumer advice giving the principal elements which have contributed to the classification and indicating their intensity and/or frequency for M classified feature films and all MA classified programs. This requirement will be expanded under the revised code so that stations will have to provide such advice before all M and MA programs. Consumer advice will also be supplied with any other programs `which contains material of a strength or intensity which licensees reasonably believe viewers may not expect'. The government considers the intent of this recommendation has been met, but strongly urges the industry to continue to examine ways of ensuring audiences receive adequate information to make informed viewing choices.RECOMMENDATION 10The committee recommends that the Attorney General increase the level of fees imposed by the OFLC for classification if the material classified is found to contain high level violence.The government is of the view that concerns about material containing high level violence have been adequately addressed by the removal of such material from public exhibition, sale or hire.Accordingly, the government does not support this recommendation.RECOMMENDATION 11The committee recommends that the funds raised by increased fees be used to finance public education campaigns aimed at highlighting the possible adverse effects of watching large amounts of violent material.In light of the matters set out in response to recommendation 10, the government does not support this recommendation.RECOMMENDATION 12The committee recommends also that State and Territory Ministers consider proposals to require that all R-rated violent videos carry a label indicating that the content of such videos might be harmful to the mental wellbeing of children and those adults suffering from depression and other mental disorders.The government does not support this recommendation.The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 provides that the Classification Board must determine consumer advice giving information about the content of all films and videos which receive an `R" classification. Such consumer advice enables adults, including parents, to make informed choices about what they view and allow their children to view.Existing labelling requirements are for the classification symbol, description and consumer advice to be displayed on the video cassette, the video cover (both on the spine and on the front cover) as well as at the introduction to the video itself. An example of the required labelling required is:R 18+ RESTRICTED TO ADULTS 18 YEARS AND OVER. MEDIUM LEVEL COARSE LANGUAGE MEDIUM LEVEL VIOLENCETo introduce further labelling could also detract from the classification labelling which shows the classification, age restriction, and consumer advice.The impact of viewing violent material on a person's mental well-being is complex and the subject of considerable debate. The findings of such authoritative research studies as those conducted by the National Committee on Violence and the Australian Institute of Criminology do not provide conclusive evidence of a causal relationship between viewing violent material and the commission of crime. The equivocal results are placed in perspective when other causative factors are taken into account. It is apparent that violence in the home, personality traits, substance abuse, mental illness and a variety of cultural and biological factors combine with media influences as possible precursors to violent behaviour. The government notes that some research findings indicate that people who have a propensity for violence tend to watch violent material. It is unlikely that such people will alter their viewing habits following the placement of warning labels on material they would normally choose to view. It is considered that the deleterious effects of depression and mental illness may be more effectively addressed through community health programs.In relation to the recommendation that `R' rated violent videos be labelled as being potentially "harmful to the mental well-being of children", it should be noted that such videos are not legally available to persons under the age of 18 years. The committee's comment on page 34 of its report that "it appears relatively easy for children to obtain through rental outlets videos that cause concern to parents" is noted. It is considered, however, that this issue is better addressed through, for example, more effective education, point of sale controls and enforcement.The enforcement of classification decisions and point of sale controls is the responsibility of the States and Territories.In recognition of the importance of improving compliance with classification laws, the Commonwealth government has reached an agreement with all States and Territories to extend the Community Liaison Officer (CLO) scheme for a 3 year period following completion of the 62 week trial period. The role of the CLO is primarily educative. The CLO liaises with retailers, distributors, police and community groups in the participating jurisdictions to advise on the national classification scheme, the legal responsibilities of retailers and distributors and associated penalties for breaches of State and Territory classification enforcement acts.RECOMMENDATION 13The committee recommends that when reporting news items which are identified by the television stations themselves as being accompanied by `'disturbing footage", that footage should only be shown in later evening news bulletin and not during the early evening news bulletin when large numbers of children are watching television. The government acknowledges the Select committee's concerns about disturbing footage on the early evening news. The government notes that FACTS proposes to amend its code to ensure greater care and sensitivity in news and current affairs. There are three significant new clauses restricting the use of footage of dead and wounded, prohibiting unfair identification of individual people or companies in items about the behaviour of a group of persons or businesses; and requiring care in not identifying murder or accident victims before relatives are notified by authorities. A clause on the reporting of suicide has also been expanded for greater clarity. The government strongly urges the broadcasters to be vigilant in meeting the requirements of their codes of practice.RECOMMENDATION 14The committee recommends that the ARIA Code of Practice Guidelines No. 3 for "material which are not permitted to be sold" be amended to add the word "suicide" after the words "incest" and "child abuse".The government believes the promotion of suicide is unacceptable, and acknowledges that the sale of audio recordings containing lyrics which explicitly and gratuitously deal with and promote, incite or instruct in suicide is a matter of significant concern in the community. The government supports this recommendation and notes that the ARIA Code of Practice for Labelling with Explicit and Potentially Offensive Lyrics contains the guideline that albums containing lyrics which specifically instruct to commit suicide shall be refused classification as 18+, and are not permitted to be sold.RECOMMENDATION 15The committee recommends that State and Territory education ministers take steps to encourage schools to offer a compulsory course on a critical evaluation of the media at some stage during the latter primary years.The government notes that school education is the constitutional responsibility of the States and Territories, although it does have a strategic role in setting national directions and priorities. The government will bring this recommendation to the attention of State and Territory Education Ministers.RECOMMENDATION 16The committee recommends that the Federal Government fund a public education campaign through the media to make parents and teachers aware of the means (such as the classification symbols, the V-chip as it becomes available and PICS labelling on the Internet) available to them to control material that their children watch and play with. The campaign should include information on how to find out more about how these control systems operate.The government notes that the FACTS code requires commercial broadcasters to provide on air information about the codes. The government is considering how best to implement its decision to introduce the V-chip technology into all new television sets and will consider public education issues as part of its implementation strategy.At the direction of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts under s.171 of the BSA, the ABA is undertaking a number of activities intended to assist with the transition to new regulatory arrangements for on-line content announced by the Minister and the Attorney-General on 15 July 1997. These have included convening a Children and On-line Content Taskforce and the development of educational strategies. The Children and On-line Content Taskforce reported to the ABA in June 1998 and the government is considering the ABA's advice on these recommendations contained in its interim report on the inquiry into transitional arrangements. Encouraging families to use the internet was a key focus for Australia's first Online Australia Day held on 27 November 1998. This included the launch of a special website offering advice to parents on supervising internet use, tools available to screen material, links to sites developed for children, and other family information such as child accident prevention.RECOMMENDATION 17The committee recommends that the Federal and State Governments increase, through the relevant departments, funding currently available to organisations that run conflict resolution programs and other programs designed to promote a culture of non-violence in the community.The government expresses in-principle support for this recommendation but would need to consider any funding proposals from relevant agencies in the Budget context. The government notes activities of the States and Territories following the 1994 House of Representatives Standing Committee Report on Employment Education and Training Report on Violence in Australia Schools Sticks and Stones Report which targeted violence in schools.The government notes in the area of domestic violence, the new Commonwealth, States and Territories initiative Partnerships Against Domestic Violence . Partnerships will test innovative approaches to domestic violence prevention. A major focus of Partnerships is community youth education strategies, for example, community organisations are being funded to develop and run domestic violence prevention workshops throughout Australia aimed at changing behaviours of young people aged 12-25 years, whose experience of domestic violence is as a victim or witness and will also assist young people who behave violently.RECOMMENDATION 18The committee recommends that the ABA review the number of viewer complaints about the amount and levels of violence shown by a television network in order to:(a) highlight those television networks showing the most violence(b) encourage a reduction in violent programming by linking it to the commercial television licence renewing process.This recommendation is a matter for the ABA to consider, in implementing its statutory functions to monitor compliance with industry codes of practice and renew broadcasting licences. The government understands that the ABA believes that attitudinal research techniques provide a better measure of indicators of viewers' concerns than do complaints because people are motivated to complain for different reasons, about different aspects of programs and this does not make their complaints easy to analyse or categorise according to their concerns.However, while acknowledging that the ABA already publishes detailed information about complaints received, and has a range of sanctions available to it under the BSA to deal with breaches of codes and the BSA, the government would encourage broadcasters and the ABA to closely monitor complaints made about the violent content of programs, including complaints made by telephone which might not otherwise be taken into account in any analysis of public concerns. The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has written to the ABA asking it to be vigilant in monitoring the performance of the broadcasters against the codes of practice.Committees1903190319031903Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—In regard to the government response that has just been incorporated, I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Documents1903190310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—I present the publication Business of the Senate for the period 1 January to 31 December 1998.Ordered that the report be printed.190310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I table a summary of questions on notice for the period 10 November 1998 to 31 December 1998.Committees1903190319031903Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I present the first report of 1999 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 1 1999 , dated 15 February 1999.Ordered that the report be printed.Notices190319035K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—by leave—to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations (Nos 2 and 3), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 338 and 353 and made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 , be disallowed.Committees1903190310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I have received letters from party leaders nominating senators to be members of committees.Motion (by Senator Minchin)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee— Participating member: Senator CrossinEnvironment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee— Substitute member: Senator Eggleston to replace Senator Tierney for the committee's inquiry into the broad effects of the Government's taxation reform legislation proposals on the environment, the arts and information technology and on the provisions of the bills implementing the proposed new tax systemRetailing Sector—Joint Select Committee— Appointed: Senators Forshaw and Schacht. Bills1904Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General reported, informing the Senate that he had assented to the following laws:Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1998 Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Amendment Bill 1998 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Resolution of Complaints) Bill 1998 Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 Aged Care Amendment (Accreditation Agency) Bill 1998 Private Health Insurance Incentives Amendment Bill 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment (Private Health Insurance) Bill 1998 Wool International Amendment Bill 1998 Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1998 Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill 1998 National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1998 National Transmission Network Sale (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 Space Activities Bill 1998 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Bill 1998 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 Payment Processing Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 Bills1904Messages received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bills:Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998.Bills1904r674Billsr646Billsr652Billsr611Billsr684Billsr643Billsr6501904Bills received from the House of Representatives.Senator MINCHIN (South Australia—Minister for Industry, Science and Resources)—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have five of the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.190420:49:001904Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—JUDICIARY AMENDMENT BILL 1998The Judiciary Amendment Bill will significantly reform the legal services market for Commonwealth legal work. The bill will establish the Australian Government Solicitor, the AGS, as a statutory corporation that will operate as a government business enterprises. It will strengthen the position of the AGS in the market for Commonwealth legal work with private sector law firms.The reforms will contribute to the delivery of more efficient and effective legal services to the Commonwealth and we therefore ask the Opposition to take a more constructive approach than occurred when the bill was previously debated in November 1997.This bill has its genesis in the review of the Commonwealth's legal services contained in the so-called Logan report of March 1997.The report found that maintaining ownership of a government legal practice was in the public interest.The practice could meet the legal services needs of the Commonwealth and of Government agencies because of its particular focus on government work, its ability to maintain a `whole of governments approach, its strong corporate memory, and the need for a government legal service provider to meet the unique role and needs of the Attorney-General in providing core legal services.The Government considered all options, including the possible sale of the AGS, but concluded for the reasons outlined in the report, that it should be retained within government ownership.Establishment of the Australian Government SolicitorThe Government has decided to restructure the AGS as a new statutory body to maximise its ability to operate on a commercial, competitive basis.Consistent with the usual approach for government business enterprises it will also be able to employ staff outside the usual public service regime.The AGS will not be established under the Corporations Law, but set up as a government-owned statutory authority headed by a CEO, rather than a board of directors.It will have the Attorney-General and the Minister for Finance and Administration as `joint shareholders'. This will not interfere with the legal professional functions of the AGS, nor the Attorney-General's responsibilities as First Law Officer.The AGS is not, and cannot be, the same as privately owned law firms. Its unique value to government is based on its government ownership and its expertise in delivering consistent and coordinated legal services to government clients.Some limited core areas of government legal work will be reserved to government legal providers, primarily the AGS, and not available to private law firms.The reserved areas of work are Cabinet, constitutional, national security and most public international law matters.The public interest served by having the AGS undertake this role is not inconsistent with it operating at the highest level of efficiency and making a profit.Competitive neutralityThe bill contains measures to ensure that the AGS will not enjoy net competitive advantages over private law firms by virtue of its government ownership.In particular, the AGS will be required to make payments representing taxation that would have been incurred if it were a firm of legal practitioners.The AGS will also be required to pay a dividend, analogous to the return of profits to the partners in a law firm, under corporate governance arrangements to be agreed by the Attorney-General and the Minister for Finance and Administration, after consultation with the CEO for the AGS.The corporate governance arrangements will take into account the particular structure of the AGS and its function of providing legal services to government.The AGS will be subject to the requirements of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997.Legal Services DirectionsThe bill gives the Attorney General power to issue Legal Services Directions applicable to Commonwealth legal work, whether it is undertaken by the AGS, private legal firms, counsel or `in-house' legal units.The Directions will provide a framework for the conduct of the Commonwealth's legal affairs, but leave prime responsibility for the effective and efficient use of legal services with agencies.Once the Legal Services Directions are in place under the Judiciary Act 1903, most Commonwealth litigation will be untied. This will complete the process of providing choice to government clients that began under the former Labor government in 1995.It is the logical extension of the measures put in place by the Opposition. Until commencement of the new system, approval for untying of litigation will continue on an ad hoc administrative basis.The power to issue Directions will ensure that the Attorney-General will be able to manage risks that could arise from the provision of legal services that are inconsistent, lack coordination, or do not address whole of government and public interest issues.This is necessary with an increased range of government legal work contestable by private sector firms.As recommended by the Logan report, the Office of Legal Services Coordination has been created to assist the Attorney-General in discharging his First Law Officer role.The Office advises on rules and policies for Commonwealth legal work, especially litigation.It will assist the Attorney-General in the preparation and administration of the new Legal Services Directions.The Office also has an important role to play in advising Government agencies on their obligations in this area and on the purchase and delivery of legal services, so as to achieve maximum efficiency and appropriate risk management.Conclusion The reforms introduced by the bill will give the AGS the structure and flexibility in its business activities and legal services work to enable it to continue to provide efficient and effective legal services to government in an increasingly competitive market.REGIONAL FOREST AGREEMENTS BILL 1998I am pleased to be introducing this bill, which will provide legislative support to the outcomes being achieved under the Regional Forest Agreement process.As Honourable Senators know , the Government is working co-operatively with the States to accelerate implementation of the National Forest Policy Statement,—the framework for a long-term and lasting resolution of forest industry, conservation and community interests and expectations concerning our nation's forest.The Statement requires joint Commonwealth-State comprehensive regional assessments of the environmental, heritage, economic and social values of Australia's forests. These assessments, involving a high degree of input from interest groups, form the basis of negotiated Regional Forest Agreements between the Commonwealth and the States.Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) provide both a blueprint for the future management of our forests and the basis for an internationally-competitive and ecologically-sustainable forest products industry. RFAs will provide for a world class national, comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system and will clearly identify those forest resources available for multiple use, including resources available for sustainable timber harvesting.RFAs, and the comprehensive and transparent processes that lead to them, provide industry, environmental interests and the community with unprecedented certainty.However, it is clear that industry and environmental groups alike are concerned that future governments may simply walk away from such Agreements. These concerns are understandable—this is exactly what previous governments have done when it suited them.Therefore, key provisions in certain RFAs already in place are expressed to be legally binding on the parties. However, not all existing RFAs are so expressed and neither are all the provisions that are contained in those agreements.The Commonwealth now proposes that all existing and future RFAs be strengthened by providing that termination by mutual consent of the parties can only occur 12 months after an intention to terminate the Agreement is notified; thus allowing a full review of the operation of the RFA to be carried out.In the interests of enhancing industry confidence in RFAs, the Commonwealth also proposes that all RFAs will include positive obligations on the States to initiate compensation action on behalf of industry where a Commonwealth breach of an RFA results in a case for compensation.We are working with the Victorian and Tasmanian Governments to include these provisions in existing RFAs in the near future. I would also emphasise, in the light of previous debate in the other place, that this process does not amount to opening renegotiation of existing RFAs.In conjunction with these proposed changes, this bill provides RFAs with the legislative backing to ensure that all Australians have confidence in the long-term future of Australia's forest estate.This confidence will be further sustained through, firstly, the enactment of State legislation, where necessary, to authorise wood supply arrangements and to declare and protect agreed forest reserves and, secondly, the provision of on-going wood supply agreements and contractual arrangements between individual States and companies where State-owned forests are involved.In summary, the RFAs themselves remain the focus of the Government's policy approach. We firmly believe that community and investor confidence in forest industries will be best secured by strong RFAs which provide for ecologically-sustainable management of our forests. This bill, together with complementary State legislation and strong wood supply contractual arrangements between industry and State Governments, will provide that confidence .As I have already stated, this bill provides a broad legislative context for all RFAs, with each RFA including provisions appropriate to the region concerned. Consequently, the bill is concise and has been drafted to ensure it can accommodate the necessary flexibility within, and between, individual RFAs.One of the bill's main objectives is to provide legislative rigour for RFA termination and compensation provisions.The bill will ensure the termination of an RFA will have no effect unless it is done in accordance with the RFA's termination provisions. It will also ensure that the Commonwealth is liable for any breach of an RFA it makes which occurs while it is force, even if the Agreement is subsequently terminated or expires.The bill's provisions will mean the Commonwealth will not be able to agree to "water down" such termination or compensation provisions in the future without legislative amendment. The bill also provides that the termination and compensation provisions in the RFA at the time of the commencement of the bill, or the provisions which apply at the commencement of the RFA itself, whichever is later, will continue to apply.I reiterate the Government's view that we expect to include in all RFAs the same termination and compensation provisions contained in the Tasmanian and Central Highlands RFAs at the time the act commences, subject of course to any minor changes to reflect differing State processes.The other main objective of the bill is to remove certain Commonwealth controls and restrictions which, in the past, have been used as an indirect means to attempt to control timber harvesting.This is in stark contrast to the RFA process, which is based on comprehensive, scientific assessment of the environmental, heritage, economic, and social values of forests in a region.Such comprehensive assessments, which form the basis of negotiated RFAs, conclude the Commonwealth's environment and heritage obligations in relation to forestry operations in the region. Consequently, the bill ensures that the effects of RFA forestry operations will be disregarded for the purposes of specified "trigger" sections of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and its related Administrative Procedures, and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983.The bill will also prohibit the application of export controls imposed under the Export Control Act 1982 for processed and unprocessed wood sourced from a region where an RFA is in force.This exemption will extend to plantation-sourced wood from the region, unless the relevant State's code of practice is not approved under the Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations.The exemption will further apply to any other Commonwealth law which prohibits or restricts exports to another country, or which has the effect of so doing, unless that law expressly refers to wood sourced from an RFA. While we understand that it is not possible to bind a future Commonwealth Parliament from legislating within its Constitutional responsibilities, this bill provides this Parliament with an opportunity to express its clear intention that such controls not be placed on wood from a region where an RFA is in place.I would like to respond to a concern raised by the Opposition when this bill was before the previous House of Representatives. The Member for Perth suggested that the bill somehow asked the Parliament to blindfold itself and "give to the nine RFA agreements that have not yet been signed, sight unseen, the same benefits it seeks to accord to three signed RFAs."The bill already deals with this concern. I would emphasise that for any agreement to gain the benefits of this bill, the comprehensive and stringent definition of a Regional Forest Agreement contained in clause 3 of the bill must be met—and met in full. .Such an agreement must have had regard to assessments made of environmental, endangered species, national estate, world heritage, indigenous heritage economic and social values. It must provide for a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system. It must provide for the ecologically-sustainable management of the region's forested areas. And the agreement must also make it clear that it is a Regional Forest Agreement for the purpose of providing long-term stability of forests and forest industries.This comprehensive definition ensures that the Parliament can be satisfied about the consistent nature and quality of Regional Forest Agreements—now and into the future.This bill therefore provides solid legislative backing for the outcomes being achieved by Regional Forest Agreements and the detailed processes that lead to them. It is yet another significant step in ensuring that we all—governments, environmental and heritage interests, forest industries, and the communities and families across regional Australia that depend on them—can have confidence in the future of Australia's forests.This bill is part of a series of Government initiatives in this important sector.In conjunction with the RFA process, the Government has also committed over $100 million to the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Program to assist native forest industry businesses and workers affected by the introduction of such Agreements.In addition, in line with our strong commitment to industry development, the Commonwealth has allocated over $31 million to the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy to promote growth and investment in forest industries, including greater downstream processing and value-enhancement, plantation development and farm forestry.Under the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia, a further $36.5 million over 4 years has been provided to the Farm Forestry Program.In relation to plantation development, the Government is a key partner in `Plantations for Australia—the 2020 Vision', along with State and Territory governments and the plantation growing and processing industries.The Commonwealth has allocated $1.9 million from the Prime Minister's Greenhouse Package to meet its obligations under the Plantations 2020 Vision.These initiatives effectively refute claims that this Government is not committed to industry development, downstream processing and value-adding in forest industries. I can assure the Senate that the Government will continue to encourage sustainable, regionally-based and internationally-competitive Australian forest products industries.In particular, we will take a whole-of-government approach in encouraging industry to address the current trade imbalance in forest products through on-going import replacement and export development.This bill represents an important element in underpinning our industry development commitment. Strong, comprehensive and long term Regional Forest Agreements mean the policy stability that is essential for investor and community confidence in the future of our forest industries. At the same time they also ensure the protection of the unique environmental and heritage values of our forest estate.I commend the bill to Honourable Senators.WORKPLACE RELATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (YOUTH EMPLOYMENT) BILL 1998This bill will amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 to remove the uncertainty surrounding junior rates of pay by exempting junior rates, on a permanent basis, from the age discrimination provisions of those acts. The bill will also amend the principal object of the Workplace Relations Act to include within its scope the protection of young people's competitive position in the labour market, the promotion of youth employment and the reduction of youth unemployment, and these will also be objects to which the Australian Industrial Relations Commission must have regard in making and varying awards. In particular, the bill will require the Commission to support youth employment by ensuring that, where appropriate, awards that apply to work that is or may be performed by young people include junior rates of pay.Madam President, members of this Parliament—particularly the Labor Party—who are concerned about the welfare of the young employed and of the young unemployed should match that concern with bipartisan support for this bill.Madam President, junior rates have been a feature of the wages system in Australia since early this century. Age-based junior rates of pay are set as a percentage of the adult rate, and usually increase annually until adult rates are payable.Over half of employees aged under 21 are covered by junior rates, with almost a third of these in retail trade, the single most important industry as far as youth employment is concerned.Under current arrangements junior rates will not be able to continue after 22 June 2000. At present, junior rates are exempted from the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act and the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act designed to prevent and eliminate age discrimination in awards and agreements. The exemption expires on 22 June 2000 (although, under the present legislation, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission can extend the exemption on a case-by-case basis in accordance with Full Bench principles). This means that after 22 June 2000, if a suitable replacement for junior rates has not been found, young employees who are currently paid at junior rates will have to be paid at adult rates unless each and every award and agreement that contains junior rates is given a special exemption. Madam President, one does not have to be an economist to reach the conclusion that such a move would price young people out of jobs.Senators should note that the current situation is an improvement on arrangements that prevailed prior to the Coalition being elected in March 1996. Under the former Keating/Beazley Labor Government, junior rates of pay would have ceased to be lawful on 22 June 1997, under legislation introduced by the Labor Party in 1993 and 1994. Without the Coalition Government's deferral of this law thousands of young people would already have lost their jobs to Labor Party ideology.This Government's preferred position has always been that junior rates should be allowed to continue indefinitely—a position reflected in the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1996 as originally introduced into this Parliament. However, following discussions with the Australian Democrats when that bill was before the Senate, the Government agreed as a temporary measure to limit the exemption to a further three years, and to put in place a mechanism for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to review the feasibility of abolishing junior rates of pay. This reflected a compromise position only agreed to by the Government as a way of avoiding the legislated removal of junior wages. The Coalition agreed to the review on the clear understanding that our policy would continue to be for the retention of junior rates and that we would seek a mandate for this legislation at the next election. We are now seeking to implement that mandate.It is also the Government's view that in order to provide support for youth employment junior rates should be more widely available. The Government's support for the retention and extension of junior rates was articulated in Minister Reith's Discussion Paper which was issued in June 1998—Protecting Job Opportunities for Young People. More importantly, it was a policy specified in black and white in the Coalition's pre-election workplace relations policy, More Jobs, Better Pay and publicly debated during the last election campaign. That policy has now been endorsed by the Australian electorate. This bill gives effect to that policy.Madam President, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is currently conducting an Inquiry into the feasibility of replacing junior rates with non-discriminatory alternatives, pursuant to section 120B of the Workplace Relations Act. The Government has made a submission to that Inquiry, together with the governments of Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the ACT.In that submission we demonstrate the critical role played by junior rates in maintaining the competitiveness of youth in the labour market and encouraging youth employment. We show that junior wages help young people by giving them a foot in the door into employment.We also demonstrate that any move to abolish junior rates would lead to an increase in youth wages, and in turn have a detrimental effect on youth employment. This would be a highly irresponsible move, particularly given the delicate labour market situation that confronts young people. Quite frankly, this Parliament should be dealing with policy issues designed to put more unemployed young people in jobs (such as the Coalition's unfair dismissal reforms) rather than spend its time (as we now have to) completing the reversal of Labor legislation which would have wrecked existing jobs of young people.Madam President, the anti-discrimination provisions of the Workplace Relations Act are concerned with equality of opportunity just as much as with equality of treatment. In this context, junior wages are a special measure that operates beneficially to meet the particular needs of young people in the labour market, who are generally recognised as needing special assistance. Lower wage costs relative to adults assist young people to gain employment by compensating for the disadvantage that young people experience due to their relatively lower skills, experience and maturity compared with adults. In the Government's view, any theoretical objections to junior rates are greatly outweighed by the inequities that would flow from their abolition. This point was made simply but eloquently in a letter to the Adelaide Advertiser from Paul Madden, Executive Director, Baptist Community Service (SA) when he stated:It seems to me that a fundamental question must be asked: "Is it better for a young person to have a lower wage and the opportunity to develop valuable skills or to have an adult rate and no job at all?" (The Advertiser, 5 November 1998)Madam President, the uncertainty surrounding the current interim arrangements does not create a stable environment for the employment of young people. Young people and employers are entitled to know that their jobs and employing rights are secure. This bill will create that certainty.The importance of this legislation was stressed in a media release from the Australian Retailers Association, which stated:"The failure of the Commonwealth Parliament to pass such amendments will have a massive impact on youth unemployment in Australia" said ARA Chief Executive Officer, Phil Naylor."Our membership survey response which included the employers of about 80 per cent of young people in the retail industry, indicates that about 200 000 jobs would be lost in the retail industry alone." (Australian Retailers Association, Media Release, 2 November 1998)I turn now to the terms of the bill itself.The bill amends provisions in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 that relate to the principal object, awards and agreements, and provisions in the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 that relate to award simplification.The bill will amend the principal object of the Workplace Relations Act. The principal object of the act is to provide a framework for cooperative workplace relations which promotes the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia in a number of ways. The bill will include protecting the competitive position of young people in the labour market, promoting youth employment and reducing youth unemployment as ways in which the workplace relations framework can contribute to economic prosperity and welfare.The bill will insert an additional object and requirements in the Commission under Part VI—Dispute Prevention and Settlement—of the Workplace Relations Act. These will require that the Commission's powers and functions in relation to making and varying awards be performed and exercised in a way that protects the competitive position of young people in the labour market, promotes youth employment and assists in reducing youth unemployment.The Commission will also be required to ensure that, where appropriate, awards provide support for youth employment through appropriate junior rates of pay. For example, where awards apply to work that is or may be performed by young people it is appropriate that they contain junior rates. By protecting existing junior rates, and making junior rates more widely available, these provisions will contribute towards enhanced job opportunities for young people and complement the changes to the principal object of the Workplace Relations Act. They recognise the links between junior wages and youth employment and unemployment. It is an important policy objective of the Coalition that Australia's workplace relations system has as much to do with addressing the interests of the unemployed as the system claims to do for the interests of the employed.An existing requirement to which the Commission must have regard in performing its functions in relation to dispute prevention and settlement is the need to prevent and eliminate discrimination on a number of grounds, including age. A new provision will make it clear that junior wage provisions are not to be treated as constituting discrimination by reason of age.The bill provides a permanent exemption for junior rates from provisions designed to prevent and eliminate age discrimination in certified agreements.The bill amends items 51 and 54 of Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996, which deal with award simplification. In reviewing awards under item 51, the Commission will be required to ensure that if awards apply to work that is or may be performed by young people, they support youth employment by including junior rates of pay where appropriate.The bill amends item 54 by providing a permanent exemption for junior rates from award simplification provisions designed to prevent and eliminate age discrimination in awards.The Government will also proceed to make consequential amendments to the Workplace Relations Regulations to ensure the protection of junior rates in Australian Workplace Agreements.I commend the bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum.ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER HERITAGE PROTECTION BILL 1998The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 was debated and passed by the House of Representatives on the 4th of June 1998. However, the bill lapsed on the prorogation of Parliament and is now being reintroduced. This has given the Government an opportunity to consider the second report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, and to make some changes to the bill.The key features of the bill remain the same and include:. the establishment of a Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection to assist the Minister in the administration of the bill;. encouragement of the resolution of issues by negotiation and mediation;. a requirement that heritage significance be assessed according to indigenous traditions, observances, customs and beliefs;. the provision of protection for culturally sensitive information; and. provision for accreditation of State and Territory heritage protection regimes that meet specified standards.In reintroducing the bill the government has redrafted portions of the earlier bill to clarify some of the existing clauses, and to add some new provisions. A number of the changes arise from consideration of the Joint Committee's reports.The bill now includes a requirement for the Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection to have an understanding of indigenous culture and heritage and an ability to deal with indigenous people in a culturally sensitive manner. This will ensure that the person who fills this pivotal role will have the understanding and expertise to deal with what will often be sensitive and difficult issues.During the Parliamentary Joint Committee hearings it became evident that the term `minimum standards' was creating a significant misunderstanding. The term `minimum' was intended to indicate that the standards represented the essentials of a sound heritage protection regime, not that only a low or minimal level of protection was required. We have decided to clear up this misunderstanding by deleting the word `minimum' and instead referring to `the standards for accreditation of State and Territory heritage protection regimes'.The Committee recommended that the standards for accreditation be amended to require "blanket" protection of heritage areas and objects. Blanket protection implies that all significant areas and objects, whether they have been previously identified or not, are protected and can only be disturbed if permission is granted to do so. This puts the onus on a developer to ensure that no heritage sites are at risk before work goes ahead. In response to this recommendation standard (a) has been redrafted to clarify its intent and ensure that all accredited State and Territory regimes do provide blanket protection. The Parliamentary Joint Committee recommended greater indigenous involvement in decision making on the significance of heritage sites and objects. In order to implement this, standard (c) now requires explicit indigenous involvement in advance work approval processes. This will ensure that indigenous people can be involved at the earliest possible point in any heritage protection issues.The Committee, following the recommendations in the Evatt report, recommended that in order to ensure indigenous involvement in heritage protection processes, that decisions on the significance of areas and objects should be separated from the decisions on protection. In response to this recommendation a new standard has been drafted that mirrors the requirement in the Commonwealth regime for a separation of decisions on significance from decisions on protection. This standard also requires decisions on significance to be made in consultation with indigenous people. This is a significant additional requirement for a State or Territory heritage protection regime and it implements one of the key recommendations in the Evatt report. This will provide for increased indigenous involvement in the administration of any accredited State or Territory heritage protection regime.I am aware that the issue of `national interest' was raised in the debate on this bill in June. It was suggested that national interest be defined in such a way that it is the very act of protecting indigenous heritage that is in the national interest. Amending the bill in this way would potentially involve the Commonwealth in all indigenous heritage protection cases. This is contrary to the Government's policy of providing a clear delineation of responsibilities between the Commonwealth and accredited States. Indeed, if the Commonwealth were in a position to review all State decisions, there would be no incentive for States or Territories to seek accreditation.The standards for accreditation will ensure that accredited State and Territory regimes offer comprehensive and fair heritage protection processes. There should be no need for recourse to the Commonwealth in an accredited regime, except where it can be argued that a site has some special qualities that suggest that its protection may be in the national interest. It should be remembered that where a State or Territory does not meet the standards for accreditation the Commonwealth regime will always be available as an avenue of last resort.A number of the minor suggestions made by the Committee have not been included in the revised legislation. For example, the Commonwealth is requiring a high level of protection but not uniformity of practice between State and Territory regimes. States and Territories have unique social, cultural and legislative environments and the standards need to allow flexibility for States and Territories to have regimes that can meet the prescribed standards but in a locally appropriate way.Some minor changes have been made to the saving provisions in the bill to ensure a smooth changeover in Victoria from Part IIA of the 1984 act to new State heritage protection legislation.In conclusion I would note that reform of indigenous heritage protection legislation is long overdue. The 1984 act was introduced as a temporary measure by Labor and has presented many difficulties for both indigenous people and other interests, and for governments administering the act. I am pleased that we will be able to address these problems through this bill. The bill will ensure that a fair and transparent process is established for the protection of indigenous heritage at both the Commonwealth and State levels.NATIONAL MEASUREMENT AMENDMENT (UTILITY METERS) BILL 1998The National Measurement Act 1960 (the act) provides the legislative basis for the Australian national measurement system. The objective of this act is to ensure that measurements are made on a consistent basis throughout the nation and are compatible with measurements in other countries.While trade measurement in reticulated water, electricity and gas already falls within the ambit of the act, the act does not provide a detailed measurement control system to enable traders to easily comply with its broad requirements for legal traceability. This bill amends the act to provide mandatory requirements for specified utility meters as recommended by the Review of Australia's Standards and Conformance Infrastructure (the Kean Report).The Kean committee recognised that the present system of utility measurements was wasteful, inadequate in today's environment and inappropriate to address the privatisation and corporatisation of utility authorities. In recommending an amendment of the National Measurement Act, the Kean committee was aware that a State and Territory based solution would not effectively address the trans-border nature of the utility sector which includes the National Electricity Grid and inter-State gas pipelines.The proposal contained in this bill has significant benefits for utility meter manufacturing industry, utility companies and consumers. National pattern approval and verification will provide local manufacturers of utility meters with the efficiencies and benefits of scale of a single national market for utility meters.As a consequence of international harmonisation of requirements, the proposal will enhance export opportunities for local manufacturers of utility meters. While the proposal will expose local manufacturers to additional competition from imported meters, it will at the same time safeguard them against unfair competition from substandard imported meters.The proposal contained in this bill will provide direct benefits for utility companies by eliminating multiple, inefficient testing of utility meters for pattern approval purposes that is only partially effective. The associated cost burden will be removed and the exposure of these companies to risk arising from the purchase of substandard utility meters will be greatly reduced.Consumer confidence in utility metering will be increased because of the independent third party approval and auditing of meters, reducing the present asymmetry of information between utility companies and consumers. This will translate into indirect benefits to utility companies because of fewer consumer complaints and a consequent reduction in transaction costs.The proposal contained in this bill will cause additional costs for utility meter manufacturers but these will be more than compensated for by the efficiencies and benefits of scale associated with a single, national market for utility meters and the increased access to export opportunities. In addition the proposal has clear benefits for consumers, utility authorities and State and Territory regulators. However it is not possible to quantify these ben efits. There will be minor costs to the National Standards Commission associated with coordinating the systemsThe bill broadens the objects of the act to embrace the verification of utility meters and extends the functions of the National Standards Commission to ensure that utility meters used for trade are verified. The bill introduces a new section 4A that defines the extent to which the amended act will exclude State and Territory laws relating to utility meters used for trade. In particular this section provides for the concurrent operation of State and Territory laws relating to the reverification of utility meters used for trade and the in-field replacement of meters that give inaccurate measurements.The bill requires that utility meters used for trade, not prescribed as exempt in the regulations, must be verified by the National Standards Commission or a verifying authority appointed by the Commission for that purpose. One of the requirements for verification is that the pattern (design) of the utility meter has been approved by the Commission under the existing pattern approval provisions of the act.Provision is made for the Commission to audit the work of verifying authorities to ensure both that the meters conform to their approved pattern and that they have been correctly verified. Enforcement provisions are included to provide the Commission with access to evidence in the event that offence provisions of the bill are contravened. These enforcement powers are similar to those of a trade measurement inspector in a State or Territory jurisdiction.It is intended that all classes of utility meters will initially be exempted from the application of these new provisions. Following the satisfactory completion of consultations and the expiry of an agreed introductory period, the exemption will be lifted for a particular class of utility meter. Provision is made in the bill for utility meters already being used for trade to remain in use provided that they give accurate measurement.Recommendation 6 of the Kean Report, to which this bill relates, has been accepted by both the present government and the previous government. In addition, the proposal is strongly supported by the utility meter manufacturing industry.Madam President, I commend the bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum.CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) CHARGES BILL 1998This bill and the complementary Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998 re-introduce into the House two bills that lapsed in the Senate upon the calling of the recent Federal election. The previous bills were passed by the House on 4 December last year.The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998 imposes charges for applications for classification of publications, films and computer games and for related services provided for under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995.This bill and the Classification (Publications Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998, give effect to the Government's decision that full cost recovery will be introduced for the Office of Film and Literature Classification. Further details of this and other measures are contained in the Second Reading speech for the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998.I commend the bill to the Senate.CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT BILL 1998The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill amends the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 consequent upon the proposed enactment of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998. Among other matters, the Amendment Bill contains administrative provisions relating to the collection of charges for classification and other services imposed by the Classification Charges Bill.The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 is part of a Commonwealth, state and territory co-operative legislative scheme for the classification of publications, films and computer games and enforcement of classification decisions made under it. That act establishes the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board and provides the procedures for the classification of material. Complementary state and territory enforcement legislation contains offences relating to the exhibition, sale or hire of publications, films and computer games, both classified and unclassified, in the respective jurisdictions.At present, fees for applications for classification and other services under the act are prescribed in regulations made under that act. From 1 November 1997 the fees so prescribed are set at one hundred percent cost recovery for the provision of those services.In the May 1997 Budget context, the Government decided that from 1 July 1998 full cost recovery would be introduced for the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) by changes to the charging structure for those using its services. The Office services the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board.This timetable was not met as the former bills did not secure passage through the Senate prior to 1 July 1998. Those bills lapsed following the calling of the recent Federal election.The Government's decision means that revenue from classification and other services provided by the OFLC must also cover activities ancillary to the provision of classification services. These include certain research, policy development, ministerial support and payments to the states and territories for enforcement and related purposesThese activities are related to an efficient and effective co-operative classification and enforcement scheme. They assist in ensuring that the classification decisions are acceptable to applicants and the public generally and in maintaining the integrity of the Australia-wide scheme. However, their cost cannot, for Constitutional reasons, be included in the fee for the provision of classification services.Implementation of the Government's decision therefore requires that charges for classification and related services be imposed as a tax. This decision ensures that those who benefit directly, and indirectly, from the work of the OFLC pay the full cost of its operations.The Amendment Bill proposes the removal of references to prescribed fees in the Principal Act and their replacement with references to charges prescribed under the Classification Charges Bill.An exception applies to applications by the Commonwealth, states and territories for use in the investigation and prosecution of an offence. The efficacy of the co-operative censorship scheme depends on effective enforcement. Under the intergovernmental agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories the fees for applications for classification for enforcement purposes will not exceed the cost of providing the services and these fees will continue to be prescribed by regulations under the actThe Amendment bill also removes some of the formal requirements in making applications for classification of material for the investigation and prosecution of an offence. This is to overcome the failure of two prosecutions in 1997 due to a lack of compliance with all the formal requirements of an application for classification of the material concerned.The charges are set out in the Schedules to the Classification Charges Bill. They have been set at an amount calculated to meet the estimated revenue needed to fully fund the OFLC's operations for the first full financial year in which they take effect. The structure of the charges set out in the Schedules reflect the approach which was agreed to with the industry, in the current fees regulations which came into effect on 1 November 1997.The Classification Charges Bill makes provision for amending the Schedules by regulations made under that bill. There is no real alternative to such a provision as the revenue needed to meet full cost recovery for the OFLC will vary over time and the charges set out in the Schedule will need to be revised accordingly. Parliament will, however, retain ultimate control over the level of charges to be imposed.The Government is aware that increases in the cost of classification and other services are of concern to some of the users of OFLC services. In particular, concern has been expressed about the effect of cost increases on the classification of material that has a limited market appeal in Australia.As foreshadowed in the Attorney-General's second reading speech last year on the former bill, he appointed an independent body to review the charges structure with a view to seeing whether greater equity can be provided to applicants who submit material for classification that has a more limited market appeal.That review was undertaken by Ernst and Young in Melbourne and a copy of their Review of Statutory Charges for the Classification Publications, Films and Computer Games was made available to representatives of the opposition parties and independents in the Senate and, more recently, to the opposition spokesman on Attorney-General's matters.The review's conclusion was that there is no single compelling argument supporting continuation of the proposed charging structure or, alternatively, changing the charging structure to provide concessions based on limited market appeal. In light of the factors set out in the review, the Government does not support limited market appeal mechanisms of the kind canvassed in the review.However, the Government considers that there is a case to enable certain material, where limited distribution is involved, to be classified at reduced rates. This should encourage diversity of specialised product availability by making it more economic to release such product onto the Australian market. It should also aid compliance by distributors of such material with Australia's classification system.The bill therefore allows the Director of the Classification Board to waive, in whole or in part, classification charges for limited distribution special interest material which comprises a documentary record of an event or which is of a cultural or like nature if it is in the public interest to do so.This discretion is to be exercised in accordance with principles issued by the Director with the agreement of the Commonwealth Attorney-General after consultation with state and territory censorship ministers. Examples of special interest material for limited distribution that could be covered by the expanded waiver power are set out in the explanatory memorandum.The Government has been advised that the impact of the expanded waiver power on the Office of Film and Literature Classification's budget will not be significant—a loss of revenue of about $54,000 per year—although it is expected that up to 100 publications, films or computer games may be classified at reduced rates per annum.Under the Principal Act, films for business, accounting, professional, scientific or educational purposes are exempt from classification as is computer software falling within those categories that contains a computer game. It may be that, in the medium term, the extent and the structure of the current exemption scheme needs to be reviewed to see whether it should be extended to include some of the material that the Government proposes be included in the waiver of charges provision. However, this requires negotiation with state and territory censorship ministers and amendment of complementary state and territory legislation. The Attorney-General raised this matter at the last censorship ministers' meeting and further work on the proposal is being undertaken.Implementation of full cost recovery for the OFLC means that the industry should expect that the OFLC will be efficient and effective in delivering high quality and impartial services on behalf of the Australian community which represent value for money to its clients. To this end, a statutory time limit will be introduced to apply to classification decisions, requiring that such decisions be made within twenty business days following receipt of a valid application or such shorter period as is prescribed in the regulations. Failure to comply with this requirement must be reported upon in the OFLC's Annual Report.Furthermore, in order to ensure appropriate industry input into the operations of the OFLC, it is proposed to establish formal consultative mechanisms. This will give the industry opportunities for providing input into charges scales and appropriate performance standards for the Office.The imposition of charges by the Classification Charges Bill is estimated to generate an additional $2.15 million per annum in savings to the budget in the first full financial year of its operation.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Quirke) adjourned.Ordered that the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998 and the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998 be listed on the Notice Paper as one order of the day and the remaining bills be listed as separate orders of the day.Committees19151915UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—A message has been received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate of appointments to joint committees. Details of the memberships will be recorded in the Senate Journal and Notice Paper .Bills1915r599191520:51:001915O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Tierney, the Chairman of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998, together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—I should also advise the Senate that the report was only finalised and sent to the printer this afternoon and that printed copies of the report are expected to be available tomorrow morning.Bills1915r6531915Debate resumed.20:52:001915Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Before the debate was interrupted this afternoon I said I would have a few comments to make about the Greenfields Foundation. I think I told the Senate that I was recently looking for a home loan. I had gone around and had a look at the Commonwealth Bank and what they were offering. Their interest rate was, I think, about 5.59 per cent. There was a `honeymoon' rate for the first year—a rather interesting name. I had a look at all the other banks. They were all blueing with each other but how much they are not going to charge me each month and what the interest rate is going to be and all the rest of it. But I have to tell the Senate that there is not any organisation that offers a deal like the Greenfields organisation. That is the best deal I have ever seen. I do not think there are even any set-up charges for the loan. I would like to find out about it.I have taken the trouble to ask whether I can get an application for it, because I am told even that is free—whereas, if you go into the bank, you have to pay for the application form. What I have found out from the Greenfields Foundation is that you do not have to pay any set-up charges. In fact, all you have to do is ring Ron Walker and he organises the whole thing for you.Ron loaned the Liberal Party a rather large amount of money. I believe it was $4.65 million. The loan went through a few different sets of hands and eventually turns up under the name of the Greenfields Foundation. We on this side of politics would like to know a bit more about that. We would like to know where the application forms are and the addresses of some of the directors of this show, and we would like to know how we can get on the bandwagon for such a favourable piece of treatment as this.We note in this particular bill that there are changes, which we do not support, to the disclosure laws to make it very much easier for the Ron Walkers of this world to go around with their necessary brown paper bags, pick up money from a whole range of different sources, source that into the Liberal Party for administration, electoral purposes or whatever, and not have to go through any of the disclosure rules. As I understand it, the Labor Party has agreed that what was originally a disclosure requirement over $500 should legitimately become $1,500. As I understand it, we will not be supporting the proposals to lift that to $5,000 in the name of individuals and to $10,000 for corporations.There are provisions in this legislation such that if you do this right and you strip the donations around to $4,999—if the legislation were to be passed—to every member of a family and then you set up a couple of dummy companies, you can actually give a very large amount of money in political donations to political parties in this country. I think it is very unlikely that anyone is going to take advantage of these sorts of loopholes for the Labor Party. I think it is much more likely that this is going to take place on the other side of politics.There is a smell about this stuff—there is a real serious smell in this bill—and the Greenfields Foundation is something which is not smelling too sweet for the government. We have been told, of course, that all this fundraising is kept at arms-length—and who are we to be cynical about that; why would we dispute this? There is not a great deal of transparency about these matters. In fact, we have found no answers at all in our inquiries about Greenfields through the Electoral Commission and the various avenues open to us in the parliamentary sense.We are now finding that the proposal in this bill will greatly open up the potential for abuse, and that potential for abuse is something which I think all senators should be concerned about. I think it is impossible in a democracy to not keep a strict track of the record of political donations. I think it is essential. Where do you put the figure? The figure is probably much more accurately placed at $1,500 for single donations before disclosure has to take place than it is at $5,000 and multiples thereof. In all legislation before us, I think it is necessary for us to prove the integrity of our political system to our constituents. It is my view that this legislation does not do that.I will not take up any more time of the Senate tonight—I have had a good go at this. I just wish to say that this bill has a number of pieces in it which I hope are firmly rejected in the Senate.20:57:001916Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The most important provision in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 is section 245, subsection (1), which reads:It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election. There has been a great deal of debate about that issue not only in Australia but around the world. The minister at the table has made his views clear and I have read learned articles written by him in various magazines over time, but I think—and I hope he takes this in the right spirit—he is quite wrong. I think a citizen is obliged to have a say in the sort of government that is to rule over him or her. In a democracy there is the idea that it is the people who speak, and it is only proper and right that the people should decide who constitutes the parliament that will rule the nation in so far as it passes the laws and keeps a proper scrutiny over the executive.The social, cultural and moral values form more of the legislation that comes before this chamber than might be thought from a first perusal of it. The Senate is now dealing with a bill which, at one level, could be seen as a bill that deals with mechanics. The bill appears to deal with the machinery of elections—for example, the periods within which certain actions must be taken, the monetary criteria according to which notification about donations has or has not been given, the people who can witness an enrolment application and so on. Yet the reality is that these amendments, which seem to deal with figures, limits and criteria, are influenced markedly by social, cultural and moral values. If you look at items 10, 18, 29, 36, 49, 59 and 69 of the bill, then you will see what I mean. The first five of those items make changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the last two to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. They take away the vote from anybody who is serving a sentence of imprisonment at the time the election is held. This matter has been talked about today, and so it should be because it is a matter of great significance.The fact that a person is serving a custodial sentence should not mean that it automatically flows that he or she is denied a vote in circumstances where otherwise he or she would have a right and a duty to vote. This is particularly so given the law that operates in the Northern Territory. In the Northern Territory people are now compelled to go to gaol for offences for which the rest of Aus tralia would be visited with, at most, a fine and probably with an adjournment of the proceeding.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—An adjournment?SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—As Senator O'Chee would know, there is a provision for adjourning matters for up to 12 months, which gives a person the opportunity to act well during that period and, if he or she does so, then the matter is dismissed. No doubt on the many occasions you have appeared for people, perhaps in Victoria, Senator O'Chee, you would have sought that adjournment.This present bill says about anybody who has offended, no matter how light the offence, that that person should not have a chance to participate in the civil life of the country in any way at all. This is the concept of the civilly dead—the concept that says that anybody, whether he or she is in gaol for, say, an offence connected with drunkenness, a minor assault or whatever reason and no matter what the time, should not be allowed to vote. It denies the idea that people are a mixture of the dark side and the light side, a mixture of the good and the bad. It denies the idea that everybody has a chance for redemption. To simply say without proper evidence that people should not be allowed to vote simply because they are in gaol for an offence is going beyond what is decent. I corrected myself then to say `in gaol serving a term of imprisonment for an offence' because if a person is in gaol awaiting trial and has not been convicted, then he or she does have an ability to have a vote.It is a dreadful thing to regard people as being completely divorced from society, as not being citizens, no matter what the quality and no matter what the character of the offence. As a decent set of people we should not allow that to happen. It does not happen in many of the other states. In my own state of Victoria, there is no bar to voting for people who are imprisoned.The other thing I want to say about that is that people must be gaoled in the Northern Territory for an offence of theft, be it $5 or less. If a person should go to gaol for stealing or receiving $5 or goods of that value, then that amount of $5 must be a very significant thing. But when you look to this bill, keeping in mind that this bill will take away from a person who has stolen $5 the right to vote, given that that is what this bill must do in terms of those people in the Northern Territory, why then do you switch your attitude to that sum in subsection 305B(1) and substitute $10,000 for $1,500? It might be worth while me going to that subsection. Subsection 305B(1) deals with donations to political parties and says:If, in a financial year, a person makes gifts totalling $1,500 or more to:(a) the same registered political party; or(b) the same State branch of a registered political party;the person must furnish a return to the Electoral Commission within 20 weeks after the end of the financial year, covering all the gifts that the person made to that political party or branch during the financial year.If this bill is passed, $10,000 will be substituted for $1,500 so there need not be any disclosure for an amount of up to $10,000. So amounts up to $10,000 do not seem to be of great significance in this context, and yet, I repeat, an ordinary person in the Northern Territory stealing $5 will be visited with a term of imprisonment and will have their vote taken away. Why does this bill treat $5 in one way when an ordinary person off the street is charged with an offence and found guilty yet treat amounts up to $10,000 as being fairly insignificant—insignificant in the sense that they do not have to be disclosed—where a political party is concerned?Where does the philosophy that leads to this sort of legislation come from? Before I go to that and the second reading speech, I will fill in another point. It is now going to be more rigorous and more onerous to register as a voter than it has been. If this legislation is passed, there will be new provisions as to how a person can register. In fact, they will have to find someone who can certify their registration, not in terms of it being correct but in terms of that person having signed it. This, it is said, will make the electoral roll more authentic. The justification is the last sentence on the first page of the second reading speech, which says:There is increasing disquiet in sections of the community about the potential for electoral fraud and continuing scepticism regarding the integrity of the electoral roll as the current enrolment process is open to abuse.There is no evidence at all as to what sections of the community are referred to in this second reading speech. In fact, the phrase `there is increasing disquiet in sections of the community' sounds like a mantra, a mantra which is not based on any evidence.Indeed, a lot of this bill is based on a mantra. For example, the issue that I have been dealing with—the taking away of the vote because the person is serving a term in prison—looks very much as if it is based on the mantra that more and more is coming to pollute the political process in this country: law and order. Law and order is a thing that has been brought forward over many generations to justify action which is quite harsh and draconian, and this is no exception. It is the law and order mantra that is operating here. On the second page of the second reading speech it says:The government agrees with the electoral matters committee when it states:. . . that it is unacceptable that the most fundamental transaction between a citizen and the government—[that is] the act of choosing the government at a democratic election—is subject to a far lower level of security than such lesser transactions as opening a bank account, applying for a passport, applying for a driver's licence or registering for social security benefits, to name but a few.One of the problems about that statement is the use of the word `transaction', as if there is some sort of contract, not even the concept of a social contract that Jean Jacques Rousseau might have come out with but more like a commercial contract—a transaction between the citizen and the government. Until now at least, I have never had the idea that an election is a transaction between the government and the citizen. I had a concept that a citizen gave a grant of power, if you like, to a parliament elected in a particular way. In fact, the citizen does not even elect the government of the country; they elect the parliament which in turn elects the government. I must say, it is a misconception and an arrogance on the part of the government to think that they are there, as it were, in some sort of commercial contract with the citizens. That is certainly not the sort of concept that the people in the 17th and 18th centuries would have talked about as being a social contract—that concept of power coming from the citizen and being given over to government. That is not the concept that is put out here; the concept that is put out here is one of a commercial contract that in some way can be treated as such, like a bank account and so on. It is a terrible concept for a country that believes in citizenship and the right of people to vote. The second reading speech goes on to say:Under the act in its present form, it is remarkably easy to place on the roll a dead person's name, a false name, a non-citizen, or a person who is not yet 18. In addition, the enrolment could have a fake or false address.That is creating a straw man to knock down without there being any evidence. There is no evidence, at least in this second reading speech, that would lead to the quite harsh conditions the person has to go through to vote. What is the answer to this, according to the second reading speech? It is this:Accordingly, this bill introduces some of the recommendations of the Electoral Matters Committee report with respect to addressing the potential for electoral fraud.That is interesting because, correctly so, it does not allege that there is electoral fraud; it talks about the potential for electoral fraud. It goes on:The amendments relating to enrolment issues will provide:. for an upgraded witnessing requirement, whereby the witness must be an elector and be in a prescribed class of persons.In a democratic society where everybody is equal, we are now going to have a special class of citizens who can sign a person's application to vote. There are going to be some people who can do that and other people who cannot. We are going to have categories set up amongst our citizens, and we are going to have those classes prescribed by regulations. In my view, an election, voting and the rights of citizens are absolutely fundamental. If they are going to be set out, they should be set out in primary legislation. But these people in this class are going to be distinct and raised above their fellow men and women, and they are going to be prescribed by regulations. Parliament will not get to say who they are going to be; the government will set out the regulations which this parliament can then allow or disallow. If it is so important, why should this category of person be prescribed by regulation? Not only that, the methods of verification are to be prescribed by regulation as well. This is a schizophrenic bill which treats the same sorts of issues, depending on which sorts of circumstances arise, as important or unimportant depending upon how the authors of the bill want the consequences to fall. It is a bill much in need of drastic overhauling.21:17:001919Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I listened to my learned colleague Senator Cooney speak on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 and, after reading the second reading speech, I think one could only come to the conclusion that this government must worry about their own legitimacy to rule. If what they say in the second reading speech is in any way true, one would wonder how many dead people, how many people with false names, how many non-citizens or how many people under 18—if this is the concern of the government—did in effect vote for them at the last election?As my learned colleague has said, the only argument that is put forward for the major thrust of this bill is the argument of potential. One can argue potential ad nauseam until one becomes absolutely wrapped up in it to the extent that one loses sight of reality. If one read the minister's second reading speech on this occasion, one could very fast come to that conclusion. As Senator Cooney rightly pointed out, the minister claimed in the second reading speech that:There is increasing disquiet in sections of the community about the potential for electoral fraud—It does not say which way the electoral fraud worked. It does not say how it worked. It does not say, as my colleague has said, who the culprits were.Without even going too far into the second reading speech, one can only be concerned at the motives of the government. I can assure this chamber that in no way would I or my colleagues, I am sure, have anything to do with fraudulent practices. In these days of modern technology, I understand that many members of the House of Representatives take the time to find out who the new electors enrolled in their electorate are and to write to them to welcome them on to the roll, and in the process hopefully get some kudos. If there is this potential, or if it is even happening, one would soon become aware of false names, false addresses or persons who were not even 18 years of age. Even through the humble resources of a senator writing to constituents, one soon would become fairly aware of where the problems existed. So I think the government is skating on very thin ice in putting forward these major proposals in this piece of legislation.As my colleague Senator Ray said earlier today, it is important that our system of government, which has stood the test of time, is one of the most respected in the world and that what we have put in place has been sound, has operated well and has operated to the advantage of the citizens of this nation. That is what the legislation is about. It is not about working to the advantage of any political party, whether it be either of the major political parties or any of the minor parties. We have a system that is respected. I believe that what the government is seeking to do with some of the principal parts of this legislation is to bring our system into disrepute.The Australian Electoral Commission has always been hardworking. Its staff has been hardworking to ensure the integrity of the act, to ensure the integrity of the role and to ensure that the political parties, as best as they reasonably can, observe the act and its application. As parliamentarians, we must ensure that at all times we are open and transparent and that our political system is equally the same. A feature of our system is that it has been open and transparent, although that has been blotted by the Greenfields Foundation, which has sought to darken that part of our political system. There are essentially three tenets that need to be followed when dealing with electoral reform. Firstly, we must have a system that is open and transparent, as I have already said. Secondly, the system must be an accountable one, and some of the proposals that the government are putting forward remove real accountability. And, thirdly, any system must be credible. One cannot draw any conclusion to the effect that what the government are putting forward in this piece of legislation, the principal points that they are seeking, are in any way credible. The electorate of Australia has shown the scepticism and cynicism of politics, mainstream political parties and in particular its politicians. That is something that I think we will all concede is out there very much in the community—cynicism and scepticism of the politics of the politicians and of the political parties. Hence it is no surprise that we see, as a result of the scepticism and the cynicism that exists out there, the rise of other political forces.Those forces have risen and have emerged to the surface in Australia—one might argue, and I will come to that in a moment, that these forces are now beating a retreat—as a result of the cynicism and the scepticism not of the Electoral Act but of politicians, political parties and politics in general. In that respect, I speak specifically of One Nation. Whilst One Nation reels from the internal ructions that it is currently undergoing, the cynicism and scepticism on which it was built still remain.Of primary concern in this piece of legislation before us is the thing that will increase the cynicism and the scepticism, and that is the increase in the donation disclosure thresholds. That will do nothing but encourage those people who are out there, who are already disaffected by the political system, by the political parties and by the politics of what is going on to be even more so disaffected. Whatever internal ructions are taking place within the One Nation Party will not in any way dispel the disaffection of those people. The first provision I want to address is the extraordinary attempt to exclude a number of first-time voters—I believe in the order of 80,000. The provision, which I think is under item 11 and other items, will discourage people from participating in our political system by making it almost impossible for those people to enrol and to take part in any election that will be called. It will deny them basically their democratic rights.The fact of life is that, if you are going to be beaten in an election at any stage, then you have to face up to the fact. Trying to change the circumstances, trying to alter the structural pattern of the potential voters out there, whilst it might have a short-term success will fail in the longer term. Short-term expediency has always been shown to be a failure. It will, undoubtedly, deliver in the short term but will be calamitous in the longer term. There is no doubt that a contrived result, as with malapportionment in the past or with today's principal changes which envisage cutting out some 80,000 first-time electors, only breeds disillusionment and disaffection. I think senators would agree that we all want as many people as possible to participate in the political process. Looking specifically at the change that will exclude some 80,000 people who enrol once an election has been announced in that week before the close of the rolls in a traditional period. As I understand the legislation, this will now all have to occur within the space of 24 hours. There is no fairness in that. Most young voters do not rush out to enrol for the first time. I have just been through the process where my son turned 18 in January. He is probably more politically aware than most of his other school friends who are in the process of turning 18. Part of his 18th birthday present was a registration card to vote. I think I know where his vote might go on the next occasion, so you don't have to worry about his vote, Senator Ellison. It may interest Senator Ellison to know that, even though that registration card was given to him as part of his birthday present, it still took between three to five days to get him to fill it in and to lodge it at the appropriate place. That is not because of any lack of awareness of the political system or what politics is about; purely and simply it is because that is the nature of the way people are.This attempt to restrict people's right to register to vote is, indeed, abhorrent. I think the government will regret the great disservice it is doing to so many fine young people in our community in cutting them off in such a clear-cut, severe and nasty manner. There is nothing that the coalition could do to offend young people more. Whilst the coalition may well think that many of these people would not vote for them, that is no reason to deny them their natural right to vote. If the government, as indicated in its second reading speech, is worried about the potential for electoral fraud with these new voters—that someone will rush out and plonk tens of thousands of these people on the roll—let me assure it that, if that were to be the case, it would be found out very quickly indeed.The second group of people to be affected are those who have changed their address. As I understand it, there are roughly 320,000—and I have heard this repeated time and time again in this debate—who will have the sum total of three days in which to change their registered address. As I think was said by Senator Faulkner in his address on this issue, these people will be voting in electorates they no longer live in—and, of course, that will not be in any way a true reflection of the voting intentions of the people of Australia.So we will have a distortion—a manufactured distortion—of voting patterns. That, again, leads to cynicism, leads to scepticism and, in the longer term, supports those people who have been disaffected by politics, politicians and political parties. That group of people who have changed their address—and there is a range of them: residents of caravan parks, seasonal workers, university and TAFE students who live away from home, low income earners who change address according to circumstances and work availability—will find that they are disadvantaged by the proposals to cut the rolls much earlier than has been the case under the previous legislation.The fact remains that this legislation does nothing to assist young voters, first-time voters or those who are changing their place of residence to get a legitimate vote to elect the government of their choice, regardless of whom the current government may think those people will vote for. Going through the second reading speech, you then find—as alluded to in the address by my Senate friend Senator Cooney, and I will try to use his words—`more rigorous and more onerous tests'.If one looks at the second reading speech, the government talks about `one original form of proof of identity documentation'. How will we know that that is not a fake? There are fake drivers licences, fake birth certificates. So, whilst this measure may well speak with some good intention, it does not address the issue at all. As I understand it, out there in the community, people are buying fake drivers licences and fake birth certificates at will to cover their personal needs.So what is said in the second reading speech does not take away any potential fraud—and I am not one who has been convinced by the argument that there is a great amount of fraud in this area. If we wanted to be honest about it and wanted a system which was free from any error whatsoever—and not that I would advocate this—we would have to tattoo a number on people's foreheads. That would be the most despicable approach we could take. But if anyone can come up with a system which is completely free of failure, then I will take my hat off to them.But certainly what the government advocates in no way goes to serve that purpose. All the government seeks to do is alienate, disenchant and disenfranchise a number of people in our community—and for the grubby little political expediency that all those people may not vote for them. So it just wipes everyone out who has the right to vote. There is no justification whatsoever for doing that. Also, of course, it is a slap in the face for the young people of Australia.I have run out of time for the other issues I was going to talk about. However, I believe that the nub of the issue is really that which my colleague Senator Cooney raised. We are speaking of electoral fraud, we are speaking of scepticism—and the government has done nothing in this legislation to address those issues. The Greenfields organisation is just a further example of the way the government wants to hide the truth from the people. It wants to hide donations by lifting certain limits, and it wants to make it easier for people to flaunt the law—or at least the spirit of the law.21:37:001922Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 is an important piece of legislation. It is legislation for which this government has sought to secure passage for some 12 months or so. It was originally aimed at getting this legislation through the parliament prior to the last election. With that in mind, one has to examine the motives behind the bill and the devices that this government has sought to institute through this bill.As I understand the situation, the problem essentially arose because the government was not able to organise its legislative program with sufficient efficiency to secure the intended designs of the Liberal Party political administration in these matters. If one looks at the detail contained in this bill, one can understand just how fortunate it was that the parliament did not consider these matters before the last election. If you examine the matters that come to the fore in this bill, you will see that in the first instance there is an attempt being made by way of this legislation to essentially introduce a very undemocratic piece of legislation. It has been described in the minority report canvassing these issues as a crassly partisan and cynical approach by government to seek the early closure of the electoral rolls in such a manner as to manipulate and gain a very short-term advantage in what the government believes will be matters to its strength in any election campaign.This has arisen essentially because in recent times the Liberal Party has expressed considerable concern that other political organisations in the country are able to enrol more people in the electoral cycle, that they have been somehow outclassed in that manner and that the electoral drives that have been conducted by political organisations in this country are perceived by members of the government to be illegitimate. We have seen this sort of argument presented by conservative governments all around the world. They are not happy to see a widespread enrolment of Aboriginal persons. As we see in the United States, the conservative forces there are unhappy about the widespread enrolment of various minority groups in the United States which are perceived to be a threat to the status quo.Similarly, in this country there is a view being expressed—a long held view—that various groups in our community should not legitimately be on the roll. Conservative forces have the perception that we should not be encouraging people to be citizens of the country, that we should not be encouraging people to participate in the affairs of the country. It is always stated in such an underhand way as to suggest that there have been some irregularities conducted which would delegitimise the spreading of the citizenship entitlements to the electoral system.The truth of the matter is that the Australian electoral system is internationally regarded as being of very high quality. The petty-minded attitudes that are expressed by some elements in the government about the extent to which persons are enrolled in this country and that citizenship has been developed and that people do participate in the electoral cycle demonstrate yet again the narrowness of the thinking that conservative entities have. I have heard Senator Minchin talk on many occasions about what he sees to be the importance of a voluntary voting system. At the heart of that concern for people like Senator Minchin is the fact that too many people are involved in the political process, that too many people are engaged in a discussion on public affairs and that too many people vote.It is suggested to us that this means there have to be changes to the electoral system so as to prevent persons from participating in the electoral fortunes of this country. This is a very regressive point of view. It is an attitude that, frankly, demeans the parliament. Instead of encouraging people to participate and to take an interest in community affairs, they are restricting access to the decision making process and what appears to me to be essentially an unsubstantiated case that there has been widespread electoral fraud in this country. It is aimed squarely at delegitimising the democratic processes in this country which from time to time elect people other than Liberals. It is all very well if they elect Liberals, but it is not such a good thing for this government if there are other political points of view represented in this chamber, for instance. We have heard this evening the sorts of views that have been expressed about the need to change the voting system in such a way as to exclude a range of views that might otherwise be represented here.The other issues of concern here go to the use and the abuse of data that is collected through the Electoral Commission. This is a very important issue. I think the questions of privacy are fundamental to the way in which we all expect governments to treat information. With that in mind, while we support the need to ensure that there is appropriate knowledge of the nature of our electoral system so that the political institutions in this country have a firm grasp of the people that we are trying to represent—and that is contained in measures in this bill which the opposition are supporting—there are other issues which arise about the commercial abuse of privacy.With that in mind, the opposition feels that the proposed penalties that this government is suggesting in this bill quite clearly are grossly inadequate. We are arguing that there needs to be much more substantial sanction against commercial operations which seek to abuse privacy. There is no substantive argument in this chamber about the commercial advantage that could be taken from the misuse of the electoral system for persons who want to use information contained in electoral rolls to make a quid.This is no doubt in my mind that there are matters which require further attention, and the opposition's amendments go some way to ensuring that there is a proper sanction against the misuse of electoral data. I think the penalties that Senator Faulkner has proposed of a $110,000 fine for breaches of these confidentiality questions are appropriate and ought attract the support of senators right around this chamber. I trust that is the case, but one never knows in this business and one is never surprised by what occurs here.There is a very serious matter concerning this bill, and that is the failure of the government to face up to its obligations in regard to appropriate disclosure to protect the democratic ethos in this country, especially seen in the manner in which this government is seeking to increase from $1,500 to $5,000 the threshold for disclosure, which of course would see significant change in the amounts of money that would be required to be disclosed. Of course in that way we know once again in a very narrow, very partisan, very undemocratic and very cynical way this government is seeking to advantage itself by what it sees to be a short-term political advantage. And when we consider on top of that the advantages that come with tax deductibility, it is quite clear that this is, once again, an opportunity for the conservative political parties, who naturally do have an advantage in terms of their relationship with those that have wealth and power in this country and who have the capacity to fund electoral campaigns.And there is a real concern emerging about the clearly, transparently devious devices that are being pursued by the coalition in regard to its fundraising activities—and I speak here of the Greenfields scam that is being organised in such a way as to ensure that the minimum level of disclosure is reported. I notice that the Australian Electoral Commission has finally taken steps to address these matters. I notice that, of course, there is an appeal mechanism available to the principals of the Greenfields outfit. They have not sought to exercise it yet; one expects they will but, again, one should never be surprised. I hope the Australian Electoral Commission is able to bring before this parliament and before the public detailed information on the way in which these scams have been organised by the Liberal Party to secure advantage for itself in the way in which loans are offered at minimal interest rates and in such a manner as to prevent the identity of the donors of those funds being realised to the public.I notice in Victoria, where of course I have some interest, that the treasurer of the Liberal Party has done extremely well, and of course has himself personally bankrolled the Liberal Party not so long ago in the loans he was able to secure from the National Australia Bank. That raised some serious issues, particularly given his associations with major events projects in Melbourne. I speak here of Ron Walker, the Liberal Party treasurer. I speak here of the association he has with the casino in Melbourne, and of course I speak here of his association with various international major events promotions, which are clearly aimed at securing very large sums of money.One has every expectation that the questions being raised when these international events are promoted are linked to the capacity to donate to the Liberal Party, especially with Jeff Kennett obviously working in that way, and he is quite unashamed in his approach. Jeff Kennett in fact has no shame when it comes to discussing these sorts of issues. I trust that the Australian Electoral Commission will be able to get to the bottom of the Greenfields Foundation, and I trust there will be steps taken to prevent these scams operating into the future.Finally, might I say that this bill contains what I think are some very serious attacks upon human rights, particularly on the rights of prisoners. Nowhere can I find in any discussion of Australian law—and I am not as learned as perhaps Senator Cooney is on these matters; I do appreciate Senator Cooney's strong representations to this chamber on these questions—that the conditions of punishment are part of the penalties that one has inflicted upon one for breaches of the law. So when it comes to the question of voting, I think every senator here is entitled to ask the question: why is it that this government proposes to remove the right to vote for some prisoners—and clearly those who are on very short sentences that happen to be confined in electoral time are prevented from voting—whereas others will still be entitled to vote? I do ask the question about whether this legislation is seeking to undermine Australia's commitment to our obligations under international law in terms of the provisions and protection of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I say to you that this is a bill that clearly is designed to manipulate the short-term advantage to the government.Debate interrupted.Adjournment192410000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 9.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.192421:50:001924Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I take the opportunity in this adjournment debate to record my condolences over the death of His Majesty King Hussein bin Talal to the people of Jordan and to the members of the Western Australian Jordanian-Australian friendship association, which is led by Mr Jasser Samardali. There is no doubt that King Hussein was an important figure in the politics of the Middle East from the time that he assumed the crown at the age of 17 in 1952, which is quite a long time ago. In fact, his long uninterrupted tenure in the monarchy made him the longest-ruling monarch in the modern world.King Hussein will be remembered as someone who made an outstanding contribution to world peace and who worked tirelessly and with great courage to bring stability and an end to fighting in the Middle East. For the record of the Senate, I would like to read from the editorial of the West Australian regarding the death of King Hussein in the paper dated 8 February 1999. It said:King Hussein has been of monumental influence in reducing tensions in the region. Jordan has been for decades an important buffer between Israel and Arab nations such as Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia. He reputedly was the only Arab leader the Israelis could see as a friend.After the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, he was instrumental in drafting the United Nations Security Council resolution calling on Israel to withdraw from all the Arab lands it occupied in the 1967 war in exchange for peace. The resolution has served as the benchmark for all subsequent peace negotiations.In 1991, the monarch played a pivotal role in convening the Madrid peace talks and providing an umbrella for Palestinians to negotiate their future as part of a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. After decades of secret contacts with Israeli leaders, King Hussein signed a peace treaty with the Jewish state in 1994. It was opposed by many Palestinians who had made Jordan their home after losing their lands to the Jews. But King Hussein stood his ground and the treaty was a major step towards lasting peace in the Middle East.In conclusion, I record my respect for such a great man as King Hussein and assure Mr Samardali and the members of the Western Australian Australian-Jordanian friendship society that the memory of King Hussein has been honoured here in the Senate today.192521:53:001925Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I want first of all tonight to pay tribute to the life and work of former Senator Neville Bonner, as I did not have the opportunity to do so during the condolence motion this afternoon.Neville Bonner was, first and foremost, a very proud Aborigine and a very proud Aboriginal Australian. He was a strong advocate for social justice. Many words have been spoken in praise of this special Australian, the first Aboriginal person to sit in the national parliament and, of course, in this place. I would like to add my endorsement to all those voices who have recognised Neville Bonner's commitment to tolerance and forgiveness. I think that in the current debate about reconciliation, his voice was a very timely reminder to us all about how that debate should be conducted.I first met Neville Bonner in 1966, just prior to planning the referendum, at an OPAL conference. Many people in the chamber probably do not know what OPAL was or, indeed, is. OPAL stands for One People of Australia League. It was an organisation that sought reconciliation long before we actually thought of that process. It was an organisation made up of many different people throughout Queensland; it was very much a Queensland organisation. Neville Bonner was one of the leading lights of OPAL.I remember this conference in 1966, because it was the first occasion I had been to an OPAL conference, and I remember Neville Bonner speaking with considerable criticism of the director of Native Affairs as, of course, the Aboriginal department was called in those days. The then director was called Mr Killoran. Mr Killoran had some very definite ideas about what place Aborigines should have in Queensland society. I remember Neville Bonner standing up and calling him `sir'. I must admit, having heard Mr Killoran speak, I was rather surprised that Neville Bonner would be gracious enough to call him `sir', but he said, `Sir, you may have your views, but my people will speak and act according to our consciences.' He said it in such a quiet, dignified way that I felt sorry for Mr Killoran, although I do not often have feelings of concern about that particular gentleman, because his policies were very paternalistic and dictatorial. It totally took the wind out of his sails when Neville Bonner would quietly put him back in his place. I do not think anybody else at that conference succeeded in putting Mr Killoran back in his place, but Neville Bonner certainly did.At the time, there were high hopes for what the referendum would achieve but, being one of the young stirrers at the conference—as some of you might imagine—I well remember it was Neville Bonner who said, `We cannot expect too much too soon.' Over his lifetime, he probably experienced considerable disappointment about the pace of reform. He did not expect too much too soon in 1966. He wanted the referendum passed and he was prepared to work with all Australians to achieve the goals of the referendum. I had conversations with him over the years where an issue of the day would be of great concern to him, but he would shrug and say, `I suppose we just have to keep going. Eventually, we will see change for my people.'Neville Bonner was vitally linked to ensuring that the parliament began the slow process of understanding his people. I would say, Madam President, that this parliament has—and, indeed, all parliaments have—shown that it is, indeed, a slow process. Neville Bonner was more patient than some of us were with the pace of change, the pace of recognition. He was very tolerant and restrained in his insistence that people listen and try to understand the suffering of the past and the need to build for the future. My sincere condolences go to his wife, Heather, and all members of his extended family.In speaking about his life, I wanted to speak particularly of his commitment to reconciliation, which was symbolised at his funeral by the indigenous and non-indigenous pallbearers. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend his funeral because of the vagaries of Cyclone Rona bearing down at the time. Neville Bonner's generosity of spirit, I think, is the hallmark of his contribution. It enabled him to forgive his critics. Like all independent minded individuals, he had strong views. He had his critics in both the indigenous community and the non-indigenous community, but his particular generosity of spirit enabled him to forgive that criticism or just let it be brushed aside. He would then turn that negative comment or experience into a fresh opportunity to serve his community.He did this when he left the parliament. He left the parliament in the year that I entered the parliament, so I did not have the opportunity of working in this place with him. But I certainly worked with him during his period as a board member of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and particularly in his role as a senior official visitor to correctional centres in Queensland. He was particularly concerned about the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the way in which those recommendations were implemented.He more recently became the head of the peak Indigenous Advisory Council giving advice to the Queensland government. As I am sure all senators are aware, it is not easy giving advice to government on any subject, but it is particularly difficult to give supportive advice—advice that is true to his ideals and the expectations of his people. He was very well regarded by both government and his people for the work that he did in giving advice to the Queensland government. One of his last official duties was another first at the opening of the Queensland parliament last June when he spoke in what was a very moving statement about reconciliation and the need for the Queensland parliament to become vitally involved in reconciliation.192622:02:001926Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Tonight I rise to remember the work and life of a great man, a former Premier of my home state, South Australia, the Hon. Donald Allan Dunstan. I was honoured to attend Don Dunstan's memorial service on Friday to honour his memory, along with many thousands of people not only from South Australia but also from across the country and, in some cases, across the world. In fact it was a wonderful celebration of this man's life, his work, his politics, his family, his love of the arts. It took place in the Festival Centre in South Australia.There was a moving array of speakers, including leading and political figures such as former Prime Minister, the Hon. Gough Whitlam; the South Australian Premier, John Olsen; the opposition leader, Mr Mike Rann; Lowitja O'Donoghue; and his family, specifically his son, Andrew Dunstan. It was a celebration and commemoration of a legacy—not only a Labor legacy but also a labour legacy and a legacy to commitment to social justice that many people in that state for many years have taken heart from.I bumped into one senator—and he is in the chamber tonight—who said to me, `But you are too young. Aren't you too young to remember Don Dunstan as Premier?'4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—No. I actually said, `But you're a Democrat.'3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Senator Schacht interjects, I am sure, in the most gracious form, considering the nature of tonight's debate. Yes, perhaps that points to the fact that social justice, commitment to tolerance, multiculturalism, indigenous rights, the arts and all those wonderful things he stood for are values that should be hopefully shared and perpetuated across the political spectrum. Of course, reality is that they are not always. But his legacy was one that touches many more Australians, not those specifically from one political party.In relation to the comment that someone may be too young to remember his work, of course no-one is too young or too old to remember a legacy or the life and principles of a great man. I actually do remember Don Dunstan as Premier but mostly in his capacity as an arts lover. My mother was a former and the first arts editor for the Advertiser, which meant that I used to go to a lot of theatre events and festival events as her date, if you like. I remember quite amazingly on occasions meeting with the great man himself. He remains an inspiring man and an influence in my political life.He was a great social reformer. In fact, on Friday Bob Ellis asked the question: can one person really make a difference? Of course he knew full well the answer, I suspect. The reality is that individuals and legislation can change lives for the better. He did change lives. He did change lives through his work not only as an activist and campaigner but also as a legislator. He was a visionary. He was responsible for legislation that was quite groundbreaking.He was a strong advocate of indigenous rights. When the Labor Party was elected to government in South Australia in 1965, he became the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I note that, in the nicest possible way, Senator Schacht has said that he will correct me if I get anything wrong with Labor history here, so I am glad he will be following me. In 1965, he became Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and he pursued policies of self-determination for indigenous people and recognised Aboriginal land rights, which had been rejected by all other Australian governments. Even prior to the 1967 referendum he introduced major legislative reforms. These included the Aboriginal Land Trusts Bill 1966, the Prohibition of Discrimination Act 1966 and the Aboriginal Affairs Act Amendment Act 1966-67.He had a passion for the arts and the completion of the Festival Centre, which we all treasure—and I dearly support the opposition leader's comments on Friday that the Playhouse should be renamed the Dunstan Playhouse. In fact, that is where I first met the former Premier. I would love to see that name change. I do not know whether that was embraced by all on Friday. Senator Schacht might be able to enlighten me, but I wonder if that will happen. I dearly hope that it will. He was Premier at a glowing period in our arts history in South Australia, at a burgeoning time for the arts.My colleague Senator Vicki Bourne would also like some of her thoughts remembered here tonight. She remembers Don Dunstan's commitment to foreign affairs and human rights issues in particular. His heritage was Fijian. He had a lifelong attachment to that nation. After the 1987 coups, he worked vigorously towards promoting Fijian democracy, visiting Vicki on a number of occasions and impressing her with his ongoing commitment to that cause. There is no doubt that he was a major influence on the promulgation of a new constitution in 1990 and the election of a civilian government two years later.He was also a leader in the fight for gay and lesbian rights. His first attempt to reform the laws relating to homosexuality in South Australia was in 1965 when he was Attorney-General. After permission had been granted by cabinet, he was knocked back by caucus. He later supported Peter Duncan's private member's bill which sought to decriminalise homosexual acts. That bill was knocked back by the Legislative Council and it was not until after the 1975 state election that this bill vigorously supported by Don Dunstan became law.I have been particularly inspired by his work in the area of consumer affairs and consumer laws. He initiated an inquiry into consumer legislation in 1966. After being returned to office in 1970, the Dunstan government began a range of reforms designed to implement consumer protections. This included legislation covering unfair advertising, the sale of second-hand cars, door-to-door sales, mock auctions, pyramid selling, manufacturers' warranties, consumer credit, credit rating reports and tenants' rights. Don Dunstan also sought reform in another area in which I have an interest—that is, privacy. In 1974 the Legislative Council of South Australia defeated a government bill which was intended to create a right of privacy. This bill had been opposed by journalists and their representative groups and the Council for Civil Liberties.Much more recently Dunstan spoke out about drug law reform claiming that heroin users should be treated as people with medical problems and that it should be treated as a social problem as opposed to a criminal problem. He fiercely believed in the future of a multicultural Australia. In 1965 at the ALP policy conference he succeeded in removing the words `white Australia' from the ALP's policy. He introduced legislation designed to prevent racial discrimination and encouraged the creation of a vibrant, multicultural community in South Australia, particularly in Adelaide.Don Dunstan remained very involved in South Australian politics, society and culture until his death. He spoke vigorously against those who sought to wind back his reforms in our state. He was sorry that some of his reforms were left unfinished. I know that he was a passionate advocate for the republic. The last time I spoke on a podium with Don Dunstan was in fact in the promotion of a republic and an Australian head of state.Many people around the nation, in our state and indeed across the world mourn his passing, but Dunstan himself said of his memorial:I don't want simply to have some great occasion, where people are nostalgic about what has happened during my period in South Australia. I am determined that my death will be useful.We all have the opportunity to continue the work of Don Dunstan through the creation of the Don Dunstan Foundation. It is to be established at the University of Adelaide in the Department of Social Inquiry and will foster research and education in social development issues. I sent my condolences to his family, to his children, Paul, Andrew and Bronwyn, to his grandchildren and to his partner, Steven Cheng. I found Andrew's words, his son, particularly moving and inspiring on Friday at the memorial. I do promise him that many of us do agree with him and believe that, yes, there is work still to be done. I am sure that there are many people in my state and all over this nation who will work very hard to see that that work is done.192822:12:001928Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Like Senator Stott Despoja, I rise to pay my tribute at the passing of Don Dunstan. Don Dunstan was the greatest political leader South Australia has ever produced since the beginning of European settlement. He had a reputation not only within South Australia but also across the nation and elsewhere in the world that no leader from South Australia has ever had before or ever had since. A number of leaders had big contributions to make in South Australia. They were Sir Thomas Playford and Cameron Kingston, a founder of the Federation. But none of those, when you look at their history, although their achievements were many, achieved the reputation that Don Dunstan did because in every way he had a view and a commitment to issues that were local, state, national and international.He was the first modern leader of the Labor Party after all those barren years of the 1950s and 1960s. It should be remembered that when he was first elected Premier of South Australia in June 1967 he was the first of the modern Labor leaders. He got into office 5½ years before Gough Whitlam, nine years before Neville Wran, 16 years before Brian Burke, 15 years before John Bannon and John Cain, 16 years before Bob Hawke and 22 years before Wayne Goss. All of them presented themselves quite rightly as new modern leaders, but whether they wittingly or unwittingly knew it, they adopted many of the ideas, the substance and the presentational aspects which Don Dunstan had led the way with back in 1967 when it was really tough being a modern Labor leader with a Labor Party that was still coming out of its own internal turmoil.After Gough Whitlam, I believe he was the next most significant person to ensure Labor victory in the 1972 election. During 1970-72 Don accepted countless invitations to campaign for the Labor Party all over Australia. He was the example the Labor Party used that Labor in government could make a difference, could have a reform agenda of substance and electoral success. That was used as an example right across Australia. Dunstan was a modern Labor leader. He encouraged a whole new generation. They call us the baby boomers. I was one of those who was born after the Second World War, who grew up as a teenager in the 1950s and the 1960s and saw the debilitating state of the Labor Party and often wondered whether it was worthwhile to even try.Don showed through his example that it was worth trying, that you could make a difference, that you could reform and change society. Not only did he do that with a modern reform agenda; his election results were spectacular. In five elections in a row in South Australia he never got less than 50 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. I think on four out of the five occasions he got 50 per cent plus of the first preference vote. We in South Australia in the Labor Party look back on those days of the 1970s election results as halcyon days, whereas at the last federal election, unfortunately, our first preference vote was only 34.5 per cent—something like 15 per cent less than Don Dunstan got.I would point out that Don lost the `68 election, his first election, when he got 53 per cent of the first preference vote—not two-party preferred but first preference. The Liberals won the election on the seats, with 42 per cent of the vote, because of the awful gerrymander in South Australia, which had a Liberal rural seat with 3,500 electors in it and an urban seat with nearly 50,000 voters in it—the worst malapportionment in the Western world.Don, from the very day he got elected in 1953 for the marginal seat of Norwood, campaigned to end the gerrymander. He always made that electoral reform one of the central planks of his life. He said that electoral reform is important because unless you get a properly, democratically elected government responsible to all the people you do not get good education services, good health services, good welfare services, good urban planning or good agricultural policy. He never backed away from putting that issue, even if some people said pragmatically, `It is not the major issue we should be campaigning on.'So he was that example to my generation, both in South Australia and the rest of Australia, that Labor was capable of governing and making a difference. In the 1970s, of course, the initiatives he introduced were so many and so varied that it would take volumes to record them all. Senator Stott Despoja has mentioned some of them. I will not attempt to list them here because I would need so much longer than the few minutes I have available to me this adjournment speech.But he did create a pride in South Australia, a pride in the community that the South Australian society stood for something and had a future. Unfortunately, in the last decade that has gone from South Australia and there is a real psychological depression amongst people, who ask whether South Australia does have a future. When Dunstan was Premier, people came from all around the world. Our present lord mayor, a very great lord mayor, Jane Lomax-Smith, said she came from England in the mid-eighties to take a job in Adelaide University because she had heard about Don Dunstan and his government from the other side of the world and she wanted to come and live in the society he was creating. She is still in South Australia and is now one of our pre-eminent citizens. That is the success that Dunstan created in South Australia with his government and his policies.Dunstan was always active, always campaigning. Even in the last year of his life, in April of last year at the Whitlam lecture he was the guest speaker in Adelaide. They started off hiring a hall to seat 200. They had to change it four times to meet the demand. People paid $5 a head to come and hear him speak. And how many turned up at the Entertainment Centre? Five thousand people paid $5 a head to hear a lecture from Don Dunstan 20 years after he had stepped down as Premier. Don was still arguing for the need for a mixed economy, for a social democrat agenda, for the need for government to intervene on behalf of all citizens for an equitable and democratic society. He still was able to capture the imagination, like no other, of those present.I want to pay a personal tribute. I, like so many others, realise that whatever success or otherwise I have had in Labor Party politics in South Australia and here at the national level, I would not have had anywhere near the success or the opportunity if it wasn't for what Don Dunstan created in South Australia. So many like me are perpetually in his debt.As Senator Stott Despoja said, the celebration we had last Friday was magnificent. It was something that we all recognised was in keeping with Don's memory and his achievements. It was done with a range of speakers from all sides of politics who all spoke well. As Gough Whitlam said, if you look for his memorial—he quoted from the memorial for Sir Christopher Wren in St Paul's Cathedral—all you have to do is look around you. You will see the memorial for Dunstan is the Festival Theatre Centre.I want to place on record one other aspect about Don. In the manner of his death, even in the way he faced death, he was still teaching many of us a very careful lesson. Don made it clear that he was a non-religious person. Many of us who are non-religious could see an example of how to face death in a way that is dignified. He said that in his death he wanted to be an example to the rest of us to continue to work for his policies and his ideas. The dignity of his death amongst friends was an example of courage and resolution, but above all else a measure of the man. I only hope that those of us who are similarly non-religious can also face the moment when our life comes to an end in the same dignified way that Don showed us in the last couple of weeks.I want to pay tribute to his family Andrew, Paul and Bronwyn, to his partner Steven and to his grandchildren for the excellent way they presented and organised, in conjunction with many others, the ceremony last Friday. They have my profound condolences.Don Dunstan was a significant democrat in Australia's history. Last century another great democrat made a speech, which I paraphrase here tonight: The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it cannot forget what he has done. His memory, his inspiration and his achievements shall not perish from the earth.22:22:001930Senate adjourned at 10.22 p.m.Documents19301930The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Air Force Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 332.Airports Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 349.Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposals Nos 1 and 2 of 1999.Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act—National Capital Plan—Certification of Draft Amendment No. 21.Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act—Order No. LC2/98 Amendment Orders 1998 (No. 1).Australian National Railways Commission Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 352.Australian Postal Corporation Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 368.Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act— Instrument of Approval of Forms, dated 6 January 1999. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 366.Child Support (Assessment) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 5.Circuit Layouts Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 358.Civil Aviation Act— Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders— Amendments of section 82, dated 8 December 1998 and 21 January 1999. Directive—Part— 105, dated 18 [2], 19 [2] and 20 November 1998; 2 [3], 3, 7, 9 [10], 10 [11], 11 [7], 14 and 15 December 1998; and 5 [3], 7, 11 [10], 13 [4], 14 [6] and 15 [8] January 1999. 106, dated 13 November 1998; 9 [5], 10, 11 [2] and 15 December 1998; and 13, 15 [2] and 18 January 1999. 107, dated 25 November 1998 and 14 January 1999. Exemption Nos CASA 46/1998, CASA 47/1998, CASA 49/1998, CASA 50/1998, CASA 51/1998, CASA 1/1999 and CASA 2/1999. Instrument No.— CASA 487/98, CASA 495/98, CASA 497/98, CASA 502/98, CASA 1/99, CASA 3/1999, CASA 16/99, CASA 27/99 and CASA 36/99. ML99/002. Directions under section 12B, dated 30 November 1998 [2].Copyright Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 357, 359 and 360.Crimes Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 361.Customs Act— Instruments of Approvals Nos 44-46 of 1998. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 9.Defence Act— Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—Determinations Nos 30-33 of 1998. Determination under section 52—Determination No. 1 of 1999. Determination under section 58B—Defence Determination— 1998/42-1998/44. 1999/1-1999/5.Defence Force Discipline Act—Rules of Procedure—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 377.Designs Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 344 and 347.Director of Public Prosecutions Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 356.Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 328.Extradition Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 362.Family Law Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 329, 340 and 341.Financial Management and Accountability Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 333.Fisheries Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 327.Fisheries Management Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 363.Grape Research Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 3.Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 6 and 7.Health Insurance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 334 and 370-373.Higher Education Funding Act—Determination under section— 15—Determination Nos T5 and T6 of 1999. 16—Determination No. T4 of 1999. 19—Determination No. T1 of 1999. 20A—Determination No. T2 of 1999. 24—Determination No. T3 of 1999. 27A—Determination No.— T23 of 1998. T7 of 1999. Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 —Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 348.Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 —Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 12Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act—Approval of forms—Applications for registration, renewal of registration, annual return and audited accounts, dated 29 January 1999.Interstate Road Transport Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 11.Lands Acquisition Act—Statement describing property acquired by agreement under section 40 of the Act for specified public purposes.Migration Act— Certificate under section 502, dated 13 December 1998. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 8. Statement for period 1 July to 31 December 1998 under section— 48B [10]. 345 [13]. 351 [35].Motor Vehicles Standards Act—Road Vehicle (National Standards) Determination No. 2 of 1998. Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules— 1998 No. 336. 1999 No. 10.National Gallery Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 376.National Health Act— Declaration Nos PB 1-PB 3 of 1999. Determination— No. ACC.DNCB.98-02. under Schedule 1— HIG 10/1998. IHS 1/1999.Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 374.Naval Defence Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 331.Navigation Act—Marine Orders—Order No.— 14-18 of 1998. 1-5 of 1999.Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 355.Patents Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 342 and 345.Private Health Insurance Incentives Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules— 1998 No. 375. 1999 No. 2. Proceeds of Crime Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 335.Product Ruling— PR 98/4 and PR 98/5. PR 1999/1-PR 1999/4.Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 367.Public Service Act— Attorney-General's Department Determination 1998/1. Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency Determination 1998/1. Department of Veterans' Affairs Determination 1998/1. Foreign Affairs and Trade Determination 1999/1-1999/4. Locally Engaged Staff Determination— 1998/42-1998/45. 1999/1-1999/5. Public Service (Defence) Determinations 1999/1 and 1999/2. Public Service Determinations 1998/24-1998/26. Senior Executive Service Retirement on Benefit Determination— 1998/80-1998/88. 1999/1-1998/7.Quarantine Act—Quarantine Determination No.— 3 of 1998. 1 of 1999.Radiocommunications Act— Australian Radiofrequency Spectrum Plan. Radiocommunications (Accreditation—Frequency Assignment and Interference Impact Certificates) Principles No. 1 of 1996 Amendment Principles 1998. Radiocommunications Class Licence (Low Interference Potential Devices) Variation 1998 (No. 1). Radiocommunications (Compliance Labelling—Cordless and Mobile Phones) Notice 1999. Radiocommunications (Compliance Labelling—Incidental Emissions) Notice 1998. Radiocommunications (Electromagnetic Radiation—Human Exposure) Standard 1999. Radiocommunications (Frequency Assignment Certificates) Determination No. 1 of 1996 Amendment Determination 1998. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 330.Remuneration Tribunal Act— Determinations Nos 25-27 of 1998. Report No. 1 of 1998. Retirement Savings Accounts Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 13.Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act— Notice of Declaration—Notice No. 17 of 1998. Notice of Revocation of Declaration—Notice No. 16 of 1998.Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 350.Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 351.Student Assistance Act—Determination of guidelines under section 356—Determination No. 1 of 1998.Superannuation Contributions Ruling SCR 1999/1.Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 14.Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensation No.— 13/98. 1/99.Sydney Airport Demand Management Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 337.Taxation Determinations TD 98/28 and TD 98/29.Taxation Ruling— SST 14 (Addendum). TR 92/14 (Addendum). TR 98/22, TR 98/23 and TR 98/3 (Addendum). TR 1999/1-TR 1999/3.Telecommunications Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 339.Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act—Determination under paragraph 15(1)(d) No. 1 of 1999.Telstra Corporation Act—Telstra Carrier Charges—Price Control Arrangements, Notification and Disallowance Determination 1997 (Amendment No. 1 of 1998).Therapeutic Goods Act— Determination under section 19A—Determination No. Alb/No.3/1998. Therapeutic Goods (Manufacturing Principles) Determination— No. 2 of 1998—MP2/1998. No. 3 of 1998—MP3/1998. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 369.Trade Marks Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 343 and 346.Trade Practices Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 364 and 365.Veterans' Entitlements Act—Instruments under section 196B—Instruments Nos 1-20 of 1998. Wine Grapes Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 4.Workplace Relations Act— Regulations—Statutory Rules—1998 Nos 338, 353 and 354. Rules of the Commission—Statutory Rules—1999 No. 1.Proclamations1933Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that he had proclaimed the following Acts and provisions of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified:Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 —5 February 1999 (Gazette No. S 50, 5 February 1999).Child Support Legislation Amendment Act 1998 —Schedule 20—1 January 1999 (Gazette No. S 610, 22 December 1998).Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1998—(a) Part 2 of Schedule 2—5 February 1999; (b) Schedules 4, 5, 6 and 7—1 March 1999; and (c) Schedules 1, 2 (except Part 2) and 3—1 June 1999 (Gazette No. S 51, 5 February 1999). Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Act 1998 —1 June 1999 (Gazette No. GN 6, 10 February 1999).Therapeutic Goods Amendment Act 1997 —Part 2 of Schedule 1—1 January 1999 (Gazette No. S 609, 22 December 1998).Answers to Questions on Notice1934The following answers to questions were circulated:1934(Question No. 7)71934O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 10 November 1998:(1) When was South Pacific Seaplanes first granted an air operator's certificate?(2) (a) How many scheduled audits of the company's compliance with the safety requirements of its air operating certificate were undertaken; and (b) when were they undertaken.(3) What was the outcome of each audit?(4) If there were any breaches of the company's licence conditions: (a) what was the nature of the breach; (b) what action was taken in response to the breach; and (c) what was the result of that action.(5) How many unscheduled audits of the company's compliance with the conditions of its Air Operator's Certificate were undertaken; (b) why were these additional audits undertaken; (c) when did they take place; and (d) what was the outcome of each unscheduled audit.(6) If there were any breaches of the company's licence conditions: (a) what was the nature of the breach; (b) what action was taken in response to the breach; and (c) what was the result of that action.(7) (a) On how many occasions has South Pacific Seaplane's air operator's certificate been suspended; (b) how long was each suspension; and (c) why was the suspension imposed.1934Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)—(7) The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) released on 29 November 1998 the Executive Summary of the Skehill Report of the investigation into the internal issues arising from the suspension, and subsequent conditional stay, of the Air Operators Certificate of Aquatic Air Pty Ltd.The Government intends to table a package of documents on the South Pacific Seaplanes accident. The package will include CASA's response to the Skehill Report into the accident and the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation's (BASI's) report into the accident. The full Skehill report will also be part of the package, unless there are compelling reasons why it should not be tabled.As CASA's response to the Skehill report and BASI's investigation are not due to be completed until early in 1999, at this stage the package is expected to be tabled in February 1999.1934(Question No. 8)81934O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 10 November 1998:(1) When was Mr Barry Diamond appointed to the position of South East Regional Manager in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA); and (b) did that appointment require Board approval or endorsement; if so, when was that approval or endorsement given by the Board.(2) What position did Mr Diamond hold in CASA prior to this appointment.(3) (a) When did Mr Diamond resign from the position of South East Regional Manager; (b) what was the reason for his resignation; (c) did the Board formally note Mr Diamond's resignation; if so, at what Board meeting did that occur.(4) (a) Did Mr Trevor Burns replace Mr Diamond as South East Regional Manager; (b) when was that appointment made; and (c) did that appointment require Board approval or endorsement; if so, when was that approval or endorsement given by the Board.(5) What position did Mr Burns hold prior to this appointment.1934Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) Mr Diamond was appointed on 20 December 1995; and (b) No, the appointment was made by the Director of Aviation Safety.(2) Middle Manager/Senior Specialist Flying Operations Inspector Grade 2—District Flight Operations Manager, Moorabbin District Office.(3) (a) Mr Diamond resigned with effect from 30 June 1997; and (b) a range of reasons were cited including employment opportunities in the private sector.; (c) the Board did not formally note Mr Diamond's resignation, and was not required to. Matters relating to Mr Diamond's resignation were, however, discussed at the CASA Board meeting of 23 May 1997.(4) (a) Yes, as an interim arrangement pending a reorganisation of CASA's field structure; (b) the appointment was approved by the Director of Aviation Safety on 23 June 1997; (c) No.(5) General Manager, Personnel Licensing Branch.1935(Question No. 20)201935Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 10 November 1998: (1) Which states have developed disability service plans.(2) What is the timeframe for other states to develop disability service plans.1935Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 applies to all businesses and State Governments. In line with the spirit of the Disability Discrimination Act, Western Australia developed its own disability service plan.(2) There is no requirement upon States to develop their own disability service plans.1935(Question No. 21)211935Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 10 November 1998:(1) What employment support services are available to people with acquired brain injury.(2) What programs are in place in each state to find alternative accommodation for persons with acquired brain injury who are currently in nursing homes.(3) What steps is the Commonwealth currently taking to encourage such programs.1935Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Commonwealth funds 440 non-government organisations to provide specific employment support to people with disabilities through some 880 service outlets Australia wide. Most provide services to individuals across the range of disability types. At the last Disability Services Census (September 1997) 1162 of the 35054 people with disabilities being assisted by these employment services had an acquired brain injury as their primary disability.(2) The Commonwealth will provide a total of $1.46 billion to the States over the next four years to assist them to meet their responsibilities for the provision of accommodation support for people with disabilities, including people with acquired brain injury, under the Commonwealth/State Disability Agreement 1998. The Commonwealth does not take a role in the management of disability services provided by the States.The Commonwealth believes that nursing homes for aged people do not provide appropriate accommodation for younger people with disabilities, including acquired brain injury. Commonwealth nursing home guidelines aim to ensure that younger people are only be admitted to nursing homes as a last resort when no other more appropriate form of accommodation support is available.(3) The Commonwealth has worked with State and Territories on this matter, since the joint National Policy on Services for People with Acquired Brain Injury was agreed in 1994, to persuade them to improve service access and effectiveness for people with acquired brain injury.The $1.46 billion to be provided to the States over the next four years under the 1998 Commonwealth/State Disability Agreement includes growth funds from the Commonwealth of around 5% each year. These funds can be used by States to provide accommodation support for people with acquired brain injury, including those currently in aged care nursing homes.The Commonwealth Government also recently provided a further $15 million over four years to States to extend best practice and develop innovative and flexible service options for ageing carers still supporting a son or daughter at home.The Commonwealth has also promised to spend a further $20 million over four years on respite care for younger people with disabilities.1935(Question No. 22)221935Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 10 November 1998:With reference to the Commonwealth Advocacy Review recommendation that the outcomes of advocacy groups be measured:(1) Will this recommendation be adopted; if so, what progress has been made in identifying desired outcomes and means by which they can be measured.(2) Will the measurement tool be: (a) developed in consultation with the advocacy sector; and (b) piloted to ensure it effectively measures the desired outcomes.1936Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Decisions on recommendations in the Steering Committee's report on the review of the National Disability Advocacy Program will not be taken until public comment has been received and considered. Comments will be accepted until 11 February 1999.(2) Consultation will be undertaken with people with disabilities and the advocacy sector in the implementation of any decisions taken on this recommendation.1936(Question No. 154)1541936Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1226, paragraph (7) which stated that no departmental records showed Ms Linda Reynolds of the Government Members' Secretariat travelling to Perth between 16 November 1996 and 4 December 1996 and also to the answer to the question on notice no. 1171 (Senate Hansard, 22 June 1998, p. 3328) which stated that Ms Reynolds flew from Canberra to Perth on 16 November 1996 and from Perth to Canberra on 4 December 1996.(1) Which of these two answers is correct.(2) What travel, paid for by the Commonwealth, was undertaken by Ms Reynolds during this period.(3) If travel was undertaken: (a) what travel allowance was claimed; (b) for which nights; and (c) at what locations.(4) What other costs, if any, were incurred to the Commonwealth as a consequence of travel undertaken during this period.1936Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The former; Ms Reynolds did not travel to Perth between 16 November and 4 December 1996. When the Department provided the response to Question 1171,which was a broad question about Ms Reynolds' travel over a period of approximately two years, the records included a reference to a trip by Ms Reynolds to Perth between 16 November and 4 December 1996. In seeking to confirm Ms Reynolds' actual travel in the narrower context of Question 1226, the airline advised that she had changed her bookings and had travelled to Perth at a later date.(2) Ms Reynolds travelled to Brisbane on 23 November 1996 and returned to Canberra on 30 November 1996(3) (a) $989; (b) 24 to 29 November 1996; (c) Brisbane(4) $626 for air fares and $368.41 for car rental in Brisbane1936(Question No. 155)1551936Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Did Ms Linda Reynolds, an employee of the Government Members' Secretariat, claim travel allowance for her travel to Brisbane between approximately 8 June and 12 June 1998; if so: (a) how much did she claim; (b) for which nights; and (c) at what locations.(2) What was the cost to the Commonwealth of the air travel undertaken.(3) What was the cost of cabcharge for these trips.(4) What other costs, if any, were incurred to the Commonwealth in relation to this travel.1936Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Yes. (a) $674.05; (b) 8—11 June; (c) Brisbane.(2) $821.00(3) nil(4) DASFleet car hire—$109.99 (shared vehicle—50%)1936(Question No. 156)1561936Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Did Mr Reginald Chamberlain, an employee of the Government Members' Secretariat, claim travel allowance for his travel to Brisbane between approximately 8 June and 12 June 1998; if so: (a) how much did he claim; (b) for which nights; and (c) at what locations.(2) What was the cost to the Commonwealth of the air travel undertaken. (3) What was the cost of cabcharge for these trips.(4) What other costs, if any, were incurred to the Commonwealth in relation to this travel.1937Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Yes. (a) $674.05; (b) 8—11 June 1998; (c) Brisbane(2) $821.00(3) $22.50(4) DASFleet car hire—$109.99 (shared vehicle—50%).1937(Question No. 158)1581937West, Sen SueSenator West1X4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) How many departmental officers were employed for the purpose of regional development prior to the recent creation of the Department of Transport and Regional Services.(2) How many departmental officers are now employed specifically as part of the newly re-created department.1937Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) 12 departmental officers were employed prior to the recent creation of the Department of Transport and Regional Services.(2) 14 departmental officers are currently employed and recruitment of approximately 7 additional staff is being undertaken. Approximately 23 officers from the former Department of Primary Industries and Energy are expected to transfer to the department to work on matters related to regional development.1937(Question No. 159)1591937Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 November 98:(1) (a) Since the introduction of the Commercial Support Program in 1991, what percentage of contracts, by number and by dollar value, have been contracted out from the department to wholly Australian-owned companies and what percentage to partly or wholly overseas-owned companies; (b) what is the breakdown, by country, of successful tenderers; and (c) what has been the impact on Australia's defence self-sufficiency of the level of overseas involvement in provision of support services to the department.(2) What measures have been put in place to deal with the concerns of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, confirmed as valid by the Australian National Audit Office performance audit of the Commercial Support Program, that: (a) short-term gains from contracting out may not be sustainable in the medium term; (b) by employing defence-trained personnel, civilian tenderers have an advantage over the department because they do not have to factor in staff training costs; and (c) the department is disadvantaged in contract negotiation when a successful tenderer becomes a monopoly supplier and the department must subsequently negotiate from a position of weakness, having eliminated its own in-house capability to perform the particular function.1937Newman, 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 honourable senator's question:(1) (a) The ownership of some companies with contracts under the Commercial Support Program has changed during the period of contract. The figures below, for the most part, reflect current ownership.As at the end of November 1998, the percentage of Commercial Support Program contracts with wholly Australian-owned companies is estimated to have been: by number 45% and by dollar value at time of company selection 37%.The percentage of Commercial Support Program contracts with partly or wholly overseas-owned companies is estimated to have been: by number 55% and by dollar value at time of company selection 63%.(b) The breakdown, by country, of successful tenderers is estimated to have been: United Kingdom—by number 37% and by dollar value at company selection 56% United States—by number 12% and by dollar value at company selection 4% France—by number 2% and by dollar value at company selection 1% New Zealand—by number 2% and by dollar value at company selection 1% Sweden—by number 2% and by dollar value at company selection 1%.(c) The Commercial Support Program has increased the extent of Australia's support base and hence Australia's defence self-sufficiency. Companies which provide support services under the Program operate locally. They mostly employ Australians and use some small and medium enterprises as sub-contractors. The Department has detected no discernible difference in company performance that could be attributable to the place of ultimate ownership.(2) (a) The Department accepts the possibility that short-term gains from contracting out may not be sustainable in the medium term. However, much of the Commercial Support Program relies on readily obtainable skills and that the market will regulate the costs for these skills. Nevertheless, the Department is planning to collect data to enable it to evaluate the whole-of-life costs of Commercial Support Program contracts.(b) Civilian tenderers do not have an advantage over the Department's in-house option if all bidders are seeking the same trained personnel. The tender evaluation process considers as relevant only predicted future training costs. For the small number of specialised support activities (eg deeper maintenance for the F111 at Amberley, Queensland), the tender documents seek detailed plans which would demonstrate how a successful tenderer would maintain the requisite set of skills.(c) Most support service skills are readily available. In recent times, there have usually been at least four bidders for each contract. Thus, it is unlikely that a successful tenderer would become a monopoly supplier. Further, the Department reviews the market prior to testing to ensure that there is likely to be sufficient competition.1938(Question No. 162)1621938Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray3M6WAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 12 November 1998:With reference to section 1022 of the Corporations Law, which requires that a prospectus shall contain `all such information as investors and their professional advisers would reasonably require, and reasonably expect to find in the prospectus, for the purpose of making an informed assessment of the assets and liabilities, financial position, profits and losses, and prospects of the corporation'; and with further reference to the proposed further sale of Telstra and the fact that, in that case, such information would be required to be disclosed under the Corporations Law and thereby be available to all Australians, who own two-thirds of Telstra, as well as the private shareholders who own one-third of Telstra:What are the details of the following: (a) the most recent estimates of current and long-term assets and liabilities; (b) the financial position over the past 3 reported years; (c) future forecast earnings, including earnings to be distributed or to be retained, in relation to future prospects; (d) the dividends to the Government over the past 3 reported years; (e) estimates of the earnings retained by Telstra over the past 3 reported years, including investment infrastructure by Telstra; (f) any rights attaching to securities; (g) risks of investment; (h) related party transactions; (i) material contracts; and (j) interests of directors and advisers.1938Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Government provided a detailed public offer document and appendices in respect of the one-third sale of Telstra equity in 1997. The document met all requirements of the Australian Stock Exchange and the (then) Australian Securities Commission. The Government will again meet its obligations in respect of the prospectus for the next sale of Telstra.Specific references are provided to the Senator's detailed list of questions:(a) see page 71, Telstra Annual Report 1998—Business Description and Financial Statements(b) see page 156, Telstra Annual Report 1998—Business Description and Financial Statements also, page 29, Telstra Share Offer Prospectus and page 21, Appendices to Public Offer Document(c) see page 36, Telstra Share Offer Prospectus(d) 1995-96 $1,217m, 1996-97 $4,307m (includes $3 billion recapitalisation payment), 1997-98 $1,122m(e) see page 70, Telstra Annual Report 1998—Business Description and Financial Statements also page 50, Telstra Share Offer Prospectus(f) in relation to Telstra shares see pages 120-129, Appendices to Public Offer Document. Telstra advises that in respect of debt securities "Holders of debt securities issued by Telstra are entitled to payment of interest and principal in accordance with the terms and conditions of the relevant securities. One of Telstra's outstanding borrowings carries a Commonwealth guarantee ($40.45m of floating rate bonds with a final maturity of 15 November 1999). All other borrowings are unsecured. No other rights are attached to any of Telstra's debt securities."(g) see pages 42-58, Telstra Annual Report 1998—Business Description and Financial Statement also pages 30-34, Telstra Share Offer Prospectus(h) see pages 122-125, Telstra Annual Report 1998—Business Description and Financial Statements(i) see page 134, Appendices to Public Offer Document (j) see pages 42-58, Telstra Annual Report 1998—Business Description and Financial Statements also page 52, Telstra Share Offer Prospectus and page 114, Appendices to Public Offer Document.1939(Question No. 169)1691939Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:With reference to the Australian Electoral Commission:(1) How many additional staff were employed to assist in the conduct of the federal election.(2) Can details be provided of the duration and dates of employment and whether they were full-time or part-time.(3) How many of these were employed prior to 5 October 1998.(4)How many of these continued to be employed beyond 5 October 1998.1939Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) 64584 additional staff were employed to assist in the conduct of the federal election.(2) Precise details on duration and dates of employment are not available without providing individual records for all employees. Additional staff were employed between 31 August 1998 and 30 October 1998. Staff worked on a casual part-time basis from as little as 3 or 4 hours on one day up to full-time hours over a number of weeks, according to work requirements. 220 were employed on a full-time temporary basis for varying durations over the period.(3) There were 61415 staff employed prior to 5 October 1998.(4) Of the 61415 staff employed prior to 5 October 1998, 1569 continued to be employed after 5 October 1998.1939(Question No. 171)1711939O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Has the department recently conducted a structural review of Airservices Australia; if so: (a) who initiated the review; (b) when was it completed; (c) what were its terms of reference; and (d) what were its main findings and recommendations. (2) When will these findings and recommendations be implemented.(3) Can a copy of the report be provided.1939Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Yes.(a) The Government.(b) The review was completed in March 1998.(c) The purpose of the review was to determine what changes are essential and desirable to the structure of Airservices Australia to facilitate the introduction of competition to the potentially commercial functions of the organisation.(d) The Government has decided not to release the report, and I am not prepared to comment on its findings and recommendations.(2) Following consideration of the report, the Government has agreed to consider introducing competition into some aspects of Airservices' tower business. This will not occur until the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has developed appropriate operating and licensing standards for air traffic control operations. Safety will continue to be the Government's paramount consideration and will not be compromised.(3) No. The Government is not publicly releasing the structural review report.1939(Question No. 172)1721939O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Did the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) undertake an investigation of the class G airspace trial procedures prior to the commencement of those trials; if so: (a) when did that review commence; (b) when was it completed; (c) what were the findings of the review; and (d) was a copy of the review report provided to the Minister.(2) How many separation breakdowns or `incident reports' have been received by BASI since the trial commenced.(3) (a) What was the nature of each incident; (b) when was each incident reported; and (c) what action was taken as a result of each report.(4) Can copies be provided of all the incident reports to date. 1940Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) No(2) The term `separation breakdown' refers to the breakdown of air traffic control separation standards. These standards apply only to operations within controlled airspace. For operations outside controlled airspace, similar events are described as `traffic conflictions'.During the period of the Class `G' airspace demonstration, BASI received 160 reports relating to the airspace demonstration.Sixteen of these reports were assessed as requiring further investigation and the remainder assessed as Category 5 occurrences.Category 5 occurrences are those that are primarily of statistical interest and are recorded on the BASI database for future trend analysis. The information as reported to the Bureau is available to the public on request.(3) (a) The sixteen incidents investigated involved actual or potential traffic conflictions or issues relating to the design and management of the demonstration.One of these incidents was classified at the Category 3 level, which requires a preliminary report as well as a final report. The preliminary report for this occurrence was released on 4 December 1998 and a copy is attached.Category 3 occurrences are those where the initial indications suggest potentially serious safety deficiencies. Consequently, an in-depth investigation is required to satisfy the concern for public safety. The report will include a Safety Action Statement detailing the relevant safety actions. Reports are available to the public on request.(b) The incidents under investigation were reported during the period 22 October 1998 to 3 December 1998.(c) In addition to the investigation of the sixteen incidents referred to above, on 5 November 1998, BASI commenced a systemic investigation of the Class G Airspace Demonstration. On 9 December BASI issued three Interim Recommendations, which resulted in the airspace demonstration ceasing on 13 December. Following the release of the Interim Recommendations the Minister announced that the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Services was to conduct a review to ensure the safety integrity of the aviation system. The review will clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Airservices Australia and the Department in relation to the regulation, design and management of airspace.(4) The preliminary report on the category 3 incident together with Brief Print (Public) reports of the other fifteen incidents investigated during the `G' airspace demonstration have been provided to the Table Office.1940(Question No. 174)1741940O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Does the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) International Standards and Recommended Practices (11th edition, July 1997) state in Annex 11 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, section 4.2.2, that, `Flight information service provided to flights shall include . . . in addition to that outlined in 4.2.1, the provision of information concerning . . . collision hazards, to aircraft operating in airspace Classes C, D, E, F and G'.(2) Can it be confirmed that before the commencement of the Class G airspace trials in the Ballina-Canberra corridor, Air Traffic Services of Airservices Australia provided a collision hazard alerting service in accordance with the ICAO Convention.(3) Can it be confirmed that the Aeronautical Information Service document AIRAC-H48/98, dated 8 October 1998, and headed, `Extension of radar information services in Class G airspace and demonstration of the national advisory frequency' states at paragraph 8.1, that `The provision of a non-radar-based direct traffic information service to pilots of instrument flights rules and military low jet flights will be discontinued,' and at paragraph 9.1, that `During the demonstration, where radar coverage is available to the controller, air traffic control will provide a Radar Information Service (RIS) on a workload permitting basis to all flights and all phases of the flight,' and at paragraph 9.2 that, `Provision of this service is not optional on the part of the controller but will be done as the work situation permits,' and at paragraph 9.3 that, `Controllers possess complete discretion for determining whether they are able to provide this service in a specific case'.(4) Are these arrangements for the Class G airspace trial in breach of Australia's obligations as set out in section 4.2.2 of the ICAO international standards and recommended practices because no such collision hazard alerting service is available to all aircraft. 1941Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Yes.(2) Before the commencement of the Class G airspace trials in the Ballina-Canberra corridor, Air Traffic Services provided advice about other aircraft in the form of a procedural traffic information service to flights operating under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and Military Low Jet (MLJ) aircraft about other conflicting IFR or MLJ aircraft.Also, a Radar Advisory Service (RAS) was introduced in airspace around the Ballina/Casino/Lismore area to the south of Coolangatta, providing a traffic information and position information service, based primarily on radar derived data, to assist pilots in avoiding other aircraft, or to assist in pilot navigation.(3) Yes.(4) The provision of services in the demonstration airspace is consistent with the requirements of ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices for Air Traffic Services (Annex 11 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation). The services provided in the demonstration Class G airspace changed from a directed, procedural traffic information service, generally relating to IFR and MLJ flights, to that of a Radar Information Service (RIS). Aeronautical Information Publication Supplement (AIP SUP) H48/98 explains that "During the demonstration, where radar coverage is available to the controller, air traffic control will provide a Radar Information Service (RIS) on a workload permitting basis to all flights and all phases of the flight."Annex 11 (12th edition, July 1998) Note 1 to section 4.2.2 says: "the information in b), including only known aircraft the presence of which might constitute a collision hazard to the aircraft informed, will sometimes be incomplete and air traffic services cannot assume responsibility at all times or for its accuracy."Section 4.2.2 [as quoted in Question(1)]is interpreted by some as mandating the provision of a directed traffic information service as has been provided in Australian Class G airspace. This interpretation, however, is not shared by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) nor by administrations of other International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) States, eg. USA and Canada, neither of which provide such a service in Class G airspace. In each of these countries, "known aircraft" is generally interpreted to mean aircraft which are visible to air traffic control, usually on radar.1941(Question No. 175)1751941O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) How much of the new Class G airspace will be covered by radar at 5 000 feet.(2) Can a chart be provided which indicates radar coverage at various altitudes in the proposed new Class G airspace.(3) Did the Director of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Mr Mick Toller, advise the aviation industry at a meeting of the Regional Airspace Users Advisory Committee on 17 September 1998 that a radar information service (RIS) would be available on demand; if so, what was the basis of that advise.(4) Did the Chief Executive of Airservices Australia, Mr Bill Pollard, advise the industry by way of a media release, dated 7 October 1998, that, `regional' airlines could be assured that the radar service they sought would be consistently available'; if so, what was the basis on which Mr Pollard made that commitment to the industry.1941Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) More than 50% of G airspace at 5000ft was covered by radar during the trial.(2) Yes. Airservices Australia can make the chart available to the Senator on request, but due to its nature, a copy cannot be provided in this context(3) No.(4) Yes. The quote attributed to Mr Pollard in the CASA media release of 7 October 1998 was in the context of aircraft operating within radar coverage. That is, aircraft operating within radar areas would receive a consistent service.1941(Question No. 176)1761941O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) How do pilots flying in the new G class airspace access important information concerning weather conditions at departure, destination and alternate aerodromes.(2) Are pilots flying in the new G class airspace required to monitor the national advisory frequency to detect other air traffic.(3) Do these arrangements require pilots to continuously monitor two radio frequencies.(4) (a) Does the ICAO document `Provision of Air Navigation Services—Regulation and Control', page 7-2, section 1.3.5.1 require that certain weather reports be `directed' to aircraft and, in addition, an immediate broadcast is required followed by `continuous or frequent broadcast' in some circumstances; and (b) how will Australia conform to that requirement in Class G airspace.1942Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)—(4) The changes to Class G airspace were part of a series of changes to Australian airspace to harmonise with international standards and were proposed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in August 1997.The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) conducted a systemic investigation of the Class G demonstration as part of its normal safety functions. BASI identified a number of safety concerns during its investigation and concluded that the demonstration had served its purpose and that it should now be subject to a comprehensive evaluation.The Director of Aviation Safety of CASA, Mr Mick Toller, made a commitment that the demonstration would be cancelled if any genuine safety concerns were identified by CASA or BASI. Further to the BASI investigation, the demonstration of the new Class G airspace was terminated by CASA on 13 December 1998.1942(Question No. 178)1781942O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Has Coopers and Lybrand conducted a review of Sydney air traffic control; if so: (a) when did the review commence; (b) when was it completed; and (c) what was the cost of the review.(2) Was the contract let to undertake the review the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.(3) If the contract was not the subject of a tender process, what process was followed in the letting of the contract. (4) What were the main findings and recommendations of the review.(5) What is Airservices Australia doing to implement the findings and recommendations of this review.(6) Can a copy be provided of the Coopers and Lybrand review.1942Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Airservices Australia has advised that:(1) Yes.(a) April 1998.(b) July 1998.(c) $145,715. This includes a contract price of $135,000 plus incidentals of $10,715.(2) No; Airservices determined that the review was required urgently, including the need to have the review completed by the time of the appointment of a new Sydney manager.(3) Terms of Reference were developed by Airservices and provided to Coopers and Lybrand for the purpose of developing a scope of works and providing a firm contract price.(4) The recommendations and findings address work practices and organisational structure, standardisation of working arrangements, reduction of administrative costs, cultural change and productivity and the treatment of indirect costs.(5) The Sydney management and supervisory structure is being improved and new managers have been recruited.(6) In order to ensure the report is properly placed in context, Airservices' preference would be to arrange a full briefing on the Coopers and Lybrand review if Senator O'Brien requires further information.1942(Question No. 181)1811942O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) At what time was the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) first advised of the fact that the fishing vessel Surprise, was in difficulty south of Strahan, Tasmania, on or around 7 April 1998.(2) What was the registration and model of the aircraft that conducted the rescue. (3) Where did the flight originate.(4) (a)At what time was the company that operated the aircraft notified of the task; and (b) at what time did the aircraft depart.(5) At what time did the aircraft arrive on the scene.(6) What was the exact location of the rescue.(7) Did AMSA consider the use of Precision Aerial Delivery System equipment; if not, why not.1943Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. It should be noted however, that with the exception of Part 4(b), Senator O'Brien asked these questions following the Senate Estimates hearing on 5 June 1998. Answers to these questions are the same as those provided for Senator O'Brien in June.(1) At 3.00 pm on Thursday 09 April 1998, a possible Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB) signal was detected by the COSPAS-SARSAT satellite system. A further satellite pass at 4.03 pm confirmed that a beacon signal was being transmitted from approximately 60 nautical miles south of Strahan, south west Tasmania. AMSA arranged a fixed wing search aircraft through the air charter company "Wilderness Air" of Strahan. That aircraft arrived at the scene at approximately 5.30 pm and sighted a liferaft drifting slowly towards shore in the Nye Bay area, thus confirming that a distress situation existed.(2) A helicopter, arranged by AMSA for the rescue effort, was an AS50 Squirrel, registration VH-SES. A second helicopter, arranged by AMSA for a night search, was a Bell 412, registration VH-NSP (call sign Helimed 1)(3) The rescue helicopter departed from Cambridge Airfield in Tasmania. The second helicopter departed from Latrobe Valley in Victoria.(4) (a) The rescue helicopter was arranged at 4.17 pm through the Hobart Police Headquarters. The second helicopter was arranged at 6.30pm.(b) The rescue helicopter departed Cambridge Airfield at 4.56 pm. The second helicopter departed Latrobe Valley at approximately 7.20 pm.(5) The rescue helicopter arrived on scene approximately 6.00pm. The second helicopter arrived on scene at approximately 11.30pm.(6) The location of the raft was at position 43 03S 145 40E in Nye Bay in inshore waters. The survivor was able to reach the shore to meet the helicopter.(7) No. At the time of the incident, AMSA did not have available any operational PADS equip ment, nor personnel trained in the use of PADS equipment. Further, there was no call for the use of any air-droppable supplies as the survivor from the incident was located already in a life raft and the second crew member, who potentially could have benefited from air-droppable supplies, was never sighted.1943(Question No. 182)1821943O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Is the Australian Maritime Safety Authority satisfied with the performance of the Aerial Rescue Delivery System (ARDS)/ Precision Aerial Delivery System (PADS).(2) Is ARDS/PADS fully operational.(3) On how many occasions has the equipment been deployed.(4) Are there any restrictions on its use; if so: (a) what is the nature of each of these restrictions; and (b) have they been imposed as a result of testing of the equipment or problems detected in the deployment of the equipment.(5) Can copies be provided of all reports into the use of this equipment that led to limitations being imposed on its use.1943Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) AMSA considers that PADS Series G delivers emergency supplies more accurately and efficiently than the traditional delivery systems used in Australia.(2) AMSA is currently deploying PADS Series G to eight locations around Australia and expects the deployment and training of personnel at these locations to be completed by 10 December 1998. The final distribution of this equipment will be considered when the current review of air-droppable supplies has been finalised.(3) As at the 30 November 1998, PADS Series G has not been used in an operational search and rescue incident, but AMSA has deployed the equipment on approximately 160 occasions during training and aircraft certification sessions.(4) As at 30 November 1998, AMSA has placed no restrictions on the use of PADS Series G equipment.(5) N/A. 1944(Question No. 184)1841944O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Has the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) formed a group to devise air traffic control (ATC) standards and regulations for third party ATC providers: if so, what are the composition, background and qualifications of the group.(2) When did the work commence and when is it scheduled for completion.(3) What are the terms of reference for the project.(4) What consultation will be undertaken with industrial organisations, the aviation industry and the public.(5) (a) What form will the standards or regulations take; and (b) will they be in the form of civil aviation regulations, air navigation orders or some other form.(6) Will CASA determine the hours of operation for the ATC service at each location or will these be determined by the ATC provider.1944Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) As noted in the Minister for Transport and Regional Services' response to Question on Notice No. 171, the Government has agreed to consider introducing competition into some aspects of Airservices' tower businesses, but not until CASA has developed appropriate operating and licensing standards for all air traffic control operations.To progress the development of these standards the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTRS) has constituted an Air Traffic Services (ATS) Working Group. The group is led by one of CASA's Associate Directors and comprises members from CASA, Airservices Australia, DOTRS and Defence, as appropriate.The background and qualifications of the group encompass technical expertise in air traffic control operations, regulatory standards development in the air traffic control area, past air traffic controllers and officers with relevant government policy in the aviation industry.(2) The work of the group commenced in September 1998 and is currently scheduled for completion by end June 1999. (3) The key issues to be addressed by the ATS Working Group are:(c) develop establishment/disestablishment criteria for tower air traffic services. The provision of a tower service to be the responsibility of the airport owner/lessee; and(b) develop minimum operating standards and licensing requirements for the provision of air traffic services. These standards should encapsulate other related services such as the provision of aeronautical information and telecommunication services.(4) Once the appropriate regulatory framework has been developed CASA will be exposing the proposed framework, and inviting comment on it, from the aviation industry, industrial organisations and the public through its normal Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) process.(5) (a) The standards to be developed will take the form of Civil Aviation Regulations.(b) See (a).6. It is expected that any variation to the hours of operation of an individual tower ATC service would be determined on a case by case basis through consultations between the airport owner, the ATC provider/s and users, with final approval to any change agreed by CASA in accordance with the appropriate standards.1944(Question No. 190)1901944O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Did the majority of air traffic controllers interviewed recommend that the Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) radar system should not be commissioned in the airspace of the Sydney terminal area until after the Olympics.(2) What action has Airservices Australia taken in response to this recommendation.(3) Is the Minister aware that the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation stated in its report, Systemic investigation into factors underlying air safety occurrences in Sydney terminal area airspace, that: Eighty percent of the Sydney controllers reported being overwhelmed by the volume and complexity of some of temporary local instructions, some of which had been promulgated with minimum lead times.A number (of controllers) admitted that they did not always read or absorb the information contained in the (instructions) and often relied on other controllers or the shift team leader to brief them when necessary.(4) What action has been taken, or is planned, to reduce the rate of change to a more manageable rate.1945Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Yes.(2) The views of air traffic controllers on the timing of TAAATS commissioning in the Sydney terminal area were recorded in the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) report on a Systemic Investigation into Factors Underlying Air Safety Occurrences in the Sydney Terminal Area Airspace. It is more important that Airservices Australia respond to BASI recommendations formulated as a result of the overall investigation rather than to the many views and opinions recorded in the body of the report. In that context BASI did recommend that Airservices Australia review its change management procedures and the program for change leading up to the Olympics. The review should ensure that safety is not compromised to meet project schedules or perceived community imperatives. Airservices is developing its response to this BASI recommendation in consultation with the Bureau.(3) Yes.(4) Airservices continuously monitors the introduction of new procedures and processes to ensure that the operational impact of that change is well managed. The program of change in Sydney has been extensively reviewed with changes being prioritised to ensure that safety is not compromised whilst maintaining the implementation schedule for TAAATS. For example, training for TAAATS has been postponed until 1999 and Sydney Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) Mode 8 has been deferred until mid 1999 and Mode 6A until late 1999.1945(Question No. 192)1921945O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) What was the outcome of the action brought by Hughes Aircraft Corporation over their loss of the Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) contract.(2) Is TAAATS operating at Cairns and in the airspace surrounding Cairns; if so, when did the operation of the new system commence. (3) Has Airservices Australia conducted any survey of the staff using the new system; if so, what were the results from the survey; if not, when will such a survey be carried out.(4) If Airservices Australia does not plan to conduct such a survey, why not.(5) Have air traffic controllers found the human machine interface (HMI) cumbersome and very user unfriendly.(6) What action does Airservices Australia plan to take to address this particular problem.(7) Have there been any problems with screen reflections and flicker causing health problems for air traffic controllers using TAAATS equipment.(8) What action has Airservices Australia taken, or what action does it plan to take, to address this particular problem.(9) Is sick leave increasing on the sectors using TAAATS equipment compared to when this group of controllers were using non-TAAATS equipment.(10) Can a copy be provided of sick leave statistics relating to these two periods.1945Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Liability has been determined in favour of Hughes Aircraft Corporation. The damages action is still being heard in the Federal Court.(2) Yes. TAAATS operations commenced on 8 August 1998 with full 24 hour operations being achieved on 22 August 1998.(3) A post commissioning review involved the collection of information on how the transitioning process could be improved. Staff views were canvassed in workshops and through individual contributions. Major improvements arising from the review include just in time training for commissioning, staffing aspects of commissioning, improvements to software, commissioning processes and their management.(4) See Question 3(5) The TAAATS HMI is a very different way of performing the work of air traffic control. The experience to date is that the level of concern diminishes with more extensive operational experience in using the new system.(6) Airservices established initial operations in Cairns and surrounding sectors specifically as a pilot program with the objective of using this experience to assist with the overall program. Each phase of commissioning will be reviewed. Experience gained will be used to improve operational practices. Software changes have been commis sioned based on such experiences to assist the remainder of the commissioning program.(7) Overhead map lights and ceiling lights have caused reflections off the TAAATS screens. Screen flicker was perceived by some staff as a problem. A small number of staff have gone off duty early because of headaches they associated with screen flicker.(8) Screen reflections are being managed by modifying the lighting diffusers in the operations room, setting lighting levels at a fixed value and trialing the adjustment of the angle of tilt of the screens. These attenuate the amount of reflected light from the ceiling.The screen flicker has been managed by defining the screen background colour and lighting settingsto minimise the perception of flicker. Lighter colours highlight the perception of flicker and the colour palette has been selected to avoid the use of such colours. However, there is a wide range of sensitivity to flicker and no single, simple solution.Both reflection and flicker have been managed with the assistance of expert advice and will continue to be monitored and further corrective action will be taken as appropriate.(9) There is no evidence to suggest that air traffic controller sick leave in the TAAATS environment is any different from that which occurred pre-TAAATS.(10) Airservices can make available to the Senator aggregate sick leave statistics relating to the periods concerned.