1999-02-163912SENATE194701999-02-16The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice194719471947Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Hill. Minister, I refer to the Remuneration Tribunal's decision in December last year to alter the conditions regarding parliamentarians' use of charter flights, and I ask: who wrote the government submission to the tribunal; when was the submission lodged; who authorised the submission; what did the government submission propose or recommend; and what was the reasoning for proposing the change? Most importantly, what prompted the government's submission?1947Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I presume what prompted it was the ambiguity that has been recognised not only by our side of politics but also by the Labor Party, including Mr Beazley today. Alternatively—and I will have to check this—the Remuneration Tribunal, as I recall it, acknowledged the ambiguity itself the year before. So there were plenty of reasons for it to move to overcome that ambiguity and clarify the rules, and it so did. With respect to any specific submission that was made by the government in that regard, if it was made I presume it was made by the Minister for Finance and Administration, who I think normally makes these submissions. But I will seek information on that and provide it to Senator Faulkner as soon as I can.1947Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for seeking that information. My question, Minister, went to who wrote the submission, when it was lodged, who authorised it, what the submission proposed and recommended and what the reasoning was. If the minister would care to take all those aspects of my question on notice and provide an answer, I am sure we would all appreciate it.1947Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I did hear it all the first time. Now I have heard it a second time. We will do our best to answer.19471947Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Minister, the coalition government went to the last election promising $13 billion in tax cuts for all Australians. Will you advise the Senate on how and when low and middle income Australians will benefit from this reduction in the amount of tax that they pay?1947Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Watson, a most respected and hardworking senator from Tasmania and a senator who is widely respected throughout this chamber. I welcome the question. The government has a plan which I think is well known. The Australian people voted at the last election to cut income taxes for low and middle income earners. These tax cuts, make no mistake, will put more money into the pockets of ordinary Australians and will be of enormous benefit to them. The tax cuts will put some $13 billion more into the pockets of Australians from 1 July 2000. These are arguably the biggest income tax cuts in Australia's history in what is unquestionably the most substantial tax reform in our history. The $13 billion in income tax cuts will provide lower and middle income earners with much lower marginal tax rates. By the turn of the century, a person earning only 1.2 times the average earnings will be paying the top marginal rate of some 47 cents in the dollar—excluding the Medicare levy—which I would have thought everybody in this chamber would think too high. Apparently the Labor Party do not, but I think most Australians do. Under our proposals, 80 per cent of taxpayers will face a marginal tax rate of 30 cents in the dollar or less. This compares to around 30 per cent of taxpayers at present. Some 95 per cent of taxpayers will have a lower marginal tax rate.The current effective marginal tax rates, taking into account family benefits assistance, mean that families can actually be worse off if they earn more income. Our tax package helps to remove these poverty traps and provides particular support to families. Our package ensures that the most needy in our society are also protected. Despite exhaustive analysis, no-one has been able to show that anyone would be actually worse off as a result of our package. We should be very clear about what would happen if there were a butchering of the package such as that suggested by the Australian Democrats.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Job losses in this package. Talk to Christopher Murphy about it. No-one's better off if they don't have a job.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Kemp. I am sorry to interrupt. Senator Conroy, you have been interjecting throughout this answer of the minister's. I draw your attention to the appropriate standing order and ask you to behave accordingly.WW4Senator KEMP—The Democrats proposal would put at risk people's income tax cuts.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Is it in order for Senator Kemp to canvass another political party's proposals here? He was not asked about alternative proposals in the question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—He should not be canvassing another party's policies but, if it is relevant to the answer that he is giving, he may touch on such matters.WW4Senator KEMP—As I was saying, the Democrats proposal would put at risk people's income tax cuts. Some $5 billion of income tax cuts would be put at risk. As we have consistently said, business will need 12 months to prepare for the new tax system. The government has gone out of its way to ensure there is plenty of time for the legislation to be passed by 30 June. There is no reason why the legislation cannot be passed in full by 30 June. I again make the point that the Australian people who were promised substantial income tax cuts during the election want to have those tax cuts. (Time expired)19481948Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister confirm that the results of the detailed tracking polling conducted by Worthington Di Marzio into the government's tax reform package was made available to the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications? Who was responsible for the decision to include the MCGC on the distribution list for the reports on the polling? Can the minister explain why this taxpayer funded research into a critical election issue was passed on to the Liberal Party national secretariat?1948Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I do not know why questions that obviously should be put on notice are not being put on notice. It will not surprise Senator Bishop that I do not have the answer to that question at hand. I will make the relevant inquiries and see if I can be helpful to him.1948Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. While the minister is chasing that matter up, can the minister advise how the government can possibly justify the expenditure of Commonwealth taxpayers' money on massive public research campaigns with the intention of providing the detail to ministers and the Liberal Party for the imminent election campaign? Minister, is this to be known as the Textor strategy?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is hardly a supplementary question to the answer but, if Senator Hill has anything to add, he may.1948Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—In case anybody was not able to appreciate the political point Senator Bishop wished to get across, he had to read his supplementary question. The issue of substance was in the primary question and I will be seeking an answer to that.19481948Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The minister would be aware that, as a result of the coalition's sensible economic management, unemployment levels are now at their lowest level for eight years. Will the government continue to pursue labour market reforms that are so vital to continued jobs growth? Is the minister aware of any obstacle to the government's commitment to reducing unemployment and creating jobs for young Australians?1949Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I thank Senator Synon for the question because it is a classic example of what highlights the gulf between the two major political parties in this country, and the recognition on our side of politics that growth in the small business sector is absolutely vital if you are to create jobs. Of course the figures that Senator Synon referred to are ample proof of the success of our strategy to date, with the number of unemployed people declining by 3,800 to 702,000—the lowest level since December 1990—the unemployment rate down to 7.5 per cent and the full-time teenage unemployment rate declining to 24.1 per cent.These are steps in the right direction, but clearly there is a long way to go. What is required is determination on the part of policy makers to take those decisions that will facilitate growth in this sector. But what do we have on the other side of the chamber? People who are simply incapable of addressing this issue because of the acute vested interest they have. The people who put them here have no interest at all in the prosperity of the small business sector. In fact, they are terrified that the small business sector might actually grow because it will create jobs where people do not belong to unions.Something like 90 per cent of small businesses have no unionised employees. So it is pretty understandable that people like the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association should be jumping up and down, screaming blue murder and urging the Senate to protect their interests, because they have got people like Senator Hogg, Senator Bishop and Senator Collins—all wholly owned subsidiaries of the SDA—who clearly believe what Tim Palace says: that a deregulated labour market really means—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—What about Senator Harradine? Is he a fully owned subsidiary? He is the president of the Tasmanian branch.LD4Senator ALSTON—It is interesting you should mention that. Senator Harradine has an open mind on issues. Senator Harradine is open to persuasion. Senator Harradine is prepared to consider matters that are put before him. He does not always agree with us. Senator Harradine has a bit of integrity when it comes to policy making. He is not just his master's voice. He is not in here doing what he has been told to do. He is not in here because his preselectors said, `Get it right or get out.' There is a fundamental difference which you will never appreciate.Tim Palace saying, `A deregulated labour market really means regulating unions out of existence,' says it all. He is saying: `Don't you do anything that threatens our power base. Don't you do anything to threaten your cosy occupancy of those benches over there'—not that you are going to go any further; you would simply like to stay where you are. This is the tragedy of the debate in this country. There are people out there who want to free up the labour market. There are people who recognise the importance of youth wages. There are people who understand that unfair dismissals are clearly penalising the work force and making it very difficult—40 per cent of small businesses scared off from hiring new staff; unfair dismissals being ranked in the top three or four issues; and 84 per cent of small businesses being concerned about unfair dismissals when hiring new staff.Does all of this cut any ice? Of course it doesn't. They simply go on doing what they did this morning—`Caucus expresses its support and solidarity for the CFMEU, its members and their families in its ongoing battle for industrial relations justice against the multinational Rio Tinto.' That is what it is all about, fighting the good fight of the 1960s and 1970s. `We're all about comparative wage justice. We're all about belting the hell out of multinationals. We're all about standing up for the workers.' Of course you are not. You have a bit of rhetoric you trot out from time to time but, in practice, you do not give a damn about the small business sector. (Time expired)1949Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, will you further inform the Senate of how the government is working to create employment opportunities for all Australians?1949Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—You cannot do much more than get the economy humming along the way it has been humming in recent times—being the shining star of the Asia-Pacific region, creating hope and prosperity that simply has not been there before and introducing a new and modern taxation system which will take a $10 billion burden off business, which of course gives it an enormous capacity to create jobs and to achieve the social goals that we have in this country. As we approach the new millennium, I would have thought that those on the other side would have similar commitments but, tragically, they do not. They are all captives. They are all doing what they are told to do. They are not really interested in any policy outcomes. They thought they could spend the last 2½ years sitting on their hands, hoping no-one would notice, and they could sneak in by default. At one stage they probably thought it was going to work but, tragically for them, it did not, and it will not next time. So get on with it. (Time expired)19501950Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister intervened personally to ensure the appointment of his biographer, Mr David Barnett, to the Council of the National Museum of Australia? Is it a fact that other positions were considered too sensitive for Mr Barnett? Why weren't others closely involved with the running of the museum consulted on his appointment? Will the minister now fess up to the Prime Minister's personal intervention in this matter, or will he parrot Senator Alston's humiliating drivel that the appointment was made by osmosis?1950Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—As I recall, it was an appointment made by cabinet upon the recommendation of Senator Alston. The only other thing that I have to say is that I think it is a very good appointment. He is someone very well qualified. He has wide and long experience, is able to represent a broad range of views and has lots of commonsense—all the sorts of qualities that we rarely saw from appointments from the Labor Party.1950Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given Minister Alston's conspicuous failure last week at estimates, can the minister specify the precise qualifications and expertise that the coalition is citing that make Mr Barnett a suitable appointment to the National Museum council? Is it any broader than his well-known views on the black armband view of Aboriginal history, views which he coincidently shares with the Prime Minister?1950Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I heard only the last part of the question because of the laughter and guffaws from the other side of the chamber. I think you would say that Mr Barnett fairly represents mainstream views within Australia. I therefore refute the description that you attach to him in relation to Aboriginal affairs. In relation to the Prime Minister, obviously he is committed to reconciliation. He is committed to better opportunity for Aboriginal people within our society, particularly in the key issues of housing, education, jobs and social security. That is the commitment of this government, which the Prime Minister leads. He is proud of it and so are we.19501950Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services and is about the impact of tax reform on low income earners, particularly families. I refer the minister to comments by the Treasurer yesterday that he would guarantee the compensation for the impact of a GST. I ask the minister: can she guarantee that no low income family will be worse off as a result of tax reform? How can she guarantee that a future government would not take that compensation away? How credible can a guarantee be in light of Mr Howard's `iron clad guarantee' to ACOSS in 1995 that the coalition would not undermine the social safety net—a promise that has been broken time and time again by this government; by $1.7 billion this year alone in cuts to welfare, health and employment programs that this government promised to maintain?1950Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I would be proud, as I was yesterday, to talk about the changes to the poverty of children in Australia and the improvement in family circumstances since this government came into power. I urge you to go back and read yesterday's Hansard of the measures this government has taken and is taking, of which the tax reform package is an important element, in improving the living standards of Australian families. I also draw your attention—although it seems it will not cut much ice with you, Senator, because you have been told this for months now, and I think it is a wilful refusal to register—to the fact that people on social security payments of any kind will receive a four per cent increase in whatever payment or payments they receive. That is whether it is rent assistance or whether it is a basic income support payment. In addition, they are getting that extra money in their pockets before a cent of GST is charged to them—not a cent are they paying.Most importantly of all, when the cost of living has finally been assessed at the end of that first year and we know what the impact was—regardless of whether or not you accept Treasury's assessment now—you will know what the figure turns out to be, and the government has committed to maintaining pensions and benefits at 1½ per cent above the current rate into the future. Can you imagine any government coming in and saying that they are going to reduce pensions? I cannot believe any government would do that, unless of course we had the dream world coming in—and you are never likely to get into government. Certainly the compensation measures are more than the ones I have described, but I think the most important element of all is the fact that pensions and payments will be 1½ per cent above where they would otherwise have been into the future—whatever inflation turns out to be.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Newman, you are not addressing the chair and you are speaking away from the microphone, which makes it hard to hear.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I am very sorry. In conclusion, I could not believe anybody could be so crass.1951Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister may not be aware, but it is not just me who does not believe that compensation for taxing food will stick. Earlier today, the Anglican archbishops came out and said the same thing—that compensation packages `are always likely to be fragile and are usually inadequate'. Given the Anglican Church does not believe your arguments and given the failure of this government to keep Mr Howard's ironclad guarantees of 1995 to maintain the social safety net over the last three years, why should we accept your guarantees now? Isn't the best way to make sure that compensation sticks not to create the need for the extra compensation in the first place, and that means keeping food out of the GST net?1951Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am an Anglican, but that does not mean that I believe everything that comes from my bishops is well researched and knowledgeable. I think it is very sad that those who purport to speak for the poor and the disadvantaged frequently do so with total ignorance. I would say to you that one of the most important elements out of the tax reform in my view is that the total GST revenue, including from food, goes to the states. Senator Lees and members of her party know that there are many areas of community services—health and roads—that everybody would like to see more spent on. I know that in my home state of Tasmania we badly need more money for community services, health, housing and roads, but the important thing is that that money goes directly to states to increase their service provision. (Time expired)19511951Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Senator Ian Macdonald. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the allegations made by the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Mr Dick Smith, into the so-called class G airspace trial? Is the minister aware that, through these allegations, the chairman has impugned the motives and the integrity of the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, Ansett executive Mr Trevor Jensen, and the RAAF? What action does the minister propose to ensure that public confidence in Australia's aviation system is not undermined by these allegations? Does Mr Smith retain the full confidence of the minister, given the serious impact his comments are having on air safety regulation? Will the minister take this opportunity to give a rock solid guarantee that the review into BASI will be made public?1952Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The first question was whether I was aware of Mr Smith's comments. Yes, I was aware and, Senator Mackay, you should know that because I was in the same estimates committee as you were when the matter was raised. In fact, I was sitting about 12 centimetres from Mr Smith at the time. So in answer to your first question, yes, I was aware of that.There were some other questions asked by Senator Mackay, and they related, I think, to the comments that Mr Smith has made. Mr Anderson, the minister in the other chamber, has been through this matter quite exhaustively, but he has indicated that the government does have confidence in Mr Smith and does have confidence in CASA, BASI and Airservices Australia. There is, as the minister indicated, an inquiry being held into BASI, but that is part of an ongoing inquiry into all of our air safety operations and air safety agencies. That is an exercise that has been going on for some time now. It is not being done specifically as a result of Mr Smith's allegations.It is also important to note in passing that Senator Mackay referred to allegations made against Ansett and others. She very cleverly omitted the fact that Mr Smith said—and I cannot confirm or deny what Mr Smith has said—that Ansett took a position under pressure from the unions. That seems to have been overlooked in a lot of the matters that were raised. So it was under pressure from the unions, according to Mr Smith. I do not confirm or deny the accuracy of these statements because I simply do not know, but Mr Smith said that Ansett were pressured by the unions. I was pleased to see that Senator Brown, the Greens senator from Tasmania, leapt to Mr Smith's defence and raised some very interesting questions. In fact, it was interesting to see Senator Brown defending Mr Smith, but that is of course another issue.The government does retain confidence. As I said, the inquiry will be going ahead. I think Mr Anderson has announced the terms of reference of the inquiry. I did indicate at estimates, on advice, that he was going to announce the terms of reference of the inquiry. I assume—I must confess I have not caught up with it this week—the terms of reference have been announced. Can I refer the senator to those terms of reference, and she will no doubt get all of the answers to all of her questions.1952Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Yes, Minister, the terms of reference are out and have been out for about a week now. Is the minister aware that Mr Smith stated that the Deputy Chief of Air Force `sat at every meeting, [and] a program implementation group, giving Mick Toller every bit of support every bit of the way' only to reverse the RAAF position later? Is the minister also aware that the Deputy Chief of Air Force told an estimates committee hearing that the RAAF had five areas of concern about the trial and advised CASA of those concerns at three meetings and in two letters? Does the minister endorse Air Vice Marshal Espeland's evidence or the allegations levelled against him by Mr Smith? And, finally, will you give a rock solid guarantee that the review into BASI will be made public?1952Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—There were several questions, but I think they were all `am I aware of something', `was I aware of things' or `do I endorse' what some of the chiefs of staff people said. I suppose I am as much aware of them as anyone else. I have read what has been said in the paper. I must confess that I have been doing things for regional Australians, so I have not caught up with the detail of all of this. I am aware of those comments. That is the answer to that question.Do I endorse what the Air Vice Marshal said? I do not know specifically what he said, so I cannot endorse or deny it. I am not sure what the question intended. And will the BASI results be made public? Again, Mr Anderson would have mentioned that when he raised the terms of reference. If you do not know, if you did not quite catch on to that, I will put that to Mr Anderson and see if he wants to give you a response.19531953Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. I refer to a radio interview given by Senator Minchin on Triple J on 3 February in relation to a contract with Cogema for reprocessing spent fuel from the Lucas Heights research reactor. Given public concerns about Cogema's operation of one of the world's most controversial and polluting nuclear facilities, can the minister indicate if a contract has been finalised with Cogema? If so, who signed it, and have all ministerial approvals been given? Will it be tabled in the Senate or at the Senate Economic References Committee inquiry into the new ANSTO reactor and, if not, why not? Does the contract with Cogema include reprocessing fuel from the new ANSTO reactor; and, if so, doesn't this pre-empt the outcome of the Senate committee's inquiry and any environmental impact study into the new reactor? (Time expired)1953Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I appreciate the senator's interest in matters nuclear. ANSTO has signed a contract with Cogema for the reprocessing of all non-US origin spent fuel from the HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights. That contract was signed on 22 January. That follows the British government's decision in relation to Dounreay, which was to be the destination of the non-US origin spent fuel. An alternative site had to be found as a result of the British government's decision in relation to Dounreay. ANSTO has followed all due process in identifying an alternative mechanism for dealing with that non-US origin spent fuel and has exhaustively gone through the process to reach a position where a contract could be signed with Cogema. As I say, that was signed on 22 January. There is some sort of protest going on with Cogema in France at the moment, but I understand that has nothing to do with the safety of that reprocessing facility whatsoever. It is a protest by some locals about the length of time which particular material is being stored at that Cogema facility. We have to remember that France is the most nuclear dependent nation on earth. I think 80 per cent of its power derives from nuclear power.So far as the government is concerned, ANSTO has followed all due process and has entered into this contract quite properly. It has nothing to do, in reality, with the question of the processes we must go through in relation to the government's decision in principle to replace the reactor at Lucas Heights. That matter will be pursued by all due process.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Is it going to be tabled?JX4Senator MINCHIN—I will find out whether there is any information I can add to that. I am not aware of any intention to table it. No, there is no current intention to table that.JX4Senator MARGETTS—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I also asked if there had been any environmental impact statement. The minister said ANSTO had gone through due process, so perhaps in answer to my supplementary question the minister can clarify whether any actual environmental impact study was part of that due process. How much will the reprocessing contract with Cogema cost ANSTO? Is this in excess of the amount which should see the contract referred to the Public Works Committee? And what penalty clauses are there if either side decides to withdraw from the contract?1953Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—There are some details in that question that I cannot answer at the moment. My understanding is that the value of the contract is such that it would not trigger any sort of public works inquiry whatsoever. But if there is any information that I can add to your questions, I will get it to you as soon as I can.19531953Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the minister responsible for reconciliation, Senator Vanstone. The minister would be aware of events over the past week regarding the removal of Aboriginal groups from the precincts of Parliament House. Can the minister confirm that, despite the Prime Minister refusing to meet with them, the protesters agreed to disperse after being offered a meeting with the minister with the responsibility for reconciliation, Mr Ruddock? Can the minister confirm that Minister Ruddock cancelled the meeting at the last minute when he learned that the media had been informed of the details of that meeting because he did not want to have it turned into a media event? Does the minister have any reaction to the news that it was allegedly her colleague Senator Bill Heffernan who had in fact informed the media of the details of the proposed meeting?1954Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank the senator for his question. The bottom line, Senator, is: no, I cannot confirm anything that you have told me. I do not have a brief from the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, who is responsible for reconciliation. In relation to those matters, all I can do is take the full detail of your question on notice. I will get back to you quickly about it. I can add that, when people seek a meeting of one sort or another, and then one later finds that the media has been invited and you have not been informed of that, it is sometimes quite understandable to say, `Look, I'm sorry, I thought I was having a private meeting, not a media circus.' I do not say that to confirm that is Minister Ruddock's view. I do not know, I have not discussed it with him and I do not have a brief. So I will take the details on notice and come back to you.1954Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given your response, Minister, perhaps you would also like to find out whether Senator Heffernan was following instructions in leaking the details of the meeting; or was this part of a Howard government plan to sabotage the meeting; or was the Parliamentary Secretary to Cabinet, indeed, off on a jaunt of his own?Government senators interjecting—FX5Senator MURPHY—In the interests of the reconciliation process, will the minister undertake to restrain Senator Heffernan from any involvement in these matters in future?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Murphy. Senators on my right are making so much noise that it is hard for Senator Vanstone to hear what she is being asked.FX5Senator MURPHY—I will just repeat the last part of the supplementary question; I do think she may have heard the first part. In the interests of the reconciliation process, will the minister undertake to restrain Senator Heffernan from any involvement in these matters in the future?1954Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I will take those questions on notice.19541954McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. Given the huge contribution by the rural and regional areas to the Australian economy, will the minister detail the advantages that tax reform will bring to those in rural and regional areas?1954Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I thank Senator McGauran for that question. I know that he, like many of my colleagues, has a real interest in rural and regional Australia. Senator McGauran is quite correct when he says that rural and regional Australia makes a disproportionately high contribution to Australia's welfare. The minerals and energy sector contributes almost 30 per cent of our exports, some $26.2 billion annually; and our agricultural industries, the agricultural sector, contributes some 28 per cent of total exports, or a total of some $25 billion.Senator McGauran is quite correct when he says what a great contribution rural and regional Australia makes. That is why I am very pleased to say that the coalition's tax reform package will give real benefits to rural and regional Australia. It will give benefits to everybody. For example, a man and his wife and a couple of children on $30,000 a year will be better off by the package to the extent of $50.42 each week. That is, someone on $30,000 will be better off by $50.42 each week as a result of this tax reform package. That is what all Australians can look forward to.Rural and regional Australians will share in that and, as well, they will share in many other ways. Our tax reform package will reduce the costs of agriculture by some $1.1 billion each year—that is, cutting down the costs on our farm production. That equates to some $7,500 of savings to every farmer every year. I just hope that the Democrats listen to that because they do, I think, try to have some interest in what happens in rural and regional Australia. The costs to the export industry will fall by some $4.5 billion annually as a result of our package.I, and a lot of my colleagues, live in and understand rural and regional Australia. Very few in the Labor Party do, and they have no interest. Regrettably, no-one in the Democrats does, and the way that they are approaching the tax reform package seems to suggest—VW4HERRONSenator Herron—What about Cheryl?YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Cheryl does not live in rural and regional Australia, I am sorry, but she is no longer a Democrat either, Senator Herron. It is a pity that the Democrats do not understand rural and regional Australia a bit better. If they did, they would understand the enormous impact that the reduction in fuel prices, as part of the tax reform package, will have on rural and regional Australia. It will be tremendous. It will make a real difference to those who live outside the capital cities. Senator Woodley, whom I see nodding away there, will understand that for all those trucks, be they big or small, be they represented by the Transport Workers Union or not—we have all the truckies over there—if they are over 3.5 tonne gross weight the cost of diesel will fall by 25c per litre. Senator Woodley, you will understand what a huge benefit that will be to the people of rural and regional Australia. I plead for your support for the people of rural and regional Australia.Unfortunately, the Democrats have a policy that wants to knock that back. They are talking about GST on food. They have not answered, as Senator Campbell raised earlier by interjection, the fact that those opposite increased sales tax on food by some two per cent. (Time expired)19551955Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Ellison, representing the Minister for Finance and Administration. Will the minister now confirm that a spokesman for Minister Fahey rang the Canberra Times and specifically canvassed the very operational matters that the government claimed were not able to be detailed in the Senate yesterday? Isn't it a fact that this spokesman, acting on behalf of Minister Fahey, has now been exposed as having consciously and deliberately lied to both the Canberra Times and the public in so far as he has denied that the allegations were connected in any way with outsourcing? Who was the spokesman who acted in this highly unprofessional and duplicitous manner? What action does Minister Fahey propose to take in this matter, particularly with reference to correcting the public record as to these allegations?1955Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—This relates to a question that Senator Ray asked me yesterday in question time. The investigation in issue has been the subject of some media reporting. The strict limitations and practice that apply to the discussion of operational details of Federal Police investigations mean that in this instance I cannot provide details to the senator of any matters surrounding the nature of the investigation, the history of the matter in question, or any matters connected thereto. That relates, in part, to what Senator Ray mentioned yesterday.In relation to the minister's office, I am informed that contact between the office of the Minister for Finance and Administration and the Canberra Times was not initiated by the minister's office. The minister's office responded to a media inquiry that had been made about the Federal Police's investigation by the newspaper to the department. This was in accordance with longstanding protocol that media matters of this nature should be handled by the minister's office. I am informed that no comment on the investigation was made other than to correct an ambit assertion made by the journalist.1955Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Leaving aside the current ongoing investigation, what action does the minister and the department propose to take to ensure the strict security and the integrity of Commonwealth resources, particularly where outsourcing of government functions is under way? Does the minister agree that ensuring security is particularly important where core government responsibilities, such as ongoing management of significant amounts of consolidated revenue, are involved? Finally, are there any moves to improve periodic monitoring of resource transfers to external contractors to ensure proper and timely accountability of public funds?1956Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will take those matters on notice in relation to the aspect of any ongoing review. Let me say to the senator that the Commonwealth does ensure that in outsourcing things such as privacy and security are covered. That is an aspect of outsourcing that the Commonwealth looks to. In relation to any ongoing reviews, I will get back to the senator.19561956Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Is it not the case that there are plenty of ways in which a department such as the minister's can claw back expenditure on GST compensation over time, such as increasing copayments for medicines on the PBS; further restricting eligibility for social security benefits, such as youth allowance or rent assistance; tightening income and assets tests for allowances; allowing means testing for access to public services, such as public hospital care; and allowing the real value of housing related grants to the states to be reduced? To give meaning to the Treasurer's boast that he can guarantee compensation into the future, will you now guarantee that none of these or similar measures will be implemented by you as minister or future Labor or coalition ministers in response to constant budgetary pressures?1956Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—We are the government that provided increased benefits to students through youth allowance. We are the government that increased a number of payments in the social security area. We have improved and simplified the social security system so it is easier to access. We have in very many areas in my portfolio provided additional assistance to those in need. The sad thing is that the Democrats are so determined to go down a route of opposing a government that was elected on a tax reform package which was spelled out clearly, that went out to people—ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—No, it wasn't; they were all confused.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I would like to acknowledge the interjection from Senator Crowley. She said that people were confused. Is it not a strange thing that, on the one hand, Labor senators say that people were confused but, on the other hand, they are critical of any attempt by my department to get information to pensioners as to what the tax reform package and the compensation would mean for them. I do not think Labor can have it both ways.One of the important items that I heard Senator Bartlett mention—and some of it was spoken so fast that I am afraid I did not catch it all; I also had a few interjections behind me—was the need of people on reduced means to access public hospital care. I would agree with him. That is why I mentioned in the answer I gave before that the flow of GST revenue to the states is a vital element in making sure that those who cannot provide for themselves by way of private health insurance will not have rich people elbowing them out of the queues for scarce public health resources. I think it is an important element to consider in this whole tax reform debate what it will mean to improving the community and the health services for people of disadvantaged means. It is amazing that the Democrats, when weighing up the measures that the government has been proposing and that it took to the people during the election, have not seen fit to consider the implications for delivery of services that are so badly needed by poor people in Australia through the flow of the GST—ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—Under your government.BE4Senator NEWMAN—No, the previous government presided for 13 years over—10000The PRESIDENT—Order! There is an appropriate time to debate the minister's answer, Senator Crowley.BE4Senator NEWMAN—The Labor government presided over a growing list of unmet need in a number of community services, whether we are talking about SAAP or HACC programs or public health. One after the other these programs slipped and slipped. Now the crunch time has arrived, and in many ways it is the role of the coalition government to come in and clean up after the mismanagement of a Labor government. I am sick and tired of that responsibility falling on the coalition when for generations Labor seems to come in, be wilful in their management and profligate in some areas and then leave us to pick up their mess. The fact is that this tax reform will help the poor and the needy, because it is not just the income support that is part of the compensation but also proper services, most of which are provided by the states with Commonwealth money, which is important to them too. (Time expired)1957Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. It is clear from the minister's answer that she is not able to guarantee the behaviour of future federal governments for all time, which alone gives the lie to the Treasurer's hollow claim. Minister, in light of this, is it not clearly just too easy for future governments to give with one hand and take with the other? Does this not leave the exemption of food as the best guarantee to the poor and to social security recipients of fairness in tax reform?1957Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The best guarantee of fairness for the poor in Australia is to ensure that we have a simple tax system which does not spend oodles of dollars in compliance because people find it hard to escape the net. Let's face it, that has been one of the driving factors for having a simple system that is easy to understand, that has as few exemptions as possible, that is a fair system. But, in addition, by taxing food, by the sharing of that by the rich as well as by everybody else in the community, we have the means to generate a growing income stream for the states. Anybody listening to question time would remember the begging bowl procession of premiers for generations coming to the Commonwealth saying, `We have not got enough money to service our constituents, to service the people in our state.' Clearly, this tax reform package pro vides the means for a fair division of taxpayers' income. (Time expired)19571957Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron in his capacity representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, have you been able to refresh your memory in regard to your statement yesterday that you had `no communication with the Australian Cancer Society' in relation to the government's decision to withdraw an $800,000 grant? If so, I ask whether you can explain the following statement in the minutes of the 24 November meeting of the Australian Cancer Society, where Mr G. Brien, the Queensland delegate, said:Senator Herron had confirmed that the Government had been angered by the campaign because in the Government's view it was not impartial and failed to acknowledge the positive things the Government had done.1957Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Evans for the question because it gives me the opportunity of replying.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Of answering it!VW4Senator HERRON—Of answering it. I was going to table the answer at the end of question time, but seeing as I have a constituent of mine, Robert McLaughlin, in the President's gallery I thought that I would take the opportunity of explaining to him what happened yesterday. It is also his birthday. I have checked my records, both in my electorate office and in my office here, and there has been no communication by me to the Australian Cancer Society. That was the implication of the question yesterday. However, checking my diary, it is true that I spoke to Mr Graeme Brien of the Queensland Cancer Fund.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Oh!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, stop shouting.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—There wouldn't have been much in that!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber.VW4Senator HERRON—I did speak to Mr Graeme Brien of the Queensland Cancer Fund, not to the Australian Cancer Society as alleged by Senator Evans. Mr Graeme Brien actually rang me because he wanted to know how to access government funding for the establishment of an international melanoma conference in Queensland next year. That was quite a proper approach, and I was delighted that he approached me because I have the knowledge in that field and I think Queensland unfortunately is the melanoma capital of the world. We have a higher incidence in Queensland than any other state or any country in the world, so it is appropriate that funding should go to that.In the course of that conversation in relation to that other matter, he said, `Was the government upset about the Australian Cancer Society campaigning against Dr Wooldridge in his electorate?' I said, `Any government would be concerned if any cancer organisation went and campaigned against a member of the government or a minister.' I said, `No matter what they were, of course any government would be concerned.' That is the only tenuous connection I can get in relation to what Senator Evans asked me.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Why didn't you come in and say that yesterday?VW4Senator HERRON—I did. I came in and mentioned at the end of question time yesterday that my memory was correct. I have no record of any communication—I said `letter' in fact yesterday—to the Australian Cancer Society, and I had not.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Just apologise!VW4Senator HERRON—It is not a question of that, Senator Faulkner. My goodness, we really are scraping the bottom of the barrel in relation to this. What? No policy questions? The poor old Labor Party are scratching around, trying to find out about conversations that might have occurred or might not have occurred, questioning whether there had been any communication between me and the Australian Cancer Society. As I say, the only tenuous connection I can get is that perhaps Mr Brien related something to the Australian Cancer Society, as I know all the cancer societies are linked together.In relation to the second matter that Senator Evans has asked about, the National Cancer Control Initiative, which Senator Evans appears to have alluded to, has a role to provide policy advice to the Commonwealth on all matters related to cancer control and to manage a number of agreed national projects. The NCCI is a body of experts brought together for this purpose. It is not an incorporated body and so needs an auspice so it can receive Commonwealth funding. An initial agreement between the Australian Cancer Society and the Commonwealth was signed on 7 February 1997 for the establishment phase of the NCCI. The agreement between the Commonwealth and the Australian Cancer Society is now concluded, and various discussions between Dr Wooldridge, offices of the department, the Australian Cancer Society and the Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria resulted in a decision, which suited all parties, to enter into an agreement with the Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria to manage the continuing operation of the NCCI until 31 December 2001. (Time expired)1958Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for now accepting that he did communicate with the society and, secondly, that he did say what Mr Brien said he said as recorded in the minutes. Now we have got that established, will the minister further admit that the reason the government removed the Australian Cancer Society's funding was to punish it for its criticism of the government and for the campaign it ran—because that is the only issue that you have not now agreed with me on.1958Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—No.19581958Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone, and it relates to the threefold increase in death rates in Australia from heroin-related overdoses. Given the federal government's strong stand against drugs, will the minister explain what the government is doing to stem the disturbing rise in heroin deaths in Australia over recent years?1959Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank the senator for her question and for her interest in these matters. It is true that the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare issued a report last year showing death rates from heroin-related overdoses had increased threefold between 1983 and 1995. That is a massive explosion and a very serious problem for Australia. The deaths in fact increased from 21 per million to 65 per million in 1995.This government recognises that addiction to illicit drugs, and heroin in particular, is a serious problem. We recognise it requires a three-pronged strategy: law enforcement is a part of it, education is a part of it and health measures are a part of it.But this battle against drugs is not the Howard government's fight alone. The fight against drugs is one we are happy to be a part of and committed to be a part of, but it is also going on in local communities, in schools and in individual families. And, of course, it also involves the state and local governments. The Howard government has committed almost $300 million in additional resources to fight illegal drug use. We have wisely decided to allocate these resources roughly equally between law enforcement on the one hand and education and harm minimisation health issues on the other. We are damaging and disrupting major drug syndicates and we are removing more and more illicit drugs from the streets.The Commonwealth will play its part. But, sadly, as Bob Carr attacks the federal government for making its contribution to the fight against drugs, his own government has not been anywhere near as successful. The recent report, Drugs, Money and Governments, has identified the New South Wales Carr government as the worst performing state government in dealing with its drug problems. The report says:The major shift in ratings over previous years was in NSW where their already negative rating was further reduced.It went on to basically conclude that expenditure on health related programs to deal with drug treatment and rehabilitation had been dropped from just over $7 a head to $6.60 in 1996-97, and it concluded:. . . it is disappointing to note the very poor performance of the NSW government. NSW is the largest state and arguably has some of the most significant drug problems . . . but has failed to prioritise drug problems or make a serious commitment to reducing drug related harm.I hope the effort of the Howard government has prompted the New South Wales government to lift their game. Premier Carr claims to have done so, and I look forward—this government looks forward—to later figures showing that they have.The survey asked how Bob Carr's government had performed on a range of questions. You might like to guess, Madam President, where New South Wales came in on the criteria of ensuring that treatment programs and services were available vis-a-vis the states and territories. They came last. In identifying the extent of drug problems, they came last. And in having a clear strategy to address drug problems, they came last. There is some hope though, Madam President. The survey asked whether New South Wales was ensuring that programs are provided to prevent and reduce drug problems. They did not come last. They only came second last there. They were pipped at the post for that honour by the state of Queensland.The Carr government has shown itself to be not interested enough in doing something about drugs—in health, in education and in law enforcement; and it should put up or shut up.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous1959195915:03:001959Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Further to a question to me from Senator Quirke earlier on in question time in relation to security and outsourcing, I can advise the Senate that, at the request of the Department of Finance and Administration, Ernst and Young are currently carrying out an exhaustive review of financial reporting procedures in the department to ensure that fraud or unauthorised transactions do not occur.In relation to the recent prosecution, I can advise that it is important to point out that the person involved was a contract employee. He was contracted by the former Department of Administrative Services in July 1997. Despite what some media commentators and members of the opposition are suggesting, this case has nothing to do with outsourcing. It does not involve in any way any of the suppliers currently providing services outsourced by the Department of Finance and Administration. In relation to the ongoing review that was mentioned, I will get back to the Senator.196015:04:001960Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Madam President, I have got an answer to a question that Senator Faulkner asked yesterday and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Yesterday during Question Time Senator Faulkner asked me two questions regarding Senator Ellison and a supplementary question regarding Mr McGauran.With respect to the first question regarding Senator Ellison the premise of the question is wrong. There was no repayment. There was a payment on 29 September 1998. Following that payment the then Special Minister of State, Senator Minchin, wrote to Senator Ellison on the 1st of October 1998 acknowledging receipt of his letter and cheque and stating that the matter was now considered closed. Senator Minchin acted on the basis of proper departmental advice. The prime Minister's Principal Private Secretary advised him on Saturday, 17 October 1998 that the issue had been fully resolved to the satisfaction of Senator Minchin. This took place prior to the Prime Minister appointing Senator Ellison.The premise of the second question asked by Senator Faulkner is also incorrect. No repayment was required. A payment was made by Senator Ellison. Senator Ellison explained his reasons for doing so to the Senate yesterday. The Prime Minister's Principal Private Secretary advised him of Senator Ellison's payment on Saturday afternoon the 13th of February.With respect to the question on Mr McGauran the question seems to be based on a premise that this was a matter separate to those which were the subject of a full and comprehensive review by the Department of Finance and Administration of Mr McGauran's claims against entitlements conducted in 1997. All these matters were dealt with at that time. It will be recalled that following a thorough review and consideration by the Federal Police and the DPP no further action was deemed warranted by those agencies.The Department of Finance and Administration concluded this matter in December 1997. Mr McGauran was advised and this issue was dealt with in a Senate Estimates hearing on 25 February 1998.Personal Explanations196015:04:001960Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I seek leave to make a personal explanation because I claim to have been misrepresented.Leave granted.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—At question time today in the other place the Treasurer, Mr Costello, alleged that I was seeking to delay debate on the new tax package past 30 June. He quoted from a media release of mine from 24 November 1998 and then expressed surprise that I did not rule out this debate carrying over into July in answer to questions from the media yesterday.Madam President, the Treasurer did not bother to read all of the press release. In particular, he did not bother to read the final paragraph, which stated:Everyone knows what we have agreed to because it is all in the motion.Nowhere in the motion to set up the Senate inquiry—and I remind all senators, through you Madam President, that it was an all-party, all-person agreement—did anyone agree (not the Greens, not Senator Harradine, not the Labor Party; no-one agreed) to any final voting date. We did agree to get on with the debate on 19 April. Indeed, that was reported in the media the next day. One example—and I will just quote one—was in the Financial Review of 25 November:Despite agreeing to the inquiry reporting by April 19 next year, leaving plenty of time for a vote before June 30 1999, Senator Lees said there was no obligation on the Democrats to vote on the tax package by June 30 next year. This was the case on 24 November and it is what I reiterated yesterday at the doorstop. But I would also like to point out to the minister, about comments he made in the House today, that the three bills referred to in my 24 November media release and quoted by the Treasurer were all single bills. So the expectation of 84 hours of debate for a complicated package of what was 16, but seems to be a growing number of, bills actually designing a new tax and social security system is surely not unreasonable.I am therefore surprised that the Treasurer is surprised at my comments. However, I am no longer surprised that he would use the House of Representatives as a forum to wilfully misrepresent them.15:07:001961Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I seek leave to make a personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented.Leave granted.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—Yesterday Senator Alston said in relation to the postponement of the reporting back date on the sale of Telstra inquiry: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 the capacity to make a quorum if the Liberal members are in attendance.This is both wrong and mischievous on the part of Senator Alston. I have not worked in tandem with anybody to stall proceedings. The arguments that he advances show his ignorance about the events leading up to yesterday and the decision making of the committee.Furthermore, there are serious questions about the way the committee has been functioning, under extreme pressure from the government, I must presume. In fact, yesterday's hearing went ahead in spite of the fact that there was no quorum. The hearing was attended by Senators Eggleston, Tierney and Carr and me. This was not a quorum, but the chair insisted on proceeding anyway, saying that Senator Payne would arrive shortly. She did not arrive at all. If anyone is putting at risk the time line for completion of this inquiry, it is the government; it is not the Democrats.If there was any question that I might be attempting to stall or delay proceedings, that was my opportunity to indicate to the chair that we had no quorum; and that would have effectively cancelled the hearing. But I did not do that, and I did not do it because I have at all times attempted to be cooperative, however absurd the government's time lines turn out to be. There is no need for me to go over those time lines. Senator Bishop did much of this yesterday. But it must be said that submissions to this important inquiry closed on 15 January. The government says that there have been two months but, as we all know, December and January are the worst possible times to be organising an inquiry, even leaving aside the fact that there are two other inquiries competing with that committee at present.The point I want to make today is that on this inquiry, as on all others, I have made every attempt to fit in with the wishes of the chair and the other members of the committee. I would like to take the Senate through some of the events leading up to yesterday's hearing. On Thursday, 3 February the hearing in Canberra was scheduled to finish at 4.45 p.m.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, this is getting a bit beyond a personal explanation. It should be kept to the remarks in relation to which you have been misrepresented.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I am sorry that it is a little longer than perhaps is required, but it is a complicated set of events that led up to this hearing. I feel it is important to explain them.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is the extent to which you have been misrepresented that you should be addressing now, not other matters relating to the hearing or the conduct of the committee.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—Madam President, would it be possible to incorporate the rest of these remarks?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—No, you would need the leave of the chamber to do that. You could speak on the matter of the conduct of the committee in an adjournment speech or at some other time.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I will do that then.Questions Without Notice1962196215:11:001962Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Senator Ian Macdonald), to a question without notice asked by Senator Mackay today, relating to air safety.I noted with interest that a question was asked in the other place by the member for Dickson in relation to this matter. I will give the chamber an indication of what happened during the estimates hearing. I will advise the chamber of what Minister Anderson's response was. In the estimates last week, Mr Smith, in an exchange with Senator Brown, indicated that he thought BASI had succumbed to pressure to stop the trial. He said:I believe there is another agenda. I believe that BASI was forced in some way.On the interim recommendations from BASI, Mr Smith said:I said I believed it was substantially fictitious.He also said:I generally knew when I read the BASI report that it was very biased.Rob Lee, who is the Director of BASI, said:. . . Mr Smith did not present a shred of evidence which supported any of his claims . . . and the idea that we have this sort of capture by the airlines is unsustainable in the light of the evidence.He said that Mr Smith was making bizarre allegations and that he was talking absolute nonsense. What was Minister Anderson's response to this in answer to a question from the member for Dickson just now? He said, `From time to time there are professional differences of opinion.' I think it is a statement of the bleeding obvious, and I do not think it adequately expresses the concerns that were raised in estimates.In response to the G class air trial that was aborted late last year, Minister Anderson announced that there would be a full report in relation to this matter and released as recently as a week ago, unbeknownst to Senator Macdonald, it would appear, the terms of reference of the inquiry into the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation and what it would look at. In the estimates—and Senator Macdonald seems to have had temporary amnesia—the question was asked directly of Senator Macdonald in relation to what is a critical report in terms of re-establishing the credibility of air safety in Australia: will this be a public review? Senator Macdonald with no qualms whatsoever said, `No, Senator. It will not be.'Today in the chamber all of a sudden Senator Macdonald says that he has been busy helping regional Australia—I think we could go on a bit about that—but he is not aware of the facts, et cetera. Well, he was then. He was very clear—no, it would not be a public review. The government have never, ever said this review would be made public, yet they are saying it is a major panacea for the restoration of confidence in air safety in Australia.What do we have from Senator Macdonald instead? Against a background where Minister Anderson has seen fit, in terms of the seriousness of the allegations, to order a full inquiry into the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, Senator Macdonald stands up here in the Senate today and reasserts Mr Smith's allegations that the airlines were pressured by the unions. This is a minister who is restating allegations already made by Mr Smith against a background where the substantive minister in the other place has felt it necessary to announce a major inquiry in relation to the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation. This is extraordinary!A minister, irrespective of where he or she is, ought to be in a situation of attempting to allay these fears, not simply repeat the allegations which have led to a so-called impartial investigation which, I will repeat again, the government has absolutely no intention of making public. The government has made no commitment that this report will be made public. All that has been made public are the terms of reference. We say, `Big deal!' Anybody can release terms of reference. What we want from this government is a commitment that the BASI report will be released.At the moment we have the Hawke report in relation to CASA, BASI and Airservices Australia, which the government will not release. We also have a review into Airservices Australia which the government will not release. Now, before the report into BASI is actually done, the government is saying that it will not be released. No wonder there is no confidence in air safety in this country. No wonder the people of Australia are saying, `What is going on? What leadership is this government providing?'15:16:001963Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I too was at estimates on this particular day along with my colleague from Tasmania, Senator O'Brien. I believe that in the estimates that day the matters that Senator Mackay raised were fully canvassed. Dick Smith and the executive director of CASA had ample time to put their point of view. I also believe that Dr Lee from BASI had his opportunity to put his point of view.There were quite a few accusations made both inside estimates and outside of estimates. I think the minister has taken the right action. He announced the very next day that there would be a review, not an investigation, of BASI. I recall that in the evidence on that particular day—it was a long day—the point was made that this would be the first full review of BASI in 10 years. There have been other reviews of parts of the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, but the point was made that this is the first full review to be made in the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation in 10 years.It is very easy for the Labor Party to come in here and point the finger. But I recall when they were in government and when Senator Bob Collins was involved on that side of politics. He too during estimates and outside of estimates was very concerned about air safety in Australia. Air safety in Australia has been an ongoing problem. One only has to recall some of the disasters such as the Monarch crash and the more recent one of a seaplane in Sydney. I believe that a report will be coming forward on that in the next week or two. That was indicated to us at estimates.I believe that Dick Smith, who has been Chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority both under the Labor government and under our government, is not a politically driven person at all. I believe he is looking to the best outcomes for the travelling public in Australia. A person of his character would not have raised these matters if he did not perceive that there may be a problem. I have total faith in both CASA and the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation. They both deal with similar problems. They both agree that there perhaps is a need for both organisations to work together more effectively and efficiently. This is one of the things that probably came out of the review.I believe our minister, John Anderson, has, as I said earlier, made the right decision and nipped this matter in the bud. I just hope that all parties get together, have a look at what has been said and answer the questions that have been put. I do not believe that coming in here today and highlighting the matter again is going to alleviate any of the concerns that the travelling public might have, but I certainly believe that the review that Minister Anderson has foreshadowed may go some of the way to answering some of the questions that Dick Smith raised and will also give Dr Lee the opportunity to put to bed some of those queries that have been raised.15:20:001963O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I rise to speak on this motion, having sat through the estimates and listened to the allegations which Mr Smith made about the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, Ansett and its officers and the RAAF. Frankly, I do not believe that there was any substantiation given for the allegations made under parliamentary privilege about those reputable organisations—certainly BASI is a most reputable organisation—which, as far as I am concerned, are without blemish.But let me say that that was a trend which continued. Prior to estimates on 20 January Mr Smith was reported in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald as making severe criticisms of BASI and claiming that a series of problems within CASA had existed for two years. He described BASI as a secret organisation that had never been reviewed—I want you to remember those words—and implied that BASI investigators may be the captive elements of the private aviation industry and that it suffered from conflicts of interest.If those comments are not calculated to bring into disrepute one of the most reputable investigative organisations not only in this country but also around the world, then I do not know what sort of comments would be. Frankly, the most concerning aspect about those allegations is that on that same day Minister Anderson's staff were doing the rounds of the gallery within an hour of Mr Smith's statements highlighting the minister's concerns over those statements.If, on that day, the minister was prepared to highlight his concerns, why have we not seen more expeditious action by the minister? So far as the parliament and the Australian public are aware, all that is being proposed is that there is going to be a closed door inquiry into BASI. We are told that that will have no relationship whatsoever to the allegations; it just happens to be occurring following Mr Smith's comments. We are told, `Oh, no, this is just a cyclical examination. BASI has got nothing to do with any particular aspect. We are just going to conduct a review.'Following that, there was a meeting on 26 January between Mr Anderson and the CASA board. On 8 February we had Mr Smith telling the estimates committee a great many things, making all sorts of allegations, without any proof. He said, for example, that Ansett had threatened CASA over the G class air trial. He named an employee of Ansett, Mr Trevor Jensen, as the officer who made the threat. I found that rather strange, considering that prior to this having occurred, Qantas had said that they would not fly in the G class airspace trial area, and in fact stopped flying. Was this action which was calculated to suborn CASA, or was it in fact because Qantas—particularly its pilots, who have responsibility for their passengers, it must be said—had concerns about the safety of the system? 5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—They did not want to change.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—It is suggested that they didn't want to change. But they fly through a great many changes. They are the people who sit up the front of the aircraft, who have responsibility for the safety of the passengers. They commenced participating in the trial and a number of concerns were expressed. The Qantas people withdrew. Qantas itself said, `We are not flying in the space.' There was an allegation made that they were trying to suborn CASA about that.The allegation was made that a Mr Trevor Jensen had written a letter to Mr Toller and said that he was going to keep it in his bottom draw. I will tell you what concerned me about that allegation: if that was supposed to be material evidence, why did Mr Toller then shred the only piece of solid evidence that might have been given to the committee? That is the evidence that he gave to the committee. He shredded the evidence, if there ever was any.This is a matter on which the government should have acted by now. This is an issue which will cause concern to the flying public. Unless the minister gets something done quickly, those problems will be exacerbated. A great many issues will continue to be raised about this matter. (Time expired)15:25:001964Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I too rise to speak on this particular subject. I think all the speakers here today were at the hearings last week, including Senator Mackay, who asked the question, and the minister, Senator Macdonald, who was there the whole time. From the question that Senator Mackay asked today, you would not believe that she had been there at all. That question was designed to deliberately mislead those people listening to this debate.From the evidence put before us, whether it be by CASA, Airservices Australia or BASI, I ended up with a very clear impression that they all believed that, properly implemented, the G class airspace principles or scheme, which is used widely around the world—most countries of the world—was the best scheme. They highlighted very clearly that what effectively stopped the trial going ahead was the reluctance of the companies or company—and you can put your own interpretation on the evidence given to us, although, as has already been said by Senator O'Brien, Ansett was named. But there was certainly a resistance to the scheme by the pilots operating the trial. They were reluctant to do it. There was a very clear implication that the pilots were resistant to the training that was required for the scheme's proper and effective operation. It was not the scheme itself that was under criticism per se; it was the attitude of the people who had to operate the scheme that put the risk in place.Senator O'Brien interjecting—UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—You can interject all you like, Senator O'Brien. I let you sit there in peace. You can put your own interpretation on what was said there, but at the end of the day, it was the resistance by the people who had to operate it that would not let it go ahead. Mr Toller, the secretary to CASA, said that once that recommendation was made from BASI, he had no option but to cease the trial or to resign. He was put in a totally untenable position. He related to that letter, which you correctly identified, and some of the pressures that were there.It is absolutely unreasonable of Senator Mackay to come in here and say that the BASI report should be put on the table. That is the sort of proposition that comes only from oppositions. You must let that process go through. It must be examined properly by the government or the minister; he must determine what action should be taken in dealing with that particular report. That is the role of the minister, that is the role of government. At the end of the day, if he determines that that report or part of that report can be released, so be it. The allegations and the counter response left many questions wide open. It is not the sort of thing where you should be trying to pick winners in a political debate. Air safety is far more important than that.I think it is a damnation on the opposition that they come in here today in this tone when this assessment process is going on right now. The allegations that were made need to be got to the bottom of. Minister Anderson has already started that process, and he should be congratulated for that. I think there needs to be some recognition of the emphasis which all those who appeared before us—those from CASA, BASI and Airservices—put on the importance of air safety and also of their acknowledgment of the high standards which all in Australia are aiming to achieve.I conclude my comments today by saying that the three organisations need clear guidelines put down. There needs to be definition regarding their responsibilities. Once that it is done, I think some, if not all, of the problems can be overcome. In the longer term, those hearings will be deemed to have been very useful in determining the direction of air safety. But if, in fact, it is the pilots, through their actions, or some individuals who have stopped this trial—not a shortcoming in the actual scheme of the trial itself—that is a damnation on them. (Time expired)15:30:001965Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I would like to pick up the last comments made by Senator Crane when he attacked the opposition for bringing this issue into the Senate today. I would have thought that it was incumbent upon us and, indeed, the government to discuss this very issue in this chamber.I watched the proceedings in the Senate estimates committee last Monday as a member of the committee. I have followed this issue closely for some years. In my second year as a senator, in 1995, I served on a committee, established at the request of the then opposition, that looked at issues of air safety and air noise surrounding Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. The issue of air safety is one of the most critical issues that this government has to deal with at the moment. In my view, you have an absolute mess in this country at the moment, and this is due to the politicisation of air safety and air regulation by this government.Let us go back to what the situation was prior to when this government was elected. Back in the early 1990s, issues came to light regarding problems that existed within the Civil Aviation Authority—and, particularly, we recall the Monarch and Seaview disasters. The then minister, Mr Brereton, notwithstanding the political fallout that might have occurred and the possible damage to or criticism of the then Labor government, set about reforming the organisational structure of air safety and air regulation in this country. He took steps to separate from the then CAA the roles that it had in air regulation. We ended up with the establishment of Air Services Australia as well as CASA and, of course, BASI continued on as the investigative body. The appropriate structures were put in place to take us forward with respect to air safety and air regulation.But what happened when this government got into power? The first thing they did was try to undermine the board of CASA. They hounded the board members and the then chairman of the board, Justice Bill Fisher, in an endeavour to drive them out of office. The then minister, John Sharp, even requested the resignation of those members. Why? Because he and the Liberal government had an agenda to put Dick Smith in charge of CASA. The government was trying to politicise CASA, and they eventually succeeded by replacing the members of the board and the chairman of CASA.We all know that Dick Smith is a passionate person—and I certainly applaud some of the ventures and activities that Dick Smith has been involved in over the years. But everyone knows that he has a certain passion for reforming, in his words, air navigation and air safety in line with his views. He has pursued the Airspace 2000 program, particularly in relation to G-space regulation. In my view, he has pursued it to the point where, if he does not get his own way, he lashes out at anybody who criticises him. If you had watched the estimates proceedings the other day you would have seen him, first of all, blame Mick Toller, because Mick was the person who had made the decision when Dick Smith, the chairman, was in New Zealand. He then attacked the pilots. He said it was the pilots and the pilots union that caused the abandonment of the demonstration trial.I remember John Howard, when he was Leader of the Opposition, giving evidence to the Senate select committee regarding the issue of a new airport in Sydney. What did he say to that committee? He said, `I'll take the word of the pilots any day.' John Howard then said, `The best judges of air safety in respect of aviation issues are the pilots.' I am sure the Deputy President will remember this as she served some time on that committee.Dick Smith attacked the airlines last Monday. Then he ultimately attacked BASI. What do we have here? We have a situation where the organisational structure that was set up and accepted by all the players in the industry is now coming apart at the seams, and it is ultimately the fault and responsibility of this government. (Time expired)15:35:001966Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I think it is very easy in this place to attack the players in this quite complicated set of circumstances and to forget to look at the basic need to be addressed here—that is, the safety of airline travellers in Australia.Having listened to the quite complex arguments put to the Senate committee last week on this matter, I cannot help but conclude that the radar based system, which was implemented by CASA—the head of the board being Dick Smith—was a safer system than the old one. It brought Australia in line with modern practice in the United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere. However, under pressure from the airlines and, in particular, the airline pilots, it has been abandoned, withdrawn, and Australia has gone back to the old system whereby pilots are informed and take note of air safety through the radio system.What we should have in this country is a radar system which is augmented by a radio system at regional airports. That was recommended by the British Civil Aviation Authority when it looked at the situation in Australia before the implementation of the radar trial. That is what Australia should have. I am not going to be diverted by what the opposition, the government or anybody else has to say on this. I think Australia's air travellers are being given second-rate safety. I repeat that: I think Australia's air travellers are being given second-rate safety.There is a real problem here because it appears that the pilots themselves do not want to change from the system they are used to, because they feel comfortable with it, to a system which they do not feel comfortable with, because it is new, although it is a safer system. As I said in the committee, I think this can be likened to me not wanting to change from typewriters to computers because I am a bit long in the tooth and I find the changing technology difficult. That does not mean that the technology is not as good. In fact, we all know that computers are far better technology. The same with the radar. It is a safer technology. Augmented with radio operators at regional airports, it is a far better technology for the travelling public.When we got down to comparing the two systems, which is the exercise that should settle this matter, we found that BASI, a chief player in having the system abandoned, had made no comparison between the old system favoured by the pilots and the new system used everywhere else in the world which is safer.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—It was not their job.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator O'Brien says it is not their job; I believe it is. They are the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation and they told the committee that after 1990 when they reviewed they became proactive, not reactive. That meant that they were in the business of ensuring Australia had the best safety standards, not waiting until something went wrong, until there was a crash, before they reacted and saw those standards were bought in.Beyond and behind all the skirmishing on this is the need for the minister to stand strong and to ensure that he backs those people, including Mr Smith, who want the best air safety system in Australia. I finish by saying that, like all honourable senators here and many people listening to this, I am a frequent air traveller and I am concerned about the safety of millions of Australians travelling each year. I am very worried indeed that the most safe system in the world, which Australia should have, is not implemented and has been put on the backburner and we are not going to see it for some years. That situation is not good enough.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.196710001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:1967368U4Lees Sen MegTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned strongly opposes any attempts by the Australian Government to mine uranium at the Jabiluka and Koongara sites in the World Heritage Listed Area of the Kakadu National Park or any other proposed or currently operating site.Your petitioners ask that the Senate oppose any intentions by the Australian Government to support the nuclear industry via any mining, enrichment and sale of uranium.Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 36 citizens)19673848U4Lees Sen MegTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.We the undersigned Petitioners wish to bring to the notice of the Senate the situation of the proposed GST with regard to natural health care. Medicinal herbs, other natural remedies and the services of all natural therapists will be taxed at 10%. It is manifestly unfair that those who choose natural therapies are to be taxed while people who choose allopathic medicine are not only subsidised by our taxes, but are also exempt from the GST. Your Petitioners request that the Senate exempts all natural therapy products and services from the proposed GST.Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 384 citizens)19673193I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaTo the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned demand the Australian Government implement regulation for the mandatory labelling of all food or food components which are genetically modified.Senator Stott Despoja3I6Senator Stott Despoja(from 319 citizens)19685928U4Lees Sen MegTo the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain residents of the State of South Australia notes with serious concern the proposal to establish a radioactive waste repository in the Billa Kalina Region. We object strongly to our region being used as a dumping ground for radioactive waste, particularly that from interstate. The petitioners believe that long distance transportation of radioactive waste represents an unacceptable risk and that the establishment of a repository in the region represents a long term threat to residents, tourists, the environment and cultural and business interests.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate act to ensure that a radioactive waste repository is not built in our region and that a waste management regime not based on long distance transportation be developed.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 592 citizens)196840LI4Patterson Sen KayTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned shows we are opposed to the Government's funding cuts to Centrelink, which will mean the loss of 5,000 Centrelink jobs.This staff cut will mean increased waiting times, reduced access and reduced service levels for clients.It will place more stress on an already understaffed and underfunded service.It is an attack on our right to an efficient and accessible social security system.Your petitions request that the Senate should stop the Centrelink staff cuts.Senator PattersonLI4Senator Patterson(from 40 citizens)Petitions received.Notices196819681968Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings. I seek leave to have the statement incorporated.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999PurposeTo encourage disclosure and exchange of information about Year 2000 computer processing remediation actions by limiting legal liability for statements concerning Year 2000 readiness.Reasons for urgencyPassage of the legislation in the Autumn sittings is essential to ensure that information about Year 2000 readiness is freely disseminated as soon as possible. The timely disclosure of information will be important in assisting both public and private organisations to address their Year 2000 needs.Circulated by authority of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts.Senator Woodley to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Government has indicated that it is considering demolishing the Aboriginal tent embassy by using section 8A(2) of the Trespass on Commonwealth Lands Ordinance 1932 (ACT), and (ii) the tent embassy is listed as a `significant place' in the Australian Heritage Commission's Register of the National Estate, and that this means that the Commonwealth, the National Capital Authority and the Australian Federal Police have an obligation under section 30 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 to inform the Australian Heritage Commission of any action they are proposing to take in relation to demolishing the site;(b) condemns the Government for provoking anger among indigenous and non-indigenous Australians by raising the possibility of demolishing the tent embassy, a place which has long been recognised as a significant place by indigenous and non-indigenous Australians and has been formally recognised as such by the register; and(c) calls on the Government to: (i) immediately abolish any plans to demolish the tent embassy, and (ii) consult with the Ngunnawal people of the Australian Capital Territory with regard to the possibility of constructing a formal memorial at the site of the tent embassy to commemorate the important role the site has played in the struggle for the rights of indigenous Australians since it was first constructed in 1972.Senator Cook to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes the tragic loss of life among sailors in the 1998 Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race and the heroic efforts of the rescue services in saving lives in mountainous seas and atrocious conditions;(b) expresses: (i) its sympathies for the families and friends of Glyn Charles, Bruce Guy, Phil Skeggs, Jim Lawler, John Dean and Mike Bannister, the six yachtsmen who died or were tragically lost at sea in the course of the race, and (ii) its gratitude for the rescues of some 55 sailors;(c) acknowledges the professionalism and courageous efforts above and beyond the call of duty by the many men and women from the various rescue agencies involved, amongst them, personnel from: Victorian Polair helicopter aircrews Westpac Lifesaver rescue helicopter aircrews NRMA Careflight Gary Ticehurst, G & A Ticehurst Helicopters the crew of Moira Elizabeth the crew of Josephine Jean ACT & SE NSW Aero-medical Helicopter Service Telstra Control radio, especially Lew Carter aboard STS Young Endeavour Lt Commander Neil Galletly and the crew of STS Young Endeavour Victorian and New South Wales police, especially the Victorian airwing and the Eden police Royal Australian Air Force, especially the aircrews of the spotter aircraft Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol, Eden Royal Australian Navy, especially the crew of HMAS Wollongong Australian Maritime Safety Authority;(d) notes that there are a number of inquiries investigating the disaster, foremost of which are those inquiries being conducted by the New South Wales Coroner and the Cruising Yacht Club of Australia; and(e) trusts that the combined findings of the inquiries are properly implemented and result in safer standards for yachts, equipment and skill levels for all people who venture to sea in boats.Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate notes that:(a) the Computer Services Corporation (CSC) wrote to all senators on 4 February 1999 announcing the donation of computer equipment from electorate offices to the Computer for Schools Program run by Education Networks of Australia and that this commitment was accepted by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp);(b) on 9 February 1999, (CSC) wrote to senators withdrawing the offer so as to `allow electorate offices to purchase the second hand equipment'; and(c) calls on (CSC) and the Minister to revert to the original decision to donate the computers to Australia's schools.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the National Health Act 1953 , and for related purposes. National Health Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 .Senator Murphy to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics References Committee into whether a new reactor should be built to replace the High Flux Australian Reactor at Lucas Heights on that site or some other site in Australia be extended to 27 May 1999.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 , and for related purposes. Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 1999 . Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) condemns: (i) the decision by the Government to force unemployed persons who fail to meet government standards of literacy and numeracy into remedial courses under threat of losing income support, and (ii) the inappropriate use of coercion against some of the most vulnerable members of society to address such a complex and sensitive issue; and(b) urges the Government: (i) to change this decision, and instead take immediate action to rectify the flaws in the referral process which has prevented many young people from accessing these remedial courses, and (ii) to cease its attacks on young people, and young jobseekers in particular, and direct its employment efforts towards job creation, rather that continued `scapegoating'.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to therapeutic goods, and for related purposes. Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 .1970Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 (relating to the disallowance of item 1301 of Schedule 1 of the Migration Amendment Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 304), and general business notices of motion no. 56 (East Timorese asylum seekers) and no. 86 (reappointment of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy) standing in her name for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Mackay) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 107 standing in the name of Senator Mackay for today, proposing an order for the production of a document by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That general business notices of motion nos 96, 98 and 99 standing in her name for today, relating to uranium mining, be postponed till 8 March 1999.Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Bolkus) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Bolkus for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in her name for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of 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 the name of Senator Denman for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees197019701970Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Payne) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998 be extended to 30 March 1999.19701970Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Crane) 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 Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 be extended to 23 March 1999. 19711971Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Knowles) agreed to: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) 1998.19711971Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Gibson) agreed to: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 1998-99.19711971Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Chapman) agreed to: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 .Miscellaneous1971Motion (by Senator Reynolds)—as amended, by leave—agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that 10 December 1998 is the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;(b) gives its wholehearted commitment to working across party lines to implement policies which respect the human rights of all Australians;(c) undertakes to pursue all efforts bilaterally and multilaterally within the framework of the United Nations to protect the human rights of all humanity; and(d) requests the Government to report to the Senate on its program for implementing a national human rights education program during the United Nations Decade of Human Rights Education.Miscellaneous1971Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) Australian internet use continues to proliferate as current figures, produced by AC Nielsen's NetWatch service, show a 33 per cent increase in the number of Australians accessing the internet in the past year, and (ii) access among young Australians is very high, with 51 per cent of all Australian teenagers accessing the internet in November 1998; and(b) expresses concern that: (i) the Government has not produced the framework legislation necessary to promote the emerging Australian industry, and (ii) opportunities for Australian jobs, wealth and improved lifestyles are being lost because of a delay in implementing the necessary framework legislation.Ministerial Statements1971197115:52:001971Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the second report on the deaths of Australian based journalists in East Timor in 1975, together with the report and a copy of a letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Indonesian Minister for Foreign Affairs, and I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—I watched the report on the ABC's Foreign Correspondent program on 20 October 1998 concerns the deaths of five Australian-based journalists at Balibo in 1975. While not usually persuaded by journalistic crusades, I was struck by the account presented by the alleged new eye-witness to the deaths of the journalists. Having taken a transparent and open attitude to this matter over the years I felt that further inquiry was justified into this new account and that I owed it to the families to see that all available information relating to the deaths of their loved ones was thoroughly examined.I therefore asked Mr Sherman to look again at the deaths of the five Australia-based journalists. Mr Sherman's brief was to evaluate any information about the deaths emerging from or relevant to the Foreign Correspondent program, which was in addition to that covered in his first report. As the new information related to the deaths of the journalists at Balibo, Mr Sherman did not look again at the death of Roger East—nor was he was offered any new information on the death of Roger East.As I did when I tabled Mr Sherman's first report in 1996, I emphasise that the Government has been thoroughly transparent on this issue. At the beginning of the second evaluation I said that Mr Sherman would have full access to all material held by the Government on the matter. Mr Sherman did ask for access to a variety of material, including relevant intelligence material, and for interviews with a number of former government officials who worked with this material. The Government cooperated fully, and respected Mr Sherman's independence at all times. Mr Sherman sets out his account of the information from Government sources in Chapter 5, and his conclusions about it are on page 139. The Government is also giving favourable consideration to the publication of documents relating to this historical period and a final decision will be made in due course.In his letter to me covering the second report, Mr Sherman states that he recognises the Government may be concerned that his references to intelligence material disclose details of sources and methods relating to the gathering of intelligence. The Government takes disclosure of such information very seriously, and has therefore decided not to include in the tabled version of the second report some references which could disclose sources of intelligence. These references are a very small component of Mr Sherman's report, and their length is apparent in paragraphs 5.28, 5.29 and 5.30. While the Government regrets having to take this action, it does not affect the conclusion Mr Sherman makes about the intelligence material, or his overall findings about the deaths.I thank Mr Sherman for the care and attention he has devoted to this important task. I want to express the Government's appreciation for the manner in which he has discharged his responsibilities.The conclusions of Mr Sherman's second report are in Chapter 8. Mr Sherman concludes that the Balibo 5 were killed: . at Balibo, early in the morning of 16 October 1975 probably before 7.00 am;. by an attacking force, consisting of Indonesian troops and anti-Fretilin East Timorese but under the control of Indonesian officers;. in circumstances of continuing fighting between attackers end defenders or at least before the attackers had secured their objective.Contrasting with the hearsay accounts of the deaths in the 1996 report, the bases for these conclusions include the accounts of three individuals who claim to have witnessed at least one of the killings. I am not going to comment in detail on Mr Sherman's findings as the report speaks clearly enough for itself, although I would note that he concludes that the evidence available on the Balibo killings is quite inconsistent, particularly as to circumstances of death.Mr Sherman produced his report on the basis of information available outside Indonesia. The Government asked, at the highest levels of the Indonesian Government, that Mr Sherman be allowed to visit Indonesia in conducting his evaluation. The Indonesian Government did not agree to this request and we cannot compel it to do so, any more than it can compel the Australian Government to do something which we might or might not want to do.Nevertheless, I have again written to my Indonesian counterpart, Mr Ali Alatas, asking him to pursue any further information which would throw additional light on the conclusions reached. In the letter I also ask again for any additional information the Indonesian Government is able to provide us on the death of Roger East, whose killing was a concern of Mr Sherman's first report. I am happy today to table that letter along with the second report.In its approach to the second report, as with the first, the Government has remained concerned for the next of kin. Officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have provided copies of the report to the journalists' relatives and invited their questions and comments on it. The Australian Government deeply regrets the deaths and remains willing to receive any credible new information about them. In this context, and as part of our transparent approach, the Government would be favourably disposed to proposals for a parliamentary inquiry on this matter, should the parliament wish.15:54:001972Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the statement.I rise to speak briefly in response to the minister's statement concerning the second report of Mr Tom Sherman into the circumstances of the deaths of five Australian based journalists in Balibo, East Timor, on 16 October 1975. Unlike the minister, the opposition has not had the opportunity to conduct the detailed analysis such a document as this requires. As a consequence, I do not propose to speak about the detail of Mr Sherman's inquiry and findings, but suffice to say that I note his conclusion that the evidence available to him is inconsistent but leads to conclusions broadly similar to those he reached in his 1996 inquiry.More than 2½ years ago, following the first Sherman report and the Indonesian government's refusal to reopen the issue, the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, said that it was not clear what further action would be `in the national interest'. Although the government did not say so explicitly, the case was effectively at that point closed. That was not the view of the relatives of the dead journalists of course, nor was it the view of groups such as the International Commission of Jurists, who developed a strong critique of the limitations of Sherman's inquiry, his analysis and his findings.Then last year, we had further revelations published in August by Mr Hamish MacDonald of the Sydney Morning Herald and in October by the ABC Foreign Correspondent program that triggered the new inquiry. When the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced his further inquiry Mr Laurie Brereton, the shadow minister for foreign affairs representing Labor, said that it was unlikely to satisfy the families of the dead journalists. I understand that Mrs Shirley Shackleton has only received a copy of the report within the last hour. Mr Brereton said that he thinks she should have received an advance copy in a much more timely fashion than that. I suspect that, when the families do get to read the report, they will not be satisfied. Indeed, it does not appear to take us very far forward at all.I note that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has again written to his Indonesian counterpart, Foreign Minister Ali Alatas, seeking cooperation from the Indonesian government to provide further information which would shed light on the deaths of the journalists. I do not think the minister has done so with much hope of a positive reply. Minister Alatas has already said that the Indonesian government considers the case closed and that further investigation would only open old wounds. In his letter, Mr Downer expressed `regret' that Australia is still obliged to raise what he described as `unfortunate incidents'.What he should have said was that Australia cannot consider the case closed without a full account of the events at Balibo from the Indonesian side, including the role or otherwise of the present Minister for Information and others in the Indonesian military chain of command. He should have told Minister Alatas that it is not a case of reopening old wounds; it is a case of dealing openly and frankly with an enduring wound in the bilateral relationship, a wound which will not heal without full openness, transparency and fundamental accountability from the Indonesian side.I also note the minister's statement that the government is giving favourable consideration to the publication of documents relating to this historical period. Mr Brereton has already made Labor's position on this matter very clear. We support a comprehensive declassification of historical records relating to East Timor, not only in respect of the Whitlam Labor government but also in respect of the Fraser government. With regard to Balibo, there should be a comprehensive release of documents which shed light on the Whitlam government's knowledge of the events prior to and after the killings and the Fraser government's subsequent investigations.We now know from the documents revealed in the Sydney Morning Herald that Australian officials were aware in October 1975, and subsequently, that Indonesian troops had entered East Timor and, indeed, that the attack on Balibo was orchestrated by the Indonesian military. Yet, in spite of this, the 1976 Taylor inquiry merely reported denials of Indonesian military involvement in the attack on Balibo. Mr Taylor and other officials, and presumably the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Peacock, knew that these denials were lies but they did not dispute them publicly, and a seriously deficient and misleading report was tabled in this parliament.Some 23 years on, today's report has not taken us very far in understanding what happened in Balibo. We may never know the whole truth but no-one can say `case closed'. This has been a running sore in our bilateral relationship with Indonesia. Together with the broader issue of East Timor, it has been a cancer that has eaten away at the bilateral ties successive governments have worked to build. It has been an enduring concern for the relatives of the deceased. A satisfactory resolution of this matter is very long overdue.16:00:001974Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I would have to agree with much of what Senator Cook has just said. As I said in my press release at the time of that Four Corners program, which Mr Sherman is having a look at, I also agree that the best way forward now would be through cooperation with the Indonesian government to have a look from both sides at what documents are available—not only look at documents but also talk to people. Even though Mr Sherman says in his report that he does not know that much can be taken forward in that way, I still believe it would be worth while if we could get both the Indonesian and the Australian sides and someone who is trusted by both sides, from either side, to have a look at where this can be taken now.I was encouraged by the last sentence of Mr Downer's statement, which seems to me to indicate that the minister does intend to cooperate with the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade that is hoping to look into these deaths of Australian and other journalists at Balibo. I assume, as Senator Cook does, that that means the minister will be releasing documents into these deaths. I certainly would hope that he will be releasing all relevant documents. It will be interesting to see whether he releases them in public to the inquiry or whether he releases them just to the members of the committee. I think it would a pity if that were the case.It is a long time ago now. It would be very interesting to have a look at all the documen tation which is held by the Australian government—not only by Foreign Affairs. It would be fascinating to have a look at the documentation held by Defence and by any government or semi-government body from the time just before this happened even up to the present day. That would all be very interesting. I am on that committee and I look forward to seeing that documentation. I regret also that we are not stronger in our condemnation of the actions of Indonesian forces during their invasion of a neighbouring country. Those actions were unacceptable at the time. They are unacceptable still. The deaths of the journalists were unacceptable at the time, as were the deaths of the East Timorese and as was every death that occurred as a result of that invasion.The change in the views on East Timor of both the Australian government and the ALP over the last year and even more recently is one of the most significant changes to foreign affairs policy that we have seen in this country for a long time. Both of them are terribly significant and they are changes for the better. But what is most unfortunate is the attitude that the Prime Minister has taken recently. I take the point that he honestly does believe that, if East Timor were to become autonomous or independent—more importantly independent—they would become almost reliant on Australia for their wellbeing and for funding.I cannot see why on earth East Timorese would turn to Australia for help now if they become independent because, if there is one thing that successive Australian governments have demonstrated, it is that they are not going to help the East Timorese. We set up the Timor Gap Treaty, and that is another question we should be looking at. I understand that several oil companies are currently putting together contingency plans for what will happen when—and it is inevitable—East Timor becomes independent of Indonesia. I think that is commendable. I would love to see whether Australia is doing the same. I do not know if we are; I doubt it.I think the Prime Minister is way off the mark when he assumes that Australia will have very much of a role at all. And should we? Well, probably not. What have we done for East Timor? What have we done to repay what we owe to the East Timorese? What have we done that the East Timorese would now turn to us for help? I cannot see there is an awful lot. If I were them, I would certainly not be coming here. They will be going to Portugal; they will be going to the European Union countries who have been offering support in the past and who are now saying that they offer support in the future. So I cannot see that that would be the case.The one statement from the Prime Minister recently, just over the last couple of days, that I really find most offensive is where he said on a television program, `Australia has to realise that the situation in East Timor has now become serious.' Yes, it has. It became serious, though, quite a long time ago. It became serious when Indonesia invaded East Timor. It was serious when people were being murdered; it was serious when people were being tortured; it was serious when people were being armed, as they still are, to fight against other East Timorese. Torture and death are serious. It has been serious for a long time.East Timor has now come to a critical point in its development. Of course, that critical point will not be resolved until after the Indonesian elections in May when we find out who is in power and what their attitude is. We have heard quite a few different attitudes coming from people who are likely to have some share of that power—not all of them are in favour of independence or even autonomy for East Timor. So nothing is certain except that the situation in East Timor is serious now and has been serious for a long time. It will only stop being serious when the East Timorese people are able to determine their own future; when they are not being tortured; when they are not being murdered; when they are not being taken away from their homes; when they are not being armed to fight each other—that is when it will stop being serious.If we can help in that, if we can encourage the United Nations to bring in troops, which will help and which the East Timorese people want, and if we can encourage a free determination by the East Timorese—as many people in this parliament from all sides have said all along and consistently over the last couple of decades—then that is where Australia will be helping. Australia will be able to help in building democratic institutions. To give the foreign minister his due, he has set that up. I think that is an excellent move. I also think that the foreign minister has a better grip on what is going on than the Prime Minister. I wish the Prime Minister would let him get on with dealing with it on behalf of the Australian government.Let us be sure about this: the pain and the hurt of the families of these journalists will not go away until the families of these journalists believe that all the information that could come out has come out. I do not think that will happen until the Indonesian government and the Australian government can cooperate on that. That is something that may happen as a result of the elections in May. The results of those elections will be absolutely vital to the future of East Timor, of Irian Jaya, of West Papua, of Aceh, of Ambon—you could go on and on.The whole of Indonesia is in crisis. It is bubbling along, and it could go in any direction. I think it will go in the direction of more autonomy and, I certainly believe, of independence for several places within Indonesia, either sooner or later; I hope that it is sooner. I hope, and I sincerely believe, that there are people across the board in the Australian parliament who want that to be as smooth as possible, who want to help, who want to stop the torture, who want to stop the killings and who want to make sure that our nearest neighbour to the north is a peaceful place. I believe that will happen; I just hope it is sooner rather than later.16:07:001975Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I concur with a great deal of what Senator Bourne has had to say, particularly when, towards the conclusion of her remarks, she indicated that Australia has a very positive role to play in East Timor's move to independence—if only we had the leadership that could take us into that positive role. The Australian people are willing and, amongst them, there is great feeling about the role we have to play in bringing this transition about peacefully and ending the suffering of the East Timorese and, inevitably, the suffering of the oppressors—because oppression cannot occur without the oppressors themselves being damaged.That is writ large in this report from Mr Tom Sherman. People who are hoping for some resolution of the events at Balibo and some attribution of clear responsibility for those involved in the journalists' deaths will find this report disappointing. It does not go anywhere near resolving the matter, and that is because the evidence is not available.Unfortunately, the conclusions fall short of the mark of going as far as they could have. In the conclusion of chapter 8 there is no mention of there being the need for the Australian government to pursue very strongly with the Indonesian authorities the bringing to justice of those people who were involved in the deaths at Balibo. What Mr Sherman does say on page 148 of the report is:The cover up of a murder is one possible answer but, on the totality of the evidence, another cover up is more likely. That is the cover up of a monumental blunder and to destroy the evidence of the Balibo 5—being the people who were killed—because of the acute embarrassment that the killing of the journalists would cause the Indonesian military and perhaps more importantly its effect on Australian-Indonesian bilateral relations. This is more likely in the light of the evidence so far disclosed. It is clear that, whatever the state of their prior knowledge, the attacking troops—that is, the Indonesian troops—quickly realised that they had killed five journalists and took immediate steps to destroy all evidence of what they had done.They cannot destroy all evidence of what they have done. All those people present knew what they had done. Most of them are still alive and know what happened at Balibo.The implication in Mr Sherman's report of there being nowhere really further to go at this time I reject out of hand. That is why the Australian government has a very clear obligation to pursue very strongly with Mr Alatas and President Habibie the need for an inquiry which is open, which is independent and which can bring those people who were on site to light with the requirement that the evidence that they have still in their heads and in their hearts is brought into the light of day. Nothing short of that either is justice or will bring some feeling of resolution, particularly to the relatives of those people who died at Balibo.I am further disappointed that Mr Sherman has spent almost half of his conclusions in waggling a finger at people who, he says, have developed fixed views on this incident. He then goes on to say that they nevertheless should be warned that there may have been East Timorese complicit in the murders at Balibo. I think Mr Sherman is putting the emphasis in the wrong place there.I have never heard anybody say—and I have spoken to many people who are involved in wanting justice on this issue—that certain people who are involved should not be brought forward, that the evidence should not come from them and that they should not be subject to the same justice as everybody else, even if they are East Timorese. It is quite clear that in a state of war very often people do join the side of the attackers, the invaders—that is nearly a constant in these matters.I think for Mr Sherman to spend nearly half of his report saying that people have to understand that, and those with so-called fixed opinions have to come to grips with this, is effectively to waste space which could have gone much more tellingly to putting the thumb on the Indonesian authorities and ipso facto the Australian authorities who have a great need to do more to ensure that the deaths of the Balibo Five are followed down the line, no matter how far, by the discovery of the facts and the attribution of justice.Finally, I have a further word on Australia's role with East Timor from here on in. As I said at the outset, I believe that much more can be done. The Australian people will be behind the Howard government if it changes its current parsimonious—that is the best that can be said about it—attitude towards independence for East Timor and becomes a prime agent in the movement of not only a swift transition to independence for the East Timorese but also a peaceful one.I have been around long enough to remember 1975 when the then Whitlam government turned down the opportunity to offer Australia as neutral ground for the disputing parties in East Timor to come to a peaceful resolution of their differences and to establish a properly representative and democratic system in East Timor. That was a blot, amongst many, on the failure of Australian governments to represent not only the East Timorese people but also the general Australian dictum of `a fair go'. Australians have wanted better in the actions of their governments. Now we have another opportunity. It is 24 years down the line, but here is the opportunity to make amends a little.It is just not good enough. In fact, it is woefully inadequate, wrong and remiss of the Prime Minister to be indicating that Australia will be penalised if it gets involved in this transition; that it is going to cost us money. I am troubled that each time the Prime Minister is challenged on values other than financial ones he cannot rise to the occasion. It is as if the only values motivating the people of this country are money. He is wrong in that. He is not representing the Australian ethos, and he is not representing the feeling of the Australian people.There is here a great opportunity. I congratulate the Labor Party in having made a remarkable transition from the bad old days of policy towards East Timor to a much more enlightened policy at the moment which faces up to the fact that all governments involved down the line since the invasion in East Timor—and indeed the period before that in Australia—have been found wanting and have failed to help this small neighbour which, as history records, was so courageous in helping our service people during the last war.The Prime Minister needs not only to catch up with the feeling in this country but also to go further and be a statesperson when the interests of our neighbours are involved. Because it is in the interests of Indonesia to find a peaceful transition to independence in East Timor. The Prime Minister, instead of cavilling about how much it might cost, ought to be looking at what he can do to bring about peace in our neighbourhood, and therefore a feeling of greater security in this country of ours.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees197719771977The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)10000PON/A10—The President has received letters from party leaders nominating senators to be members of committees.Motion (by Senator Patterson)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Community Affairs References Committee— Participating member: Senator DenmanEnvironment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator Denman to replace Senator Bolkus on Friday, 19 February 1999, for the consideration of the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999]Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator Woodley to replace Senator Stott Despoja for the consideration of the provisions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998.Miscellaneous197716:17:001977Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—At the request of Senator Faulkner, I move: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.I must admit when I first addressed this matter it seemed somewhat like Groundhog Day . This is, on my counting, the fifth time the Senate has been called upon to look at what could be regarded as a new instrument. In seeking to characterise what we were looking at yet again, my attention was drawn to an article by Glen Milne in yesterday's Australian , where he described the minister's behaviour on another matter—namely, that of his position on the republic—as reported by Liberal MPs as popularist and unprincipled. I call upon this depiction in relation to these regulations. I will go on further to explain why the Senate should disallow them.Mr Reith is perhaps still carrying the baton in his knapsack of leadership, although, as Mr Milne pointed out, his position on the republic is suffering and there is no doubt with this measure that his finger is still on the double dissolution trigger. To the description of popularist and unprincipled given by his own colleagues, I would add the description of baseless and misleading in relation to these measures. Before I go on to the detail and the history of these regulations, I would like to bring to the Senate's attention the most recent example of this. On AAP last night, the minister was quoted as saying in relation to unfair dismissal laws:We will not back down on this. It is a sensible measure. It is consistent with the International Labour Organisation convention. It is consistent with what other countries do overseas.These are the baseless lies that the minister continues with in relation to these regulations.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The honourable senator knows that it is quite inappropriate to suggest that the minister has lied or that he has persisted in lies or any such phrase like that. I ask that it be withdrawn.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Mr Acting Deputy President, I am happy to withdraw that reference, although as I continue to explain this matter I will add an explanation of why we go to such extents. We have continually brought the minister to bear on misleading remarks he has made in this debate, and I will do so once again. I will leave it up to public to draw the conclusion of whether they are lies or not, but I think the record should be pretty clear.When the department and the minister have presented the arguments in this matter, the only time they referred to the ILO was in relation to the exclusion with respect to the qualifying period, not with respect to the small business exemption. Senator Tierney will recall that in the evidence before us from the Justice Research Centre—and I will refer directly to page 2 of that—they canvassed the position in relation to ILO convention 158. A clear reference here is that the convention does not allow a government to subsequently introduce new exceptions that were not in force at the time of the first report. They go on to explain:In addition to affording appropriate flexibility, the purpose of exception clauses in ILO conventions is for member states to endeavour to gradually achieve broader application . . . Not to introduce narrower application. The other comment that the minister made was that we were consistent with other countries. The Justice Research Centre helpfully reminded us of that point, although it has been canvassed in the past on this matter as well. In their submission to the inquiry on page 6 they stated:In relation to the lack of justification for setting a threshold at 15 employees, the committee of experts of the ILO General Survey on Convention 158 lists only four countries which limit protection against unfair dismissal according to the size of the business concerned. Of these, the only country to have a threshold as high as 15 employees is Sri Lanka.This is not a country with which Australia routinely compares itself in economic matters, although under the current government people might question that. They conclude their comments with the remark that the other countries noticed by the committee of experts—Germany, Austria and the Republic of Korea—have much lower thresholds of three to five employees. So I leave it to the public to determine the reliability of the minister's comments in these matters when he says that what we are proceeding with is consistent with the ILO and consistent with other countries. I have brought this matter forward before going into the detail and the history of these regulations because I think it reinforces the point that we need to apply a fairly strong element of caution to the minister's remarks in this matter.Before referring to the history of these regulations, I should point out that a bill before the Senate at the moment that the minister circumvented with these regulations relates to two similar matters: firstly, to require a six-month qualifying period of employment before new employees other than apprentices and trainees can access an unfair dismissal remedy under the act; and to ex clude new employees of small businesses, other than apprentices and trainees, of 15 or fewer employees from an unfair dismissal remedy under the act but with the additional provision of increasing the filing fee from $50 to $100 to try to limit the number of claims. So these regulations are slightly broader than the provisions that were before the Senate in relation to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 but, on the whole, we are canvassing pretty much the same issues.The history of these regulations is as I have summarised. This is the fifth time these matters have been before us. The story started in 1996 when the government introduced the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, which amended the previous Labor government's unfair dismissal laws. These were fairly significant changes, and the government has been known to claim that these significant changes have had a huge impact, and Mr Howard has claimed a huge amount of success with respect to the changes that occurred under this act. But, despite this and despite the fact that the Prime Minister also gave several assurances over time—as, in fact, did the minister—that everybody would have access to appeal on issues related to things such as dismissal, the minister went on with this.I encourage senators to refer to the report of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 inquiry by the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee—not only to the government members' report but also to that by the Democrats and by Labor members. That report also canvasses the history of this at some length and it deals in a fair amount of detail with an assessment of the evidence.But if we go back to the history, apart from the significant changes that were made under this government, regulations to exclude access to unfair dismissal laws by employees with less than 12 months continuous employment and by those who work for a business of 15 or fewer employees were introduced by the government in July 1997. The Senate disallowed these regulations. The Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997, proposing a permanent exemption for small businesses of 15 or fewer employees from the unfair dismissal laws, was introduced into the Senate in September 1997 and referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. Like this time, minority Labor and Democrat committee members passed dissenting reports recommending that the bill not be passed, and the bill was defeated in October 1997.A further bill, with identical provisions, was introduced into parliament in November of that year and defeated in the Senate in March 1998. On 12 November 1998 the government introduced the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 into the House of Representatives and this bill was referred to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee for examination. Whilst this examination was scheduled to occur, the measures proposed in the bill were contained in the Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations 1998 (Nos 2 and 3), the subject of this disallowance motion.Labor senators joined the Democrats, the Greens, Senator Harradine and Senator Colston in expressing their anger about this matter. This matter was before the Senate for investigation and inquiry when the minister chose to go down the path of regulation—regulations which the minister was aware had already been disallowed by the Senate. I would claim that the minister is not only demonstrating his contempt for the process of parliament but is also demonstrating his contempt for small business because he knew full well that this matter would come before us now and he knew full well what the outcome of that would be.Let me refer to the investigation that the Senate was in the process of conducting. I would like to go back to Mr Reith's second reading speech, which was essentially the genesis of the inquiry that the Senate determined to undertake. In his second reading speech the minister said:Senators who spoke against the previous bill to introduce the small business exclusion said there was insufficient evidence of the need for the bill, and its benefits. There was plenty of evidence, but they would not allow themselves to be convinced.He cited several examples of the evidence and then he went on to say:Then there was the Yellow Pages Small Business Index Survey conducted in October and November 1997, and further surveys conducted in March 1998 and July 1998 by the New South Wales, South Australian and Queensland chambers. These surveys, and others like them, make completely plain the importance which business attaches to this issue.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—It all points to the same conclusion.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Senator Tierney, I am actually quoting your minister. I do not think you need to interject at this stage. I do not think he needs your reinforcement. The Senate decided that, once again, given the minister's encouragement, we would investigate those surveys, and unfortunately we pretty much came to the same conclusion. That is the subject of the Labor members' report and it is also the subject of Senator Murray's report.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Tell us about the ACCI one.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—I do not have the time at this stage to go through the detail, but I would encourage all senators and the public to refer to those reports because, as Senator Tierney claims yet again, you should look at the most recent survey by employers who have push polled this issue yet again. But the difficulty for Mr Reith is that his claims do not stand up to close analysis. An examination of the evidence he cites indicates that he has selectively chosen statistics which buttress his case, he has relied on surveys with dubious methodology, he has relied on guesses or simply ignored data—O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Tell us about the ACCI one. Tell me what is wrong with it.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—which are not helpful to his views in this case. Senator Tierney continually refers to the ACCI survey—time and time again. I will get to that matter, Senator Tierney, but before I do, I think we will deal with some of the other material that was before us.Mr Reith then directed his own department to follow his example. This has placed the department in the invidious situation of having to ignore definitive, unbiased surveys, such as its own Australian workplace industrial relations survey, which contradict the minister's rhetoric. Despite the fact that the department quite loyally has tried to put forth material to further reinforce the minister's case, it has continued to ignore material such as that which came to us via ACIRRT, which points out that unpublished material by the Australian workplace industrial relations survey states quite clearly, before the minister's push polling on this matter—Senator Tierney interjecting—GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—that only 0.9 per cent of respondents nominated that they had not recruited employees because of unfair dismissal legislation.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—How do you line that up with the ACCI?GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—That is the sort of result you get when you do not push poll a question. Senator Tierney had, in the course of the evidence before us—Senator Tierney interjecting—GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—a lesson in what is a leading question. I would encourage Senator Tierney—Senator Tierney interjecting—GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—to go back to his lesson about what is a leading question.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—State the facts!10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Order! Please address your remarks through the chair rather than through Senator Tierney.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: if you are going to take a point of order on the speaker, I wonder if you could take a point of order on the interjections, please.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Senator Tierney is obviously very excited. I have already encouraged him to refer to the lesson he had on basic—3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, I refer to undue interference from the other side. As you would know, I very seldom get angry in this place, and I have to attend many debates. Senator Tierney is acting in a manner which does not befit a senator and is not allowing the other senator to put her point of view. He has 20 minutes in which to put his case. I would appreciate it if you would discipline him accordingly.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Tierney has been interjecting but, on the other hand, I think Senator Collins has been baiting the senator somewhat.Opposition senators interjecting—GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Mr Acting Deputy President, in response to that—as part of my contribution—perhaps I will point out that this is a debate on an issue, and if senators feel sensitive about the facts there is not really much I can do about that. It is, perhaps, incumbent upon you to control the chamber rather than to suggest that I not bait other senators with what are facts.Senator Tierney obviously does not want me to refer to the fact that Mr Reith's own department was forced into the position where, in its response to senators and to this inquiry, it had to produce a rider to the material presented to the Senate. It is also in our report but I will quote it:The department neither sought nor claimed to provide a comprehensive discussion or analysis of all of the survey material, research findings and points of view relevant to the subject matter of the bill. The references to surveys and related material included in the submission were included for the purpose of explaining the government's policy position.So the only research, the only data, the only material we got was that which was consistent with the minister's position. That is the point—that the department was forced to put a rider into its own material to us about it.The minister also further compromised officers of his own department by directing that they present his selected witnesses from small business to appear at a hearing by the committee on this bill, as part of their own submission to the committee. This is unprece dented behaviour. The inappropriateness of this directive was demonstrated when one of the witnesses testified about a case that is currently before the Industrial Relations Commission.This is despite the fact that the secretary to the department was aware—he has since informed us—of the fact that the president and the commission themselves keep this information secret. But the secretary, at the direction of the minister, prodded up these small business employers whom we did not take the time to analyse because we wanted to question the department on its submission, and paid their airfare inappropriately. This matter is now referred to the Procedure Committee of the Senate to further investigate. Again, this is an example of the lengths that the minister is prepared to go to in this matter.I have already indicated that I am not going to go into the detail of the several surveys that are contrary in their indication to what the department has presented. That is in our report and it is also in Senator Murray's report. The claims about inconsistent positions by the government we have been through time and time again. But then, we are starting to get used to that issue from the Prime Minister.There is perhaps one issue that I would like to highlight; in this whole debate, I query this situation time and time again. I was taught in my early secondary school days a pretty basic lesson on the analysis of social research data. When you are confronted with a survey, you never take it on face value. And yet, that is what the department has done. That is the presentation of the material we have received. That is what the minister has done.When we attempt, as Senator Murray and I have done on several occasions, to further investigate the research, we confront problems such as the department never even having sighted it. I will give you one quick example. The New South Wales chamber was referred to by the minister. I contacted the chamber, eventually, when I could not get the material from the department. On my second go, the chamber finally sent me the material which explained a press release that had been re ferred to by the minister. What the material actually said was very interesting.The material said that half of those employers who had responded to the questions and had indicated that they had been subject to an unfair dismissal claim did not think it affected their hiring intentions. So if you cannot even convince the businesses that have been subject to a claim of this matter, why on earth should we be convinced? If half the respondents to a New South Wales chamber survey, apart from being employers being questioned on this matter—and probably quite desirous of reducing the restrictions placed upon them by legislation—who have indicated that they have been subject to a claim do not think it affects their hiring intentions, why on earth should we be convinced?Just before I conclude on this matter I want to deal with one aspect of the evidence that was before us because I think it provides some balance to the minister's claims in this matter—that is, evidence included in the submission from the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, of which I was an employee, quite proudly, for about 15 years. I cite my interest after Minister Alston's comments at question time. I want to refer all senators to that submission and the several cases they give as a sample of employees who would not have access to remedy if this exemption went forward.In conclusion, the one point I want to go back to is the populist issue. The minister's own colleagues regard him as a populist and that is what he is being in this matter. Even COSBOA, represented by Mr Bastian, is calling on him to redefine this debate because the minister is now costing jobs. He is feeding the perceptions which are now costing jobs in small business. He is probably costing the 50,000 jobs he is claiming these regulations would generate through developing the perception that there is a problem with these laws when he cannot demonstrate the fact.16:39:001982Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—We are debating the opposition disallowance motion on the Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations. This is something the government has done out of some frustration, given the matter has been before the Senate in legislation and rejected on a number of occasions.I would like to remind the Senate that this is a matter that was taken to the Australian people in 1996. We were totally up-front about what we intended to do. We intended to remove this provision so that those who employed fewer than 15 people were not subject to the unfair dismissal laws. After several rejections, we went to the 1998 election and put it up as policy again. We were re-elected. One would have thought we had a mandate on that matter, having been elected twice. Yet the opposition continues to come in here and refuse what is the will of the government and the will of the people on this matter.This is a vital issue to Australia because this country, like many advanced nations, has as its engine room of growth small business. If you look at what happened throughout the advanced economies, such as the United States, during the 1980s and 1990s, you will see that there was not one net new job added to those economies from big business or big government. All the growth came from small business. In Australia at the moment, with five per cent growth, we have an unleashing this sort of power in our economy. At the moment small business is the engine room of growth.Governments have to be very careful and oppositions, I would caution, also have to be careful that they do not do anything that cuts back that growth, because from that growth comes wealth in the economy and from that come jobs. Yet by its constant opposition to this measure, this opposition has stopped the creation of jobs. There have been various figures floated around on what it is costing the economy. What the evidence increasingly shows is that it is probably a much greater figure than what was first floated.Senator Collins was trying to give me a lesson in research statistics and quoted from her secondary high school experience. I completed a PhD in research methodology, so let me give you a few lessons on the matters of reliability on research and validity on research. Senator, you have probably never heard of the key point on validity measures.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—I have actually.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Good. The key measure, you will know, is that if you receive evidence from a number of different sources and all those things are pointing in the same direction, then probably your conclusions are right. We have a number of surveys confirming that these unfair dismissal laws are costing jobs. There was an enormous amount of anecdotal evidence at the hearing. During the day, Senator Collins and I heard an enormous amount of evidence from small businesses giving us plenty of anecdotal evidence to support those statistical measures on a validity measure, saying that this was costing jobs.I note that, when Senator Collins referred to the witnesses who were brought by the minister, all her comments related to procedure. None of them related to the substance of what they were saying. Why didn't you tell us what they said?GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—It wasn't relevant.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Isn't that fascinating? It was not relevant! You mean that their saying that they were going out backwards because of these laws was not relevant! Time and time again we had anecdotal evidence that that was exactly what was happening. I am trying to point out the absolutely crucial need to get these regulations through so that small business can have a chance to fire. I will go into the number of cases and evidence we received to support that point.At this point I would like to go back to 1993 when the former Keating government brought in this system. One of the key factors that has been debated here this afternoon is that we are doing this by regulation. This system originally came in in 1993 by legislation. Then between 1994 and 1996, on some five occasions, the government changed the exemption rules—who was covered and who was not covered by these provisions—by regulation, not by amendments to legislation. Now the opposition want to stop us doing exactly the same thing here today. What they are doing in this whole process is costing jobs. The Herald Sun reported yesterday that nearly 40 per cent of businesses were reluctant to hire because of the unfair dismissal laws. That figure, along with all the other figures, goes back to what I said about validity measures. You keep getting this evidence coming up again and again and again. But people like Senator Collins just ignore all that by saying that there is no evidence. That is humbug. There is plenty of evidence. It is just that the evidence does not suit your case so you choose to ignore it.Let us go on to what some of those surveys found, particularly the one that I kept mentioning in the interjections—that is, the ACCI, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Their survey showed that 53.9 per cent of businesses who employ between one and 19 people said that they had employed fewer people because of the unfair dismissal legislation. The Democrats and opposition comment on the survey methodology, but this survey contained clear, precise questions. It was a question of fact.Let me read the question, because this is the crucial point in the validity of this evidence. The question was:Has unfair dismissal legislation had any effect on employment decisions in your business during the last 12 months?That is a statement of fact. It asked whether, in your business, in the last 12 months, there had been any effect. That is a very simple, straightforward question asking them to report on their own experience. They had to respond in one of two ways. The answers were as follows:(a) It has had no effect on employment decisions.(b) I have employed fewer people because of this legislation.Some 54 per cent of the businesses reported that they answered (b)—that is, they employed fewer people. The irony is that this is the Labor Party opposite here. This is the Labor Party opposing this. This is the party that is supposed to be for people who want labour and yet they are bringing in a measure that is stopping that. They are very quiet about it now. That is a very decisive piece of evidence. It overwhelmingly nails the case because all the things that they were saying about the evidence—that is, the questions are too open-ended and suggestive—are covered by that piece of evidence.I did ask the ACCI what they felt the survey had found. I asked whether it would be a fair probability from their survey that a figure like 55,000 jobs might be an understatement of the effect of changes to unfair dismissal law legislation. Dr Steven Kates, the ACCI chief economist, replied, and I quote from the Hansard:Yes, I would say that, given the figures, we are looking at well over 100,000, possibly 200,000 jobs.In yesterday's Herald Sun the ACCI chief executive Mark Paterson said:There are about 200,000 jobs that are currently being held back. It is costing jobs and keeping people unemployed longer.So up to 200,000 jobs could be created by allowing this through. We are in a situation where we still have over 700,000 people out of work in this country. This government has got the figure down. It is the lowest it has been in eight years. It is down to 7½ per cent and in New South Wales it is down to 6½ per cent because of the policies of this federal government.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Because of the industrial relations laws in New South Wales led by the Carr Labor government. That's why you've got lower employment. Not your mob, ours.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Rubbish! This is despite the Carr government; this is not because of it. I am sure it would be a lot lower if we did not have the Carr government there.Senator Forshaw interjecting—O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Hopefully, after March, it will be removed, Senator. Let us certainly hope so.Senator Forshaw interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Order! Senator Forshaw, I wish you would stop interjecting, please.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I will, but I am being unnecessarily baited, Mr Acting Deputy President.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Mr Paterson also rejected the claims that the fall in the unfair dismissal applications means that unfair dismissal legislation no longer affects job creation. This is a point that is constantly made by the Democrats spokesman, Senator Andrew Murray. I am glad he is here today to hear this. Mr Paterson said:The number of applications is an inappropriate means of estimating the effect of the legislation. These results show employers are unwilling to hire to avoid even the possibility of such an application being filed.Senator Murray, that blows your argument right out of the water. Through those whole estimates hearings you kept bringing that point up again and again and again trying to make out that, if the figure had dropped on applications, that meant it was not such a problem. For a lot of people, it does not even start. Why does it not even start? Because they do not hire new people. They do not put them on to go through this unfair dismissal process. That is the whole point, Senator.Opposition senators interjecting—O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—That has got them going now. Concerns with this legislation run so deep in the business community that what they are doing, Senator Murray, is taking steps to limit the potential for such claims. That is why your figures are dropping, Senator. They are not hiring when they otherwise might hire.Senator Forshaw interjecting—O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—What they are trying to do, Senator, is limit their liability. How do they do it? Have a look at the overtime figures, Senator Forshaw. What these people are doing, in their desperate attempt to avoid this thing and not put on more people, is putting people on more overtime so they do not have the problem. That is a tragedy for the unemployed.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—What about the people who are working overtime?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Senator Campbell, you should know better. You claim to be a representative of the workers and by your vote, Senator Campbell, you are stopping more people from being employed.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Tierney, would you please address your comments through the chair.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Let us get into some of the hard evidence we got in this hearing that blows the opposition case out of the water. A witness from Adelaide told the committee, and I am quoting from Hansard —NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Is this the one the government paid for to bring over here?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Oh, yes, you do not want to listen to this. Can I suggest, Senator, that you listen to the evidence. If you listen while you are not talking, you might actually learn something.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Is this one of the four people that the government paid for?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—While you keep trying to talk over me, the effect is that you are not hearing evidence that hopefully might change your mind.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Is this one of the four people? It's a simple answer.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Again, you are criticising process and not the substance of what people were saying.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—I will criticise the substance when I get on my feet.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—All right, good on you. Let us hear what the witness from Adelaide said:We could put on two and would put on two (staff) straightaway, but at the moment we are resisting this at all costs and we are working our other staff as much overtime as we can.We heard that small business would not take the risk of hiring. Unfair dismissal claims put small businesses in a very difficult position. A claim can mean that they have to close down for hours or several days while they handle these claims. These small businesses often hire only two or three people. The fact that the fellow running the business has to leave it means that his business then suffers, and quite often he is already operating on marginal profits. The whole system affects the way in which he is making money and the viability of his whole business.We heard that savvy employees, realising the sorts of constraints that small businesses face, can lodge claims without merit in the hope of getting what was colloquially referred to in the Senate hearing as `piss off money'. Australian Business, which represents over 4,300 businesses, 72 per cent of which employ 15 or fewer people, told the committee that a large number of small business employers will pay a claim, regardless of its merits, in order to avoid the legal and other costs of running an unfair dismissal claim defence. These costs could be enough to make the year unprofitable or to destroy the small business. An Australian Business witness said:I'd estimate that at least three-quarters are settled without regard to questions of merit, of relative strength.. . . . . . . . .They were settled on the basis that—and it's good commercial, pragmatic advice—`It's going to cost you X dollars and you can get out of it for a figure somewhat less than X if you settle.'If they settle they do not waste all that time and go through all that trauma with the possible associated loss of business. They called it `piss off money', because that is the way they fix the situation. But where is the concept of justice in any of that for those people? There is no concept of justice; they are just trying to solve a problem.Australian Business explained that 0.25 per cent of successful employers obtain costs against unsuccessful applicants—an incredibly small percentage. So why would they go on and try the case if that were the likely success of getting any money back? Even if they win, they lose financially and they could lose their business. Therefore, it seems sensible to consider settling rather than go through arbitration, even if they are in the right. The other option for small business employers is to not employ at all and not take the risk of facing an unfair dismissal claim.Small business is at the heart of employment growth in the country. The opposition and the Democrats are opposing regulations that will create up to 200,000 jobs in small business. Shame!16:55:001986Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—According to the explanatory statement:The purpose of the Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations is to insert new regulations 30BAA and 30BAB into the principal regulations to exclude employees in the first six months of employment with a particular employer or who are employed by undertakings with 15 or fewer employees from eligibility to apply for a remedy in respect of unfair dismissal. These employees continue to have a remedy in respect of unlawful dismissal.Therefore, the regulations propose to discriminate between classes of employees in terms of the rights they are entitled to and the private harm to be done to those individuals is supposedly justified by the notion of 200,000 jobs being created. So we need to explore whether destroying human rights is worth the risk.I would draw your attention to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Australia is a signatory and which states that all people should be treated equally in terms of the law and their rights should be equivalent. So, for a start, this kind of precedent seeks to erode that. I would also draw your attention to an extract from the United States Code, Title 15: Commerce and Trade, Chapter 1: Monopolies and Combinations in Restraint of Trade, which says:The labour of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce.The question is whether the government in fact took this policy to the people. On 11 July 1995, John Howard gave a rock solid guarantee:We will scrap the existing unfair dismissal laws and we will replace them with a law which is fair to both sides.He did not say `fair to employers' or `fair to employees', but `fair to both sides'. He went on to say:We are not going to replace it with a law which gives ruthless employers carte blanche.There are a million small business employers in this country. If even one per cent of them were rogue employers, there would be 10,000 of them. That seems a lot of people to me. On 20 February 1996, the then opposition shadow minister—subsequently the minister—Peter Reith, went even further, publicly rejecting requests from small business to be excluded from the coalition's unfair dismissal laws. During that election campaign, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, otherwise known as COSBOA, asked the coalition, the Democrats and the Labor Party to support an exemption for small business. All three parties refused on the basis that it would breach the `fair go all round' approach.There is the question as to whether these regulations would in fact be challenged in the High Court or indeed in the Federal Court. I have in my possession a copy of a memorandum of advice from QCs Bell and Doyle to the ACTU. I appreciate, as everybody does, that one set of advice can be challenged by another, and I do not choose to take sides on this issue. But they clearly outline that the regulations are challengeable on the grounds that regulation 30BAB(2)(d) goes beyond the regulation making power in section 170CC(1)(e). I would also like to draw your attention to a point they made which seemed to me quite a good one:The attempt to identify a class of employer by the size of their undertaking also leads to illogical and inequitable results. If regulation 30BAB is effective, employees might be inside or outside of the unfair dismissal jurisdiction from time to time. For example, at the time of employment, their employer may have 25 employees, and thus be within the jurisdiction. Later, the employer's business may have decreased in size, and the employee may by virtue of that fact find themselves outside the jurisdiction.That is typical of the tourist trade, where you have seasonal highs and lows in employment. So is the same employee sometimes in the law and sometimes not in the law? It seems a very strange outcome.The next issue I want to cover is whether this regulation is entitled to proceed in advance of legislation which is before the Senate. This is a fundamental issue of principle. If you are going to put legislation before the Senate, which the government has—and I refer to the provisions of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 , which deals with these very issues—it is not right for an authoritarian government, which some senators worship regardless of what they do, to put regulations which enact that legislation without regard to the Senate. It is a simple principle: first comes the law; afterwards comes the regulations.It seems extraordinary to me that we are in a situation where, between sittings, the government attempted to put down regulations in advance of the legislation. It is undemocratic, it is unparliamentary, it is contrary to the principles of our parliamentary democracy. On that ground alone, I would vote against this regulation. It is entirely inappropriate. Minister Reith might in fact say that the Democrats were advised that he was intending to introduce some of these elements of regulation. Yes, he did tell us that there were elements within these regulations that he was thinking of introducing, but he did not tell us when. He did not tell us that it would be occurring before the legislation. We naturally assumed it would follow the legislation.The next issue is to examine how hard done by are employers. We heard evidence during the hearing from the ACCI, who have a great deal to say on this issue, that all small business—the million small businesses—know as much about the law, more than you would expect. That is arrant nonsense. It is impossible for one million small businesses—even the majority of them—to know the details of the Workplace Relations Act, never mind the unfair dismissals legislation and the regulations that apply under it. Most small business people I speak to—and, unlike Senator Tierney, I have business experience—are unaware of the provisions.The provisions are precisely pro employer. For instance, the Workplace Relations Act changed the onus of proof in favour of the employer. Instead of an employer having to prove they had a valid reason for the dismissal, the employee now needs to prove the dismissal was unfair, harsh or unjust. Hearings under this act have to be in the commission, to avoid the expense and difficulties of the courts. Costs may be awarded against employees if an employee proceeds with a frivolous or vexatious claim. A $50 application fee applies for employees. If you are earning $400 a week, that is a lot of money.The viability of the employer has to be taken into account in damages. Procedural fairness is not a mandatory requirement. The mandatory detailed requirement about warnings has been deleted from the preceding act. Procedural fairness might be something the commission takes into account, but a fair dismissal cannot become unfair because of a technicality. Probationary employees are excluded for the first three months of their employ. For casual employees, the exemption is extended from six months to 12 months.I want particular attention to be paid to the fact that, in specified term contracts, the exemption is excluded. An employee employed under a specified term contract and dismissed at the end of that term in accordance with that contract cannot apply for reinstatement. So what is to stop small business employing somebody on a year's contract and, at the end of the contract, letting them go? There is absolutely nothing which prevents them doing so, and the unfair dismissal laws are not addressed in that because it is a contract—you do your work for a year and then you leave. What is this nonsense that they cannot employ people? They just use the contractual obligations. Also, state systems cannot be overridden.Moving on from what are very employer-friendly provisions of the existing act, we come to the evidence we have had before us. We heard much about the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. In this hearing there was the appearance of an octopus with many mouths, because all the subdivisions of the ACCI were the people making the noise—the Tasmanian chamber, the New South Wales chamber, the South Australian chamber and the Western Australia chamber, which rejoices in the name of WACCI. There they all were appearing with the same stuff—turning out the information.Yes, there were small business organisations—but it was Rob Bastian of COSBOA who originally started this whole thing, so you would expect him to be in it. Others were saying, `The fairness of the system is not at issue; the fairness of the legal system is at issue, because of the way that lawyers are manipulating us.'What do they rely on? They do not rely on the facts, because the facts discount their entire story. They rely on the assertion that, outside the whole system—outside of the facts we know—there are tens of thousands of businesses paying out with a cheque book for unwarranted claims. How do we, as senators, know that they are unwarranted claims? How do we know that the employee does not have a justified claim? How do we know that the resolution of these matters outside of the commission is not a very useful mechanism for getting things done quickly?We heard evidence from employees that many of them just walk away. So for every thousand employers who might deal with this matter outside of the commission, there are also thousands of employees who simply say, `I've had enough of this employer,' walk away and do not pursue their unfair dismissal claim.Why am I sure that the small business sector is under-represented in unfair dismissal claims? Because only one-third of all unfair dismissal claims are in small business, yet the majority of employees and the majority of employers are in small business so you would expect some equivalent representativeness, and there is not.Then we come to the facts, and let us go through it little by little. The facts are that, in Western Australia, 79 small business federal unfair dismissal applications occurred in 1998, of which over half were resolved in favour of the employer. The number of small businesses in Western Australia is over 106,000. The number of employees in Western Australia in small business is over 226,000. So WACCI tells me that 79 federal small business applications in Western Australia is a huge problem when you are talking about 226,000 employees and over 100,000 small businesses, an incidence of 0.07 per cent. The argument is pathetic. It is so weak it is embarrassing.Let us try South Australia. There is a big problem there, they say. Do you know how many applications there were in South Australia? In 1998 there were 20 small business federal unfair dismissal applications. Do you know how many applications there were in Tasmania? Fifty-six. And in New South Wales? Three hundred and three. It starts to put it in perspective, doesn't it? Yes, but they say this is only the tip of the iceberg. What tip of the iceberg?8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Ice cube.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Yes, the ice cube. Do you know how these wonderful organisations with great integrity conduct their surveys? They ask loaded questions. We just heard from a senator who is a doctor on surveys. It is embarrassing, I must tell you. He said they have gone out and asked people, `Have the unfair dismissal laws ever prevented you from employing?' And he says 40 per cent have said yes. Okay folks, when I ask you, `Have you travelled all over the world and have you ever had problems with Customs?' You say yes, so I say, `In that case you have got real problems with Australian Customs.' `No,' you say, `it is not in Australia; it is in Thailand, Italy or the United States.' If you do not ask the question, `Is it the federal law or the state law you are talking about'—that is point one—there is an absolute failure to establish the facts, and the facts are that the federal law and the state law differ very substantially, so you are likely to get a different response.So let us look at somebody who is credible in these matters, the Yellow Pages Business Survey. It does not ask loaded questions. It asks: what conditions would make you employ people? The answer it gets is: `The economic conditions, this, that and the other, and so on.' It asks: what would make you not employ people? And the answer it gets is: `Not sufficient sales. Not sufficient profit,' and, by the way, at the bottom, six per cent say, `The unfair dismissal applications.' Six per cent say that, not 40 per cent.Let me turn to some facts. Let us expose how this octopus with many voices is orchestrating this campaign with Minister Reith. Let us expose, for instance, some facts from the surveys. Here is a great one. The Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's 1997 and 1998 surveys said—and this is their evidence—that unfair dismissals were considered a critical problem by 34 per cent and a major problem by 22 per cent of respondents. So over half of all small businesses in Tasmania are terrified of unfair dismissals. The total number of applications under federal unfair dismissal law for small business in Tasmania in 1998 was 56. Are you seriously trying to tell me that 40 per cent of Tasmanians on the one survey or half of Tasmanians on the other survey are frightened of federal small business unfair dismissal applications when there were 56 applications in the entire year? It is an absolute disgrace.Then we come to job generation. Arising from a couple of thousand federal small business unfair dismissal applications in the country, what do they tell us? They are going to create 50,000 jobs. `No, wait,' says the economist from ACCI, that well-know coordinating octopus, `It could be 100,000 or it could be 200,000 employees.' What a joke! I have been running my own business in four countries on three continents since 1984 and I never employed anybody unless it was going to deliver me extra sales and extra profit.Rob Bastian, who set this hare running, said that the unfair dismissals issue is but one of a range of things he wants out from small business because he is concerned with workers compensation, with all the regulations, with the administrative complexity, with having to pay super, with the book work to do for the ATO, et cetera. It is just one of a list of issues. The real reason ACCI and its hard-hearted acolytes on that side want to get rid of this unfair dismissal law is very simple: they believe that you should be able to hire and fire employees at will. That is it. I understand that. They would not care if there were only one unfair dismissal application, they would still oppose it in principle. I understand that. But do not invent for me this myth that it is going to create 50,000, 100,000 or 200,000 jobs.What kind of economist sits in front of a hearing with no empirical studies whatsoever, with no backing whatsoever, for his belief and says, `It will create 100,000, maybe 200,000 jobs'? What? How many jobs are going to be created in South Australia with 20 federal unfair dismissal applications in a year? It is a joke, and for that joke you want the Australian Democrats to attack the human rights of those individuals and to discriminate between classes of employers. We will not do it, and we will never do it. You can ask us again and again and again. We will not allow those workers' rights to be taken from them as long as we can vote in this place.17:15:001989Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I want to follow on from where Senator Murray left off and say that, in all of the evidence that was presented before the inquiry or argued in terms of unfair dismissals over the past two or three years, no-one has yet shown that there is any direct connection between the hiring intentions of companies, whether they be small business or large business, and the unfair dismissal laws. There has been a lot of political debate about it, and we saw the frenzy that was whipped up in 1995 by ACCI in terms of their opposition to the original unfair dismissal provisions which were put in by the Labor government. It was a very effective campaign against unfair dismissal that was run by the business community at that time. It was one of the rare occasions when they have ever run an effective campaign nationally against anything.We have seen that campaign continue. We have seen it continued by the leadership of this government. We have seen it continued as late as yesterday when the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, both responded to dorothy dixers in the other chamber and both argued, again, that thousands of jobs would be lost if these unfair dismissal regulations were not passed by the Senate. It is absolute nonsense. It bears no relation to the truth. There is no empirical evidence to justify their position—just raw political statements and the beating up again of hysteria.Senator Murray referred to Mr Bastian from COSBOA, to whom he gives credit for starting this whole situation. Mr Bastian gave evidence to the committee and in fact said:Unfair dismissals is only one of many disincentives to employment in our society and certainly globally.He pointed out that the greater problem in relation to unfair dismissals was the question of perception and the fact that the issue had been turned into an emotive one rather than a question of whether or not the system itself is fair. He went on to say that there is no evidence that the perception in fact is real.I think Senator Murray hit the nail on the head with his final comments. This agenda by ACCI and by the minister is not about creating laws that provide a fair go all round or the principle of a fair go, which the minister argued in 1996 was what lay at the heart of the legislation and what lay at the heart of these regulations; the real agenda is about simply making it a standard position of employers, making it easier to hire and fire.If you look at the combination of the law, the legislation and these regulations combined with what is happening in the labour market, you can see the potency that these regulations will have in terms of changing the environment within the labour market and weighing the scales very much in favour of employers against employees. It will open the door and provide the opportunity for unscrupulous employers, as Senator Murray referred to them, to exploit the law in a most crass and nasty way.It was interesting that, in the wake of the inquiry by the Senate committee, an article appeared in the Bulletin magazine which looked at the whole question of employment. A number of important facts and statements were made in that article. A leading British writer made this point:Now that technology has customised production—and now that big organisations, where most of the good jobs used to be, are farming their work out to little firms—the need to package work that way is disappearing.He was talking about how jobs came into existence in the 19th century. But the point he is making is that we are seeing in the labour market and in industry a transference of jobs out of large companies, large enterprises, which were the norm at the end of the 19th century and in the early part of this century, and into smaller and more compact organisations and companies, or into what we describe as small business, who would be encompassed by the provisions of these regulations.The article went on to make a number of other points. It talked about the casualisation that was taking place in our industries. Casual workers in Australia now count for 26 per cent of all employment, up from 13 per cent in 1982. It has gone from 3.9 per cent in mining up to 15 per cent, from 6.7 per cent in manufacturing up to 15 per cent, from 19 per cent in construction up to 34½ per cent and from 8.9 per cent in transport up to 19.4 per cent. We are seeing a rapid casualisation of the work force. It is a phenomenon that is not unique to Australia—it is a phenomenon that is occurring in all of the industrialised world—and yet we have these provisions in the bill which exclude the counting of casuals in determining the 15 employees.So there would be a very significant section of the work force excluded just on the basis of the number of casual employees companies are employing. If these regulations are allowed to come into effect, it will also become a driver in the casualisation of the work force. It will contribute to accelerating that trend that is currently in the work force.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—No, you're wrong.YE4Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—Senator Boswell said that I am wrong. I will be interested to hear the evidence he has to disprove that, when he gets on his feet. The reality is that casualisation of the work force has been an accelerating trend since 1982 and these regulations will only accelerate the speed of that change even further. ACIRRT, which recently did a research program, made the point that the decline in job security that Australians have experienced since the late 1980s is equivalent to about a 13 per cent drop in income. That is a very significant point.The other point I want to draw attention to relates to the six-month probationary period. What an absurd proposition. What an absolutely absurd proposition to require that, in many industries, an employee must be employed for six months before an employer can make a value judgment about the work of that employee in the company. It is an absolutely absurd proposition.We had evidence given to the committee by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association about the level of training that is required for an employee to be engaged in that industry. I think they said that a very short period of probation of a couple of weeks for a full timer and maybe a bit longer for a part timer would be more than adequate in terms of the skill base required for the vast majority of employees in the retail industry. They made the point, as is made in this Bulletin article, that the introduction of the regulation for the six-month probationary period will only add to churning in the industry. You will create a set of circumstances where employers will be able to take employees on, train them for a short period to give them the skills and employ them for 5½ months to avoid any obligation in terms of unfair dismissal, then they will simply turn them over, sack them for being inadequate for the job, employ new employees and go through the same process again with very little disruption to their business but with a very substantial protection of their interests. It is interesting to note that the issue of churning of job seekers is referred to in this Bulletin article. It says:The churning of job seekers between low-quality, dead-end jobs and unemployment, identified in a landmark ABS study, leaves little room for optimism. The ABS followed 875,000 job seekers from May 1995 to September 1996 and found that about 70% of them worked for some period, but 66% of their jobs were casual and 90% were short-term.Again, the passage of these regulations will simply accelerate the trend of employers churning employees through their businesses to avoid their obligations in respect of unfair dismissals. The reality is that the laws that were introduced in 1995 did help to redress the balance between employer and employee and did bring a degree of fairness into the system. But if these regulations are passed, it will make the system fair to employers and totally unfair to employees who have got to survive in the system and earn a living out of it.17:26:001991Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—It is interesting to follow Senator George Campbell in this debate. Obviously, he is coming from a union background. I always like to listen to another point of view, and I hope he listens to mine.In 1966, after a year of marriage, I decided that I would have to either accept a wage or go out and cut my cloth. I took the latter option and started my own small business. I started from a very humble beginning. I could afford a $750 VW which I took the back seats out of to put samples in, and I established myself as a manufacturer's agent. My wife was the storeman and packer, the receptionist and the telephonist, and I was the salesman. After collecting the orders during the day, my wife finished teaching and we proceeded to both become storemen and packers because we could not afford a storeman and packer. That is how we grew. Before I came into the Senate, I employed 10 people. Senator Campbell, I would really appreciate it if you would stay to listen to this.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—I am listening.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—We employed storemen and packers, typists, clerks and so forth. There seems to be a misunderstanding, a misapprehension, in the Labor Party that employers want to dismiss people. In fact, if you get anyone half good, you want to keep them and you do not want to dismiss them. As for saying that you can employ people, keep them for six months and then when they have been trained—and it costs you a lot of money to get them up to speed and make them effective in their job—you dismiss them and churn them over, that just is not reasonable. What you try to do is employ someone and train them in six months and then they become more valuable to you.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—They are not all scrupulous employers out there.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—No, I accept there are always rogue employers, there are always rogue unions and there are always rogue unionists, but we cannot as a government legislate for rogues who are probably going to make up two per cent of the people. I am sorry to say this to you, because I think you are coming from a very genuine position. I know if I owned a business now, I would be very reluctant to put someone on. If you do put someone on in your small business and you cannot put them off, you effectively are putting yourself—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—You can put them off. You just can't treat them unfairly.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—You can't put them off.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Of course you can.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—The procedure to put someone off—and you know this as well as I do. Please let me finish this. I did not interrupt you. I feel very passionate about this. If you put people off, you have to go through a fairly long process that can, and usually does, end up going to court where you have to pay a fairly small amount—$3,000 or $4,000 or $7,000—but the whole process takes a long time. It cannot be effected immediately. I have heard of people actually having their hand in the till, so to speak, and even then you cannot dismiss the person.What you are trying to do here will have a reverse effect. We are all trying to employ people. It does not matter which side of the House we are on, we all acknowledge that unemployment is an evil. It is an evil particularly when it gets imposed on young people, and we want to avoid that. No-one wants unemployment out there at any level—whether it is three, four or eight per cent.But everyone is totally reluctant to put an employee on, because what happens if he is a dud. You have to carry him. You almost have to go and get legal advice to remove him. It makes you ineffective because you may have to carry him for six to nine months. You can't put on someone else, because he is effectively the person that you have employed. You don't have any more money to put another person on.You can't just say, `I've got him there at $25,000 a year and he is no good. Therefore, I have to find another $25,000 a year to put someone else on to do his job, and I will just leave him sitting in a corner,' because most small businesses are running on very tight margins. If you cannot get someone who works properly, you just cannot afford to put someone else on—unless you are the government, a very big business or someone like Telstra or Australia Post that can effectively say, `Look, Fred, you go over there and just don't worry us.' When you are down to 10 employees, it has to be all hands and the cook. Everyone has to be up there doing their job. If you cannot dismiss someone, then you are effectively making the business redundant—the whole business goes down.What I am saying to you, Senator Campbell, is that you are really hurting the people that you are trying to help—the young people that are looking for jobs. There are many small business people out there—I know them and I mix with them. I go to National Party meetings with small business people. They always come up with this problem, `We would put someone on, but what if he is a dud?' You are saying that we are getting into casualisation. I would say that this is promoting casualisation.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—It is the facts.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—I am not doubting the facts. You were quoting the facts. I am not doubting what you are saying.But if you cannot employ someone to do a job without removing them if they cannot do the job, what is your next option? The next option is to bypass your responsibility and say, `I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to put that person on to do that particular job of photostatting or some other job. I will get it done outside and it is their problem if they can't get an employee that works. I will pass that across. I will subcontract that part of my business out.'I do not dispute for a minute what you have said about casualisation—your facts are obviously right—but I am saying that you are adding to the problem of casualisation. I have the figures here. Small business accounted for 42 per cent of all employment. There are about 900,000 small businesses in Australia that make up about 86 per cent of all the businesses. What you are effectively doing by disallowing this piece of legislation is making people in business say, `I am going to run at the absolute meanest that I can. If that means I have to subcontract out, I will do it.'In her speech today Senator Jacinta Collins quoted from a New South Wales Chamber of Commerce survey which indicated that half the small businesses entangled in unfair dismissal claims said they were not going to hire new staff. At what point do we then understand that, if the Chamber of Commerce is saying that half of its people will not put labour on because they are frightened or they have been bitten—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—No, that is not what those figures say. Half of the people have been involved in the claims. You heard from the statistics that it was the best part of very few. So not half their members. Half of the people who have been involved in claims.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—I have listened to your interjection, but the Chamber of Commerce said that half of the small businesses entangled under unfair dismissal claims were deterred from hiring new staff.Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—Senator Collins is denying that she said it. I took it down as she said it. Whether she said it or not—she denies she said it.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—That is not what I said—not the way you expressed it.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—The facts are that the Chamber of Commerce, which I suppose is the main representative body of small business—and big business for that matter—is saying that people who have been bitten by this just will not go out and hire anyone else. I have listened to this debate—NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Read Rob Bastian's evidence.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—I have spoken to Rob Bastian. I know him well.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—He is a lot closer to small business than ACCI.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—They are a lot closer than ACCI. But every time I see Rob Bastian—and that is probably once every three or four weeks—he says to me that we have to fix this unfair dismissals system because it is the greatest load on small business.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—But you are not fixing it.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—We are fixing it; you are not fixing it by moving a disallowance motion. Rob Bastian is saying, `Yes, it is a big problem.' He is saying there are other problems, but this is a huge problem.If you went out and conducted a survey amongst small businesses, including those in rural areas, you would find overwhelmingly that people would list `unfair dismissal' as their number one fear—and big businesses would too. But big businesses can avoid it. If big businesses such as Myers or Coles have a dud, they put that person into some job he does not like and perhaps he will leave, or they leave him in a corner. If you employ 10,000 or more people, like Coles, then it does not make much difference.But, for goodness sake, realise that there are not that many Coles, Woolworths and Telstras around. Eighty-six per cent of business is small business. You are putting lead in their saddlebags, and they just will not employ. Both sides of this House are coming from the same direction: we all want to see more employment. You are saying that you can do it by stopping people dismissing people; and I am saying that you cannot do it that way.As someone who has employed people—it was not a large number of people; I was a very small business person who employed 10 people; in the agency game in those days, I suppose it was in the top 80 per cent—I want you to think very clearly about what I am now going to tell you: you cannot legislate to stop people from acting in a certain way. There are and always will be rogue employers. But, if people do not like them, they can walk away and get another job. There will always be people who do the wrong thing—and I know that.But the majority of small business people are not rogues. What they want is an employee who gives them loyalty and long service, someone who will turn up to work five days a week when they are not sick. They welcome employees of that sort because they are the backbone of their business. Those sorts of people are needed out there in the workplace.I am very disappointed that Senator Murray is not here because this measure will swing on his vote. But I know this, just as I know that night follows day—because I have been there and not for one year but for 18 years. If you disallow this motion, you will condemn at least 50,000 people to unemployment. If you let this motion go through, I will put my reputation on the line and guarantee that you will see small business employing more people. We all have to change; we come here with fixed attitudes.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Why do you resort to a fear campaign?YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—I am not getting into any fear campaign. I have been there, Senator Bolkus. I know what I am talking about. I have had 18 years of experience. I am talking from personal experience, from a background of small business. I am talking on behalf of the National Party, which is small business oriented.When I go out into the marketplace, into the National Party meetings—just as you go to your party meetings every Saturday—this is one of the main things I am told by the owner of the local Mitre 10 store, or the owner of the tractor distribution, or the grocery store owner: `Look, we'd put more people on, but it's too risky. The process of dismissing these people is too risky. It takes three letters, then we end up in court, and we end up paying $17,000. We could go and process it, we could proceed. We would probably win the case, but it would cost us another $40,000. So we are just very happy to pay $17,000.' They only have to go through that once or twice, and they just say, `We're going to stick with what we've got. We'll get the wife in and she can answer the phone, and as people leave we will retract.' I am telling you: this is coming from small business.When you go to your ALP meetings, you have unionists and different people there. They are probably telling you something different. But I am giving it to you straight from the horse's mouth: do not disallow this motion and you will increase employment, and you will see many more people having jobs in the small business sector.17:42:001994Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Australia—including this government, unfortunately—is doing what a number of countries are doing at the moment. That is, international corporations, companies, are playing off one country against the other for the lowest standards in the workplace. And Australia is falling for it; this government is falling for it.We have heard today about `the will of the people'. How many people in Australia, if asked, would say that they would be happy to increase their job insecurity? How many people, if asked, would say that at the moment, with this current government, they feel more certain about their future?The reality is that the driving force, the prime driving force, for small business employing people is the people who come through the door to buy their goods and services. Those people in the vast majority of small businesses in Australia, the ordinary working people of Australia, are consumers as well. They are not just costs of production. In order for their making the decision to purchase the goods and services of small business, they have to know that they are going to have a job. Provided that they do their job reasonably and fairly, they need to have that certainty or security that they are not going to be treated unfairly; that there is not the climate around of governments encouraging their employers to treat them simply as a disposable cost of production.If you want to do something for small business in Australia, you do something for the security and the certainty of life for the vast majority of people who are not only the workers in business but also the purchasers of goods and services in other businesses. This is not just a cost issue. It is about the ability of people to make decisions about where they spend their dollars—whether they get their windows cleaned, whether they get their cars serviced, whether they buy those extra goods and services, whether they think they can afford it next week in the belief that they will still have a job.Here we are debating the issue of unfair dismissal provisions for employees in the small business sector for the nth time. In simple terms, I can state from the outset that the Greens position has not changed from the previous occasions that we have debated this question, and the answer is still no. I would like to commend Senator Murray for his excellent appraisal of the actual statistics of the impacts of unfair dismissal legislation in Australia. On the previous occasions we debated this issue, a reading of Hansard will indicate that I have pursued similar themes. I will remind the Senate of some of these comments. On 18 November 1996, in relation to the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Bill 1996, I quoted from Justice Murray Wilcox, who said:We meet regularly in the court with representatives of both employers and employees to review the way the court administers its affairs, and business groups suggest that things are working very smoothly.Again, on the previous night on the 7.30 Report Justice Wilcox commented:They are at odds with bad business, and the problem is that there are too many bad managers who do not have enough respect for their employees and there are people that suffer awards against them. I mean, really, you would be appalled at some of the cases.I listened to Senator Boswell's contribution. The indications are that Senator Boswell, from the sound of it, would not be the kind of employer who would treat his employees unfairly. This legislation is not going to affect employers who do not treat their employees unfairly. Certainly, there has been a fear campaign to make people think there is something to be concerned about. On 26 June 1997 in relation to workplace relations regulations I stated:We have to look at integrated policies. We have to look at what is causing structural unemployment. We have to look at the kinds of business and corporate decisions and directions and policy decisions that are causing structural unemployment in this country. Instead of dealing with that, once again we are pointing to those people who are most affected by those decisions, and we are saying, `If only business could be allowed to treat employees more unfairly,' and, `If only you would let us make sure that contracts are not binding for employers but are binding only for employees, then things would be okay.'I remind the Senate that what we are being asked to do—and we have also been asked to make sure that as many employees as possible are on contracts—is say that these contracts are one-way contracts. The only person who has to keep the contract is the employee. But, if they maintain their contract, the employer can break it. It is a one-way contract. This is what the government says is fair. Contracts are important if they are between businesses. Contracts are important if you make them to businesses, but if businesses require you to sign a contract, it is not binding on business.It is the most disastrous idea if you think that what is important is to force people on to contracts. It has never been my opinion that we should be forcing people on to contracts. The conservative side of the chamber says that we will do better if we force people on to contracts, and that will be fair for everyone. How can it be fair if you say these contracts must not be binding on small business? We force people on to contracts, but we are prepared to say that these contracts must not be binding, only binding in one direction.On 21 October in relation to the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 I stated:I believe that many people have been hoodwinked into believing that there is a massive problem with unfair dismissal and that business, especially small business, is being hamstrung by unworkable regulations with respect to the dismissal of their employees.I believe that what is not being taken into consideration is the major issues affecting small business, that is, getting people through their door.We heard today figures quoted of people who have had unfair dismissal claims. Those people are cited as the basis for half of small business being concerned about this. The reality is that the actual number of people who have made a claim is very, very small as a percentage. Of those, half of them seem to be happy that that is not the reason for making their decisions in the future about employment. We do not have any statistics about how many of those claims were fair or how many of those people were treated unfairly. Why should we stick up for those people who may be abusing the law and treating their employees unfairly?On 24 March 1998 in my speech on the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 I stated:The 1996-97 annual report of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia highlighted that 58 per cent of contested unfair dismissal cases were decided in favour of the employee. Instead of the government saying, as it always seems to, `Oh, gosh, this is a cost for the employer,' I would say, `My goodness, this means that the court has found that 58 per cent of those people were found to have been unfairly dismissed.'The law was there and it asked what was the basis of unfair dismissal. If 58 per cent of those cases in the 1996-77 annual report were found to be unfair dismissals, then it is a nonsense to suggest that people are simply using the system to rort the system.How many people really have access to good legal advice? How many people really take action when they are unfairly dismissed? I suggest that a great many people never take action because there is not very free access to labour lawyers. The system is in favour of those people who are employers. If there is a tip of the iceberg, we are probably finding that the iceberg will be seen if we remove these legislative protections, small though they are. We will find that those numbers of people treated unfairly will be the iceberg. It will be the reason why many more people in our society will choose not to buy those services from the very small businesses which this conservative government is hoping will create more employment. In a press statement that I made on 24 September 1998 I said:"Job security is one of the key concerns of many people in this election. If people have a job, it is now more likely to be casual or part-time—and we have heard those numbers given today—and now the Government wants to make it easier to sack people who work in the largest employer group in the country, small business.""The Government is also ignoring the impact of this growing job insecurity on small businesses themselves.""This greater level of insecurity amongst workers will mean that they are less likely to spend any savings or disposable income. The greatest loser in that event will be the small business sector."I know that industrial relations issues are seen to be important to a number of small business interests, but we also know, as we heard from Keynes back in the 1930s, that what is seen to be in the self-interest of an individual employer is not necessarily in the best interest of other employers and not necessarily even in the best interest of the economy. I do not think this government can see the wood for the trees. I do not think this government is looking at it on an economy-wide basis, and I do not think that they have even recognised that the employees of small business are people who make decisions whether to purchase goods and services. They make up the bulk of those people who are making decisions which keep small business in business. So in the interest of small business, in the interest of the economy and also in the interest of justice, the Greens will maintain our position and oppose this portion of the regulations and support the disallowance motion.17:54:001996O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I will be brief in supporting the motion to disallow these regulations. I am sure it will be suggested by those opposite that somehow our opposition to this legislation has to do with an interest because we are—or, in some cases, have been—members of trade unions and have held positions in trade unions. What I want to remind those opposite is this: these regulations seek to, in effect, take away rights that exist under the legislation of this government for employees, whether members or not of trade unions. I want them to reflect that, in fact, they are taking rights away not from a class of people who are union members but from a class of people who are employees who happen to be employed in small businesses, and all of the material that has been placed before us indicates that there are a great many people employed in small business.If we are to believe what is said, and small business is the generator of new jobs, then there will be thousands and thousands and thousands of employees, present and to come, whose rights are curtailed by the regulations, which were so sneakily put forward, promulgated, by the minister before Christmas. This, of course, is the minister who was quite prepared to be involved in discussions which I think would lead to the view that there was knowledge about the sacking of thousands of waterfront workers because that was a means that suited the end of this minister. In this case, the minister is seeking to achieve an end he cannot achieve legislatively, even tempo rarily, by promulgating a regulation after the parliament rose last year and seeking by means that are unclear to me to somehow get these regulations up.7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—A coward's act.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I am not really sure that this can be seen as anything other than a deliberate, calculated and even cowardly act by the minister in relation to these regulations. I reject the suggestion that perhaps because I am a member of a trade union somehow I have a special interest in this. We all have a special interest in this legislation because we all represent, or at least purport to represent, those people who voted for us, and there are people who voted for all parties here who would fall within the class of employees who will be disenfranchised, in effect, or who would lose their rights to seek some redress for an unfair act by their employer.All of the argument that the government has put up in this case has been designed to beat up the fears of employers. They are saying, `You really have something to fear from this legislation.' We really have not heard a statistical analysis of the number of employees who were engaged by small business, the number of employees who were dismissed by small business and the number amongst them who actually do pursue their rights. But, if you look at it, the number who actually are dismissed and pursue their rights must be absolutely minimal. Senator Murray laid out some figures for us today in the chamber which indicate that an extremely small percentage of employees who are actually dismissed by small business pursue their right to a remedy.I am not saying that they are the only people who might have rights to pursue. There would be a great many people who would make the decision, `I do not want to go through the process. I know it is difficult for me.' It may be difficult for the employers, but it is not easy for employees either. It takes a very strong-willed person to pursue their rights in these sorts of proceedings. I have been involved in proceedings, representing employees, and I know how stressful it can be for them because essentially they have to put their credibility on the line, justify their position and have the allegations which are made against them laid out in a public hearing.So the people who pursue their rights must be fairly strong-minded people to do that, I would suggest, and to succeed they would need a very good case. It is not really as simple as coming up with some anecdotal evidence about someone who allegedly had their hand in the till and got off. I think Senator Boswell attempted to suggest this, to justify this extremely pernicious piece of legislation by regulation.If this regulation were to stand, what would its effect be on the employment of a number of people in small businesses? Wouldn't it be equally arguable that a number of employers would say, `If I do not dismiss this person by this date then I will become liable to the provisions of the act in relation to unfair dismissal'? So if the government's argument is correct and employers are not engaging staff because they fear they might fall foul of the legislation as it stands or if, at a point in time, a small business employing fewer than 15 people were to become liable to the provisions of this regulation, then the employer might have a vested interest in terminating before that date occurred. That could well be an issue in which the government is actually further encouraging the employers to curtail employment of employees before that occurred.It really is a case, as Senator Murray so eloquently put it, of the removal of the rights of a class of employees because they happen to be employed in small businesses—without the justification which I think ought to be put forward. For example, why should employees in my state employed under this legislation lose those rights when employees employed under the state legislation working in a business next door maintain those rights? This government may well say that the Tasmanian employees under the state act should lose their rights. But I can tell you that that is not likely to happen in the immediate future. So you create a class of employees who are second-class citizens in terms of their rights.Bear in mind that the legislation which is, in effect, being altered by this regulation contemplated the rights that exist now. And that is the legislation of this government. So all that the government and this minister are doing is either telling us that they were never serious when they came up with an agreement with the Democrats for provisions in relation to unfair dismissal or that, somehow, there has been some substantial change in circumstances since they came up with the agreement—which was so trumpeted—with the Democrats for the implementation of the provisions of the bill as they now stand. I am not surprised that the Democrats are so incensed at the actions of this government, because I think they believed that they had a deal and that, in effect, this minister is ratting on a deal that he made. He has put forward no justification for doing so. The Democrats, understandably, are furious that the minister is trying to cut the ground from under them when the Democrats said that they had a reasonable deal on unfair dismissal provisions.I will close on this point: if a minister seeks to have a relationship with parties in this House in respect of negotiations, then he had better come to those negotiations with clean hands. The actions of this minister in relation to these regulations clearly indicate for all to see that the minister is not bound by agreements that he reaches, and that he seeks to undermine part of that agreement he reached with the Democrats by promulgating this regulation. It seems to me that this regulation will fail, that it will be defeated, and I look forward to the vote this evening.18:03:001998Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I intend to speak briefly to reinforce some of the arguments of my colleagues. We are anxious that this disallowance motion should go to a vote this evening—frankly, the sooner the better. Certainly, I would hope that the disallowance motion is carried and that the regulations that Minister Reith has promulgated are voted down.There is a fundamental principle that is central to this debate on the disallowance motion. That fundamental principle is that all adult Australians have equal access to take an appropriate action before a court or a tribunal in the event that they have been wronged. They have a fundamental right for their case to be heard. To some extent, I know, that is a theoretical access, because it does depend on your ability to pay a lawyer. Nevertheless, this is a fundamental principle and it is one of the central tenets of our Australian society—equality and access to a tribunal in the event of being wronged. It is important in the Australian context as part of the element of what is seen as a fair go.I do not believe that is a principle that should ever be compromised, and yet that is what Minister Reith and the Liberal Howard government have done with these regulations. They are proposing to exempt from federal wrongful dismissal laws employers who have a work force with 15 or less employees. I emphasise federal, because this will impact only in respect of workplaces covered by federal law. It will not impact on workplaces covered by state law. So you will have two classes, effectively. You will have a class of employees working for small business in the state jurisdictions who can still present a case before a tribunal in the event of an alleged wrongful dismissal. You could have a small business in my home state of Tasmania covered by the state jurisdiction and its employees can take their case to the state industrial commission in Tasmania. A small business next door could have the same class of employees working under the same set of circumstances covered by a federal award. If wrongfully dismissed, those employees cannot present a case before a tribunal.You could even have the absurd situation where a workplace is covered by a Tasmanian state award and also by a federal award; of one group of employees of that business being able to go to a tribunal in the event of wrongful dismissal and the other group of employees not being able to take their case before a tribunal.It is interesting to note the constant jibes from the government about the alleged influence of the union movement on our position on this matter. They enjoy highlighting the fact that there are a significant number of people in this place who have union backgrounds. I am one of them. I am proud of that and I do not shy away from it.What I find interesting about the retreat from the principle that I outlined earlier is that it is coming from a government dominated by lawyers. It is intriguing that lawyers are prepared to remove the fundamental rights of a class of employees to be able to present their case before a tribunal in the event of a wrongful dismissal. What this lawyer dominated government is saying is that regardless of how badly you are treated, how unfairly you are treated, you have no right to present your case before a tribunal. It is a rather strange approach coming from a lawyer dominated government.What is the rationale for that approach? We get a sweeping set of claims that small business is the engine room of the economy, that Australia needs dynamic growth to reduce unemployment, that 50,000 jobs will be created, although it tends to vary. When you listen to speakers from the government you hear claims anywhere between 20,000, 50,000 and 100,000 jobs. It does tend to vary. They argue that small business should not be burdened by this allegedly dreadful bureaucratic process to protect fundamentally the rights of employees. We do not hear any such concern about the impositions of a GST on small business and the bureaucratic process that small business will be wrapped up in as a consequence of a GST. Fundamentally, it is an assertion from this government, and there is no modelled proof that this assertion is correct.Why is a Liberal government going down this path? I think it has to find an excuse for not having performed better in the area of unemployment. There is one other fundamental reason. Over the break I think Minister Reith decided that he needed to get back in the leadership stakes. He has to show to the party faithful that he is in there allegedly fighting for small business and employment and bashing the unions. I say that seriously. I think that is part and parcel of Minister Reith's approach. I do not believe that he was particularly confident this regulation was going to survive in the Senate, but he had a go in order to ensure his profile is up there in the leadership stakes.I conclude by returning to the fundamental principle involved here—that is, all adult employees have a right to put their case before a tribunal if they are wrongfully treated. It is not as though thousands and thousands of former employees are fronting up to small businesses; there is a very small proportion. But they do have that fundamental right in Australian society, and that right should be preserved. These regulations should be voted down.18:10:001999Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Having failed last year to get these provisions passed through parliament, Mr Reith attempted to slip them through just before Christmas. The introduction of these regulations follows on the heels of an arrogant attempt by Mr Reith to force on the Australian people, without due parliamentary process, unfair dismissals by regulation.As soon as the regulations were gazetted, as soon as this snub of the parliamentary process occurred, serious legal debate in this country began. In the meantime, most workers and the business community were left not knowing where they stood legally in relation to the unfair dismissal laws. We know and we have heard that these regulations will limit the ability of employees to make claims of unfair dismissal. The regulations require a six-month period of employment before new employees can access any remedy and exclude new employees of small business with 15 or fewer employees.This government argues that it is determined to generate strong and sustained job growth. These regulations do nothing, and last week's Senate inquiry into this area proved that there is no evidence to suggest that job growth will be generated or sustained by the introduction of these regulations.I want to focus tonight on a section of our community which has not fared well in this debate—that is, the impact these regulations, should they not be disallowed, will have on women. It is likely that these changes will have a large impact on women and their role in the work force. Women are more likely to move in and out of the work force, as we full well know, as their family needs change, as women have more children, as their children grow up and as their needs within their family structure alter with the onset of parents ageing or the introduction of grandchildren into their family. By and large, it is women who alter the nature and the type of work that they perform during their life.Women enter the work force on a temporary or part-time basis as their family financial needs change. As new short-term employees or as workers for small business, their award rights to appeal on the basis of unfair dismissal will now be removed. Women make up approximately 43 per cent of the Australian work force. A significant proportion of the part-time work force at all levels and across all sectors are women, who make a substantial contribution to our economy. It is women, by and large, who have been forgotten in this debate on the introduction of these regulations.A significant proportion of women become pregnant during their working lives. Despite the fact that we have had legislation in place that makes discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy illegal, there is evidence that women continue to be disadvantaged when attempting to combine their right to work with their choice to have children. As a result of changes to awards or the introduction of regulations such as the ones we have in front of us, many workers' rights under the industrial award system have been removed.I note that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy remains one of 20 allowable matters under the new award structure. However, there are many other scenarios whereby women will be affected by the removal of unfair dismissal rights. They are more likely to have responsibility for child care in addition to their employment responsibilities. Yet Mr Reith, in his response to the report of the review of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act, Unfinished business, which I note has yet to be tabled before this parliament, stated, `The coalition government is firmly committed to promoting equal employment opportunities for women.' This statement is in stark contrast to what the government hopes to achieve by having these regulations not disallowed this evening.In his response to this report, Mr Reith said that the act `provides scope for the development of innovative and flexible workplace agreements on working patterns and leave entitlements'. This, he said, will `enable women to enter into agreements tailored to their personal or family circumstances'. Yet we well know that, by these regulations, women will be severely disadvantaged. Their right to be able to tailor their personal or family circumstances have now been removed. When Mr Reith comments about his Workplace Relations Act and his policy under this government being a fair go for all and a fair go all round, it is women once again who will bear the brunt of the policies of this government.18:15:002000Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I rise to speak to the motion moved by Senator Faulkner. I commence by saying that, to the extent that Senator Crossin was rabbiting on about how affirmative action was somehow relevant to this particular proposition, you might be interested to know that the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986, introduced by the Hawke government, excludes from its operation employers with fewer than 100 employees. In the second reading speech the Prime Minister of the day acknowledged that small businesses did not have the capacity to undertake the full import of that legislation.Quite clearly, that act recognises that separate circumstances apply to small business. That is the fact, as you all well and truly know. I am surprised that you even have the gall to come in here to try to mount the sorts of specious arguments that you do. It is an absolute litany of union employees doing the bidding of their masters. It is very interesting to note that only a couple of years ago Senator Cook, who was the Labor spokesman on the issue, said to AAP, `We will not be trying to block this legislation in the Senate.' Then he put out a press release explaining what he said at that doorstop:I may have said that the opposition will try to block the small business unfair dismissal provisions in the Senate. This is not what I meant to convey. Any comment that the opposition would block this legislation in the Senate is not correct.Why the about-face? Simply because those who call the shots decided that this was not in their best interests. That is why we had Mr Pallas writing as recently as 22 December last year saying that the ACTU is confident that the regulations will be invalidated by the courts in the new year and even more confident that the Senate will disallow them at the earliest opportunity. How did he know that? Because he had stitched it up. He called the troops in. He said, `Right. Do you want your preselections or don't you?'Look at what they are doing to Brumby. This is tragic. That bloke is being hung out on a rack day after day by union officials saying, `Right. Doesn't deliver on the union agenda. Out he goes.' This is criminal stuff. The guy ought to be allowed to get on with it, play politics as best he can but not have to be humiliated on a daily basis by the union movement. But they clearly have no compunction about doing it to the senators because they own them.You have come from nowhere. You are simply extending your union careers. You are not prepared to go out in the real world and earn a job in the private sector, so you come into the Senate. It is a nice little retirement home. It has great entitlements in due course. It does not matter if you stay in opposition forever. You do not have to go home and explain what you have been doing all day. You just rake in the dough.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—What about you at 20 to 12 at night? You should've gone home and explained that.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—My friend, I had another commitment, as you well know, and I kept that commitment; and I went and rang my wife straight after I got out of there and I said to her, `That bloke Faulkner is a nightmare. You wouldn't believe what I've had to go through for the last three hours.' She said, `Why do you put yourself through it?' I said, `The national interest is the only thing that keeps me here. It is an absolute shocker to have to put up with the likes of Faulkner.' She said, `Not that bloke that's on the box all the time like a shark?' I said, `Well, there's a lot of things you could compare him to.'9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—You've gone mad.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I was distracted; I agree. The point of the whole issue is that this is simply yet another attempt by the Labor Party to defend the indefensible. I noticed in Europe recently that there are a couple of classic examples of governments like the Blair government wanting to move on unfair dismissals because they know that it is cramping the style of small business. They know that these things are constantly abused. They know some of the statistics. I am sure that Senator Jacinta Collins, who spends about 14 hours a day in estimates dealing with the most arcane and trivial aspects of industrial relations folklore which she has spent a lifetime absorbing, would know the validity of these statistics.The number of businesses entangled in the federal commission is 16,665. That is the number of federal applications made between the end of 1996 through to 29 January 1999. About 35 per cent of those federal applications in 1998 were small businesses—that is, with 15 or fewer employees. Given that many businesses do not differentiate between federal and state regimes, it is instructive to add together the number of applications made from 1996 to 1998. The total is 55,740. So that is even more than the COSBOA estimate of 50,000 jobs being put on the line because of this sort of legislation.We know from the evidence before the Senate committee that a large percentage of these claims are settled. Why? They are settled because of commercial reality. Why are they instituted in the first place? Because you and your ilk earn a nice living out of trotting them up to the commission and dealing with them endlessly. Talk about ambulance chasing! This is the union equivalent of ambulance chasing, you see. You take all these things through the court, irrespective of the merits, knowing that, by and large, the poor old employers will say, `We just haven't got the time or inclination to pursue these matters right through to the bitter end. We'll come to a commercial settlement.'That is what happens. Everyone is held to ransom. You get bogged down in litigation. The last way you want to run your small business is by being distracted by court cases, so people capitulate. That is the great tragedy of all this. You know that it has nothing to do with protecting the genuine rights of those who might otherwise be at risk of wrongful dismissal. This legislation is simply an abuse of process designed to make it extraordinarily difficult for employers to introduce flexibility into their workplace and to make it extraordinarily easy for you and your lot to earn a nice little living by trotting along to the courts on a daily basis.I do not think we need to maintain this charade any longer. In fact, I congratulate Senator Faulkner; I think he might be the first one from the other side of the chamber to speak in this debate who is not a former full-time trade union employee. I look forward to his remarks. Unfortunately, I think we all know why he has got the job he has got, apart from the fact that Robert Ray had lost the energy and enthusiasm and no-one else was prepared to put their hand up—and, of course, Ray would not have let Cook get it in a fit. So he is sort of there by default. Basically, he is there because the union officials who elected you lot said, `We could cope with Senator Faulkner.' You might cope with him, but we can't.18:23:002002Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I do not think anyone listening to this debate could believe that the government are serious in arguing their case in relation to this disallowance motion. You just have to hear or read the speech that Senator Alston has made on an important issue of public policy to know the level of contribution that is typical of senior ministers in this government. This is the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. This is the person responsible for mounting the case, representing the industrial relations minister in this chamber, on what I think many Australians would consider to be an important issue. And that is the level of the contribution that we get.Let me make a serious contribution on the substance of the matter before the chamber. I would like to commence my contribution by quoting from the opposition's minority report on the consideration of the provisions of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998, which I think was tabled in this place yesterday. To quote:1. Our concern remains that the bill contravenes the Prime Minister's key commitment to the Australian people when he claimed that, under his government, employees would not be worse off under his government's industrial relations legislation.2. Our concern remains that the exemption is unfair.3. Our concern remains that the exemption is unnecessary.These three points underpinned our opposition to that legislation—legislation that has been put before this Senate twice, that has been rejected by the Senate twice. But, of course, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business will not accept the will of the Senate, of the parliament. They have subverted the parliamentary process and attempted to introduce the same unfair dismissal exemptions through the back door by regulation.During the debate on Mr Peter Reith's most recent unfair dismissal exemption legislation in the House of Representatives in December last year, the minister gagged 23 speakers who wished to highlight the unfairness of his bill. Two weeks later, seven days after the parliament had risen for the year, Mr Peter Reith, in his typical sneaky and underhand style, issued a press release to announce the introduction of unfair dismissal regulations for small businesses which employ 15 or fewer people. The following day, on Friday, 18 December, the regulations were gazetted, circumventing proper parliamentary process and obscuring the issue from public view during the Christmas break.What is the effect of the regulations, which some of us are interested in seriously debating? Current unfair dismissal legislation provides for the right of all employees to have access to appeal mechanisms against unfair, harsh or unreasonable dismissal. These regulations would take away that right for thousands of Australian workers—workers who have the misfortune to be employed by an operation with 15 or fewer employees. Ask yourself: why should workers in that situation have fewer rights than those who have the good fortune to work for larger organisations?Mr Reith's new regulations mean that employees can be sacked summarily from such businesses without any redress. The regulations also mean that, if a person is employed for less than six months, they can also be sacked without redress, which opens the way to exploitation by employers. To add insult to injury, these regulations double the cost of the filing fee from $50 to $100 for an application for unfair or unlawful termination of employment. They also delete the sunset clause providing that the filing fee would cease to apply after 31 December 1998.What a mean-spirited and spiteful measure this is. Its only impact will be to act as a deterrent against filing an application for unfair or unlawful termination. It is really just a case of kicking someone while they are down, kicking someone even harder while they are down by slugging them with an unnecessarily burdensome fee when they have just lost their job.Mr Reith announced his gazettal in the usual Reith style, by press release, at the start of the most recent Gulf crisis when the US launched its attack on Baghdad. We have correctly, I think, described this act as cowardly and too smart by half, in that it conveniently ensured that the timing was right to avoid scrutiny not only by the media but also by the parliament, which is part of Peter Reith's strategy.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—What have they got to hide?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Don't forget that there is actually legislation in the pipeline to address this government's policy; it is in the parliamentary forum already. These regulations are simply Peter Reith's way of avoiding Senate scrutiny.The opposition does not intend to let the government get away either with avoiding Senate scrutiny or with their attack on Australian workers. That is why we have proposed, and are willing to argue out sensibly, this disallowance motion. This is the first opportunity the Senate has had to formally consider these regulations. The opposition believes that it is vitally important that the Senate disallow these inequitable regulations as quickly as possible, not least because of the uncertainty surrounding the application of the regulations. Numerous lawyers have warned against using the new regulations prior to scrutiny in the Senate and a decision on this disallowance motion. Employers may find themselves in a legal quagmire if they exercise the new regulations because, of course, the disallowance will apply retrospectively.I would like to reiterate a point I made when I last spoke on this issue, and that is that this legislation amends the Howard government's own unfair dismissal laws. The government's much touted Workplace Relations Act extensively amended the unfair dismissal laws and came into effect on 1 January 1997. John Howard and Peter Reith have boasted that their new system for unfair dismissals is a `simpler, more balanced system that provides a fair go all round'.There is nothing fair about this exemption for small business; an exemption that discriminates against employees who work for a small business employer with fewer than 15 employees and employees who have been employed for less than six months. If Mr Howard and Mr Reith believe that their own unfair dismissal laws are so simple and balanced and provide a fair go all round, why do they need to pursue this exemption for small business? The government continues to insist that this exemption will boost employment by removing apparent disincentives for small businesses to hire new staff, but this argument has no tangible evidence at all to support it.A paper by Peter Waring and Alex De Rutye of the University of Newcastle, presented to the Airaanz 1999 Conference in Adelaide earlier this month, examined employment data to identify whether unfair dismissal legislation had, in fact, prevented jobs growth. They found that, notwithstanding unfair dismissal regulation, employment data revealed strong job creation and aggregate job growth in small business. In November last year, Minister Reith quoted the 1997 National Institute of Labour Studies report commissioned by DEETYA, which identified trends in staff selection and recruitment. Mr Reith stated that the NILS report `found that unfair dismissal laws strongly influenced hiring decisions'. However, Waring and De Rutye reveal that the very same report identified that less than half the respondents—48 per cent—thought that unfair dismissal laws influenced hiring decisions to a large or very large extent.So what do we have here from Penthouse Pete? A bit of selective quoting—which is what you normally see from the government to try to justify the unjust. The same authors also quote the Telstra Yellow Pages Small Business Survey of August 1998. The survey posed the question: what are the barriers to taking on new employees? That was posed to over 1,200 small business proprietors. At August 1998, 41 per cent saw no barriers to employment growth. The 59 per cent who identified barriers did not even rate unfair dismissal laws with a specific mention.The unfair dismissal laws may have been considered in this survey under two other categories—employment conditions or red-tape/regulations—however, these combined only comprised 17 per cent of identified barriers to taking on new employees. Another question actually posed by this survey is more directly informative. Small business proprietors were asked: what are the most important small business issues for government? Only six per cent identified unfair dismissal laws. Of course, without any tangible evidence at all to support their claim that the unfair dismissal laws act as a hindrance to employment within small business, the only justification that the government has is this ideological obsession with dismantling the rights of Australian workers that we have seen since the government was elected in 1996. That is what is driving these proposals.What about genuine government assistance for small business and the government's commitment to reduce the burden of red tape? I think John Howard is just kidding himself if he thinks that this legislation will solve the problems and relieve the burdens of small business. I would like to quote one last point from Waring and De Rutye. They concluded:Finally, the government's plan to exclude those businesses employing 15 or less persons will create some interesting situations. For example, a firm with 15 employees will enjoy the exemption until they decide to employ a new person. This may mean that an employee's rights would fluctuate with the changing employment levels of the business. Moreover, to retain their exemption some firms may maintain their work forces at 15 or less persons. Alternatively, the law may encourage some firms to downsize their work force so as to attract the exemption. These outcomes would hardly be conducive to employment growth.Oh, really? The government's only argument for pursuing these exemptions has been job creation. Yet they may well have the adverse effect—Senator Alston interjecting—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—You are just starting to listen now to the debate, are you? These regulations and the underhanded way that they were introduced are another betrayal of the Australian people. Do not forget this government's broken promises and how over the last couple of years they have really revealed their true colours on many issues of importance to Australians. The government, as senators would know, wooed voters with weasel words and rhetoric about delivering to families. They wooed voters with weasel words about protecting the poor, the needy and the vulnerable in our community. They wooed voters with weasel words about guaranteeing that no worker would be worse off under the new industrial relations regime of the coalition government.John Howard and Peter Reith promised to give workers a right of appeal if they had been unfairly dismissed. What they did not say is that, if you happen to work for a small business, that promise just does not count. You have got no right of appeal in that circumstance. All workers in that situation have been betrayed yet again by the Howard government because, if you do appeal, they are going to slug you by doubling the filing fee for an application for unfair or unlawful termination of employment. Of course this is at a time when workers, ordinary Australians, have a cash flow crisis. Most people, except those born with a silver spoon in their mouth and the coalition frontbench, would understand that. It is pretty clear what the government are up to here.I think it is important to place on the public record what the government has said in relation to unfair dismissal. As the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard said:I'm not going to have a law where an unreasonable employer can capriciously sack a decent, hardworking employee.In one of his headland speeches, he said:Let me make a hard and fast commitment that when we win government we will ensure that Australia has a balanced unfair dismissal provision which is fair to both employers and employees. We won't tolerate unreasonable dismissals.Mr Reith said that the redrafted system of unfair dismissals would not contain any exemptions. He said on 28 February 1996:Our position is very clear. If you have been unfairly dealt with at work, then you should have a right of appeal.Of course they did not qualify it at all. They have broken these commitments to the Australian people and Australian workers.The impact of these regulations goes to the very core of the lives of all working Australians and their families. There is a very strong link between a worker's role in the work force and the quality of life that is enjoyed by a worker's family and children. John Howard promised to provide security and certainty to families. These regulations do an awful lot to dismantle the security of employment that workers hope to enjoy. Of course, security of employment is fundamental to the security workers have as a family. We do not think it is something that John Howard or this government should be messing with.Parliament has made a ruling on these exemptions. The Senate has expressed its will twice by rejecting the government's unfair dismissal exemption legislation so the government has tried to revisit the matter through the back door. Let me say that our position on this remains unchanged. I urge the Senate to stand by its earlier resolution and vote to disallow these sneaky and underhanded regulations that are so typical of the way this government does business. Question put: That the motion (Senator Jacinta Collins's ) be agreed to.18:47:00The Senate divided. (The Deputy President—Senator S. M. West)35Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.34Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.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.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Campbell, G. Hill, R. M.Cook, P. F. S. Campbell, I. G.Hutchins, S. Reid, M. E.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Documents2006200618:51:002006Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This report to the Attorney-General, entitled Administrative review of patents decisions , deals with the very important issue of intellectual property. Intellectual property is that sort of property which now enriches countries around the world, so it is important not only as an issue of fairness but also as an issue of great economic moment. It is an issue of fairness because people who establish a new way of doing things or who invent a new object—for example, a new type of bicycle seat, which may seem simple but which requires a lot of thought and development if it is going to be built the right way and serve the purpose the inventor wants—need to have those things protected.The situation at the moment is that people who develop new ideas, new ways of doing things or a new object are not protected as they should be. That is not so much because of the law but because of the cost involved. It is very expensive to take out a patent that is effective not only in Australia but around the world, and that is what people have to do now to protect their intellectual property. To apply to take out a patent is very expensive because it has to be done from one country to another.This report dealing with this very important matter should be read by all senators and by the public as a whole. To return to the theme I started with, unless the intellectual property that we have in Australia is protected—in the sense of what flows from it—and remains in Australian hands or remains in a way that benefits Australia, then we are losing too much to a world that is ever ready to take hold of the many ideas that develop here.I was talking about a bicycle seat, and I was thinking of a young man I know who has developed such an object. He has had considerable difficulty maintaining the product of his mind around the world, because people outside Australia are so endowed with money that they can hold others off until their pa tents run out and they have to renew, and renew at great cost. This affects people like this young man I am thinking of and many others as well. This report to the Attorney-General about patents decisions, which seems at first sight to be a fairly dry subject, is a report that deals with one of the most vital issues that the parliament and the government face—that is, the proper protection of intellectual property developed in Australia.18:56:002006O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—Senator Cooney, as always, has made an erudite contribution to the debate in this chamber. The issue of intellectual property is a vexing issue for a range of reasons—none of which are ideological, I would dare say—but it constitutes a real challenge to our intellect itself to deal with them.Senator Cooney quite rightly raised the issue of what you do to preserve the Australian ownership of intellectual property. He alluded to the difficulty of raising capital in Australia or from sources overseas to invest in Australia to help people develop the full potential of their intellectual property. Intellectual property in and of itself is not worth anything unless it is sold or the idea behind it is developed, manufactured and sold to other people. The property right itself is a lovely bit of paper, but it is nothing more, and I think Senator Cooney appreciates that point. I would say that Senator Cooney is correct, but we also need to look at a number of other things.One of those is the way in which we raise capital for investment in businesses. One of the concerns I have is that, when seed capital is put into a business to start it off—and we have seen some spectacular successes of start-up businesses in the last two years, particularly involving intellectual property and computers or Internet technology—the people who invest the seed capital will make the decision at some stage to withdraw their seed capital. In order words, the company has flourished and they want to take their profit and invest it somewhere else.One of the problems we have in this country is that we have a very onerous capital gains tax regime which makes it less attractive to put seed capital into a company in Australia than it might be elsewhere. If I am a private investor, the profit I make when I sell my seed capital two years down the track is taxed at 48½c in the dollar—the top marginal rate—in the year in which the profit was derived. In other countries, that high taxation regime is not present.That has a very simple effect; it encourages people who have good intellectual property in Australia to start up the company and list it overseas because overseas investors get a more generous tax treatment in another country than they get here. That is one of the crises we have in terms of venture capital. The capital gains tax erodes the gains and, hence, encourages the movement of the domicile of those companies offshore. I think Senator Cooney would agree that that is not a desirable consequence, but that is one of the problems we must grapple with.But the other problem we have to grapple with is a much more esoteric problem, and that is this: rigorous maintenance of intellectual property prevents the development of that idea by someone else down the track. When you have products that have a very limited life—for example, certain computer technologies, algorithms and so on which may become superseded—you need to be able to develop them quickly. I think that generates a general philosophical debate as to the length of intellectual property.I do not want to get into that tonight, but that is also one of the issues which faces us as a legislature. How much protection do you give to the inventor and how much do you encourage the development of the idea? In many cases, good ideas can be made better ideas by development but, if you have intellectual property rights which are too restrictive, it prevents that development. In conclusion, I hope Senator Cooney manages to find a venture capitalist who will aid his friend's bicycle seat, as I hope that we find venture capital for many other great Australian inventions.Question resolved in the affirmative.2007The following documents were considered and not debated:Treaties—Bilateral —Text, together with national interest analysis—Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Australia concerning Defense Communications Services, done at Arlington on 14 October 1998 and at Washington on 30 October 1998. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Denman. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Denman in continuation.Treaties—Bilateral —Text, together with national interest analysis—Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America concerning Acquisition and Cross-Servicing, done at Canberra on 9 December 1998. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Denman. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Denman in continuation.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—The consideration of government documents has now concluded.Adjournment200710000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being 7.03 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.200719:03:002007Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—This evening I want to speak about the appearance in March of Australia before the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, so I am particularly pleased that Minister John Herron is in the chamber. Many senators will not be aware that there is a process which enables the UN committee responsible for the compliance of parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination to seek from countries their particular response when there is criticism of that country's policies, and tonight I want to detail some of these processes. At the meeting in Geneva in August last year, a draft decision prepared by Mr Banton, Mr Wolfrum and Mr van Boven was introduced stating that there were worrying developments in Australia regarding the situation of Aboriginal people. I cannot go through all of this debate at the United Nations CERD committee because it goes from points 29 to 51—over five pages. There was quite a considerable debate of concern, which I will summarise with this statement by Mr Wolfrum:. . . the situation in Australia was clearly deteriorating. It was deeply regrettable that institutions such as the post of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, which the Committee had praised so highly in 1994, were disappearing. Aboriginals were being marginalized, their life expectancy was about 10 years less than that of the white population and the illiteracy rate among Aboriginals was approximately five times higher.Similar concerns were expressed about the native title legislation and whether or not it complied with the convention—a debate which we had regarding the Racial Discrimination Act at the time of the debate in this place.Tonight, in the spirit of reconciliation, I want to comment on how the government could maximise its appearance before the CERD committee as an opportunity to move forward in regard to the reconciliation process that the Prime Minister has committed himself to. A report has been prepared by the Attorney-General's Department and has been released. I have sought permission from the Government Whip to table the document and that has been granted. I now seek leave to table the Attorney-General's Department report.Leave granted.XI4Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDS—For those who would like to look at this document, it is available on the Attorney-General's web site. But I think it is important that honourable senators have the opportunity to read it. I have to say that it is not a comprehensive document; it is not a visionary document.If Australia is being asked to justify its position in relation to meeting the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, I would have thought the government would go out of its way to spell out its vision for the future, its vision for reconciliation. The Australian government is already about 2½ years overdue with its periodic report on how it is moving to implement policies that overcome racial discrimination, and it would seem that this was the perfect opportunity. Indeed, if you were as cynical as I am on such occasions, you could even argue that the govern ment could have deflected some of the attention about the two issues that the committee raised by focusing on its vision for reconciliation.I find the document extremely disappointing. But I think there is still time for the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation—Phillip Ruddock—and you, Minister Heron, to retrieve the situation not only in terms of fundamental justice for Aboriginal people in this country but for Australia's international reputation.On Australia Day this year, in an advertisement headed `It's Time for a Treaty', 57 Aboriginal leaders publicised their demand for `the Australian government to sign a treaty with Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples', stating that it `should be concluded by 26 January 2001 as a symbolic date for negotiated settlement between the nation and the indigenous peoples'. I know that this government has said all along—and in opposition it was also policy—that there would not be a treaty.But politics is the art of compromise. The Prime Minister could give a public commitment to negotiating policy with indigenous people. For example, we could have negotiation here, out at the front of Parliament House, in relation to the tent embassy, instead of the confrontation that has developed. If, when Australia speaks at the United Nations on 12 March, there could be a statement of absolute commitment for negotiation, even that would be a major step forward.Also, I believe the government could and should seriously reconsider the abolition of the position of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. It does not mean a lot of dollars; it is not a major step backwards in terms of government policy—and obviously I am looking at it from the government's point of view, not mine. But I am looking for realistic ways in which the government can set a new tone on 12 March in Geneva.I am realistic; I know that there is no way this government will turn its back on the Wik legislation. So I predict that it will be criticised by the United Nations committee for that particular piece of legislation. So why not balance that criticism by trying to recognise the concerns and giving a commitment to reinstate the position of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner?In addition, I think an important issue is the selection of the Australian representative for Geneva. We do not yet know whether it will be a public servant—and, with every respect to public servants, I hope it is not. I believe that this is an opportunity, an occasion, for the attendance of a senior minister—the Attorney-General himself, Phillip Ruddock, even the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister were really committed to reconciliation, if he were really concerned about the way in which Australia is being portrayed internationally as to its treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, then he himself would be there. That may seem a bit unrealistic, but I think it would be a very good opportunity.I think it is appropriate that on that occasion the government make some very strong statements of commitment for the future—commitment to negotiation; for it to recommit to having the position of Social Justice Commissioner, which was seen by the United Nations as very innovative and forward looking; and commitment to genuine reconciliation which, of course, will involve recognition of ATSIC and reinstatement of many of the programs that are now so underfunded.200919:12:002009Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—I rise tonight to once again bring to this chamber's attention the injustices that are inflicted on tertiary students around the country every day. I am speaking, of course, about compulsory student unionism. Like its workplace predecessor, it is a situation in which a student is forced to join and fund a union, whether it is overtly political or not, as a condition of entry into university. The proponents of compulsory student unionism, like the old guard left-wing proponents of closed-shop work practices, justify their arguments on the arrogant notion that the benefits of representation and some services are so important that people must be compelled to enjoy them.The logic of this approach is clearly absent. The obvious and irrefutable response to it is `that if something is so desirable, people will choose to pay for it without coercion'. It is around this statement that I would like to compare tonight the two models of voluntary unionism for students in Australia at present.There are currently two states that have legislated to move towards voluntary student unionism. They are Western Australia and Victoria. Tonight I will briefly present the relative differences and successes of these two versions of VSU—the latter of which, indeed, I submit, is not voluntary student unionism. The former, the Western Australian model, stipulates that no compulsory fee may be levied for non-academic services as a condition of entry into university. This means that, if these non-academic activities are to be funded, they must be funded wholly by the students who choose to use them. This seems to upset a lot of unionists. No longer do they have the coercive threat of `no ticket, no start' or `no fee, no degree' hanging over students' heads.Now student unions, or guilds as they are called in Western Australia, are ceasing to fund activities that students genuinely dislike or do not support. Why? Because, when the union ceases to represent its members satisfactorily, its members will vote with their feet and their dollars and they will leave. So what has happened in Western Australia? That depends on where you choose to look. If you look at Curtin University, the guild has gone from strength to strength. With high profitability and strong union membership, the guild has been a success story. As for political activism, that has taken a back seat. This apparently causes no end of frustration to the activists left at Curtin because their demands for the usual fringe activity go unheeded.This is quite different to the Edith Cowan University Guild. The ECU Guild has struggled since VSU was introduced. Most recently it was asking for a bailout of well over a hundred thousand dollars from the university to help keep it afloat. Unlike the Guild at Curtin, the ECU Guild chose a course of political activism. The students at Edith Cowan University, like those at Curtin Uni versity, did not consider this so-called representation a service worth paying for. So they haven't. This is hardly surprising. Students do not want their money being spent by political zealots on bizarre campaigns. They want services, taverns, legal advice, student sports centres, clubs and societies to name a few. In Western Australia they get them all. Why? Not because they are compelled but because they have chosen to fund them. This is not an abstract prediction, it is a fact.Allow me to quote, for example, directly from the University of Western Australia Student Guild home page. It reads:The UWA Student Guild is committed to providing the best educational, social and financial benefits to its members. The Guild offers many services to students including the Guild Shop, Education Office, Catering, Copy Shop, Second-Hand Book Shop and much more.The list goes on. You do not have to force students to have fun! Naturally, some services and forms of representation will have decreased in output, but only to the extent that they now reflect the desires of an informed, articulate student membership. Representation, the primary service of most trade unions and the National Union of Students, is one of those services which has had a decline in demand. Quite clearly, these informed, articulate and intelligent students feel capable of representing themselves.The Western Australian model has resulted in massive savings for students. Typically, voluntary fees paid have more than halved which is great news for all students, but it is especially great news for those students who are struggling to be at university. The old compulsory student union fee did not discriminate between rich and poor. It was a highly regressive poll tax. Through the course of the year, you either got your money's worth in services or you didn't. That is, you were either a net subsidiser of other people or the student body was a net subsidiser of you. Those in the know—the active members of the union—usually profited the most. Those students who focused on their degrees, their careers, their part-time jobs or other outside interests generally lost. It is important to remember that this wasn't means tested.Across the country in the state of Victoria the situation is quite different. In Victoria, the compulsory union fee is still levied on behalf of student unions by universities, but the legislation prescribes what this money may and may not be spent on. In the language of the act these categories are `allowed' and `non-allowed'. This situation is a classic example of taxation without representation. Union fees have not been reduced at all. All of the old inefficiencies still exist.It gets even worse. Unlike in the west, where students can choose to fund the activities that they want, in Victoria students have already been forced to pay significant sums of money—often well over $300 per year.There are other flaws in the Victorian model that prevent it from being genuinely voluntary. There are the practical problems of compliance. More bluntly, there are loopholes in the legislation big enough to drive a minibus full of Trots through. The Victorian branch of the National Union of Students has legal advice to the effect that the `allowed' part of the compulsory union fee at some campuses may be used to fund the National Union of Students. This is extraordinary. The complex and often dubious accounting practices by unions and the ambiguity of the legislation often combine to allow cross-subsidies between `allowed' and `non-allowed' bank accounts. Pouring money into an unprofitable, yet `allowed', activity, on the one hand, and taking the so-called profits from this to spend on `non-allowed' activities, on the other hand, are commonplace in Victoria—and virtually unenforceable.This week, for example, the student union at Monash University Clayton campus, the Monash Students Association, is attempting to disaffiliate the local Liberal Club on an administrative technicality. One is hardly stunned that this will occur on Wednesday morning just before Orientation Week, when the Liberal Club at Monash was about to launch a major campaign in favour of the government's GST package and policy on voluntary student unionism. Coincidence or convenience?There are some things that the Western Australian model can ensure that the Victorian model will never be able to do. The most important of these is to guarantee that student union membership and funding will be genuinely voluntary. This is guaranteed in Western Australia by the single voluntary union fee. In Victoria, at best, students can only hope that their compulsory fee only gets spent on activities that they support. But in the end, they will probably never know. Unless this parliament legislates for full voluntary student unionism, there is probably nothing that they will ever be able to do about it. Compulsory student unionism must be destroyed, and it must be destroyed soon.201119:22:002011Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—History demonstrates that the people must constantly guard against abuses of power by the political executive. Failure to do this has contributed to some of the most appalling atrocities committed this century. That is why all advanced democracies pay a great deal of attention in their constitutional foundation to how those in the highest positions of authority can be removed and replaced. Just how any future Australian head of state could be dismissed and by whom is a central issue in our republic debate. The Constitutional Convention's model requires us to ask how much extra power Australians are prepared to give their political executive, to the Prime Minister, in particular.Dismissal of a President in the United States, as was recently seen, is subject to a carefully constructed series of legislative and judicial checks and balances. It contrasts starkly with the excessive powers proposed for the Australian Prime Minister under the Constitutional Convention's model. Contrary to claims made in support of it, this model did not enjoy an outright majority at last year's convention. But it was chosen by the Prime Minister to be put to referendum. And why wouldn't he like it? He would get powers under this model that no other Prime Minister in an advanced democracy could dream of.A comparison of the dismissal procedures in the Constitutional Convention's model with the procedures in other nations reveals the unprecedented dismissal powers proposed for the Australian Prime Minister. In Singapore and South Africa the President may be removed from office only following a resolution of parliament supported by a two-thirds majority of all members. In Israel, a three-quarters majority of the Knesset must support the motion. In bicameral parliaments, such as Ireland and India, removing the President requires a charge of misbehaviour be brought before either house of the parliament. Dismissal must be passed in that house by a two-thirds majority. Following this, the other house investigates the charge and only on an absolute majority of two-thirds is the President then removed from office.The bicameral USA system requires the House of Representatives to vote to direct the House Judiciary Committee to investigate charges against the President. Following this, the President is either cleared of the charges or the Judiciary Committee votes to send articles of dismissal to the full House of Representatives. If the House approves articles of dismissal, a trial is then conducted in the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. A two-thirds majority of senators is required to remove the President from office.In Germany, the President may be dismissed by the legislative assembly, Bundestag, or the council of state ministers, Bundesrat. A dismissal motion must be brought by at least one-quarter of members and must be carried by a two-thirds majority of the Bundestag or Bundesrat. To succeed it must then be prosecuted before the Federal Constitutional Court.It can therefore be seen that in democratic countries worldwide presidents are removed either by parliaments or by a combination of parliaments and the courts. Further, wherever bicameral parliaments are involved, both houses of parliament are always involved in removal.In contrast, the republican model presently proposed for Australia gives the Prime Minister summary and sole powers of dismissal, to be confirmed by the House of Representatives and not by the Senate. This is a poor safeguard. The House of Representatives is more correctly described as the `house of the executive'. The Prime Minister controls the cabinet, the cabinet controls the party in government, and they have the numbers to do whatever they please. The exclusion of the Senate, elected under proportional representation, is designed to ensure the political party in power has unfettered control of the dismissal power. That is not democratic; that is authoritarian.Contrary to the parliamentary and judicial processes of other countries, the convention's model proposes that an Australian president may be removed at any time by a notice in writing issued by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister need not provide any reason for this decision—extraordinarily, no grounds for dismissal are outlined in the Constitutional Convention model. The president is removed immediately upon the Prime Minister's notice being issued. The Prime Minister's decision must be ratified by the House of Representatives within 30 days—as we all know, that is a very long time in politics! If the House does not ratify the Prime Minister's action, the president is not restored to office but is eligible for reappointment. Meanwhile a stand-in will assume the role of president, unless of course the stand-in happens to be a state Governor-General, in which case that state's Queen is again the head of state.So, a Prime Minister hostile to a president may dismiss him or her at any time and has 30 days to explain this to the House of Representatives—which he, his cabinet and his party controls. If the House declines to ratify the Prime Minister's call, the president remains dismissed until reappointed by the parliament on recommendation by the Prime Minister. It is clear the Prime Minister retains complete control over this process from start to finish. Perhaps this is why Mr Howard's opposition to the republic is fairly muted—after all, he has so much to gain. And it may explain why Mr Beazley is so bullish on this model, because, after all, he too may have much to gain.This unprecedented dismissal procedure, with its concentration of power proposed for the Prime Minister, flies in the face of the need for an Australian republic to be open, accountable and responsible to the people. It further erodes the separation of powers, further entrenches the power of the Prime Minister and cabinet and ignores repeated calls for the people or their elected representatives to be fully involved in the dismissal process. Why, for instance, exclude the Senate from the process of dismissal? And, based on international precedent, the Prime Minister should actually be excluded from the process, not made the boss of it.Many in Australia have argued, in line with hard-won wisdom from overseas, that the president should only be removable by a vote of no confidence passed by a two-thirds majority resolution in both houses of parliament on grounds of stated misbehaviour or incapacity. The alleged misbehaviour or incapacity should be investigated and ruled upon by a judicial commission. It would be absurd if the president of our country were more easily removed than a judicial officer, yet this is precisely what is being proposed in the Constitutional Convention model.Adequate involvement of the parliament in the dismissal of a president is a non-negotiable requirement of basic democratic fairness. The absolute lack of this involvement in the convention model highlights the need for the amendment of that model in the interests of furthering democracy and in the interests of advancing a republican model which will be more acceptable to the people than the one presently proposed.20122012Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—(7.28 p.m.)—I today wish to pay tribute to a fine Australian and a fine Queenslander, Mr Laurie Rosenblum, who this year concluded a 50-year career with the Queensland Board of Jewish Deputies. Before I address this matter, I should, however, make mention of his activities prior to 1948 when he first moved to Queensland.Laurie Rosenblum, whom I have known for a number of years, was born in South Africa, but his family moved to Australia when he was young and Laurie spent most of his formative years in Western Sydney. Being a patriotic Australian, Laurie signed up for service in the Army during the Second World War and was selected as an officer. During his time in the Northern Territory he had his first contact with tribal Aboriginals, a contact which was to lead him to become a passionate advocate of Aboriginal enfranchisement.At the cessation of hostilities Laurie served with the Army in the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces in Japan before returning to Australia and making his home with his wife, Hilma, in my home state of Queensland.Faced with the twin challenges of fighting discrimination and helping the Holocaust survivors settle in Brisbane, Laurie and a number of friends formed the Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies. He also served as Queensland Chairman of the Jewish Welfare Society, which established a temporary transit centre for refugees in Highgate Hill. Since 1948, Mr Rosenblum has spent 40 years as Chairman of the Public Relations Committee for the Board of Deputies, 44 years as councillor and five years as President.His concern has never been limited to those of his own faith. Laurie was an early and determined campaigner for the rights of Aboriginals. This led directly to the 1967 referendum sponsored by the coalition government to extend the full rights of citizenship to Aboriginals. More recently, Laurie was a forthright critic of racism and extreme politics, which he saw as perpetuating the old hatreds and evils which he had fought against so vigorously in the Second World War. Through all of these momentous challenges, he has been compassionate, fair and restrained—always seeking to find common ground rather than ongoing division. He has been extremely active in veterans affairs, especially the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces veterans. He is the national vice-president of the BCOF association and it is noteworthy that a lunch held in his honour in Brisbane on Sunday was attended by the national president.Laurie Rosenblum's contribution to the Queensland and Australian community has been recognised by the award of an OAM but, more importantly, by the recognition of his fellow citizens that he is a friend to the weak and a valiant campaigner for what is right. Moreover, anyone who has met him would also say Laurie Rosenblum is a good bloke. Laurie has vowed to stay active in community affairs but few would deny that it would take an extraordinary person, or even a team of people, to fill his shoes. Let us hope, for all our sakes, those people can be found. Laurie Rosenblum, on behalf of a grateful Australia, thank you very much.201319:32:002013Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam Deputy President, I wish to support Senator Boswell in his statement about Laurie Rosenblum. He is an outstanding Queenslander who has made a contribution to our state that is unequalled in its history.Madam Deputy President, I rise to my feet tonight to respond, in part, to Senator Reynolds, who spoke earlier in the adjournment debate about our vision for reconciliation. I want to respond in the spirit in which she made her contribution. I was a little concerned that Senator Reynolds spoke of her cynicism. I do not believe that Senator Reynolds is cynical; I think that she has made a great contribution over the years and I have not, at any stage, seen any evidence of cynicism.She made a plea for justice for Aboriginal people. She spoke about the 57 people whom she termed Aboriginal leaders and who, amongst others, signed an advertisement on Australia Day calling for a treaty. She spoke about politics being the art of compromise. She spoke about other matters in relation to my portfolio. I want to refute some of those statements that she made, in the same spirit in which she made them.The first is that I do not believe that politics is the art of compromise. My good friend Sir James Killen always quotes Edmund Burke, who said about politics, `that which is not practicable is spurious'. I differ with Sir James, who quotes that frequently; I believe that politics is about leadership. All of us, as parliamentarians, are privileged to be here and it is incumbent on us to show leadership. While I respect what Senator Reynolds has said, there is a greater dimension to it.She spoke also about the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Peoples. I attended Geneva on one occasion, in 1996, and I was just amazed to see and learn that only 60 indigenous peoples are actually represented now in the United Nations—such has been the confluence of history in their destruction. But activists use the vehicle of the United Nations to put their own view and expect Australians to cringe because criticism comes from overseas. In reality, Australia has an outstanding record of human rights and indigenous people in Australia are free to fully exercise their human and civil rights. I think that all of us who have had the opportunity to travel overseas and even work in some of the disadvantaged nations realise what a wonderful country we have here—what opportunities exist for people, no matter what their race.I agree with Senator Reynolds that we must recognise our past. However, we must also understand the present. More importantly, we have to think of the future. There is so much that we can achieve together in that spirit of reconciliation. I would ask Senator Reynolds to continue to make her contribution in that regard but to think not of living in the past in recognising the injustices that have occurred to the Aboriginal people. The horrific history of dispossession and the cruelties that were inflicted upon them is recognised by all; but we must also understand the present, insofar as there are, in Australia today, more than 200 racial and ethnic groups. There are 53 languages spoken as the first language in family groups which have English as a second language. There are over 40 different religions practised in Australia today. We have a melting pot of society in Australia that is unequalled in the world. I think the fact that we are the sixth oldest continuous democracy in the world speaks for itself. We have a wonderful future. We have demonstrated to the world that we are able to absorb people from all the nations of the world. But I do not believe that anything is gained, when we are planning for the future and showing leader ship for the future, by dwelling on the injustices of the past, to the detriment of the future.19:37:002014Senate adjourned at 7.37 p.m.Documents20142014The following government documents were tabled:Administrative Review Council—Report to the Attorney-General—No. 43—Administrative review of patents decisions, October 1998.Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration—Statement and supporting applications of issues—November 1998.Australian Antarctic Foundation—Report for 1997-98.Australian Dried Fruits Board—Report for 1997-98.Bankruptcy Act—Inspector-General in Bankruptcy—Report for 1997-98 on the operation of the Act—Errata.Christmas Island Casino Surveillance Authority and Casino Controller—Reports for 1997-98.Defence Housing Authority—Statement of corporate intent 1998-99.Federal Court of Australia—Report for 1997-98.National Environment Protection Council—Report for 1997-98.Productivity Commission—Report—No. 1—The Australian black coal industry— Volume 1—Report, 3 July 1998. Volume 2—Appendices.States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act—Financial assistance granted to each State in respect of 1997.Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Act—Report for the period 1 November to 31 December 1998.Telecommunications (Interception) Act—Report for 1997-98 pursuant to Division 2 of Part IX of the Act.Treaties—Bilateral —Text, together with national interest analysis— Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand concerning the Status of their Forces, done at Melbourne on 29 October 1998. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America concerning Acquisition and Cross-Servicing, done at Canberra on 9 December 1998. Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Australia concerning Defense Communications Services, done at Arlington on 14 October 1998 and at Washington on 30 October 1998. Treaty between Australia and Sweden on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, done at Stockholm on 18 December 1998. Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the Republic of South Africa, done at Canberra on 9 December 1998.2015The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection (Boobera Lagoon) Declaration 1998.Corporations Act—Accounting Standard— AASB 1006—Interests in Joint Ventures. AASB 1039—Concise Financial Reports.Export Control Act—Export Control (Animals) Amendment Orders 1999 (No. 1).Migration Act— Certificates under section 502, dated 15 December 1998 and 18 January 1999. Statement for period 1 July to 31 December 1998 under section 417 [93].Answers to Questions on Notice2016The following answers to questions were circulated:2016(Question No. 323)3232016Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) On how many occasions did the department refer unauthorised disclosures to the Australian Federal Police between March 1996 and October 1998.(2) In each instance where an investigation has been undertaken has that investigation been concluded.(3) Have any officers been charged with offences relating to unauthorised disclosures that occurred during this period; if so, how many.2016Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) One.(2) Yes.(3) No.2016(Question No. 26)262016Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 11 and 12 November 1998:With reference to the report prepared by Mr Peter Kennedy under the Public Service Act 1922 into advice given in relation to tabling of material in the house of Representatives on 29 May 1997 and released under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 on 2 June 1998: on what grounds under the FOI Act were specific deletions made:2016Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's questions is as follows:I have been advised by the Department of Finance and Administration:(1) All deletions, from the copy of the Kennedy report that was released under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) in June of this year, were made in accordance with one or more of Sections 36, 40, 41 and 42 of the FOI Act with one exception (see paragraph 5 be low). The copy of the report that was released was annotated to indicate where and under what sections of the FOI Act deletions were made. The reasons for deletions made in the copy of the report that was released are summarised in the attached table.(2) Material was deleted from the Report, by the Departmental decision maker, for the following reasons:. Section 36—it was decided by the Departmental decision maker that this material fell within the "internal working document" exemption of the Act in that it contained advice, opinion and/or recommendations given by senior officers of the Department to the then Minister, or related to discussion/liaison/communications of a very high level between senior officers of the Department. On balance, it was decided by the Departmental decision maker that release would not be in the public interest.. Section 40—it was decided by the Departmental decision maker that release of this material might prejudice the attainment of the objects of an examination, test or audit conducted by the agency; would disclose information that could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse affect on the management or assessment of personnel by the Commonwealth or by an agency; and/or that disclosure could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse affect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an agency. On balance, it was decided by the Departmental decision maker that release would not be in the public interest.. Section 41—it was decided by the Departmental decision maker that release of this material would be an unreasonable disclosure of personal information concerning a number of third parties.. Section 42—it was decided by the Departmental decision maker that this material concerned legal opinion obtained in the review process, and as such was subject to legal professional privilege.(3) The Departmental decision maker considered all possible provisions of the FOI Act and, I am advised, released as much of the Report as he thought possible. The Act provides a remedy for applicants where there is disagreement with a decision.(4) FOI requests to the Department are handled by authorised officers of the Department.(5) In the preparation of this answer, it was noted that paragraph 7.18 had been inadvertently deleted from the copy of the report that was released under the FOI Act and a copy of that section has now been provided to the applicant.Question Number(s)Paragraph of ReportSection of FOI Act under which deletion was made261.936; 40271.1336; 40281.14; 1.1536; 40291.2036; 4030—322.6—2.836; 40332.3036; 4034—412.32—2.3936; 4042—442.41—2.4336; 40452.4436; 4046—502.45—2.4936; 40513.1236; 40524.636; 4053—554.17—4.1936; 40564.2536;4057; 584.26; 4.2736; 40594.2836;40604.3036; 40: 41614.3136:4062; 635.5; 5.636; 40645.736:40655.936; 40665.1336; 4067—715.15—5.1936; 40725.2636; 40735.3436; 40; 41746.2536; 40; 4275—777.4—7.636; 4078—817.15—7.18*36; 40*827.2336; 4083; 847.25; 7.2636;40857.2736;4086—88; 7.29—7.3136; 40897.3336; 4090—937.41—7.4436; 40947.47 (b) & (d)36; 40957.4936; 4096—987.51—7.5336; 4099; 1007.64; 7.6536; 40101—1037.70—7.7236; 401047.7536; 40105—1147.83—7.9236; 401157.10036; 40 1167.10636; 401177.10836; 401187.11036; 40119; 1207.113; 7.11436; 401217.121 (d)36; 401227.12436; 40123; 1247.125; 7.12636; 401257.127Released 1657.3236; 40* Paragraph 7.18 was inadvertently deleted from the copy of the report released under the FOI Act and a copy of that paragraph has now been supplied to the applicant.2018(Question No. 161)1612018Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 12 November 1998:(1) Is it a fact that the states had to present the Commonwealth with specific plans for establishing literacy programs which then had to be agreed to by the Government before being allocated extra funding for this purpose.(2) Can a copy be provided of the literacy plans put forward by each state.(2.2) Can a list be provided of the criteria schools applying for funding under the Keys to Life program must meet.(3) Can a breakdown be provided of the funding allocated for literacy programs on a state and school by school basis.(4) Outline how literacy funding is awarded to schools with literacy programs which do not specifically meet the criteria set down by the Commonwealth.(6) Can a breakdown be provided of literacy funding which has been allocated to schools with literacy programs which do not specifically meet the Commonwealth's criteria on a state by state and school by school basis.2018Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Commonwealth this year introduced a change to administrative arrangements for Commonwealth funding for literacy in schools. As a condition of funding, states and territories and non-government education authorities were asked to provide a strategic plan on how schools will ensure that students meet the national literacy standard by the end of Year 3.(2) A copy of each literacy plan was provided to the Senate Legislation Committee during August 1998 in response to Senator Carr's question of 9 June 1998. A set of plans has also been forwarded to Senator Allison.(2.2) The Commonwealth is not able to provide information on the Victorian Government's Keys to Life program (now known as the Early Years literacy program). This information can be provided by Education Victoria.(3) The Commonwealth is not able to provide information on literacy program funding on a school by school basis. The Commonwealth can only provide a breakdown of funding allocated for literacy programs by state and sector (allocations for 1998 attached).(4) The Commonwealth sets out broad guidelines for administration of Literacy Program funds. State and Territory government and non-government education authorities are responsible for complying with the guidelines and meeting the accountability requirements. These are set out in the Commonwealth Programs for Schools Quadrennial Administrative Guidelines 1997 to 2000 which are publicly available.(6) No. See answers to Questions 2.2 and 3 above.AttachmentTOTAL LITERACY PROGRAM STATE AND SECTOR FUNDING SHARES$s final 1998State1998 total $NSWgovernment48,282,000Catholic13,763,000independent1,793,000VICgovernment29,468,000Catholic12,354,000independent1,848,000QLDgovernment16,143,000Catholic3,200,000independent1,112,000WAgovernment11,320,000Catholic2,836,000independent722,000SAgovernment10,433,000Catholic2,225,000independent581,000TASgovernment3,545,000Catholic457,000independent106,000NTgovernment2,737,000Catholic429,000independent172,000ACTgovernment1,131,000Catholic552,000independent30,000TOTAL165,239,0002019(Question No. 193)1932019O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) How many officers are currently employed in Australian Search and Rescue (AUS-SAR).(2) Does AUS-SAR consist of two separate components, a maritime cell and an aviation cell.(3) How many officers are employed in each cell.(4) Are staff from each cell currently being cross-trained in the other cell; if so, is this being done: (a) to reduce costs; and (b) as a result of a government direction.(5) Has this program been subjected to a formal analysis that gives the safe minimum number of staff; if so: (a) who undertook that analysis; (b) when was the work commenced; (c) when was it completed; and (d) what were the major findings of the report.(6) Can a copy of the report be provided.(7) Does AUS-SAR plan to reduce the number of staff employed over the next 2 years; if so, by how many.2019Macdonald, 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) There are 57 AMSA officers currently employed in Australian Search and Rescue (AusSar).(2) No. There are no cells in AusSAR. AusSAR is a division of AMSA and, within that division, there are three sections—Operations, Search and Rescue Resources, and Policy—and an Executive area.(3) Eight (8) officers are employed in the Policy section. Six (6) officers are employed in the Search and Rescue Resources section. Thirty-nine (39) officers are employed in the Operations section. Four (4) officers are employed in the Executive area.(4) No. The creation of AusSAR brought together the search and rescue operations of AMSA and Airservices Australia into a single operational unit, namely AusSAR. There has never been a requirement or expectation that staff from one area or background be able to fully perform the duties of staff from another area or background. However, familiarisation of some staff between areas is occurring. The benefit of familiarisation is that with a greater understanding of what each of the areas within the operations room is about, staff will be better able to contribute as a cohesive team in a search and rescue incident. Such familiarisation training is not being done to reduce costs nor is it being done as a result of a government direction.(5) No.(6) N/A.(7) It is anticipated that the current staffing levels will remain unchanged.2020(Question No. 194)1942020Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:(1) Is it a fact that there have been 23 dugong mortalities in 1998, the same number of mortalities as in 1997 before dugong protected areas (DPAs) were implemented.(2) (a) How many of these mortalities were due to gill netting; and (b) can gill netting be conclusively ruled out as a cause of death for any of the 23 dugongs.(3) Given that the dugong death rate has not declined with the implementation of DPAs, will a review be conducted into the adequacy of these areas.(4) Given that Zone A DPAs do not permit netting: (a) if dugong mortalities due to netting have been reported in these areas, will the Minister consider upgrading them from Zone B, where netting is permitted, to Zone A. k,(5) Will the Minister consider declaring further DPAs in areas that were originally recommended for inclusion by independent experts, particularly where dugong mortalities may have occurred in 1998, indicating that such recommendations should be acted on. 2020Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Twenty-seven confirmed dugong carcasses (not including animals taken legally by indigenous hunters) have been reported in Queensland for the year to 30 November 1998, compared with 28 and 32 confirmed mortalities reported in Queensland for the same period in 1996 and 1997 respectively. The 1998 deaths comprise 12 from within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area; 10 from within the Hervey Bay and the Great Sandy Straits region; and 5 from the Moreton Bay region.It is important to note that, since the implementation of Dugong Protected Areas in January 1998, there has been no confirmed deaths as a result of gill netting in any of the Zone A DPAs or Zone B DPAs.(2) (a) Determinations on the cause of death have been made for 10 of the 27 dugong carcasses. In two instances drowning in a gill net has been identified as a cause of death, one near Cairns and one at Midge Point north of Mackay. Other identified causes were:. disease (confirmed for one animal from Hervey Bay, and assessed as probable for another animal from Hervey Bay and one from Moreton Bay);. boat strike (in two cases from Moreton Bay);. non-permitted hunting (confirmed for one case from Clairview near Mackay);. research (one death during research in Moreton Bay with an assessment that the animal died `probably as a result of an existing heart disease'); and. a `probable human-related cause' (identified by the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage for a carcass near Townsville).(b) The precise cause of deaths was unable to be determined for 17 of the 27 dugong because the carcasses were too decomposed or they were unable to be removed for necropsy.(3) Since the establishment of DPAs in January 1998, there have been fewer confirmed deaths due to gill netting along the Queensland coast. In particular, there have been no confirmed deaths in DPAs due to gill netting.In any event, the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council is committed to ongoing review of the success of the emergency measures to protect dugong on the Great Barrier Reef. This ongoing review will include an examination of the effectiveness of surveillance and enforcement activity in the DPAs. I am pleased to say that an additional $230 000 has been provided recently by the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments through the Ministerial Council to increase surveillance and enforcement in the DPAs. This is expected to result in an additional 132 vessel patrols and 75 surveillance flights into the DPAs in the first half of 1999, together with special project and educational operations. The Commonwealth Government has also promised to provide an extra $3.4 million over 3 years to enhance surveillance and enforcement in the Great Barrier ReefThe ongoing review will address all causes of death including gill netting.(4) Dugong mortalities due to netting had not been confirmed in any of the DPAs, including Zone B DPAs, to the end of November 1998.(5) The Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council is committed to ongoing review of the measures it has instituted for the conservation of dugongs in the Great Barrier Reef and adjacent areas and has not ruled out any additional courses of action for that purpose.2021(Question No. 202)2022021Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Has Emergency Management Australia (EMA) assessed the likelihood of disruption or emergency posed by the `millennium bug'; if so, can a copy of the analysis be provided.(2) What steps has EMA taken to develop contingency plans for such emergencies.(3) (a) Who has been consulted in developing contingency plans; and (b) what agencies and community organisations would be involved.(4) What funding has been allocated to strengthen the capacity of the community to respond to contingencies or emergencies created by `Y2K'.2021Newman, 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) The protection of life and property is the responsibility of State and Territory Governments and, on behalf of the Commonwealth, Emergency Management Australia (EMA) has been working with peak State and Territory emergency management bodies to assess the likelihood of disruption to community lifelines due to Year 2000 remediation failures. A national workshop to share strategies for reducing the risks to health and safety of the community and for managing the consequences of remediation failures was held on 10-11 December 1998. State and Territory emergency managers noted that the extent and duration of the effects of failures are unknown but were hopeful that effects would not be catastrophic and that, with adequate funding, they could be dealt with. Notwithstanding, given that there is uncertainty, contingency planning should be based on the worst case.(2) The main responsibility for developing contingency plans rests with States and Territories. However, EMA will be developing a sub-plan to the Commonwealth Government Disaster Response Plan (COMDISPLAN) to ensure that the Commonwealth Government is prepared to respond to Year 2000 specific requests from States and Territories for Commonwealth Government assistance.(3) (a) In developing a contingency plan EMA has undertaken preliminary consultation with Commonwealth agencies through the Commonwealth Counter Disaster Task Force and with State and Territory emergency management agencies.(b) The main government agencies being consulted are the Office for Government Online at the Commonwealth level and State and Territory emergency management peak bodies. No direct community consultation is planned by EMA as this will be undertaken by State and Territory emergency management agencies in developing their plans.(4) EMA has not received any additional funding for Y2K planning. Costs for activities conducted to date have been met from within existing resource allocations or on a shared basis with States and Territories.2021(Question No. 203)2032021Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:With reference to the Mt McCall Road in the Tasmanian wilderness world heritage area, which the Minister decided to keep open, contrary to the original management plan:(1) In the 1997-98 financial year how much was spent on: (a) road maintenance; and (b) upgrading the haulage way from the Franklin River.(2) (a) Which rafting companies used the route to run short trips down the Franklin River during the 1997-98 financial year; (b) how many trips did each company make; and (c) how much did they pay in fees.(3) Which rafting companies are currently offering short trips down the Franklin River.(4) Have the following works been completed, as promised by the Minister at the estimates hearings in November 1997: (a) provision of washdown facilities (include a description of the facilities, their location and the procedures in place to ensure that they are used); (b) remedial work to mitigate erosion (include a description of the works under taken); and (c) revegetation of verges, (include a map of the area revegetated).(5) Who is liable if anyone is injured using the haulage way or the road.(6) When will the decision to keep the road open next be reviewed.2022Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) In the 1997-98 financial year, $22,000 was spent on maintenance of the Mt McCall Road.(b) In the 1997-98 financial year, $28,000 was spent on upgrading the haulage way from the Franklin River.(2) (a) The following rafting companies used the route to run short trips during the 1997-98 financial year:. Peregrine Adventures. Tasmanian Wild River Adventures. Rafting Tasmania(b) Each company conducted the following number of trips in the 1997-98 financial year:• Peregrine Adventures—22• Tasmanian Wild River Adventures—10• Rafting Tasmania—11 (These figure are estimates derived from figures of number of people per day provided by rafting companies for each trip to the Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Service).(c) These companies have paid or will pay the following in fees relating to the 1997-98 financial year:• Peregrine Adventures—$3546• Tasmanian Wild River Adventures—$1048• Rafting Tasmania—$1506 (Rafting Tasmania has not yet finalised its return for 1997-98. The Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Service advises that this figure is an estimate provided by the company).(3) The following rafting companies are currently offering short trips on the Franklin River:• Peregrine Adventures• Rafting Tasmania• Tasmanian Wild River Adventures• Headwaters Travel• Tasland Adventures (Tasland Adventures holds a licence to offer trips. It did not offer any trips in 1997-98, however, and may no longer be active).(4) (a) A locked gate has been placed across the Mt McCall Road. In order to access the road, users must attend the Queenstown Parks &Wildlife Ser vice (P&WS) Office to obtain a permit and the key to the gate. All private vehicles are inspected by P&WS staff. Those requiring washdown are directed to washdown facilities at the local service station. High pressure washdown facilities will be installed at the Queenstown P&WS Office this financial year.(b) A consultant's (Duckett) report on erosion control has been fully implemented. This work involved the re-opening of the original table and cross drains and the on going maintenance of these drains.(c) All road verges on the Mt McCall Road were revegetated in 1992.(5) The Tasmanian Government is responsible. All installation work meets engineering risk management standards. The general public are advised that they are using the facilities at their own risk.(6) The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Ministerial Council endorsed the 1998 Draft Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan on 11 December 1998. The Mt McCall Road will remain open under the new Plan. This Plan will come into effect early in 1999. The Plan has a 10 year life and is scheduled to be fully reviewed in January 2009. An interim review of significant issues is scheduled for January 2004.2022(Question No. 217)2172022Crossin, Sen TrishSenator Crossin7Y6NTALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) Is the Minister aware that the decision to transfer to digital transmission has resulted in rural and regional communities being required to purchase a new system of receiving radio and television signals.(2) Is the Minister aware that this change in remote satellite services will cost these communities up to $6,500 per decoder and that some of these communities currently use three different decoders or more and that the subsidy available to these communities is only in the range of $2,500 to $3,500 for each decoder.(3) Why are these rural and regional communities forced to bear the added burden of the cost of replacing these decoders when Australians in metropolitan areas receive the same television and radio signals at no cost to the individual communities, particularly given the reliance on these services in such remote communities.2022Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Yes. Optus has previously delivered television and associated radio services by analogue satellite transmission to remote areas of Australia, beyond the reach of terrestrial transmission networks. Reflecting worldwide trends, Optus has decided for commercial reasons to digitise its satellite operations, including the delivery of remote area broadcasting services (RABS). Digital conversion of RABS services is occurring progressively this year and is currently scheduled to be completed by mid 1999.Optus' decision necessitates the replacement of existing analogue decoders with digital units to continue to receive RABS. I understand that existing satellite dishes should in most cases be able to receive the digital signal without modification. This also applies to RABS digital transmissions by Telstra, using the PanAmSat PAS 2 satellite, in Western Australia. In the deregulated satellite and communications market, Telstra has competed with Optus for the digital transmission of RABS.(2)—(3) The Government is making a significant contribution to ease the transition for remote area viewers to digital RABS transmission, even though transmission arrangements are primarily commercial matters for the industry. Technological changes must be expected over time to satellite delivery of broadcasting services, just as changes occur to terrestrial broadcasting—such as the conversion from black and white to colour television and the planned move to digital terrestrial television broadcasting.Reflecting the Government's strong commitment to regional Australia, in November 1997 I announced an $11.2 million package under the Government's $250 million Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (RTIF) to subsidise the cost of digital decoders in remote areas. The independent RTIF Board set aside $8 million for this assistance from within the Fund, to which the Federal Government added a further $3.2 million.The RTIF Board has determined that a subsidy of $750 is payable for the replacement of each existing analogue decoder in households with direct to home (DTH) reception, $2,500 for replacement of each analogue decoder at community self-help retransmission sites, and $3,500 for replacement of decoders at remote Aboriginal community retransmission sites. These subsidies represent a significant contribution towards meeting the cost of digital decoders which, I understand, retail for about $1,000, in the case of DTH units, and $3,500—$6,500 for most retransmission units.For the subsidised cost of digital decoders, remote area viewers will also obtain access, for the first time, to national satellite-delivered ABC Triple J and Parliamentary and News Network radio services, and satellite-delivered SBS television in remote and regional Western Australia. Digital decoders also afford potential access to internet, data transfer and pay TV as these services are developed in regional areas. The Government is making a major separate contribution through the RTIF to facilitate the availability of online services in regional Australia through a range of projects.The Government remains committed to further improving the quality and range of broadcasting services available to Australians, within the limits imposed by competing national budget priorities, and to ensuring equitable access to such services in regional Australia.During the recent election campaign, the Government announced that it would establish a $120 million Television Fund to extend SBS television to transmission areas of more than 10,000 people, and to fix major "black spots" where the reception of television services is currently unavailable or where the quality of transmission is poor. The Television Fund will be established from the proceeds of the planned sale of a further 16 per cent of Telstra.Legislation for the introduction of digital terrestrial television broadcasting services, which are scheduled to commence in regional areas between 1 January 2001 and 1 January 2004, provides for a review into whether any amendments to laws are needed to ensure that underserved regional communities are provided with up to the same number of commercial television services as are provided in metropolitan areas. The review is required to be conducted by 1 January 2000.2023(Question No. 219)2192023Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) Which firms pitched for the Department of Social Security's market research project into the proposed Youth Allowance.(2) Which firm was awarded the contract.(3) What was the total value of Commonwealth funds expended on the project.(4) To whom were the results of the research made available.2023Newman, 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) Bennet Research of Sydney, Dangar Research Group of Sydney, Donovan Research of Perth, and AMR Quantum of Sydney pitched for this project.(2) Bennet Research was awarded the contract.(3) $165,500 (4) The results of the research were made known to the office of the then Minister for Social Security, Centrelink, the then Department of Social Security, and the Ministerial Committee on Government communications.2024(Question No. 248)2482024Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Worthington Di Marzio since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Worthington Di Marzio.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Worthington Di Marzio (open tender, short list or some other process).2024Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Department of Industry, Science and Resources has provided the firm Worthington Di Marzio with three contracts since March 1996, as set out in (2).(2) (i) Benchmark research into awareness, attitudes and practices relating to research and development (R&D) programs of AusIndustry.(ii) Focus testing of Stage 1 advertising creatives for R&D communications strategy(iii) Focus testing of Stage 2 advertising creatives for R&D communications strategy(3) (i) $50,500(ii) $6400(iii) $13,200(4) (i) Competitive tender from short list.(ii) Sole tender.(iii) Sole tender.2024(Question No. 256)2562024Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since March 1 996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd (open tender, short list or some other process).2024Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Name and Purpose of Contract (1)—(2)Cost of Contract to Department (3) Selection Process (Open Tender, Short-Listed or Other) (4) Qualitative Market Research on Natural Heritage Trust issues and materials (February 1998)$7,541Selected TenderQuantitative/Qualitative Market Research for Natural Heritage Trust TV advertising campaign (June 1998)$77,000Selected TenderTracking Research to evaluate TV advertising campaign (August 1998)$30,000Continuation of Jun Research. Therefore sole supplier. Additional qualitative Market Research for Natural Heritage Trust TV advertising campaign and additional associated costs of June Research (August 1998)$11,404Continuation of June Research. Therefore sole supplier.2025(Question No. 264)2642025Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd (open tender, short-list or some other process).2025Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The Industry, Science and Resources portfolio has provided no contracts to the firm Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since March 1996.2025(Question No. 273)2732025Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Canberra Liaison since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Canberra Liaison.(3) In each instance what was has been the cost to the department of the contract. (4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Canberra Liaison (open tender, short list or some other process).2025Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1)—(4) No contracts were provided to the firm Canberra Liaison since March 1996.The period covered for the Office for Government Online (previously Office of Government Information Technology) commenced on 23 October 1998, the date it was transferred to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts.2025(Question No. 278)2782025Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Canberra Liaison since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Canberra Liaison.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Canberra Liaison (open tender, short-list or some other process).2025Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) None.(2)—(4)N/A. 2026(Question No. 279)2792026Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Canberra Liaison since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Canberra Liaison.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Canberra Liaison (open tender, short-list or some other process).2026Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The department and its agencies have let no contracts to the firm Canberra Liaison since March 1996.2026(Question No. 280)2802026Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Canberra Liaison since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Canberra Liaison.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Canberra Liaison (open tender, short-list or some other process).2026Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Department of Industry, Science and Resources has provided the firm Canberra Liaison with one contract since March 1996.(2) Report on current and emerging policy issues in the context of the APEC agenda.(3) $47,000 (4) Sole supplier.2026(Question No. 298)2982026Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:With reference to the apparently imminent deployment of rocket-fired target drones from HMAS Stirling naval base on Garden Island:(1) Is it a fact that it has been decided to launch the rockets from a naval site near the northern end of Garden Island that this site was not the subject of the environmental assessment or public consultation process.(2) Is it a fact that three misfirings of the JP7/KALKARRA-EM system have occurred recently on the eastern seaboard leading to bush being set alight and a rocket landing on a public beach; if so, what steps are being taken to ensure that public safety on the southern Perth metropolitan coastline and the fire sensitive native vegetation on Garden Island are protected during the current launch plan.2026Newman, 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) It is expected the Kalkara aerial target system will commence operations around March/April 1999 from Garden Island and be launched to seawards from Gilbert Point. The site was carefully chosen after a study of the environmental aspects together with a broad range of other factors to ensure the operation of the aerial target system did not represent a risk to the environment or public safety. A public briefing covering the proposal to operate Kalkara from Gilbert Point was conducted at HMAS Stirling in late July 1998 with another briefing scheduled to be held in early 1999.(2) As of 30 November 1998 there have been eight Kalkara flights from the Jervis Bay airfield in a flight trials program for the aerial target system. There have been no misfirings of the jet engine or the launch booster motor and there have been no instances of bush being set alight as a result of Kalkara operations. On 8 July 1998 during the conduct of flight three, a payload pod (not a rocket) did fall from the target aircraft shortly after launch and fell into the sea a short distance off a headland to the east of the Jervis Bay airfield. Engineering changes to the attachment points for this pod and other payloads have since been made to ensure there is no repeat of such an incident. 2027(Question No. 318)3182027Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) On how many occasions did the department refer unauthorised disclosures to the Australian Federal Police between March 1996 and October 1998.(2) In each instance where an investigation has been undertaken has that investigation been concluded.(3) Have any officers been charged with offences relating to unauthorised disclosures that occurred during this period; if so, how many.2027Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised that:(1) Five instances of unauthorised disclosures have been referred to the Australian Federal Police.(2) All investigations have been concluded.(3) No officers have been charged.2027(Question No. 319)3192027Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 2 December:(1) On how many occasions did the department refer unauthorised disclosures to the Australian federal Police between March 1996 and October 1998(2) In each instance where an investigation has been undertaken has that investigation been concluded(3) Have any officers been charged with offences relating to unauthorised disclosures that occurred during this period: if so, how many.2027Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Trade has provided the following response to the honourable senator's question:In order not to prejudice the efforts of police and other authorities in current and future investigations into unauthorised disclosures of information, the Government does not propose to reveal details of cases that have been or are under investigation, or the number of cases involved. Further, the Government does not propose to confirm whether or not individual disclosures reported in the press were unauthorised.2027(Question No. 322)3222027Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) On how many occasions did the Department refer unauthorised disclosures to the Australian Federal Police between March 1996 and October 1998.(2) In each instance where an investigation has been undertaken has that investigation been concluded.(3) Have any officers been charged with offences relating to unauthorised disclosures that occurred during this period; if so, how many.2027Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Six.(2) Yes.(3) No.2027(Question No. 324)3242027Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) On how many occasions did the department refer unauthorised disclosures to the Australian Federal Police between March 1996 and October 1998.(2) In each instance where an investigation has been undertaken has that investigation been concluded.(3) Have any officers been charged with offences relating to unauthorised disclosures that occurred during this period; if so, how many.2027Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) One.(2) No.(3) No. 2028(Question No. 326)3262028Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) On how many occasions did the department refer unauthorised disclosures to the Australian Federal Police between March 1996 and October 1998(2) In each instance where an investigation has been undertaken has that investigation been concluded.(3) Have any officers been charged with offences relating to unauthorised disclosures that occurred during this period: if so, how many.2028Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following response to the honourable senator's question:In order not to prejudice the efforts of police and other authorities in current and future investigations into unauthorised disclosures of information, the Government does not propose to reveal details of cases that have been or are under investigation, or the number of cases involved. Further, the Government does not propose to confirm whether or not individual disclosures reported in the press were unauthorised.2028(Question No. 327)3272028Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) On how many occasions did the department refer unauthorised disclosures to the Australian Federal Police between March 1996 and October 1998.(2) In each instance where an investigation has been undertaken has that investigation been concluded.(3) Have any officers been charged with offences relating to unauthorised disclosures that occurred during this period; if so, how many.2028Newman, 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) The department referred unauthorised disclosures to the Australian Federal Police on two occasions between March 1996 and October 1998.(2) In each instance the investigation has been concluded. (3) No person has been charged with offences relating to unauthorised disclosures during this period.2028(Question No. 329)3292028Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) On how many occasions did the department refer unauthorised disclosures to the Australian Federal Police between March 1996 and October 1998.(2) In each Instance where an investigation has been undertaken has that investigation been concluded.(3) Have any officers been charged with offences relating to unauthorised disclosures that occurred during this period; if so, how many.2028Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions:(1) One.(2) Yes.(3) No.2028(Question No. 332)3322028Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:(1) On how many occasions did the department refer unauthorised disclosures to the Australian Federal Police between March 1996 and October 1998.(2) In each instance where an investigation has been undertaken has that investigation been concluded.(3) Have any officers been charged with offences relating to unauthorised disclosures that occurred during this period; if so, how many.2028Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised by my department of the following details in relation to unauthorised disclosures between March 1996 and November 1998: (1) Twice.(2) Yes.(3) No officers have been charged.2029(Question No. 334)3342029Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) On how many occasions did the department refer unauthorised disclosures to the Australian Federal Police between March 1996 and October 1998.(2) In each instance where an investigation has been undertaken has that investigation been concluded.(3) Have any officers been charged with offences relating to unauthorised disclosures that occurred during this period; if so, how many.2029Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs did not refer any unauthorised disclosures to the Australian Federal Police between March 1996 and October 1998. During this period 15 allegations were referred to the Department's Internal Investigations Section (IIS) for investigation. Officers of the IIS are qualified to conduct criminal investigations on behalf of the Department.(2) Nine have been concluded and six remain under investigation.(3) Three officers have been charged with offences relating to unauthorised disclosures during this period. One officer was charged under the Crimes Act 1914 and convicted in the Melbourne County Court. The officer was subsequently dismissed from the Australian Public Service. The other two cases were dealt with under the Public Service Act 1922, resulting in one of the officers being dismissed and disciplinary action in the other.2029(Question No. 351)3512029Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BourneTW4NSWAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 8 December 1998:With reference to a recent refugee matter, in which the Minister refused to consider exercising his discretion on a case involving a Somali national, known as Mr SE:(1) Why, under the immigration advice application assistance scheme, was Mr SE not legally represented at the Refugee Review Tribunal hearing.(2) Was he subsequently advised of his right of appeal to the Federal court; if not, why not.(3) Why did the Minister refuse to consider exercising his power under section 417 of the Migration Act 1958, despite interventions from Amnesty International Australia and his (Mr SE's lawyers') submission to the United Nations Committee against Torture.(4) With reference to the Minister's refusal to exercise his power in this case and the attempted deportation: (a) why was Mr SE given such short notice of his removal; and (b) why was Mr SE not allowed to contact his lawyer and eventually transferred to Port Hedland Immigration Detention Centre as opposed to being returned to Melbourne where his lawyer is based.(5) Would it have been cheaper to return him to Melbourne.(6) Why was a private security firm used to deport him.(7) Why did the Government not heed Amnesty International's representations in the case, but instead warn of `serious consequences' of campaigning on his case, despite the fact that Mr SE had given Amnesty International his consent to do so.(8) Will the Minister confirm that Mr SE will not be deported.(9) Does the Minister accept that Australia's domestic law falls well short of ensuring that Australia's international treaty commitments to, and other obligations under, the 1984 United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are capable of being met, given that the fundamental principle of non-return to face torture or death is not present in domestic law.(10) Why is there no safety net to catch those who do not meet the strict definition of a refugee under domestic law, but who would face torture or death on return.(11) If the Minister claims that there is a safety net, why did it not prevent the attempted removal of Mr SE.(12) Can details be provided of: (a) what has happened to the 19 Somali nationals who were removed from Australia in September and October 1998; (b) the circumstances of their removal; (c) where and how are they now; (d) how they were removed to Somalia; (e) how long they were in countries before being returned; (f) were they in custody; (g) in whose custody were they held; (h) under what authority; and (i) are they in safe physical and mental condition.2030Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) is a non-adversarial body and legal representation is not necessary during an RRT hearing. Only the applicant has a statutory right to appear before the RRT and give evidence. The Tribunal is not required to allow any other person to address it orally about the issues arising in relation to the decision under review. As a detainee, Mr SE was offered assistance at public expense in accordance with the contract for the Immigration Advice and Application Assistance Scheme. Under this scheme the contracting migration agent is required to assist with the preparation and lodgement of an RRT application but is not generally required to be present at RRT hearings. Asylum seekers are not bound to accept offers of application assistance and are free to make whatever arrangements they wish to obtain alternative or further assistance in pursuing their claims.(2) Yes, in writing on 22 May 1998.(3) My power under s417 is non-delegable and non-compellable. I will consider exercising my s417 power only when I consider it may be in the public interest to do so.(4) (a) There is no legislative obligation to inform a detainee of their date of removal from Australia. However, Mr SE had repeated notifications of removal over a three week period leading up to 19 November 1998.Mr SE was advised in writing on 23 October 1998 that he was to be removed. On 30 October 1998, he was given a further notice advising him of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs' (DIMA) intention to remove him and on 16 November 1998, DIMA officers informed Mr SE's solicitor that the detainee would be removed within days.(b) Mr SE was not prevented from contacting his legal representatives. When DIMA officers informed Mr SE at the Maribyrnong IDC of his removal arrangements on Thursday 19 November 1998, he did not ask to speak to his solicitor. He was taken to Melbourne Airport by DIMA officers with Australasian Correctional Management escorts and boarded a Qantas flight to Perth. Upon his arrival at Perth, senior DIMA officers interviewed Mr SE, as a complaint had been lodged on his behalf with the United Nations Committee Against Torture (UNCAT). Present at the interview was a representative from the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office in Perth. Mr SE was given the option of proceeding on the scheduled flight to South Africa or to proceed to the Immigration Reception Centre at Port Hedland, the closest appropriate immigration detention facility, pending the outcome of an inquiry into his circumstances by the UNCAT. Mr SE chose to stay in Australia and await the outcome of the UNCAT inquiry.(5) No.(6) Under the Migration Act 1958, removal of Mr SE is the responsibility of the airline carrier which brought him to Australia.(7) The Government did not warn Amnesty International of serious consequences of campaigning on Mr SE's case. The Government contacted Amnesty International to draw their attention to an order, made by the Federal Court with the consent of Mr SE's counsel, that prohibited the publication of Mr SE's name and any information which might identify him.Amnesty International had issued an alert disclosing Mr SE's name and other identifying information on the same day that the order was made by the Federal Court. Amnesty International was advised that `serious consequences could flow from the failure to observe such an order'. That is, that the breach of a court order is a serious matter which can result in criminal charges.(8) Mr SE has been informed that there is no intention to remove him from Australia before the UNCAT has completed its consideration.(9) No.(10) A safety net does exist. All people determined not to be refugees by the RRT are assessed against my Guidelines for the identification of cases where I may consider it to be in the public interest to grant a visa.The Guidelines refer to "persons whose particular circumstances or personal characteristics provide a sound basis for a significant threat to their personal security, human rights or human dignity on return to their country of origin."Cases that are assessed as falling within these Guidelines are referred to me for my consideration of whether or not I consider it would be in the public interest to grant a visa in the case.In addition, if a person writes to me seeking exercise of my public interest powers their case and any additional information is assessed afresh against the Guidelines and is brought to my attention so that I may consider whether to consider substituting a more favourable decision in their case.(11) At the time that Mr SE's removal commenced, Mr SE's case had been assessed against my Guidelines on four (4) different occasions. It had been drawn to my attention on three (3) different occasions and I had declined to consider the exercise of my s417 power on each of those occasions. The safety net process operated as intended.(12) (a) No follow up enquiries have been made concerning the whereabouts of Somalis removed from Australia.(b) A group of 22 Somali nationals arrived in Australia in November 1997 using forged immigration documentation and were refused immigration clearance. They were detained in accordance with the Migration Act while their applications for protection visas were considered. Four were granted protection visas. Three of the group appealed to the Federal Court against the refusal of their protection visa applications. They remain in detention in Australia awaiting the outcome of their appeals. The remaining 15 persons were refused protection visas, did not appeal these decisions, and were removed from Australia in September 1998.Three other Somali nationals who arrived without authorisation by air at different times were also removed in September and October 1998.(c) The group of fifteen was returned to the cities of Mogadishu, Baidoa, Buleberde, Kismayo and Hargeisa in Somalia according to their preferences.Of the other three Somali nationals, one was returned to Basoso, East Somalia. A second was returned to Kenya and the carrier advised that this person arranged, through a sponsor, a forward ticket to Mogadishu, Somalia, via Dubai. The third was returned to New Zealand, where he had a right to permanent residence.Any subsequent movements made by the 18 Somalis are unknown to DIMA. No information is known about their personal circumstances.(d) By air. In accordance with the Migration Act, removal is the responsibility of the airline company that brought each person to Australia without authorisation to do so.Therefore, the carrier responsible for bringing the group to Australia made all the arrangements for the group's removal.The group of 15 was escorted to South Africa by the Australian private security firm, Chubb. The onward travel from South Africa was arranged by the South African firm, Protecting & Indemnity (P&I). P&I company was also contracted to obtain the necessary Somali travel documents.The three other Somali nationals were removed separately by the responsible carriers at the individual's written request.The group of 15 was removed from Australia (to South Africa in the first instance) in small groups. Five departed on 5 September 1997; three departed on 15 September; four departed on 17 September; two departed on 19 September and one departed on 21 September.The whole group of 15 then travelled from South Africa to Somalia, via Kenya on a charter flight on 7 October 1998.Of the three other Somali nationals, one was removed directly to Basoso, East Somalia, on 11 September 1998. A second was removed to Kenya on 22 October 1998. The third was removed to New Zealand on 4 October 1998.(e) Due to their different departure dates from Australia, members of the group spent between 15 and 31 days in South Africa prior to their departure from South Africa on 7 October. All spent a night in Kenya en route to Somalia.Of the three other Somali nationals, one returned directly to Somalia, one spent an undetermined amount of time in Kenya before continuing private travel to Somalia via Dubai and the other did not return to Somalia.(f) No.(g) P&I accommodated the group in South Africa pending receipt of Somali travel documents and the charter flight to Somalia. There were no accommodation arrangements for the individuals.(h) The group was accommodated under the arrangements made by P&I and the South African government authorities. There were no arrangements for the individuals.(i) P&I reported that all members in the group were in good health and spirits on the day they arrived in Somalia. There is no information about the three other Somali nationals, but each requested in writing to be removed.