1999-02-173912SENATE203301999-02-17The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Business20332033Motion (by Senator Abetz, at the request of Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: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.Bills2033s198Billss199Billss2002033Motion (by Senator Abetz, at the request of Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following bills be introduced: a bill for an act to amend the National Health Act 1953, and for related purposes; a bill for an act to amend the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988, and for related purposes; and a bill for an act to amend the law relating to therapeutic goods, and for related purposes.Motion (by Senator Abetz) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.203309:32:002033Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—I table the explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1999This bill gives effect to a budget decision last year to address the problem of medication, subsidised under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), being taken or sent overseas either for sale or for use by persons not eligible to receive medication subsidised by the Australian taxpayer.The bill prohibits the export of medications unless the medications are not prescription drugs; or they are prescription drugs but no Commonwealth benefit has been paid; or they are for the personal use of the person or another person accompanying the person. Based on data provided by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) and on information obtained by the Health Insurance Commission (HIC), it is estimated that medication subsidised to the value of some $20 million per annum is being exported inappropriately.The bill provides the ACS with the power to detain medication in cases where the Customs officer forms the view that the medication is not for the personal use of the person who is either carrying or shipping the medication overseas. Medication detained by a Customs officer will be transferred to the HIC. The Customs officer has a discretion to detain only some of the medication, allowing the raveller to retain the remainder.The HIC will be responsible for determining whether or not a Commonwealth benefit has been paid for the medication. The medication will be forfeited to the Commonwealth unless the medication is not a prescription drug; or that no Commonwealth benefit has been paid or is payable; or it is for the personal use of the person concerned.The bill allows the Chief Executive Officer of the ACS to issue guidelines for the use of Customs officers relating to the examination of baggage, detention of medication, transfer of medication to the HIC, and copying and retaining documents provided in relation to the medication.The bill further provides that the HIC may issue guidelines for the use of HIC officers when dealing with medication transferred from the ACS, dealing with claims for the return of medication, and dealing with the disposal of medication that has been forfeited to the Commonwealth.Where the HIC establishes that the detained medications are prescription drugs, it must notify the exporter that an application may be made within 60 days for the return of the medication. The HIC must consider any submissions seeking the return of the medication. In order for the medication to be forfeited and destroyed, the HIC must apply to a court for an order authorising the proper destruction of the medication. These provisions are meant to address situations where a person is attempting to carry or send large quantities of medication overseas; quantities which cannot reasonably be considered to be for personal use; where the prescription labels do not relate to the person who has possession or control of the medication; or where the prescription labels have been removed or defaced so as not to allow identification of the person to whom they were supplied.The bill specifies a formula, for most medication allowing at least 12 months' supply, under which the possession or attempted export of a greater quantity constitutes a prima facie offence. The bill does not affect travellers who are entitled to medication subsidised under the PBS and which are for the traveller's personal use or are for the personal use of a person accompanying the traveller.The National Health Act 1953 currently prohibits a person from disposing of a PBS medication in a manner not intended in the prescription. This includes selling or exporting the medication overseas. The bill will now allow the HIC to address the situation where the subsidised medication is in the possession of another person or is being forwarded overseas by a person for whom the medication was not prescribed.The bill has been the subject of extensive consultation between the HIC, the ACS, the Department of Health and Aged Care, the Attorney-General's Department and the office of Director of Public Prosecutions. The work on this bill was initiated by a recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs in its report Concessions—Who benefits?In conjunction with this legislation, the HIC will undertake action to inform potential travellers, prescribers and pharmacists of the amendments to the National Health Act 1953. The information will be advertised in professional and travel publications, on ethnic radio and in ethnic newspapers.I now commend the bill.AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (PLANNING AND LAND MANAGEMENT) AMENDMENT BILL 1999The purpose of this bill is to increase the attractiveness of the Australian Capital Territory to potential investors by removing the perceived disincentive to business and other investment brought about by the limit of land tenure to 99-year estates, as distinct from freehold title enjoyed elsewhere in Australia.The objectives of strengthening land tenure security and allowing the ACT Legislative Assembly to extend ACT leases from 99 years to 999 years were stated in the Coalition Policy on the National Capital in both 1996 and 1998.Section 9 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 provides that no Crown lands in the Territory may be sold or disposed of for freehold estates.The Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 provides for land in the act to be National Land or Territory Land. National Land is land so declared by the Commonwealth Minister as land used or intended to be used by or on behalf of the Commonwealth. Land that is not National Land is Territory Land. The ACT Government manages Territory Land on behalf of the Commonwealth and may grant, dispose of, acquire, hold and administer estates in Territory Land.The ACT Government sought an amendment to the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 to enable it to issue leases for a maximum term of 999 years. The Chief Minister, Mrs Carnell, has cited the 99-year limit as antiquated and unduly restrictive. ACT business representatives have supported the proposed amendment. A regulation impact statement is included in the explanatory memorandum.This bill is consistent with the Australian Capital Territory being a self-governing territory.The proposed amendment was first introduced into the House of Representatives as the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 1997 on 4 December 1997 and was passed by the House without amendment on 10 March 1998. It was introduced into the Senate on 12 March 1998.The bill was referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 12 March 1998. The committee tabled its report in April 1998 with the majority recommending that the bill be passed without amendment. The committee concluded that the bill is an appropriate form of enabling legislation allowing the ACT Legislative Assembly to enact a change of leasehold term from a maximum possible term of 99 years to 999 years.Following its inquiries of the ACT Government as to the machinery proposed for administration of any changes to the term of ACT leasehold approved by the Commonwealth Parliament, the committee was satisfied that the passage of the bill should be supported.Effect of the billThe proposed amendment will increase the maximum permissible limit for the grant of new estates in Territory Land to 999 years. The bill will not provide for automatic extension of existing estates. A leaseholder seeking a term longer than 99 years will need to apply to the ACT Government for a new grant.The ACT Government has indicated that a modest administrative charge will apply to the grant of new leases to existing leaseholders, provided no terms of the lease, other than the lease period, are changed.The proposed amendment removes the reference to `or such longer period as is prescribed' so that no terms of estate greater than 999 years will be possible.The Regulations currently applicable which relate to 999-year leases granted for tertiary education or church purposes prior to the introduction of Self-Government in the ACT will be unaffected by the proposed amendment.The act is proposed to take effect upon receiving the Royal Assent.Financial ImpactThe proposed amendment will have no direct impact on Commonwealth revenue or outgoings. However, it is intended that the amendment will bring positive effects to the ACT economy by increasing the Territory's attractiveness to investors.THERAPEUTIC GOODS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1999This bill represents an important moment in the regulation of therapeutic goods in Australia. This bill encompasses the first component of a package of reforms designed to provide a new and appropriate framework for the regulation and management of complementary medicines. This bill also makes a number of more general amendments to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.It is estimated that over 60 percent of Australians use complementary health care products at least once a year. These include vitamins, minerals, herbal, naturopathic and/or homoeopathic preparations with therapeutic properties.There are now around 17,000 such products on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods and an estimated 6,000 complementary medicine practitioners (not including massage therapists) operating in Australia.In December last year I announced the formation of a Working Party, bringing together industry representatives, consumers and Government, to develop reforms in the regulation of complementary medicines. Along with many of my colleagues on both sides of the Senate, I considered this extremely important given the growing use and acceptance of complementary health care products in this country and throughout the world.Both government and industry have been struggling to balance the need to improve market access with the need to uphold consumer confidence. Reviewing advertising regulations, substantiation of therapeutic claims and post market vigilance are critical issues to government, industry and consumers alike. It is also essential to secure the ongoing involvement of the complementary medicines industry in providing advice to government and evaluating and regulating complementary medicines.I am delighted that the Working Party was able to address these issues and agree on a well considered and comprehensive framework for complementary medicines which addresses market access, the ongoing control of complementary medicines and most importantly the maintenance of public health and safety through co-operation and regulation.The package of reforms for complementary medicines includes some legislative changes, some changes to the Therapeutic Goods Act regulations, major administrative reforms plus information and consultative initiatives.The bill that I am presenting today includes the legislative component of complementary medicine reforms. It ensures that through appropriate regulation, the Australian public can be confident that the medicines they consume and medical devices that they use are safe, effective and of a high quality.In summary, the bill makes amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 in three key respects:Firstly , it amends key definitions in the act to provide greater clarity and certainty in relation to the application of the legislation.Secondly, it includes amendments which acknowledge the shift of focus from pre-market clearance to post market vigilance for low-risk `listable' goods. This is achieved by, for example, providing a more streamlined and efficient process to enable sponsors to market low risk products without undue delay while ensuring that consumers continue to be protected from unsafe products.Thirdly , this bill includes a new part in the act that establishes as a statutory body, the existing Complementary Medicines Evaluation Committee.The opportunity has also been taken, with agreement from industry, to address other matters in the bill including the establishment of the existing National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee as a statutory committee and the inclusion of a new Part which describes penalties and offences in relation to the publication of advertisements which have not been pre-cleared.Allow me to explain the key components of the bill in a little more detail. Amendments to DefinitionsThe bill amends key definitions in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (the act) to provide a better interface between foods, complementary medicines and other medicines such as over the counter and prescription medicines. Changes have been made to reduce confusion at the food-therapeutic goods interface and make it clear when a good is a therapeutic good (regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration) and when it is a food (to be dealt with by the Australian and New Zealand Food Authority).Enhanced market access and increased post market vigilanceA number of amendments to the bill operate in conjunction with each other to improve market access for complementary medicines while at the same time increasing post market monitoring to ensure that consumers continue to access only safe and reliable products.At present, once the TGA is satisfied that a substance is sufficiently low risk for its intended purpose, such goods may be eligible for `listing' in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG). These goods are referred to as `listable' goods. However, changes to the documentation of goods that qualify as `listable' goods requires an amendment to the Therapeutic Goods Regulations. This is a cumbersome process that often fails to accommodate the commercial realities involved in enabling low-risk products to become publicly available.To address this problem, the amendments contained in this bill propose the use of a gazettal notice by the Minister in lieu of an amendment to regulations. This will enable a quicker, more responsive process to be adopted to achieve the same results—that is, low risk products gaining swift access to the market and consumers having access to new products more quickly.Quicker market access does not mean marketing of less safe products or misleading marketing claims. The bill confirms the existing condition that requires the sponsor to hold evidence supporting any claims.This supporting evidence will not be required as a matter of routine but will be called upon in cases where there is a clear public health or safety matter at issue or where there has been deliberately or recklessly misleading information provided to the public about a product. The level of evidence that will be required, will be directly related to the risk associated with the product and the nature of the claim made about the product. However, it is important to note that testimonials alone are not acceptable proof of efficacy. The Complementary Medicines Evaluation Committee will advise the TGA and sponsors on appropriate levels of evi dence for claims made for various substances and products.The combination of these measures will help facilitate growth in the area of complementary medicines and promote public confidence that the complementary health care products marketed in Australia are safe, effective and of a high quality.Complementary Medicines Evaluation CommitteeThe Complementary Medicines Evaluation Committee (CMEC) was established in December 1997. This bill will strengthen and enhance the standing of the Committee and complementary health care products generally by establishing CMEC as a statutory committee.The establishment of CMEC as a statutory committees under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 is an acknowledgment of the growing significance of this industry and the need to improve the government's access to expertise in this area. This will provide an opportunity for expert, experienced and appropriate input into the evaluation of medicines and for important issues to be discussed amongst peers both within and outside the public sector.This legislative change, will also be accompanied by a range of administrative reforms aimed at improving the management of complementary medicines and ensuring the involvement of industry and consumers in policy making. For example, I will be setting up an Office of Complementary Medicines within the Therapeutic Goods Administration, responsible for the regulation of the complementary medicines industry and staffed by senior and experienced personnel. I will also be inviting consumer and industry groups to join a Complementary Health Care Consultative Forum.Another critical issue which the government intends to address through administrative reform is the advertising of therapeutic goods. It is recognised by both the TGA and industry that the existing Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code is somewhat outdated and no longer meets the needs of industry or government. The TGA has therefore undertaken to conduct a comprehensive review of the Code and the guidelines issued in relation to the Code.The aim of the review will be to create a system of regulation in relation to advertising which is: simple; easily understood by advertisers, sponsors and the media; consistent with modern best practice; and capable of addressing a range of products and claims so that consumers can be appropriately informed. The review will, of course, be characterised by extensive consultation and expert input, particularly from the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code Council.As I mentioned earlier, in addition to the reforms proposed in respect of complementary medicines, the opportunity has also been take to make some more general amendments which improve the application of the therapeutic goods legislation in respect of all medicines and devices.One such amendment formalises existing arrangements in relation to the scheduling of drugs and poisons. The bill creates a new Part in the act which establishes the existing National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee. The Committee's functions include: making decisions in relation to the classification and scheduling of substances; maintaining the Poisons Standard; and providing advice to government on legislative restrictions and policies in relation to substances.It should be noted that this Part of the bill, including the definitions adopted specifically for this Part, do not relate to the reforms in respect of complementary medicines. The Part focuses specifically on the work of the existing Commonwealth/State body known as the National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee.Another more general amendment included in the bill relates to offences and penalties for publication of advertisements in mainstream print media for which prior approval for such publication has not been obtained.These offences and penalties previously resided in the Therapeutic Goods Regulations. They are however, much more appropriately placed in the Therapeutic Goods Act itself.The penalties have been increased from $1,100 to $11,000 to bring them more in line with penalties for the broadcast of product advertisements and to reflect the Government's commitment to ensuring that advertisements which have a wide audience have been appropriately cleared.In closing, I believe that this bill introduces important amendments which will improve the capacity of the legislation to appropriately regulate complementary health care products and other medicines and other therapeutic goods. The reforms provide a unique opportunity to achieve a co-operative approach to health care and provide assurances to the Australian public that the medicines they consume are safe, effective and of a high quality.I commend the bill to you.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned until the first day of sitting in the winter sittings of 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Address in Reply20372037Consideration resumed from 30 November 1998, on motion by Senator MacGibbon:That the following Address-in-Reply be agreed to:To His Excellency the Governor-GeneralMAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY—We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign and to thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.Question resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Senator Abetz) agreed to:That the address-in-reply be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General by the President and such senators as may desire to accompany her.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I inform honourable senators that I have ascertained that His Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased to receive the address-in-reply to his opening speech at Government House on Thursday, 18 February 1999 at 6 p.m. I extend an invitation to all honourable senators to accompany me on the occasion of its presentation.Business20372037Motion (by Senator Abetz)—by leave—agreed to:That on Thursday, 18 February 1999, the Senate adjourn at 5.40 p.m. without the question being put, for the purposes of presenting the address-in-reply to the Governor-General.Bills2037r6532037Debate resumed from 15 February, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.09:35:002037Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise to speak on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 and in doing so point out that this is, in the vernacular, a crook bill on electoral matters. It is shameful of the government to bring in this bill with the measures it contains.From 1983, the former Labor government and the former minister in charge of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, my colleague from South Australia Mick Young, established a process where the parliament would have due process over reviewing each election, dealing with issues of electoral administration in a timely and considered manner and trying to reach bipartisanship on the way in which we conduct our elections.Australia has every right to be generally proud of the fact that, at the national level, the conduct of elections since Federation has been very good by world standards. However, as the joint committee looking at the Electoral Act in 1983-84 recommended, there should be a standing committee to review our Electoral Act and look at ways of improving it on the principle of making it easier and more timely for people to be able to vote in an election.What we in the Labor Party are about is always ensuring that it is easy for the members of our community to exercise their democratic right—some would say that sacred privilege—to vote. That is a process that, unfortunately, many countries of the world still do not have or do not have in an open and transparent way. That was a major reform of the Hawke Labor government and due credit should be given to Mick Young, the minister, and Dick Klugman who chaired the committee which made all of those recommendations.Since that time the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which I served on once for a term of government, from 1987 to 1990, has performed that function well. But since this government got into office it has used the process only on the basis of how it can shave the edge off improving the coalition's prospects at election time by the way the act is administered, the way it is changed. The sticky fingers of my colleague Senator Minchin, who in the last period of the government had some interest and responsibilities in this area, are all over this bill in finding ways to give an electoral advantage to the coalition.Nick Minchin was the State Director of the Liberal Party in the 1980s while I was State Secretary of the Labor Party in South Australia. During that period we fought out a number of election campaigns. I do not think the partisanship that one brings to helping one's party win an election is the right attitude to have in this parliament—drawing up legislation to try to advantage your party at the expense of democratic principles. That is what this bill is about. It is a crook bill and in a number of areas the opposition is going to move amendments to or oppose the provisions of the bill.I want to mention the extraordinary episode of the so-called Greenfields Foundation. If ever there were an example of how the Liberal Party will find a loophole, even a very small one, and try to drive the Queen Elizabeth ship through it to their electoral advantage, it is the Greenfields incident. Fortunately, the Electoral Commission is now finding ways to further call on the people involved with the Greenfields operation to disclose where the money came from and how it was raised and to ensure that there is proper transparency. In 1983 the then committee, chaired by Dick Klugman, a member of the other place at the time, under the terms of reference from Mick Young, inquired into two major areas of reform: public funding and disclosure.At the time the Liberal Party opposed public funding, but when it came in they never sent the cheque back. They always took the money, though they said that ethically they disagreed with it. If they had some ethics about it, if they believed it was unethical to get public funding, why did they keep accepting the money? Even in the 1984 election Mr Peacock, the then Leader of the Opposition, campaigned to remove this provision of public funding. Of course, he lost the election. The Liberal Party still accepted the money under their entitlement. It is the height of hypocrisy for the Liberal Party to go around questioning issues of public funding but still be willing to accept the cheque.Public funding is a very important part of our democratic process. It ensures that political parties get access to reasonable funding to run their election campaigns so that the public have an opportunity to hear all views. It is not just advantaging those political parties that have access to the most money. It was and is a very important reform. But on the disclosure side, it is equally important for people to see who is putting the money up for various political parties. Of course, that was opposed by the Liberal Party. They said that all sorts of terrible things would happen, that intimidation would occur, to those who had been giving money to one party and not to the other. Not one scrap of evidence has anywhere been presented that any organisation which gave more money to one political party than the other has suffered intimidation.I stand to be corrected—there might be a case—but I cannot recollect since 1983 or 1984, when the legislation came in, anyone being charged with intimidation or threatening somebody who made a political donation to a political party. The disclosure rules have worked very well. It is published, so that you can see who is putting the money into which party. People can make their own judgment as to whether that party's policies have been duly affected by those donations.The Liberal Party has always been embarrassed that it has to rely solely on money from the big end of town, from the big companies, to keep them going. Four or five years ago, at the time of Alexander Downer's leadership of the Liberal Party, the big end of town, the big companies, decided that his leadership was so bad that they told the Liberal Party: `We won't be putting any more money in.' So in a sense they helped in the downfall of Alexander Downer and Mr Howard became leader again of the Liberal Party.At that time the debts left in the Liberal Party were substantial. I think the National Australia Bank made a generous facility loan available of $4 million or $5 million to the Liberal Party. Ultimately, they wanted their money back, and how did the Liberal Party do it? They established the Greenfields Foundation whereby, by claiming it is a loan from this company, it does not have to be disclosed. It is absolutely breaking the spirit of the law that we introduced in 1983 and subsequently amended through the 1980s and early 1990s.The Liberal Party think they are very smart in finding a loophole. Fortunately, the Electoral Commission appears to be now chasing this down. We will be moving amendments to make the Greenfields example no longer available to any political party, so that the disclosure laws work very well.I would also point out about disclosure and about funding the oddity that the Liberal Party often complains that trade unions make donations to the Labor Party but do not make them to the Liberal Party and that this is unfair. Those donations to the Labor Party have been disclosed in the annual accounts of every trade union under the industrial legislation in Australia for many years, long before public disclosure. So they are available to every union member to see where their membership fees are going.In South Australia at the moment the Liberal government is trying to outlaw trade unions making such donations. But they are not making any suggestion that you cannot make a donation from a trade union without a specific plebiscite or vote of all the members of the union. They do not want to put that into the provision. However, they are not putting in a provision saying that publicly listed companies have to take a vote of all their shareholders to see whether they should make a donation to a political party.BHP, Western Mining Corporation and other companies have publicly disclosed that they are making donations to both sides of politics, usually much more to the Liberal Party than to the Labor Party. I would like to see the chairman of the board at the annual general meeting of such companies move a resolution to the shareholders saying, `I hereby move that we make a donation of half a million dollars to the Liberal Party, $100,000 to the Labor Party, $5,000 to the Democrats and the Greens get nothing,' and a ballot of every one of those hundreds of thousands of shareholders of those companies—and see what happens.If the Liberal Party in South Australia was fair dinkum about this proposal they would amend it to include the fact that every share holder in every company has to be consulted before any political donation can be made to any political party. They will not do that, of course. They want to hit the trade unions around the head. The trade unions have always been open about their affiliation and payments to the Labor Party. The Liberal Party want to remove from the shareholders their opportunity to be consulted and have a vote on whether they believe the dividend money paid to them should be paid to political parties.I think the issue of disclosure, the Greenfields operation, is a shameful one for the Liberal Party. As I said in my opening remarks, this is a crook bill. It is a disgrace to the process of bipartisanship that we have had over most issues of improvement in the Electoral Act. Many of the other provisions in this bill have only been designed by the Liberal Party because they think they will have the advantage of getting people who they think may not vote for them off the roll and stop them voting.It is a disgraceful bill in most of its aspects. We will be moving amendments to a number of areas of the bill and rejecting others.09:47:002040Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—At the outset, I thank senators from the opposition and other parties for their contributions to this debate.There are areas of agreement in relation to this legislation. Perhaps it is easier to identify those areas where there is not agreement, and deal with the closure of the rolls. In relation to that closure, the AEC is currently embarking on a process of continually updating the rolls. In fact, this issue has been raised with me by a number of people. They say, `You are shortening the period from the issue of the writs to the closure of the rolls. People will have less chance to get on the roll.' The government says that the ideal situation is that you update the rolls continually outside an election period.In one exercise—which is a very good one—the AEC has combined with the Victorian Department of Transport to send out notices to those young people who have just obtained a driver's licence. That is a way of reminding young people that they are eligible to get on the roll.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—What about all the other states?9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—Senator Conroy is perhaps jumping ahead of things, because I was coming to that. The AEC is looking at dealing with this in other states, so that young people will have a chance to get on the roll, and, combined with the updating that I have mentioned, this will ensure that people do not have to embark upon that last minute rush which has been a problem of past times. In fact, the AEC has indicated to me that over 400,000 transactions have taken place during the period of the closure of the rolls.Another area of disagreement is the question of prisoner voting. This recommendation was made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and the government believes it is following community opinion in relation to this matter by extending the bar on voting to prisoners in general. At the moment, roughly a third of prisoners cannot vote. That, of course, will be extended by these provisions and will bring us into line with such countries as the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Belgium and some of the states of the United States of America.Another area of contention is the disclosure levels of donations. We believe as a government that those are important because we do not believe that parties should be reliant solely on public funding. Recently over $3 million was given to One Nation as a result of public funding and a number of Independents received funding due to the percentage of votes they received during the last election.We believe that public funding is a good thing. However, political parties should also be given the opportunity to raise their own funds. The levels have not been addressed for seven years and the government believes that it is now time that the thresholds for disclosure should be raised. We do believe as a principle that parties should not rely solely on public funding as a source of revenue. We saw that happen recently in the last election.There is also the question of the provisions dealing with the verification of enrolment. I would put to the Senate that, when someone enrols to vote, that is an important process in the community, as important as opening a bank account—in fact, more important. Yet the requirements for verification of enrolment are less than those required for opening a bank account. The government believes that there should be some tightening of provisions in relation to that, but not so as to disfranchise people. We have provided in our regulations, which have been circulated in draft form, for a wide class of people to be able to witness the enrolment.There are some ALP amendments that the government agrees with, and we will be coming to those in due course during the committee stage. There are, of course, others that we do not agree with.In relation to one aspect which was raised by Senator Hogg, I did take that up with the AEC. Senator Hogg mentioned that his son had made a lodgment and then the process had taken some five days. I am advised by the AEC that, upon lodgment, processing takes place but, because the mail goes out once a week, it may be some days before someone receives notification. That notification is not the substantial registration of that person; registration occurs when the lodgment and processing takes place on the day the form is lodged. In the current situation, with the period for enrolment after the issue of writs, notification can still be received after the time for enrolment has expired.What I am saying is that the action of lodgment is really what you have to look at, not so much the notification. Some people think they are not enrolled until they receive notification, so that is perhaps a matter which needs clarification. Other than that, I commend the bill to the Senate. In the committee stage, we can deal with those amendments and the final detail.2041The bill.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We have a running sheet for this bill. The first item relates to schedule 1, items 1 and 2, which are both, I understand, to be opposed by the Democrats and the Australian Greens.09:55:002041Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—At the outset, I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. This memorandum was tabled in the chamber on 15 February this year.09:55:002041Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—As indicated on the running sheet, the Democrats wish to oppose schedule 1, items 1 and 2, which relate to the provision of salutation and date of birth information on the electoral roll. As I am sure all senators know, but perhaps not all of the public, the electoral roll is available to all MPs and registered parties already via CD-ROM, so utilising that information and manipulating the data is something that can quite easily be done.Currently, the information that is made available does not include salutation—which I do not think has been recorded by the Electoral Commission yet—and date of birth. Date of birth is in the Electoral Commission's information but has not been provided to date to MPs or registered political parties. This part of the bill will enable that to happen, so in the information to be made available, which I assume will also be provided as part of the information on the CD-ROM, political parties or MPs will be able to sort data by date of birth and salutation.The Democrats have concerns about this in terms of privacy implications. I realise there are other components of the bill that insert and increase penalties for improper commercial usage of this information, but in our view it is not information that should be made available. Like all parties and people involved in politics, we are trying to encourage people to participate in the electoral system, to participate in our system of democracy and to get on the roll. It is a big issue to make sure people even get on the roll. If people are aware that information such as their date of birth will become readily available to a wide range of people, that may serve as a disincentive for them to get on the roll. There are clearly a lot of privacy concerns in the community, and I do not think this section of the legislation will assist.Of particular concern is the fact that this information will go to registered political parties. As I indicated in my speech on the second reading debate, there is a long list of bodies that are registered as political parties, many of which are quite obscure and which people know very little about. I for one certainly would not be confident that that information would not be misused.For instance, organisations such as One Nation, which is actually structured as a company, would be able to utilise such information. You could see David Oldfield, a well-known casanova, being able to do a sort on his computer to extract all the females who have the salutation of `Miss' and who are under the age of 35 so he could send them a personal invitation. He would be able to do that quite easily with this sort of information, and I think that gives an indication of some of the ways this information could be used which are not commercial. I do not know whether that would come under `misuse' in the bill.In terms of the commercial value of this sort of material, it would be immensely valuable for organisations—whether you are talking about organisations that describe themselves as One Nation Ltd or other organisations outside the political sphere that may be able to get hold of this material—to be able to get the details of basically every adult in the Australian community, in terms of their date of birth and marital status, to some extent, or salutation. The sorts of penalties that are proposed by the government, which I know we will get on to in future amendments, could quite easily be absorbed by a commercial operation into its overall cost structure. An $11,000 fine would be a fairly small amount to pay compared with the amount that a commercial operation would be able to extract from using such a list if it was done in a targeted manner.For all of those reasons, the Democrats believe that this is not an appropriate measure. It is not appropriate that political parties and parliamentarians should have access to date of birth information. Obviously, it would be beneficial to the Democrats, as to all other MPs, to be able to have access to that infor mation in terms of targeting our message. But we believe we should not have that level of personal information about Australia's citizens.10:00:002042Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I agree with that. The Greens feel very strongly opposed to this amendment which will give all political parties and all politicians not only the list of names on the electoral roll which, in common with every other member of the Australian public, we have access to at the moment but also—unlike the rest of the Australian public—access to two things: first of all, the date of birth of everybody on the electoral roll, and then the salutation. That is whether a person prefers to be called Miss, Ms, Mrs, Mr, Doctor, Professor—whatever it might be.I understand that this is new. The minister may be able to tell the committee that the salutation will be collected and will be something that people will be required to give when they fill in an application to go on the electoral roll. If that is so, what we are witnessing through this amendment is the electoral office being used to get information that will advantage the political parties. It is not something that the electoral office itself has up until now apparently wanted.What you can see here is what so often happens in parliament, and that is the big political parties wanting to change the Electoral Act in a way which gives the incumbents an advantage. Of course, when it comes to the next election or the election after that, this information is going to be available to political parties and politicians, but it is not going to be available, for example, to Independents standing for that election. They are going to be clearly disadvantaged—much the same way as they are currently disadvantaged by the rule which says they must always go at the end of the ballot paper.It is another tilting of the balance towards the incumbents when the balance should be struck and, if anything, turned in the other direction, because what Australians are looking for in this day and age is greater diversity, more individualism, more difference in the range of people they can vote for. This is simply another measure to help entrench the big political parties and give them advantage.I would ask the minister: to what use can the salutation and date of birth, along with the name of people on the electoral roll, be put by political parties or politicians who get them? Or, conversely, to make it a bit easier: are there any uses which are prohibited under the electoral law? For example, can a political party send out to everybody on the electoral roll a request that that person consider joining the political party? Can they garner a donation? Are they able to invite people to otherwise contribute to the strength and wellbeing of that political party under this amendment in a way that other people are not going to be able to? Where is the line of commercial use? Where is the line of abuse in political parties and politicians getting access to these private details of members in the electorate—access which the Australian people themselves cannot get?I believe there is a simple rule here. That is, the information on the electoral roll that is available to political parties and politicians ought to be exactly the same as the information that is available to every other citizen. Parties and party machines should not be getting information that is not available to the very people that information is kept on. As Mr or Mrs Citizen, the average Australian is not going to be able to get this information about the date of birth of their neighbour or how the person down the road prefers to be addressed for their Christmas card. Why should the political parties? It is a self-interested amendment. The Greens totally oppose it.10:05:002043Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government opposes this amendment, because it flies directly in the face of what the government is proposing. At the moment the AEC collects gender, and that is nothing new. What is proposed here is that the date of birth and salutation be included. It is the view of the government that it is only appropriate to ask people as to the title by which they would like to be addressed. There is no great revelation or no great privacy consideration in that, the government would submit.There are safeguards in relation to the use of information from the roll and the habitation index. There are penalties involved to ensure that the information is not abused. The current situation allows for medical researchers to make use of the information on the roll, and that is for screening for breast cancer and the like. That is covered by regulation.What we are proposing here is to allow for electoral research by political parties. We do not see that is such a problem. It is all part of the democratic process that there be communication between political parties and those who are entitled to vote. We do not see this as breaking down any great walls of privacy, if you like. What we are dealing with is information which people commonly provide: the salutation, a title by which they wish to be addressed; the date of birth; and, as I say, the gender is already there on the record. I believe that this will assist greatly in how political parties deal with the electorate at large.10:07:002043Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The question I asked the minister was: what are the limits to which the political parties can put this information? Can they raise money through it? Can they gain membership through it? What is the limit on it? Also, why should the general public not have access to the same information? What sort of research is it, Minister—through you, chair—that the political parties are going to undertake?I can tell you that it will not be selfless research in the interests of the wider Australian public. It will be research aimed at trying to entrench or increase the number of people elected by the big political parties. I have another question for the minister: was the Privacy Commissioner consulted about this amendment; if so, what was the opinion that was given?10:08:002043Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In relation to the question of the purpose of the use of this measure, I have stated that it is for electoral research. The Australian Electoral Commission is the body that oversees this. Naturally, if someone used it for fund raising purposes—which would not come within the definition of `electoral research'—the AEC would act accordingly. What this facilitates is an ability for political parties to communicate with the electorate. It does not extend to the public at large having that access, because it then would be open to abuse. In relation to the question of advice between the AEC and the government, that is a matter between the AEC and the government.10:09:002044Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—There are two points raised there. Is the minister really trying to convince this committee that the political parties are, in some way or another, paradigms of virtue that will not abuse this system in the way that the wider public would? That statement, in itself, has the government saying that the public does not have the ethical standards that the political parties have. I think you would have a lot of trouble sustaining that argument out in the public arena.This is a very clear move by the political parties to gain self-advantage. This is not a move to, in some way or another, act in the wider public interest. This is a self-invested move by the government—and the Labor Party is supporting it—to get information on electors: information which is not available to those electors themselves; information about other people not just to consult or do research, as the minister says, but to be able to at least send out information in an attempt to get electors to support those political parties in a way that other people standing for election cannot. And that is wrong.There were two other questions. One was whether the Privacy Commissioner was consulted; and, if so, what was the response? And, just going back to the first question I asked of the minister: where are the boundaries of the uses to which this so-called `research' by the political parties can be put? It is not good enough for the minister to say, `Oh, we'll leave that to the Electoral Commission.'If you are to have good laws, it is up to this parliament—and, in this case, it is up to those putting forward the amendment—to state explicitly the purposes for which the use of salutations and date of birth of Australians in general can be put by the political parties. It is not to be left vaguely to some arbiter because, as you know, that will lead to abuse. I suppose we will get no further answer out of the minister on that, although I invite further comment about what the government believes is a fair use of this information, and that should be on the record at this juncture in this debate.10:11:002044Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Just briefly on that last point, section 4 of the act contains definitions. One is `electoral matter' which touches, or gives some guidance, on electoral research, and I would refer Senator Brown to that.But the question of the involvement of political parties is not something which is quite mysterious or devious. Political parties play an essential role in the running of democracy in this country, despite the fact that a lot of people do not think so. They contribute to the good order of the running of the parliament and also in the running of elections. I would say that Senator Brown needs to remember that there is recognition of this fact by public funding in relation to elections.Political parties play a very important role, and electoral research is part of that role. They need to know what the electorate is thinking. They need to communicate their ideas, their policies to the electors of Australia so that, knowing what is on offer, they can have a viable choice. That is what it is all about. It is really about informing the electors of Australia.I reject the notion that political parties are subversive or, in some way, that they are devious in this regard. I think all political parties have a genuine will to impart their message to the community at large, and that can only be good for democracy in any election.10:13:002044Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The opposition will not support Senator Bartlett in his opposition to schedule 1, items 1 and 2. The electoral rolls and the habitation indexes, of course, are currently provided either in print or on tape to members and senators of political parties, and that occurs under section 91 of the Electoral Act.As far as the opposition is concerned, we think that it is useful for parliamentarians to have access to further information such as elector's date of birth and salutation details so that we have greater capacity to more accurately address the concerns of the constituents and, I think, also target information more directly.I do, however, hear what Senator Brown is asking in relation to the involvement of the Privacy Commissioner, and the minister has not yet responded directly on that. I do accept that the privacy issue that he raises is an important one. Certainly, it is recognised by the opposition. We need to acknowledge the sensitivity of the information that has been referred to here. Obviously, it has quite significant value in terms of commercial marketing companies. The opposition does acknowledge that. We believe, as a result, it is important that there are sufficient penalties for misuse of such information. I think it is important to address that concern. I think the opposition's amendments in relation to increasing penalties does address those concerns. I would commend them to Senator Brown's and Senator Bartlett's consideration. As far as the opposition is concerned, we will not oppose this first schedule for the reasons I have outlined, while acknowledging the significance of some of the concerns that have been raised and the approach the opposition has been taking to address them.10:16:002045Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I would like to ask the minister about the involvement of the Privacy Commissioner. Was there any consultation?10:16:002045Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Privacy Commissioner has been consulted on this, and I understand the Privacy Commissioner has raised the concern of the electoral research aspect of the extent of it. That is something which the government has actively got under consideration. The AEC will monitor that. In election periods, for a start, if anything is misrepresentative or misleading, the AEC has a role in adjudicating on that. This is nothing new in giving to the AEC a power to govern an area where people might step beyond the mark.I refer you to section 91A, the use of information from the roll and habitation index. In that section there are permitted purposes on how that use is to be put. What I am saying is that of course the privacy considerations were in the mind of the government at the time of this drafting, but it does not believe that the privacy considerations are such as to be a bar to this legislation when it is weighed against the benefits. When you look at the safeguards already in place, section 91A of the act and the definition of electoral matters and the fact that the Electoral Commission will have supervision of this, the government, weighing all those factors, is of the belief that privacy considerations will be looked after.10:18:002045Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—We have at least elicited that the Privacy Commissioner has concerns about this. The minister might tell the committee whether there has been any written comment by the Privacy Commissioner on this section or the other amendments. If so, the minister might be good enough to table those so that we can see what the Privacy Commissioner had to say.Secondly, the minister says, `Look at section 91A as a guide to how the Electoral Commission might adjudicate whether or not the use of data birth and salutation exclusively by political parties and politicians can be put.' When you look at that, you find that the sky is the limit. The information can be used for any purpose in connection with an election or referendum or the performance by the senator or member of his or her functions as a senator or member in relation to the people on the electoral roll. That has no real definition or limitation at all. I suppose by comparison we might say, if we accept that political parties have a special place of honour when it comes to using information about the electorate, information which the electorate itself cannot get, why not give it to the churches? Why not give this information to welfare organisations in the country? Why not give it to ethical organisations so that they might do some research? Are they less worthy of this information than political parties? I think not. Let us be straight about this: this is a direct effort at political self-investment, political self-advantage, getting the political drop by the big political parties on the electorate. That is why we oppose it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The question is that schedule 1, items 1 and 2 stand as printed.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I did ask if the minister would be good enough to table any correspondence from the Privacy Commissioner on this matter, seeing we have elicited that the Privacy Commissioner was unhappy with the potential of this information being used by political parties.10:21:002046Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—To correct the record, I did not say that the Privacy Commissioner was unhappy. Naturally, anything of this sort would attract the attention of the Privacy Commissioner, quite properly so. Because the Privacy Commissioner gives attention to the extent of a definition, that does not mean that the Privacy Commissioner is necessarily unhappy. What I am saying is that there was contact between the Privacy Commissioner and the government, quite naturally so. That is nothing untoward. In fact, it is absolutely proper. I understand what Senator Brown is saying about the communication, and I will take it on notice as to what communication there has been. But the concern I mentioned was, as I understand it, of a general nature. With definitions, you need to have some supervision, and the AEC is in that place.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 1, items 1 and 2 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.10:23:002046Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 on revised sheet 1232:(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 3 (line 27), omit "100 penalty units", substitute "1,000 penalty units".[section 91B—penalties for prohibited use of rolls](2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (line 2), omit "100 penalty units", substitute "1,000 penalty units". [section 91B—penalties for prohibited use of rolls]In a sense—as I flagged in my previous contribution—this penalty provision deals with the issue that we have just been debating. It goes particularly to the issue of privacy, about which a number of senators have expressed concerns. The government's proposal in the bill to increase the penalty to 100 units—which is effectively an $11,000 penalty—is a step in the right direction, but I believe that a more severe penalty should be imposed, given the increased access to information on electors and the sensitivity and value of that information. The opposition amendments propose to increase the number of penalty units to 1,000 for disclosure or for using this information for commercial purposes. That would mean it would attract a fine of $110,000, and I think that is more appropriate and would reflect the value of the information that is provided to parliamentarians and those involved in the political process.The disclosure of this information to marketing companies could offer an enormous commercial advantage to them, and it is essential that a penalty exist to act as a serious deterrent to any such commercial advantage—in other words: use this information for what it is intended to be used for. The minister has indicated on behalf of the government the sorts of constraints that apply. I think this is an important amendment to ensure that no individual strays beyond those sorts of constraints. We do not think that the government's proposal for 100 penalty units or an $11,000 penalty does that; we believe that the very significant increase to $110,000 would. As a result, I commend the opposition's amendments to the Senate.10:26:002046Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Democrats will be supporting the amendments moved by Senator Faulkner. We also realise that any commercial entity will have the capacity to absorb an $11,000 fine in their business dealings, and let us not forget that a few political parties actually structure themselves as private companies. If fines are to be effective, the Democrats believe that the $11,000 fine outlined in the legislation is not a sufficient disincentive. We beli eve that the $110,000 fine, as put forward by the opposition, is a much better deterrent in anybody's language. Therefore, it is something that we strongly support.10:27:002047Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The Greens support these amendments.10:27:002047Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—These amendments are supported by the government. The government was proposing an increase in penalty to ensure that there was not a misuse of the information on the rolls, but it has no problem with the more severe penalties sought by the opposition.Amendments agreed to.10:28:002047Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I suggest that opposition amendments Nos 3 to 7 on sheet 1233 might actually be better dealt with after we determine the threshold issue of prisoner voting, which goes to the provision of mobile booths, et cetera. I respectfully suggest that it might assist the committee if we dealt with this after schedule 1, item 29 on the running sheet just before opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet 1233. I do not want to spend a lot of time on this, but it just seems that we are going to be a bit out of kilter here otherwise.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Is it the wish of the committee? There being no objection, it is so ordered.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I move Opposition amendment No. 2 on sheet 1233:(2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (lines 3 and 4), omit the item, substitute:10 After paragraph 93(8)(b) Insert: (ba) is serving a sentence of imprisonment which: (i) commenced on or before the return of the writs for an election for the House of Representatives or the Senate; and (ii) continues at the issuing of the writs for any succeeding election for the House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be; or[section 93—prisoners]*This amendment is an important one. It omits item 10 and proposes in its place amendments to tighten the current provisions. The provisions in this bill would deny all prisoners a vote. Therefore, a person, say, who was sentenced to eight weeks in gaol coinciding with an election period could not vote. Another prisoner who was sentenced to two years in gaol coinciding with a favourable electoral cycle would be able to vote.The truth is that parliament has accepted that certain classes of prisoners should not be able to vote. We do not oppose that view that has been expressed by parliament previously. But we say that it is possible to distinguish between major and minor crimes, as has been decided previously by this parliament and a range of state parliaments. That is why we will be opposing measures to abolish mobile polling booths for prisons and postal votes for prisoners, which was the item that we have deferred to a little later in our considerations and deliberations.Our amendments will ensure that, if any prisoner has been continually in prison from the return of the writs of the previous elections to the issuing of the writs for the next election, their vote will not be admitted to the count. And we think that this is an improvement to the current act, that it actually provides greater consistency to the five-year rule. We have picked up suggestions, arising from the debate in the House of Representatives, to leave item 29 as it is. Item 29 provides for the controller-general of prisons in each state and territory to forward to the AEC lists of persons who have been convicted and are serving a sentence of imprisonment. To make the opposition's amendment effective the provision of that information is essential.Fundamentally, we are saying that, above and beyond the five-year rule, which we believe ought to remain in place, any prisoner who has not been able to be involved at all in the political process from the return of the writs of one election to the issuing of the writs at the next ought not to be entitled to vote because, of course, there has been no capacity for a prisoner in that circumstance—in any sense, or in any way—to participate in the political process.This is, I suppose, Mr Temporary Chairman, an amendment that could be described, in one sense, as a minor tightening of the current provisions. Nevertheless, I think it is a balanced approach that the opposition is taking on this issue and I think it strengthens the provision in the current act. I commend it to the committee.10:33:002048Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I will be supporting that amendment but, as the committee and Senator Faulkner will be aware, the Greens not only oppose the amendments which are going to discriminate further against prisoners in Australia—in breach, we believe, of a number of international civil rights covenants—but will move to ensure that all Australian prisoners have the right to vote. Currently the law is that if you are sentenced to five years or more, you cannot vote. Senator Faulkner's amendment is an improvement on that. But the best thing that can be done is to get rid of that provision altogether. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it is up to the courts to put a penalty on a person who infringes against society; it should not be for parliaments to be adding to that penalty. If we were having a move here today to say judges may be able, in their considerations, to deprive some prisoners of votes, then so be it. But this universal imposing of extra penalties above those of the courts is not a good way for us to be going. What other rights will the parliament, generally, take away from prisoners?There is a very good reason for giving prisoners the vote—that is, we all want to see prisoners out of jails, where they cost a lot of money, and back in society in a rehabilitated form so that they feel part of society and feel they can contribute to society and not go back to prison. Where you deny prisoners the right to vote, you send a clear message to them that they are rejected by society and that they have a right to feel further alienated. The impact of this is to lessen the likelihood of people coming out of prison with a better attitude towards society than when they went in. It is not that we would be alone in this. As I mentioned, there are a number of international covenants which say that every citizen should have a right to vote. The measures being put forward here by the government—to further trammel the right of prisoners to vote—goes against those covenants.Around the world, countries which ensure that prisoners do have the right to vote include Cyprus, England, Hungary, Israel, Kenya, Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Norway, Poland and Zimbabwe, as well as five states in the US. I think we are following the pattern of the United States—which is trying to contain the extraordinary levels of crime it has compared to Australia; and the misguided philosophy behind its crowded gaols, which have over a million prisoners these days—where the belief is that, in some way or another, depriving people of civil liberties will teach them something that will help them when they come back into society. The reverse is the case.Following a number of peaceful environmental protests, I have found myself for a period of time with prisoners in Tasmanian gaols. They are alert to what is going on in politics. They read the papers. They watch television. They discuss these matters. I think we ought to encourage that, not discourage it. The deprivation of a person's right to vote is a very clear discouragement. As I said, if that is to be a penalty for prisoners, let the courts impose it.Senator Ray said in this place the other day when we were talking about these matters that anybody who gets up and tries to improve the lot of prisoners—I am paraphrasing here, but I agree with this sentiment—is going to cop a bucketing out in the community. That does not make it wrong. That is why I will not only be supporting this opposition amendment, which is a fair one, but also be moving, as you know, amendments a little further down the line to ensure that prisoners do have the right to vote in Australia, as they do in many other countries around the world.10:39:002048Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Democrats will be supporting this opposition amendment, for reasons similar to those just outlined. We also strongly believe that it is important, except in exceptional circumstances such as treason, et cetera, that prisoners should have the right to vote. We do not believe it serves any useful purpose to deny prisoners that right, particularly in relation to some of the reasons why people end up in gaol these days.Senator Cooney, in his contribution at the second reading stage, pointed out the problems of mandatory sentencing laws in the Northern Territory. Mandatory sentencing also exists in Western Australia. The Democrats are strongly opposed to the mandatory sentencing regimes in those areas and, indeed, anywhere in Australia. The attempt to deprive citizens of their entitlement to vote, we believe, is unfounded and unhelpful in terms of trying to ensure as comprehensive a democratic system as possible.It probably would be unreasonable of me to suggest that this may be the government's motivation. I am sure it is not. Nonetheless, it is still appropriate to point out that it would be reasonable to assume that the potential political beneficiaries of such a measure would be conservative parties. I think it would be reasonable to suggest that, demographically speaking, people in prison would be less likely than those in the broader community to vote for conservative parties. Whilst I am not suggesting that is the government's motivation, it nonetheless has that potential effect.As with any change to the electoral law, I think it is important to highlight those sorts of issues. As I said in my contribution in the second reading debate, all of us in this place are not just legislators but a prime interest group in relation to the impact of this legislation that deals with electoral law. We need to highlight that up-front and be clear about that.There are a number of other amendments that the Democrats and Senator Brown are proposing, as have been indicated on the running sheet, to ensure that prisoners have the right to vote. In relation to Senator Faulkner's amendment, we believe it is an improvement on the bill as it stands at the moment, and we will support it.10:42:002049Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government is opposing these amendments for a number of reasons. Firstly, the unworkability of this would make the AEC entirely reliant on timely advice from prison authorities following the issue of the writ. The AEC has to deal with not only six states but also two territories in dealing with prison authorities. I also note that there is no proposed amendment to section 109 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Section 109, `Lists of convictions to be forwarded', provides that the Controller-General of Prisons shall forward a list each month to the Australian Electoral Commissioner of the names of those people who have been sentenced to a period of five years or longer. That is the current provision. I note that that has not been amended by the opposition. That is a flaw that would need to be amended as well.The other thing is that the amendment would be extremely impractical to implement, even with the current seven-day close of rolls period. It would be difficult for the AEC to determine the eligibility of prisoners as this could only be resolved when the date of the issue of the writ is known.The other problem you have with the opposition amendment is that it deals with the return of the writs for an election for the House of Representatives or the Senate and it continues to the issuing of the writs for any successful election for the House of Representatives or the Senate. There are different times for those. Whilst the writs of the House of Representatives are returned together, the various writs from the states for the Senate may not all be returned on the same day. That is another administrative aspect which the government has a problem with.In total, the government's proposal is a much simpler one in dealing with this issue. This deals with the recommendation made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—that is, that those who disregard the laws to a degree sufficient to warrant imprisonment should not expect the right to retain a franchise. As I say, in any event, there is provision at the moment for those sentenced to a period of five years or over to lose that entitlement. On that basis, the government opposes the opposition's amendment and maintains its proposal as previously stated.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Faulkner be agreed to. Question put:10:49:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—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.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.33Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G. *Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Campbell, G. Tambling, G. E. J.Conroy, S. Crane, W.Evans, C. V. Abetz, E.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We will now move to schedule 1, items 18, 36, 49, 59 and 69.10:53:002050Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The sections here all relate to schedule 1, items 18, 36, 49, 59 and 69 which remove the provisions containing the right to vote for prisoners. These amendments are identical to the Greens amendments.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—They are all opposing items. The question will be that the items stand as printed.10:54:002050Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The aim here is to oppose the government's amendments which would deprive prisoners who are sentenced to less than five years in gaol of their right to vote. Some time ago the parliament, as Senator Faulkner has said, decided to take away from prisoners who are sentenced to more than five years in gaol the right to vote. This move means that all prisoners will lose their right to vote. That goes against, as I have said, a series of international covenants. It overrides what I believe is the court's sole prerogative to be giving penalties to people who break the law, and it puts us out of line with a lot of countries around the world in ensuring that prisoners do have the right to vote.It is also totally unfair, and there is no way that the government is going to fix this up. It means that, if you are in gaol for a relatively minor crime which has involved no physical harm to anybody else, when Mr Howard calls an election you lose your vote. Of course, if you have just finished your sentence—your two months or your one month—and you are out of gaol you keep your vote. If you go to gaol just after the election you keep your vote. If you just happen to be the one who is in gaol when the election is called you lose your vote. It, on the face of it, means that those prisoners who happen to be serving their sentence at, and only at, the time an election is called will be deprived of privileges which prisoners who have just got out of gaol are going to maintain.I and other senators have had a very strong letter from the South African communities organising for public safety and for a sensible and effective prison policy, Ms Johnson, saying, `Don't do this.' It is saying that these organisations are horrified to hear that the Prime Minister and the government have put forward this bill with the intention of removing prisoners' right to vote. It says:I remember the years we South Africans could rely on Australians to stand up for human rights by supporting the anti-apartheid movement, demonstrating at Springbok rugby and cricket games when racist-minded bureaucrats allowed them to travel to your country. I consider Australia as the progressive country, with its fair share of problems but working to address them in a fair and equitable manner.It mentions, by the way:I remember—says Ms Johnson—reading about the ground-breaking prison reform attempts of Mr Tony Vincent in New South Wales, which focused on addressing the real problems of prisons ravaged by riots and institutionalised brutality with rehabilitation, education and empowerment. Mr Vincent was correct when he sought to introduce the humane principle that a prisoner must retain certain inalienable rights if the hopeless cycle of recidivism, that is, going back to crime, is ever to be broken. The right to vote should be an inalienable right for all citizens of all countries.This South African correspondent goes on to point out that, of course, by denying prisoners the vote, including prisoners who are sentenced to less than five years, if you look at the statistics, will have an undue effect of depriving indigenous people of the right to vote. Remember that, wholesale, indigenous Australians were not recognised or given that right until just a couple of decades ago. Here we have a move which is going to unfairly discriminate against indigenous Australians for the simple reason that they go to gaol, they get locked up, 10 to 20 times as much as the rest of the population. The reasons for that we all know—the poverty, the dispossession of land, the enforced breakdown and deprival of culture, and so many other things.Added on top of this is a disproportionate and I believe racist amendment in its effect in depriving an undue number of indigenous Australians of the right to vote. I totally object to it. The Greens are totally opposed to this. We think this committee chair would do well to listen to the letter from South Africa saying, `Don't do it.' Prisoners, like everybody else, should have the right to vote. It should be an inalienable right. Taking away their right to vote is not going to help with reform, reduction of crime, or improvement of behaviour when prisoners get out of gaol, which ought to be the aim of their time in gaol. I would submit that this is the case, in particular, for people sentenced to gaol for less than five years, who so often have not caused physical harm but have in other ways broken the law—very often over monetary matters. This measure is discriminatory in a number of ways and that is why we oppose these government amendments.11:00:002051Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government will be opposing these amendments put forward by the Greens; I think our reasons for so doing were stated adequately previously.11:01:002051Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Effectively, I think Senator Brown is right when he makes the point that the current bill as it stands—if these amendments were not accepted by the committee—would deny all prisoners the right to vote. This goes to the issue of mobile polling booths, capacity for postal voting and enrolment and the like. I think the issues have probably been well canvassed in our previous debate on the threshold issue of prisoner voting. The opposition obviously will be supporting the amendments that stand in our name and, in this case, identical amendments that stand in the names of Senator Brown and Senator Bartlett.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—The question is that schedule 1, items 18, 36, 49, 59 and 69 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—According to the running sheet, we are now dealing with schedule 1, item 10—prisoners.11:02:002051Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (lines 3 and 4), omit the item, substitute:10 Paragraph 93(8)(b) Repeal the paragraph. This is an amendment to carry into effect the assurance of the right to vote of all Australians. At the moment, due to past legislation, that right has been taken away from people who happen to be in gaol for more than five years. I have canvassed the issues before. It is logical to carry it through. That inalienable right should be there for all citizens, regardless of their circumstances. So I am moving further here to have the right to vote restored to all people who are in gaol.11:03:002052Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I indicate the Democrat's support for this amendment.11:03:002052Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I have made pretty clear the position of the opposition in relation to this amendment. The opposition has tried to take a sensible and balanced approach here. Fundamentally, with the amendments that have been moved to improve the current five-year rule, we think that the five-year rule is a reasonable one. I have used the terminology `balanced' and that is what I stress to the committee I think is the opposition's approach here. It is balanced. It reflects what happens in a majority of the state and territory jurisdictions. I think we have made sensible improvements to the Electoral Act in the committee today, and the opposition would commend its approach in relation to this issue.We will not accept the direction that the government is moving in. I suppose on this particular occasion we find ourselves as the ham in the sandwich between the approach that Senator Brown articulates on behalf of the Greens and Senator Bartlett articulates on behalf of the Australian Democrats and the approach of the government. In a general sense, we have got a pretty balanced provision here. I think we had a balanced provision; it has now been improved in the committee. I would commend that to the committee.11:05:002052Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government opposes the amendment proposed by the Greens and supported by the Democrats, again for reasons that I have outlined previously. 11:05:002052Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I thank the Democrats for supporting this amendment, because I think it is a very important one. It carries through the logical thrust of the vote that we have seen a while ago and this debate that the rights of prisoners should not be infringed outside those that are taken away by the courts. This amendment would bring us into line with a great number of similar countries and jurisdictions overseas and would take away the imputation that we are in breach of a number of international covenants to do with human rights by depriving some prisoners in Australian gaols the right to vote. But I can see that the numbers will be against this.Senator Faulkner says that the Labor Party is in the middle on this. Just listening to the debate you can see that the Labor Party is a long way ahead of the coalition's philosophy when it comes to civil rights in this matter. It is just a pity that the Labor Party is not making the stand it would have made five years ago on this matter.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—We have been consistent on this one, Senator Brown; I think you have to acknowledge that. We have always supported that five-year rule—always.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I apologise to Senator Faulkner; I did have it in my mind that in the past the Labor Party had been opposed to the removal of the right of prisoners to vote.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—If you look at the state jurisdictions you will see in many of them a pretty similar provision. But anyway, this is not a debate.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—There we are. The Greens stand very strongly by this amendment. I am frustrated that it is not going to pass.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—The question is that the amendment to schedule 1, item 10 moved by Senator Brown be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—As I read the running sheet, the Democrats would now seek to oppose item 10. Is that your understanding, Senator Bartlett?11:08:002053Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—This basically preserves the status quo by removing item 10 from the legislation. It is the same issue in relation to a prisoner's right to vote, so I won't go over those arguments again.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 1, item 10 stand as printed.11:08:002053Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I seek some guidance from you here. Item 10 has been omitted, has it not, by successive opposition amendment No. 2 on sheet 1233?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I think that is a question to you, Senator Bartlett.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, I am a little surprised that Senator Bartlett is proceeding with this one, given the fate of opposition amendment No. 2 in my name on sheet 1233, that's all. I am a little perplexed, I suppose.11:09:002053Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Given that we have been through the debate and addressed the issue when we had the vote on Senator Faulkner's amendment earlier on and that this one is slightly in conflict with it, it would probably be easier not to proceed with it. So I will withdraw it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 1, item 10 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The running sheet calls next for Senator Brown from the Australian Greens on schedule 1, item 29. Are you still proceeding with that item, Senator Brown? The advice we have here is that you would not proceed with it.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—That's correct, Chair, so I will not proceed.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That then brings us to the Democrats, schedule 1, item 29, prisoner lists. Senator Bartlett, you are opposing item 29?11:10:002053Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Yes. This is, again, on sheet 1227. It is simply to oppose schedule 1, item 29, relating to prisoner lists.11:11:002053Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I haven't got the amendment sheets in front of me but, in effect, this is removing the words `five years or longer', is it not, from section 109?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Yes.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Again, given the fact that my earlier amendment was carried and that there is some sense in the `five years or longer' being removed from the act and given where we are going, I am afraid I would need to be convinced that this is not a sensible change in these circumstances by either Senator Brown or Senator Bartlett. I think the direction in which the committee is moving almost requires this provision in the bill to stay.11:12:002053Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Maybe Senator Faulkner can help clarify the matter. I am under the assumption that the amendment which the committee adopted earlier means that prisoners who are sentenced to five years lose their vote only if they have been in gaol for two election calls.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Yes, or five years or longer.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—And they will need not only to have been sentenced to five years but also to have been in gaol when the previous election was called.11:13:002053Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Well, no. That is not quite the intention, as I explained to the committee. It is, as I have described, a moderate strengthening of the provision that goes to those prisoners who have been in gaol from the time of the return of the writs in one election to the issue of the writs for the next. So as I explained in my brief but, I hope, comprehensive speech in support of my amendment, it effectively involves those prisoners who are not able, because they are in gaol for the whole of that period between the return of the writs in one election and the issue of the writs for the next election, to take any part in the political process. That is why, consequently, the words `five years or longer' seem to me to be able to be removed from the act. Hence on this occasion, unless I can be convinced otherwise by solid argument from either you or Senator Bartlett, the opposition would find itself in support of the government on this provision.The minister might care to make a comment on this, but as I would understand it, unless this provision in the bill stands, it will lead to an administrative nightmare for the AEC. That is what I am assuming. I was not actually convinced by the minister's arguments in relation to the difficulties of administration last time, but I am jumping to a conclusion here. Senator Brown, Senator Bartlett and I are all grappling with the issue of what the administrative consequences are.On the basis of the AEC's administration—given the vote of the committee in relation to my previous amendment—I am coming to the conclusion, unless someone can convince me otherwise, that this provision in the bill should stand. I think it makes sense.11:16:002054Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I have been under the misapprehension that the previous amendment was to apply to those people who had been convicted of a crime and sentenced to more than five years in gaol. That has been my misapprehension. Senator Faulkner has got through to me that when he uses the word `strengthening', it means in effect that people who are in gaol for two or three years will have their vote removed. I was under a misapprehension there. I will be opposing this amendment if that is the case, and will move to have the previous vote resubmitted at a later stage.11:16:002054Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Can I clarify this amendment to be clear what we are talking about? It deals with section 109 of the existing act. The bill that we are considering seeks to take out the reference to `five years or longer'. The section deals with the Comptroller-General of Prisons forwarding at the beginning of each month a list of the names, addresses, et cetera, of persons who have been convicted in that state during the previous month, and forwarding those lists to the electoral office. At the moment those lists are only of people who are serving a sentence of five years or longer for any offence. That is what is in the act at the moment.The legislation that we are discussing today seeks to remove the requirement that the list consist of those people serving a sentence of five years or longer, and change it to anybody who is serving a sentence of imprisonment, which is obviously in line with the government's initial intention to deny all prisoners the right to vote.Since we now have Senator Faulkner's amendment through, which modifies that to people who are in prison for two elections, the five years is actually fairly incongruous and will not necessarily assist the Electoral Commissioner to accurately determine who is eligible to vote and who is not.In that sense, it may actually be better to proceed with what is in the bill which would require a list of everybody who is imprisoned. This will give the Electoral Commission as much information as possible to help them decide who should vote and who should not. It may even need extra information about length of sentence or something like that, but I would leave that to the drafters in the government's office.Therefore, it probably makes sense for me to withdraw this amendment to schedule 1, item 29, having finally figured out where we are at. Unless somebody wants to object to that, I might proceed down that path.11:19:002054Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I understand where Senator Bartlett is coming from. I will respond to Senator Brown. The opposition's position in relation to this issue of prisoner voting has been absolutely consistent from the time the minority report on the bill was brought down and of my second reading speech. There have also been a range of public utterances on this and I am sorry if it was misunderstood.The terminology I have used, which is either `strengthening' or `tightening', is reasonable in this circumstance. It is only a moderate tightening. It keeps the five-year threshold, but does go to also removing a right to vote for a prisoner who is in gaol for the period that we have spoken about.Senator Brown is saying to me that he misunderstood the opposition's amendment. I accept that, as one does in these circumstances. I hope he is not suggesting in any sense that the opposition has been misleading. This has been a very consistent position that we have adopted. I have always taken the view, as you know, that, if at the end of the day you get a different vote because of some problem in the committee stage, you want the committee vote to reflect the will of the committee. Senator Bartlett's contribution which just preceded mine is a sensible way to proceed, if the decisions of the committee stand.11:21:002055Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I would vote differently on opposition amendment No. 2, which put in effect the removal of the vote from prisoners who had been in prison at the previous election, even though they may not be serving a five-year sentence. The best way to proceed would be for that vote to be resubmitted, because the amendments we are looking at now are consequent upon that vote. I therefore request that opposition amendment No. 2 on sheet 1233 be resubmitted for determination.11:21:002055Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I agree with the course of action proposed by Senator Bartlett. It would be incongruous to have the five-year period in section 109 of the act in view of the opposition amendment that has just been passed. It works out quite ironically that the government's amendment dovetails with the opposition amendment which has been successfully passed, because the proposal by the government is to remove that five-year provision in section 109.Senator Bartlett is quite right. If the government's proposal is passed, the list of all those in prison will be forwarded to the AEC. The AEC will then apply the formula as passed by the opposition here today, and that will be it. But if you include the five-year provision which is currently there in section 109, you will complicate matters further.11:22:002055Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—It is getting more confusing by the minute. If we are going to bounce back and reconsider Senator Faulkner's amendment, then what we are doing now may or may not be the way to go. We probably need to resubmit Senator Faulkner's initial amendment and then come back to the amendment which I was talking about withdrawing.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—I was actually going to proceed to put the question that schedule 1, item 29, stand as printed. Assuming that was carried, I would then move back to ask that opposition amendment No. 2, by leave, be recommitted. If that procedure is followed, it should resolve things.11:23:002055Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Mr Chairman, I strongly believe you are better off not putting that question. If we are going to go through the process of recommitting—and hopefully it would be by leave, which I want to make a point about in a moment—let us not complicate it further so we will have to come back and deal with it later. I think it would be a mistake to put that question before the chair because the risk is that we will have to go and undo that also.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Faulkner, perhaps while you have the call, you can move that schedule 1, item 29 be postponed.Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That schedule 1, item 29 be postponed.11:25:002055Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—It is not necessarily that common that we have recommittals in the committee stage. I think Senator Brown has made it clear that there was a genuine misunderstanding here about the effect of what I describe as the opposition's threshold amendment on prisoner voting.I also make this point to the committee: the vote on the opposition amendment that stands in my name was won by the opposition by two votes. I am not sure who the government culprit was who did not attend the division. No doubt the search party is out now, and he or she will be rounded up and disciplined in accordance with the standard operating procedure you have when senators miss divisions. However, even if Senator Brown had voted differently, the amendment would not have found favour with the committee on equal voting.I think in this situation, given that we have a genuine misunderstanding from a senator which would have made a difference to the outcome of the division and given that, with all the difficulties, we are still progressing reasonably through this—and I am disappointed that this is probably going to mean the opposition's proposal, which I described as sensible and balanced, will go down—recommittal is reasonable. This also means that we will probably be falling back to the amendments that go to the retention of the current five-year provision as it stands currently in the act.So the committee stage debate will evolve quite differently if we have this recommittal. Hence, Mr Chairman, I think you made the right decision not to put the question that was before the chair. We have postponed that. With that explanation, all I can suggest is that we get on with it. Even though I was a victor, I suppose I will just have to wear the glory of having that significant reform through the parliament for only a short period of time.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted for the recommittal of opposition amendment No. 2?Leave granted.10000Faulkner, Sen JohnThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I now put opposition amendment No. 2 to schedule 1, item 10. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.11:32:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)32Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S.Lees, M. H. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.*Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.35Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Brown, B. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.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. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. Margetts, D.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Cooney, B. Boswell, R. L. D.Lundy, K. Knowles, S. C.Quirke, J. A. Tambling, G. E. J.Sherry, N. Hill, R. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—Senator Faulkner, do you wish to recommit items 18, 36, 49, 59 and 69 at this stage?11:35:002056Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—On that point, I do not think there is any need to, but you might care to seek the minister's guidance. I do not think there is any suggestion that senators from the opposition and minor parties who voted on those particular provisions would vote any differently. It would not be my intention to do so, unless you wanted to test the will of the committee. Given that we are unpicking a range of decisions that we have made, I appreciate that that might be the view of the minister at the table. I do not see a necessity to do it, unless someone informs me that it is likely to involve the committee coming to a different view.They are effectively a range of provisions that allow prisoners to vote, whether it be mobile polling booths, a facility for postal votes or even retention of enrolment. It seems to me, given what we have heard in the debate, we are likely to see the committee not change its view on that particular matter. It was the opposition amendment on which, after further explanation, the final vote did not reflect the will of some senators who had a misunderstanding about the impact of that particular amendment. That would be my view, Mr Temporary Chairman. The minister may have a different one, as may other senators, but I think we can stick with it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—Is it the wish of the committee that we go back to postponed item 29?11:38:002057Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Mr Chairman, it is not a question of recommittal because Senator Bartlett did not move Democrat amendment (2) on sheet 1227 revised 2. Now that I think we have unpicked what occurred previously, it is important that you call Senator Bartlett to move that amendment. Once that amendment is moved, we will be able to progress through the running sheet.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Bartlett, will you be opposing item 10?11:39:002057Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Yes, we will be opposing item 10 of schedule 1.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted to return to item 10? There being no objection, I call Senator Bartlett.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—The Democrats oppose item 10 of schedule 1. Just to be clear, I think we are still talking about the right of prisoners to vote. Now that Senator Faulkner's amendment has gone down, we are discussing whether what is currently in the government's bill—which is that all prisoners be unable to vote—should stay. By opposing this part of the bill, basically the Democrats wish to retain the existing situation of the five-year imprisonment; that is, that only prisoners who are sentenced for five years or more be unable to vote. So it is a status quo situation.Whether we wish to have the status quo or go in the direction the government is suggesting, which is to prevent any prisoner from being able to vote, I think is the threshold test on which we now need the Senate's indication, before figuring out where we are to go with any consequential amendments. Given that the Senate has already decided that we should not expand the right to vote to all prisoners, the Democrats are obviously of the view that the next-best fall back option is to retain the status quo. Therefore, we will be opposing item 10 of schedule 1.11:40:002057Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I support the proposal by Senator Bartlett. After the committee's revisionism on the opposition's preferred amendment and approach, I think it is important that now this particular amendment be supported so that the provisions in the current act in relation to prisoners, at a minimum, stay. At a later stage Senator Brown may again engage in the debate about progressing his other amendments. But this, though not the preferred approach of the opposition, does maintain the five-year rule in the act. And I think that is important.I think that is a much better compromise than the government's proposal to remove all entitlements for prisoners to vote and enrol. I would point out to Senator Brown that ensuring that all prisoners, regardless of length of sentence, can participate in the electoral process is a more balanced approach than what the government is proposing, which is to remove all rights for prisoners in relation to voting and enrolment.It is not perfect, and obviously the opposition's amendments would have improved the act as it currently stands. But this is the preferable course of action to maintain this provision that not only is current Commonwealth law but, of course, has also found favour in a majority of state and terri tory jurisdictions. So there is also this issue of consistency across the states, territories and the Commonwealth. So I think, in the circumstances and, as I say, after the committee's recent revisionism, Senator Bartlett's amendment is worthy of support and is a principled position to draw the sort of distinction that is appropriate in relation to prisoners' voting rights.11:43:002058Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Chairman, what is before the chair? I thought the motion put before the committee is that the schedule stand as printed. Is it not?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—The question is that item 10 stand as printed.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—That is right. So there is no real amendment by Senator Bartlett, as I understand it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No, I think there has to be a vote on that first.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It is his amendment not to remove item 10, Senator.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I am sorry, I am getting a bit lost. Thank you.11:43:002058Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—It certainly is complicated. What Senator Bartlett's amendment is doing is effectively stymieing the government's effort to have all prisoners lose their votes and maintaining the preferable position of the status quo, which has the vote only removed for prisoners who are sentenced to more than five years in gaol.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that item 10 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—The question now is that item 29 stand as printed.11:44:002058Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—This takes us back to where we were before we decided to recommit, which relates to the list that states that prison directors or controller-generals have to forward to the Electoral Commission. Given that we have now retained the status quo of the five-year limit, it is obviously consequential that this section of the bill also be not proceeded with. The Democrats will be opposing item 29.11:45:002058Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I have nothing to add to my previous eloquence on this issue.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that item 29 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We move to opposition amendment No. 1, sheet 233. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.11:46:002058Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Mr Temporary Chairman, are we on clause 2?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We are on clause 2, prisoners.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—This is consequential to the opposition's amendment that at first found favour but then seemed to hit the rocks. I do not think there is any need for me to progress this one.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will move on.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—Mr Chairman, I would like some clarification. I thought this was consequential on opposition amendments Nos 3 to 7, which had already been passed, rather than the one that went down.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—My understanding is that perhaps it does have to proceed. I think Senator Faulkner will have to move his amendment and see how the cards fall.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I move the amendment standing in my name:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (line 1), omit ", 18, 29, 36, 49, 59 and 69", substitute "and 29".10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Faulkner be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—Mr Chairman, we were dealing with the consequential opposition amendments which flowed from the original opposition amendment which was initially won and then lost.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—No, I think not. I thought that myself, but it was the ones that were carried.9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—Okay.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a separate point of order, Mr Chairman, can you advise me on the fate of the amendment that was moved by Senator Bartlett, Democrats amendment No. 4 on sheet 1227? Debate was postponed when we decided to go down the track of recommittal. I want to be clear on the status of that.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Item 29 was negatived.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—We have dealt with it?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Yes. It is not an amendment because it does not exist. We now move to Democrat amendment No. 13 on sheet 1227. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.11:49:002059Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I understand that these are consequential amendments, given that we have voted to preserve the status quo. I move amendment No. 13 on sheet 1227: Prisoners(13) Clause 2, page 2 (line 1), omit ", 9, 10, 18, 29, 36, 49, 59 and 69", substitute "and 9".10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Bartlett be agreed to.11:50:002059Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Mr Chairman, could this be explained as to how that fits in?11:50:002059Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My understanding is that this amendment seeks to remove a range of numbers from the list at the start of the legislation that deals with commencements of various items. Those are items that we have now voted to omit from the legislation. To ensure consistency, those numbers need to be taken out for the date of commencement.UNKNOWNThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—I am getting rather confused. The advice coming from the clerks is a little different. Perhaps we may have to go back. Opposition amendment No. 1 should not have been moved because Democrat amendments Nos 2 and 4 were agreed to, not opposition No. 2, if that makes sense. Do you understand that?DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—No.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—My information is that Democrats amendment No. 13 should be moved, not opposition amendment No. 1, because Democrat amendments Nos 2 and 4 were successful and not opposition amendment No. 2.11:52:002059Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I think the opposition No. 1 lists omitting Nos 18, 29, 36, 49, 59 and 69 and leaving 29. Mine includes those numbers plus 10 and 18 and removes 29. I think it removes a few extra numbers. If we need to withdraw opposition No. 1 for some technical reason, that is fine.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Bartlett, I think the easiest way out of this is for you to move your amendment in the amended form, which would include those bits that were left out.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I am sure you are being well advised, so I will do as you request. I move:Clause 2, page 2 (line 1), as amended, omit ", 9, 10 and 29", substitute "and 9".10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that the revised amendment moved by Senator Bartlett be agreed to. Those of that opinion, say aye—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, I would like to be absolutely clear as to what is before the chair.11:52:002059Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Through you, Mr Temporary Chairman: Senator Bartlett, how is Democrats' amendment No. 13 consequential? What is the effect of this amendment? I think what we are missing at the moment is how it works into the tapestry.11:52:002059Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—As I understand it, this amendment deals with the start-up dates for the start of legislation and lists the date of commencement of the various items. Amendment No. 13—which I believe I have moved—omits the numbers 9, 10, 18, 29, 36, 49, 59 and 69 and substitutes `and 9'. So 9 is still in there, but the amendment omits seven other numbers. I believe that is because we have voted to omit the relevant items in the body of the legislation. We have removed items Nos 10 and 18 already. Those are the items that deal with prisoners' right to vote. That is my understanding of why this amendment is consequential. As long as the numbers that are in my amendment correspond with the numbers of the items that we have already decided to omit from the bill, it would be consequential. If they do not, obviously we are going to have a messy outcome.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—One could be confused and think that it is Saturday night Keno with all these numbers floating around. I hope that has answered the queries.11:54:002060Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I think this sometimes happens when you go a long way down the track and decide to throw the Senate committee into reverse gear and go about 15 furlongs backwards. Needless to say, I just want to be clear as to the question before the chair. I am clear about Democrats amendment No. 13, sheet 1227. What I am not clear about is in relation to the revision that we are speaking of. I assume that relates to the government amendments.Mr Temporary Chairman, is it correct that you have asked Senator Bartlett to move his amendment as revised? Does `as revised' relate to the recent government amendments? Is that what is occurring? What is the revision?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—It seems that a lot of these numbers are identical to the amendments you were proposing, the only differences being 9 and 10. We understand from the people who drafted this that Senator Bartlett's amendment is correct. It takes on board your amendments plus two others.11:56:002060Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Now I come back, Mr Tempo rary Chairman, to you explaining to us what the question is before the chair.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question before the chair is that Democrats' amendment No. 13, moved in the amended form, which takes on board 9 and 10, be agreed to. Is that clear? Senator Ellison, are you happy with that?11:56:002060Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—There is a question I want to ask Senator Bartlett. Senator Bartlett, are you saying that your amendment takes away the commencement dates which related to prisoners? Those commencement dates are no longer relevant because the government's proposal in relation to prisoner voting has been defeated. Therefore, are you are saying that there is no need now for a commencement provision?DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—Yes.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—That is what your No. 13 is doing? If that is what the effect of it is, it is appropriate to move that and it would work in with what has been passed to date. The government would oppose that but only in order to maintain its adherence to the principle of prisoner voting. I can see the efficacy of what you are proposing, Senator Bartlett. It does afford what has taken place the opportunity to work.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Thank you, Minister, for that clarification. You have certainly made my job a little easier. The question is that Democrats amendment No. 13, as moved in the amended form by Senator Bartlett, be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Having disposed of those matters, we now move to opposition amendments Nos 1 to 4 on sheet 1235, as revised.11:58:002060Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—These particular amendments effectively go to the very important issue of the closure of the rolls. These items would see the rolls closed three working days after the issue of the writs and would set up a postponement period during which new names could not be added or deleted from the roll as a result of enrolment applications. The postponement period for new electors commences at 6 p.m. on the date of the issue of the writs until the close of polling. This means that no new electors can get on the roll once the election has been called. That is the effect of what the government is proposing.The rationale that is provided for this—and it is a pretty flimsy one, I have got to say—is that the new proof of identity and other cross-checks for new electors will take too long to carry out and will not make the three-day limit. About 80,000 new enrolments occur once the election is called. Closing the rolls so quickly would disenfranchise a huge number of first-time voters. Do not forget that most of these are young people. Even worse, of course, the postponement period for new electors would see all of those 80,000 new voters, who apply to get on the electoral roll when the election is called, disenfranchised.When an election is called, there is obviously a rush of people who try and get on the electoral roll. They either apply to get on the electoral roll as first-time voters, or they need an update on their electoral enrolment, such as a change of address. The fact that an election is called obviously motivates people to move quickly in this regard. But we all know about electoral behaviour in Australia. It is often not until an election is actually called that many people take this course of action, that they consider the status of their electoral enrolment. We had evidence given by the AEC to the Senate committee showing that a majority of the 320,000 notify a change of address at the last available opportunity. That is just the way it works.It is clear that the restriction of three days for change of address prior to an election is going to be massively distorting and a real impediment to the democratic process. It could lead to anything up to 200,000 people voting at their previous address. That is not what the intention or the spirit of the Electoral Act is about. These are very unreasonable provisions in the bill and we will oppose them in order to retain the integrity of the Electoral Act.12:03:002061Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Democrats will also be opposing these sections of the bill, as outlined in my speech during the second reading debate. I will not go through that whole section of the speech again, but I think it is worth recording once again the Democrats' strong opposition to what the government is attempting to do in this legislation.I realise their purported rationale is to deal with minimising the opportunity for electoral fraud. I suppose if you cut everybody off the roll then you have got a chance of minimising electoral fraud, but you are obviously much more likely to minimise electoral participation. That is something that the Democrats are very concerned about. We do not believe there has been very strong evidence of electoral fraud, but there is certainly very strong evidence about the need for maximum electoral participation if our democratic system is going to have any sort of integrity at all.As has been pointed out, this will effectively disenfranchise about 80,000 people and the Democrats believe that it should be strongly opposed because of the hole it will blow in the integrity of our voting system. Clearly, it will impact not solely but, predominantly, on first time voters—on younger people. Again, these are the very people we are trying to encourage to be involved in the political process. It is these very people who, perhaps even more than the rest of the Australian community, wonder whether politics and government and parliament are really worth the bother; and whether or not they should just ignore it all as something that they cannot really do anything about—as some sort of fairly distasteful show that happens down in Canberra that they cannot impact upon.All of us, I am sure, want to try to reverse that by whatever means we can. We want to try to encourage younger people to get on the roll to vote, to realise their voice is important, that they can make a difference, that they have a legitimate and crucial part to play in the direction of our democracy and that they have the ability to determine who represents them in the parliament and who forms government.This measure is clearly going to reduce the incentive and the opportunity for younger people and first-time voters to be involved in the electoral process. If an election is called, under this measure that the government is proposing, at 6 p.m. on the day of writs being issued, that is it—the guillotine comes down. As Senator Faulkner said, the reality for all of us—not just younger people—is that we tend not to get around to something like fixing up our new address on the roll or on a driver's licence until some specific event comes along which motivates us or pushes us into doing that. For most people, that event is the calling of an election.You can imagine the great degree of enthusiasm that young people and potential first-time voters have when they hear an election is called. They think, `I had better get on the roll; this is my first chance to vote and I am going to make a difference.'5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—No new elector would get on the roll.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—No new elector would get on the roll. They would hear the election called. They would think, `Great. This will be my first chance to make a difference. This will be my first chance to finally have my say about all these policies that the government and various other parties are putting forward.' They would turn up at the electoral office the next day and get told, `Sorry, you are out. The rules were changed. Bugger off.' The Electoral Commission would probably say something more polite than that. Nonetheless, that would be the effect.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—That language is a bit rough. Perhaps you might care to amend it.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—Yes, I apologise. I was putting myself in a young person's mind just for a moment. But basically that is the message they would feel they would be getting from the government and from politicians in general. They would not discriminate and say, `This is the coalition's fault.' They would say, `It is those politicians again. They do not even want us to have a say.' That will be the effect, and that is clearly detrimental to the future functioning of our democracy.Chances are they may not even put in an application at that stage to go on the roll for a later election. Their enthusiasm for the whole process may be such that by the time the next election comes around in two or three years time they will feel even less connected, more disfranchised and less interested than ever. Clearly that is a negative outcome.In speaking to the previous amendment I said that a possible effect may have been to benefit the coalition but that I would not suggest that was the motivation. With this particular amendment I feel a little more inclined to suggest that that is probably a strong motivation for the coalition because it will clearly disfranchise predominantly younger people. As all of us know, support for the coalition amongst younger people tends to be less than amongst older people, for whatever reason that may be. For that reason alone, I think it is something that should be pointed out and opposed.But more strongly than that, if we are going to amend the electoral system to benefit one party over another, if there is a proper underlying principle, then that will be the outcome. Clearly the underlying effect of this amendment, more than anything else, will be to disfranchise younger people, to destroy even further their faith and interest in the political process. We already have a major problem with that issue in this country, as I am sure we would all admit. We need to look at implementing measures that will improve that situation, not make it worse.12:09:002062Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The Greens agree with that. As far as I know, the first Greens legislation ever passed in this country was in 1989 and 1990 in the Tasmanian House of Assembly and it came from Reverend Lance Armstrong, the then member for Bass. The legislation was to protect young voters' rights in the same way we are trying to protect them by opposing this government move here. That was consequent upon an election being called by the then Premier, Mr Gray, on a Wednesday or Thursday afternoon and the rolls closing on the Friday afternoon. A lot of young Tasmanians did not have time to get on the rolls for that election, and they felt very frustrated, I can tell you. We had a lot of outpouring of frustration and anger about that.If we were to support the government move here, we would be aiding and abetting the same situation. It is unconscionable that we should change a current situation to one in which, as other speakers have said, some 80,000 young voters are likely to find themselves unable to vote in their first national election. That would only increase their cynicism as well as their sense of frustration about an electoral system that average citizens already feel too cut off from and too divorced from what goes on in their parliaments. We will not support the government in this move. The Greens will join with the ALP and the Democrats in trying to fend it off.12:11:002063Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government opposes the proposal put by the opposition. The government's view has been clearly stated in the second reading speech, and I will not go into it in great detail other than to say that the ideal is for there to be a continual updating of the roll. Past experience shows that over 400,000 transactions occur in the period between the issue of the writ and the close of the rolls. This places a great deal of strain on the Australian Electoral Commission. In that rush of transfers and new enrolments, the commission has to verify that indeed those transfers and enrolments are legitimate. The government is concerned that we concentrate more on those activities outside of the election cycle.As I mentioned earlier, the Electoral Commission has taken up an initiative with the government of Victoria to contact those young people who have just obtained a driver's licence with a view to getting them onto the rolls. This will be pursued with other states. You will see during the course of this year with our referendum that there will be a communications strategy whereby people will be urged to make sure that they update their details on the roll if they have moved or that they get on the roll if they are not on it. That is the ideal situation.This legislation allows three working days for anyone to notify change of address after the issue of the writ. That excludes public holidays and weekends. The government believes that is sufficient time for a person who is transferring to lodge that detail. In any event, that transferor is not disfranchised because that person is still entitled to vote in their old electorate.With respect to new enrolments, they make up some 80,000 of the in excess of 400,000 transactions I mentioned. We believe our strategies, which we are pursuing, will ensure that young people are not disfranchised but that it will be administratively more efficient to have enrolment on the day of the issue of the writ. For those reasons, the government maintains its initiative in this regard. This was a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. For those reasons, the government will oppose the proposal put by the opposition.12:14:002063Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I understand what the minister is saying and the material that has been put before us in respect of the over 400,000 transactions after the particular time of the issue of the writs. I am not convinced though that that should be the catalyst for amending the legislation, which has been in place for some considerable time and which does give recognition to the principle that persons who are eligible to vote be able to vote.I do not accept the pejorative terms or the inferences by Senator Bartlett and Senator Brown that this is some sort of conspiracy by the government to deny young people their vote. I was on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters years ago. I know this has been a concern of the Electoral Commission for some considerable time. I am very pleased to see that Senator Ellison and the government are taking action between elections to get on the rolls as many people as possible who are eligible to vote, particularly focusing attention on young people. So that does really give the lie to anybody who is criticising the government that this is some sort of attempt to be an electoral gerrymander.I would suggest to the committee that, if the government's attempts and initiatives are successful, as we all hope they are, at getting on the roll the maximum number of persons, largely young persons, as we know, who are eligible to vote, that will alleviate the situation and the difficulties that are experienced by the Electoral Commission now in respect of the huge number of transactions that take place after the issue of the writs. I believe that we should look to see how these initiatives are going to work out and whether they are going to be successful or not. I do hope that they are, but I am disinclined to vote for the government's amendments to the existing legislation. I believe that the status quo should remain and hope that the initiatives being undertaken by the government will be successful.12:18:002064Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I wish to respond very briefly to what Senator Harradine said about the spirit of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I think he is right. He accurately reflects what the spirit of the current provisions in the act are about. If this particular schedule of the bill is agreed to, some 80,000 new enrollees are going to be disfranchised. That means that no new elector can get on the roll once the election has been called and, of the 320,000 people who take the opportunity after an election is called to change their address, a very significant number, probably a couple of hundred thousand, will be voting in electorates in which they do not want to vote. They would actually want to enrol for the electorate in which they currently live.This really demonstrates the impact of the provisions in the bill and indicates very strongly the breach of the spirit of the way the Electoral Act has operated. Surely we are not about making it hard for Australians to cast their vote in the electorate in which they reside. We ought to be about reasonable provisions with reasonable time frames allowing the democratic process to proceed, understanding the sorts of constraints that the Electoral Commission have to operate under. They are the sorts of issues that Senator Harradine has also dealt with.I think this is a real breach of the spirit of the act and the way the electoral process has worked in this country. The provisions in this bill are not provisions that are going to encourage the democratic process. An awful lot of people will either lose the right to vote, or will not vote where they should. We do have a responsibility in this chamber to ensure that the act, which has worked well in this regard, is not changed in a way that will disfranchise so many Australians trying to do the right thing. On this occasion—it is not always the case—I do think that Senator Harradine's comments about the spirit of the act are quite right. I do not think it is something we would want to see changed.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—The question is that schedule 1, items 11, 12, 14, 28, 30 and 31 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to schedule 1, items 53 and 54.12:22:002064Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I am opposing items 13 and 15 to 17, and at a later stage hopefully I will get an opportunity to move my consequential amendment to the start-up date. We are dealing here with the issue of the enrolment period and, again, we have proposals which would disfranchise a number of voters, particularly itinerant electors, by requiring those electors to re-enrol within one month of moving. Previously, people were required to reside in their new electorate for a period of one month before being eligible for enrolment in that electorate. They then had 21 days to notify the AEC of their change of enrolment.These items cut that time back to only four weeks. Of course, there is a much greater concern here with itinerant electors. Item 17 seems to actually eliminate the entire category of itinerant electors. Item 17 provides:Subject to subsection (9), a person ceases to be eligible to be treated as an itinerant elector under this section as soon as the person becomes entitled to be enrolled for a Subdivision.The thing is that the other items in this group of proposed changes to the act provide that a person becomes entitled to be enrolled for a subdivision immediately, without a waiting period. Of course, then an elector would cease to be treated as an itinerant elector as soon as they moved somewhere.We did raise this anomaly during the debate on this bill in the House of Representatives, and I want to record in the Hansard the response the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration gave on this issue on behalf of the Australian Electoral Commission. He said:. . . while the proposed amendments would appear to severely limit an elector's ability to claim itinerant status in the application of the current provisions, the AEC has based the determination of eligibility not solely on the length of residency at a particular address but on whether that address is considered to be a permanent address of the elector—that is, one to which the elector has a fixed intention of returning to live on a permanent basis rather than just a temporary abode for a fixed period of time. The AEC advises that it will continue to adopt this approach in considering applications if the proposed amendments are passed into law.That is not good enough, and it is not a sufficient response to what I think is a significant issue, a real problem that the government and the AEC probably would have missed if the opposition actually had not drawn their attention to it. So we will not be supporting these provisions, these items, in the bill. I commend the opposition's approach to the committee.UNKNOWNThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—I think perhaps you may have jumped a set of proposals there. We are actually talking about items 53 and 54, which are about closing the rolls and the enrolment period.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I did, indeed. I thought you called me to deal with those items.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No, we are talking about items 53 and 54 standing as printed, and you have already made your point on that, I think.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—They are consequential provisions to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. I had made, I thought, a very effective point on those—absolutely correct. In relation to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act, of course, the same issue relates to that as relates to the Electoral Act itself. I think the same arguments stand, and I assume the will of the committee would equally apply to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 1, items 53 and 54 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to schedule 1, items 13, 15 to 17, 21 to 23 and 25 to 27. Senator Faulkner has already spoken on this.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Yes, I think I have spoken on it enough.12:27:002065Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I just indicate on this issue, for the reasons that Senator Faulkner has so eloquently outlined, that, likewise, the Democrats have concerns with the impact of these provisions and will be not supporting those parts of the legislation.12:28:002065Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I agree, and I think the committee needs to think about the effect that these provisions could have on the outcome of an election with people voting across borders in electorates they no longer belong to. We are talking here about a few thousand votes, potentially, in each electorate. You only have to look at the outcome of elections and see how they are decided by less than 100 votes on some occasions to see how this can materially change the outcome of elections, and that is not something that anybody wants. That is why the Greens also oppose these measures and believe that everything should be done to make the rolls correct, to empower voters to vote for the electorate in which they actually live and, of course, as we said before, to make sure that young voters are entitled to vote when it comes to polling day.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 1, items 13, 15 to 17, 21 to 23 and 25 to 27 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now have a revised amendment to be moved by the opposition.12:30:002065Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet 1234, revised:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (line 4), omit "13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27", substitute "19, 20 and 24".This the amendment that I was hanging out to move. It is effectively consequential on the matter we have just dealt with.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that the amendment be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question we now move to is that schedule 1, item 19 stand as printed.12:30:002066Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—In dealing with this particular issue we have got a very critical problem in that these items relate to regulations that the parliament has not yet had an opportunity to sight. I have just got a message that they may have actually—9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—They went out a couple of days ago.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—You may have sighted them a couple of days ago, minister, but I just heard from my office that they received a copy of them this morning. Would you accept, Minister, through the Temporary Chairman, that that is the case—that they have been provided while this debate is ensuing?9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—I thought that they had been provided earlier. I understand that they were provided this morning.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—That is the point I was making, Minister. They have been provided this morning. Because I have been otherwise occupied in the Senate chamber, I for one have not had an opportunity to have a look at them. There is a timing issue here. It is all very well to get these only, I gather, in draft form—even though I have not sighted them yet, but the Minister will confirm this at a later stage—but we have said since May last year, when this legislation was first introduced, that we did not want to support this item until we were satisfied that the draft regulations were acceptable.You have had an awful long time, Minister, to get your act together on this particular issue. I think that is a perfectly reasonable point to make. We have had platitudes from the government that we would be consulted in the drafting of the regulations and that the draft regulations would be made available. But it is nine months after the legislation was first introduced. Finally, the regulations have hit my office this morning. I do not know if they have hit other senators' offices. I suppose it is better that they hit your office before the bill is finally dealt with by the Senate than afterwards, so I will give a modicum of credit for that—but only a modicum, I can tell you. It is simply not good enough. I might say that there have not been any approaches by the government to consult us on the regulations.We are concerned that the witnessing of proof of identity and citizenship and hand lodgment of enrolment applications provisions and requirements are going to prove so laborious and unreasonable that people will be disfranchised or deterred from pursuing their eligibility.I have always questioned the government's motivation in relation to this. I think they are motivated by rampant paranoia that there is widespread electoral fraud. That is an unjustified paranoia, and I think it is now starting to diminish a little in the government. If you were going to be that paranoid and you have got hold of the reins of government and you have a good look at some of these issues, you would be starting to think that a little bit of evidence might come your way if there were any justification for the paranoia itself. Of course, there is not. I think it is paranoia rather than a real desire to improve the integrity of the electoral rolls that is motivating the government in this regard.These provisions will lead to an enormous rise in bureaucratic procedures. They will cost the best part of $4 million a year. We think that those sorts of funds would be far better spent on habitation reviews. It is those sentiments that are guiding the opposition's approach in relation to this particular item.I suppose we will have an opportunity, given that in 10 minutes the committee will have a break from the laborious examination of this legislation, to look at the draft regulations. I will be able to check when they were actually faxed to my office, at what particular time this morning they actually arrived, given that the government has had nine months to do it. We might be able to have a bit of a look at some of these regulations over the lunch break.Frankly, the government has not got its act together on this particular item. I think other senators would share my sentiments in relation to that. That is what will guide the opposition's approach. It is disappointing that the government, which has argued so strenuously that these are such serious matters, has not felt that it is able to involve or consult in any way or provide draft regulations to the opposition or any other senators to advance its case. I think its case is extremely flimsy.12:37:002067Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—On that point, we have a list of people which is much the same as the list of people who witness passports. That certainly is something which many Australians have. It is not such a bar to people to go through and find someone from a list of that sort. It is not often when we are debating legislation in the parliament that we have the consequential regulations available for consideration, but in this instance the government had to draft these regulations. We have had the intervening election, which taxed the resources of the AEC, and other matters. We had quite an extensive list here that had to be settled.These regulations are in draft form and they have been circulated. I urge fellow senators from all sides to look at the list because it really is comprehensive. It spans some three pages of people who could witness an enrolment. You have community leaders from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, you have professional people, you have consular people overseas for those Australians who are travelling, you have a number of employees of community groups and women's refuges, part-time and full-time teachers, pilots, a range of people in the area of the judiciary, staff of the Electoral Commission, members of the defence services and people who are involved in Australia Post. You have quite a range of people, even down to ministers of religion within the meaning of the Marriage Act. That really is an expansive list of people who can witness an enrolment.The current situation simply provides for any person who is eligible to enrol as a voter. That is a very wide class of person indeed. The government thinks that when you are enrolling it is an important transaction between the individual and the state and that there should be a level of scrutiny at that level of enrolment which recognises that fact. I mentioned earlier that when opening a bank account certain things are required. A much lesser requirement is made of someone who is getting onto the electoral roll. After all, that is a very important thing. It entitles you to exercise a very important right as a citizen of this country. So to have a list of people, albeit an expansive one, is important to ensure that the integrity of the process is maintained. This was recommendation No. 2 of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The government is strongly of the view that there should be this scrutiny.I understand that senators have been provided with a copy of these draft regulations. I have other copies here in case anyone wants to have a look. I see that Senator Bartlett would require a copy. I ask senators to have a look at this list. It also deals with the agencies where you can lodge your application for enrolment. That is important, too. It deals with things like the verification of Australian citizenship and the original documentation that is required from a person who wishes to enrol. So these draft regulations are not just dealing with a list of witnesses. There are other matters which have to be dealt with, as well. That, as you can see, was of some detail. I don't know whether Senator Brown has a copy of these regulations.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Only in my office.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—And Senator Harradine as well?6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Yes.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I urge this government proposal on the Senate as being a sensible one, and one which will not act as a bar to any person wishing to get on the roll. It will not act as an impediment. It will only heighten the integrity of the process of enrolling.12:42:002068Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I haven't seen these before, Minister, so I would not mind a bit of time to go through them—although I would be disinclined to support what is in the bill from my standing position on behalf of the Democrats because I would have concerns that any restriction on witnesses for people who wish to enrol may disenfranchise people. I am not convinced that such a restriction is necessary.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—The question is that schedule 1, item 19 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to schedule 1, item 20.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I think I heard Senator Harradine sotto voce vote `aye' then, didn't I?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That was my understanding, yes.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Just to clarify the matter not in a sotto voce way, yes, I voted aye.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I just didn't hear you, Senator; I should have been watching for those lips to move. I stand on a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. The only reason I raise this is that I don't want to have an unnecessary division, that's all, particularly at 12.44. I am very popular, as you know, in the Senate but my popularity might just go down the scales a little if I called a division that the opposition would lose at 12.44, when people might be thinking about their luncheon break.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I am not going to rule on your popularity, Senator, but there is no point of order on the matter that you have raised. It is almost 12.45, which is probably an appropriate time to report progress.Progress reported.Matters of Public Interest20682068The DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—Order! It being 12.45 p.m., we will now proceed to debate matters of public interest.206812:45:002068Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I rise to inform the Senate that tonight in my home town of Newcastle there is a very important public meeting. It is the Drug Crisis Public Meeting. I have lent my support to this meeting because it is absolutely vital that we start to find more effective solutions to the drug crisis facing our nation. The meeting tonight will have four themes: the drug problem and its effects; remedies being used today; rehabilitation today; and efforts by governments to combat the drug problem both here and overseas, with special emphasis on the Swedish experience.A panel of experts will address the issues. We will have Father Chris Riley from the Youth Off the Streets program who will be talking about the problem as it affects youth, and Angela Woods, the mother of Anna Woods, will discuss educating youth to avoid drugs. We will hear about rehabilitation practices here and overseas and the New South Wales shadow minister for health, Jillian Skinner, will release some of the coalition's policy for combating drugs. As yet no state ALP member has agreed to discuss their drug position, but I will get to the Carr government's record on this matter a little later.One of the most important issues to be discussed tonight is the concept of custodial rehabilitation. Susan and Allan Forrester, who have spent seven years and $50,000 fighting the heroin addiction of their daughter, will speak tonight as advocates of custodial rehabilitation. Members and senators might recall that in the weekend press both last weekend and the one before they told their story to the whole world, so desperate are they in their fight against drugs. They have seen what drugs have done to their own family and they do not want this to happen to other families.The drug crisis as it has spread through the families of the nation has reached epidemic proportions and it is time to consider some new measures. I know from talking to mothers, fathers and families of drug addicts how hard it is for drug users to help themselves. The craving for that one hit is often too strong for any individual to overcome once they have been hooked on drugs.I have been told, `If only there was a place where addicts could safely get medical help to overcome their addiction without being able to sign themselves out or get access to drugs.' The current problem is that addicts can leave their rehabilitation program and it only takes one hit to negate all the good work that has been done.Custodial rehabilitation for addicts who have been convicted of criminal offences overcomes this problem. When convicted, for example, by a drug court—which has just been established in New South Wales—an arrangement can be made where, for a reduced sentence, and with an agreement to spend the last year of that sentence in custodial rehabilitation, these young people can be put into a drug free environment and get real help. Without drugs and with other support programs, we can actually help them put their lives back together again. Unlike a lot of rehabilitation programs that are currently operating, under this system they cannot sign themselves in and out, and they are not tempted back into their old way of life.The current drug programs are not working effectively enough. I am not saying that this new approach is the be-all and end-all by any means. We need a whole range of strategies to help ameliorate the drug crisis. We need to put more resources in at both state and federal levels, and we need a greater range of programs to assist in this process. I have heard from people with personal experience that the way to really help an addict who wants to get clean is to make sure that they cannot get access to the drugs, and then they are given professional support.This crisis must be tackled, particularly in the state of the New South Wales which has the worst record. It seems that the Carr government is very slow in moving on this. What they have said as part of their election promise is that they will hold a drug summit after the election. We have the worst record in New South Wales. This state Carr ALP government has now been in power for four years and their solution is to hold a crisis meeting after the election. The crisis is actually happening now and addicts and their families have waited long enough.In the report Drugs, money and governments, the Carr government was identified as the worst performing state government in dealing with its drug problem. The report found that in New South Wales expenditure on health related programs to deal with drug treatment and rehabilitation actually dropped in 1996-97. The report says:It is disappointing to note the very poor performance of the New South Wales government. New South Wales 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.In 1996 half of Australia's heroin overdoses occurred in New South Wales, even though it only accounts for around one-third of the nation's population.No-one from the Carr government, not even one of the local Labour MPs—and I have written to all of them—has agreed to come to tonight's meeting or to participate. I suppose we cannot be too surprised about that; they must be very embarrassed about their own government's record on this matter. Meanwhile the opposition health spokesperson, Jillian Skinner, is eager to share what the coalition will do to fight drugs. She will be there tonight and will actually announce part of the drug policy at tonight's meeting.At a federal level the coalition government can be very proud of what it has done. It has released the biggest anti-drug strategy in Australia's history with its $290 million Tough on Drugs strategy. This is already making significant progress in fighting the drug crisis. It is a four-pronged approach over four years: firstly, protecting our borders by giving more than $50 million to protect Australia from the international drug trade; secondly, busting the dealers by providing more than $100 million to fight this type of crime; thirdly, funding for schools to educate our children about the dangers of drug abuse; and fourthly, the coalition's policy of zero tolerance of illicit drugs in our schools.These approaches are combining to help fight this problem, but probably the most important area we really need to focus on is treatment. At the federal level, we are putting $100 million into this program to assist drug users kick the habit and to provide support for their families. This includes more than $50 million over four years for non-government treatment services.The coalition's Tough on Drugs policy is the biggest single anti-drug initiative taken in the country. In addition, the Prime Minister recently announced funding of $60 million for a new youth homelessness early intervention program. The funding will provide almost 100 new services across the country for assistance for young people and their families. These services will be aimed at reducing youth homelessness, as well as supporting young people who may be at risk of youth suicide, drug and alcohol abuse and prolonged unemployment.The federal government has been proactive on this issue, but I believe that all governments need to commit more resources to rehabilitation. For this reason, I look forward to tonight's public meeting in Newcastle, where real solutions to the drug crisis will be discussed. I look forward to sharing with the Senate the outcomes of tonight's public meeting.207012:53:002070O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—In September 1996, nearly 2½ years ago, former Senator Bob Collins asked questions of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee about honey exports to New Zealand. He asked when negotiations with New Zealand had commenced for both the exportation of honey from Australia to that country and the importation of New Zealand honey to Australia. Dr Kahn, a senior AQIS officer, told the Senate committee that we had been importing New Zealand honey for four years. She advised, incorrectly, that some honey from Western Australia was being exported to New Zealand.However, in a subsequent hearing of that committee, AQIS corrected its earlier evidence. The new answer was that New Zealand had agreed in principle to let our honey in but wanted assurances about areas' freedom from certain diseases on the basis that that would not be an unreasonable request. The hurdle put in place by the New Zealand government frankly did not appear that high at the time. Dr Kahn advised the committee that:The information required for exports out of Western Australia is simply surveillance information—That sounds innocent enough. She said that her advice from Western Australia was that the state already had data it thought sufficient to satisfy the New Zealanders. She also suggested that it might be possible to establish heat treatment procedures to enable exports of honey from other states.In a written answer to the committee from AQIS, the committee was made aware of the full facts of the case. AQIS said that negotiations commenced in 1990 and New Zealand honey producers were given access to our market in 1991. AQIS also advised that it was given draft conditions by New Zealand for access to its market in November 1995. New Zealand also requested further information about heat treatment to eliminate European foul brood as it is called. I asked that same question again on 26 February this year. The answer was basically the same. We continue to allow New Zealand honey to access our markets, but according to Dr Kahn's memory, we still cannot access theirs. That is still dependent on preparation of a case and presentation of data to the New Zealand ministry.The honey industry is not the biggest industry in Australia, but it is an important industry. According to the Australian beekeeping industry, particularly in a report prepared for that group at the beginning of last year, the gross value of production for the industry is between $60 million and $65 million a year. It is, however, an important income generator for rural and regional communities, and it is estimated that between 9,000 and 12,000 tonnes of honey are exported per annum. It is not a big number but it is important enough.I raise the issue today not only on behalf of the Australian honey industry—who you would understand have become completely frustrated with their failure to be granted access to the New Zealand market; in fact, the information that has been given to me indicates that they have all but given up hope—but also in the wider context of the Howard government's approach to both trade liberalisation and the legitimate domestic industries. Take trade negotiations with New Zealand over honey. New Zealand accessed our market quick smart, but we are still waiting, nearly eight years after our application, to access theirs. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that it is the view of this government that the Australian honey industry is not big enough to worry about. The tone of the latest answer would appear to confirm that view. In fact, it was quite a jocular answer, as I recall it.When Labor was in office, the Australian government did facilitate New Zealand honey's access to our market but, apparently now, according to the government, it is really up to the Australian industry itself to obtain access to the New Zealand market. In the Howard administration, there is an unfortunate parallel between this industry and other intensive rural activities. Their interests are not high on the government's agenda when it comes to assisting them to expand or when it comes to protecting them. In this case, I am talking about the quite legal protection under World Trade Organisation rules if they suffer damage from surging imports.Apparently, this government sees industries such as the chicken industry, pork industry and the feedlot industry as expendable and appears to be treating them accordingly. Unfortunately, I must say from the point of view of my state, this theme appears likely in the Howard government's approach in the upcoming budget to a number of industries in Tasmania. At the last federal election there were two federal programs that were the subject of much debate in Tasmania: the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme and the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme. The continuation of both of those schemes is vital to industry in Tasmania. Together they provide relief against cost disadvantages faced by many Tasmanian industries and, therefore, they underpin many jobs that rely upon trade and transport across Bass Strait.In the lead-up to the federal election, the Howard government committed itself to upgrading the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme to the tune of an additional $15 million a year. The Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman, also committed the government to a continuation of the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme, but gave no commitment as to an adequate level of funding. I pursued the future of both schemes at recent estimates hearings because I was interested in just where the government was on these matters. A senior officer from the department told me that cabinet was yet to consider the recommendations of the Nixon inquiry into the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. He said the actual impact of the review on the scheme would not be known until cabinet actually makes a final decision in the budget context about the acceptance of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme review recommendations.The minister responsible for administration of the scheme, Senator Ian Macdonald, gave me an assurance that the additional funding of $15 million was an election commitment. I knew that already, as did many people in Tasmania, from the election campaign. He said the commitment would go into the budget process. We knew that as well. But he could not say what would come out at the other end of that process. Even though he is directly responsible for the TFES, he was unable to say which of the Nixon recommendations might succeed and which might not succeed in the cabinet process.Officers of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry also confirmed that there is no money for the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme next year—that is, the scheme will literally run out of money on 30 June. That scheme was introduced in 1989 by a Labor government to provide assistance to cover blue water freight, wharfage and unloading costs associated with shipping wheat and other grain, I think, across Bass Strait. It was reviewed in 1993 and 1994 and was extended for a further five years at a rate of $2.7 million a year. Funding was also provided to help meet the costs of upgrading handling and storage capacity in Tasmania. This was based on dollar-for-dollar funding arrangements with the state government. But soon after taking office in March 1996, the Howard government all but gutted the scheme. It removed all infrastructure assistance and cut the actual subsidy to just $1.2 million for a period of three years.During the estimates I asked officials from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry whether the government had reviewed the effectiveness of the scheme. I was told there had been no review. This government has not checked to see whether the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme needs more money or less money. It had not checked to see whether the scheme should be improved in any way. So all of the Tasmanian industries underpinned by that scheme—such as the chicken industry, the pork industry, the stockfeed industry and the baking industry—and the 1,600 workers in those industries whose jobs rely on the scheme will not know until the second week in May whether the scheme—and possibly their jobs—will still be there after June.I also asked the government whether it had looked at the possible impact on these industries and the workers who work in them if the Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme is shut down. Surprising to some perhaps the answer was no, there had been no such inquiry. So federal cabinet, apparently, will consider the future of the scheme without any assessment of its effectiveness and without any assessment of the employment consequences of its termination. This will, therefore, be a decision based on politics and not on proper analysis and sensible public policy. Frankly, this is no way to do business.Given the importance of these intensive industries to Tasmania and the jobs which they sustain and given the lack of any assessment of the effectiveness or otherwise of the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme, this government has no choice—I say no choice—but to continue its funding beyond 30 June. It is also important that a formal commitment to the future of the scheme be given as a matter of urgency. As I say, people should not have to wait until after the budget to know what their future is. Such a decision, therefore, cannot wait until the second week in May. Those businesses, industries and employees need to know. The government should also as a matter of urgency initiate discussions with the users of the scheme to see where it might be improved. Frankly, if this government is not prepared to undertake these discussions, then perhaps the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee might have to do its job for it.Sitting suspended from 1.06 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice207220722072Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Will the minister now retract her statement from question time yesterday when she said, `I think it is very sad that those who purport to speak for the poor and the disadvantaged frequently do so with total ignorance?' Has the minister's attention been drawn to Treasurer Costello's comments on the same Anglican Church report, when he said, `I think this is probably the strongest statement you have ever seen from a church in favour of a GST,' and wholeheartedly welcomed the report? Has the minister passed on to the Treasurer her strong view that the report he praised and welcomed is based on total ignorance? Will the minister now admit that she clearly had not familiarised herself with the contents of the report before she wandered into the Senate to bucket the Anglican Church?2072Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—When I was asked that question yesterday, I was particularly concerned that we constantly hear from people, who work either in the religious area or in the community welfare area, who have not done their homework before making statements on areas for which they do not have specialist expertise. This was not par ticularly directed to my own church; it is frequently the case. I have seen it happen when the Labor Party was in government, and it has not stopped. I have a pretty good impression, for instance, of Anglicare in the provision of services. My portfolio pays quite a lot of money to Anglicare, as well as Centacare and other community organisations, for the provision of services to needy people in our community. It does not mean to say that they are experts on the tax system. In the announcement that was made yesterday by the Anglican media, Anglicare was arguing against a tax on food. Anglicare obviously has not done its homework, because it is crystal clear from the evidence that has been given to the Senate committees by a long list of experts in this area that taxing food is equitable, is simple and is the best way to go for Australia.We do not want to have small business tied up in knots with great overheads, such as in Britain which has so many exemptions that small business finds it a real burden, we do not want to go that route, because we believe small business has the best chance of helping needy people in Australia get a job, get off welfare dependence and not need the support of the state. That is obviously the best outcome for everybody. I would have thought that the Anglican Church, like other churches and community organisations, would also believe that welfare dependency is not the best option. If you can help people get off welfare and into a job, you are doing them the best service you can.If small business is tied up in knots with the exemptions to a complicated indirect tax system, we have done small business no good and we have potentially done no good for those who need jobs. We on this side of the parliament are concerned about the equity of the system too. The evidence that has been given to the Senate committees is quite clear—the expenditure by rich families and poor families is pretty much constant on such basics as food and clothing, it is reasonable to continue to use the CPI as a determinant, and across the board families are treated equally and will not be disadvantaged by the measures. No, none of those families will be worse off.The Labor Party can make a lot of noise and has continued to do so, but it is not only the government making these allegations about equity and simplicity but also the most respected tax experts in our country. I think it would be wiser of church bodies and community organisations who do not have the expertise to take careful note of what the experts have given by way of evidence.2073Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I note your claims about these organisations not having sought any expert information, which confirms that you are not across what the witnesses have been saying to us in our hearings. I note that you also said in your answer that small businesses could be tied up in knots with compliance costs, et cetera. Why is it that you would argue against compliance costs for small business but not compliance costs for charities like Anglicare—one of the organisations that has said that this will be a great contributor to the costs of their organisation and therefore make it harder for them to deliver the very services that you say you want? Minister, are you also going to raise your points of difference with the Treasurer?2073Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Perhaps another piece of information would help Senator Crowley. The tax office has estimated that Australia will have less than half the number of tax administrators as Britain have per capita. Australia will have one tax official per 390 businesses, while Britain has one for every 149 businesses due to the large number of exemptions in the UK especially on food. That is a pretty important piece of information, Senator Crowley, which I am sure you did not have before. It would also be interesting for organisations like Anglicare, because if Anglicare had that information then they might have a slightly different approach to the equity or otherwise of the package. I have their press release right here. It is pretty clear that they talk about reducing the heavy burden that a GST imposes on the less well-off. The experts across the community say otherwise. (Time expired)20742074O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Senator Alston. Minister, the coalition's tax reforms will deliver tax cuts worth $13 billion a year, remove the worst state taxes, reduce export costs by $4.5 billion a year and reduce costs to business by $10 billion a year. What would be the impact for small business and jobs, however, if food were exempted from tax reform?2074Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I think we all know how vital small business is to job creation in this country. Indeed, something like 50 per cent of the work force is now employed in the small business sector; and, of the 1.2 million new jobs net over the last decade, more than 90 per cent have been in small business. So it is clearly critical to ensure that small business is not handicapped, that it does not have lead in its saddlebags when it is trying to get on with the business of earning a living and employing more Australians. So what would be the consequences if we were to go down this minefield that the Democrats and the Labor Party are advocating? Just look at Canada, for example. This is the sort of nonsense that you get when you try to draw these distinctions, when you try to work out where the boundary lines are. Revenue Canada says:The federal government is introducing amendments to clarify and simplify the tax treatment of salad sandwiches and other prepared foods. The new rules clarify that salads that are canned or vacuum sealed are zero rated. Sandwiches and similar products will be subject to the GST unless they are frozen.Then it had to put out a change, saying:On page 7 paragraph 40 of this publication, please delete the reference to gingerbread houses. Gingerbread houses and similar products are generally zero rated and not taxable at 7 or 15 per cent.So trying to exempt food would be an absolute nightmare, a legal maze, a quagmire into which small business would sink without any compensation for it. In the UK they have sought to exempt food. What does that mean? You get these inevitable boundary distinctions between `Is it raw, is it processed, is it fro zen?' The rule is that, if sold at the ambient temperature, it is exempt. What happens is that you sell someone a cold pie across the counter so that it is exempt, and then you offer to heat it up for him free of charge. If you go into a milk bar on a very hot day wanting to buy a cold drink, you have to pay more if it is frozen because it then attracts a VAT. So you get all these extraordinary propositions. Confectionary is exempt. How do you define `confectionary'? It is defined as `any item of sweetened prepared food which is normally eaten with the fingers'. So, in other words, presumably a lollipop bar is exempt, but a muesli bar is not.Senator Schacht interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—I do not know what Senator Schacht eats—probably everything with his fingers. So he would be in there demanding an exemption. You just cannot have this going on. Here is another classic: standard biscuits include gingerbread men decorated with chocolate, unless it amounts to no more than a couple of dots for eyes. Fruit and vegetable pops are zero rated. So fruit and vegetable, on the face of it, is exempt. But if it is sold as an accompaniment to a hot meal, then it is not. So on it goes. Juice and juice concentrates are at a standard rating, whereas fruit and vegetables are zero rated. Corn chips are zero rated; potato chips are not. `What about yoghurt?' I hear you ask. All sizes of yoghurt will be zero rated when supplied in grocery or convenience stores. This includes single servings sold individually, except when supplied in restaurants and other eating or food service establishments for immediate consumption. `Immediate' is another critical word; if it is `delayed' it is different. Supplies of yoghurt made through vending machines and single servings of frozen yoghurt remain subject to the GST. On and on it goes, all in aid of lawyers' picnics, no doubt. All the smart draftsmen will be having a field day.This is an administrative jungle. What will happen is that small business will spend more and more time on less and less, so that eventually they will have to spend most of their time going to see the lawyers and the accountants in order to arrange how to success fully wind up their business. How does that come about? Because of all the unnecessary paperwork and boundary distinctions that you lot still seem to support. (Time expired)2075O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Out of concern for the manufacturers of gingerbread men and all the other small business men and women who would have to deal with the nightmare, perhaps the minister might be kind enough to outline the consequences in terms of administration costs to small business if the government were to cave in to the nonsense we hear from the other side of the chamber.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—His brains are zero rated!2075Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—You will be entirely exempt on that count, can I assure you, Senator Campbell. Small business operators would spend all their time sitting by the fax machine, scanning the legal notices, waiting for the latest amendment and change, attending training courses and reading the mail for the latest updates from the tax office. The Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants estimates that attempts to exempt food from the GST would cost the economy over $100 million a year in compliance costs. You have heard Senator Newman say that, in the UK, they have more than twice as many tax inspectors as we have.So, what would happen is that you would have a huge hairsplitting brigade. You would have people hiding around corners, waiting to see whether you actually sold something hot or cold. You would have all the smart operators trying to artificially arrange their food so that they redefined `ambient temperature' or they were able to process it in a particular way. The challenges are endless but all to the detriment of small business—and this is not what the game ought to be about at all. (Time expired)20752075Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Newman. Does the minister now regret her refusal to defend the Australian Air Force at estimates last week? Does the minister still have no opinion about the nature of the allegations made of the Air Force by Dick Smith after those allegations have been systematically and comprehensively refuted by senior officials of the department she represents?2075Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer is no.20752075Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—My question is also to Senator Newman, but it is a sensible one—that is the difference. As the whole world knows, the coalition government has proposed a sweeping reform of the Australian tax system, with compensation for low income earners. The minister would be aware of recent endorsements of the compensation proposed by the coalition government as part of its tax reform. Minister, would you please inform the Senate of the responses to those compensation measures by those very same people?2075Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Yes, it is true that one of the peak welfare lobby groups in Australia, namely ACOSS, has concluded that low income earners on average would be better off under the tax reforms. The Australian Council of Social Service have appeared before the Senate select committee on a new tax system. At the committee hearing and in their submission to the committee, ACOSS have recognised that the government's compensation package for people on low incomes exceeds the average increase in the cost of living. That is in line with what the government has said all along since the release of a new tax system. The compensation package of a four per cent increase in all maximum rates of social security, veteran and student pensions and allowances provides a 1.5 per cent real increase in the value of these payments. This 1.5 per cent increase is on top of compensation for the effect of the tax package on the consumer price index.The ACOSS submission demonstrated that adequate compensation is in the package for age pensioners, couples with children, sole parents, and single and couple recipients of Newstart, and for sickness payments and disability support pension. The ACOSS submission also noted substantial strength in the government's proposals, such as reducing by over 20 per cent effective marginal tax rates for most low income families, maintaining an integrated system of family assistance for working and non-working families, simplifying the system of family income support by combining 12 separate forms of assistance to families into three, substantially increasing the rate of assistance provided to sole parent families and retaining a separate system of payments to assist parents with the cost of child care.It is interesting that those who would soon make judgment on this tax reform package are not prepared to listen to what ACOSS has to say about it. It is very pleasing that ACOSS has recognised these elements of the tax reform package. The lessening of poverty traps, which were left to run unchecked during the Labor years, the ones facing low income groups and the greater assistance that is provided to families, are cornerstones of the tax reforms and should, one would have thought, had the unanimous endorsement of all parties in the parliament. But the ALP response to ACOSS was simply one of displeasure and discomfort, because they have backed the wrong horse. Australia needs a new tax system. Australia's families need it. ACOSS blew the whistle through their Melbourne Institute study as to how people would be advantaged by tax reform.20762076Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. Can the minister inform the Senate and Australian pensioners whether a one-off payment from the sell-off of the New South Wales power industry would be classified as income, assets or a gift for the purposes of the Social Security Act? Can the minister confirm that, if it is classified as income, this payment will reduce or eliminate a fortnight's benefit, drastically reducing the cash in hand for low income pensioners and recipients of benefits? If shares are classified as an asset, is it not possible that this bribe could affect beneficiaries through the operation of the assets test threshold, deeming rules and the rules for health concession cards? If the cash or shares are classified as a gift, which would reduce the effect on social security benefits, does this not highlight the vote buying intention of Ms Chikarovski's policy—straight out gifts for votes?2076Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I do not have all the detail of the proposal. Nevertheless, I am very happy to help the chamber in general terms as to how these dividends would be treated by Social Security. The shares or cash in lieu of shares are not treated as income for social security pensioners, and that is consistent with the treatment of shares that were received as part of the demutualisation processes for example in AMP. The shares would be treated as financial assets under the assets test and deemed to be earning income. Money in lieu of shares which is held by the customer, for example in a bank account, will be a financial asset and deemed. I do recall that the back to school payment that was paid by the New South Wales government from 1998 was treated in the same way. The bottom line is that for most customers, as I am advised by my department, there would be no impact on their rate of pension.2076Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, if the shares are not classified as an asset, as you have indicated they will be treated, is it not quite likely that this bribe actually could affect pensioners and beneficiaries through the operation of the assets test threshold, deeming rules and the rules for health concession cards? You mentioned the back to school allowance of the New South Wales government. Minister, is it not likely that this policy of Ms Chikarovski is far more likely to affect pensioners than the back to school allowance?2076Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Clearly Senator Faulkner is not aware of the fact that most people applying for assistance under social security legislation never get knocked out by assets tests because they are fairly generous and people do not reach them. The addition of $1,100 worth of shares is most unlikely to take people over the assets test limit. The advice of my department, which has a very good handle on what the assets are of people on our payments, is that for most customers there would be no impact on their assets whatsoever and their pension.20772077Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, is it true that there are 2.4 million people employed in small business? Is it true that federal unfair dismissal applications for small business in 1998 have halved to 2,861, a minute percentage of those employees? Has the minister read the evidence from Australia Business Ltd that small business is woefully ignorant of the 1996 changes to the unfair dismissal provisions within the Workplace Relations Act? Since the government spent nearly $20 million telling Australians about tax before legislation was even introduced, how much has the government spent and how much does it intend spending on educating one million small businesses on the changes to federal unfair dismissal laws which did pass the parliament and are working well and have halved the rate?2077Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I cannot, off the top of my head, confirm the numbers of those small businesses or those employed in small businesses. It sounds about right. I do not know the number of applications or whether they have halved or any other figure, but obviously these figures move around a fair bit. Yesterday I think I quoted a figure of something in the order of 15,000 and an aggregate of something like 55,000 over a period of several years. Quite clearly, any level of applications that are not particularly meritorious but result in commercial compromise decisions being made in order to basically get on with the job are fundamentally unhelpful. They are not in aid of protecting those who have been wrongly deprived of their employment. In many instances, they are simply a prospective way of trying to get additional funds out of an employer.I do not think it is correct to say that small business is woefully ignorant about the unfair dismissal proposals. These are a matter of community notoriety. You do not have to be in small business to know that this is a major problem. All of the small business peak organisations, who presumably survey their members on a regular basis, will tell you in spades that this is far and away a very big matter of concern for small business. You do not have to be a world champion to be aware of all the representations that are made to us by all sorts of people who are actual and prospective small business operators. They all know as a matter of commonsense that, if you are going to be tied up in red tape, if you are going to have the might of the trade union movement rushing you off to the arbitration commission—no doubt keeping themselves gainfully employed whilst clogging up the small businesses—it is not in anyone's best interests.I do not accept for a moment that there is a woeful level of ignorance. However, there may well still be a need to inform people about the way in which a majority of parties in this Senate chamber have consistently refused to support very sensible amendments—ones which we took to the last election and which we had made abundantly clear was a critical part of our package of flexing up the labour market. I think a lot more people need to understand who did it, not just this amorphous term `the Senate blocked them'. The fact is that the Labor Party blocked them, with the Democrats' help. That is how they came to be blocked. If either of those parties had chosen to acknowledge that we ran on this issue and to look at the evidence of a number of small businesses, they would not have been able to get away—3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. I am finding the minister's answer helpful, but the question was: how much are you spending, and will you spend, on educating them?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.LD4Senator ALSTON—I will find out the precise figures, but if Senator Murray was putting to me that the number of cases actually determined has fallen quite significantly then, of course, that would be a meaningless statistic. It would simply mean that a lot more were settled because people were not prepared to go right through the torture—3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Applications.LD4Senator ALSTON—For all sorts of reasons these numbers can move around. I will find out what the precise figure is and get back to you.2078Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I appreciate the minister's response. Does the minister know that the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry says that half of all small businesses in Tasmania are in fear of the federal unfair dismissal laws but that the total number of small business applications was only 56 in Tasmania? Does the minister know that 53 per cent of unfair dismissal applications are resolved in favour of employers? Is it not true that only 2,861 unfair dismissal applications for small business is an irrelevant fact to the government, and that the reality is that you just want to hire and fire at will?2078Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I think Senator Murray's bottom line reveals his prejudice in the matter. This is recognised around the world as a very significant inhibitor to job creation. To have a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of small business—Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—If 53 per cent are resolved in favour of employers, I do not know what that tells you. It probably means that, in most instances, the applicants give it away at the last minute when they know they do not have a case. It can tell you anything. Those sorts of statistics are just not helpful. Certainly the number of applications is quite relevant, because the more there are, the more the problem, but there should not need to be very many at all. I do not accept for a moment that there are thousands of employers going around deliberately wanting to sack people for no good reason. I do not accept that proposition. I do, however, accept that there are occasions when there are some—AW5CARRSenator Carr—What about Patrick's?LD4Senator ALSTON—Don't get us going on Patrick's. There are some occasions when rogue employers will act wrongly, just as there will be employers who will harass employees wrongly. (Time expired)20782078Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. I refer to the repeated claims that the minister makes that those on low incomes will not suffer under a GST and to her dismissal of the government's critics. How can the minister maintain that the many people her department assists will not suffer, when her department was not involved in the development of the tax package, her department was not involved in the modelling of the tax package and her department has admitted it has done no work to determine the impact of the tax package on its own clients?2078Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am afraid the premise on which the senator's question was based is utterly wrong. Therefore, there is nothing to answer.2078Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the minister says it is the wrong premise, can the minister explain what action she has taken to discipline the officers of her department who gave that evidence to the community affairs committee only last week? The department's evidence was that there was no modelling, there was no involvement by the department and they had done no analysis of the impact on its clients. If the department lied—because you are suggesting that they have lied to us—what have you done to correct it?2078Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am suggesting no such thing. I am saying that an officer from my department at the most senior level was seconded to Treasury for the whole process.20782078Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I refer to a letter from Computer Sciences Corporation saying that the corporation has `made a commitment to the Minister of Education' to donate computer equipment being replaced in electoral offices `to the Computer for Schools Program'. I ask the minister whether the minister for education has insisted on that commitment? 2079Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I can advise Senator Brown that the company concerned, CSC, has committed itself to supplying about 80 per cent of the 5,200 desktop PCs replaced since last November to schools as part of the Computers for Schools program. This 80 per cent target is one which, I understand, will be achieved and can be achieved, notwithstanding what has been said in relation to electorate staff having access to the computers which I think are in the region of three years old. There is no problem whatsoever with this program meeting its goals. In fact, last year, when I was minister for schools, CSC was well on the way to getting these computers out to the various schools across Australia. There has been no necessity, that I am aware of, for the minister to make any insistence at all. As I understand it, CSC is on target for its 80 per cent commitment and that can be achieved as well as providing other computers to electorate staff.2079Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question, as that was an unsatisfactory answer. I put it to the minister that the 20 per cent is the figure that applies to those computers that are in MPs' electorate offices, so that the computers are going to come from elsewhere in the bureaucracy and go to schools, but, when it comes to MPs' offices—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Your question, Senator?QD4Senator BROWN—Is it a fact that the minister is not going to insist on the commitment that the computers from MPs' offices go to the Australian schools program? I note—for the minister's edification—that the letter from Computer Sciences Corporation did not say 80 per cent. It said `all the replaced Personal Computers and printers in the electorate office' of MPs `would be donated to the program'.2079Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—As I said earlier, CSC Australia has committed itself to 80 per cent of those computers going to the Computers for Schools program. I do not think I can make it any clearer than that. The commitment to the electorate staff, as I understand it, does not impinge upon that commitment; and that is the end of it.20792079Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. Does the minister recall that, during the recent election campaign, the government assured residents of mobile home and caravan parks—most of whom are clients of her department—that under the GST they would be treated the same as other renters, such as residents in flats? Is it true the government maintained that the site fee would be input taxed—that is, that the operator would have to pay—and this price increase would not be passed on to residents? Is it further true that, despite these earlier assurances, the government is now proposing to apply the GST directly to the site fee paid by residents—that is, 100 per cent of the fee paid by short-term residents and 50 per cent of the fee paid by long-term residents? How does the minister explain this turnaround?2079Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Mobile home owners will not be disadvantaged under the GST. The effect for long-term residents in mobile homes will be similar to the effect for private renters—that is, around 2.3 per cent. That increase is more than covered by the increases to pensions and benefits mentioned.20792079Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. The coalition government was re-elected with a clear mandate to reform Labor's outdated, 30-year-old, totally failed tax regime. Will the minister explain how tax reform will benefit our indigenous Australians, particularly those living in remote areas?2079Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Ferris for the question and thank her also for her interest in tax reform and her representation of South Australians—South Australian Aboriginal communities as well. I am pleased to be able to say that the tax package will be of considerable benefit to indigenous Australians, particularly those living in remote and isolated areas. In fact, all low income people living in remote areas, whether indigenous or not, will benefit from the government's tax reform package. In developing the package, we have been very careful to ensure that people who are geographically isolated get as much benefit from tax reform as people living in cities and towns. In specific terms, increases in social security payments and income tax cuts are part of a raft of important compensation measures. These measures will ensure that indigenous people on low incomes, income support and CDEP not only are compensated for the impact of the goods and services tax but also share in the gains of the new system.Social security payments will be increased by 4 per cent to cover an estimated cost of living increase of around 1.9 per cent. Income support benefits will be kept 1.5 per cent higher than they would have been had the normal indexation arrangements applied. In remote areas, where costs can be higher, we have allowed sufficient margin to ensure people are not disadvantaged. Even research by Allen Consulting, commissioned by ATSIC, suggests a cost of living impact of less than four per cent. It also has to be remembered that the indigenous median age is about half that of the wider community. Indigenous families are larger and younger, so they will also receive substantial benefits from increased family allowances.While some food items might increase, many will, in fact, be cheaper because of the abolition of wholesale sales tax. The reduction of diesel fuel excise will significantly cut transport costs for heavy vehicles, by up to 19 cents a litre. These savings will be passed on to consumers and will be of particular benefit to people living in remote and isolated areas. I note that the Road Transport Forum and the Northern Territory Road Transport Association agree with that proposition. They say that the reduction in diesel excise costs will result in reduced transport costs. They see benefits flowing on to consumers at the supermarket shelf and the petrol bowser. Community groups and businesses in remote communities will also benefit from a range of new measures. This includes an average 3.2 per cent reduction in operating costs.So, Madam President, I have much pleasure in informing Senator Ferris—although she did not particularly need that information because she was aware of it, to a large degree, but I think many people are unaware—of the positive benefits for remote indigenous communities because of the overall nature of the tax package, which will compensate them disproportionately to those in cities. This is because of the demographic factors that are included in the tax package.20802080Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. Can the minister explain the reason behind her refusal to schedule a meeting with the state and territory ministers for disability issues until, I believe, the second week in April, despite expressing concern at the high level of unmet need with disability services? Is the minister aware the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare commissioned a report as part of the review of the first Commonwealth-state disability agreement, which revealed that there were at least 13,400 people with a disability who have some element of unmet accommodation and respite care demand? Can the minister explain how delaying this consultation process by five months will see issues progressed for any of those 13,400 people still waiting for assistance?2080Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—It is an important question that Senator Crossin has asked, and I appreciate her asking it. You will recall that prior to the election Warwick Smith was the minister responsible for disability services. He and the state ministers had agreed to meet again late in the year—probably December, but no date was finalised—to discuss this very issue of unmet need. When I was given this expanded portfolio by the Prime Minister in mid-October, it was important for us to put together a portfolio which had a very wide ranging number of responsibilities across child care, disabilities, income support, housing, et cetera. It was not possible for me to meet with the state ministers in December as had been talked about but not scheduled. I then worked with the ministers to set a date, which is the first date that everybody could be present together. From memory, I think that is about 9 April. I think it is an important meeting that we are planning to have.However, you should understand that in your question you were talking about accommodation and respite services. Those in fact are the responsibilities largely, almost entirely, of the states. The Commonwealth does provide them with a considerable sum of money towards that, but there is divided responsibility, by agreement with the states: the Commonwealth takes responsibility for income support for people with disabilities and employment services for people with disabilities and the states take responsibility for accommodation, respite and support services.In that context, as ministers we will be looking across state and Commonwealth governments at how this very difficult problem of unmet need will be met in each of our own areas of responsibility. It would be remiss of me to not point out that this is not something that has just happened. This is something that has been happening over the last 10, 15 or even 20 years. It is not something that will be easily solved; it is something on which governments will have to work together very carefully.One of the things I was saying this week in answer to a question about tax reform was very appropriate to this issue: the states will shortly have flowing to them $25 billion of revenue from the GST, which will enable them to improve their services in the disabilities area. This reform is something which many premiers are either publicly or privately saying that they cannot wait to see happen. They need that money. We cannot have states to continue to go cap in hand to Canberra to get money for basic services. That was the system we inherited. Our government has taken the decision to reform the whole of the tax system, including payments to the states. The GST will provide them with an assured revenue stream, which will grow over the years as the population grows and as more people are brought into the tax system compared with those who are now avoiding it. That is how over time more good can be done for people with disabilities.2081Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, we are more than aware of the relationship between the states and territories and the Commonwealth when it comes to funding these services. Therefore, are you aware that delaying this meeting until April will leave an inadequate time frame for charitable and community groups to examine and digest any recommendations or outcomes, therefore denying these groups informed participation in the budget 1999 submission process?2081Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—On the contrary, my department has been meeting with organisations who have an interest in this matter for some time. Only today I met with ACROD. They will be having more meetings with the government between now and 9 April. I do not think there has been a lack of consultation. Their views are being taken into serious consideration as the providers of many of the services we are talking about.20812081Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I refer to the minute from his departmental secretary dated 23 December last year concerning Jabiluka. It stated:A key focus will be on lobbying capitals to assert a whole of government approach on their Committee members.Minister, does that mean you do not want UNESCO committee members to decide based on world heritage obligations? Instead, isn't the government using political pressure to get member countries to vote with Australia? Isn't this grossly inappropriate behaviour which threatens to subvert the World Heritage Committee? Isn't this systematic interference with member countries? Why is the minister using thuggish pressure to get his way?2081Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—It is a pity that Senator Allison did not speak to her colleague Senator Bartlett, who represented her at the estimates committee last night and heard about two hours of answers to that particular question because it was repeated so often.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—They were not convincing at all.BH4Senator HILL—The position is that Australia needs to correct the falsities of the Australian Democrats, the Australian Labor Party and others who have so badly misrepresented the true position in relation to Jabiluka.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—All the prominent leading scientists don't say that.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Bolkus cease interjecting.BH4Senator HILL—The Jabiluka mine prospect in the Northern Territory has undergone some three years of assessment and been found to be totally environmentally safe.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Not even an EIS.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus!BH4Senator HILL—It has therefore gained all Commonwealth approvals necessary for an export licence to be granted in due course, presuming that the company complies with the conditions that were associated with the approval. Notwithstanding that very rigorous assessment process—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You know it wasn't rigorous. You were pushed into it by Parer.BH4Senator HILL—and the fact that the Ranger Mine has operated in the near vicinity safely for a period of 18 years the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Democrats and certain fringe NGOs have decided to undermine the Australian government's position by misrepresenting the position to the World Heritage Committee.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You're just Minchin's puppet. He's running it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Bolkus, you have been interjecting since the answer started. I would ask you to abide by the standing orders and cease interjecting.BH4Senator HILL—Our responsibility will be to ensure that the member states that make up the committee are properly informed as to the true facts in relation to this matter and then all we will request of them is a fair and objective assessment of those facts, because on a fair and objective assessment there can be no question about this world heritage area being described as being in any danger at all. If it has not been in any danger from 18 years of mining at Ranger, how can it possibly be in any danger from a mine 20 years on, an underground mine as opposed to an open-cut mine, with newer technology and a much smaller footprint? It does not make any sense whatsoever.2082Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his attempt at an answer. My colleague reminds me that he did not answer the question last night either. Minister, in the letter that you wrote me you insisted that you were only interested in correcting errors of fact, science and law. That sounds reasonable enough until I read this internal government strategy where I see that you are considering incentives, pressuring and various external tactics like cross-trading votes on committees. Isn't it the case that you are not interested in the merits of the argument at all and that this is about winning at all costs regardless of the impact on the Mirrar people and regardless of the impact on Kakadu? Does it bother the minister that he is politicising the World Heritage Committee to such an extent that he could fatally erode all of the goodwill and the good faith so many countries have taken so long to achieve?2082Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—It is the Australian Democrats and the ALP who have politicised this process by going behind the back of the elected government of Australia to misrepresent the position at the meeting at Kyoto of last year. It was the Australian Labor Party who stood by for 13 years alongside the Ranger Mine and said that it was not in any way a danger to the world heritage area and it is the Labor Party who are undermining the integrity of the world heritage process. It is our wish to restore that integrity, and that is why we are taking the position that we are.20822082Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services. In an earlier answer to a question from me about the impact of the tax package on your department's clients and the failure of the department to do any work on that matter, you tried to depict the secondment of one officer from your department to the Treasury as being your evidence of the department's involvement.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, your question should be directed through the chair.AX5Senator CHRIS EVANS—Sorry, Madam President. Despite that, Minister, are you aware that at the estimates committee the officer made it very clear that he was seconded on the basis of his skills, not as a representative of the department, not to represent the department's view? He was seconded to use his particular skills. Will you now confirm the evidence given by your department that you have done no modelling on the impact of the tax package on your department's clients?2083Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer I gave previously was perfectly truthful and straight up and down. There was a very senior officer from my department seconded to Treasury. He spent a number of years gaining experience in social security issues. He was an invaluable member of the working party on tax reform, and the tax package shows the results of his expertise working with the Tax and Treasury people.20832083Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—My question is to the Special Minister of State. The government accepted the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention that the question of Australia becoming a republic be put to the Australian people in a referendum. The government has confirmed that it intends to follow closely the republic model endorsed by the convention. Will the Special Minister of State advise the Senate on the method of public education and information that the government intends to implement?2083Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I thank Senator Brownhill for this question because it is timely as the government has recently announced its public funding of $15 million for the yes case and the no case. Firstly, let us look back to the Constitutional Convention, which recommended that there be a bipartisan appointment of a president. The government undertook to put that model at a referendum, and we will be doing that in a referendum some time in November this year. The convention also stated that there should be a public education campaign which should be impartial and which should be designed to inform the people of Australia as to the constitution governing the country and its system of government. That was in order to assist people in making an informed choice as to whether this country should become a republic or not.There will be three phases to the information campaign. The first will involve that impartial education campaign which I have just referred to. I have been working with the Attorney-General on the referendum task force to develop a campaign which will be intended to provide straightforward, easily understandable information in relation to the system of government, the specific proposal for change, the referendum process itself and the changes in the relationship between the Commonwealth and the states. It is very important that the people of Australia have an understanding of the system of government, the referendum, the process and especially the question.The second phase involves the campaign itself, which will involve funding for the yes case and the no case. There will be two committees drawn from delegates to the Constitutional Convention and each committee will comprise nine in number. The majority of those will be non-parliamentarians. Those committees will then apply the $7½ million respectively to a campaign of advertising and information as they see fit to the yes case and no case respectively. I might add that there will be a government process in relation to the approval of that advertising. It will not go to the substance of the advertising but merely to the fact that the advertising is not misrepresentative and that it conforms with the usual guidelines in relation to standards of advertising. It will not be dealing with the substantive matters as to the advertising concerned.The third phase will involve the traditional yes and no cases. As with a normal referendum, the Australian Electoral Commission will send to Australian households across the country the yes and no cases. Of course they will set out in succinct form the cases for and against Australia becoming a republic. That will be provided in a booklet form closer to the referendum.It is essential that the people of Australia have a good grasp of the question that is being put them, of the issues at hand, and an understanding of the system of government in this country. It is essential that the Australian people have this knowledge in order to make an informed choice, and that is the aim of these three phases of information. Debate can be conducted with vigour—with passion, as the Prime Minister has said—but it is most important that debate on this issue be informed and conducted with maturity.20842084Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. Can the minister confirm that under current child disability assessment tool provisions in the child disability allowance a minimum of 3,800 children are no longer eligible for the payment? Is the minister aware that many families of children with a disability suffer severe financial hardship due to the added expenses incurred by a disability and that sweeping exclusions from this payment only serve to further pressure their economic situation? Is the minister satisfied with the method by which the application of the assessment tool is made by Centrelink?2084Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Senator Gibbs asks whether 3,800 children are no longer eligible. I cannot confirm that today, but I will get her the detail. What I can say is that, of those who ceased to be eligible in the reviews prior to 30 June last year, a number may be eligible for health care cards, as I am sure she would be aware. For many families of children with disabilities the assistance with pharmaceuticals is one of the most important elements of the non-means tested assistance.You will recall that the Senate passed a method of evaluating objectively the disabilities that have been suffered and the need by children for care. That will be evaluated in the normal way, with most social security programs being evaluated after the first year of implementation. Under the new arrangements children can be eligible either for a health care card or if the need for care is much greater than simply the provision of pharmaceuticals they no doubt will be eligible for the payment as well as the card. I will have a look at the detail of your question and see if I can get more answer for you, Senator.2084Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister familiar with the tragic situation whereby a leukaemia sufferer from the Northern Territory undergoing chemotherapy and coping with the amputation of his leg below the knee was initially deemed not eligible to receive a disability allowance? Is the minister aware that this boy's family had to fight with Centrelink to prove that his overall development is affected by his illness and that he requires more care than other children of his age? Was it the government's intention that this assessment tool operate to exclude children who are clearly disadvantaged from receiving this payment, and how does the minister intend to ensure that in the future children with a disability are not excluded from this allowance due to inadequate assessment procedures?2084Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am sure the senator would not expect that the minister would be determining people's eligibility on an individual basis. The social security system has never allowed for that. If a decision of Centrelink is not accepted by the family concerned, they have very important review rights within the Centrelink system and appeal rights to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the AAT, the Federal Court and the High Court. So there is no way that family did not have the right of appeal, and it appears they must have succeeded. I recall that was a case last year, but I do not recall the outcome of it. Obviously, though, from the way you describe it, they did use their appeal rights, and it is an indication that the system works fairly.20842084Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLP10—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin. Australia has always been a world leader in innovation. I understand that our scientists are now developing groundbreaking research in the field of renewable energy through solar power. Could the minister advise the Senate what the government is doing to recognise the achievements of our scientists?2085Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—This morning I announced that Professor Martin Green and Professor Stuart Wenham from the University of New South Wales were the winners of the 1999 Australia Prize. This is an annual award to acknowledge excellence by scientists and technologists in applying their skills for the benefit of humanity. It is awarded in a different category each year.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Started by the Hawke Labor government.JX4Senator MINCHIN—And I acknowledge the fact that it was initiated by a former Labor government. This year's field is energy, science and technology. Professor Green and Professor Wenham have made an outstanding contribution to the science of photovoltaics, the conversion of sunlight into electricity. They have also worked closely with industry to turn their research into a viable commercial enterprise. Last year solar cells developed by Professors Green and Wenham became the largest manufactured solar cell technology in Europe. Their solar cells have achieved a 24½ per cent efficiency in the conversion of sunlight into electricity, which is the current world record by a very large margin. Their cells produce up to 30 per cent more energy and are 20 per cent cheaper to make than competing technologies. The solar cells will also power each of the homes in the athletes village for the 2000 Olympics.Professors Green and Wenham provide a leading example of how commercialisation of innovation offers export and development opportunities for Australia. The coalition government recognises the importance of Australian research and will continue to foster an environment in which collaboration between industry and science can flourish. We want to encourage commercialisation of research, particularly in this renewable energy field.Our policies reflect this commitment, in particular the renewable energy showcase, the renewable energy commercialisation program and the renewable energy equity fund, which all encourage the commercialisation of renewable energy innovation. I take this opportunity, on behalf of all senators, to congratulate Professor Green and Professor Wenham on their achievements. I look forward to meeting them this evening at the presentation dinner in the Great Hall where the Prime Minister will award the Australia Prize.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous2085208515:00:002085Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I have answers to questions that Senator Margetts asked me yesterday. I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The answers read as follows—Question: Can the Minister indicate if a contract has finally been finalised with COGEMA, if so who signed it, and have all Ministerial approvals been given?Answer: A contract was signed on 22 January 1999. It was signed by the Executive Director of ANSTO and a senior executive of Cogema. I approved ANSTO entering into the contract, in accordance with the requirements of section 31 of the ANSTO Act 1987.Question: Will it be tabled in the Senate or at the Senate Economics References Committee Inquiry into the new ANSTO reactor and if not, why not?Answer: The contract will not be tabled in the Senate as it is a commercial contract that is confidential to its signatories.Question: 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 Commission's inquiry and any environmental impact studies to the reactor?Answer: The contract provides for the reprocessing of spent fuel arising from the operation of the replacement research reactor, on terms to be agreed once the reactor is selected and the fuel type is known.The terms of reference of the Senate's reactor inquiry do not include a specific requirement for consideration of the management of spent fuel from the replacement reactor. The Committee's reporting date is listed for 18 February 1999 and there is a notice of motion on the Senate Notice Paper indicating that the Committee would like to move the report date back until the 27 May 1999, therefore the contract with Cogema does not pre-empt the Committee's findings.The Environmental Impact Statement for the replacement reactor, which ANSTO completed recently, indicated that ANSTO had an agreement that included spent fuel from the replacement reactor.Supplementary QuestionQuestion: Can Minister clarify whether any actual environmental impact study was part of that due process.Answer: The overseas shipment of all the HIFAR spent fuel was subject to environmental assessment in 1997 under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (the EPIP Act). That assessment is now being reviewed by Environment Australia in the light of the changed destination of the non-US origin fuel In accordance with the provisions of the EPIP Act, Environment Australia will be forwarding a report to the Minister for Environment and Heritage in the near future.Question: How much will the reprocessing contract with COGEMA cost ANSTO?Answer: The cost of the reprocessing contract with Cogema is commercial-in-confidence.Question: Is this in excess of the amount that should see the contract referred to the Public Works Committee?Answer: Works covered by the PWC involve buildings and structures. The overseas shipment and reprocessing of spent fuel are outside the scope of the Public Works Committee's reference.Question: what penalty clauses are there if either side decide to withdraw from the contract?Answer: As is normal in commercial contracts, penalty provisions do apply. The details are commercially confidential. Legal advice from Attorney General's Department and from a French lawyer engaged to represent ANSTO in the negotiations confirmed that the terms of the contract are in accordance with accepted practice.208615:01:002086Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have an answer to a question that Senator Faulkner asked me yesterday. I seek leave to have that answer incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Yesterday Senator John Faulkner asked me a question regarding the government's submission to the Remuneration Tribunal regarding charter entitlements.The submission was taken forward by the Hon John Fahey MP, Minister for Finance and Administration. The submission followed consideration by government of the existing procedures and ambiguity surrounding them.The government believed that more flexible arrangements should be introduced. The Remuneration Tribunal accepted the government's submission.At the time these matters were dealt with, Senator Ellison was Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training. Senator Minchin was Special Minister of State. Of course Mr Fahey continues as Minister for Finance and Administration.208615:01:002086Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I apologise to Senator Mackay because I forgot to tell her that I had an answer for her on the matter she raised with me yesterday, which was on whether the review into BASI, the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, would be made public. I indicated to her that I would refer that to Mr Anderson for a response. I am advised that he will be making the results of the review public.208615:02:002086Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Family and Community Services (Senator Newman) to questions without notice asked today, relating to the proposed new tax system and family and community services.What was clear from the answers given to the Senate chamber today is that the minister has no idea what the impact of the government's GST package is on her department's own clients. The pensioners, the disabled, the people who need our support rely on her to ensure that the GST package is fair and that adequate compensation applies to them. What is perfectly clear is that she does not have a clue how the package impacts on her clients. She does not seem to care and has taken no steps to find out what the impact is on those clients. The most vulnerable in the community rely on her as minister to make sure that they are protected.What is clear from the answer she gave today and what was clear at the Senate Community Affairs References Committee hearings is that she does not have a clue and has taken no steps to protect those people. She shows no interest in ensuring that those people are protected and instead relies on trotting out the same glib government line that, `Everyone will be better off. We will have a new tax, but you will all be better off.' The logic of that escapes most Australians, and it certainly escapes me. The minister cannot back it up with any analysis. What she said yesterday in attacking the Anglican Church, because they dared to raise some criticism, was:I think it is very sad that those who purport to speak for the poor and the disadvantaged frequently do so with total ignorance.That is dead right, minister. And there is no-one more ignorant than you on this issue. You proved today again that you speak with total ignorance about the impact of the GST on the clients of your department—the pensioners, the disabled the other social security recipients. You have no idea. I questioned the department closely at the community affairs committee hearing about their involvement, and the minister today tried to pretend that they had been closely involved. This is what they said in answer to questions I put to them the other day at the community affairs committee inquiry into the GST. I asked:So was there any formal DSS involvement in the preparation of the document, the tax package?Mr Tune, the Executive Director of the department, replied, `No.' I asked:Has the department formally provided advice to the government about the package itself?He replied, `No.' I then asked:So with the modelling that was done in terms of the tax package, there was no Social Security or Family and Community Services involvement?His answer was, `No.' My next question was:Has the department done any work on the impact of the tax changes on its clients? Mr Tune replied:No, other than through implementation work that we are putting in place.I asked:So the department has not provided any views to Treasury about what should be the basis for the assessment of compensation?Mr Tune said, `No.' The department has done no work, the department has done no modelling on the impact on its clients. The department was not involved or consulted in the preparation of the tax package. They have got no idea of what it means for housing, for pensioners, for the costs of living of the clients of the department. They do not know whether the compensation package is adequate. They have not done any work on it. The minister does not know whether it is adequate, because she has done no work on it. She has not asked the department to do any work on it. She is not interested in asking. Treasury have said to her that it will all be okay, so it is all okay; we need not worry. The fact that everybody else in the community raises concerns about the disproportionate impact on low income earners in this country does not worry her, does not require any analysis of the problem, any work, to be assured that those people will not be worse off.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—What did you do in 1993? Did you talk to them?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—All the evidence to the community affairs committee inquiring into the GST illustrates the fact that these people will be worse off. They spend all their income on food and the basic necessities of life. They will have the GST imposed on those things. They fall below the government's average because they have to spend every cent they get on essentials and basics. Under the government's proposal those will be taxed. The minister today tried to say, `I had an officer over there at Treasury and he was looking after our interests.' I asked him that very question. I said to Mr Tune:So when you were seconded to Treasury, was your role to represent the department or was it Treasury using your skills? Mr Tune said:It was Treasury using my skills.Senator Campbell interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell, please withdraw that unparliamentary language.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—This bloke put up taxes on pensioners by 10 per cent in 1993 with no compensation. I withdraw the word `hypocrite'.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Go take your tablets, Senator Campbell, and calm down. Mr Tune said:It was Treasury using my skills. Whilst I was a DSS officer I was seconded to Treasury for that period.So clearly, on the evidence of the department, the minister had no involvement and the department had no involvement. They do not know what this means for their client base, for low income people in this country. (Time expired)15:07:002088Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—The crocodile tears from the other side of the chamber are an absolute joke, absolute hypocrisy. Labor has refused to admit how the present structure of our tax and social security systems conspires to keep families and people on welfare dependent on benefits, and discourages them from taking up work. It is a commonly held view that the highest marginal tax rates are paid by people at the top end of the income distribution scale. However, the interaction between Labor's income tax and social security systems means that many low and moderate income families keep only a few cents of the additional income they earn. That is what we inherited from Labor. When people on moderate incomes got a few extra dollars in their pay they went out the door backwards, that is, they experienced a reduction in disposable income as their earned income went up.For example, a single income family with two children faced an effective tax rate of 105 per cent on private income between $27,600 and $29,600 a year. This is the system we inherited from Labor. As soon as people on middle incomes got some extra overtime or were promoted in their job, they went out the door backwards. Those opposite have the hide to come in here and claim that in the tax reform package no notice has been taken of the impact on social security recipients or welfare beneficiaries. That is absolute humbug. That is not the case. Of course the officer in the department will have brought to bear his skills and knowledge. He may not have been representing the department, but his skills and knowledge were there. That is why this system is much fairer and much better. It means that people on middle incomes, when they have an increase in pay, do not go out the door backwards.Senator Ian Campbell was absolutely correct: in 1993 the Labor Party put up wholesale sales tax by 10 per cent. I might just remind people that wholesale sales tax went up on strawberry Quik but not on chocolate Quik. Why? Because chocolate Quik doesn't have a tax on it, and strawberry Quik does. That is how ramshackle your wholesale sales tax system was—a tax on strawberry Quik and not on chocolate Quik, on toothbrushes and not on toothpaste. It was a ramshackle, out-of-date tax system which was narrowing and narrowing and had no hope in the future of sustaining or maintaining the social security system. What we have in the tax reform package is some interaction between income tax and welfare benefits and family benefits to ensure that we have a sustainable system into the future.To stand here and cry crocodile tears is absolutely outrageous. To say that Senator Newman doesn't know and doesn't care is also outrageous. She is the best social security minister. She is saving $47 million a fortnight in fraud and overpayments in social security, enabling us to give benefits to profoundly disabled children who are in the care of parents and who are under 16. Labor never cared about that. It had families with profoundly disabled children receiving no assistance at all. What was it doing? It was squandering that money, borrowing from overseas, borrowing $10 billion a year to pay for social security fraud, to pay for its incoherent system.You stand here and talk about the tax package, the GST. You never talk about it as a tax reform package. You never accept that it is a whole package. You never accept that there is also compensation. The senator who spoke previously said that food is going to go up, that prices are going to go up. Of course we have admitted that there will be an increase in prices, estimated at 1.9 per cent. People will get a four per cent increase on their benefits prior to the GST. If the impact is higher, their benefits will stay 1.5 per cent above the inflation rate. We are compensating them for it.So to get up here and cry about the fact that the social security department wasn't represented is absolute nonsense. No social security department was represented when the wholesale sales tax went up. There was no compensation for people who buy all the items that have wholesale sales tax on them, wholesale sales tax that is cascading down. It is outrageous and hypocritical that the Labor Party should get up and make the sorts of claims it is making today.15:12:002089Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I find it very interesting that Senator Newman has gone and left Senator Patterson to defend the government in this debate. It is probably because Senator Patterson is better able to do it, but she has got a dreadful job. Suddenly the government is very loud and very aggressive in its campaign for this GST. It knows that out there in the community people are beginning to understand the impact of this GST on their lives, their income, their capacity to cope. It is anything but a fair tax. Time and time again the witnesses before our GST committee have pointed out that if you are old, if you are poor, if you are disabled, if you are working for a charity or if you depend on charities, you will be badly affected, negatively affected, by the introduction of a GST.The government's program for the last few days to try to address these serious issues has been to start accusing people like Anglicare, the Anglican Church's service organisation, of being ignorant and unaware of what happens. Who more than Anglicare would know about the impact of the GST on the lives of the many thousands of people they see at the low end of the income scale? That is why they have bothered to write a submission. They have said in their submission that this GST is going to be very damaging. I have here from the Age, first edition, Wednesday, 17 February 1999, an article that starts:The Federal Government's tax reform plans suffered a significant blow with one of the church's most influential church leaders describing the GST on food as inequitable . . . Anglican Archbishop Peter Hollingworth—who played a key role in forcing the former Liberal Leader Dr John Hewson to rewrite his 1992 Fightback package to exclude food—yesterday said a GST compensation package could not be trusted.It is much more than that. If you want to start arguing the case in the community about the virtues of the GST why do it by fighting Anglicare? Why do it by fighting the Salvation Army and the Smith Family and St Vincent de Paul? They are to come up tomorrow, are they? Anybody who disagrees with the government is wrong and wicked, according to Senator Newman, or at least they are ignorant.We have had other evidence that should give the government considerable pause. Professor McDonald, department head of the demography program, Research School of Social Sciences at the ANU argued before the committee that, according to the household cameos in tax reform, the presence of a child increases the GST inflation of living costs by a mere 30c a week. For example, the GST would increase the living costs of a couple with one child by 30c more than the inflation experienced by a couple with no children. He goes on to say:The income tax cuts favour high income, childless households. The double income couple with no children earning $125,000 a year receives a tax cut of $108 a week. A double income couple with one child earning $45,000 benefits by only $13 a week.The people in the community know that this is unfair as it is structured. The service organisations say that it is unfair.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—What about your tax cuts?ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—You can shout all you like, but you are shouting because you are concerned that the community is begin ning to understand. They are beginning to understand how unfair this tax is.The government has calculated its own Treasury figures and made an admission that the figure of 1.9 per cent for inflation in the first year is wrong. The Treasury now says it is at least 3.1 per cent. People listening should know that the government has calculated its increase on the CPI, which does not include health costs. Anybody who ever incurs health costs—and thousands of old, sick and young people do—should know that that calculation is not included in the Treasury's figures.Finally, Senator Newman has said all the GST money will go to the states to provide services. Anybody in the states in Australia knows that the states are very loath to spend money on services. We have seen so many of those services cut back. Schools in Victoria are an example that springs to mind. Money for home and community services to assist people to stay in their homes and communities has been cut back and cut back. We have no guarantee that the government's GST will give those services to the people in the states. (Time expired)15:17:002090Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—Senator Crowley starts off by talking about witnesses who appeared before her GST committee. That only highlights Senator Crowley's ignorance, because her committee is looking into tax reform. It is not looking into a GST; it is looking into tax reform. She just simply does not understand that, when you talk about tax reform, you must talk about a total package. Senator Evans came in here earlier and said that Senator Newman has no idea. The only thing that is clear to me is that Senator Evans has no idea.Where was Senator Evans in 1993 when the Labor Party decided it would increase the taxes on low and middle income earners and welfare recipients by two per cent on every item that attracts wholesale sales tax? Where was the compensation that was offered to low and middle income earners—ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—Tax cuts.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—You did not deliver the tax cuts. Where were Senator Evans and Senator Crowley speaking out against the increase in sales tax by the Labor government in 1993, which applied equally to low income earners and welfare recipients in the same way that it applied to those people on higher incomes? They were silent because they had no compensation and no justification. In fact, they could not come up with a tax reform package. They could only come up with an increase in the rate of indirect sales tax.We have heard a lot today about the people on social security and low income earners. When you consider the tax package as a whole, who better to consider it as a whole than ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social Service? They are the people who are supposedly very concerned and looking after the interests of those people on lower than average incomes or who are welfare recipients.What did ACOSS do in the debate about tax reform? They actually assessed that, in their own view, the Treasury's estimate of a 1.9 per cent CPI increase could not possibly be correct. So they urged the government to release the household expenditure survey data, which the government did. That still did not suit their argument, because they still found that the increase that would apply across the board was less than the four per cent compensation that this government is offering by way of compensation to low and middle income earners and welfare recipients.They decided they would commission a survey of their own. They got Melbourne University to do a survey of their own, using the sorts of figures that they wanted to put in. Do you know what happened? Melbourne University came up with a figure of 3.6 per cent; still lower than the four per cent compensation being offered by this government to the people they represent.The problem we have with people like Senator Evans and Senator Crowley is that they can only talk about a goods and services tax. They cannot talk about tax reform or a total tax package which will apply to all people living throughout Australia and will provide a net economic benefit to every Australian, regardless of whether they are low income earners, welfare recipients, people in business, exporters, primary producers or manufacturers.That is the problem that arises when people like Senator Evans get up and say that we have no idea. They have no idea because Senator Crowley and Senator Evans have a total focus on that one portion of the tax reform package which talks about a goods and services tax; a broad tax, a tax which for the first time taxes services which is a growing sector, and takes the pressure off the indirect wholesale sales tax which is in a declining sector with a lessening tax base. The only way to maintain an indirect revenue base is to put up the rate, which is what the Labor Party did in 1993 with the wholesale sales tax.Do not let Senator Evans and Senator Crowley come into this place and say that we do not understand the impact it will have on low income earners and welfare recipients. We do, and that is why we have made sure that they will be overcompensated. It even allows for a cushion of overcompensation, and this government has said that whatever the CPI effect is—if the modelling is a very small margin out—we will guarantee compensation for that 1.5 per cent above the CPI impact to low income earners and welfare recipients. (Time expired)15:22:002091Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I wish to take note of the answers from Senator Newman today, particularly in relation to disability services. The minister started today by actually implying that Anglicare should do their homework when it comes to presenting information before the committees that are looking into the impact of the tax reform package put forward by the government. Her answers today reflect that it is the minister who ought to do her homework. Her answers reflect that she has no heart or feeling when it comes to disability services in this country.Let us take some of the examples today she referred to, or in fact did not refer to. Warwick Smith, the previous minister, undertook to meet with disability services groups some time last December. That meeting still has not occurred. It would be true to say that this minister has not met with those groups in the community that have responsibility for disability services. For example, ACROD, a peak disabilities group, may be meeting with her department once a month, but the department is not good enough in this instance. They should be meeting with the minister. The fact that the minister has failed to schedule meetings regularly with this group shows a lack of commitment on her behalf to understanding the problems and the complexities of disability services.The meeting that was scheduled for last December has now been put off until 9 April, which will be far too late. If these groups are going to have an input on the budget this year, then 9 April will be well and truly too late. The budget is handed down in May, and decisions and commitments will be locked in by 9 April. There is really no commitment by this minister to get a grip on the problems facing disability services in this country.We asked a question today about a little boy in the Northern Territory and the fight his family had to gain access to disability services and to qualify for an assessment by Centrelink. It may well be true that that family accessed their appeal rights, but the heart of the matter, which the minister failed to grasp, is that the actual assessment criteria are inadequate. Yes, it is true that ministers should never interfere with decisions by Centrelink, but what this minister fails to understand is that she needs to be across the assessment criteria. She needs to be aware of how inadequate they are. She needs to be aware of where there are problems with the system that need to be addressed.This little boy who had his leg amputated below the knee due to an illness was assessed by Centrelink as not having a disability, because the assessment did not require that Centrelink must say that he did. The assessment was not adequate, and it is in the minister's own interest to be aware of these problems within her portfolio. If she attended meetings with ACROD, if she was across the issues in Centrelink and if she was across the assessment criteria, these kinds of heart-wrenching struggles and disappointments faced by families, like the family of this little boy in the Northern Territory, would not have taken so long to be resolved and, in fact, would never have had to occur in the first place.Yesterday, we saw an example of another mean-spirited policy by this government. The Howard government is in the process of taking away the child disability allowance from nearly 3,846 children with a disability. No doubt this is to achieve budget savings of nearly $7½ million during this financial year. Parents around Australia have only been given 21 days to reapply for their child disability allowance. That means that they need to fill in a quite complex form. They need to make appointments with specialists. They need to get that referral and all of that information into Centrelink within 21 days. For some parents in capital cities—let alone those in rural and remote Australia—this is just not possible. This is a payment that is worth $75 a fortnight and that helps parents with extra costs associated with caring for a child with a disability.Once again, this is simply a backdoor way of taking money from families. It is another indication that this minister has not got a handle on the child disability problems and the disability service problems this country is experiencing. It is another indication that this minister really does not care about what happens to disability services in this country.15:27:002092O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—What we have seen today has been a shameful and stuttering attack by the opposition on the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. It peaked in the question that was asked by Senator Gibbs and referred to by Senator Crossin here just a moment ago about the assessment of the disability payment for a boy from the Northern Territory who had leukemia. I would hasten to bet that most of the senators in this chamber have probably never seen the form that a parent or carer would fill in to seek a disability payment for a disabled child. Most of them would probably have never seen the form, yet the Labor Party can come in here and work themselves into a lather of indignation without a proper knowledge of the facts.The facts are these. The form which has been referred to is in fact an assessment of a person's degree of disability. There are certain categories of people for whom completion of the last part of the form—which is the functional disability test—is not necessary either because of their age or because they have certain categories of disability which automatically qualify them. But anybody who knows anything about disabilities knows that a person can be disabled yet fall into a whole range of possible degrees of impairment. That is why you have to have a functional disability test. Not everybody who is an amputee is going to be disabled in the same way. Not everybody who has an intellectual impairment may be equally intellectually impaired. You might have an intellectual impairment which is very minor and which allows you to function normally in the community, or you may have an intellectual impairment which is profound and requires assistance.It would be absurd if we were to say that every person would be treated equally. That would be a failure of our duty to those people who are truly in need. It would be unfair on the taxpayer to support people whose degree of impairment is mild or minor. That is a sensible attitude to take. That is why you have to have a functional disability test.Of all the thousands of people who apply and receive disability payments, we get a story of one person whose functional disability test was rejected by Centrelink at first instance. Senator Crossin out of her own mouth said that it would be wrong and it should never happen that a minister interferes with the assessment by Centrelink. Yet Senator Crossin then proceeded to spend the rest of her speech blaming Senator Newman for the fact that Centrelink at first instance rejected the claim, having already said at the start of her speech that it would be wrong for the minister to interfere. If it is wrong for the minister to interfere, how can you expect the minister to take responsibility for an administrative decision, which Senator Crossin by her own admission said should be made by Centrelink? That is the absurdity of the case that we have had from the other side of the chamber.What the other side of the chamber gild over and do not want to talk about is the fact that, when this case went to review, the parents of the boy in question received access to the payment they sought. In other words, the system worked. It does not always work perfectly at first instance—no system will—because, if it did, you would not need review criteria, you would not need review procedures. But the system worked.What should be condemned is not this minister: what should be condemned is the arrant ignorance of how these matters are dealt with, which exists on the other side of the chamber. What should be condemned is this pathetic attack that we saw today. It took up half of question time; it has taken up half an hour after question time; and still they have not proved one single allegation against this minister. All this has proved is that this opposition is incompetent, this opposition does not know what they are talking about and they should be condemned.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Notices20932093Senator Mackay to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 1999:The circumstances surrounding the decision by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to suspend the Class G airspace trial, with particular reference to:(a) the appropriateness of the conduct of CASA, Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) personnel in relation to the Class G airspace trial;(b) whether any attempt was made by airline personnel to exert improper influence over the decisions of CASA, BASI or the RAAF in their decisions and actions regarding the Class G airspace trial; and(c) any other matters the committee considers relevant.Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill), no later than 4 pm on Monday, 8 March 1999, the following:All documents relating to the Jabiluka uranium mine proposal since 1 October 1998.Senator Carr to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the unique and valuable contribution that the award winning internet service ABC Online has made to the multimedia services of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), (ii) that the Online gateway structure is now closely integrated with most ABC broadcasting services and is fully integrated with ABC news services, (iii) that any attempts to privatise Online would have ramifications at every level of ABC services, and (iv) that ABC Online is integral to the way the ABC will operate and perform in the future;(b) expresses concern at: (i) proposals to privatise 49 per cent of ABC Online, (ii) attempts to link future ABC funding to the privatisation of key services, and (iii) government support for the privatisation of Online;(c) condemns: (i) the anti-ABC ideology of senior members of the Liberal Party of Australia, (ii) the destabilising, anti-ABC stance of board member Mr Michael Kroger in pursuing a privatisation agenda to the detriment of the ABC, and (iii) the active support given to Mr Kroger's privatisation agenda by the Treasurer (Mr Costello), the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation (Mr McGauran), and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston); and(d) calls on the Government to support the position of ABC Chair, Mr Donald McDonald, and ABC Managing Director, Mr Brian Johns, in their rejection of any sale of Online services.Senator Hogg to move, on the next day of sitting: That the time for the presentation of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on nuclear weapon and ballistic missile proliferation in south Asia be extended to 29 April 1999.Senator Mackay to move, on the next day of sitting:That:(1) The following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 24 September 1999: The development of the Brisbane Airport Corporation's (BAC) master plan for the future construction of a western parallel runway, with particular reference to: (a) whether BAC failed to adequately investigate alternative runway options; (b) whether BAC failed to release flight path information to the community, and why; and (c) why the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Mr Anderson) proceeded to endorse the BAC master plan.(2) In carrying out its inquiry, the committee should seek information about and/or inquire into: (a) the adequacy of the methodology used by the BAC in arriving at its recommendation for a western parallel runway and rejection of other runway alternatives; (b) what draft or indicative flight path data was available to BAC; (c) the methodology and adequacy of the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast in assessing the actual noise impact of overflying aircraft on residential areas; (d) the role of Airservices Australia and any conflict of interest which may exist between its BAC consultancy role and its obligation to provide advice to Government; (e) the adequacy of public consultation undertaken by BAC; (f) the basis of the Minister's approval of the master plan; (g) an appropriate methodology for evaluating all runway options including the economic, social (for example, comparative numbers of households affected), environmental, public health and public safety impacts of each; (h) the BAC's capacity objectively to apply this methodology in the major development plan and draft environment strategy and, in the absence of the BAC, other appropriate bodies to do so; (i) south east Queensland's long-term requirements for a second major airport; and (j) the impact of the privatisation of the Brisbane airport by the former Government on the public's ability to participate in the process of consultation on the Brisbane airport master plan.Senator Woodley to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 1999:(a) the circumstances surrounding the decision by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to terminate the Class G airspace trial;(b) the conduct of Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) personnel in relation to the Class G airspace trial;(c) the substance or otherwise of the allegations made by the Chairman of CASA that BASI personnel suffer from `cronyism' and `capture' by the major airlines;(d) the impact of Airspace 2000 on airspace users, operators and providers, including its safety implications, the role of the Australian Advanced Air Traffic System, Airspace 2000's compliance with the International Civil Aviation Organisation's requirements and responsibility for the implementation and regulation of Airspace 2000;(e) the application of competition policy to services provided by Airservices Australia, including the proposed privatisation of air traffic control services and airport firefighting and rescue services;(f) the impact of location specific pricing; and(g) the adequacy of the consultation undertaken in relation to location specific pricing and Airspace 2000.20942094Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—On behalf of Senator Murray, I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 102.2094Senator Faulkner to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matters be referred to the Procedure Committee for examination and report: (a) whether the procedure for taking note of answers to questions is serving the purpose for which it was introduced;(b) whether changes to the allocation of the call to the various parties or to the total time available for taking note are warranted; and(c) any other issues relating to the procedure for taking note of answers to questions.20952095Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 72.2095Senator Woodley to move, on the next day of sitting:That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Senator Ian Macdonald), no later than 5 pm on Monday, 8 March 1999, the following document:The Hawke report on the structural review of Airservices Australia which was given to the Minister for Transport (Mr Anderson).Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate supports the decision by the Western Australian National Party to push for a rapid phase-out of clear-felling in old-growth forest, particularly as a source of chiplogs.Committees2095209520952095Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the first report of 1999 of the Selection of Bills Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEREPORT NO. 1 OF 19991. The Committee met on 16 February 1999.2 The Committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:. Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 . Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998. Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999.The Committee recommends accordingly.3. The Committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 1 December 1998). Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 (No. 2)(deferred from meeting of 8 December 1998). Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998. Customs (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998. Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998. National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Amendment Bill 1998. National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment Bill 1998. Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 1998. Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 1998. Primary Industries Levies and Charges (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998. Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998. Sales Tax Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998. Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1998. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998. Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1998(deferred from meeting of 16 February 1999). A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998. Airports Amendment Bill 1999. Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1999. Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998. Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999]. Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999. General Interest Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998. Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998. Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] . Privacy Amendment (Office of the Privacy Commissioner) Bill 1998. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1998. Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999. Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999. Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1998 [1999]. Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999.(Paul Calvert)Chair17 February 1999Notices20962096Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in his name for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, be postponed till 29 April 1999.Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja, at the request of Senator Allison) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Allison 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 Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 86 standing in her name for today, relating to the reappointment of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Mackay) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 107 standing in her name 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 Woodley) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 113 standing in his name for today, relating to the Aboriginal tent embassy, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Bolkus) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 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 O'Brien, at the request of Senator Cook) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 114 standing in the name of Senator Cook for today, relating to the 1998 Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request of Senator Murray) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 112 standing in the name of Senator Murray for today, relating to parliamentary standards or codes of conduct, be postponed till 9 March 1999.Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 4 standing in her name for today, relating to the disallowance of item 1301 of Schedule 1 of the Migration Amendment Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 304, be postponed till 8 March 1999.Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 117 standing in her name for today, relating to the unemployed, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 56 standing in her name for today, relating to East Timorese asylum seekers, be postponed till 8 March 1999.Committees209620962096Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Murphy) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous2096Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request of Senator Murray) agreed to:That the Senate— (a) calls on the Federal Government to release all research on drug use by young people, including the high levels of use;(b) notes: (i) the reality of drug use among young people, (ii) law enforcement and zero tolerance strategies alone are insufficient, and (iii) that it is important not to ignore the reasons why young people take drugs; and(c) expresses concern that drug taking is a phenomenon among young people which requires innovative and constructive strategies to be addressed.Miscellaneous2097Motion (by Senator Brown) put: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.In division—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—While the vote is proceeding, I put to the chamber the intriguing question as to whether or not members should consider declaring an interest.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is a matter for individual senators.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—I am totally computer illiterate, but I will vote on it any way.15:50:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)3Brown, B. Margetts, D.*Woodley, J.36Bishop, T. M. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Ferguson, A. B.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S.Kemp, R. Lundy, K.MacGibbon, D. J. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Sherry, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Matters of Public Importance2097209710000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have received a letter from Senator Bartlett proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:The failure of the Regional Forests Agreement process to protect the remaining native forests of Australia.I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. Debate on this matter cannot proceed as it does not have the support of a sufficient number of senators.Committees20972097209715:54:002097Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee on Public Works, I present the following reports: first report of 1999—CSIRO Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies Stage 2 Development, Pinjarra Hills, Queensland; second report of 1999—CSIRO National Centre for Petroleum and Mineral Resources Research, Bentley, Western Australia; and third report of 1999—Lavarack Barracks Redevelopment Stage 2, Townsville. I move:That the Senate take note of the reports.I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Madam President, the reports which I have just tabled deal with proposals referred to the Committee in the previous Parliament. The previous Committee was unable to report on them due to the intervening election. The present Committee considered the evidence assembled by the previous Committee and resolved, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, that further public hearings on the proposed works were not necessary.The total cost of the public works covered in the reports is close to 200 million dollars.CSIRO Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies Stage 2 development, Pinjarra Hills, Qld.The first report involves the proposed construction of the CSIRO Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies Stage 2 development at Pinjarra Hills, in Queensland.The estimated out turn cost of the proposal when referred to the Committee was 22.3 million dollars.The Committee has recommended that the works should proceed.By way of background, the Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies was established by an agreement between the Queensland Government and the CSIRO to expand and diversify research and development in the mining, energy and related manufacturing industries in Queensland and nationally. The Centre brings together resources from the State Government, universities, CSIRO divisions, Queensland and Australia-wide minerals, energy and manufacturing industries in collaborative activities.The proposal examined by the Committee includes the construction of a research building, a technology transfer building, a number of new industrial type buildings, extensions to existing buildings such as the library and canteen, and site works, including new roads, carparking and environmental rehabilitation.The Centre was originally designed to cater for research and development projects involving 130 staff. Since the Centre was established, research activities have grown at a rapid rate and existing facilities will be inadequate to support planned increases in research personnel and projects.As a consequence, the Committee has concluded that there is a need to provide additional facilities at the Centre to house and support planned increases in personnel and research projects.The Committee found that master planning studies of the site, undertaken by the CSIRO, have identified areas suitable for further expansion well into the next century.Based on the evidence, the Committee also concluded that the extent of the proposed works will provide for the planned expansion of research and development projects and provide capabilities expected to stimulate their further expansion.CSIRO National Centre for Petroleum and Mineral Resources Research, Bentley, WAThe second report which I have tabled involves the construction of another national centre for the CSIRO. This one will be located in the Perth suburb of Bentley and will be known as the CSIRO National Centre for Petroleum and Mineral Resources Research.The Bentley Centre will provide a focal point for research excellence and collaboration between CSIRO, Cooperative Research Centres, university researchers, Government agencies, resource companies and associated technology suppliers and providers.The proposal examined by the Committee involves the construction of laboratories and research facilities, process bays, support and stores areas, staff amenities, public facilities, associated site works, roadworks, carparking, engineering and communication services and landscaping.When referred to the Committee, the estimated out turn cost of the proposed work was 31.8 million dollars.The Committee has recommended that the work proceed as proposed.By way of background I should mention that the CSIRO, or its predecessor organisations, has had a presence in Western Australia spanning more than 80 years. It now employs more than 400 staff at six locations in the State.The proposed work is a recognition of the fact that the mining, oil and gas industries are the mainstay of the Western Australian economy. For this reason, CSIRO and the Western Australian Government have identified the need to increase substantially the State's research capability to support the sustained development of resource industries in an era of heightened international competitiveness.The CSIRO divisions involved in the mining, oil and gas industries have established research teams and formed alliances with other research and development partners to undertake projects in Western Australia and nationally.Based on the evidence, the Committee has concluded that returns to the community and resource companies from investment in research and technology transfer can be significant and are highly influential in the creation of new investment and employment.The Committee also concluded that the extent of the proposed work can be justified as providing modern facilities designed to enable CSIRO Divisions and alliance partners to undertake research into minerals and petroleum research at increased levels and will overcome current unsatisfactory conditions.Two other significant factors also emerged from the Committee's inquiry. The first is that co-location of two key CSIRO divisions, Exploration and Mining, and of Petroleum Resources will deliver cost savings and will maximise research effort in support of both oil and mining industry sectors.Secondly, the proposed site for the Centre, adjacent to Curtin University of Technology and within Technology Park, Bentley will provide the capability to foster collaborative research between the university and private sector research and development organisations. CSIRO has developed a master plan for the site which makes provision for further expansion of facilities and staff.Lavarack Barracks Redevelopment Stage 2, TownsvilleThe third report which I have tabled involves the second stage of the redevelopment of Lavarack Barracks in Townsville.There are nine major components in the proposed works. These comprise accommodation and messing, operational, logistic support and infrastructure development facilities. The main component consists of new living-in accommodation for 1,112 officers, senior non-commissioned officers and other ranks, associated mess complexes and a central food preparation facilityWhen referred to the Committee, the estimated out turn cost of the proposed work was $139.3 million.The Committee has recommended that the works proceed as proposed. The Committee has concluded that the provision of new airconditioned living-in accommodation should improve living standards for on-base personnel and should lift the morale of personnel.Similarly, the Committee established that there is a need for new messes, on a scale commensurate with requirements identified in Department of Defence planning studies, to be provided at Lavarack Barracks adjacent to the sites proposed for new living-in accommodation.The Committee believes there are uncertainties about the appropriateness of the cook-chill method of food preparation based on its untested nature in the Australian Defence Force.For this reason, the Committee recommended that the Department of Defence should report back to the Committee on the operation of the cook-chill process after it has been fully tested at Lavarack Barracks, before its wider implementation within the Australian Defence Force.The report concludes that the remainder of the works, namely a new Communications Centre, new transport facilities, the Eastern Deployment and Assembly Area, new heavy vehicle roads, and waste collection facilities will all provide substantial improvements to the functionality and environmental management of this, one of the Army's largest bases.I commend the reports to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.209920992099Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I present the second report of 1999 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 2 of 1999 , dated 17 February 1999.Ordered that the report be printed.Matters of Public Importance2099209910000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bartlett, are you seeking leave to go back to the matter of public importance?15:56:002099Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—If the Senate is willing to be gracious, given the confusion over the placing of this due to it not being listed on the red, I seek leave to return to the matter of public importance.Leave granted.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have already referred to the letter that proposes that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I understand that an agreement has been reached between parties as to speaking times in this debate. I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.15:57:002100Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I thank the Senate for their consideration. Obviously, the Senate as a whole is of a view that this is an important matter which does need highlighting.I rise to speak on this matter of public importance because I believe that the Senate needs to devote some time to this this afternoon. It is a vital issue to the future of native forests of this country and indeed to the future of our nation overall—our economy as well as our environment.Australia is a unique land. Our native forests, in particular, are an ecological wonder. Our forests range from tropical to temperate, from open dry woodland to closed and wet canopy. They are host to a variety of ecosystems, encompassing many of the world's most unique animals and plants. They are found over flat, riverine or escarpment areas from the southern most part of the country to the northern tip. What is particularly extraordinary is the diverse range of forest ecosystems between and within regions. This makes it all the more crucial that we should protect and care for our forests. If properly managed, they could provide a sound economic base for a truly sustainable timber industry and a strong and permanent environmental base for our nation.However, successive governments have sold these forests to the woodchip industry. This industry to date has shown little regard for biodiversity, little regard for the diverse range of ecosystems—animals, plants and genetic base—and little regard for the interdependence of all these. It has little regard for water quality issues or other users of forest areas other than woodchippers. The woodchipping industry does have a high regard for getting the maximum amount of corporate welfare from state and federal governments and views the chopping and shredding of the maximum number of forest areas very warmly.When the evidence about this industry started to become well known in the public arena around five years ago, the media took a considerable amount of interest and, to their credit, published a lot of information on various forest issues, including economic and biological arguments as well as the basic environmental aspects of the issue. This certainly scared the industry and governments who, when their actions were exposed, were left able to do little more than defend the indefensible.It was a time of full-blown crisis for the industry and, somewhere out of the public relations and damage control spin, the Regional Forest Agreement process was born. This meant that—instead of the industry each year having to face another public relations disaster as a new round of export licences were approved, instead of continual revelations about the appalling process used to determine those licences, instead of all that—we would have a Regional Forest Agreement which would be signed for each general logging area and which would allegedly meet competing demands and allegedly be ecologically sustainable.However, the process that we have seen so far has been characterised by a lack of transparency, by bureaucratic obfuscation and by allowing much more woodchipping than previously occurred—so much so that even industry groups are alarmed by the destruction of many areas of significance and its potential impact on long-term ecological sustainability as well as environmental sustainability. Time prevents me from listing all of the problems with the Regional Forest Agreements so far. I am sure there will be other senators who will add to that body of knowledge, but I would like to highlight a few examples which go to demonstrate why this is a matter of such public importance.In Tasmania the Regional Forest Agreement, as it currently stands, will remove 39,000 hectares of provisional coupes from the register and then add 40,000 hectares more. In other words, another 1,000 hectares will be available for logging. The state undertook to publish, by 31 October last year, a description of the methods of calculating sustainable yield. This has not occurred. They have also not published, nor made publicly available, compliance audits of the Forest Practices Act or the code of reserve management. Nor have they developed and implemented a threatened species protection strategy.In the East Gippsland area of Victoria, certain data on wood, which it is claimed is publicly available, is not provided at all by forest agencies and there are regular attempts to make the process as difficult as possible for people seeking information. These sorts of petty impediments distract from the real tragedy and the real area of great concern—that forests along the banks of heritage-listed rivers will be decimated, leading to shocking water quality consequences.In Western Australia the process is so bad that the environment minister has promised, after the RFA is finished, that there will be further changes. Clearly, the RFA there will not be the last word, as was promised. More than 30,000 people sent in submissions to that process, yet the environment minister will not allow the release of the audit into those submissions until after the RFA has been signed. What exactly is being hidden? Perhaps the fact that 80 per cent of people in the state of Western Australia want no native forest logging and no woodchipping. Even the National Party in that state, and some Liberal Party branches, are expressing extreme disquiet with relation to government policy on RFAs, because the Western Australia forest process is in such a mess. The department which, at state level, is in charge of the negotiations in the RFA process—the Department of Conservation and Land Management—clearly has a vested financial interest in the outcome. The department has a clear interest in ensuring the maximum area is available to loggers.The forthcoming Regional Forest Agreement legislation that is being considered in this parliament is a small bill of only a few pages, but it represents one of the biggest environmental issues to come before the Senate. It is an issue that most Australians feel very strongly about.UW4CRANESenator Crane—Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: in view of the fact that this legislation is before the parliament currently and there was a reference to the committee that I chair, I believe it is outside of standing orders to be making reference to that legislation or, in fact, be dealing with any issues pertaining to anything that might come out of the committee's report. I would like a clear ruling on that at the start of this debate.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—I do not uphold your point of order for two reasons. Firstly, there is a general debate before the chair on the issue of RFAs and forests. Senator Bartlett is clearly addressing that. Secondly, I understand the President would not have approved the MPI if it had been contrary to standing orders. Her advice is that it is appropriately before the chair and, consequently, Senator Bartlett is in order.UW4CRANESenator Crane—I therefore want to ask a question with regard to this issue. I allowed Senator Bartlett to proceed until such time as he made reference to the legislation that is currently before us. That is my question to the chair. While we can have a general debate, is it in order to be actually raising issues pertaining directly to that legislation? He made particular reference to the fact that the bill contained eight clauses.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—He can talk about the subject of the bill. He cannot anticipate the bill. I will be listening closely to Senator Bartlett's comments but so far, overwhelmingly, I think his comments have been in line with standing orders.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I can understand why the government may be apprehensive about the reality of that legislation being brought to the attention of the Australian people, because of the impact that it will have. I think I just said that it was a small bill, rather than it had eight clauses—because I was not aware of that off the top of my head, and it is not in my notes—but I am willing to be credited with that knowledge, as well.The reason why that legislation is important—without talking specifically about the content—is its oversight of the entire Regional Forest Agreement process which is happening throughout Australia at the state level, and the impact it will have on the future of our native forests. That is why it is such a major environmental issue which this parliament obviously needs to consider, and consider very deeply. It is an issue that most Australians feel very strongly about and it deserves clearer and stronger highlighting and more thorough consideration—because the bill itself, as part of the overall Regional Forest Agreement process, is an attempt by the Commonwealth to abrogate its responsibility for forests back to the states.Forest agreements are being put together at state level in those states that have vested short-term economic dependence on woodchip royalties. We have a system where so much public money is given to the native forest industry in government subsidies that it makes the plantation industry almost untenable. That is what is at risk of being enshrined. The bill will force massive job losses to occur in the timber industry, particularly in the small sawmilling sector, and will be responsible for an unprecedented level of native forest destruction.Important safeguards that have been put in place by this parliament over many years, such as the Australian Heritage Commission Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the World Heritage Act and export controls, will not apply to vast regions of our most important forest areas under what is being proposed by the government. That is made doubly horrifying because of the sorts of agreements that have been agreed to already at state level and those agreements that are yet to be reached in other states. Those important safeguards that this parliament has seen fit to put in place to protect our environmental heritage will be voided for 20 years. This legislation upholds a process which is fatally flawed, and it will destroy rather than protect our native forest areas.The Democrats are determined to ensure that the public are made aware of the major threats posed to the survival of our forests by the Regional Forest Agreement process as it stands at present, because it is such a crucial issue to the very survival of our forests and the survival of communities and economies that depend upon those forests and on the long-term survival of a massive amount of biodiversity and genetic diversity in species which are also dependent on those forests. Those are all at risk now in this country. The Democrats believe it is crucial that that risk is highlighted to the Australian people and as much effort brought to bear to prevent the calamity that is before us from occurring.16:09:002102Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I rise to speak on this matter of public importance before us to hopefully put a few myths to bed. One of the interesting things about this debate is the endeavour by those opposite to try to shift the goal posts in regard to what was determined in the national forest policy statement and subsequent regional forest agreements.I think it is most inappropriate that we are debating this here today when the legislation is before us and a Senate inquiry will be making recommendations in a report to be tabled in this parliament. In particular, I would say to Senator Bartlett that I think he has compromised his colleague Senator Woodley to an unacceptable and unfair degree. I think he should think very hard about bringing these types of debates on when the Senate inquiry is yet to report to the parliament.Having said that, I want to deal with some of the problems. I got in touch with the clerks to find out what I could and could not use. A quote from Mr Pearce, who gave evidence to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, sums up the position of those people who want to keep shifting the goal posts and who do not accept Australia's responsibility. In answer to a question from Senator Brown, he said:He does not like the answer he is getting. The point is there has been a long movement over this issue of sustainability. I have noticed that when people like yourselves who argued for sustainable development 20 years ago discovered that in fact you can have a sustainable development arrangement in the forests whereby the needs of the environment are looked for and the forests are harvested on a sustainable basis, you have jumped ship on sustainable development and started trying to develop other definitions which mean, in effect, sustainable ecology, that you cannot do these things. You have done that, Senator, because you have discovered over time that the sustainable development thing which you argued for 10 or 15 years ago did not produce what you want, which is no industry at all in a good many areas of Australia. Although you are here arguing that about the forests today, you will be in other committees arguing about other industries in other areas of Australia on other occasions.My definition of these things is that you strike a balance between all of the needs of our people, and they do require large areas of untouched natural forest, on your definition and mine, put aside and safeguarded for all generations in the future. I agree with that and our industry agrees with that, and it is the striking of the balance which is important there. But our people also need jobs and our people use timber and paper and timber products. They use more than they produce.I repeat: they use more than they produce. He goes on:Senator, and people in Australia who argue for the proposition that we should not touch our own forests but continue to use wood and paper products in the way that we are are simply arguing for ripping off other people's forests, and that is not a position which I believe is morally sustainable.I think that is the crux of or one of the key issues in this debate. I wish to make the point that currently Australia is using 14 million cubic metres of our own timber a year and importing seven million cubic metres. Approximately a third of the timber we use for things such as the paper I am reading from, the pads I am writing on, et cetera, is imported from another country. I find that an untenable position.I want to make a few points. Once the RFA is signed, the forest management plan will be prepared. The plan will be released for public comment and full assessment by the Environmental Protection Authority. You hear in debate from the other side that once the RFA is signed that is the end of the matter; it is not. Why don't we get told occasionally that once an RFA is signed the states have to report to the Commonwealth minister? They have to report every year. These are the facts that need to be put on the table.Further to this assessment, the EPA will be involved in two processes to ensure sustainable wood production. First, it will participate in an expert panel to verify the level of wood yield before the RFA is signed. Second, it will be represented on a task force to assess forest management and timber harvest levels before the next forest management plan is commenced. Once again, that absolutely destroys the oft repeated lie that the process is left uncontrolled.Moving to the regional forest agreements, there are many stages involved in this. The first and one of more important stages is the Commonwealth-state agreement on deferred forest areas. The second state is a formal Commonwealth-state scoping agreement. The third stage is a CRA, a comprehensive regional assessment. The fourth stage is public consultation. The final stage is negotiation of a formal Regional Forest Agreement to be signed by the Commonwealth and appropriate state governments.Some of the most important evidence that was given to the committee—and we do not have time to consider it today but I refer senators to it—was from the Deputy Premier of Tasmania, Paul Lennon, when he put a few things in perspective.Western Australia gets a lot of mentions in this matter because of the current situation. We have what I consider to be a very unfair campaign, and it is being run on emotion and not on facts from the consultation process that has gone on and the various reports that have been done. I place on the public record that 39 reports have been released to the public since it started in Western Australia. Currently, another eight reports are being prepared and are to be released, I understand, in due course. That is a total of 47. This process has been inquired into to an extent that no other industry has been—whether it be on environmental, tourist or forest aspects or on the matter of shutting up land for wilderness protection. You may not like the outcomes, but to claim that there has not been a process of public consultation on forest management in Western Australia is just plain dishonest. I will run through some examples of the process: 1982, EPA review of karri forest; 1987, regional forest management plans; 1990, resources assessment inquiry; 1991, review of ecologically sustainable development; 1991, National Forest Policy Statement; 1992, draft forest management plan; 1993, appeals committee review of forest management plans; 1995, deferred forest assessment process with 500 public submissions.The list continues: 1997, eight public meetings in Perth and throughout the south-west; 1997-98, 122 meetings with organisations; 1996-98, nine meetings of Stakeholder Reference Group; 1996-97, five meetings with Noongar Action Group; 1997, nine public open days in Perth and throughout the south-west; 1997, 10 public open days in Perth and throughout the south-west; 1997, 10 community heritage workshops in Perth and throughout the south-west; 1997-98, seven indigenous workshops throughout the south-west; 1997-98, 195 meetings with organisations; 1998, the inquiry which produced 30,000 public submissions. I think that accurately puts on the table the processes that have gone on in Western Australia.This has not been something that has been restricted to this side of politics. When Labor governments were in power in Western Australia and in other states, they were part of the process—including the governments of Brian Burke, Carmen Lawrence, Peter Dowding. Richard Court's government has been involved and, prior to all of these, so was the government of the final days of Sir Charles Court and that of Mr O'Connor when he was Premier of Western Australia. So this process has been ongoing. I think it is about time people focused on the truth when they selectively criticise the process of the RFAs. I will leave it to my colleagues to deal with the others.In the time remaining I quote Carmen Lawrence in 1990 when she was Premier. She said: One of the major achievements of the final Management Plans was the identification of areas to be included in conservation reserves. While creation of all of the reserves is still continuing, all areas identified for reservation are being managed for that purpose in the interim. When the reserve system has been completed there will have been a 340 per cent increase in the conservation estate of the South west that is an increase of some 550,000 hectares. Many of the reserves, such as the Shannon river basin, have been made into national parks.That process has been going on in Western Australia for a long time. Finally, I quote Carmen Lawrence again:. . . it is far better to use timber from well managed Australian forests, where every tree cut is regrown, than to lock up our own forests while plundering the forests of developing countries.I put to the Senate that Democrats Senator Bartlett's matter of public importance, if ever implemented, will result in the plundering of other nations' forests. (Time expired)16:19:002104Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—At the outset I also want to express a concern about the fact that Senator Bartlett has raised this matter today. He may believe this is a matter of public importance, and no doubt this issue is, but Senator Bartlett is well aware, having attended at least for a short time the hearings of the Senate rural and regional affairs committee, that we have just completed three sessions of public inquiry. We have taken evidence on these very issues, and the committee is at this very time in the process of finalising its report to be tabled next week before the legislation is brought back into this Senate in the following week. I would have thought that in those circumstances Senator Bartlett may have held his fire a bit and enabled that process to be completed and then, if he wanted to address these issues, he could have done so through the debate on the legislation.I also note that Senator Bartlett, having made his short address, has left the chamber. I have always taken the view when I have been involved in proposing a matter of public importance in this Senate that as a matter of courtesy the proposer should be prepared to sit and listen to the arguments put by other senators. I know senators have other commitments, but I believe that that course is appro priate, particularly if you put forward the proposition as being one of such major public importance.The next point I wish to make is that we do not accept the statement within the matter of public importance, namely, `the failure of the Regional Forests Agreement process to protect the remaining native forests of Australia.' Our view, which has been put on the record in the other place by the shadow minister, Mr Ferguson—and I do not want to transgress the standing orders by canvassing some of the issues that will arise when we debate the bill—is that the Regional Forest Agreement process is an appropriate process and is a process that by and large is working. That is not to say that there are not some problems. But the problems, in our view, are not necessarily problems with the rules that are set down within the process that is to be followed. Rather, it would appear from at least some of the evidence that has been presented to our committee that the problems are in the attitudes that are being adopted by various parties. It is a bit like a football game. If the teams are not playing the game properly, you do not turn around and blame the rules of the game.In our view the Regional Forest Agreement process is the appropriate way forward. In order to appreciate the process we have to at least look at some of the background of how this process developed. Every member of this Senate—indeed, including those who were not here at the time—remembers the divisiveness, the bitterness, surrounding the forest industry debates, particularly in 1995 when this parliament was blockaded for the opening week or two of the parliament. That was the culmination of this divisiveness, this aggravation, this hostility that existed in respect of the management of Australia's forests for a number of years prior.We had, on one hand, those who believed that native forests should never be logged. We had on the other side—I suppose, at the other end of the spectrum—some representatives of the timber industry who believed that it should be open slather and that you should be able to export as many woodchips as you liked. In order to overcome the impasse that existed as a result of the legitimate interests of conservationists and industry and also to overcome the myriad of constitutional problems—where, on the one hand, it is the states that own and manage the resource but it is the federal parliament, the federal government, that has increasingly used its powers to regulate forest management—we established, under the then Labor government, the RFA process. Of course the genesis of that process was the National Forest Policy Statement of 1992, a statement that ultimately was adopted by the current federal government, the Howard Liberal-National Party government. Therefore, it has bipartisan support at the federal level. It is also a statement and, subsequently, a process which has been adopted by every state government in this country. I will come back that process in the moment.I want to take issue, particularly, with a statement Senator Bartlett made in his address that there should be no logging in native forests. What disturbs me is this approach that is adopted by Senator Bartlett and certainly by some interested groups involved in this debate that the only solution is their solution, and their solution is `no logging in native forests'. That is an attitude that is contrary to the National Forest Policy Statement and quite contrary to the RFA process, because, whilst the statement and the process recognise the fundamental importance of conservation values, of protecting of our native forests, particularly our old-growth forests, it also recognises that there is a place for forestry use on a commercial basis. Right through the statement you will see references to that because the statement is about a balance. It states:The objectives and policy initiatives are underpinned by the following agreed approaches to forest management.That includes:. . . commercial uses of forests, including wood production, that are based on ecologically sustainable practises are appropriate and desirable activities.It also states:The governments also acknowledge that a variety of uses of public native forests is desirable, provid ed those uses comply with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. The objective here is the management of public native forest so as to retain the full suite of forest values over time. The governments acknowledge, however, that some uses, including non-commercial uses, may inevitably compromise other values, such as tourism and recreation values, at least in the short term.Further on in the statement in section 4(2), dealing with wood production and industry development, it states:Sustainable economic use of native forests and plantations is one of the principal objectives of this statement. Wood production is a major commercial use of Australia's forests. It can be integrated with a range of other commercial and non-commercial uses, among them nature conservation, recreation, tourism and water catchment production. Ecologically sustainable management of native forests for wood production involves maintaining a permanent native forest estate while balancing these uses.And I could go on. It is a very detailed statement, as honourable senators know. The point is that some people just do not accept that the principles that underpin the National Forest Policy Statement and the RFA process involve both recognition of conservation values and the application of resource security for the timber industry. Until they understand that, they are not going to come to this debate with clean hands, with an objective approach.In his address, Senator Bartlett briefly canvassed some of the evidence that was put to the committee. There was, of course, evidence put to the committee which submitted that the RFA process has not been carried out appropriately in some states. That has also been put on the public record. There is currently a major debate going on within the Western Australian government about whether or not the RFA negotiated in that state is appropriate, whether or not the assessments have been properly made. There is also some debate with respect to the RFAs that have been negotiated and signed in Victoria.I believe the central problem at the moment is the politicisation of this process by the current federal Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Tuckey. It seems that ever since Mr Tuckey was appointed to this portfolio following the last election we have had nothing but trouble and a reversion back to the bad old days when people were at each other's throats in respect of this industry. Mr Tuckey, for blatant political reasons, has attacked the New South Wales government. The New South Wales government has negotiated one of the best, most environmentally friendly agreements on regional forest management ever in this country. The New South Wales government under Bob Carr has the most enviable record in terms of protecting our national estate, our national heritage, our environment and, particularly, our native forests.Since the Carr government came to office it has declared a total of 151 new national parks and nature reserves, exceeding its original election commitment by more than 600 per cent. It has recently announced the most comprehensive forest decision in the state's history, with some 380,000 hectares of North Coast forests reserved. At the same time, it has also delivered unprecedented security to the timber industry and its workers; a package that has been endorsed by the industry, by conservation groups and, indeed, supported by the coalition parties in the New South Wales parliament.But what has occurred at the federal level? Mr Tuckey, for blatant political purposes, refuses to provide the funding that is required under the agreement for exit assistance because he wants to play politics. He wants to play politics even with his own ideological colleagues in Western Australia on this issue. That is not the way to deal with this very important issue. The way to deal with it is for the parties in all of the states to get back to the principles that underpin the RFA process, that is, achieving both ecologically sustainable development and resource security, hand in hand with conservation of our great national heritage. It should be done under the process that was established and supported by all state and federal governments of both political persuasions. That is the way forward. We believe the process is working. There are some issues that need to be addressed. I have got no doubt that we will be able to deal with those when the legislation comes before the parliament soon. (Time expired)16:32:002106Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I feel somewhat frustrated because there is only three minutes allocated to me to speak on this matter. I am also angry because we are seeing a process in this parliament whereby, without the knowledge of most Australians, we are facing legislation within two weeks which will hand across millions of hectares of what is left of the wild forests in this great nation of ours to the woodchippers. That is called the regional forest agreement. Behind that name is the lie that it has the support of the Australian people. Every opinion poll shows that that is not the case. It has the support of the big logging corporations, in particular the export woodchip corporations, and through them I submit it has the support of the major political parties.The problem here is that we do not have an adequate debate, with an opposition on one side and a government on the other. Both the political parties are lining up to push through this legislation in the interests of those logging corporations against the 80 per cent of Australians who do not want this continuing and unnecessary destruction of not only the great wild forests that are left in this country but also the wildlife in them.I have in my hands a picture which you cannot see, Mr Acting Deputy President, but which I can. When we look at that picture, which is in the rainforests of the Tarkine Wilderness in Tasmania where clear-felling takes place, what we see is a whole mountainside in flames where once the rainforest stood. It has been scalped. Every blade, every leaf, every living animal, every living entity in that forest has been totally and utterly destroyed. Members come in here and say that this is ecologically sustainable.On the committee evidence that earlier members have averred, when I have asked representatives of the logging industry—not least the Deputy Premier of Tasmania—what a natural forest ecosystem is, with one exception, they have totally failed to provide an answer. When you ask, `What does sustainable mean?' again they cannot answer—or they won't. To be honest about it, you cannot be cutting, firebombing and then poisoning these forests to kill any grazing animals that come into them after they have been destroyed and call that ecologically sustainable. That is a lie. Anybody in the street can tell you that that is a fabrication. Yet that lie is going to be incorporated into action for far more extensive destruction of these forests and the wildlife that goes with them, including world heritage value forests in this great country of ours under this legislation which has had far from adequate exposure to the public.In Western Australia in particular at the moment the debate is raging. The opinion polls show that a growing proportion of people are horrified by the potential for legislation to lock up these forests. (Time expired)16:35:002107Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I would like to reiterate what has been said by a couple of earlier speakers about the matter coming forward today when the bill is being debated. I am sure that both Senator Bartlett and, no doubt, Senator Brown will have plenty of opportunity to put their views on the table. I must say, although Senator Brown complains about the amount of time he has had here today, I think our chairman, Senator Crane, has been more than patient with Senator Brown at the three days of committee hearings; he has given him a lot more time than permanent members.In any event, I do not think Senator Brown will ever agree with any process we come up with in this place. The track record goes back some 10 years. With any opportunity that has been put forward by whatever government happens to be in power federally or in the state, Senator Brown and his friends in the green movement pay lip-service initially and, as you would know, Mr Acting Deputy President, then walk away from the process. I really query why the Democrats want to derail a process which is guaranteeing the protection of potentially vast amounts of Tasmanian wilderness and old growth forests and replace it with increased exploitation of wilderness and old growth forests in other countries.I would be the first to admit that the issues surrounding the best conservation use of Tasmania's forests—and in this case I would like to refer to Tasmania because it has completed an RFA and, therefore, I think it is appropriate to tell the chamber what has happened there—are both complex and difficult. One of the main difficulties that arises is ensuring that the economical harvesting of timber can continue to be carried out in a manner which does not threaten fragile ecosystems, particularly where they are unique; that future generations are able to continue to appreciate existing natural wilderness and that harvesting does not occur at a rate which is unsustainable in the long term. I believe the RFA process was commenced to ensure that these and other difficulties are overcome.It is worth looking at the objectives of the RFA process. They come as a result of the national forest policy statement that the Federal Labor Party put down. They come, in Tasmania's case, after 28 or so inquiries over a period of 10 or more years, when a lot of emotional debate has gone on and a lot of small industries in Tasmania have gone to the wall. A lot of jobs have been lost, and further jobs will be lost if we cannot collectively come up with a process that meets the objectives.The objectives of the RFA process included social, economic, environmental and heritage objectives. I will outline what they were. They were to manage the forests for a potentially expanding and value adding industry. It is very important that we have that value adding industry because it provides jobs for the people of Tasmania, and we certainly need them at the moment. They were to provide for sustainable high value species timbers, to maximise areas available for intensive management, to protect a comprehensive, adequate and representative sample of forest biodiversity, commonly known as the CAR reserves, to protect vulnerable, rare and endangered forest ecosystem biodiversity and to protect wilderness and old growth forests.The final outcome as recommended in the agreement signed between the federal and Tasmanian governments has delivered outcomes which meet all these objectives—far beyond recognised national and international best practice reservation standards. For example, under the RFA, 40 per cent of Tasman ia's land area will be classified as reserves, including 39 per cent of Tasmania's forests, 68 per cent of the old growth forests and 95 per cent of all wilderness. These percentages far exceed the JANIS guidelines set as goals at the commencement of the process.The new Tasmanian Labor government is a very strong supporter of the RFA outcomes for Tasmania. The Deputy Premier himself came to Melbourne to give evidence and strongly support the Commonwealth RFA legislation. Since the process was started by the Keating Labor government I am surprised that some of my Tasmanian Labor colleagues have not been more vocal in their support for the process—not Senator O'Brien, I must admit, nor you, Senator Sherry. But for some reason one or two others have been rather quiet.After all, the RFA is expected to have many benefits for Tasmania, for its people and for the protection of its forests. Those benefits include the development and launch of a widely supported forest industry growth plan, a significant increase in plantation establishment, hundreds of new jobs to be created, resource security resulting in millions of dollars being invested in Tasmania, guaranteed quality of sawlogs available to Tasmanian sawmill operators, world's best reservation standards met and exceeded, with some 95 per cent of Tasmania's high quality wilderness reserved, and social and economic outcomes given equal consideration with environmental and heritage objectives.One of the major things that this regional forest agreement process does is to create certainty. Well, hopefully it will create certainty. The sorts of arguments we have heard and this matter being brought forward today do not provide any more certainty. It seems to me that all it will provide is more of the same argument that has gone on for the last 10 or 15 years. I guess that is what some of these people are all about, particularly in the Democrats' case. I think one of Senator Bartlett's former colleagues, Senator Bell, would still be here in this parliament if it had not been for the ridiculous attitude the Democrats took towards some issues. Senator Bartlett may care to look at some of the speeches Senator Bell made when he was in this place. I think Senator Bell, for a Democrat, was rather supportive of sustainable forestry development.I take issue with what Senator Forshaw had to say about my colleague Mr Tuckey. Mr Tuckey, since he has come to this job—I know for a fact, from talking to some of the union representatives in Tasmania—has gained the respect of the CFMEU members. The statement on sustainable forest management in Tasmania put down by Mr Tuckey and Paul Lennon was welcomed by the industry in my state. I also believe that the action plan he intends to put in place and the commitments he has given to encourage downstream processing are all positive things that will help the industry and the people of Tasmania and create jobs. I reiterate that this motion today is inopportune. It has been put forward at the wrong time. I look forward to debating the matter further.16:43:002109O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—A great deal has been said about the fact that this debate occurs at a time when the legislation committee is considering this legislation, so I do not propose to add anything further on that point; it has all been said. But certain things occurred during the committee's deliberations, many of which are on the public record, which I believe it is appropriate I refer to today.The motion we are discussing is the failure of the regional forest agreement process to protect the remaining native forests of Australia. That is one of the more misleading statements that I have ever seen put before this chamber in terms of our being asked to discuss it. The very process that is being pursued as the Labor Party contemplates the RFA process is to lead to renewable, sustainable forests for harvesting together with reserves of forests, not the removal of the native forests, as is suggested in this proposition.The first and most important point to be made is the Australian people should not be misled that the RFA process is about removing native forests. It is about retaining native forests either protected from logging or guaranteed to be sustained in a renewable form. It also contemplates the creation of plantations so that, in the future, timber for pulping purposes, for example, will substantially come from the hardwood plantations that are grown as a result of the RFA process. My recollection of the environment movement's views on the use of forests is that it was preferable to use plantations for timber purposes. We have to get to that point somehow. The RFA process, as the Labor Party would contemplate it, will indeed lead us to that process.Senator Bartlett's comment that he anticipates that the RFA will hurt small sawmillers flies in the face of the attitude of some of the green supporters who attended the hearings that we conducted in Melbourne. I was interested in the evidence of the Victorian Association of Forest Industries, particularly with regard to downstream processing. I asked for them to send me more information, and Mr Graeme Gooding sent me this letter and reinforced my recollection of something that took place at the hearing. A passage from his letter states:I found the whole Senate Inquiry quite astounding with most issues raised by those submitting to your group quite irrelevant.He is referring to the greens. He goes on:Some seemed to think it was another RAC Timber Inquiry rather than a review about legislation. In particular I found it amazing in our session that the greens applauded the likes of Judy Clark when she essentially advocated closing down the 50 or so viable small (hardwood) businesses in Victoria and replacing them with one or two huge (softwood) corporations. They then laughed when I noted that Demby's sawmill in Toolangi had more than tripled their employment from less than 10 to 30 people. I could not stop thinking about what I thought was a bizarre event—environmental ideologues advocated big business is better than small family companies. Afterwards I recalled two points of relevance:1. A media report last year noted that Auspine's relatively large pine mill in Portland had doubled its output last year and increased employment by 5 people. Gary Demby's little mill had doubled its output and increased employment by over 20 people. Gary is one of eight hardwood sawmills in the Central Highlands we surveyed who have increased direct employment in total by 160 people by value adding. It is my recollection that, when that sort of evidence was given, there was an attempt from the audience to belittle the witnesses. There was giggling and laughing—indeed, someone was blowing a whistle when evidence they did not like was being presented. I suppose every group can have its people who misbehave. Unfortunately, there seemed to be an organised pattern of behaviour indicating disrespect for the evidence that was being given.Senator Calvert has given evidence of the sort of material that we received in evidence, which I also think is generally publicly known, about the outcome of the RFA in Tasmania. Having gone through numerous inquiries into its timber industry, world heritage areas and logging practices—and I am sure it will go through a number of other inquiries as it follows the RFA process and, as far as is possible, perfect the operation of the timber industry—Tasmania starts with a world-class forestry industry in many respects but will end up with an even better one. At the end of the RFA process, assuming that the Senate gives approval to the process—and that is a matter which I do not propose to comment on now—it will have an even better industry. I would hazard to suggest that, at the end of that period, even more timber will be taken not from native forests but from plantations, and I suspect that plantations will increase as a result of the RFA process.One of the problems we have in dealing with this sort of legislation and environment issues generally is the nature of environmental politics. I have been a long-time supporter of environmental issues, and I have supported the environment movement in relation to many issues they have taken up about the forestry industry. Indeed, the forestry industry now will say that some of their past practices were horrendous, were unsustainable and ought to have been changed, and they have recognised that those practices changed, in part, through the contribution of the environment movement. I put on record today that the environment movement has played an important part in correcting some of the problems in the forestry industry and some other environmental issues.The problem we have is the environment movement has not become an issues movement but a party political movement. To sustain itself, it needs the big issues to attract voters. It needs the icon environment issue so that it can run around and attract supporters to vote for it at the next election. Unfortunately, if the issue is not there, it has to do something, and that something is manufacture the issue. Unfortunately, there is a strong element of manufacturing issues in the complaints being made about the RFA process.I am not saying the process is perfect and I am not saying that there is no scope for improvement. What I am saying is that we have moved from the environment movement saying that we need more and more plantation timber, that pine plantations were bad and that we should have a sustainable forestry industry, and we will get to the point where parts of the environment movement will do anything possible to sabotage the industry, irrespective of the impact that will have on jobs in regional economies in Tasmania, parts of Victoria, parts of New South Wales and parts of Western Australia. I am not saying that every RFA will necessarily be good.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—How many jobs has it created in Tasmania?8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I listened to you peacefully, Senator Brown, so give me the same courtesy. In terms of each of those RFAs, the outcome of this legislation is as yet not determined. As I said before, I cannot make any comment without anticipating the debate on that legislation, which would be out of order. That debate is yet to be had. To have said in this debate that the RFAs fail to protect the remaining native forests of Australia is blatantly arrant nonsense and, as has been suggested, it has placed Senator Woodley, who is part of our committee, in a difficult position in relation to his position on the committee's report to the Senate. However, I noted that there was a difference of opinion between the Democrats earlier today on one of the votes. (Time expired)16:54:002110McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—I will take up directly what Senator O'Brien just alluded to. Senator Bartlett chose to speak for the Democrats today. He stated that their policy was that the Democrats stand against the RFAs in total, which has totally compromised Senator Woodley. We on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee know only too well that Senator Woodley would be quite split with Senator Bartlett on this issue. As far as I can gauge to this point, Senator Woodley has agreed with the processes and principles of the RFAs. But now we have to assume that the Democrats are against the processes and outcomes of all RFAs.Senator Bartlett failed to put any alternative before the Senate. The Democrats have no policy, other than to be against the RFAs. We can only assume that Senator Bartlett and the Democrats want to take us back to the old system, which was no system at all. It was just a system of confrontation, and it was the very reason the RFA process and outcomes were produced. Prior to that, we had terrible confrontations. Senators would remember only too well the logging trucks that surrounded Parliament House. That was one of the most dramatic demonstrations. The greens who invaded the East Gippsland area created another dramatic confrontation. All of those confrontations bring instability and uncertainty to the industry. All of them produce great social unrest and conflict for the 6 o'clock news, but that, it seems, is what the Democrats want to take us back to. The truth is they now join the extreme greens. Many of them, if not most of them, came before the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee to give evidence. They also wanted the total abolition of the RFA. That is the bottom line.The truth is that they really do not want any logging at all. That is the stance of Senator Brown, which does not surprise any of us, but it does surprise us when the Democrats want to take up that position. They seem to be taking the side of the environmental movement, which wants the total abolition of the industry regardless of the $2 billion trade deficit we have at the moment. Senator O'Brien and Senator Forshaw, who surprisingly made some good contributions to this MPI— 656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—They are usually excellent. This time they were good.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator Forshaw, you spoilt your contribution when you politicised it by attacking the minister. You felt you had to do that, but that was nothing compared to the submissions we received from the environmental movement when they came before the committee, particularly when we were in Melbourne. Never have I seen a movement marginalise themselves so much before a Senate committee. They were intransigent. They were exhibitionists. They exaggerated their case. They were unresearched and fanatical.Senator Brown interjecting—WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—They were all those things, Senator Brown. I will give just one example. One group before us was Environment Victoria Inc., as they call themselves. They were involved in the early part of the RFA process and negotiations in East Gippsland. They went to the point of comparing the process of the RFA to Nazism, but they just could not get their point through. Their point was ridiculous. That was the type of language they used and it totally marginalised them in the debate.The truth is that they objected to the outcomes of the RFA, not the processes of it. If the processes fell completely their way, they would not be against RFAs. They objected to the outcome—an outcome that is based on some pretty sound principles, which it looks like they will never agree to. There are 11 national principles stated in the RFA as well as broad criteria for biodiversity. No criteria are broader than these: the protection of 90 per cent or more of high quality wilderness, and East Gippsland meets that criteria; a retention in reserves of at least 60 per cent of existing old growth, and East Gippsland meets that criteria; and a benchmark of 15 per cent of the pre-1750s distribution of each of the forest communities to be protected, and we meet that criteria and better it.The truth is that, without the RFA process, without the RFA outcomes, we are going to go back to the bad old days of confrontation. That is what the Democrats want. Of course, that is what Senator Brown wants. He loves to see himself on the 6 o'clock news. But it will bring down the industry and it will cause great social disharmony.Documents211221122112The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)10000PON/A10—I present the publication Work of committees for the period 1 July 1998 to 31 December 1998 and 1998 statistics.Ordered that the report be printed.Committees2112211210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The President has received letters from party leaders nominating senators to be members of committees.Motion (by Senator Abetz)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee—Substitute member: Senator Watson to replace Senator Ferris for 19 February 1999, for the committee's inquiry into the employment incentive and education impacts of the Government's taxation reform legislation proposals and on the provisions of the bills implementing the proposed new tax system;Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—Substitute member: Senator Abetz to replace Senator Tierney for 17 February 1999 for the consideration of the 1998-99 additional estimates;Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee—Substitute member: Senator Eggleston to replace Senator Tierney for 26 February 1999 for the committee's inquiry into the broad effects of the Government's taxation reform legislation proposals on the environment, the arts and information technology and on the provisions of the bills implementing the proposed new tax system;New Tax System—Select Committee— Substitute members:Senator Bartlett to replace Senator Murray for 2 March, 4 March and 5 March 1999Senator Woodley to replace Senator Murray for 3 March 1999.Bills2112r694Billsr654Billsr601Bills0Billsr7102112Bills received from the House of Representatives.2112Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have three of the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.211217:02:002112Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1998This bill amends the superannuation legislation to strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of the superannuation supervisory framework.Superannuation plays a significant role in the Government's commitment to increase national saving and in the Government's retirement income policy. It is therefore vital that an effective regulatory regime is in place and maintained to enhance the security of members' benefits and to ensure that superannuation entities operate for genuine retirement purposes.The Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (the SIS Act) provides for the prudential regulation of the superannuation industry between the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC). An important aspect of prudential regulation is the monitoring and investigation powers of both Regulators.This bill will improve monitoring and investigation powers by increasing the flexibility of the Regulators' existing powers, expanding the parties to whom they apply and increasing penalties for non-compliance. It is vital to the prudential regulation of superannuation moneys in Australia that the Regulators have effective monitoring and investigation powers.Another important aspect of the regulatory framework is the existence of a complaints handling body to deal with member's superannuation complaints. The Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act (the SRC Act) established the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal to resolve fund member complaints about trustee decisions in a manner that is fair, informal and quick. This bill will enable the efficiency and productivity of the Tribunal to be improved, including allowing single member review panels. This will enhance the Tribunal's role in promoting public confidence in the superannuation regime.The bill also contains a number of measures which will finetune and clarify the operation of the supervisory framework which will assist trustees in discharging their obligations to fund members.In conclusion, this bill implements miscellaneous amendments to maintain and strengthen the superannuation supervisory framework. The amendments will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulatory regime and improve confidence in the superannuation system more generally.I commend the bill to the Senate.SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CHOICE OF SUPERANNUATION FUNDS) BILL 1998The bill implements the Coalition Government's choice of superannuation fund measure. This measure was a key initiative in the 1997-98 Budget and involves reforms to give employees greater choice over which superannuation fund or Retirement Savings Account will receive superannuation contributions made on their behalf by their employer.The choice of fund arrangements are about giving employees greater choice and control over their superannuation savings, which in turn will give them greater sense of ownership of these savings. The arrangements will increase competition and efficiency in the superannuation industry, leading to improved returns on superannuation savings.The Government has consulted widely in putting together the details of this important reform. Extensive consultation led to enhancements of the original model being announced in November 1997. These were designed to significantly reduce the administrative burden on employers by allowing greater flexibility in how choice is offered, while ensuring that employees still had an effective choice of fund. The announced enhancements were widely welcomed by industry.The Government is continuing to work with industry on the design details of the proposed key features statements. Draft key features statements were prepared in consultation with industry and have been market tested with a variety of groups. The results of the market testing is being fed into a redesign of the key features statements.While the Government is prepared to consult and listen and respond to ensure the smoothest possible implementation of choice, it is not prepared to compromise on the fundamentals. The fundamentals of this reform are that employees get a genuine choice as to which fund their superannuation is paid. Models for implementing choice which effectively allow employers to veto an employee's choice simply do not meet this essential criteria.The reforms to which this bill gives effect are scheduled to first operate from 1 July 1999 in respect of new employees, having already been deferred from 1 July 1998. It is time to conclude the debate on these important matters to allow their orderly implementation, for the benefit of all Australians as they save for their future.I commend this bill to the Senate.SALES TAX LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1998The bill contains two new exemptions from sales tax. The exemptions are for commercial space equipment and for certain goods imported by overseas participants and delegations attending the Sydney 2000 Olympics, Paralympics and associated events.The bill will also remedy some weaknesses in the recently enacted scheme to prevent sales tax evasion in the computer industry and correct a deficiency in the temporary importation exemption.The bill will implement the Government's policy to exempt from sales tax space launch vehicles, payloads and other goods intended for launch into outer space or to be brought back from outer space. This measure was announced on the 23 June this year.The exemption will:. encourage the development of a commercial space launch industry in Australia; and. provide Australia with access to the growing world demand for commercial space launch facilities.The space equipment exemption will apply from the date of Royal Assent. However, there will be a transitional credit for dealings on or after 23 June 1998 and before the date of Royal Assent. This will ensure that, as announced by the Government, dealings on or after 23 June do not bear sales tax.The bill will also provide that certain goods, imported by or on behalf of non-Australian Olympic and Paralympic Family Members and delegations and participants in the Olympics, Paralympics and associated events, will be exempted from sales tax.This exemption is in line with current sales tax arrangements with respect to SOCOG.The first events covered by the new exemption and which occur during 1998 will be the Cultural Olympic event "A Sea Change" and the International Sailing Regatta.The exemption will not apply to goods for sale, alcohol and tobacco products, motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts, television cameras and equipment for radio and television broadcasting.The amendments complement recent changes to the customs law to exempt the same goods from customs duty.The exemption will apply from the date of Royal Assent and, as for the space equipment measure, there will be a transitional credit arrangement. The credits will apply to dealings on or after 1 March 1998 (ie the commencement date for the proposed changes to the customs law) and before Royal Assent. The Government proposes three changes to overcome some technical problems with the new scheme for dealing with sales tax evasion in the computer industry.The first change will remove anomalies arising from current descriptions and tariff classifications in the law. This will apply from the date of introduction of the bill.The second change will increase the maximum penalty for a person falsely representing himself or herself to be accredited or falsely representing a transaction to be authorised, and will increase the maximum penalty for making improper or false quotes under the law. The new maximum penalties of $5500 will apply from the date of Royal Assent.The third change will close a loop-hole that allows traders to falsely present themselves as exporters in order to purchase or lease goods tax-free. This will apply from a date to be proclaimed.The amendments will enhance the integrity of the new sales tax rules for computers which have addressed the entrenched culture of sales tax evasion previously evident in parts of the personal computer industry.The bill also amends the sales tax law so that goods imported into Australia under a temporary importation exemption, used in Australia, exported and then re-imported, are subject to sales tax at the time of the second importation.The amendment will correct a deficiency in the sales tax law from 13 May 1997 which is the date the Government announced the measure.The explanatory memorandum explains in detail the changes to the law that the bill contains.I commend the bill to the Senate.TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 5) 1998This bill amends the income tax law to give effect to the following measures:Firstly,Tax penalty arrangements.This bill gives effect to the 1998-99 Budget announcement to replace the existing late payment penalties in various taxation laws with a uniform tax deductible general interest charge. The new arrangements will be simpler and better reflect movements in market interest rates. The changes follow a review by the Australian Taxation Office of late payment and notification penalties in consultation with professional and representative bodies. That review flowed from the Government's response to the recommendations of the Small Business Deregulation Taskforce. The charge on an outstanding amount will be calculated daily on a compounding basis. The nominal interest rate from which the daily charge is calculated will be set at the 13 Week Treasury Note rate plus 8 percentage points. The penalty for late lodgement of income tax returns of individuals and the penalty for underpayment of income tax will also adopt the general interest charge.Secondly, theAlignment of remittance dates This bill implements the announcement in the Government's tax reform paper, Tax Reform: not a new tax, a new tax system, that from 1 July 1999 the remittance dates for medium and small Pay As You Earn (PAYE), Prescribed Payments System (PPS) and Reportable Payments System (RPS) payers will move from the 7th to the 21st of the month.The alignment to the 21st of the month is in anticipation of a large number of businesses being required to make one payment on the 21st of each quarter to cover most tax debts.Thirdly,Running Balance Accounts. This bill also introduces amendments to support a system of running balance accounts. The objective of this measure is to establish a taxpayer accounting system under which the Australian Taxation Office can record and monitor all of a business's different tax liabilities on a single account. Debts under the sales tax, pay as you earn, prescribed payments and reportable payments arrangements for the year ending 30 June 2000 will be administered in this way.The introduction of running balance accounts will provide for simpler tax accounting and collection arrangements.These new accounting and penalty arrangements will position the ATO to better assist taxpayers in minimising any escalation of taxation debt and will allow for a simpler and more efficient process of penalty calculation.They will also enable the ATO to provide a comprehensive statement of a taxpayer's outstanding tax debts at a particular point in time.These amendments will provide an accounting platform in the lead up to one running balance style account to support most taxation debts after 1 July 2000.And lastly,Tax avoidance: foreign tax credit schemesThis measure amends the general anti-avoidance provisions of Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (the act) to render ineffective schemes designed to acquire or generate foreign tax credits that can be used to shelter low-taxed foreign source income from Australian tax. A foreign tax credit scheme operates on the basis that foreign income is earned which gives rise to an entitlement to foreign tax credits. A scheme is entered into whereby a foreign income stream is acquired by another taxpayer. Where the acquisition cost of the income stream is deductible to that another taxpayer those deductions largely cancel out the foreign income the other taxpayer has now acquired. The major portion of the foreign tax credits which relate to the acquired foreign income stream are then available to offset tax payable on the taxpayer's other foreign income of the same class.The Australian Taxation Office became aware that these types of schemes were being promoted in Australia. The Commissioner of Taxation does not accept the efficacy of these arrangements, and proposes to challenge them under the existing law in the courts. To put a stop to the development of future schemes the Government announced on 13 August 1998 that it would amend the general anti-avoidance provisions of Part IVA of the act to render such schemes ineffective.These types of arrangements have also been identified in the United States and the United Kingdom and remedial action has also swiftly been taken in both those countries.The amendment is designed to protect the revenue base. In the absence of such swift action the revenue base could be exposed to a significant threat.The Government also announced on 13 August 1998, as part of its tax reform package Tax Reform—not a new tax—a new tax system , that it will modernise the general anti-avoidance rules. This process will be conducted in line with the principles of the integrated tax code. In view of the threat that the foreign tax credit schemes posed to the revenue base it was necessary to announce the measures and bring legislation to the Parliament as soon as possible rather than await the modernisation of the general anti-avoidance rules.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.GENERAL INTEREST CHARGE (IMPOSITION) BILL 1998The bill accompanies Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1998 which replaces existing late payment penalties in various taxation laws with a uniform tax deductible general interest charge.The Imposition Bill will impose the new general interest charge as a tax to the extent to which the charge cannot validly be imposed as a penalty. Details of the measures in both bills are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Ordered that the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Bill 1998 and the Sales Tax Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Committees2116211621162116O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Payne, I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 , together with submissions and Hansard report of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.211621162116Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I present the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee on Australian content—paragraph 160(d) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report and to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.The statement read as follows—Australian Content Standards for Television and Paragraph 160 (d) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992I present the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee on the issue of Australian Content Standards for Television in the context of paragraph 160 (d) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.The need for a Senate Committee inquiry into the implications of section 160 (d) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 arose following a ruling of the High Court of Australia that the current Australian Content Standard developed by the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) and applying to free-to-air commercial television broadcasters, was in breach of section 160(d) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (BSA ) which requires the ABA to perform its functions in a manner consistent with Australia's international treaty obligations. In this case, the ABA's Standard was not consistent with Australia's obligations under the CER Services Protocol with New Zealand.The Committee received 35 submissions and held one public hearing in Canberra. The report of the inquiry, originally planned for the first sitting day after 31 October 1998, was delayed because of the general election on 3 October 1998.The current Australian Content Standard requires broadcasters to show Australian programs at least 55 per cent of the time between 6am and midnight. `Australian' is defined according to criteria that are specified in the Standard.The majority of submissions strongly supported quotas which they saw as essential for preventing Australian television from being dominated by imports from other countries and for protecting Australian cultural values. The submissions expressed concern that the Court's ruling meant that the ABA would make a new Standard which accepted New Zealand programs for quota purposes. The film and television production industry argued that this would pose a threat to the development of Australian cultural values through television programming. They therefore called for section 160(d) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to be repealed.The Committee accepted the advice of the Attorney General's department and of the Department of Foreign Affairs that, while repeal of section 160 (d) would enable the ABA to make a Standard that excludes New Zealand-made programs from the quotas, it would not remove the diplomatic problem that the present Standard is inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the CER Protocol with New Zealand. That problem can only be addressed through negotiations with New Zealand and the Committee is recommending that the government approach the New Zealand government to seek an amendment to the Closer Economic Relations (CER) Protocol which would insert a "cultural industries clause" to exempt services relating to cultural industries from the Protocol.The film production industry also expressed its fear that if paragraph 160(d) of the BSA were retained in its present form, other nations who have treaties with Australia which include `no less favoured treatment' clauses, would seek the same favoured treatment accorded to New Zealand under the "australian content" quotas for commercial television.The Committee took those fears seriously and it has recommended a number of measures to ensure that the australian content quota does not include film imports from every country with which Australia has a trade treaty.The Committee is recommending that in all future trade treaty negotiations with other countries, an exclusion clause for cultural industries should be inserted. This now seems to be accepted international practice.The Committee is also recommending that every step should be taken to clarify the status of New Zealand/third party co-productions by negotiating with the New Zealand government with a view to exchanging side letters to the CER Services Protocol to clarify both countries' understanding of the meaning and application of the CER Services Protocol in relation to New Zealand/third party co-productions.I commend the report to the Senate.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills2117r6532117Consideration resumed.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—I understand that the committee is about to consider schedule 1, item 20. The question is that schedule 1, item 20 stand as printed.17:06:002117Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—A little earlier in the day, when in debate on item 19 of schedule 1, we spoke about some of the issues that arise in relation to the enrolment form, prescribed persons and the regulations that now, today, in draft form have at least been provided to the opposition and other interested senators. And, in relation to debate on this matter, I do stress that these particular regulations are very much in just a draft form.For example, now that I have had an opportunity to look at them, I note the following in part 4 of the regulations dealing with electors who can attest a claim for enrolment:11 For paragraph 98(2)(c) of the act:(a) an elector is a prescribed class of electors if the elector is a person mentioned in schedule 3; and(b) if no person mentioned in schedule 3 is available for the person making the claim, an elector is in a prescribed class of electors if the elector:(1) is not related to the person making the claim by birth or marriage; and(2) is approved by an Australian Electoral Officer or the DRO.After that draft regulation appears a comment—one assumes, an AEC comment—and let me quote it:The notion of a prescribed class involves the presumption that the membership is fixed by the regulations. There is an element of subdelegation in the provision that an officer can approve membership of the class. It would be better for this power to be given by the act.Then we go on to `verification of identity', also in part 4. Let me quote from the draft regulations:12(1) For subsection 98(2)(a) of the act, the identity of a person making a claim must be verified by at least one of the following original documents:(a) documentary evidence of the applicant's identity.Let me interpolate what is in the document as a comment in respect of the draft regulation `(a) documentary evidence of the applicant's identity'. The comment reads:Your instructions refer to section 202B of the Tax Act. That section simply says that an application must be accompanied by documentary evidence of the applicant's identity. There is no definition of what may or may not be acceptable evidence, nothing is added here by referring to the Tax Act.And so it goes on. Then we get down to `verification of Australian citizenship' in part 13 of the regulations, which I will quote. Part 13(2) states:The person's Australian citizenship must be verified by any of the following:(a) provision of: (1) an Australian citizenship certificate; or (2) an Australian passport; or (3) an Electoral Commission enrolment application form given to the person by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs . . . Again, there is a comment in the document which reads:I am not sure if this is what you want here. The form was not attached to the instructions. Is this a document with evidence of the person's citizenship given to the person when citizenship is granted?We are being asked to agree with draft regulations that are in this form. What about schedule 3 of the draft regulations on electors who can attest claim for enrolment? There the comment reads:There is a similar list in the statutory declarations regulations. Could that be adopted? A statutory declaration may well be needed with some urgency while an electoral enrolment is a more routine activity that is prescribed persons for statutory declaration should be more than enough for electoral enrolments.This is the form that currently the draft regulations are in. I am not necessarily critical. I appreciate that obviously they have to go through this phase in terms of their development. But the point I made earlier today is that we had this legislation first introduced into the parliament in May of last year. We have had a long time, almost a year, for these regulations to be worked up and developed and, I think, provided in a more complete form than the form that was just received this morning from the minister. I do believe, Mr Temporary Chairman, that is a very substantive point for us to make as well as having to deal here with the substance of the issue.There are major problems in relation to item 20—the proposals to insert parts 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D after subsection 98(2) of the act. There are difficulties in some cases with very genuine people with the verification of Australian citizenship. I really think in the circumstances, even with the AEC and the government having finally worked this matter through in draft regulation form, that we do not have a position where this committee ought to be expected to sign on to these regulations. This is totally unacceptable. I think it would be a grave mistake for the committee to just blindly accept the government's proposal in relation to these quite significant changes to the Electoral Act.I have said before that what is motivating this is simply paranoia on the part of the government—and I stress that. The government's view, belief, claims, if you like, that there is widespread electoral fraud have never been able to be justified. This is motivated by paranoia on the part of the government; it is not motivated by a desire to ensure that we have maximum integrity in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. That is the problem.As I have said before, this is going to cost an enormous amount of money for what is, at this stage still, a dog's breakfast of a proposal that is before the committee. Why should the committee be so courageous as to bite this one off? Why should we, given the stage of development of the regulations, accept what the government is proposing?I question very seriously the government's motivation. I question very seriously the process that has got us up to this stage. I question very seriously the state of development of these regulations, even in their current draft form. I strongly advise the committee not to embrace them at this point. It is for that reason that the opposition will be opposing item 20.17:15:002118Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The regulations can only be put forward in draft form. As I have said previously, it is not normal when you have legislation being debated in the form of a bill to have the proposed regulations also before the Senate or the House. In fact, this is a bit like putting the cart before the horse, but we have done this in the interests of making available to the opposition and the other parties a full disclosure of what we are proposing. The reason we cannot have it in final form is that we still have to negotiate with the states, because we have a joint role situation.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You could have had it in a more developed form than this. And you could have provided it a bit earlier, and you know it.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—We have just had a comment that you could not have it in a more developed form, and we have just had criticism from the opposition that this is in such a draft form that they do not want to sign off on it. You cannot have it both ways.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I said it could be in a more developed form than this, and we could have had it a lot earlier than you have provided it.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—It is in as advanced a form as we could possibly have it for this debate. If we did have to put it off to get the consultation to the states and those agencies for which we are talking about where you can lodge an enrolment, then you would be waiting for another year.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—We have been waiting for a year already.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—We know why there was a delay, because the bill was not debated because an election came along. Then we had a new parliament, and then we had the Christmas break. There is no great shakes in saying that there has been this inordinate delay. We have had an election, a new parliament and the Christmas break. That is a substantial reason for any delay.I would suggest these regulations are in sufficient form for the committee to make an informed decision. Once this bill is dealt with and this provision is passed, we will then go to the states and deal with the states in relation to the joint role provisions and those agencies to ensure that there is no problem; that you can, for instance, go to Centrelink or Australia Post to lodge your enrolment to vote. It is as simple as that. That is the situation, and nothing could be clearer.What we have here is a proposal by the government that there should be some verification of identity for those people enrolling for the first time. What we are saying is that it is quite curious—in fact, more than curious; it is inappropriate—that you have a stricter requirement to open a bank account than you do to get on the roll to vote. Gaining the right to vote is a very important right indeed, and we believe as a government there should be some scrutiny in that process. It is as simple as that. What I am saying is that there are adequate provisions in these regulations for the committee to form a very informed view. In any event, these regulations could be subject to disallowance. At the end of the day, the government has a sound proposal as to the scrutiny for the enrolment of new voters.17:19:002119Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Democrats, having listened to the views put forward by the opposition and the minister, and while the minister put forward some reasoned views, are not convinced that this level of complication is required to be added to the act. We will also be voting against this section.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 1, item 20, stand as printed. Question put.17:24:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)34Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H.* Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.34Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.*Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.Coonan, H. Bolkus, N.Knowles, S. C. Denman, K. J.Tierney, J. Evans, C. V.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—I call on the opposition to move opposition amendment No. 2.17:28:002120Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move opposition consequential amendment No. 2 on sheet 1226:(2) Clause 2, page 2 (line 4), omit "20,".This amendment, of course, relates to the commencement dates.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The commencement date, as I understand it, as a result of the previous vote, is consequential. The question is that the amendment moved by the opposition be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to item 24. The question is that schedule 1, item 24 stand as printed.17:30:002120Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I was making the point a little earlier in relation to item 24 that the real concern is the reference to prescribed person. It is not, perhaps, as much a threshold issue as some of the others, but we have indicated very clearly our concerns there. I am disappointed that the committee does not share the opposition's concern in relation to the prescribed persons. I would suggest that it is worth all committee members apprising themselves of schedule 3 of the draft regulations: the electors who can attest claim for enrolment. It is very limited, and I think it is going to cause a great deal of logistical difficulties in the real world.This is the point that I particularly made to Senator Harradine, through the chair. This is going to cause problems for people, whether they be house-bound or whether they live in rural areas—where there are a whole range of reasons why they cannot easily access someone who fits one of the categories here. This is unnecessarily causing grief and difficulty to people who genuinely want to participate in the democratic process. I would say again to Senator Harradine, through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, that I hope he has cast his eye over this list that has now been made available in draft form. I hope he makes a close examination of it and, as I say, the logistical difficulties it is going to cause so many in the community.That is the reason that the opposition has opposed item 19 and item 20, and now item 24. It is a serious issue, but one I think we have probably debated now at significant length. I do not want to delay the committee, but I also want to impress upon the committee and reinforce the strong arguments that I think we have mounted in relation to our concerns about prescribed persons.17:33:002120Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Mr Temporary Chairman, the government has proposed that, while you would have an increased requirement for identification, you would afford persons seeking to enrol to vote a greater opportunity to lodge their enrolment form. So you would have more outlets or more venues at which you could go to lodge your enrolment.In the draft regulations which we circulated, we indicated that places that could take these enrolment form applications are approved agencies of the government of the states or territories. That could be quite wide. It could be the electoral commission offices in relation to those states or territories; ATSIC—which would cover the indigenous sector of the community; Australia Post; an Australian embassy or consulate overseas—which would cover people travelling overseas; Centrelink—which is widely distributed through the country; any court of petty sessions, district courts, the Supreme Court; the electoral authority of a state or territory; a local government authority or a local shire office; or a migrant resource centre—for those people newly arrived in Australia.We have opened up the places where you can lodge your application to enrol to vote. We think this is a very good move, notwithstanding that our previous proposal to strengthen the identification of the person enrolling to vote was lost. We believe that this is a good move because it increases the opportunity and the availability of places where a person can enrol to vote. The current situation is that you do that through the AEC.The fate of the former provision—which I mentioned might have to be revisited—remains to be seen. But, for the present, the government maintains its proposal in relation to this matter and commends it to the committee.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 1, item 24, stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.17:36:002121Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I mentioned the prior vote during which there was a member of the government absent. The senator concerned has advised that he was in the courtyard and did not hear the bills ringing or see the light flashing. He was unaware of the division even though he was not a great distance from the chamber. I would ask that the vote on that be recommitted, because—6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Where is this senator?9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—He is here now. Perhaps he could give an explanation to the committee.17:37:002121Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—I do apologise for the inconvenience that I have undoubtedly caused the chamber. I did not hear the bells. I was in the courtyard with one former member and one present member of the House of Representatives. I had only been there for a few minutes. I went out of the building and must have been out of earshot of the bells. My secretary came down, but it was too late by the time I came back in. I do apologise most profusely for what has been an embarrassing moment for me.17:37:002121Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I ask you, Mr Temporary Chairman, to draw this matter to the attention of the President. There is a concern about the courtyard. The bells do not sound out there. It is frequented by members of parliament. We should see to it that, besides the flashing of the lights, the bells sound out there. Increasingly members of parliament are liable to fall into this situation. It is one that can be fixed. To ensure a positive outcome from this, I ask that the President look at that situation to see if it cannot be fixed.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—Senator Brown, I will convey your request to the President.17:38:002121Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Mr Temporary Chairman, I think you would be aware that the opposition has consistently taken a view in relation to senators missing divisions, who are almost always coalition senators, I might add—and I think that is a fair statement, given the record—that we have time and again recommitted votes taken in committee and in the Senate. The problem is simple: I feel we have now reached the point where the goodwill of the opposition is being taken advantage of by the government.I do not direct this directly at Senator Lightfoot. It just so happens that the Senator Lightfoot incident is the third one since the Senate has resumed this week. We had a senator missing a division earlier in the week in relation to a vote to extend a committee reference, and we have had two instances of senators missing divisions in the committee stage of this bill—Senator Lightfoot on this occasion, Senator Ian Macdonald on the previous occasion, and the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Campbell, in the first instance I referred to.There is no doubt that if Senator Lightfoot had attended the division the outcome of the vote would have been different. I accept that. The point I make is this: time and again the opposition demonstrates its goodwill by recommitting votes and ensuring that the will of the electorate is reflected on the floor of the Senate as votes are taken. I make this as a very serious point to the government: at some point there has to be an effort made by the government to lift its game.The government cannot slack off on its whip arrangements or on ensuring discipline amongst coalition senators, knowing full well that it really does not matter because the good old opposition on this side of the chamber, because it takes a principled and proper approach to these sorts of issues, will always play ball and agree to recommit votes. That does appear to be a trend that is developing. I hope the minister at the table would agree that that is simply not on. You just cannot depend all the time on the opposition to dig the government out of a hole of its own creation.I do not direct this particularly to Senator Lightfoot. I make that point. This is the most recent incident in a long line of failures on the part of the government to get its act into gear. That is not to say that on the very rare occasion opposition senators have not missed divisions and been in similar circumstances. But I tell you what: the numbers on missing divisions are overwhelmingly in favour of the government. There have literally been only a couple of instances since Labor lost government in 1996 when a vote has needed to be recommitted—only two that I can recall—because of an error by an opposition senator.Government senators are doing this time and time again. If the government simply takes advantage of this by saying, `If we miss a key vote, what the hell does it matter, because the opposition will recommit the matter and we will get on with it,' that is not good enough. I think it is about time the government recognised that it is not good enough.The government should also recognise the appalling example Senator Alston has set in this regard as the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. I suspect that is one of the reasons this has occurred. Senator Alston has made an absolute art form of missing divisions over the last couple of years. As deputy leader, he is in a position in which he ought to be setting an example. If that is the example that is set, we have too many other senators following it, including recently another senior government office holder in the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. I make that point very seriously. I think it is a reasonable point that the opposition is entitled to see the government take a little more effort in ensuring discipline in relation to votes in this chamber.The arguments that are presented in relation to the courtyard might be right. Maybe the bells do not ring in the courtyards, but there are lights in the courtyards. Senators are supposed to be wearing pagers. There are a range of mechanisms to ensure that we do not have this circumstance occur. I stress: I do not blame Senator Lightfoot, because he is the last in a great long line of government senators who have failed the test of coming to divisions, and it is senior government senators who have set such a bad example.Of course, we have also nailed our colours to the mast on this, because we have said that we will do the honourable and proper thing. We will continue to do the honourable and proper thing, but I will tell you what: we are entitled to revisit this if our goodwill is just going to be continually exploited by the government in the way it has. Just because the opposition—and, for that matter, minor party senators and Senator Harradine—agree to recommitting votes it does not means that the processes and procedures of this place can be taken for granted. I hope that is a message that Senator Ellison as the responsible minister in the chamber at the moment and the Government Whip, who is on duty in the chamber at the moment, take on board seriously. I am now saying that the opposition will agree to recommit a vote that yet again has meant that a very important provision that is going to very significantly impact on the electoral processes in this country is going to be changed as a result of opposition goodwill. But we have set the benchmark in this. Do not take advantage of it. Do not exploit it, and do not take us for granted.17:46:002122Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I can assure Senator Faulkner that I do take this matter very seriously. I point out that this is the first time we have asked for a recommittal on a bill this session.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—This session, which is three days old.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I am not going to make excuses for the other two people who missed divisions. It does so happen that I have taken this up with the Prime Minister's office, and the bells do not ring in his office either, which is where Senator Macdonald was when he missed a division. The beepers do not work there either. That is something we did not know before. So if you are having a visit to the Prime Minister's office some time, Senator Faulkner, and your beeper does not go off and you do not hear the bells, you will understand why.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—That will be a red-letter day—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—It is not likely to happen soon.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I can assure you that the government takes this matter very seriously. In Senator Campbell's case it is the first division he has ever missed since he has been coming to this place. I also remind you, Senator Faulkner, that we have recommitted votes in the same manner as you have, notwithstanding the fact—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—How many?5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I will check. I know there were at least two occasions last year when there were serious matters—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Two, as opposed to 22.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—That is not the point. The point I am making is that I hear what you say. I take the matter very seriously, as do all senators on this side. Senator Lightfoot has apologised, and I thank you for letting us recommit the vote.17:47:002123O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I rise to indicate that, in response to Senator Brown's comments, Senator Faulkner made some comments about pagers. I have been in the courtyard and I have heard pagers go off. I have also heard bells from inside the building. But the fact of the matter is that every senator is issued with a pager. I know that my office and Senator Calvert's office page senators for divisions. If the senator chooses not to carry the pager and as a result of that this chamber is then asked to recommit a vote, then we should understand that the basis for the recommittal is that the senator has refused to carry a pager. I do accept that sometimes pagers do not go off. In fact I was at a meeting where mine did not work, and I had it checked. But that is the responsibility of the individual senator, because it is their lifeline with this chamber when they are conducting their affairs and performing their duties around this very large building.I want to emphasise that I do not accept that being in the courtyard and not hearing the bells is a reasonable excuse. I would not accept that from one of my colleagues as a reasonable excuse, because I know that they are issued with a pager and I know that, barring a technical difficulty, they should be aware that there is a division, be able to read a message on their pager and attend the chamber in good time to vote. In response to some of the comments made and Senator Calvert's comments, I am sure that he has emphasised to his senators that they must wear their pagers, even in the Prime Minister's office.UNKNOWNThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—I have an indication from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate that he is willing to recommit the vote. That being the case, I put the question that schedule 1, item 20 stand as printed.17:54:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)32Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.31Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Margetts, D. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.Alston, R. K. R. McKiernan, J. P.Coonan, H. Evans, C. V.Hill, R. M. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. Bolkus, N.Tierney, J. Hutchins, S.Vanstone, A. E. Sherry, N.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—As a consequence of that vote, I assume that you wish to recommit the next amendment, which is opposition amendment No. 2 on sheet 1226, which was agreed to?17:57:002124Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—You are correct in drawing to our attention the fact that my consequential amendment was successful. If we recommit it, I obviously will not proceed with it.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted to recommit?Leave granted.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that opposition amendment No. 2 on sheet 1226 be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.17:59:002124Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—While we are on this subject, I might say to the committee that I almost decided to not vote for the recommitted motion. I feel that it may be necessary to extend the nominated officers, positions or persons in the draft regulations, and I would be grateful if the minister would indicate to the committee that, prior to these regulations being made, suggestions that come from members of the parliament and others will be taken into account so as to extend the list of those who would be able to certify.18:00:002124Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I thank Senator Harradine for that contribution. I give an undertaking to this Senate that we will abide by the suggestion that he has made that if there are suggestions as to other persons who could fit the bill in relation to the draft regulations that we have circulated, we will certainly take that on board. I know that Senator Harradine has mentioned that in some remote areas you may have difficulty finding someone who might be able to fulfil that role of witnessing an enrolment. I am conscious of that, especially coming from a state like Western Australia which has vast remote areas.The government put this forward as a draft regulation. There is an understanding that where you have a situation which might not be accommodated by the list here, that has to be rectified. After all, we are not about to disadvantage people in remote areas or areas where there is no access to the people listed. I might say that this is an extensive list, but we certainly will take on board suggestions in relation to this matter. I give that undertaking to Senator Harradine.18:02:002124Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—by leave—I move Democrats amendments Nos 5 and 7 on sheet 1227:(5) Schedule 1, after item 29, page 8 (after line 5), insert:29A After paragraph 133(1)(a) Insert: (aa) certify a copy of the party's constitution and make it available for public inspection under section 139; [section 133—party constitution to be publicly available](7) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 27), after item 44, insert:44A At the end of section 314AB Add: (3) The first return under paragraph (1)(a) or (1)(b) after each election must include a copy of the registered political party's constitution that is current at the date of the return.[section 314AB—party constitution to be provided after each election]These are related amendments which my colleague and fellow traveller on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Senator Murray, moved when the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill went through this chamber, albeit in a slightly modified version. The purpose of these amendments is to place an onus upon political parties when lodging their annual returns immediately following elections to also lodge an up-to-date copy of their constitution, which would then be available for public inspection.Political parties remain fairly nebulous institutions in our community and derive their chief source of legality from this Electoral Act that we are discussing today. As the rise and fall of the One Nation party has illustrated, the customs of political parties do not necessarily insulate against improper use being made of those parties or, as we have recently seen, the privileges that attach to such a status. Even getting a clear indication of the structure and manner of operation of some political parties is fairly difficult. Nowadays incorporated associations and trade unions must all lodge constitutions which generally are available for public scrutiny.This amendment seeks to make political parties and their organisational structure more transparent. Given, as has also been widely publicised, some of those parties at least are able to potentially be the recipient of a significant amount of public funds, the Democrats believe that it is all the more appropriate that this fairly small measure should be incorporated as part of the act.Already when political parties apply for registration under section 126(2)(f) of the act, they have to provide a copy of the constitution of the party. But that is not made publicly available and there is no requirement to provide any updated version at any stage after the party has initially been registered. These amendments seek ensure that when or if the Electoral Commission determines that a political party's application for registration should be accepted and the party should be registered, the commissioner would certify a copy of the party's constitution and make it available for public inspection under section 139 of the act, which deals with inspection of the register of political parties.To ensure that that is updated, the related amendment requires the party to put in an up-to-date version of their constitution with their first return to the commission after each federal election to ensure that the public is able to have access to an up-to-date version of that party's constitution in case they try to radically change their structure in the interim. It is basically about ensuring a bit more transparency in the organisational structure of Australia's political parties. The Democrats believe that that is something, particularly in light of recent public debate on this issue, that would be a positive move.18:05:002125Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—There may be an element of merit in this proposal that the Democrats have moved by way of amendments. I think we do understand what the Democrats are trying to achieve here. I am not convinced about the proposal. I am not convinced that the administration of this would not be very cumbersome. I do not how it would work in practice.I would say to Senator Bartlett that it seems to me that it would be worth looking at the merits of this proposal through the processes of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. If there is a case to be made in relation to it, then as part of the deliberations on the current reference to the committee of the 1998 federal election, we could look at it through that forum. I would be interested to hear the case as it might be mounted.I am trying to say something positive about amendments that, at this stage, the opposition cannot see its way clear to support. I do say, even though we will be opposing it, that it might have some merit. I genuinely believe it is better looked at in the cold, hard light of day through the mechanism I have suggested.18:07:002126Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The Greens support the Democrat amendments here. If you turn it around the other way, why should the constitutions of political parties, particularly political parties which are in receipt of public funding or potentially in receipt of public funding as a result of elections, not be open to scrutiny? One political party, One Nation, recently has had a lot of heartache over its own party constitution, with members publicly feeling aggrieved about it. It would be a healthy thing for the political parties involved to know that at each election the returns after the election will involve them lodging a copy of the party constitution, as it may have been amended in the intervening years, so that it is there for all to see—a good piece of public accountability and transparency. The Greens support this amendment.18:09:002126Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I seek some clarification from the mover. On revised sheet 1227, are we dealing with amendments Nos 5 and 7 or are we only dealing with amendment No. 7?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Numbers 5 and 7.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—If we are dealing with amendment No. 5, that, in effect, is to retain section 96A of the act.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—The main difference will be making it available for public inspection.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I am sorry. The Democrats amendment No. 5 says, `Schedule 1, item 18, page 5 (lines 24 and 25), to be opposed.' My version—that is the government's proposal—says `Schedule 1, lines 24 and 25, item 18, section 96A, repeal the section.' Am I missing the point?DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—No. I suspect you have sheet 1227, revised 2, or is it revised 1? It is probably an earlier version of the amendment sheet, I suspect.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—This doesn't have `revised 1' on it. So we have `revised 2', do we? Thank you.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—The old goalposts have gone walkabout.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Yes, the goalposts have shifted a bit. I see that it is relevant to the point that was made. I might just mention, apropos of Senator Faulkner's comments, that this matter has been around for a while, as I recall. So far as I am concerned, I have had sufficient time to chew it over. I see no reason why this should be opposed. What is wrong with requiring a political party to lodge a copy of its constitution at the time it is going to make the returns seeking taxpayers' funding? I intend without further ado to support this amendment. I do hope the major parties, the Labor Party and the coalition—the Liberal Party and the National Party—see fit to support this or, if not, to give us a pretty good reason as to why this shouldn't be supported.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—Before I call the minister: Senator Bartlett, when you first introduced the amendments you wanted them to be taken together, but I think in view of some of the comment it may be better if we take them separately when I put the question.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—That is fine. We will just deal with this as moving amendment No. 5.18:13:002126Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government has a view which is not dissimilar to that of the opposition. Might I say at the outset that I know from my own state that the Incorporation of Associations Act requires that any body which is incorporated under that act should have a constitution and that it has to be lodged with what was formerly the corporate affairs office. It is lodged there for public scrutiny and is available for inspection. I am hazarding a guess here, but I would assume that in all other states the situation would be much the same. Political parties are incorporated under such legislation. So there is, I would submit, in state legislation already a situation where a constitution of a political party is lodged with an agency and that it is subject to public scrutiny.However, having said that, I don't take anything away from the spirit of the proposal put forward by the Democrats. There would be some administrative burden to the AEC in this, although, I would concede, it would not be overly burdensome. But the suggestion of Senator Faulkner's is not a bad one. Perhaps the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters could have a look at this. It is something which we cannot see our way clear to support today but perhaps the committee could have a look at it and include it in its report. It has current terms of reference looking into the 1998 election, and this is something it could take up. But I do not think at this stage the government can see its way clear to supporting either of these proposals.18:14:002127Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I will not delay the Senate greatly. I realise the situation with the numbers, and I do welcome at least the indication of interest, if you like, from both the coalition and the ALP and the possibility of exploring this in the upcoming inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Nonetheless, I do think it is worth highlighting that, as Senator Harradine said, it is not that difficult a measure. The constitution is already provided to the Electoral Commission when a registration is first put in, so really the only extra work would be adding that to all the other details that are already required on the register, such as the name of the party and the name and address of the registered officer, et cetera.I do not think that is overly onerous. I do not think that having one extra piece of paper added to the returns, that have to be put in every year in any case, would generate particularly enormous amounts of administrative work for the Electoral Commission, given the amount it is already required to do in assessing returns of political parties. So I do not believe it would be a major measure.On Senator Ellison's point about the availability already of the constitutions in some states under incorporated associations law, I am not an expert on the political structure of every political party registered in the country partly because you cannot see where their constitutions are so you do not know, but I would hazard a guess that a number of parties are not incorporated in various states and I am not sure they would be necessarily available in that regard. In any case, we will pursue this through the joint select committee. In the meantime, anyone who actually wants to see the Democrats' constitution at any stage should look on our web site. We do not need to wait for this amendment to go through to show people what our constitution is.18:16:002127Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—One point I failed to mention earlier is the lack of compulsion in this, and that is something Senator Bartlett might want to consider in any future proposal. If there is to be compliance, there is no compulsion in your proposal. I just point that out by way of assistance.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—The question is that Democrat amendment No. 5 be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that Democrat amendment No. 7 be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to schedule 1, items 44 and 45.18:18:002127Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—This is a very important part of this particular bill, and one which does deserve some close attention from the committee. Items 44 and 45 really represent another attempt by the coalition parties to weaken disclosure. Weakening disclosure and the disclosure provisions of the act are something that the coalition has consistently pursued now for at least 15 years.We believe that these increases in electoral funding disclosure thresholds would allow for significant sums of money to go through without being disclosed, and we cannot support that. Even the AEC does not support these measures. I think they have been driven along here by the federal secretariat of the Liberal Party. In the AEC's submission to the Senate inquiry into this legislation, it said in respect of thresholds for reporting donations:The AEC advised against such changes in a submission to the JSCEM inquiry into the conduct of the 1996 election. That is very important to note. During the Senate inquiry into this legislation, the head of funding and disclosure of the AEC conceded the following:The way that a donor can make such a large donation without being disclosed is by donating up to the threshold to each state and territory branch of a political party. So, for a party that is organised nationally in every state and territory plus with a national secretariat, you are looking at nine separate identified parties, in effect, for disclosure purposes.A donor can make separate donations to each of those parties. Because they are not aggregated across the party across Australia, only within each state and territory, they will not be disclosed. So . . . they could donate $4,999 a year to each state and territory branch of a political party and go undisclosed. That would add up to just short of $45,000.He is right. That is what it is all about, and that is what could happen.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Except when you've got only one branch.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Senator Harradine, there is one of you, but I would ask that, in relation to these particular items—that is, items 44 and 45—you look at the possibility of manipulation by perhaps a major political party. I would not want to name one, but the obvious one would be the Liberal Party of Australia. I appreciate Senator Harradine's unique circumstances in relation to that, but this is a very important principle.It is important to note also that the AEC conceded that there were a number of other ways in which donors could split their donations so they would not be disclosed. For example, each member of a family could donate separately or a family and a company could donate up to the disclosure limit.The problem here is that the coalition parties simply do not like political disclosure. It is as simple as that. They have never supported it. Their use of the Greenfields Foundation rort does nothing to inspire any confidence at all in the arguments they have brought to bear in relation to these particular clauses. We are going to be pursuing further amendments in the Senate to try to close once and for all that Greenfields Foundation rort.As far as the Labor Party is concerned, we have always advocated tight and transparent funding and disclosure provisions. We are not going to allow items 44 and 45 to see the Liberal Party national secretariat fundamentally and very significantly undermine the integrity of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, because that is what these items do. These items are key provisions in this bill, and the Senate really has to stand up and be counted on this issue. We need to retain the integrity of the Electoral Act and ensure that those who donate to and support political parties have those donations disclosed. That is in this parliament's interest, and I would suggest to the committee that it is very much in the public interest.18:24:002128Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I too am opposed to the proposed increase from $1,500 to $10,000 in subsection 305B(1) and from $1,500 to $5,000 in subsection 314AC(1). The matter has been canvassed by Senator Faulkner, but we all know that even the $1,500 can be circumvented. For example, an organisation could pay its members certain funds which are then to be paid to the particular political party, whether it be the Labor Party, the Liberal Party or any other party. For example, porn merchants could be organising their video outlets and individuals to pay certain moneys to a particular political party, each of those donations being $1,499. Eleven organisations or individuals could pay that and be reimbursed, and there is no way that could be tracked by the AEC.This is the sort of situation that can arise even under the current provisions. You are never going to have complete transparency, and that is the point I am making. In particular, you will never have complete transparency in a situation where the party—whether it be the Labor Party, the Liberal Party or any individual party—does not want to be seen to be receiving donations from particular sources. What can be done about that, I do not know. Possibly nothing can be done about it, but let us at least keep the lower threshold that is currently in the legislation.18:27:002128Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I agree with both the previous speakers. It is difficult to prevent people from usurping the spirit of the current laws which state that, if you donate $1,500 or more, it must be disclosed. To raise that to $10,000 is to raise by six or eight times the ability of large amounts of money to be transferred by way of donations to the political parties without it being traced. It is when people go to some length to hide the fact that the donation is coming that I suspect political leverage is most wanted as an outcome by those donors. Therefore, there is the greatest need for those people to be under scrutiny.I do not know why the government wants this change. I would be interested to hear in succinct terms from the minister why the government thinks keeping a longer list of donors who contributed $1,500 or more is more difficult than keeping a shorter list of those who contributed $10,000 or more. One cannot help but suspect that the government sees a very clear advantage in having more of its donors shielded from the glare of public scrutiny. If that is the case, that is not a good thing. If that is not the case, then why bring these amendments forward? It does not add up. They are not a good thing; they are going in the wrong direction. The Greens, like the previous speakers, totally oppose the government amendments.18:29:002129Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In relation to that last comment, these amounts have not been altered since, I believe, the 1992-93 financial year, so I would submit the effluxion of time has some relevance here. When these amounts were set, it was thought that there were obvious levels below which there should not be any disclosure and that, over time, those levels naturally would increase with the CPI, inflation and other things.In relation to private donations to political parties, it is quite important because the government does not see that political parties should be entirely dependent on public funding. There are some who would say, `Let's rub out private funding entirely and just have it on public funding.' But if that were the case, you would then have parties, as I mentioned before, that would simply run in an election, have a percentage of the vote and collect their cheque. Other parties wanting to do more would want to not only rely on public funding but also rely on their own resources in obtaining donations and donations in kind.I think that all political parties have received private donations—quite properly so. There is perhaps a perception that this question of donation to a political party has some cloud over it. The legislation recognises that donations to political parties are a way of life. The question is the level at which you draw the line for disclosure purposes.The government believes that, in view of the effluxion of time and the fact that there is a question of the amount by which you might deter people from making a donation if it were to be disclosed—for instance, $500 to $1,500 for an individual, and $1,500 to $10,000 and $1,500 to $5,000 for the organisations—that could well deter people from making a donation because they do not want to have the disclosure. Obviously, some people do not want to make their political allegiances public. I think that is a part of our system which is important. We have a secret ballot—no-one questions that. The country led the way in that.But the situation is that the support of political parties is not something that everyone would wear on their sleeves, for obvious reasons. I would expect there would be supporters of the opposition who would not want to be readily identified as supporters of the opposition, for personal reasons or other reasons—and I respect that. But it is a question of the line you draw in relation to disclosure.I can foreshadow that the opposition has some amendments which the government will be supporting, the ones dealing with associated entities. We support those because we do not want to see the system circumvented. We have indicated to the opposition that we will be supporting these amendments. There are some that we have a difficulty with due to technicalities, but that is purely the definition of a loan and a credit card. We will deal with them later. But, right now, the government would commend these amendments to the committee. 18:34:002130Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—This section of the legislation is of great concern to the Democrats. I don't think it would be blowing our own trumpet too much to say that the issue of disclosure of donations and openness in relation to transparency of funding and donations to political parties is something that the Democrats have pursued with some vigour for many years. Our concern goes back to my predecessor from Queensland, Senator Michael Macklin, who pursued these sorts of issues with great diligence over many years.It is important to emphasise what we are discussing here in this part of the bill: we are not talking about rubbing out private donations or the ability for political parties to receive funds from private sources—not at all—in fact, I would quite like the Democrats to receive a lot more funds and donations than we do from private sources. I am quite happy to be open about that.Why the Democrats have concerns with this part of the bill is that it is not about rubbing out private donations—far from it—it is about rubbing out an appropriate level of transparency and openness about private donations. That is something that I am quite sure all of us would agree is of great concern to the Australian public: that people have some ability to be aware of who is donating and who is providing funding—as long as the transparency is there. It is similar to senators and members having to individually declare our assets and have that publicly available or tabled. It is not a way of saying that we cannot have assets; it is a way of being open and upfront about what they are so that there is transparency in the system and some opportunity for public faith in the system.As I have said a number of times in this debate, public faith in the system is seriously stretched in Australia at the moment. As a parliament, we do not want to be supporting measures that will further increase public cynicism or will lead to a decrease in public faith in the political and parliamentary process. The Democrats are opposed to the two sections of the bill that we are debating at the moment—again, just to make it clear to those multitudes listening to the debate. In parts of the legislation currently, if a person in any one financial year makes gifts totalling $1,500 or more to any registered political party or the same state branch of a political party, they have to put in a return to the Electoral Commission.What this measure seeks to do is change that to $10,000; that is, for a person now to be able to make a gift totalling $10,000 to the same registered political party or the same state branch. Of course, all of us here know that you can donate underneath the threshold to more than one branch of a political party and not be required to put in a return. So it is a significant leap. Whilst I take Senator Ellison's point about the effects of the CPI since these figures were first put in, we also have to look at the state of the world as it is now and the appropriate level of public expectation about what level of donations should be declared. I suggest that $10,000 is well and truly over and above that.Similarly, the bill before us seeks to amend the act so that, instead of a party having to include particulars of where a sum amounting to more than $1,500 has come from, that amount will now move up to $5,000. Again, if this were to go through, once you factor in that a person or an organisation can donate to a number of different state branches of the one party plus the national level, you would have the ability to donate just under $5,000 to each state and territory branch plus, possibly, the national level. This would put you up around $40,000-odd. Over the course of an electoral cycle, a three-year period, you get up into well over $100,000 that can be donated to a political party as a whole, without there being any opportunity or requirement for that to be declared. In the view of the Democrats, that is well and truly over and above the level of transparency we should have in our Electoral Act.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—The question is that schedule 1, items 44 and 45, stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to Democrat amendment No. 8, that schedule 1, item 46, be opposed.18:39:002131Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Democrats oppose schedule 1, item 46. We are here talking about a similar issue of principle. Item 46 of the legislation again relates to reporting thresholds, and it is another section of the bill that the Democrats oppose. Just to clarify again what this one particularly deals with, the section above section 314AC(2) of the act currently states that, if the sum of all the amounts received by or on behalf of the party from a person or organisation during a financial year is $1,500 or more, the return must include the particulars of that sum. But currently in the act, in calculating that sum, any amount less than $500 does not need to be counted.What this part of the bill seeks to do is raise that amount of $500 to $1,500. So, basically, any amount less than $1,500 does not need to be counted in determining whether or not a contribution for a financial year is $1,500 or more. Again, from the Democrats point of view, this looks like an inappropriate weakening of transparency requirements of the legislation. Again, this is a measure that, for reasons similar to those that I have just outlined, the Senate should oppose.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 1, item 46, stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to opposition amendment 1 on sheet 1236.18:41:002131Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move opposition amendment 1 on sheet 1236:(1) Clause 4, page 2 (line 12), omit "amendments made by items 44, 45 and 46 apply", substitute "amendment made by item 46 applies".This amendment is consequential to our previous decision in relation to items 44 and 45.Amendment agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—We now move to Democrat amendment No. 14.18:41:002131Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I understand that our amendment No. 14 is consequential to the one above, which, sadly, did not succeed. So there is probably no point in proceeding with this.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will just leave it.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Chair, I would just ask your advice on that amendment. Is it consequential?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—It is consequential on all of 12, sheet 1225, being successful.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Thank you.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to amendments 1 to 3 and 5 to 6, and R4 on sheet 1244.18:43:002131Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I am happy to move those together by leave, if it is the wish of the committee. I am just not sure about doing so, given Senator Ellison's comments before.18:43:002131Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I would indicate that, of the opposition amendments 1 to 6 on sheet 1321, Nos 1, 2 and 3 are supported by the government, and 4, 5 and 6 are not. So, if we could deal with them in separate groups, that might be easier, unless that causes the opposition some problem in its argument.18:44:002131Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Upon it being the wish of the committee to facilitate debate, I seek leave to move opposition amendments 1 to 3 on sheet 1231 together. I think that might be the best way to proceed.Leave granted.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 25), after item 43, insert:43A Subsection 287(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of associated entity ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) operates wholly or to a significant extent for the benefit of one or more registered political parties. [section 287—loans and associated entities](2) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 25), after item 43A, insert:43B Subsection 305(1) Omit "during that disclosure period", substitute "at any time".43C Paragraph 305(1)(a) After "person" (first occurring), insert "during that disclosure period".[section 305—loans and associated entities](3) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 27), after item 44, insert:44A After subsection 305B(3) Insert: (3A) The return must also set out the relevant details of all gifts received by the person at any time, being gifts used to make gifts the whole or part of which were used to make gifts totalling $1,500 or more in a financial year to the same registered political party or the same State branch of a registered political party and the amount or value of each of which is equal to or exceeds $1,000. (3B) Relevant details for the purpose of subsection (3A), in relation to a gift, are: (a) the amount or value of the gift; and (b) the date on which the gift was made; and (c) in the case of a gift made on behalf of the members of an unincorporated association, other than a registered industrial organisation: (i) the name of the association; and (ii) the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the association; and (d) in the case of a gift purportedly made out of a trust fund or out of the funds of a foundation: (i) the names and addresses of the trustees of the fund or of the funds of the foundation; and (ii) the title or other description of the trust fund or the name of the foundation, as the case requires; and (e) in any other case—the name and address of the person who made the gift.[section 305B—loans and associated entities]10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that those amendments be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—Senator Faulkner, could you seek leave to move your amendments?18:45:002132Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Thank you for that guidance, Madam Temporary Chair.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—I would like some clarification. On sheet 1244 it says replacement amendment 4 on sheet 1231. So we are looking at 4 on sheet 1224 and amendments 5 and 6 on sheet 1231.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That is correct, Senator Harradine.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I seek leave to move the amendments together.Leave granted.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I move:(R4) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 27), after item 44A, insert:44B After section 306 Insert:306A Certain loans not to be received (1) It is unlawful for a political party or a State branch of a political party or a person acting on behalf of a political party or a State branch of a political party to receive a loan of $1,500 or more from a person or entity other than a financial institution unless the loan is made in accordance with subsection (3). (2) It is unlawful for a candidate or a member of a group or a person acting on behalf of a candidate or group to receive a loan of $1,500 or more from a person or entity other than a financial institution unless the loan is made in accordance with subsection (3). (3) The receiver of the loan must keep a record of the following: (a) the terms and conditions of the loan; (b) if the loan was received from a registered industrial organisation other than a financial institution: (i) the name of the organisation; and (ii) the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the organisation; (c) if the loan was received from an unincorporated association: (i) the name of the organisation or association; and (ii) the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the association or organisation; (d) if the loan was paid out of a trust fund or out of the funds of a foundation: (i) the names and addresses of the trustees of the fund or of the foundation; and (ii) the title or other description of the trust fund, or the name of the foundation as the case requires; or (e) in any other case—the name and address of the person or organisation. (4) For the purpose of subsection (2), a person who is a candidate in an election is taken to remain a candidate for 30 days after the polling day in the election. (5) For the purpose of subsection (2), persons who constituted a group in an election are taken to continue to constitute the same group for 30 days after the polling day in the election. (6) Where a person receives a loan that, by virtue of this section, it is unlawful for the person to receive, an amount equal to the amount or value of the loan is payable by that person to the Commonwealth and may be recovered by the Commonwealth as a debt due to the Commonwealth by action, in a court of competent jurisdiction, against: (a) in the case of a loan to or for the benefit of a political party or a State branch of a political party: (i) if the party or branch, as the case may be is a body corporate—the party or branch, as the case may be; or (ii) in any other case—the agent of the party or branch, as the case may be; or (b) in any other case—the candidate or a member of the group or the agent of the candidate or of the group, as the case may be. (7) In this section: financial institution means an entity which carries on a business that consists of, or includes, the provision of financial services or financial products and which is: (a) a bank; or (b) a credit union; or (c) a building society; or (d) any other entity registered under the Australian Financial Institutions Commission Codes as a special service provider. Note: See section 111AZB of the Corporations Law for the Australian Financial Institutions Commission Codes. loan means: (a) an advance of money; or (b) a provision of credit or any other form of financial accommodation; or (c) a payment of an amount for, on account of, on behalf of or at the request of, an entity, if there is an express or implied obligation to repay the amount; or (d) a transaction (whatever its terms or form) which in substance effects a loan of money.[after section 306—loans and associated entities](5) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 27), after item 44B, insert:44C Subsection 314AA(1) (definition of amount ) After "gift", insert ", loan or".[section 314AA—loans and associated entities](6) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 2), after item 46, insert:46A After paragraph 314AC(3)(b) Insert: (ba) if the sum was received as a result of a loan—the information required to be kept under subsection 306A(3), or the name of the financial institution, as the case requires; or[section 314AC—loans and associated entities]This is obviously a very important issue. It is an issue that has arisen from a lot of public concern and many concerns raised in the parliament, particularly by me on behalf of the opposition in relation to what I believe has been a mechanism used by the government to subvert the disclosure provisions of the Electoral Act.What our amendments are about—the first three that have been accepted by the committee and these three—is simply this: we want to end once and for all what we believe is the vehicle by which the Liberal Party has exploited any real or apparent loopholes in the Electoral Act. The vehicle that is being used, the Greenfields Foundation, has meant that one of the major political parties in this country, the majority party in this coalition government, has been able to dodge full and transparent disclosure. I want to say this, being as generous as I can in the circumstances: the government did take some steps to address recommendation 10 of the March 1998 report of the AEC into funding and disclosure by broadening the investigative powers of the AEC in dealing with and determining whether or not an organisation is an associated entity.We found out, as senators would know, during questioning of the Australian Electoral Commission at Senate estimates hearings last week, that the AEC recently utilised these powers for the first time to serve notice on the Greenfields Foundation on 15 January 1999. While those particular government amendments were sufficient for the purpose of broadening the investigative powers of the AEC in pursuing suspected associated entities, they have not gone far enough in relation to the crucial issue of closing the loophole in the legislation. That is what the opposition wants to do.Let me explain to the committee what our amendments here are about. Firstly, they tighten the definition of `associated entity'. Secondly, they close the loophole in the event of the loan being given ultimately becoming a gift. Thirdly, they prevent loans from being received from anyone other than a registered financial institution unless certain information, such as terms and conditions of the loan, are disclosed. I might continue arguing this very strong case tomorrow.Progress reported.Documents2134213418:50:002134Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document. This is the final report of the Safety Review Committee which has the responsibility to ensure the safety of the operations at Lucas Heights. It is the final report because its responsibilities are being taken over by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and its councils and committees. The responsibility of this committee cannot be underestimated. Nuclear safety is an issue of paramount concern, and I have no reason to doubt the integrity or the qualifications or the commitment to safety or even the effectiveness of the committee in ensuring safety. But this report gives me no reason to have a lot of confidence either. One of the problems is the superficiality of much of the report. Whenever there is something of potential concern, it gets a glancing mention which raises more questions than answers. I will come to some of those concerns and the questions that come to mind in a moment.The other problem is that the committee considered there were no matters arising in regard to the committee's functions B, C and D during the period of the report. These are the functions involving investigating and advising on matters which may have adverse consequences or safety implications. Even from the relative superficiality of the report, it is clear that there were matters that could well have been investigated. For example, there is the matter of the granting of temporary exemption from certain operating limits and conditions.The report gives us no indication of which operating limits or conditions. Perhaps the minister could throw some light on this. Were these exemptions related to allowed levels of radiation exposure? What were the causes of the events which led to exemptions? Were the causes age related and do they have implications for the reactor surviving to the year 2005? Following these exemptions, the report tells us, the Nuclear Safety Bureau required ANSTO to provide data on the state of the reactor 24 hours after start-up. It would be nice to know that what that data said was okay.Another issue worthy of investigation is the advice from the Nuclear Safety Bureau that, with foreseeable resource demands for the replacement reactor project, the potential exists for resources to be diverted from HIFAR to the detriment of current high standards of reactor operations. When the Nuclear Safety Bureau starts flagging concerns like this, it is time to take notice. They draw attention to the loss of two senior staff, which they say represents a significant loss of managerial and technical expertise.What this highlights is the issue of the skills base in Australia and the potential for difficulties in staffing the new reactor and the various monitoring bodies, especially when the new reactor might be running alongside the existing one for a period of time. It is good to see the Nuclear Safety Bureau being proactive in drawing attention to this problem, and I wonder if they have expanded on those concerns in the environmental impact statement on the new reactor.Another issue arises in relation to the intermediate level liquid wastes. We are told liquid waste will be treated in a hot cell by a process of evaporation, de-ammoniation and solidification. We have been told this before. The question is: when will the process start? We are told the solid product may be suitable for processing into a ceramic form similar to synroc. May? This is typical of attitudes throughout the nuclear industry: create any amount of waste and work out what to do about it eventually. This is really not good enough.Then there is the problem of the water in the spent fuel storage tubes. Again, it gets a mention in the report, but again the interesting thing is what is not said. How did the water get there? If it is rain water, then it must have been there for more than 10 years. What does that say about monitoring? How often are they checked and how? What about some genuinely independent monitoring? The International Atomic Energy Agency's monitoring is only to see if the seal is still in place. That is not safety monitoring. Is there any chance that corroded fuel elements will corrode further now that they are back in the ground? If water can get in through a faulty seal, one must wonder what can get out.One area in which the Safety Review Committee seems to have been doing some good work is in putting pressure on the industry in relation to worker safety. It is disappointing to note that there are still three radiation related injuries and five occasions on which radioactive materials were an accident factor. Thankfully, the doses involved were relatively small, but the fact is that any radiation accident is a serious worry. In the same way as we must work towards zero accidents, we must also work towards zero waste emissions. What guarantees can the minister give that the budget for capital works upgrade of waste management will be sufficient to achieve that end?Finally, it is worth noting that what I see as deficiencies in the comprehensiveness of this report may be addressed to some extent by the strengthened community representation and reporting requirements which we achieved through amendments to the ARPANSA legislation. (Time expired)18:56:002135Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I too rise to make some comments with respect to the annual report of the Safety Review Committee for 1997-98. As Senator Margetts has noted, this is the final report of the Safety Review Committee. That body has now been superseded by the establishment of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, colloquially referred to as ARPANSA. The establishment of ARPANSA is noted in the report, but for the period that this report covered the legislation had gone through the House of Representatives but was awaiting approval by the Senate. That is noted at pages 5 to 7 of the report.I wish to make some comments about the establishment of ARPANSA. Like many, I was looking forward to the establishment of ARPANSA as setting the scene for an increased level of scrutiny and regulation of Australia's nuclear industry. As honourable senators are aware, I have a particular interest and involvement in this issue because I happen to reside in the Sutherland Shire, not far from the Lucas Heights reactor and, like all honourable members of parliament, what is close to home is often an issue that is dear to our hearts. Of course, the issues involved here are ones which affect all Australians. Consequently, it is absolutely essential that any body established to oversee the operations of our nuclear industry, particularly the operations of ANSTO, is totally independent.My initial enthusiasm for the establishment of ARPANSA, which filled in many of the gaps that existed in the regulatory system within Australia, has waned somewhat. It has waned, firstly, because the legislation, when it was brought to this Senate, was grossly inadequate. It was only because of the amendments that were put forward by the opposition parties and the Greens in this chamber that we ended up with an act which goes a long way to ensuring that improved system of regulation and improved system of scrutiny. Since then, however, I have become rather concerned about what the future holds.At the recent Senate estimates committee on 8 February—the Community Affairs Legislation Committee estimates—representatives of ARPANSA and the Department of Health and Family Services appeared before the committee. In evidence to that committee it was indicated that the chief executive officer's position at ARPANSA has still not been filled on a permanent basis. A Dr John Loy is in an acting capacity.What was more disturbing was that—following questions from myself to the departmental officer—it was revealed in evidence that a selection committee had been established within the department to draw up a short list of applicants to go to the minister, from which he would make a choice as to who the new chief executive would be. The most disturbing feature of all is that one of the three members of that committee drawing up that short list of applicants is the current head of ANSTO, Professor Helen Garnett.I make no personal reflection upon Professor Helen Garnett's professionalism or qualifications but, as is said in the law, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. If ARPANSA is to be an independent regulatory authority charged with the responsibility of overseeing the operations of ANSTO—in particular, the Lucas Heights reactor—then the head of ANSTO, the body to be regulated and scrutinised, should not be on the selection committee determining who should head up this independent regulatory authority. I am amazed by that and I would urge the government to rethink its approach to filling this position. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Adjournment213610000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Order! It being 7.01 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.213619:02:002136O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—In a well ordered world, the role of the state is to protect the individual. The role of the state is to ensure that mechanisms exist so that the weak and the vulnerable do not fall prey to others in society who would wish to take advantage of them. To this end, we have established in this country—and elsewhere in the Western world—elaborate mechanisms to protect the weak and vulnerable. The problem arises, however, that sometimes those systems become corrupted. Sometimes, organs of the state, instead of being a protection for the weak and the vulnerable, become instead mechanisms of oppression.Tonight, in the first of two planned contributions in this chamber, I want to outline the circumstances by which one of those organs of the state, instead of protecting the weak and vulnerable people—as the intention was when it was established—became a mechanism to continue the oppression of the weak and the vulnerable. The organ to which I refer was the then Australian Securities Commission. The matter in question arose out of a failed fraudulent investment scheme in Queensland called Aust-Home Investments. It was a scheme which, at its height, conned hundreds of people into investing their funds, never to see them again. To this day, the promoters of this scheme have not been prosecuted. They have been allowed to go unscathed by the law, notwithstanding the fact that what they did constituted a criminal fraud.I will outline how that situation arose. It was because of the manner in which investi gators in the Australian Securities Commission handled, or mishandled, the investigation of the case. The circumstances were these. On 24 April 1991, the Australian Securities Commission commenced an investigation, under section 13 of the Australian Securities Commission Act, into the affairs of Aust-Home Investments Ltd. On 27 and 30 May of that same year, they attended the premises of Aust-Home Investments and served statutory notices on 13 scheme companies—that is, companies associated with the principal entity, including all core entities. Certain documents were obtained as a result of those notices being served, but the ASC came to believe that other documents were not produced which should have been produced under those notices. Consequently, from 30 June until October 1991, the ASC conducted examinations of 21 persons related to that scheme. Some of the people who were examined were, in fact, scheme promoters, but many others who were examined were innocent victims of the fraud.On 30 and 31 July 1991, and also on 6 August 1991, search warrants, pursuant to section 10 of the Crimes Act, were executed on offices which belonged to Aust-Home Investments at Astor Terrace in Brisbane and on 9 August warrants were executed on the residence of a scheme promoter. An enormous amount of information was obtained. How, then, can it be that, in spite of a substantial investigation, in spite of the fact that millions of dollars had disappeared, and in spite of the fact that millions of dollars of incorrect tax deductions had been claimed—innocently by the victims of the fraud but as a deliberate consequence on the part of the promoters—nobody has been prosecuted? The answer to this question lies in something called the derivative use immunity.The problem was that the examinations were conducted under provisions of the Australian Securities Commission law contained in section 19 of its act, which enabled the investigators to compel people to answer questions. The problem was that evidence obtained under compulsion could not be used in a prosecution against the people who were the subject of the examination. So all of the evidence obtained by the investigators in their examinations of the promoters was tainted evidence. It was flawed from the start. So, notwithstanding the fact that all of the information was available to the investigators of the Australian Securities Commission, once they had obtained all that information that showed what had happened to the money no prosecutions arose.Over the years I have detailed some of the activities of the promoters of this scheme. I do not intend in this place at this time to rehash that, but honourable senators who are interested can find it easily in the Hansard. They will find, for example, that these promoters tried on subsequent dates in different places to perpetuate the same schemes in other states to con other innocent investors. One of the claims that the promoters used when they went to these other states and set up similar schemes was that it could not have been illegal to do what they had done because otherwise they would have been prosecuted by the Australian Securities Commission. A glib line, a line that tellingly assisted them in conning other innocent people.But it was not just the promoters who were examined under section 19. Some innocent investors, for example, Mrs Margot Bunt in Queensland, were also examined. The emotional toll that this took on Mrs Bunt and others is incalculable. Many investors had their private assets frozen for years whilst the Australian Securities Commission continued with the fiction that they were ultimately going to prosecute the scheme promoters. However, no prosecutions arose. Eventually, a condensed report was prepared by the Australian Securities Commission, dated 19 October 1995. This report sought to explain why no prosecutions took place. Section 17 of that report at clause 8.1.5 says:In the immediate case, it was believed that the immunity unavoidably affected the admissibility against the principal scheme promoter of all evidence obtained by the ASC on execution on 9 August 1991 of search warrants at 35 Astor Terrace office of the scheme and the promoter's residential address. This was because the sworn information relied upon by the ASC to support the granting of the subject warrants made a general reference to answers given during ASC examination pursuant to Section 19 of the ASC law on 6 August 1991 during the course of which privilege against self incrimination was claimed.The report goes on to say:In late January 1995, following consideration of advice received from DPP, it became apparent that all evidence obtained by the ASC subsequent to execution of the warrants, but which in any way was sought by the ASC in whole or partial reliance on the search warrant evidence may be inadmissible. In practical terms, it is believed that the immunity would also impact upon the admissibility on all other evidence obtained subsequent to the examination.But the fact is that in 1991 the ASC knew of the impact of the derivative use immunity and in fact mention was made of it on 13 August 1991 in a submission to the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities, in which the ASC said that care had to be taken in framing an investigation to ensure that derivative use immunity did not allow criminals to get off the hook. Yet this is what happened, and the ASC continued with this fiction for four years to cover up what could at best be described as its own negligence. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard an opinion from Hunt & Hunt Lawyers and an attachment thereto.Leave granted.The document read as follows—Hunt & HuntLawyersIncorporatingThompson King ConnollyOPINION RE: MRS MARGOT BUNTMrs Bunt has consulted us over many months in relation to matters relating to Aust-Home Investments Limited and the investigation by the Australian Securities Commission (as it then was) of the affairs into that company in the early 1990s.We have previously prepared a memorandum setting out a chronology of the events that occurred in that matter and append a copy of it.What was clear at the time the memorandum was prepared and what remains clear today is that practices and procedures of the Australian Securities Commission (as it was then) were either not followed in the course of the investigation in relation to Aust-Home Investments Limited and associated companies and its directors or were disregarded. The consequence of the failure to follow the directions or of the disregarding of them is that the Australian Securities Commission was unable to bring any proceedings against the perpe trator of the scheme which solicited millions of dollars of investor's funds which were lost.That the Australian Securities Commission was aware of the relevant procedures is clear from the references to it in the attachment.In clause 9.0.6 of the Condensed Report by the Australian Securities Commission under section 17 of the ASC Law dated 19 October 1995 said "notwithstanding the achievement of civil remedies, it is a fact that further ASC investigation did not culminate in criminal prosecution action. It is an unfortunate feature of this investigation that the impact of derivative use immunity was not fully identified until enquiries had reached a well advanced stage".The Report went on to say, in 9.0.7:"Whilst the immunity, since the amendment of subsection 68(3) of the ASC Law, currently does not affect evidence collected by the ASC, the experience nevertheless provides a salutary lesson to the ASC of the need to ensure the early identification of thresholds issues in relation to the immiscibility of evidence, prior continuing in investigation with an attendant expenditure of time resources and inconvenience to both witnesses and persons themselves the subject of investigation".In 9.0.9, the report stated "whilst nevertheless conceding that the officers' subsequent actions had inadvertently attracted the derivative use immunity, it is not altogether certain that the officers could have acted differently and still ensure the efficient and expeditious procurement of evidence necessary to support the ASC's civil application".Mrs Bunt is offended by the reference to the actions "inadvertently" attracting derivative use immunity. ASC was well aware of the matters at exactly the same time as the officers were carrying out the raids (see attachment for chronology).Mrs Bunt's life has been devastated by the events surrounding the investigation, the freezing of assets, subsequent delays, the impact of the ASC's examination into the life of herself and her husband. As a result, her marriage has broken down and she is greatly concerned that she has lost not only the assets of herself and her husband but her marriage.She believes she is strongly aggrieved and, upon consideration of the sequence of events, the attempted justification by the Commission of its actions as mere "inadvertence" does nothing to satisfy Mrs Bunt's anger or pain in the matters that have affected her life.In the circumstances, an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the investigation and the subsequent report would appear to be justified.Hunt and HuntLawyers DJG98803409NOPIMrs Bunt's concern is based upon the treatment she received from the investigators under ASC and the difficulties which ASC suffered in pursuing a criminal prosecution because of the way they carried out their investigations.Mrs Bunt's concern is that the purported explanation of ASC does not accord with what one ought expect the ASC to say if it was acting consistently with a submission made jointly with DPP to the Joint Committee on Corporations & Securities and dated 13 August 1991.The chronology is as follows:-April 24 1991:ASC intervened and commenced an investigation under Section 13 of the ASC law into the affairs of Aust-Home Investments Limited ("AHI").May 27 & 30 1991ASC officers attend AHI premises and served statutory notices on 13 Scheme Companies including all core entities. Certain documents were obtained as a result of those notices being served that ASC believed that there had been a failure to produce documents which should have been produced under those notices.June 30—October 1991ASC conducted examinations of 21 persons relative to the scheme.July 30 and 31 1991 and August 6 1991Search warrants pursuant to Section 10 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth) were executed on office premises of AHI at 35 Astor Terrace, Brisbane and on August 9, 1991 upon the residence of a scheme promoter.Subsequently no prosecutions were launched against the scheme promoter in respect of what appears to be breaches of the Corporations Law. The Section 17 Report of ASC dated 19 October 1995 said, at clause 8.1.5:-"In the immediate case, it was believed that the immunity unavoidably affected the admissibility against the principal scheme promoter of all evidence obtained by the ASC on execution on 9 August 1991 of search warrants at 35 Astor Terrace office of the scheme and the promoter's residential address. This was because the sworn Information relied upon by the ASC to support the granting of the subject warrants made a general reference to answers given during ASC examination pursuant to Section 19 of the ASC law on 6 August 1991 during the course of which privilege against self incrimination was claimed."In clause 8.1.6 of the Report, it claimed:-"In late January 1995, following consideration of advice received from DPP, it became apparent that all evidence obtained by the ASC subsequent to execution of the warrants, but which in any way was sought by the ASC in whole or partial reliance on the search warrant evidence may be inadmissible. In practical terms, it is believed that the immunity would also impact upon the admissibility on all other evidence obtained subsequent to the examination. . . .."This attributes to the ASC a lack of knowledge, appreciation or understanding of the effect of what had been done in executing the warrants in August 1991 until DPP advice was received in January 1995.And at Clause 9.0.7 it says:"Whilst the immunity, since the amendment of Section 68(3) of the ASC law, currently does not affect evidence collected by the ASC, the experience nevertheless provides a salutary lesson to the ASC of the need to ensure the early identification of threshold issues in relation to the admissibility of evidence, prior to continuing an investigation with an attendant expenditure of time and resources and inconvenience to both witnesses and persons themselves the subject of investigation."In clause 9.0.9 it further says:"Whilst nevertheless conceding that the officers' subsequent actions had inadvertently attracted the derivative use immunity it is not altogether certain that the officers could have acted differently to ensure the efficient and expeditious procurement of evidence necessary to support the ASC's application.".The question Mrs Bunt asks, in our opinion reasonably, is why the term "inadvertently" is used. The term implies accidental or unintended consequences. However, in the 13 August 1991 Submission to the Joint Committee on Corporations & Securities, it discusses in paragraph 2 the "practical and substantive difficulties arising out of the derivative use immunity." In clause 2.1 the Submission states:-". . . .if an investigation is to proceed, a plan is prepared having regard to the means available to the ASC to gather information as evidence."In Clause 2.2.2, the submission states:-". . . when the investigation plan is being prepared, the ASC cannot know whether it will pursue civil remedies or criminal prosecutions or both, nor will it be in a position to remedy the specific remedies or charges which will arise for consideration of a possible or likely defendant. The strategy which must be adopted, therefore, is that the Commission must have regard to the derivative use of immunity so as to minimise any prejudice to the possibility of either civil or criminal proceedings."Why, then would the ASC be surprised by the advice in January 1995 of DPP as to the impact of the derivative use immunity rule on the evidence obtained as a result of the execution of the warrants in the same month as the ASC was submitting it concern as to the impact of those warrants in its submission to the Joint Committee? It is perfectly clear that the ASC understood the problems involved. In this case, did the ASC proceed knowing the possible consequences and notwithstanding those consequences? Simply put, the statements made in paragraph 2 of the submission make it clear ASC knew in August 1991 the difficulties that existed by reason of the derivative use immunity rule and that, in recognition of the difficulty, it had put a procedure in place within ASC to take that into consideration. If it was aware of the consequences, why did it state in its Report to the Minister in clause 8.1.6 line 2 that "it became apparent. . . .", which conveys to the reader that this was a position which ASC did not appreciate or understand before that time? This would mean that the practice referred to in the Submission was not on this occasion followed. If that was true, Mrs Bunt is entitled to know why that was not done.See Girvan Report 1.1 where demonstrates the existence of procedures which, when followed, avoided a scenario by which the persons suspected of offences were not orally examined.Our client finds no adequate explanation has been given to her. We believe our client is entitled to a proper explanation and a reason as to why prosecutions have not been launched against the scheme promoter and the reasons for the ASC's actions in taking the steps it did.Could you please obtain an adequate response for our client on this issue.214019:11:002140Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—I am speaking tonight in response to Senator Vanstone's answer in question time yesterday in regard to drug strategies and the assertion that the Carr government should put up or shut up when it came to the question of drugs. Given the facts of the situation and the efforts of the Carr government, it is the Howard government and Senator Vanstone that should put up or shut up.Last December Senator Vanstone claimed in a press release that the Commonwealth was winning the war on drugs. Yesterday she was attacking Bob Carr and the New South Wales government for failing to stem the drug problem in New South Wales. How can the Commonwealth be winning the war on drugs if the New South Wales situation is as bad as Senator Vanstone suggests? Surely New South Wales is not faring as badly as Senator Vanstone suggests or the tough on drugs strategy is not winning the war on drugs. Which is it?I suggest there is no easy answer to the problems Australia is facing with the increasing use of illicit drugs. There is no magic wand that can be waved that will make the drug problem go away. But the New South Wales government under Bob Carr is certainly doing its best and exploring all options to deal with the drug problem, with very little help from the Commonwealth government. Here are a few facts for the good senator about what is really happening in the New South Wales.More drugs are being seized in New South Wales. In the year to June 1998, drug detections in New South Wales rose by 12 per cent. In 1997, a total of 211 kilograms of heroin was seized, which was almost 80 kilograms more than under the previous coalition government reign. Last year just under half a billion dollars worth of heroin was seized in New South Wales alone. The Carr government has increased the number of police specifically targeting drugs. There are almost 90 more police men and women solely responsible for fighting the war against drugs than there were previously under the coalition government.The New South Wales police agencies that focus on drugs and drug related crime have been reconstructed so that they are more effective. This is a direct result of the damning evidence to the New South Wales police royal commission about corrupt practices in the old Drug Enforcement Agency—a system which the New South Wales opposition has repeatedly advocated a return to. In 1997-98, the New South Wales Crime Commission seized assets from major drug dealers more than ever before. More than $11 million was seized. More major drug offenders have been arrested.The Carr government has recently spent large amounts of money on new facilities for detoxification and drug and alcohol treatment in Sydney's west, on the north coast, and on the Central Coast. And is this represented in the report mentioned by Senator Vanstone? No. The report which the senator is using as the basis for her attacks on Bob Carr is flawed. The methodology is defective. It does not consider changes in accounting procedures when it claims that the per capita expenditure on health related drug programs in New South Wales has fallen. It does not consider recent initiatives such as the spending on new detoxification facilities or the money for the trialling of naltrexone—for which there was no help from the federal government. The report and the federal government are also ignoring the Carr government's newest initiative of the drug court.The New South Wales government is leading the way with the drug court. There is $12 million of new spending on the court, including $5.6 million for new drug treatment services. The aims of the drug court are to reduce crime caused by heroin addiction, to help the offender get off drugs, and to reduce recidivism. The American experience has shown that the drug court can be quite successful in achieving these objectives.The drug court provides an opportunity for drug addicts who have committed crimes to support their addiction to get treatment. To be eligible for the drug court, offenders must be dependent on drugs, facing a prison term, prepared to admit guilt and willing to participate in the treatment program. However, those charged with sexual or violent offences cannot go before the court. If the offender admits guilt and chooses treatment, their sentence is suspended, and they are given 12 months of drug treatment and rehabilitation. The offender must comply with strict rules, including regular court appearances and random drug testing. If these rules are breached, strict penalties, including imprisonment, will apply.Of course the drug court is no panacea, nor is it going soft on drugs. Instead, it is just another part of the multifaceted approach of rehabilitation, education and tough law enforcement undertaken by the New South Wales government and Bob Carr. The government in New South Wales is doing what it can to resolve the drug problem.But what is the federal government doing? The federal government, not the New South Wales government, has jurisdiction over imports to Australia. The New South Wales government cannot do much about customs at all. That is a federal responsibility.According to statistics, all heroin is imported into Australia, but it is estimated that only 10 per cent of the 2,000 kilograms of heroin used in Australia each year is detected. Only two per cent of international flights are searched for prohibited drugs. That means that 98 per cent of international flights are not searched at all. So unless Customs or the Federal Police are made aware that person X is likely to be smuggling drugs the drugs will just fly straight into our country.Heroin enters Australia predominantly through commercial shipping and flights—with the much larger quantity through importation by sea cargo. But Australian Customs searches only three in 10,000 containers. That is 0.03 per cent of all containers that enter this country. So for the three containers that are searched, 9,997 are not.Eighty per cent of heroin enters Australia though Sydney, and Sydney is Australia's principal distribution centre, unfortunately. All evidence supports an increased effort in Sydney, but the National Illicit Drug Strategy, of which Senator Vanstone is so proud, will divert resources away from Sydney. This is precisely the opposite of what is needed.There are no easy answers to the issue of illegal drugs and the problems that result from their use. But Senator Vanstone's approach of claiming credit when there is none to be claimed and then attacking the one state government in Australia which is daring to explore new avenues for coping with drug related crime is an unhelpful and unconstructive contribution to a very important debate facing our society today.214119:19:002141Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I rise tonight to complete some remarks I made yesterday after question time in response to Senator Alston's remarks when he said: 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.He was referring to me. If anyone is putting at risk the time line for completion of the Telstra sale inquiry, it is the government. And if there was any question of my wanting to delay the proceedings, I could have easily done so on Monday during that hearing, when there was not a quorum and the hearing process could have been stopped at that point. But I did not do that, because I have at all times—as have other members of the committee—made every attempt to cooperate, however absurd the government's time lines turn out to be. There is no need for me to go over those time lines tonight, but it must be said that submissions to that inquiry closed on 15 January. The government says there have been two months, but of course December-January is not an ideal time to call for submissions to an inquiry, particularly when this inquiry is competing with two other inquiries of the committee.But the point is that on this inquiry, as on all others, I have made every effort to fit in with the wishes of the chair and the other members of the committee. Let us take 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. I had a meeting arranged with two of my colleagues in Sydney at 7.30 that evening prior to a half-day meeting the following day, and I arranged to fly out at 5.20 p.m. from Canberra on that Thursday night.During estimates, the committee met and government members—no doubt on the instructions of Senator Alston—proposed that we hold a Senate inquiry one evening during estimates. It is my understanding that all senators are entitled to attend estimates, and I certainly had many issues I wished to and subsequently did raise with the environment minister. That estimates session did not conclude until around 11.30 p.m. that night. Had we scheduled the Telstra hearing for five o'clock on that day, it would have to have been cancelled and arrangements with people who would have appeared would also have had to be cancelled. In any case, I was not prepared to give up what I regard as a very important part of my role in participating in estimates, particularly in the areas of environment and education, and I stand by that decision.As Senator Bishop mentioned on Monday, a short private committee meeting agreed that we would complete the inquiry on the morning of Monday the 15th. I indicated that our regular party room meeting was on at 9.30 a.m. and that, particularly since this was the first meeting of the new sitting, I was not prepared to proceed beyond that point. I was willing to start at 8 o'clock or earlier to allow time for further questions of the department and for Telstra's presentation. In any event, the committee decided to schedule the meeting for 8.30 a.m. on Monday, and this decision was made in a private meeting last week before I had a chance to arrive, in spite of the fact that I came as soon as I was advised. I understand it was decided to conduct the hearing until 10.45 a.m. in the knowledge that I could not be there beyond 9.30 a.m.Senator Carr and I were ready to begin at the appointed time on Monday, but it was, in fact, almost half an hour later that the teleconferencing link was actually made through to Telstra in Sydney and Melbourne, leaving just 30 minutes for the hearing. Again, it was not my fault that proceedings were delayed. As I have said, the hearing finally did go ahead without a quorum. The government must take full responsibility for both the impossible time lines it has adopted and the abuses of process that have been necessary to achieve that.I am happy to show Senator Alston my diary, which shows that between 3 February and 15 March there are only two weekdays on which there are no Senate committee hearings or parliamentary sittings, and I have offered both of these as possible hearing dates. If Senator Alston and Senator Eggleston insist on bulldozing government legislation through the Senate committee process and attacking the Democrats with false accusations, the cooperative approach which I have been describing may have to give way to an insistence on formal compliance with standing orders. The Democrats remain at all times professional and responsible in our handling of government legislation, and it is my view that Senator Alston should apologise for his intemperate and misleading remarks.Last night the committee did indeed finish the Telstra sale inquiry, and it did so at around 11 p.m. when there was sufficient time for us to ask questions of both Telstra and the department, although I must say that a lot of questions still remain to be answered, and I look forward to the minister's response to those when the bill comes into the parliament.214319:25:002143Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Last week the RSPCA launched a national campaign to help keep hens out of cages. The campaign calls for an end to the production of eggs by intensive husbandry. The RSPCA calls it `battery hen produced eggs'. The campaign is being supported by radio commercials, postcards, posters and direct mail. Letters have already been sent to some of us, imploring that we should help the society to end the suffering of battery caged hens. The RSPCA calls for `the Australian public to support alternative systems of egg production for the sake of layer hens'. In fact, they say it is up to the Australian public to care enough about the suffering of what they call battery hens to insist on humane egg production. I quote from a letter the society's president, Dr Wirth, wrote to me, which claims:.. preventing hens from performing natural behaviours causes immense frustration.Further, he said:. . . restricted movement and lack of exercise in battery cages causes skeletal and muscle weakness and the cages' mesh floors and lack of perches can cause serious muscle damage.He goes on to claim that legislation should be passed in every state and territory to ban battery hens. You might say this is the role of the RSPCA, that concern for the plight of animals is a primary part of the society's objective to prevent cruelty to animals by enforcing the existing laws—`all creatures great and small', according to their general publicity. I support and commend the work of the society in their efforts to reduce animal cruelty. They have as their creed the five freedoms for animals: freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and disease; the right and freedom to express normal behaviour; and freedom from fear and distress. Campaigns in the past have all focused on those five points and on the society's objectives.The society's concerns about the well-being of birds led it to be part of a 1994 report into the industry. In 1994 a working group which included the society made a recommendation which concluded that `no attempt be made to ban cage system egg production'. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy at the time, then Senator Bob Collins, said after the agreement was made that he was delighted at the outcome and pleased that both the industry and mainstream animal welfare interests supported the approach to ensure the welfare of layer hens.Subsequently, the RSPCA was given an accreditation scheme for barn-laid eggs. So after the 1994 investigation and report all parties seemed satisfied with the outcome. The industry was happy with the code of conduct and so was the RSPCA. I am therefore somewhat puzzled as to why the RSPCA is now pursuing this very negative campaign against a legitimate Australian industry. Could it be that the RSPCA now lacks confidence in the existing legislation, then endorsed by all states and territories, governing hen production? Maybe so.Dr Wirth said over the weekend that he was sure that 75 per cent of egg producers were doing the right thing, and I suspect the number is a lot higher. So it seems unlikely to me that this is the basis for the campaign. To be frank, if that was so, I would have expected the society's campaign to be targeted more towards the law-makers—the state and territory governments. But, instead, the society is hitting consumers and legitimate egg producers with a `buy barn-laid eggs' campaign—in other words, `Don't buy the eggs which just a couple of years ago were endorsed by the organisation.' So what other reason could there be? I wonder whether, in an industry worth over $525 million in retail sales in 1997, there is some other gain to be made by the RSPCA in the promotion of barn-laid eggs?We have a situation now where the RSPCA receives royalty payments from the commercial sale of barn-laid eggs. In fact, the royalty is said to be about 5c for every dozen eggs sold. Yet nowhere in this campaign, nowhere in the materials that have been sent to me, does the RSPCA make it clear that by supporting the increased demand for barn-laid eggs, consumers will in fact be contributing dollars in revenue to the RSPCA. Nowhere in the campaign package, in its media releases or even on its Internet site does the RSPCA acknowledge the monetary gain it is making from this campaign.Yesterday, a week after the campaign began, Dr Wirth, the President, admitted somewhat reluctantly on ABC Radio that the society has a `vested interest because we of course get a royalty'. So there you have it. Dr Wirth has been calling for a `consumer-led revolution on behalf of these poor unfortunate chooks'. Now we have to ask: is this a genuine concern about animal welfare by the society or is it a covert attempt for competitive advantage in this industry?Let us remember that around 200 million dozen eggs are produced in Australia each year, with 93 per cent coming from caged birds, two per cent from barn-house birds and five per cent from free-range birds. So if the RSPCA earns two per cent from the sale of barn-laid eggs, the organisation is getting around $200,000 a year in royalty payments. How many of these well-meaning consumers and the recipients of the campaign material know this? If, as the RSPCA wants, egg production by intensive means is banned, industry sources suggest that the price of a dozen eggs would increase by at least a dollar. If barn-laid and free-range eggs were to capture at least half that market, the RSPCA would then be in line for millions of dollars in royalties.It seems to me that this publicity campaign is now very close to becoming a conflict of interest. Tonight I call on the RSPCA to publicly disclose this financial interest, to tell us how much they have received in royalties from barn-laid eggs and to tell the Australian community why this interest was not disclosed in any of their publicity material and was not disclosed in all of the talkback radio interviews they have done over the last week. There is no doubt that the RSPCA is a credible community organisation with a very important role to play in the welfare of animals. But on this occasion it has just a few too many golden eggs in one basket and it has, at the least, been very tardy in its public disclosure.214419:33:002144Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I rise tonight to speak on the situation at the Gordonstone mine in Queensland where the illegal sacking of 312 miners in October 1997 has resulted in a 16-month picket line which has now been maintained longer than any other in Australian coalmining history. The company which carried out the sackings, Arco, sold out to Rio Tinto late last year; now this company has continued along the same path. Picketers have clashed with Rio Tinto during the last week as it has attempted to bus in non-union labour to replace the illegally sacked workers.The situation at Gordonstone must be seen as irrefutable evidence of this government's approach to industrial relations being not just unfair and unjust but downright underhanded. The original owners of Gordonstone, Arco, carried out an open campaign to de-unionise coal workers, which culminated in the sacking of the 312 workers.In February 1988 the Australian Industrial Relations Commission found that the dismissals had been unfair and ordered the company to pay compensation and also instructed Arco to give preference to former workers in the recruiting of their new work force. They found that the company had deliberately set out on an anti-union tack and also that the company was motivated by a desire to avoid its obligations under an enterprise agreement which it had entered into in 1996. Arco continually refused to employ the workers they had sacked, despite the rulings of the AIRC. Having failed to de-unionise Gordonstone, they decided to sell to Rio Tinto.Now Rio Tinto has stepped in where Arco left off. In December Rio Tinto commenced recruiting for the Gordonstone mine. The recruitment was carried out in secret and 23 hand-picked employees were engaged. The company, Mine Management, which recruited the work force, is a $2 shelf company which is a 100 per cent subsidiary of Rio Tinto. Some of those employed came from the Gordonstone management previously employed by Arco. These people accepted a non-union agreement that would cover all work at the mine by all employees for two years. The agreement overrides all existing obligations of any employer at the Gordonstone mine and was ratified on 2 February. The AIRC has no discretion when ratifying agreements under this government's legislation and union submissions were not allowed at the hearing.Rio Tinto intends employing up to 200 workers under this certified agreement. No preference will be given to the former Gordonstone workers who were unlawfully dismissed by Arco. This government has therefore allowed these large multinationals to completely disregard and disrespect the authority of the AIRC. There seems to be absolutely no compulsion for these companies to abide by the commission's decisions, which is an utter disgrace.The situation is made particularly ironic by the fact that the 312 workers that were sacked in 1997 were deemed to be among the most productive by international standards. Just months before the miners were illegally sacked, Arco had erected a statue to the Gordonstone work force describing them as `the best miners in the world' after they had broken a succession of international production records.While the treatment of the Gordonstone miners has clearly been unfair from a vocational perspective, there are other aspects of the situation at Gordonstone that I find distinctly disturbing. This struggle has been maintained not just by workers but also by their families.When I visited the area last year I saw significant evidence that Arco had been using intimidation and standover tactics to demoralise and upset miners and their families. Arco had employed a veritable private army of security guards to patrol the mine day and night. Furthermore, I heard other disturbing accounts of intimidation. The wives of several miners told me that they and their children had been intimidated on the streets of Emerald by members of Arco's private army. I am sure most people in our community would agree that the intimidation of women and children by multinational bullies should not be a part of the Australian approach to industrial relations. In fact, these actions are completely un-Australian. Is this the new flexible approach to industrial relations that the government wants us to embrace?I have now been informed of several instances of violence by police against the passive demonstrators at Gordonstone in the past few days. Obviously, these people continue their struggle in relative isolation, with little sympathy from the government or law enforcement authorities. The waterfront scenes from last year are now being replicated at Gordonstone. Obviously, the federal government learned nothing from its conflict with the MUA last year and remains determined to crush the union movement in Australia, regardless of the implications for everyday Australians and their families. Is this the sort of industrial relations system we want to take with us into the new millennium? Is the bullying of women and children by multinational corporations acceptable behaviour in the 1990s?It seems to me that, unless we act quickly, this government will turn the clock back to the 1900s and remove all the working standards and conditions that we have come to rely on in a civilised society. Perhaps computers are not the only ones confused by the millennium bug. Mr Howard does not seem to know which century he is in, either. The situation unfolding at Gordonstone can, therefore, be seen as a battle to defend the values and standards that prevail within the Australian community. The basic principles of justice, equity and democracy are now at stake and we must all rally to defend them.Democracy demands that all Australians enjoy freedom of association. This government is trying to take those basic rights away from unionists by allowing their families to be bullied and intimidated by multinational corporations. They have, therefore, failed in their duty of care to the Australian people. The ALP supports the miners and their families at Gordonstone. After all, their struggle is merely to protect their jobs and provide a decent living for their children, which is every Australian's right. It has always been every Australian's right to belong to a union and to work for decent wages and conditions. We are, after all, living in a democracy.19:41:002146Senate adjourned at 7.41 p.m.Documents21462146The following government documents were tabled:Equity and diversity program—Health Insurance Commission—Report for 1997-98.Safety Review Committee—Report for 1997-98.2146The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Acts Interpretation Act—Statement pursuant to subsection 34C(6) relating to the extension of specified period for presentation of a report—Migration Agents Registration Authority Report for the period 21 March to 30 June 1998.Australian National Training Authority Act—Determination No. 1 of 1999—Determination of Allowance for the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian National Training Authority.Answers to Questions on Notice2147The following answers to questions were circulated:2147(Question No. 16)162147Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training, upon notice, 23 June 1998:(1) Does the Government agree that retention rates for isolated and remote students at 51 per cent and for boys at 44 per cent in Year 12 are unacceptably low.(2) What are the social and economic implications of such low rates for these young people and the families and communities from which they come.(3) Will the Government consider increasing the basic boarding allowance (BBA) of the Assistance for Isolated Children (AIC) scheme to its original intent of 55 per cent of the average boarding fee; if not, why not.(4) Is the Government aware that the average boarding fee in 1997 was $6 783.(5) Will the Government consider increasing the second home allowance of the AIC scheme to achieve parity with the BBA; if not, why not.(6) Will the Government consider tapering the means tested additional boarding allowance of the AIC scheme up to the average boarding fee when the parents have nil or negative income with small increases applying as family incomes rise, as proposed by the Isolated Children's Parents' Association (ICPA); if not, why not.(7) When will the Government adopt the recommendations of the ICPA to:(a) recognise that families subject to an asset test for AUSTUDY should not also be subject to an assets test on their income earning assets;(b) subject to appropriate substantiation, treat wages paid to students from their family's company, partnership or trust in the same way as earnings from an outside employer or sole trader partner; and(c) provide adequately trained staff to assist people with queries surrounding the complexity of the AUSTUDY application form.(8) Will the Government honour its 1996 election promise to raise the discount on farms and small business income earning assets from 50 per cent to 75 per cent; if not why not. (9) Will the government consider introducing a geographically-isolated tertiary students scheme, as proposed by ICPA; if not why not.(10) (a) Will the Government consider providing an allowance to isolated parents who educate some 3 300 children at home; and(b) how much do these parents save State and federal governments by virtue of their supervisory role.(11) Will the Government consider the proposal by ICPA to provide recurrent funding of $1 000 for each isolated student enrolled in government and non-government boarding schools.(12) (a) What is the low fee regional boarding schools and school term hostels which have been closed in the past twelve months; and(b) how many places have been lost to these closures.(13) What are the implications for isolated and remote students of these closures.2147Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The answers to the honourable senator's questions are as follows:(1) The figures quoted are not rates of retention of secondary students to Year 12, but estimated Year 12 completion rates for remote students in respect of 1996. They appear in the National Report on Schooling in Australia 1996. Completion rates express the number of Year 12 completions (that is, Year 12 certificates issued by State education authorities) as a proportion of the estimated population that could attend Year 12 in a particular calendar year.It is true that completion rates for remote students are lower than students from both urban areas and non-remote rural areas, and that rates for boys are lower than for girls. The Government agrees that it is desirable for more students to complete Year 12.(2) The Government acknowledges that there are established links between educational achievement and employment outcomes. The Commonwealth's concern for the education of students living in rural and remote areas of Australia is based on a need to ensure their equitable access to quality education which will assist them to achieve outcomes and participation rates at least equal to students in urban areas. To assist these students, the Government provides a number of programs that offer additional support and help. For example, the Commonwealth provides $17.7 million to State and Territory government and non government education authorities annually to help schools and students in rural and remote areas of Australia. The Country Areas Program assist parents, administrators, teachers and other members of the community to work cooperatively to improve the delivery of primary and secondary school educational services in rural and geographically isolated areas.(3) The Government increased the basic boarding allowance from $2,500 to $2,900 in the 1996-97 Budget. This brought the basic boarding allowance up to 55% of the average boarding fee. The Government has undertaken to further increase the basic boarding allowance from $2,900 to $3,500 and index this amount in future years. It also undertook to increase the maximum amount that can be received under a combination of the basic boarding allowance and additional boarding allowance to $4,347.(4) The Isolated Children's Parents' Association's (ICPA) method of deriving an average boarding fee is a simple average of fees charged by all boarding institutions and gives undue weight to the level of fees at expensive boarding schools which have relatively few AIC beneficiaries. The Department's calculations are derived from the fees charged by boarding institutions at which AIC recipients are actually enrolled and weighted accordingly.(5) There is not necessarily a connection between the second home allowance and basic boarding allowance. The basic boarding allowance was increased in the 1996 Budget from $2 500 per year to $2 900 per year per student in line with the Government's specific 1996 election commitment to increase the basic boarding allowance to 55% of the average boarding allowance. No evidence has been presented of increased costs faced by recipients of the second home allowance. While the value of the basic boarding allowance and the second home allowance may previously have been aligned, the government's initial concern was to provide additional help to those families who needed to board their children in a non-family environment.(6) Firstly, no family should receive more than their actual boarding fee outlay. Secondly, the ICPA proposal does not acknowledge that low income families have access to a higher level of Family Payment which may be used by families to meet boarding costs.(7) (a) AUSTUDY was replaced on 1 July by the Youth Allowance for students under 25 years of age and AUSTUDY payment for those aged 25 and over. Both programs are the responsibility of the Minister for Family and Community Services. Means test rules remain in general the same, with the exception that students classed as independent are no longer subject to an actual means test. The ICPA proposes that families applying for student assistance should not be subject to an assets test on their income earning assets. As with AUSTUDY, only fifty per cent of the net value of income earning assets that are also business assets is taken into account under the Youth Allowance family assets test. The assets test is complemented by the Family Actual Means Test (FAMT), which is a test of expenditure and savings. Expenditure that was tax deductible in the previous financial year because it was necessarily incurred in carrying on a business is excluded from the FAMT.(7) (b) Under the Youth Allowance Family Actual Means Test up to $6,000 of income earned from independent employment by students in a family aged 16 and over may be excluded. "Independent employment" is employment engaged in by a person that is not provided by a member of the person's family or by a proprietary company, an unlisted public company, a partnership or trust in which the person, or a member of the person's family, has an interest.The exclusion relates to income from independent employment because the Government is concerned to ensure that only bona fide income earning activities are recognised. The Government considered that, to maintain the integrity of the FAMT, income earned should be restricted to employment outside family business structures.(7) (c) The matter of providing Centrelink staff to assist people to complete student assistance claim forms on a question by question basis is one that should be taken up with Centrelink. Centrelink staff are trained in all aspects of Youth Allowance administration including, of course, the Family Actual Means Test.(8) Prior to the 1996 election the Coalition made an undertaking to consider raising the AUSTUDY assets test discount for farm and other business assets to 75%. Given the high cost of implementing this measure (estimated at some $18.5 million in a full year) and the fiscal restraints faced after the election, the Government was unable proceed with this undertaking. The Government was concerned also about making AUSTUDY and more recently Youth Allowance available to families with unencumbered business assets of up to $1.63 million, at a time when public expenditure is under close scrutiny.The value of the family residence and up to two hectares of surrounding land is exempt from the Youth Allowance assets test. A 50% discount is available on the value of farm and other business assets, which means that in 1998, children become ineligible for Youth Allowance under the assets test only when the family has unencumbered assets of the value of $814,500 or more.Since 1 July 1998, when the main form of financial assistance to full time students became the Youth Allowance for students between the ages of 16 and 24 and the new Austudy payment for students 25 and over, policy responsibility for these schemes has rested with the Minister for Social Security. The Youth Allowance and the Austudy payment have retained the range of concessions available to rural students under AUSTUDY, including the concessions for farming families suffering drought or other exceptional circumstances, and those for families with two or more tertiary students living away from home to study.(9) These issues were considered in the development of the Youth Allowance. The Government considered that access to post-secondary education, even for students living in non-isolated areas, often involves living away from home. Under the Youth Allowance eligible students who have to live away from home may be entitled to rent assistance.(10) Introduction of an allowance to isolated parents would have considerable cost implications and need to be considered by the Government in the Budget context.While State and Territory governments have the primary role in the provision of education to school aged children, the Commonwealth assists geographically isolated families with students studying by distance education through the payment of the AIC distance education allowance. This allowance is intended to contribute toward incidental costs associated with distance education study. In the 1996 Budget, the Government announced a substantial increase to the Correspondence Allowance from 1997 and specific funding to State and Territory Governments for the purposes of extending services to rural and remote schools, as well as for technological innovations in distance education delivery. These initiatives are viewed as the fairest and most efficient means of addressing the educational needs of geographically isolated students.The Commonwealth provides general recurrent funding for government school systems and non-government schools and systems. Non-government schools are funded on a needs basis and placed in one of 12 funding categories. Given these differential rates of funding, and as it is not possible to identify which schools the students schooled at home could attend, it is not possible to determine the saving to the Commonwealth where students are supervised and schooled at home by their parents.(11) Consideration of this proposal would need to be in the Budget context. It should be noted that hostels which provide accommodation for government and non-government students are eligible, under the Commonwealth Capital Grants Program, for grants from the Government Component and Non-Government Component respectively of the Program. Through its Schools Programs the Commonwealth provides recurrent funding for schools. Where boarding facilities are part of the school (ie. it is a boarding school) the assessment of the school's funding category through the Education Resources Index (ERI) takes boarding school costs into account. However, no ongoing recurrent funding is available for private hostels or other boarding arrangements.The Commonwealth, through its General Recurrent Grants Program for schools, provides per capita assistance for government and non-government schools in respect of students attending those schools. This per capita funding assists schools with the recurrent costs of schooling like teaching and ancillary staff salaries, professional development of teachers, curriculum development, and school maintenance and general operation provisions. The current legislation governing the General Recurrent Grants Program does not envisage per capita payments to assist particular students with the costs of their schooling.(12) The Department is aware of one non-government school approved for Commonwealth general recurrent grant funding that provided boarding facilities and which was located in a regional area outside the capital cities and other metropolitan centres, which closed in 1997. That school, which attracted funding at the category 9 level, reported 23 boarding students as at the 1997 schools census day. The Department does not maintain a specific, regular data collection in relation to low fee regional school term hostel closures and the number of places lost to these closures in the past twelve months.(13) There are a number of schools offering boarding facilities in the area in which the closed school operated. These schools attract a comparable level of Commonwealth recurrent funding to that of the closed school. It would therefore be possible for students requiring boarding facilities to transfer to a similar environment. In line with its election commitment, the Government is providing short-term emergency funding to particular school term hostels in serious financial difficulty, while the Commonwealth sits down with the States to agree upon a significant long-term sustainable package for this sector.2149(Question No. 157)1572149Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 November 1998:(1) How many audits have been undertaken by the Australian Tax Office (ATO) of individual taxpayers for the 1996-97 financial year with particular reference to: (a) the income matching system and the number of audits that identified errors relating to interest, dividends and rebates; (b) the number of ATO audits conducted on tax agents practices in relation to individual taxpayers work related expenses; (c) the number of desk audits related to taxpayer claims for car, home office, self education and superannuation claims; and (d) the number of audits that can be classified as `real time audits' as a result of ATO identification of excessive expenditure claims and what were those groups of expenditure that were targeted for real time auditing.(2) With reference to part 1 of the question, can information be provided in regard to the individual audits, namely; (a) how many returns subsequently amended as a result of the ATO audit; (b) what was the additional tax collected as a result of the ATO audits; (c) what was the initial amount of tax and what was the subsequent amount of tax; (d) what was the total amount of penalties imposed; (e) what was the error rate in percentage terms; and (f) what was the average amount of tax and penalty per audit case.(3) Was $2 million per year for 3 years allocated to the test case litigation program (TCLP) up to and including 30 June 1998.(4) Was only $10 616 spent in the 1995-96 financial year.(5) How many requests were made in the 1995-96 financial year for funding to be made available under TCLP by: (a) accountants; and (b) taxpayers.(6) For the 1996-97 financial year can it be confirmed that only $235 668 was spent under the TCLP.(7) How many requests did the First Assistant Secretary in charge of TCLP receive from accountants and taxpayers in the 1996-97 financial year for funding under the TCLP.(8) Does the Minister consider the TCLP to be a success when less than 2 per cent of $4 million over 2 years has been allocated to resolve taxpayer issues.(9) How much was allocated under the TCLP for the 1997-98 financial year including the latest available figures.(10) (a) Will the Government be extending the TCLP for another 3 years; if so, what will be the funding per year; if not, why not.(11) With reference to the test case to be run on sunhats, sunscreen and sunglasses as initially confirmed by the Commissioner in 1996: (a) can it be explained whether the objections presented to the First Assistant Commissioner have been processed as June 1998; if not, why not; and (b) when will they be processed.(12) When does the Commissioner intend this case to be presented before the Federal Court.2150Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) The question refers to the 1996-97 financial year. Due to the timing of the receipt of information from external organisations and the complexity of the required matching processes, discrepancies relating to the 1995-96 financial year were reviewed during the year ended 30 June 1998. Information relating to Interest & Dividends and Rebates—refers to the 1995-96 financial year.The number of audits undertaken in the 1995-96 financial is as follows:Interest & Dividends—103,428; Rebates—3,742.(1) (b) There were 33,474 audits conducted, of these 21,261 cases required taxpayers to complete a questionnaire in the first instance. A number of these cases were then escalated to full substantiation audits depending on the details provided.(1) (c) see table(1) (d) It is uncertain what is meant by "real time audits". 7857 computer system checks were generated at the time returns were being processed. These cases identified potentially incorrect claims for family tax assistance, spouse and sole parent rebates.(2) (a) (b) see table(2) (c) The initial and subsequent amounts of tax are not available.(2) (d) (e) (f) see table(2) (e) See table**. The relationship between cases reviewed/audited and cases adjusted is often misinterpreted by extrapolating the rate to the wider community. This relationship needs to be viewed in the context of the type of audit or review program undertaken. For example, in relation to interest, dividends and rebates because cases are selected for review on the basis of information supplied by external institutions and then matched against information contained in tax returns, it is almost certain that errors have been made by taxpayers identified by this process, thus a high adjustment rate. On the other hand, in relation to work related expenses because most taxpayers were advised prior to lodging their tax returns of our intention to review their claims, more care was taken in preparing their returns and less errors were made.Date(1)(c)desk Audits *(2)(a)Returns subsequently amended(2)(b) Additional Taxes(2)(d)Penalties imposed(2)(e)Error rate **(2)(f) Average tax and penalty per productive caseTaxPenalty1995/96Interest & Dividends87,048$20,463,782$4,159,65384%$235$47Rebates3,4583,006,981753,71992%8692171996/97WRE (tax agent)5,8742,767,681747,07318% (agents advised of `audit' before returns lodged471127Car5,0741,5091,967,345537,53130%1,303356Self-education928316452,845104,02334%1,433329Superannuation8,9047,0613,895,585951,99779%551134Home officeNo of audits not available274 (not mutually exclusive to WRE (tax agentnot available (total value of adjustments was $113,158)not availablenot availabledetails are not available`Real time audits'5,4895,352,237133,42070%97524 Note—Superannuation `audits' were in fact computer generated checks at the time tax returns were being processed. Other such checks are included at (1)(d)(3) Provision was included in the 1995-96 Budget for expenditure of up to $2M per year for 1995-96 and each of the next two years for the purposes of a TCLP for taxation cases.(4) The program got under way in the second half of 1995-96. Due to the lead time necessarily involved in litigation cases only one case reached the stage where a payment was required. The amount paid in that case was $10,616. A further $636,184 was committed to ongoing cases as at 30 June 1996.(5) (a) Two requests were received on behalf of taxpayers and there were five cases where litigation funding was offered under the program at the initiative of the Commissioner of Taxation.(5) (b) Various suggestions were received from members of the public as to issues that might make suitable test case issues in the future.(6) It is confirmed that an amount of $235,668 was spent on funding test cases in 1996-97. A further $640,000 was committed to ongoing cases as at 30 June 1997.(7) Applications for funding under the ATO Test Case Program are generally made by a solicitor representing the taxpayer in a litigation case. Applications are sometimes made by taxpayers or other taxpayer representatives. Some funding offers are initiated by the ATO where there is an important issue in a case and, for various reasons, no funding application has been made by the taxpayer in the case. Thirty one funding proposals in total from these sources were processed in 1996-97.(8) The ATO Test Case Program will be evaluated on the extent to which it meets intended outcomes rather than the extent to which available funds are expended. An evaluation report of the first 3 years of the program is required to be completed during the 1998/99 financial year.(9) A total of $333,889 was spent during the year and a further $374,110.90 was committed to cases as at 30 June 1998.(10) Yes, subject to the outcome of the program evaluation the program is to be extended a further 3 years. Up to $2M will be available each year for suitable cases.(11) (a) No objections have been lodged. A number of draft private rulings requests have been forwarded to the ATO for consideration as suitable binding private ruling requests to be lodged by taxpayers identified by the NSW Cancer Council. These rulings requests will establish the basis of a series of test cases on the issues.(11) (b) The ATO is working with the NSW Cancer Council to finalise the identification and details of the representative cases. This aspect of the work will be completed in September 1998. It is expected that objections and appeals will be lodged subsequently. This process will take a further 2 to 3 months.(12) The issue will come before the Federal Court on completion of the processes referred to in the answer to the previous question.2151(Question No. 163)1632151Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray3M6WAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 12 November 1998:Has an investigating accountant's report been prepared for the further sale of Telstra; if so, can a copy of the report be provided; if such a report has not been prepared, when will the report by produced.2152Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:An investigating accountant's report has not yet been prepared for the further sale of Telstra. To have done so would have been premature and therefore not cost effective.2152(Question No. 170)1702152Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:(1) (a) How many applications for child disability allowance (CDA) were received for children with diabetes for the periods, July-October 1997, March-June 1998 and July-October 1998; and (b) for each period, how many of these applications were:(i) successful, (ii) unsuccessful.(2) Are the new assessment criteria intended to prevent children with diabetes (or other `hidden' conditions like asthma and attention deficit disorder) from being eligible for CDA.(3) (a) Are the new assessment criteria preventing children with diabetes from qualifying for CDA; and (b) what is the evidence on which this conclusion is based.2152Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The recording of information on CDA applications by disability type only commenced with the introduction of new CDA rules on 1 July 1998. It is not yet possible to provide reliable information by specific disability group. I have asked my Department to examine how reliable data by disability type can be obtained as soon as possible.(2) There was no intention in the design and development of the Child Disability Assessment Tool (CDAT) to exclude children with any particular medical condition or disability.The aim of new arrangements for the CDA program is to ensure that the program is targeted to families in the greatest need. The Child Disability Assessment Tool (CDAT), introduced for all new claims lodged on or after 1 July 1998, assesses the level of severity of a child's disability by looking at whether the child functions according to standards appropriate to his or her age. The child's actual ability is measured against the standard for his or her age in a series of functional categories comprising language skills, self-care skills, social and community skills, fine motor skills and gross motor skills. In addition, the child's behaviour is taken into account where it is significantly affected by the disability, along with any special care needs.(3) (a) and (b) There is no evidence at present to indicate how the new assessment arrangements are affecting grants of CDA to children with diabetes. I have asked my Department to consider this issue as part of its current review of these arrangements. The results of this review should be available in the second half of 1999.2152(Question No. 196)1962152Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WoodleyHX5QLDAD00 asked the Minister for Communications, the Information Technology and the Arts the following, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:(1) Is the Minister aware of the level of dissatisfaction amongst Telstra business sales consultants in Sydney, and that this dissatisfaction relates to their claim that the positions advertised by Telstra in January 1998 turned out to be different once the successful applicants began working for Telstra.(2) Did Telstra, in the Sydney Morning Herald, advertised a base salary plus incentive and superannuation of $36000 on 21 January 1998.(3) Does a discrepancy exist between the conditions advertised and those experienced by these Telstra business sales consultants.(4) Is the Minister aware that the written offer made by Telstra to these employees was made up of a base remuneration of $24,244 and a company superannuation contribution of $4,278, a total of $28,522.(5) Can an explanation be given of the difference between the advertised amount of $36,000 and Telstra's written `remuneration summary (Attachment B)' which shows a base salary of $28,522.(6) Is the Minister aware that Telstra employees were advised via `remuneration summary (Attachment B)' that the difference was made up of an `on target commission' of $8,557 making a total of $37,079.(7) Does the Minister agree that these Telstra employees have a legitimate complaint that Telstra's package as detailed in (4) and (6) above does not correspond with the advertised salary package.(8) Is it a fact that the Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) drawn up by Telstra and presented to new employees for signature was not submitted to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission; if so, why does Telstra not comply with the Federal Government's industrial relations legislation.(9) Has the Minister been supplied with any information about these problems; if not, will a briefing on this issue be sought and will the Senate be advised.2153Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from Telstra, is as follows:(1) Telstra has advised that it is unaware of any general level of dissatisfaction amongst Business Sales Consultants in Sydney. Telstra also advises that, there has been one isolated case of a former staff member who expressed dissatisfaction with his contract with Telstra. Telstra maintains that the conditions of employment as advertised were identical to the actual conditions applying to the applicants during subsequent employment.(2) Yes. Telstra advises that the advertisement in the Sydney Morning Herald stated:"The RewardsTelstra offers a remuneration package consisting of base salary, incentive and superannuation commencing at $36,000 per annum depending on skills and experience".Telstra further advises that successful applicants were also sent a letter before commencing that explained that 30 per cent of their package was commission based.(3) Telstra advises that it believes that no discrepancy exists between the advertised conditions and those experienced by the successful applicants on taking up employment. Telstra has emphasised that the total package available to employees was higher than $36,000.(4) Telstra advises that full details of the package as communicated to employees was:Total package—$37,079.Commission—$8,557; Total Employment Cost—$28,522; Super 5% of TEC—$4,278; Base—$24,244.(5) See answer to Question (4). Telstra advises that differing terminology—"incentive" or "commission"- has been used to describe the payment to employees based on sales performance, with the amount being a percentage of Total Employment Cost.(6) Telstra advises that individuals were advised prior to commencement of employment that the roles were sales based and there was a commission structure. Telstra further advises that the letter of offer clearly states a 70/30 package would be offered. The jobs were advertised as sales roles and as such are sales dependent. Telstra also advises that this was communicated at the initial interviews by the Business Sales Consultants Manager. (7) Telstra considers that applicants were fully advised of the conditions of employment prior to commencement and that such conditions were in line with the information contained in the advertisement in the Sydney Morning Herald.(8) Under the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, Telstra must submit AWAs to the Office of the Employment Advocate, not the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.Regrettably, an error in the processing of contracts by Telstra led to the AWAs not being submitted to the Employment Advocate as required under the Workplace Relations Act. Telstra advises that all AWAs were consequently withdrawn and re-submitted. There was no disadvantage to any employee as a result of this process.(9) It is the role of the Telstra board and management, not government, to manage the day-to-day operations of the company, including staff salaries. I have sought no briefing on this specific issue additional to the advice provided in response to this question, and given the response provided by Telstra, I do not propose to do so.2153(Question No. 213)2132153Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What is the total expenditure on conferences both: (a) in-house, that is, held within the department or agency; and (b) external, held by the department or agencies within the portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996.(2) For conferences fully funded by the department and portfolio agencies, and costing in excess of $30 000: (a) where was the venue; (b) what was the reason for each conference; (c) how many participants registered; (d) were consultancy fees paid for the organisation of each conference; (e) to whom were the consultancy fees paid; and (f) what was the cost of each consultancy.(3) For conferences part-sponsored or part-funded by the department and portfolio agencies and costing the Commonwealth in excess of $30 000: (a) what was the cost to the department or agency; (b) what was the proportion of Commonwealth funding as against the total cost of the conference; (c) what was the rationale for the sponsorship or part-funding; (d) what was the venue; (e) how many participants registered; (f) did the Commonwealth contribute to any consultant organising the conference; if so, who was the consultant; and (g) how much was the Commonwealth's contribution. 2154Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) In-house Department of Finance and Administration ($)Year/MonthJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSeptOctNovDec1996--------34,110---1997--1,000---------1998-51,737----------Portfolio Agencies ($)Year/MonthJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSeptOctNovDec1996---21,2264,20010,000------1997----1,245-------1998-1,018---1,442------(b) External Department of Finance and Administration ($)Year/MonthJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSeptOctNovDec1996---------3,500-7,2001997-2,7807085,7027401,2164,6651,1004,470892-2,9861998--9,6067,688175-3,995-----Portfolio Agencies ($)Year/MonthJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSeptOctNovDec1996-------13,600--2,10040019971,1002007002,7002,90013,3003,2002,60012,00027,70016,8002,100199832,8009005,1003,5003,7009003,912-----(2)(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) $Sydney Convention Centre, Darling HarbourNational Industry Procurement Conference119YesJane Singleton Pty Ltd49,000Rydges Hotel, CanberraChallenges & Opportunities—The next phase of Public Sector Reform—SES Conference272Nonot applicable (n/a)n/aParliament House, CanberraCompeting for Performance—Senior Officers Conference150Non/an/a(3)(a) $(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) $96,30089%Hosting of the 31st International Council for IT in Government Administration (ICA) conference. This provided Australia with the opportunity to showcase its innovative government IT initiatives, to actively participate in the growing international government IT forum and to exchange experiences with other senior government officials, particularly from the US, the UK and Europe.Renaissance Sydney Hotel103Facet Management12,9002155(Question No. 225)2252155Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What was the total value of market research sought by the department on a month-by-month basis between March 1996 and November 1998.(2) What was the purpose of each contract let.(3) In each instance, what was the involvement or otherwise of the Office of Government Information and Advertising.(4) In each instance; (a) how many firms were invited to submit proposals; and (b) how many tender proposals were received.(5) In each instance, which firm was selected to conduct the research.(6) In each instance, what was the estimated or contract price of the research work and what was the actual amount expended by the department.2155Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1)—(6) Refer to the attachment.ATTACHMENT(1) The total value of market research sought by the department on a month-by-month basis between March 1996* and November 1998.(2) The purpose of each contract let.(3) The involvement or otherwise of the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA).(4) (a) How many firms were invited to submit proposals; and (b) how many tender proposals were received.(5) The firm selected to conduct the research.(6) The estimated or contract price of the research work and the actual amount expended by the Department.April 1996Research on the SAMI and Magnum Cinema exhibitions for the National Film and Sound Archive.OGIA was not involved.(a) 3 (b) 3Q Research and MarketingContract price: $3,750 Expenditure: $3,750April 1996 Total contract price for April 1996: $18,750Market research regarding creative concepts for advertising for the National Science and Technology Centre.OGIA was consulted regarding suppliers.(a) 3 (b) 3Environmetr icsContract price: $15,000 Expenditure: $15,000May 1996 Total contract price for May 1996: $3,500Research on the SAMI and Magnum Cinema exhibitions for the National Film and Sound Archive.OGIA was not involved.(a) 3 (b) 3Q Research and MarketingContract price: $3,500 Expenditure: $3,500 June 1996Research concerning visitors evaluation of exhibits at the National Science and Technology Centre.OGIA was consulted regarding suppliers.(a) 3 (b) 3Frank Small and AssociatesContract price: $10,000 Expenditure: $10,000June 1996 Total contract price for June 1996: $37,500Conduct market research on the extent of awareness within the community of possible health issues associated with radiofrequency electromagnetic energy.OGIA was not involved.(a) 6 (b) 3AGB McNair Pty LtdContract price: $27,500 Expenditure: $27,500September 1996 Total contract price for September 1996: $250Special report on "This is Your Life" and other programs for the National Film and Sound Archive.OGIA was not involved.(a) 1 (b) 1A C NielsenContract price: $250 Expenditure: $250November 1996 Total contract price for November 1996: $39,700Provision of market research into potential sites for the National Museum of Australia.Advice of OGIA was sought in relation to suitable consultants.(a) 4 (b) 3Frank Small and Associates (Aust) Pty LtdContract price: $39,700 Expenditure: $39,700February 1997 Total contract price for February 1997: $7,950Provide exhibition evaluation work, develop a questionnaire, arrange for the National Archives of Australia staff and market research people to administer the questionnaire, and produce a report.OGIA was not involved.(a) 1 (b) 1Environmetr icsContract price: $7,950 Expenditure: $7,950June 1997Questionnaire processing of a newsletter survey for the National Film and Sound Archive.OGIA was not involved.(a) 1 (b) 1Independent ResearchContract price: $800 Expenditure: $800 June 1997 Total contract price for June 1997: $1,150Research on ratings and reach for six programs with a demographic breakdown for the National Film and Sound Archive.OGIA was not involved.(a) 1 (b) 1A C NielsenContract price: $350 Expenditure: $350July 1997Educational video market analysis for the National Film and Sound Archive.OGIA was not involved.(a) 1 (b) 1Independent ResearchContract price: $3,680 Expenditure: $3,680July 1997 Total contract price for July 1997: $3,780Provide a demographics analysis of Nude Moments for the National Film and Sound Archive.OGIA was not involved.(a) 1 (b) 1A C NielsenContract price: $100 Expenditure: $100 October 1997 Total contract price for October 1997: $8,000To conduct formative evaluation for the permanent exhibition proposed for the Treasures Gallery of the new National Archives of Australia building in Canberra.OGIA was not involved.(a) 1 (b) 1Environmetr icsContract price: $8,000 Expenditure: $8,000November 1997 Total contract price for November 1997: $39,500Provide an exhibit evaluation for the National Science and Technology Centre.OGIA was consulted regarding suppliers.(a) 4 (b) 4Environmetr icsContract price: $39,500 Expenditure: $39,500December 1997 Total contract price for December 1997: $27,500Undertake a study to assist the Department to develop best practice retail, food and beverage outlets for the National Museum of Australia.OGIA was not involved.(a) 2 (b) 2Environmetr icsContract price: $27,500 Expenditure: $27,500February 1998Market research to ascertain the level of public awareness of parallel importation of CDs and understanding of the reforms.OGIA was involved in the development of the brief and provided a list of suggested consultants. OGIA provide secretariat services to the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications which approved the research being commissioned and the list of consultants.(a) 9 (b) 7Jigsaw Strategic ResearchContract price: $73,475 Expenditure: $52,837February 1998 Total contract price for February 1998: $103,475Qualitative testing of logo concepts for the National Council for the Centenary of Federation.OGIA was not involved.(a) 3 (b) 3Elliott and ShanahanContract price: $30,000 Expenditure: $30,000May 1998 Total contract price for May 1998: $40,000Provide a visitor profile survey for the National Science and Technology Centre.OGIA overviewed the draft of the research brief, recommended companies to approach and received a report of the final evaluation of the companies.(a) 5 (b) 5A C NielsonContract price: $40,000 Expenditure: $40,000 June 1998 Total contract price for June 1998: $72,000Visitor research and evaluation program for Old Parliament House and the National Portrait Gallery.OGIA provided feedback on the brief and a list of consultants.(a) 5 (b) 4Environmetr icsContract price: $72,000 Expenditure: $34,950September 1998Pre-testing of creative concepts for stage 1 of the Centenary of Federation communications.OGIA provided comments on the brief, provided a list of suggested consultants and assistance throughout the briefing and selection process.(a) 3 (b) 3Elliott and ShanahanContract price: $35,000 Expenditure: $35,000September 1998Gauge how the recent changes at the National Archives of Australia (including the move to the new building, the name change, a publicity campaign and a shift in emphasis of some activities) have affected general awareness of the Archives amongst the Australian population.OGIA was not involved.(a) 1 (b) 1Environmetr icsContract price: $10,000 Expenditure: $10,000September 1998 Total contract price for September 1998: $48,860Gauge community awareness of the National Archives of Australia in Canberra, its role and new location, and assess the effectiveness of promotional mechanisms following the publicity campaign associated with the Archives opening of new public premises in Parkes.OGIA was not involved.(a) 1 (b) 1Orima Research Pty LtdContract price: $3,860 (est) Expenditure: $4,023November 1998 Total contract price for November 1998: $1,200Participation in the initial National Film and Sound Archive research program "NIPP".OGIA was not involved.(a) 1 (b) 1Canberra Tourism and Events CorporationContract price: $1,200 Expenditure: $1,200* The period 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).2159(Question No. 235)2352159Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What was the total value of market research sought by the department on a month-by-month basis between March 1996 and November 1998.(2) What was the purpose of each contract let.(3) In each instance, what was the involvement or otherwise of the Office of Government Information and Advertising.(4) In each instance; (a) how many firms were invited to submit proposals; and (b) how many tender proposals were received.(5) In each instance, which firm was selected to conduct the research.(6) In each instance, what was the estimated or contract price of the research work and what was the actual amount expended by the department.2159Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)Pre November 1997:nilNovember 1997:$31,500December 1997:$45,089February 1998:$21,997April 1998:$45,900May 1998:$40,364August 1998:$26,292September 1998:$40,890October 1998:$124,720November 1998:$22,000TOTAL:$398,752(2) The contracts were for research into attitudes on racism.(3) The Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA) was consulted on the research brief and contributed to the list of consultants. Two OGIA officers sat on the assessment panel, together with two departmental officers. OGIA advised the Department on research methodologies and on the main techniques of qualitative research, in particular the appropriateness of novel methodologies proposed by some tenderers.(4) (a) Thirteen firms were invited to submit proposals.(b) Eight of these subsequently submitted tender proposals.(5) Eureka Strategic Research.(6) The estimated price for the contract was $375,000. The price for the original contract between the Commonwealth and the contractor was $380,000 (28 July 1998). The contract was subsequently amended to allow for payment of additional fees related to travel expenses and allowances from the fund allocated to the campaign. The actual amount expended by the Department to date is $398,752. 2159(Question No. 236)2362159Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 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).2159Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)—(4) I am advised that no contracts have been provided by the department, or any agency of the department, to Worthington Di Marzio since March 1996.2160(Question No. 241)2412160Ray, 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 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).2160Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) One.(2) Concept testing and benchmarking for ArtsInfo.(3) $39,900.(4) Selective tender.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.2160(Question No. 246)2462160Ray, 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 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). 2160Ellison, 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/A2160(Question No. 252)2522160Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, 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 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).2160Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)—(4) I am advised that no contracts have been provided by the department, or any agency of the department, to Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since March 1996.2160(Question No. 257)2572160Ray, 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 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).2161Alston, 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 Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd 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.2161(Question No. 262)2622161Ray, 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 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).2161Ellison, 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/A2161(Question No. 263)2632161Ray, 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 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).2161Ellison, 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 Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since March 1996.2161(Question No. 268)2682161Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, 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).2161Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)—(4) I am advised that no contracts have been provided by the department, or any agency of the department, to Canberra Liaison since March 1996.2161(Question No. 320)3202161Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, 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.2162Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Treasury did not refer any cases of unauthorised disclosure to the Australian Federal Police between March 1996 and October 1998.(2) Not applicable.(3) Not applicable.2162(Question No. 321)3212162Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, 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.2162Macdonald, 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) (2) and (3) The Department has not referred any unauthorised disclosures to the Australian Federal Police between March 1996 and October 1998.2162(Question No. 352)3522162Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator ColstonPF4QLDIND00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 7 December 1998:(1) Did the Coalition Government, in a document, Communications: Making Australia stronger, indicate on page 12 that the Coalition intends to legislate to authorise the sale of Telstra in two or more stages. (2) Did the document state the Coalition would seek to sell a further 16 per cent of Telstra to take the proportion of Telstra in private ownership to 49 per cent: if so, why does the proportion of Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 state that the Commonwealth may sell 49.9 per cent of its original equity interest in Telstra.2162Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Coalition election document Communications: making Australia stronger stated—"The Coalition will legislate to authorise the sale of Telstra in two or more stages".(2) Communications: making Australia stronger also stated—"In the first stage, the Coalition will seek to sell a further 16 per cent of Telstra to take the proportion of Telstra in private ownership to 49 per cent. The legislation will provide that the first stage may not occur until the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act is in place" .The Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 allows the Commonwealth, after Royal Assent, to sell 49.9% of its original equity interest in Telstra, provided it retains a 50.1% equity interest in Telstra.This legislation reflects the essential element of the Government's commitment to retain majority ownership on the first stage of the sale until an independent inquiry has certified that Telstra's service levels to customers in metropolitan, rural and remote areas are adequate, measured against specified performance criteria.The Government is expressing precisely in the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 the percentage of the Commonwealth's equity in Telstra which can be sold whilst requiring it to retain majority ownership.2162(Question No. 355)3552162Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 7 December 1998:(1) Can a full account be given as to the current status of the pensioner education supplement.(2) Will recipients of this program lose the retraining allowance under the proposed goods and services tax.(3) (a) Is an evaluation currently being conducted as to the efficacy of this program: if so, who is conducting this evaluation, and what are the terms of reference; and (b)when is such an evaluation taking place and can details be provided. (4) If this program is to be scrapped are there any plans to replace it with another scheme; if so, can details be provided of such plans.2163Newman, 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) Certain social security and Veterans' Affairs pensioners who are studying may be eligible for a Pensioner Education Supplement (PES). PES is payable to both full-time students and part-time students studying at least 25% of a full-time study load.Policy responsibility for the AUSTUDY component of PES was transferred from the former Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (now the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA)) to the former Department of Social Security (now the Department of Family and Community Services (DFaCS)) on 1 July 1998. However, responsibility for the ABSTUDY component of PES, which is paid to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, is retained by DETYA.(2) There is no "retraining allowance" specifically associated with the PES payment. The rate of PES is to be increased by 4% under the compensation provisions associated with the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax.(3) DFaCS is currently conducting an evaluation of the AUSTUDY PES scheme.The terms of reference for the PES evaluation are to examine the objectives of the program and whether the payment is achieving its objectives in the most effective and efficient way.Key components of the PES evaluation comprise focus groups with PES customers, as well as a national telephone survey of 3,000 customers conducted by a consultant (Rush Social Research Agency). The focus groups with PES customers were completed in September 1998, while the customer telephone survey was undertaken in November and December.DFaCS anticipates that the evaluation should be finalised by the end of February 1999.As DETYA retains policy responsibility for the ABSTUDY component of PES, the role of ABSTUDY PES has been examined separately. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, the Hon Dr David Kemp MP, issued a Media Release on 15 December 1998, which stated that from 1 January 2000, ABSTUDY PES will be fully aligned with AUSTUDY PES available under the Social Security Act 1991.(4) Any decisions regarding the future of the AUSTUDY PES scheme will be made by the Government subsequent to the completion of the PES evaluation. 2163(Question No. 375)3752163Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:(1) Will the proposed changes to fringe benefits tax (FBT) apply to benefits provided by deceased estates, child maintenance trusts and/or section 102AG trusts.(2) Will an interest free loan taken from a trust by a beneficiary or by a shareholder from a company, entered into before 1 April 2000, be subject to FBT after 1 April 2000 or will the proposed FBT changes only apply to such loans entered into after 1 April 2000.(3) (a) Where an employer is required to include on an employee's group certificate a fringe benefit amount for the financial year ending 30 June 2000 and an error is made, will the employee be penalised for any tax shortfall that may arise as a result of the employer incorrectly calculating the grossed up taxable value; and (b) who will be responsible for this tax shortfall, the employee or the employer.(4) (a) How will employers value the fringe benefit attributable to individual employees who have access to pooled motor vehicles provided by the employer for the use of its employees; and (b) what will be the individual value to be recorded on the group certificate.(5) What treatment will apply to exempt benefits provided to employees that have to be included on an employee's group certificate such as lap-top computers, Christmas gifts or mobile phones.2163Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) One of the FBT reform measures announced in A New Tax System involves extending FBT to benefits provided by companies to shareholders (in respect of their shareholding) and by trusts to beneficiaries (in respect of the trust relationship) from the 2000-01 FBT year. As a guiding principle, FBT will not apply where the benefit is taxed under the Income Tax Assessment Act or is a return of contributed capital. In light of the proposal in A New Tax System to tax trusts like companies apart from certain excluded trusts, the income tax treatment of the types of trusts referred to in the question is a matter for consideration by the Review of Business Taxation which is being chaired by Mr John Ralph, A.O.(2) As noted, as a guiding principle FBT will not apply where a benefit is taxed under the Income Tax Assessment Act (ITAA). Non-commercial loans made to private company shareholders are currently taxable under the ITAA and would therefore not be subject to FBT under the proposed reforms. A New Tax System announced that provisions covering private company loans to shareholders would be extended to discretionary trusts and closely held fixed trusts. Consultation on this measure is being conducted through the Review of Business Taxation.(3) (a) To attract the penalty provisions of the income tax law, a tax shortfall must arise because the taxpayer deliberately entered into a scheme to avoid tax, had failed to exercise reasonable care, was reckless, or had intentional disregard of the income tax law.Therefore, unless an employee and their employer entered into an agreement to deliberately understate the reportable fringe benefits amount, or the employee ought reasonably have known that the fringe benefits amount was understated, no penalty would generally arise to the employee.Where an assessment is amended, increasing the amount of tax payable, the employee would be liable for an interest penalty. There may be special circumstances where the Commissioner remits this amount.For superannuation surcharge and termination payments surcharge purposes, an incorrect reportable fringe benefits amount shown on an employee's group certificate would not result in a penalty to the employee. Rather the surcharge liability in relation to the employee's contributions may be increased by virtue of an amended assessment, and interest would be payable on any increased liability. There is a provision that allows the Commissioner to remit the whole or part of an interest charge.(3) (b) Subject to the above comments, the employee will be liable for any tax shortfall.(4) (a) and (b) Where a fringe benefit or class of benefit is provided to two or more employees, the employee's share of the benefit will be the portion of the taxable value that reasonably reflects the amount of benefit received by each employee. The employer must take all relevant matters into consideration when apportioning the taxable value of a benefit and the apportionment must be justifiable.(5) Exempt benefits such as lap-top computers, mobile phones for predominantly business use and minor benefits of less than $100 will not have to be reported on group certificates.2164(Question No. 384)3842164O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 15 December 1998:(1) Have consultants been engaged to develop a national program of competency-based emergency animal disease preparedness education and training for both publicly employed and private veterinarians.(2) Was the consultancy the subject of a tender process; if not, how were the consultants selected.(3) Has the Government received a report from the consultants; if so, can a copy be provided of the report; if not, at what stage is the consultancy and when are the consultants scheduled to complete the report.2164Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The honourable senator's question was referred to the Australian Animal Health Council Ltd for response. The Council is a non-profit public company whose members are the state and federal governments and industry organisations. It is the peak animal health body for developing strategic policy and funding of national animal disease programs, including emergency disease preparedness training.(1) The Council has advised me that it engaged a consulting firm to develop training modules for emergency disease outbreaks. The modules include competency standards and training materials to assist government and industry personnel prepare to combat animal disease emergencies.(2) I am advised that the engagement of the consultant was the result of an open tendering process. Focus Learning Systems Pty Ltd was selected from fifteen (15) tenders received.(3) As the honourable senator will now be aware, the responsibility for the management of any reports associated with the consultancy rests with Council. As a general rule, it is appropriate that enquiries be made to the Council on the availability and status of its project reports. In this particular instance, I am advised that the Council has received regular reports from Focus Learning Systems Pty Ltd. I am further advised that the Council may make reports available to interested parties subject to a request being received in writing, outlining the purposes to which the report will be put.[An error occured in the publication of Question No. 1253 (Hansard 12 November 1998, page 342). The correct answer is as follows]2165(Question No. 1253)12532165Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 21 July 1998:(1) What is the total expenditure on conferences both: (a) in-house, that is, held within the department or agency; and (b) external, held by the department or agencies within the portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996.(2) For conferences fully funded by the department and portfolio agencies, and costing in excess of $30,000: (a) where was the venue; (b) what was the reason for each conference; (c) how many participants registered; (d) were consultancy fees paid for the organisation of each conference; (e) to whom were the consultancy fees paid; and (f) what was the cost of each consultancy.(3) For conferences part-sponsored or part-funded by the department and portfolio agencies and costing the Commonwealth in excess of $30,000: (a) what was the cost to the department or agency; (b) what was the proportion of Commonwealth funding as against the total cost of the conference; (c) what was the rationale for the sponsorship or part-funding; (d) what was the venue; (e) how many participants registered; (f) did the Commonwealth contribute to any consultant organising the conference; if so, who was the consultant; and (g) how much was the Commonwealth's contribution.2165Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:On advice from the honourable senator's office, the word `conference' has been interpreted as meaning `a special purpose gathering of experts or departmental officials to which guest speakers would be invited'.(1) (a)-(b) Details of total expenditure on a month-by-month basis on in-house and external conferences held by the portfolio since March 1996 are provided in the following table. (It should be noted that the total expenditure for each conference is shown against the month in which the conference was held, not the month in which the expenditure was incurred. The expenditure figures do not reflect any costs recovered and also do not include salary expenditure for officers participating in or organising the conferences, or training courses.)DateName of ConferenceTotal Expenditure on In-house ConferencesTotal Expenditure on External Conferences$$Feb 96Clean Air Society of Australia & New Zealand5,000Mar 96OECD International Conference on Incentive Measures for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use52,779May 96Interpretation of the Term "Anthropogenic" in Determining Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions29,942May 96Contribution to Differentiation Workshop by Royal Institute of International Affairs5,000Jun 96Australian Environmental Management Seminar—Shanghai38,000Oct 96Vegetation Thickening Workshop (ANU-RSBS)28,770Oct 961996 Australia & New Zealand Solar Energy Society Conference5,000Oct 96Seminar by the Secretary-General of CITES1,140Nov 968th Annual Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre Modelling Workshop—Symposium on climate prediction and predicability11,300Nov 96Great Barrier Reef Science, Use and Management Conference5,000Feb 97Madrid Protocol Seminar200Apr 972nd Asia-Pacific Roundtable on Cleaner Production20,000Apr 97Workshop on the fate of material from the Fly River in the Torres Strait and Gulf of Papua5,728Apr 97Global Program of Action—East Asia Seas Regional Conference29,748May 97Closing the Communication Gap Workshop (Climate Impacts Centre, Macquarie University)9,340May 97Department of Primary Industries & Energy/Activities Implemented Jointly Conference—Indonesia20,000May 97The Larsemann Hills: an Antarctic microcosm10,000Aug 97Living Cities Conference10,000Aug 97Healthy People, Healthy Wildlife and International Symposium on Traditional Chinese Medicine & Wildlife Conservation12,500Aug 97Abbotts Booby Forum15,403Sep 97Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on Biomass Burning and Land Use Change and Forestry41,611Sep 97Protection of Wetlands adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef13,766 Sep 97Wetlands in a Dry Land12,000Oct 97Australian Environment Management Conferences Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok88,184Oct 979th Annual Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre Modelling Workshop—Improving short-range forecasting11,550Nov 97Environmental Reporting Roundtable20,000Nov 97Fenner Conference: Ethics of Manipulative Research and Management in World Heritage and Environmentally Sensative Areas1,834Dec 97Oceans Policy Forum53,780May 98Australian Bureau of Agriculture & Resource Economics Conference on Emissions Trading10,000Jun 98National Carbon Accounting System Experts Workshop34,861(2)—(3) The details sought are contained in the accompanying tables. It should be noted that conferences have been included in part (3) where total Commonwealth expenditure exceeded $30,000. (Similar to the response to part (1), the expenditure figures do not reflect any costs recovered and do not include salary expenditure for officers participating in or organising the conferences, training courses, or officers from the portfolio attending conferences which were not organised by the portfolio.)QUESTION 2 (a)-(f)DETAILS, FROM MARCH 1996 UNTIL 21 JULY 1998, FOR CONFERENCES WHICH WERE FULLY FUNDED BY THE PORTFOLIO AND COST IN EXCESS OF $30,000Name of Conference(a) Venue(b) Reason(c) No. of Participants Registered(d) Were Consultants Fees Paid Yes/No(e) If Yes, to Whom(f) Cost of ConsultancyAustralian Environmental Management SeminarShanghaiPromote Australian environment management capability.80YesAustrade$2,000 Australian Environment Management ConferencesHanoi, Ho Chi Minh City and BangkokPromote Australian environment management capability.190 for two seminarsYesAustrade$2,000 OECD International Conference on Incentive Measures for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable UseCairns Hilton. Take stock of the work of the OECD Ad Hoc Expert Group on Economic Aspects of Biodiversity;66No. Give practical guidance to OECD countries in their implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and contribute to the discussion on incentive measures in the 1996 Conference of the Parties; and. Identify topics for further work by the OECD and/or for other international fora.Oceans Policy ForumParliament HouseTo discuss issues on Oceans Policy before finalising the draft policy document for public comment.130YesProfessor Frank Talbot, Graduate School of the Environment, Macquarie University, NSW$6,934 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Expert Meeting on Biomass Burning and Land Use Change and ForestryRockhampton, QldTo host an expert workshop as part of the IPCC's review of inventory guidelines in the area of Land Use Change and Forestry.Delegates: 48 Observers: 1YesAustralian Convention and Travel Services Pty Ltd$7,500ANUCRES$9,000National Carbon Accounting System Experts WorkshopCanberra, ACTTo bring together scientists, policy makers and industry groups to assist in establishment of the National Carbon Accounting System and Implementation.Registrations: 134YesConSec Conference Support Secretariat Services15,635Rydges, London Circuit, Canberra14,340QUESTION 3 (a)-(g)DETAILS, FROM MARCH 1996 UNTIL 21 JULY 1998, FOR CONFERENCES WHICH WERE PART-SPONSORED OR PART-FUNDED BY THE PORTFOLIO AND COST THE COMMONWEALTH IN EXCESS OF $30,000Name of Conference(a) Cost to Portfolio(b) Proportion of Commonwealth Funding Against the Total Cost of the Conference(c) Rationale for Sponsorship or Part-Funding(d) Venue(e) No. of Participants Registered(f) Did the Commonwealth Contribute to any Consultant Organising the Conference.(f) Yes/No(f) If Yes who was the consultant(g) Cost of Commonwealth ContributionWorking Together on Preventing Ship-Based Pollution in the Asia-Pacific Region$55,50894.20%Environment Australia was hosting the conference as part of its international response to meeting its obligations under the International Maritime OrganisationThe Sheraton Breakwater Hotel, Townsville58YesBaird Publications Pty Ltd$30,000 Mining & Environment Workshop$35,000100% DFAT also contributed $35,000Promote Australian environment management capabilityJakarta Hilton, Indonesia180YesIPM Consultants$27,060 Cleaner Production Workshop$17,000100% DFAT also contributed $17,000Promote Australian environment management capabilityBeijing University, China120 Waterwatch Australia National Conference$40,00040%To promote and advance community water quality monitoring in Australia by providing a forum for people to work together and share knowledge and experiences and by providing professional development opportunities for Waterwatch regional co-ordinatorsUniversity of Adelaide, Roseworthy Campus160YesPlevin and Associates$9,400 Conference on Biological Infomatics$10,000Approx 42% ($40k funding provided by DIST). The final budget has not been finalised. At this stage it is estimated by the Aust Academy of Science that the conference will cost $120k—Commonwealth contribution $50kThe meeting outcomes will contribute significantly to Australia's ability to utilise our vast quantity of biological diversity date effectively and at the same time promote our expertise internationallyAustralian Academy of Science, Canberra114No Coast to Coast Conference$63,99642% of the projected budgetThe Commonwealth actively promotes a co-operative integrated approach to coastal management. The Coast to Coast conference is the premier national conference of coastal managers and is a cost effective, efficient mechanism for meeting the objective of bringing together and promoting dialogue between the disparate array of government, industry, academic and community people participating in coastal management across AustraliaSheraton Perth Hotel209NoAntarctic and Global Change: Interactions and Impacts$30,00020%Symposium was a major Australian contribution to understanding Antarctica's role in global climate changeWrest Point Convention Centre, Hobart282No