1999-02-183912SENATE217101999-02-18The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Governor-General's Speech217121712171The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—I remind honourable senators that the address-in-reply will be presented to the Governor-General at Government House today at 6 p.m. For this purpose, the Senate will stand adjourned without debate at 5.40 p.m. Cars will be available at the Senate entrance at 5.40 p.m. for the purpose of taking senators to Government House.217110001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:217120FX5Murphy Sen ShayneTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate the regressive decision by the Howard Government to allow small businesses to be charged for timed local calls on data services such as electronic mail, facsimile, the internet and other on-line services. This measure, if implemented, will have an adverse effect on the profitability, development and growth of small businesses across Australia.Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate recognise that timed local calls on data services is an untenable proposition for small business. We call on the Howard Government to live up to its election promise to guarantee untimed local calls for small business in both voice and data services.Senator MurphyFX5Senator Murphy(from 20 citizens)2171594DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable Members of the Senate in the Parliament AssembledThe Petition of the undersigned draws attention to the potentially damaging effects of National Competition Policy on small business such as Newsagents.Your petitioners ask the Senate, in Parliament to call on the Federal Government to review the decisions of the Australian Competition Tribunal, which threaten the viability of Newsagents and introduce legislation to override these decisions and preserve the current system of distribution for magazines and newspapers through Australian Newsagents.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 594 citizens)Petitions received.Notices21712171Senator Forshaw to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the National Institute of Dramatic Art (NIDA) is celebrating its 40th anniversary, (ii) NIDA has been responsible for training and developing the talents of many actors, directors and other persons involved in Australian theatre, film and television, and (iii) many NIDA graduates have achieved international success in their profession thus promoting Australian theatre, film and television as a world class industry;(b) congratulates NIDA on its great contribution to enriching Australia's culture over the past 40 years; and(c) calls on the Federal Government to continue to promote the artistic talents of Australians by ensuring adequate financial support for NIDA in the future.2171Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Mackay) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Mackay for today, relating to the disallowance of the Civil Aviation Regulations (Amendment) contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 234, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Business21712171Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following government business orders be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2.00 p.m. this day:No. 4— Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 No. 5— Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1998 [1999]No. 6— Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 19982172Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(1) general business notice of motion no. 119 standing in the name of Senator Carr, relating to the ABC Online internet service; and(2) consideration of government documents.Notices21722172Motion (by Senator Cook) agreed to:That business of the Senate order of the day no. 1 relating to the presentation of the report of the committee, be postponed till a later hour.Motion (by Senator Mackay) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 4 standing in her name for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, be postponed till 9 March 1999.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 business of the Senate notice of motion no. 5 standing in her name for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, be postponed till 9 March 1999.Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 6 standing in his name for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, be postponed till 9 March 1999.Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 7 standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Procedure Committee, 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 9 March 1999.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 Woodley) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 121 standing in his name for today, proposing an order for production of a document by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, be postponed till 9 March 1999.Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in her name for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous2172Motion (by Senator Cook) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes the tragic loss of life among sailors in the 1998 Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race and the heroic efforts of the rescue services in saving lives in mountainous seas and atrocious conditions;(b) expresses: (i) its sympathies for the families and friends of Glyn Charles, Bruce Guy, Phil Skeggs, Jim Lawler, John Dean and Mike Bannister, the six yachtsmen who died or were tragically lost at sea in the course of the race, and (ii) its gratitude for the rescues of some 55 sailors; (c) acknowledges the professionalism and courageous efforts above and beyond the call of duty by the many men and women from the various rescue agencies involved, amongst them, personnel from: Victorian Polair helicopter aircrews Westpac Lifesaver rescue helicopter aircrews NRMA Careflight Gary Ticehurst, G & A Ticehurst Helicopters the crew of Moira Elizabeth the crew of Josephine Jean ACT & SE NSW Aero-medical Helicopter Service Telstra Control radio, especially Lew Carter aboard STS Young Endeavour Lt Commander Neil Galletly and the crew of STS Young Endeavour Victorian and New South Wales police, especially the Victorian airwing and the Eden police Royal Australian Air Force, especially the aircrews of the spotter aircraft Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol, Eden Royal Australian Navy, especially the crew of HMAS Wollongong Australian Maritime Safety Authority;(d) thanks the people of Mallacoota and Eden who supported the rescue operation and assisted those who were rescued;(e) notes that there are a number of inquiries investigating the disaster, foremost of which are those inquiries being conducted by the New South Wales Coroner and the Cruising Yacht Club of Australia; and(f) trusts that the combined findings of the inquiries are properly implemented and result in safer standards for yachts, equipment and skill levels for all people who venture to sea in boats.Miscellaneous217309:38:002173Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I seek leave to have general business notice of motion No. 122 standing in my name which supports the decision by the Western Australian National Party to push for a rapid phase-out of clear-felling in old-growth forest taken as formal.Leave not granted.217309:39:002173Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent him moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion no. 122.The Regional Forest Agreement debate in Western Australia has galvanised public attention. Amongst the major parties, the National Party has recognised that the current regional forest process is not going to resolve the conflict, and it has made an earnest effort to look at how the conflict may be resolved. It is unusual for me as a Green to be moving to support that earnest effort from the Nationals. But let us give credit where it is due, and here it is due to the Nationals. I quote from the Nationals' press release of Thursday, 11 January, in which the state director, Jamie Kronborg says:We believe that at least three major steps must be taken as a matter of urgency to help resolve the conflict over logging. These include the rapid phasing out of clear felling in old-growth forests.The press release goes on to look at the way in which old-growth forest logging is no longer the major source of wood products in Western Australia, and how there is an alternative to the continuing destruction of the karri, jarrah and marri forests in Western Australia, which is better from an economic, employment and environmental point of view. The reason we must change the direction of the major parties, as the Nationals have done in Western Australia, is because the public demands it. There is so little of the grand forests of this nation left. There is an enormous groundswell of feeling that that little should be protected. The reason is that the public at large recognises that it is unnecessary to keep the destruction going, that the plantation and regrowth alternatives are there and are available now—not only for this industry to maintain its diversity of wood products for the Australian market but also for export and with downstream processing to increase the jobs provided in the logging industry. Moreover, the real jobs in ancient forests these days are from the presentation of those forests to visitors in the recreation and tourism industries. Western Australia is no different from Tasmania where, these days, more jobs are actually created by keeping the trees intact with their wildlife than by felling the trees to the ground. I see some Labor members laughing about that, but they are the ones who always espouse jobs, jobs, jobs, while the big woodchip corporations mechanise, conglomerate and shed jobs—the jobs of their union members. It is not they who often sit outside the woodchip offices complaining about this, it is very often the Greens. But when the Nationals do their homework and come to the same conclusion, they should be congratulated and they should be supported. There is some prospect that Western Australia will be the state which, through public impulse, through the sheer pressure of public outrage about the destruction of forests, may turn around this head-in-the-sand attitude of the Howard government and several other state governments who say, `Whatever the woodchip corporations say, that is the line we will take.' This is an urgent matter. There is a positive resolution. When the Nationals in Western Australia come up with the road to that positive resolution, they deserve the support of this place.09:44:002174O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—We have heard a debate on the motion but we have not heard a debate on why standing orders should be suspended, why this motion is urgent and why it could not be dealt with in the ordinary course of events. The fact is that this matter—notice of which was given yesterday—was dealt with last night at the whips meeting. At that time we indicated that we were unhappy with the matter proceeding and that we would deny formality.However, we were prepared to entertain any approaches as to a rewording of the motion. No such approaches have been forthcoming. This motion is simplistic. It deals with an issue which has not just Western Australian but also national ramifications. If the matter is to be dealt with, it should be dealt with in a fulsome debate. It should be dealt with so that all parties have an opportunity to move amendments that they consider appropriate, rather than simply deal with the motion by granting formality and voting for or against it. That would not necessarily reflect the views of the Labor Party, for example, on the range of issues which underlie this motion.So we believe, firstly, that the matter is not urgent. Secondly, it is important that if this motion is to be debated it should be debated when there is an opportunity to give the matter the attention that it deserves and to deal with the full range of issues that lies behind it.09:46:002174Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The government will be opposing the motion for the suspension of standing orders. Senator Brown has not made out a case as to why the very limited time available to the Senate to debate matters should be used in this way. We had a debate on the RFA only yesterday afternoon. We will have a debate on RFA legislation in the next couple of sitting days, unless Senator Brown's tactics can delay that as well.Senator Brown wants us to suspend standing orders so that the motion relating to the support for the WA National Party's stance on clear-felling in old-growth forests can be debated. I know that the Leader of the National Party and Western Australian Deputy Premier Hendy Cowan would be very pleased to have the support of Senator Bob Brown from Tasmania for the policy, but I am sure that the most successful deputy premier in many years of Western Australia's history can probably wait a few more days to have that support reaffirmed.Senator Brown in his discussions talked about the overwhelming upsurge of support for stopping logging in old-growth forests that is occurring, mostly from extremely wealthy, well-heeled people living in the leafy western suburbs of Perth, who I guess would love to have the support of Senator Bob Brown in this and, I guess, many of his other economic policies. Most of them live in houses that have had their floors and their roofs chopped out of old-growth forests. They are really saying to the rest of the home buyers in Western Australia: `We have our houses in Peppermint Grove and Dalkeith, but you can't have yours in the northern suburbs.'09:48:002175Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—In relation to this motion and the question before the chamber of its urgency and the need to suspend standing orders to be able to debate it and vote on it, from the Democrats' point of view it is clearly a motion that deserves the support of the chamber. Senator O'Brien said that it is a simplistic motion. It is not simplistic; it is simple. It is very simple, it is very straightforward, it is very clear and it is very positive. For that reason it is probably unfortunate that formality was denied on the issue.The Democrats believe that the issue of forests is an important one, as was indicated in the debate yesterday, that needs to be brought to the attention of the Australian public. It is good to see WA leading the way in highlighting public awareness about the threat to our native forests. We are always keen to encourage and express support for state governments when they are doing the right thing, when they are highlighting threats to our environment in particular, and especially when it comes from parties such as the National Party. It is a bit of a surprise that National Party colleagues are not in here at the moment to assist in congratulating their colleague. I am sure they all do that privately but it would be a great opportunity for them to express it publicly.So the Democrats, without wanting to take up an excessive amount of time in the chamber—because we do recognise that there are a lot of other important matters, which is why it is unfortunate that formality was denied—believe that it is an important matter on a number of levels. The overall issue of the protection of our forests in Western Australia and elsewhere is one that the Senate and the parliament should express support for as often as possible in the Democrats' view. For that reason we support the motion.09:50:002175Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—This is urgent, as anyone in Western Australia would know. The issue is urgent because at the moment the proposed RFA in Western Australia is still not presented and at the same time the Department of Conservation and Land Management are cutting down as much contentious old-growth forest as they can. There are very few people who know the situation in Western Australia who would not fully agree that the situation is urgent.There are very few issues I have seen take up the entire coalition conference in Western Australia, the issue having generated such huge controversy. The coalition in Western Australia considered it so urgent that almost nothing else got a guernsey at their state conference. They certainly believe it is urgent. Perhaps Senator O'Brien was not aware of the fact that the Western Australian coalition considered this their most urgent topic. The media reported it as the most urgent topic that was considered at the recent coalition conference in Western Australia.A very large percentage of people in Western Australia, again and again, when asked, have said that this is a very important issue. A growing number of people on all sides of politics in Western Australia believe that it is time for people to put aside politics and the old prejudices and do something for the future of Western Australian forests and for the future of conservation and the sustainability of jobs.I believe the Western Australian Labor Party are thinking of putting together a committee to look at the issue. They are saying that industry and all stakeholders should be involved in assessing the situation. Unfortunately, they didn't qualify what industry they meant. Perhaps we need to remind the Labor Party that there are other industries apart from the timber industry, but let us not judge them too harshly before that comes around.What we don't know yet in Western Australia is what the actions of the Labor Party will be. We do know what the National Party have said. We know what the Greens and the Democrats have said in Western Australia. We are not quite sure of the ALP, but we do know that enabling legislation has gone through already in the House of Representatives and was voted on by the Labor Party.You can understand why the ALP are not wanting to consider this urgent. They are squirming because they have a huge number of constituents in Western Australia who want them to take a responsible position. Yet their federal party cannot see fit to support their Western Australian party. I can understand why the urgency of this is concerning the ALP in Canberra. I can see why people from other parts of Australia, including Tasmania, might be concerned about the pressure that has been put on their own party, as we speak, in Western Australia; the pressure has been put on all parties to put down their prejudices and come to the table and work out what is the way of the future for this industry. If we continue to put it off, the destruction will continue. If we continue to put it off, it will be in the state election the biggest issue we have seen for some time.From the Greens' point of view, that might be to our benefit. However, that is not the way we want things to go. We want a sensible approach, a sensible outcome, and it is urgent. It is urgent because as we speak a number of areas which have been considered as high conservation value are being cut down by a department which has an in-built conflict of interest. I have to congratulate the National Party on taking a stance in Western Australia on old growth forest, but there is also another area of congratulation in Western Australia. The Labor Party have asked that the Department of Conservation and Land Management be separated; that the conservation and forestry functions be separated. That is commonsense.At the moment, we have the National Party in Western Australia calling for a separation. We also have the Greens and I think the Democrats in Western Australia calling for a separation. The one big gap in Western Australia on that issue is the Liberal Party. But we are getting daily more and more people coming from the Liberal Party, longstanding members of the Liberal Party in Western Australia, who are asking their own party to get real. (Time expired) Question put: That the motion (Senator Brown's ) be agreed to.09:59:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.52Bishop, T. M. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crane, W.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Faulkner, J. P. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. Minchin, N. H.Murphy, S. M. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Synon, K. M. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Committees217621762176Motion (by Senator Hogg) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Refer ences Committee on nuclear weapon and ballistic missile proliferation in south Asia be extended to 29 April 1999.Notices217721772177Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I seek leave to return to order of business item No. 4 for the purposes of giving a notice of motion.Leave granted.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—I give notice that, on the next day of meeting, I shall move:That the Senate calls on:(a) the Federal Government to reaffirm its commitment to addressing the significant concerns of youth suicide by reinstating the National Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy; and(b) the Departments of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Health and Aged Care and Family and Community Services to investigate specific youth strategies aimed at the 15- to 24-year old age group and, in particular, strategies for indigenous youth.Miscellaneous2177Motion (by Senator Allison) put: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, all documents relating to the Jabiluka uranium mine proposal since 1 October 1998.10:08:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)34Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Faulkner, J. P. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.33Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D.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.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Denman, K. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Evans, C. V. O'Chee, W. G.Forshaw, M. G. Hill, R. M.Hutchins, S. Abetz, E.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous2177Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) put:That the Senate—(a) condemns: (i) the decision by the Government to force unemployed persons who fail to meet government standards of literacy and numeracy into remedial courses under threat of losing income support, and (ii) the inappropriate use of coercion against some of the most vulnerable members of society to address such a complex and sensitive issue; and(b) urges the Government: (i) to change this decision, and instead take immediate action to rectify the flaws in the referral process which has prevented many young people from accessing these remedial courses, and (ii) to cease its attacks on young people, and young jobseekers in particular, and direct its employment efforts towards job cre ation, rather than continued `scapegoating'.10:15:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.48Alston, R. K. R. Bishop, T. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, G.Campbell, I. G. Carr, K.Chapman, H. G. P. Conroy, S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Synon, K. M. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Committees2178217821782178Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the committee's decision not to readopt certain references on Landcare policies and programs referred to the committee during the previous two parliaments.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRSLANDCARE POLICIES AND PROGRAMSREPORTMadam President, the review of Landcare policies and programs was originally referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in December 1993. Senators may recall that Landcare is not a government program, but is more accurately described as a community based voluntary program supported, encouraged and influenced by a number of Commonwealth and State Government programs.While Landcare enjoyed a high level of initial success, the committee identified the emergence of some problems and the existence of a degree of frustration among landholders and Landcare groups, principally as a result of:. The inability of landholders to obtain funding for on-ground works under the then guidelines;. The possible low value of further demonstration projects;. Economic constraints attributable to the rural recession;. Issues were beyond the capacity of individual groups; and. Commonwealth State funding arrangements.In the 37th parliament, the Committee made a detailed and thorough investigation of a wide range of issues relevant to the delivery of Landcare programs in Australia. In 1996, the Committee tabled an interim report, which highlighted anticipated changes to the delivery of Landcare programs. In 1997, the Committee held a detailed inquiry into that changed system of delivery.However, for a number of reasons it is no longer appropriate for the Committee to produce a final report—intervening elections, the committee's intensive involvement in other inquiries referred to it by the Senate, which assumed a greater degree of urgency, and recent changes to the funding arrangements for Landcare programs, including the introduction of the National Heritage Trust, have all meant that the inquiry has lost some of its relevance and topicality.The new arrangements put in place by the Government are a significant reason for not pursuing the inquiry at this time. The establishment of the National Heritage Trust, a capital funding base for a number of programs, including Landcare, may address some of the problems initially identified in the committee's interim report.An assessment of the operation of the National Heritage Trust and its funding of a range of programs, including Coastcare, Landcare and Waterwatch may be appropriate once the arrangements have been in place for a significant period of time. However, at this point, the Committee feels that an assessment would be premature and would prefer to give the Trust time to demonstrate its efficacy.Given the committee's current inquiry schedule and particularly its major inquiry into access to services by rural and regional communities, the committee feels there is little to be gained by any further work on the Landcare inquiry at this time.I believe that the most effective use of scarce committee resources requires the committee to discontinue the inquiry into Landcare and concentrate its efforts elsewhere. I would however like to place on record my thanks to the previous Chairman of the Committee, Senator David Brownhill and to previous committee members and staff, all of whom have put such a lot of time and effort into gathering evidence for the inquiry and to those people and organisations who gave evidence or made submissions to the inquiry.16 February, 1999HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I move:That the report be adopted.I wanted to remind the Senate that the Landcare program was originally the brainchild, if you like, of the NFF's Rick Farley and the ACF's Phillip Toyne. I think the program has been a very significant social movement and has made an environmental contribution to this country. The program is certainly far from over. But one of the issues that the committee has to deal with is the significant change in policy that has occurred under this government. We will continue to monitor that program, but it is not possible to monitor it under the current terms of reference. So that is the reason for the report I am presenting today.Question resolved in the affirmative.217921792179O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Sandy Macdonald, I present the 2nd report of the Standing Committee on Publications.Ordered that the report be adopted.Bills2179r6762179Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.217910:21:002179Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—This bill makes minor technical changes to the Migration (Visa Application) Charge Act 1997.The Migration (Visa Application) Charge Act 1997 imposes a single visa application charge and establishes a ceiling for the maximum amount of the charge that may be prescribed in the Migration Regulations. This ceiling can be indexed each year in accordance with the indexation formula set out in the act. The indexation factor is based on annual movements in the Consumer Price Index.From time to time the Consumer Price Index is "re-based". All previous periods—not just the most recent period—are converted to the new base. The amendments:. ensure that only the index numbers published in terms of the most recently published reference base for the Consumer Price Index are used to calculate the charge limit; and. ensure that calculations disregard index numbers which are published in substitution for previously published index numbers, except where the substituted numbers are published to take account of changes in the reference base; and. correct a minor inconsistency in terminology used in the act.I commend the bill to the Chamber.Debate (on motion by Senator Carr) adjourned.Bills2180r7252180Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.218010:22:002180Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The Year 2000 computer problem is a large and complex issue for many businesses and government agencies because of its capacity to disrupt services and cause financial loss and possible injury. If not addressed in a comprehensive and timely fashion, it has the potential to cause significant disruption across the entire economy. Inadequate remediation could cause services to fail. Insufficient information concerning the extent of any risk could cause the community to undertake unnecessary and costly contingency measures (such as the hoarding of cash and foodstuffs) with detrimental economic and social effects.This bill addresses this concern by providing a framework to encourage the voluntary disclosure and exchange of information about Year 2000 computer problems, remediation efforts and compliance.At present, statements made in good faith for the purpose of sharing information on Year 2000 readiness issues can, under certain circumstances, expose a person to legal liability. Legal risk could relate to:. negligent misstatement—where statements that are relied upon cause loss or injury;. defamation—where statements have the effect of injuring a business or personal reputation; or. breach of contract—where consumers choose either to purchase a product, or elect to terminate a contract with a supplier, as a result of a Year 2000 statement.The most likely circumstances in which liability for a Year 2000 statement may arise are under section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (dealing with conduct that is misleading and deceptive) and section 53 of that act (relating to false representation of the standard of goods).The threat of legal liability is often cited by organisations (including governments) as a significant reason for their reluctance to reveal information about their Year 2000 preparedness to other bodies, or assist other organisations to achieve early compliance.The Year 2000 computer date issue is much more than an Information Technology problem. It is a whole of business management problem. Preparing for the Year 2000 problem requires organisations to address not only their internal systems, but also the Year 2000 preparedness of their suppliers, service providers and customers upon whom they rely.The lack of accurate and relevant information is hindering the ability of organisations to check thoroughly these supply chains. It is also impacting on, and adding significantly to the costs of, developing appropriate contingency plans.Large organisations need to be encouraged to provide remediation advice to small businesses, thereby helping to minimise the risk of small business failure. Availability of reliable information to the public will lessen the potential for unnecessary concern and uninformed reaction which itself could have adverse social and economic consequences.Australia is acknowledged internationally as a world leader in addressing the Year 2000 problem. The Government has been active since 1997 remediating its own systems with the aim of maintaining service continuity, and promoting awareness of the Year 2000 problem to business and the wider community. In the 1998-1999 Budget, as an incentive to business to address the problem, the Government announced that most Year 2000 related software expenditures would be immediately deductible for taxation purposes.However, a considerable cooperative effort is still required if Australia is to be fully prepared for the potential impacts of the date change. If incentives are not provided to encourage disclosure and information sharing on Year 2000 processing, it is unlikely that there will be any major increase in current levels of activity.This bill demonstrates the Government's leadership and ongoing commitment to respond to the challenges presented by the Year 2000 problem by providing an environment in which organisations are encouraged to act responsibly.The bill will provide greater certainty to those organisations that wish to make statements to clients and the public concerning their levels of Year 2000 preparedness. It will encourage organisations to be more open about their level of Year 2000 readiness. This will assist organisations to check their supply chains and target their contingency planning more effectively at areas of real risk. It will also assist large companies to assist the remediation efforts of smaller firms—the so called `Good Samaritan' effect.The bill will not impose direct costs on business or impose administrative burdens. The strictly voluntary nature of any Year 2000 disclosure statement will allow business to control any costs associated with the making of such a statement.In addition, the removal of some risks for governments and business in providing publicly available information on Year 2000 preparedness will assist in addressing community concerns about the possible risks or otherwise of service failures.The bill has many parallels with the Year 2000 Information Readiness Disclosure Act introduced in the United States of America in October 1998.The bill will, under certain circumstances, protect a person from civil liability arising out of the making of a Year 2000 disclosure statement. The scope of the protection will be narrow and will apply for a limited period.Protection from civil liability for a Year 2000 statement will be limited to clearly identified and authorised written disclosure statements that relate to Year 2000 processing. Apart from dealing with Year 2000 processing problems, these statements will be able to deal with planned activities to mitigate the consequences of potential problems relating to Year 2000 processing. Protection will also extend to a person republishing an original Year 2000 disclosure statement.The bill will not provide protection from civil action in relation to:. Year 2000 disclosure statements which were made recklessly, or known to be materially false or misleading;. actions instituted by consumers in relation to goods or services which they had purchased following inducements provided by a Year 2000 disclosure statement, such as where a product or service fails as a result of a Year 2000 service failure;. Year 2000 disclosure statements made in the context of entering into a contract;. Year 2000 disclosure statements made in the context of obligations imposed by a contract or a Commonwealth, State or Territory law; or.. proceedings, or the exercise of regulatory or enforcement power, by a regulator or enforcement body.A Year 2000 disclosure statement will not be taken to amend a contract unless the parties agree otherwise. Provisions of the bill will not alter any intellectual property rights. The bill ensures that arrangements for the disclosure and exchange of Year 2000 information between competitors in an industry are exempt from section 45 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. That section prohibits certain arrangements which have the effect of substantially lessening competition.The range of exceptions in the bill maintains the capacity of regulators to carry out their statutory roles to act in the public interest, and ensures that the rights of consumers, as set out in the Trade Practices Act 1974, will be unaffected. By maintaining the rights of consumers, and the rights of individuals to take action in the event of Year 2000 product or service failure, the bill will not weaken incentives for government and business to continue remediation work.The Government intends to monitor the operation of the bill following its enactment to ensure that its aims are not being frustrated. Should any abuses come to light, the Government will act swiftly to move appropriate amendments.The bill will have implications for State and Territory law, including in the areas of tort and defamation law. However, the Government considers that the unique circumstances of the Year 2000 problem warrant such action, which should not be treated as a precedent. The provisions of the bill are time limited, with all effects ceasing on 1 July 2001.The States and Territories will be free to enact their own Year 2000 information disclosure legislation. Any such legislation will be able to operate to the extent to which it is consistent with the bill.Where a self-Governing Territory, such as the ACT, Northern Territory or Norfolk Island, enacts its own Year 2000 Information Disclosure legislation, regulations will be able to be made to limit the application of the bill to that Territory.ConclusionThis bill, by significantly reducing barriers to disclosure and information sharing by industry and governments, will help accelerate the rate of Year 2000 remediation progress. The bill provides the opportunity for Australia to enhance its position as a world leader in tackling the Year 2000 computer date problem. Any increase in the level of Australia's Year 2000 readiness will have positive effects on Australia's international competitiveness.Debate (on motion by Senator Carr) adjourned.Ordered that the resumption of the debate on the second reading of this bill be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.Bills2182r6532182Consideration resumed from 17 February.2182The CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN10000PON/A10—The committee is considering the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 as amended and amendments moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Faulkner. They are amendment Nos 5 and 6 on sheet 1231 and No. R4 on sheet 1244. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.10:24:002182Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Madam Chairman, I thought I would take this opportunity of informing you that I think that this debate has been conducted in a very cooperative way between our distinguished minister, Senator Ellison, who has just joined us in the chamber, and the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Faulkner, who has again conducted himself in his normal exemplary fashion during this debate.We look forward to this debate on this most important bill proceeding in its committee stage. It is a very important debate for Australia because our electoral laws underpin our great democracy, one of the great democracies in the Western world. If we do not get these laws right, we will not continue to have this great democracy. I see that the distinguished opposition leader has joined us, as have other interested parties. I commend the debate and look forward to hearing and listening with interest as this debate moves along.Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10.26 a.m.)—Yesterday I was addressing the three amendments that I had moved. I will not go over the points that I made earlier in this debate. Suffice to say, let me remind the committee that yesterday I indicated that the opposition moved these amendments because of our belief that it is essential that we tighten the definition of associated entity. These amendments will close the loophole in the event of a loan being forgiven and ultimately becoming a gift. They also 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. The amendments now before the chair specifically go to the issue of the actual receipt of loans.The primary problem that we have with the $4,650,000 Greenfields loan is that we have no evidence to suggest or prove that it is a loan given on commercial terms. In fact, to the contrary, we do know, from their annual return, that the Liberal Party made annual payments of $100,000 to the Greenfields Foundation. As a $100,000 per annum repayment on a $4.65 million loan, we can say that it is certainly at the very lucrative rate of 2½ per cent. There does not appear to be any indication that there would be any commercial rate of interest or that the loan was made on a commercial basis. The evidence just mounts for such a loan being forgiven. The loan would then constitute a gift.During questioning at the Senate estimates, the AEC conceded that a 2½ per cent interest rate on a loan would give reasonable grounds to assume that the loan was not on a commercial basis and possibly even constituted a gift. Of course it is. It is $4.65 million that the Liberal Party will never have to repay in full. It has no intention of repaying it in full, and that is just the $4.65 million that has been disclosed so far up until the end of the last financial year. We do not know what money changed hands after that. That, of course, was in the lead-up to the federal election last year.Our amendments would prohibit a loan from being received from anyone other than a registered financial institution unless certain information was disclosed. Basic information such as the terms and conditions of the loan and details about the individual or organisation from whom the loan was received is the sort of information that we are talking about. I believe that this information would greatly assist the Australian Electoral Commission in their investigation and pursuit of possible or suspected associated entities. The amendments do not prohibit loans from being received; they just say that if you get a loan from an organisation other than a registered financial institution then you have to disclose enough about that loan to inform the AEC as to whether it is on a commercial basis or not—in other words, if it would actually constitute a gift.During yesterday's debate, the minister and, I think, his office flagged some concerns with these amendments. Initially, these concerns were about certain credit cards such as Diners Club and American Express being caught up by not fitting our definition, as I understand it, of `registered financial institution'. The concern that was expressed was that credit card debts may need disclosure. That is not the intent of the amendments, so we offered to work with the government to find a suitable form of words to ensure that that was not a problem. The government was either unable or, I suspect, unwilling to help us, so we have revised our amendments to insert after `loan' the words `of $1,500 or more', which would eliminate minor credit card transactions. I commend that revision in the amendment to the committee.We were also advised by the AEC that significant payments to credit card companies such as Diners Club and American Express are not featuring in the annual returns. So I have to say that either the government is looking for problems here where there are none or perhaps it is just that the Liberal Party is not disclosing its payments to American Express or Diners Club—I do not know. But I think the revision to the amendment very effectively deals with this issue.The minister also indicated that the government had concerns about there being no definition of a loan in the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which might present problems for our amendments regarding loans. We heard what the minister said. I do not know whether there was any basis for it, but you have to accept these things on face value. So we have also inserted in our revised amendments on sheet 1244 a definition of a loan which we have, frankly, pinched from the Income Tax Assessment Act, section 109D(3), that being, a loan is:(a) an advance of money; and(b) a provision of credit or any other form of financial accommodation; and(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; and(d) a transaction (whatever its terms or form) which in substance effects a loan of money.As I say, that definition of a loan, which was the second area where the government and government staff were suggesting there might have been a weakness, has been effectively addressed by using that definition from the Income tax Assessment Act.The minister and the Prime Minister and others in the government have been peddling what have been pretty pathetic lines from the National Director of the Liberal Party, Mr Crosby, who has really, I think, been making a bit of a fool of himself in the national press by trying to set his own definitions of a loan versus a debt. I think the Department of Finance and Administration understands what a loan is. Hopefully, this definition, as set out in the Income Tax Assessment Act, will help Mr Crosby and Mr Ron Walker understand—along with the minister at the table and the Prime Minister. I think it is really the role of the opposition to help them out when they are struggling in this regard, so that definition is included in our revised amendment.As for the government and the Greenfields Foundation, if they are really fair dinkum and they want to prove that they are not rorting the electoral system by using forgivable loans as gifts then I think they should not have any fear of these amendments. If these amendments were to be adopted, I think it would be a very significant improvement in the Electoral Act, and I commend them to the committee.10:36:002183Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—At the outset, I will correct things for the record. Senator Faulkner said that the government has been unwilling to help. I think the officers from the Electoral Commission did meet with someone from Senator Faulkner's office yesterday. I dispute that we have been unwilling to try to resolve this matter. The government's genuine approach to this matter is evidenced by supporting the first three amendments proposed by the opposition.The situation in relation to the remaining three amendments is, for a number of reasons, problematical. I appreciate that the opposition has revised its previous wording. But, at the outset, I would say that the government still has a problem with the wording as proposed by the opposition. The opposition amendment proposes to add a new section to division 4 of part 20 of the Electoral Act. This division of the act deals with disclosure of donations.The government notes that the opposition has modelled this provision on the wording contained in present section 306, which deals with certain gifts not to be received by political parties and candidates. The government also notes that the terms of proposed section 306A are not exactly the same as those in current section 306. In particular, the government notes that the proposed provision does not limit the receipt of a loan to those circumstances listed in section 306 for the receipt of a gift. So what you have is not a complete replication, if you like, of a provision dealing with loans such as the one we currently have dealing with gifts.Proposed section 306A would cover all loans received by a political party, state branch of a political party, a person acting on behalf of a political party, a candidate, a member of a group or person acting on behalf of a candidate or group and not just loans received for the benefit of the party, branch, candidate or group. The coverage is wide indeed.Given that a difference in wording is employed, it would be reasonable to assume that the proposed provision was intended to be interpreted in a manner that was different from the general interpretation given to section 306. This is a reasonable conclusion because there is a departure between 306A and the current 306. It would be open, for example, to interpret the provision to mean any loan of more than $1,500 received by a candidate at any time during the relevant disclosure period.That raises the question of a situation where you have an unsuccessful candidate in a previous election. Where you have someone who has run unsuccessfully in an election and who then renominates at a subsequent election, the relevant disclosure period covers all the preceding time running from the second election to a period starting 30 days after the previous election. That could cover a period nearly as long as three years.What is problematical here is that this coverage could include all personal loans made to the individual possibly for the benefit of some other person or entity. This could include loans taken out by a candidate for the benefit of a spouse, a sibling or an organisation for which the candidate was a guarantor—in other words, personal matters relating to that candidate. It could cover all manner of things—hire-purchase agreements, home loans, personal loans. Also, the proposed definition of `loan' in the opposition's provision is the first time that an attempt has been made to have the term `loan' defined in the Electoral Act.The proposed definition is broad in that it covers any form of financial accommodation and any transaction, whatever its terms or form, which in substance affect a loan of money. The government has not had the opportunity to have this definition considered in detail by parliamentary counsel and is, therefore, unable to inform the Senate as to the possible implications of the provision. I note that the opposition say they have taken the term `loan' from taxation legislation. I understand that definition to have been in place for only a year, so it has not yet been fully tested.It would be premature to include that definition in the Electoral Act, in that you are looking at a term which is being used for taxation purposes. What I am saying here is that, really, this definition is something which has been transposed by the opposition from one piece of legislation to another. That is not normally a wise course of action, because the respective pieces of legislation could well require different definitions.What is clear is that the proposed provision will treat credit card debts incurred by way of Mastercard or Visa cards quite differently from debts incurred by way of credit providers who are, in effect, financial associations, such as Diners Club or American Express. They are different in their make-up to Visa card and Mastercard. The position of credit providers like AGC, who have an association with a financial institution but are not necessarily themselves a financial institution, is unclear.The opposition, I assume, would argue that this would not be a problem because the proposed provision only involves debts in excess of $1,500. It is, however, not clear in the proposed provision whether the $1,500 limit is a cumulative or aggregate figure. It is quite possible that the provision could be interpreted to mean a loan by way of credit advance by a credit company over the full disclosure period and not just each individual transaction. In these circumstances, it could be necessary for every candidate to detail every credit card transaction where that credit card was not held with a financial institution and the total credit provided exceeded $1,500. This, I would submit, is not an intended result.In summary, the government does not object to the principle incorporated in the opposition's provision. What the government believes should happen is that this matter should be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for thorough investigation. The government believes that there is merit in what the opposition is proposing. But what it does say is that this has not stood the test of sufficient scrutiny and investigation. The government has supported the first three proposals put forward by the opposition. The remaining three, it says, require investigation, and the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is the place where that should be done.I reiterate that the government is not unwilling to look at this matter. It is not a question of the government disagreeing in principle with what the opposition is proposing. It is not a question of the government being obstructive. It is a question of the government saying, `This is a very involved area where the technical detail has to be right.' We have a mechanism in place to give this sufficient scrutiny, and that is the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which already has, as its terms of reference, a review of the last election. This matter could be easily incorporated in that review. On that basis, the government cannot see its way clear to supporting these proposals by the opposition.10:45:002185Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Very briefly, I think that even the most generous person would have to describe that contribution by the minister on this important issue as particularly weaselly. Minister, one can come only to the conclusion that you do not want the definition of a loan placed by your own government in the Income Tax Assessment Act in this particular act because you simply have got something to hide.Minister, you have indicated to us that this was the definition of a loan that came about as an amendment to legislation brought about while your own government was in office. You are saying there might be some weaknesses in the definition. If there are weaknesses in the definition, you should not have seen your way clear to enshrine it in the Income Tax Assessment Act. I think that is an extremely long bow for you to draw here in the committee, and the committee is entitled to be very cynical and sceptical about the nature of the carefully worded response that you have given, describing, in our own words, some of this as problematical. I do not think it is problematical legislatively, and I think you know that. It is problematical politically and it is problematical politically only to the Liberal Party. That is the problem we have got here.The opposition wants to ensure this loophole or apparent loophole in the Electoral Act is closed so it cannot be exploited in the way it has been exploited thus far through the use of the Greenfields Foundation vehicle. That is our intention. Not one substantive argument comes forward from you. I am not convinced on this occasion about some suggestion that a reference to the joint standing committee is the way to go. If we have a situation which does not deal with a massive exploitation of an apparent loophole in the act to the tune of a $4.65 million loan, then perhaps the issue can go off to the JSCEM. The problem there, as you know full well, Minister, is that there is a government majority on that committee.This matter has been one of considerable public debate and notoriety now for in excess of a year since the activities of the Greenfields Foundation were first exposed. This committee has looked at this issue before. At that time it determined not to move in the direction that the opposition strongly argued for in relation to closing the loophole, but since that time more evidence has come forward. The AEC has served notice under the act and, frankly, Minister, you have not been able to put up any argument at all in relation to these amendments. It is merely that they do not suit the political party which you are a member of. I think you have to be a little broader than that. We have to look at the integrity of our electoral system and the integrity of the act. If any political party decides it is going to take a course of action which deliberately contravenes the spirit of the act and attempts to exploit an apparent loophole in the act, then I think the committee and this parliament have a responsibility to act.It was a miserable defence, Minister, with respect. I think these are very strong amendments. The substantive issues that were raised by you, Minister, have clearly been addressed in the revised amendments in relation to credit cards and the definition of a loan. I am very doubtful on the issue of credit cards, but they may well have had some substance in relation to the definition of a loan. If it is an issue, it has been resolved in the revised amendment. I commend these amendments to the committee.10:50:002186Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I have been listening to the contributions made by both Senator Faulkner and Senator Ellison. Clearly, if this is to be effective at all, there must be a definition of a loan. If I did not know the minister as being one of the most honourable and efficient members of this government, I would have thought he was having a lend of us by the response that he gave to us. The minister says that there has not really been time for the OPC to have a look at this. I think it is a very important issue, and the OPC frequently drops everything at the request of a government to have a look at a very important question. The definition of a loan is important for the integrity of this measure. The minister himself says the government agrees with propositions one, two and three. If the general thrust of the policy that appears to be accepted right throughout the chamber is going to be truly effective, then we do need to have a definition of a loan.Failing anything else, I think the chamber ought to adopt the definition that is in the taxation legislation. Mind you, there are a number of things in the taxation legislation with which many of us disagree, including the rather cumbersome proposition in the taxation legislation which deals with the question of avoidance. It empowers the Taxation Commissioner to deem that an act that has been done in fact has not been done and that an act that has been done was done at another time than it was done. We came across it the other day. It is in the taxation legislation, but it is also in the legislation that is coming before us, the GST legislation. As I say, I think the OPC can at times use more felicitous words than it does to achieve the policy objectives.Failing any other suggestions before the chamber, I feel inclined now to vote for the definition as contained in the taxation legislation. No doubt there will be time to amend the legislation if it proves to be insufficient for the purpose, unless there is some big rush on at the present moment to get everything in place for a double dissolution later this year. If that is not the case, why not put it in now and then we will have plenty of time to amend the legislation if the definition of `loan' in the taxation legislation is proven to be inadequate.10:54:002186Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Having listened to the debate and to Senator Harradine's contribution, the Demo crats are of a like mind. It is important to emphasise again that this amendment and this issue we are dealing with are fundamental—or certainly fundamental from the perspective of the Democrats—to transparency in the Electoral Act and the public's ability to know who is providing support to political parties.As I said yesterday in the debate on this legislation, it is important for all politicians and parliamentarians—people involved in politics—to work to increase public confidence in our political system, which is something that we all know is at a low ebb, to put it mildly. Any measure that seeks to address that and address concerns that the public may have about potential loopholes in the act in relation to disclosure of funding is something that the Democrats strongly support.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—The question is that opposition amendments Nos 5 and 6 on sheet 1231 and amendment No. R4 on sheet 1244 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—On the running sheet, Minister, I believe there are now two items you now want to take together—that is, amendments Nos 2 and 4 on sheet VW203 and amendments Nos 3 and 1 on sheet VW203. I understand a revised sheet is being circulated in the chamber that removes amendment No. 3 and changes amendment No. 1. Is that correct?9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—Yes, that is correct.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—So you are moving both of those two items on the running sheet together with the deletion of amendment No. 3 and the amendment to amendment No. 1?10:56:002187Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—by leave—That is correct, Mr Chairman. I move:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 4 and 5), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) Items 19, 20 and 24 commence on a date to be fixed by Proclamation.(2) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 13), after item 31, insert:31 A Subsection 186(1) After "must send", insert "or arrange for the delivery of".(4) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 23), after item 63, insert:63A Subsection 58(1) After "shall send", insert "or arrange for the delivery of".These amendments deal with commencement dates and really are of a technical nature. One deals with the sending out of material to postal voters and provides that the same material be sent out to the postal voter as that provided to a voter who attends a polling booth. Nothing great flows from these, and I commend them to the committee.10:57:002187Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Could the minister explain to me the cross on amendment No. 3?9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—We are not moving amendment No. 3.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Are amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4 before the chair now?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Yes, and amendment No. 1 is in an amended form which deletes a number of items and leaves only items 19, 20 and 24, as I understand it.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Thank you.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—So amendment No. 3 is not being moved?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No. That is why I took the time at the start of these two sections to make clear what I believed the minister was moving and what was the before the chair. The minister has clarified that. Amendment No. 3 is definitely not being moved, amendments Nos 2 and 4 are being moved and amendment No. 1 is being moved in an amended form whereby all the item numbers, with the exception of Nos 19, 20 and 24, are being removed. Does that clarify the matter for you, Senator Bartlett?DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—Thank you.10:59:002187Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I have now had an opportunity to look at the revised government amendments. I understand that Senator Ellison is moving government amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4, and amendment No. 1 is in a revised form, and those revisions, of course, are consequential to previous decisions of the committee. I think the opposition can see its way clear to support the government's amendments.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that government amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.11:00:002188Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I have opposition to the government amendments as outlined. Under the present act, people who need an assisted vote—for example, people who cannot see ballot papers, who do not have English as their first language or who are illiterate—can go into a polling booth with a friend of their choosing to fill in the ballot paper, but with these government amendments electoral officials and scrutineers would also watch them fill in the ballot paper. That is how the amendment put forward by the government reads to the community groups who have contacted my office about this. The amendment says:. . . the presiding officer must mark, fold, and deposit the voter's ballot paper, in the presence of:(c) such scrutineers as are present and such person (if any) as has been appointed by the voter—On the face of it, that means the old situation of having only the friend of the voter see how the ballot paper is marked has changed to the situation where the friend of the voter plus the officials are present when the marking of the ballot paper takes place.It is, of course, already difficult for people with the problems I have listed to have a secret vote. They must have somebody there of their choosing, but to add to that the need to have officials from the electorate office present is retrograde. I am moving to keep the situation as it is which is preferable for sight-impaired people, people whose first language is not English and people who are illiterate.11:02:002188Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The opposition has become more concerned about these particular items. I have listened carefully to what Senator Brown has said and I have had a number of representations made to me, particularly from the Aboriginal community, on this issue. These items provide that the presiding officer at a polling place is the only person who can assist a voter to mark their ballot paper. The voter's friend may still be present; however, for the first time scrutineers are required to observe the process.On the surface, this actually seems like quite a reasonable provision, I think it is fair to say. But if you consider a scenario where someone needs an assisted vote—they might have a disability, English language problems or be illiterate—as the act currently stands, this person would just take their voter friend to help them vote. Now we are going to have a situation where four people effectively will be in the booth—the voter, their friend, a presiding officer and a scrutineer.My concern is growing, frankly, that this is going to be pretty intimidating for voters with a disability or literacy or English language difficulties. The spirit of the act and the spirit of our democratic process that a person's vote should be personal and confidential is always at issue with these sorts of items. It is never easy in these circumstances, and ensuring that we meet the spirit of the act is difficult. We have a situation here where the secret ballot is shared by at least three others.I am worried that this is going to be particularly intimidating for Aboriginal voters in places like the Northern Territory, Western Australia and regional Queensland. I know that my colleague Senator Crossin wants to speak further about those matters, so I will leave it there. But I think the government will need to mount a strong case for these items.As I have indicated, the opposition's concerns here have developed quite considerably. I know that the opposition and other senators have received some very strong representations about this in relation to its impact on voting for those classes of people who need an assisted vote. I must indicate that the opposition certainly believes, unless some case to the contrary can be made, that it is better in these circumstances to omit these items. 11:07:002189Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I would like to take the committee through the current situation and what is proposed. If it is clearly set out, then people will understand that what is being proposed will be much more restrictive and will impinge very heavily on the person's right to maintain their ballot as secretly as possible. The proposals are being overly prescriptive—for what reasons I have not yet been able to ascertain. If I am severely handicapped, I do not have the physical ability to be able to write on the ballot paper. If I am illiterate or innumerate, then I clearly would know which party I wanted to vote for but I may not be able to write the numbers one to nine or the numbers one to 15 sequentially. I know that for most people that is probably a fairly hard prospect to comprehend. But in places like outback Western Australia—I had a discussion with my colleague Senator West yesterday about this—and particularly the Northern Territory, you have very elderly and senior traditional Aboriginal people who do not know how to write the numbers. That is one problem I know we have ascertained during the last few elections.They do not always vote Labor. In fact, statistics will show you that is not the case. So this is not a party political discussion here; this is about pressing an argument to maintain people's right to be able to have a confidential vote. It means that a disabled or an illiterate person, who clearly knows whom they want to vote for, ask their voter's friend—Senator Faulkner referred to them as a voter's friend; it might be a relative or it might be somebody else in the community—to come into the polling booth with them. They probably say to them, `I want to vote for this party. Can you mark my ballot paper for me?' That is what that person does. At the moment that is all that happens. That vote stays confidential between the voter and the person who is marking their ballot paper. Then the ballot paper is put in the box. At the moment, if that person has no assistant, then the presiding officer marks the ballot paper and, of course, scrutineers can be present. The current situation is that we can have two people in a ballot box, and sometimes three if the presiding officer is there. But what you are proposing is that the person can bring in their assistant to vote but the presiding officer must be the person who marks the ballot paper. So already the confidentiality is gone. But not only that, the suggestion is that the presiding officer must also be watched by scrutineers, if they are there, and the assistant's friend, if that person is there. In the situation where a person clearly knows who they want to vote for but just cannot mark the ballot paper, we have gone from having two people or maybe three people currently to having possibly five people watching that vote. Under the current situation, though, if you feel that a person is being intimidated by their friend or the presiding officer to vote in a way they do not want to, then the scrutineers from either party can step in if they feel that somebody is being coerced into a vote. What the changes are suggesting is that it automatically assumes that that vote must be supervised. I do not agree with the fact that people who are disabled, blind or illiterate need to have this overly prescriptive policing. We are talking about people who already have some inequity in society and who probably are not as strong in forcing their rights. I am wondering why there is a proposal to have scrutineers compelled to be present, if they are there, or to have the presiding officer being compelled to mark their ballot paper—when that is not necessarily the case. If you leave the wording in the act as it is now, it does not preclude the presiding officer from marking the ballot paper and it does not currently prevent scrutineers from intervening. But the changes require that those other people must be present. I think it severely restricts the right of people to vote as secretly as possible.11:12:002189Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I can understand the points that have been made by Senator Crossin, but I think you have to look at the question in this way: there needs to be some certainty, some guarantee, that how the person with a disability desires to vote has been recorded on that ballot paper. You can have a situation where a friend, relative, et cetera, is being asked by the person with a disability to accompany them and to fill out the ballot paper, but there is no guarantee that that will be in the manner precisely that the person with the disability wants.I come to the general question. I disagree with the government. I am not supporting the proposal that the presiding officer and the scrutineers be present with the voter and the voter's friend. That is five in the box, which is getting a bit cosy.Some of the people who are concerned have put to me that this could take place in a very small town where the scrutineers of the Labor Party, the Liberal Party or the Democrats are known around the place—they might see the person in the pub on Friday or whatever—and they are going to know how that person with a disability voted. The question is: are they under the same penalty regime as an officer or as a worker of the Australian Electoral Commission?So far as I understand, they are in respect of the disclosure but they are certainly not in respect of their continuing employment in the Electoral Commission, because they are not employed by the Electoral Commission. That is the added discouragement, if discouragement is needed, for the presiding officer, for example, to disclose how that person voted. That dissuasion is not there so far as the political party's scrutineers are concerned.I can understand why the government has brought forward this measure—at present only the friend is required to be present. Unless Senator Brown can see his way clear to amending the legislation to require the presiding officer to be present, then we go back to the old act and the only person who is required by the voter to be present is the friend.So all in all I suppose I have a halfway position. I haven't got an amendment to the amendment, but I am concerned about what the government is proposing here. Senator Brown has gone a very long way to remedy that, but I personally feel that the presiding officer needs to be present to guarantee the basic principle that what the voter wants recorded is recorded.11:17:002190Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Senator Harradine made some very good points. It is a complex matter. One thing that needs to be noted is that the very big majority of people who would be affected by the change in provisions here are indigenous people, or people who do not speak the English language—ethnic people who speak other languages. In that situation the presiding officers are really not going to be able to intervene in the relationship between the friend and the voter because the voter is going to be giving instructions in that language and the presiding officer is therefore not going to be party to whether those instructions are being carried out anyway. That is the major group that is affected in this situation.Senator Harradine is quite right. With sight-impaired people the situation will be different. The presiding officer will give the assurance that the instructions are being carried out. However, the weight of the argument is very much in favour of just the friend being present. As Senator Crossin says, there is even some intimidation felt, rightly or wrongly, by people in small communities if a presiding officer is present and watching what they are doing. The law is there to make sure that that presiding officer does not say how you voted. Nevertheless, if you put yourself in the position of the voter, with the presiding officer present you would feel uncomfortable. That discomfort ought not be there in a system of secret voting, which is going to be valid as far as possible for all people. The best we can do is have the friend situation. In the absence of any strong argument brought forward, as Senator Faulkner said, the situation as it currently stands is far preferable to the one the government amendments would create.11:19:002190Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I understand what Senator Brown is saying. What he is proposing is better than what is here at present. I think it would be covered by an amendment to subsection 234(2)(c). Subclause 234(2) reads:(2) If any voter satisfies the presiding officer that:(a) the voter's sight is so impaired that the voter is unable to vote without assistance; or (b) the voter is so physically incapacitated or illiterate that the voter is unable to vote without assistance;then the presiding officer must mark, fold, and deposit the voter's ballot paper, in the presence of:(c) such scrutineers . . . I do not know whether we can do it on the run, but the person who is appointed by the voter ought to be the one who fills out the ballot paper. That is it in a nutshell. A polling official should be present at that time—not the scrutineers. But to do this on the run is a bit difficult.11:22:002191Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In view of the contribution made by Senator Harradine, for which I am obliged, perhaps the committee could report progress and we could have a look at this and get the drafting right. We could come to a drafting which might meet with the committee's approval, certainly one which might result in an improvement of things. But I think to do drafting on the run is always perilous. That would be my suggestion at this stage.11:22:002191Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I have no objection to the committee reporting progress while time is taken over this matter, but I would ask that Senator Harradine think about the important point of that rather pejorative term `illiterate'. I think it means `illiterate in English'. It catches most of the people who are going to be concerned about this issue. The presiding officers' presence in the booth with two people who are not speaking English and who are deciding how to mark a vote is not going to help ensure anything, other than that a voting paper is delivered to the ballot box, which is going to happen anyway. But it is going to bring a presiding officer unnecessarily into the booth to watch the vote being cast by people who do not speak English. There is no advantage in that happening, but there is a very clear disadvantage.Many indigenous people, those that Senator Crossin was talking about, are unfairly going to have a presiding officer in the ballot box watching their vote being cast, without any advantage. I do not think that is too different from the presiding officer being in the ballot box for the rest of us when we vote. I think you can argue that having the double-check for sight-impaired people may be a good thing or not. We really ought to leave it to the judgment of the person who is making the vote for their friend. I think that is the best that can be done. Therefore, rejecting the government amendments and keeping the status quo is by far the best option that we have.11:24:002191Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I would be very worried about Senator Harradine's proposal. It sounds to me like it is going to be an absolute nightmare, particularly in remote Aboriginal communities. I think it would mean many, many days extension of the time involved in the voting processes that are already in place, and I would be very concerned about it.I do not think it is a good idea for the committee to report progress. We can see if we can work something through. I tend to think that the argument Senator Harradine mounted in our last debate would also apply in relation to this one. The choice before the committee at the moment is reasonably stark: it is to either go with these items in the bill or not go with them. To be frank with the committee, I have been changing my mind about this. I am a lot less comfortable with these items than I was previously.The course of action preferred by the opposition is to vote to omit these items from the bill. This is an occasion, with respect to all members of the committee, where we can take some evidence in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, have a look at the most sensible way of dealing with this, talk to those with experience who are directly involved and ensure that we do not make a massive mistake. I do not think this came through the joint standing committee.Senator Ellison interjecting—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Apparently, it did originally come through the joint standing committee. If it did, not enough thought has gone into it. I had a look at the report and I must say that I did not find it, Minister. I accept what you are saying. I accept that it is there and that it came through the joint standing committee. I think the course of action, to my mind, is now becoming clear. A more sensible thing to do is for the committee to omit these items, to have a look at it, having sought evidence from people who are directly involved. If we are going to go down the track, let us not do it in a half-hearted way. Let us take some evidence and be absolutely clear that any change we make to the act is a good one and a sensible one that will work in the interests of the AEC and the electoral process and those voters who may have a physical incapacity or impairment, voters who might be illiterate or voters who might not have English as a first language and so on. That is the sensible way of proceeding. I would commend that to the committee.I think it would be a mistake to report progress. We might be able to satisfy some concerns in the committee, but I am pretty sure in the time available we will not be able to satisfy the sorts of concerns that have been raised in representations to senators. I would commend that course of action to the committee. We should omit these items. Let us ask the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to have a serious look at this. We should engage some people who have direct involvement with and experience of how these processes work. If there is a need for a change to the act, let us come up with the right change on the basis of a thorough examination.11:29:002192Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I would like to speak in relation to the Democrats' position on this issue. I have refrained from speaking to date. I have listened to some of the various views that have been put forward. As has been said by one other contributor, drafting or amending on the run is a fairly risky process, particularly when you are dealing with a reasonably sizeable act like the Electoral Act. The issues that have been raised are very important ones. The Democrats have also had similar representations from community organisations.I think the concerns that have been put forward by Senator Crossin and others and the representations that the Democrats have received are sufficiently strong that we would not be of a mind to support the section of the legislation, as it stands, that seeks to amend the act.I do take on board Senator Harradine's concern about the need—and this is obviously the intention of the amendment—for the presiding officer, as an impartial officer of the Electoral Commission, to witness the vote to ensure that the person's vote is being cast in the way that they intend. Although I must say that if there are two people in a polling booth talking in a traditional Aboriginal language and the presiding officer does not know the language, then I am not sure how they are going to be able to be sure about whether the voter's desires are being fulfilled anyway. I suspect that is something that would be very difficult to absolutely guarantee without requiring access to translators and so on, which would obviously become impractical. But it is an important issue.A lot of different competing issues come in, such as the privacy aspect that was raised—the problem of having, particularly in smaller areas, smaller towns, two or three scrutineers watching over your shoulder and seeing how you vote and being able to wander off down the road and tell the rest of the town, or the prospect of that anyway. That is certainly a serious concern, and certainly a fundamental component of our electoral system stretching back many years is the right to a secret ballot. I think it is important to emphasise—in fact, from memory, from reading through a few of the submissions that have already come in to the current inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—that that is an issue that has been raised by a member of the public in relation to the fact that visually impaired people actually do not have the right or the opportunity to be able to cast a secret ballot in many circumstances currently.It is important to emphasise that because it is a fundamental principle of our act and of our electoral tradition. On the surface this may seem like a small matter but it actually deals with some fairly fundamental principles in respect of the operation of our Electoral Act—whether it is a secret ballot issue as against, obviously, another crucial issue of whether the person's vote is being cast in a way that meets their wishes. It is also very important to maximise the opportunity to guarantee that.Those are some of the competing issues that are involved in this part of the bill. Certainly, as it stands, to require only the presiding officer to be able to mark the ballot paper and also to enable any number of scrutineers to witness the whole operation is something that the Democrats believe is not an appropriate solution to what the government is trying to address, and we do not support this section of the bill as it stands.11:33:002193Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Mr Temporary Chairman, can I ask the minister a question through you? Can he now show me where in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters there is a recommendation that pertains to these items? I am not suggesting it does not exist, but I just want you to point it out to me.11:33:002193Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Recommendation 20 touched on this. It said:that in relation to assisted voting, section 234(1) of the Electoral Act be repealed, and section 234(2) be amended to allow any polling official (rather than a "presiding officer") to assist a voter.Quite clearly, this matter was canvassed. The government was of the view that should be the presiding officer rather than any polling official because of the seniority of the person concerned. So the question of assistance to the voter was covered in recommendation 20.11:34:002193Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—With respect, that is completely different. This recommendation of the joint standing committee is completely different to these items.9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—You said that the question of assisted voting was not covered.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Minister, as you know, I asked how this got into the bill. It did not come out of the joint standing committee at all, did it? Recommendation 20 of the joint standing committee says:that in relation to assisted voting— you read it out—section 234(1) of the Electoral Act be repealed and section 234(2) be amended to allow any polling official (rather than a "presiding officer") to assist a voter.This is not what is before us. This is the point I am making. I say again to the committee: the smart thing here is to omit these particular items that somehow—not via the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters but through some other processes that remain unknown to me and unknown to the committee, and perhaps unknown to the government and its advisers—have turned up in this bill that we are debating in the committee stage in this Senate. The truth is the specific proposals contained in these items ought to be examined. That is the substance of what I am saying, and I commend that approach to the committee.Let us not go down this track of trying to work out some vaguely acceptable amendment to the current act when at the end of the day, if are to do that, we should do it with the benefit of advice and evidence from people who have a great deal more experience in these matters than most of the senators sitting in this chamber. I certainly accept that Senator Crossin, for example, knows a great deal more about it than I do and has had a lot more personal experience with it than I have. Most senators are in exactly the same boat as I am.What is the sensible thing to do in this circumstance? I do not want be conned that this has come out of the joint standing committee. It has not. The recommendation of the joint standing committee has very little to do with the items that are before us. Let's do this properly in the time available. This is the point of Senator Harradine made just a moment ago in debating another amendment before the committee. We have got enough time to do this properly. This significant change to the act that might affect many people in the community who want to participate in the democratic process should not be dealt with in this way.I strongly believe that it would be inappropriate for us to report progress because, if we do, we are not going to have the advan tage of the sort of examination that I think is required in relation to this issue—if we are going to change the act and the way these provisions work. That is basically an unarguable case, and I will not be supporting a proposition that we report progress. I will certainly support Senator Brown's approach of omitting these items from the bill, and I will also be supportive of any endeavours on the part of the government or other senators who would want to see these issues investigated further in a sensible way, drawing on experiences of people who might be able to provide valuable insights and guidance for the benefit of the committee, as we seriously look at any way we might substantively change the Electoral Act.11:38:002194Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Well, that is Senator's Faulkner's decision, Mr Temporary Chairman, and he might have to wear it. The situation is that if you adopt this amendment, the current legislation will still be inadequate to guarantee authoritatively that what the voter wants goes on the ballot paper. If we carry this, that inadequacy will still exist.As I understand it, the real concern of the people who have been making representations is that the party scrutineers are able to see what the individual is putting on the ballot paper—that is the problem. I do not think that is acceptable. I am trying to get them right out of it and have a friend do the marking of the ballot paper, witnessed by the presiding officer or the polling official. I would have thought that was a much better interim situation than either allowing the bill to remain as it is or accepting the government's proposal. If you do not want that as an improvement then you will end up with nothing.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I do not want the government's amendment.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Well, you are going to get the government's amendment. I am going to a meeting of a committee which I am urgently required to attend. You can please yourself. That will be the outcome. You have got a choice: you can either go along with it to get a better situation than is currently in the legislation; or you can accept an opportunity to quickly rephrase it along the lines that I was suggesting, that the friend of the voter marks the ballot paper and that is witnessed by the polling officer.11:41:002194Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Senator Harradine, you make some very valid points. One of the problems—which we always grapple with—is whether or not the voter's friend accurately records the intent of the voter. That is a problem, but now that I have listened to what the report recommends, I realise it goes much further than the current suggestion before us. If you picked up what the report suggested, which was to delete section 234(1), then you miss out entirely on the intent of what a definition of a voter's friend is and how they can be appointed. So that needs to stay there. But the current legislation, particularly section 234(2), says that where there is no voter's friend, only the presiding officer can mark the ballot paper. That is a problem too, because in a booth where you have a couple of hundred people who might need that assistance, the need for the presiding officer is clearly too restrictive and you might need other polling officials to mark the ballot paper.In one sense, the current legislation does need amending to make it more flexible, but the set of amendments that you have put before us goes way beyond that. Requiring scrutineers to be present is too restrictive and their presence could be quite intimidating. Senator Harradine does make a valid point, but how does anybody guarantee that the voter's intention is recorded accurately unless somebody else witnesses it? It is up to the voter, of course, to get a presiding officer or a polling official to supervise what their voter's friend does, if they feel uncomfortable about it.In one respect, I support what Senator Faulkner was saying. The person's right to be able to record their ballot secretly is too important for us to amend this on the run. But your current proposal is far too restrictive and impinges too much on a person's right to maintain their ballot as secretly as possible.11:43:002194Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I have been thoroughly convinced on one matter—that is, that the committee should not report progress—by the very cogent argument put forward by Senator Faulkner. If this is going to be altered, if there is some other middle ground going to be reached and we do not have a recommendation from the relevant committee, then it ought to go back to those people who are affected. There ought to be time for that and there ought to be thorough consultation with the community—the very people who are affected by this, including the people that Senator Crossin refers to.The second point is that I believe Senator Harradine has not heard the argument against a polling official being present when a voter and her or his friend is in the booth, whether they like it or not. That should be an option that is available to the voter. For us to dictate that a polling official should be there as a watch on the friend because the voter does not have English as their first language or they are sight impaired not only is a declaration that the voter's choice of friend cannot be trusted but also imposes the presence of a polling official where some people may absolutely not want that.One does not have to have much of an imagination to know that in small communities polling officials and voters are going to be mixing and the voters put at a disadvantage. So Senator Harradine's argument does not hold up, except in the circumstance that we go out to the communities and say, `Is this what you want?' We should not be imposing on the voter polling officials—presiding officers or otherwise—who are very often the local official, the local school teacher or the publican appointed for this purpose. It is quite wrong for Senator Harradine, or for me or for anybody else to be dictating that that official be there, when the voter simply wants their friend. I disagree with Senator Harradine. We should not be dictating some form of middle ground, any more than we should be accepting the dictates of the government's amendments.11:46:002195Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Just briefly, I note that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters did recommend that section 234(1)(b) be repealed, and that is in our amendments today. It did suggest that there be a polling official present. We varied that to make it only a presiding officer. This matter was subject to scrutiny in the previous report, the 1996 federal election report by the JSCEM, so the government says that this has been addressed previously. However, although the government thinks Senator Harradine's suggestion might have some merit and does merit further inquiry, because the time now is short—if progress was to be reported we would not get this back on today—the government is not going to pursue that line of action. The proposal before the committee should be put and voted on and we will get on with the rest of the bill.11:47:002195Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—One of the other points that has been made that is worth re-emphasising is that, unless there is something strange happening in the mind of the government in terms of its electoral strategy, we do have plenty of time to look at this. We are not likely, one would hope, to be faced with an election immediately. We do have another joint standing committee inquiry happening which is going to report before the end of this year. I have already indicated that the Democrats are not supportive of what is in the legislation as it stands.I do have a lot of interest in the proposal Senator Harradine was voicing, but we obviously do not have an amendment dealing with that before us at the moment. Nor, as Senator Brown pointed out, have we had the opportunity to more fully explore the community's and the affected people's desire about this, which is an important thing. So, given the fact that, one would hope, we have two or three years before the next election and a committee inquiry is going to report before the end of the year, then the Democrats believe it is something that we should not support in its current form. We have plenty of time to look at it and come up with an improved version in the next year or two.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—The question is that schedule 1, items 32 to 35 and 37 to 42 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.2196Bill (on motion by Senator Ellison) read a third time.Bills2196r6022196Debate resumed from 30 November 1998, on motion by Senator Minchin:That this bill be now read a second time.(Quorum formed)11:52:002196Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 is an omnibus bill of some 10 measures. It was introduced into the House of Representatives in early November last year and passed with the support of the opposition in late November last year. As is usual practice, this bill gives legislative backing to this government's standard practice of policy by press release. For instance, the changes to deductible expenditure for capital gains tax purposes was announced by the Treasurer in the May 1997 budget. It is February 1999 and only now has the Senate the opportunity to examine these changes. This is just another example of the government's general incompetence when it comes to administering its legislative program. A measure that was announced nearly two years ago has finally reached this chamber. This is simply not good enough.To the bill itself, the measures in the main seek to make void tax avoidance schemes and, in the case of the CGT provisions relating to capital losses, the cessation of the artificial manipulation of these provisions which result in greater tax loses being claimed relative to the actual economic loss that has been incurred. For those senators who are interested, there is a good working example of this abuse on page 12 of the explanatory memorandum to the bill.The changes to the capital loss provisions are stated as protecting $100 million in revenue. I note for the record that my col league in the other chamber Mr Kelvin Thomson made mention of the fact that the Australian Taxation Office had commented on these changes in a Financial Review article on 20 November last. He sought from the minister a response about the effectiveness of the provisions now before us to counter the kinds of schemes that were referred to in the Financial Review. I would also seek a similar response from the minister here today as I do not remember seeing what Minister Hockey's reply to those provisions was, if he replied to them at all.Skipping through the bill slightly but still in the area of changes to capital gains tax, schedule 7 will seek to ensure that, where an entity claims deductions for income tax purposes for capital assets, those deductions will now have to be deducted from the cost base of that capital asset for capital gains tax purposes. Building depreciation is a classic example of expenditure which will now have to be deducted from the adjusted capital cost base for a subsequently sold asset. This change will eliminate an effective double deduction for such expenditures in that, until the Treasurer's announcement, they reduced both the taxable income flow from an asset as it is earned and the amount of the capital gain which is eventually taxable when the asset is disposed of.As stated earlier, not only is this measure nearly two years old but the Treasurer also has had to subsequently amend his original decision under pressure from the building industry and the Labor Party to provide transitional relief to taxpayers who were hit unexpectedly by the government's original announcement. Now expenditure incurred until 30 June 1999 on land or buildings owned as at the 1997 budget will not be affected. We in the opposition support this welcome change.Schedule 10 of the bill relates to the depreciation of assets. This measure clarifies the Australian Taxation Office's interpretation of existing provisions applying to formally tax exempt entities which became the subject of taxation between 1 July 1988 and 2 July 1995. This measure will ensure consistent treatment of assets for depreciation purposes for entities that came into the tax system between 1988 and 1995. Such entities include specific types of superannuation funds, some Commonwealth government business enterprises that have come into the income tax net—for example, Telstra and Australia Post—and state government business enterprises which have been privatised wholly or partially. It also includes some private entities that have lost their tax exempt status such as sporting clubs due to a change in the nature of their operations.It is interesting to note that state governments and particularly the Kennett government in Victoria used as a selling point when flogging every state asset that he could the tax benefit from doing so of the depreciation charges available. In essence, the Kennett government was using the Commonwealth Treasury and therefore all Australian taxpayers as subsidy providers in order to prop up the sale of Victorian public assets. This measure will now put an end to such a practice.The next measure I will discuss is schedule 9 of the bill which relates to the average calculated liabilities of life insurance companies. As the law currently stands, it requires that life companies use calculated liabilities at the end of the financial year to determine the amount of exempt income to be allocated to the immediate annuity policies. As a result, this has caused distortions where the proportion of liabilities at the end of the year do not reflect the experience through the year. Due to these distortions, the possibility exists for manipulation by life companies of these liabilities which then flow through to the amount of income tax that would be payable. Changing to an averaged calculated liabilities method will address this problem. It will protect revenue to the tune of about $100 million per annum.While on the issue of insurance companies, schedule 8 relates to the tax treatment of the passive income of insurance companies. At present, the formula used for determining the passive income of controlled foreign companies of insurance companies is flawed. As the law is, passive income of insurance companies does not fall foul of the existing rules and thereby escapes Australian tax. This allows life and general insurance companies to obtain a significant advantage in respect of offshore investment income.This bill proposes a new formula to countenance that problem. It is estimated that it will raise some $10 million in revenue per annum. I have to say that we support this measure. We support it because it overcomes an unintended technical consequence of the existing legislation which frees some foreign income from tax when it should be subject to Australian tax.Schedule 6 of the bill deals with the question of dividend imputation and retirement savings accounts. Under the government's proposals, dividend imputation credits or debits will be prevented from arising from the payment or refund of tax where those amounts are attributable to the RSA business of a life assurance company. This is not intended to punish RSAs relative to other superannuation funds; it simply ensures that life assurance companies do not get a windfall under the dividend imputation system. Labor supports this amendment.Next we have schedule 4, which concerns the effect of bankruptcies on carrying forward tax offsets. These are technical amendments which simply propose that the tax rebate available for landcare type expenditures for farmers will not be available to be carried forward into future years for a taxpayer who becomes a bankrupt. We do not oppose that amendment.Schedule 11 pertains to company tax instalments. The timing of when a company has to pay company tax depends on whether it is classified as small, medium or large—with large companies paying earlier than medium companies and small companies paying later still. The grouping measures that are part of that cover superannuation funds. The inclusion of superannuation funds is inappropriate as it can unfairly penalise a genuine medium size firm by including, for instance, a company super fund in the grouping provisions. Thus, the medium size company is treated as a large company for company tax instalment purposes when, obviously, it is not. Labor, therefore, supports this amendment.The final measures in this bill deal with changes to the fringe benefits tax regime. The government proposes five changes to fringe benefits tax. Included amongst these is the exemption of all taxi travel to and from work from a fringe benefits tax. This extends the exemption granted by Labor in 1995 to out-of-hours travel—that is, travel after 7 p.m. or before 7 a.m. On balance, Labor has made a decision to support this amendment, as we have other proposals which involve exempting certain carparking fringe benefits provided by small business. The other measures alter the range of provisions which deal with situations where a third party provides a fringe benefit to an employee either on behalf of an employer or with their involvement. The new proposals purport to simplify what are very complex existing rules although they may make them worse in some circumstances. Nevertheless, we do need to have rules in this area to ensure that fringe benefits tax cannot simply be avoided by someone other than the employer providing the fringe benefits. The other changes go to the way in which employers will maintain fringe benefit tax records. These proposals came out of the Bell review of small business. They are not opposed by the Labor Party.Finally, there are some changes in the payments of tax by small companies. These benefit small businesses only and on that basis we support them. The cost to revenue of this particular measure will be negligible.I would now like to make some general comments. When this bill was debate in the House, my colleague Mr Kelvin Thomson moved a second reading amendment in respect of the bill. To save the time of the Senate, I do not propose to do that, but I will speak on the substance of the issue the amendment went to. That issue is the government's lack of commitment to stamping out the aggressive new tax avoidance culture that has developed under this government. It is my concern that this government is blinded by ministerial personal interest as opposed to what is in the public interest when it comes to the issue of tax avoidance. This is most notable in the area of trusts.One cannot help but wonder, every time Treasury presents a proposal regarding the abuse of trusts, whether the government conducts a survey of its frontbench members to determine whether the proposal will offend any of the trust-owning members of the government. In the last parliament, the opposition identified, from memory, 19 trust-owning, tax avoiding members of the frontbench. Whether that number has increased or not, I do not know. What I do know is that this government has been loathe to move on the issue of the tax abuse of trusts.I remember the paper that the government was going to release on the issue of trusts and tax avoidance. This paper was never released, on the basis that the issues it discussed were subsumed into the government's overall tax reform proposals. The real reason is that the government did not want the paper in itself to become the focus of attention to which individual ministers and their trust arrangements could then be held up to proper public scrutiny.If the government has nothing to hide then it will release the paper. The reality, though, is that this government is a supporter of the tax avoidance industry. It has as its Prime Minister a man who presided over the worst abuses of our tax system ever seen—the bottom of the harbour period. What action did we then get from the then Treasurer, Mr Howard? He took no action over bottom of the harbour until the public outcry was so loud that he could no longer ignore it. The sad fact, though, is that he acted because he was forced to do so, not because he or the then Liberal government believed it was in the public interest to do so. It was a case of Johnny-come-lately by name and Johnny-come-lately by nature.Sadly, we see a continuation of this ambivalence in the current government. A lot of rhetoric has been put out but not much substance has accompanied it. When we look at the previous antics of someone like Senator Parer and his myriad of tax schemes, is it any wonder that this government is soft on tax avoidance and tax avoiders when the Prime Minister himself condoned and justified the actions of the former minister for resources?We now see the Prime Minister has had to lower his ministerial standards to meet the failures of his ministers, rather than ensuring that these failures never occurred in the first place. On a broader level, we have had the somewhat murky relationship between the Greenfields Foundation and the Liberal Party of Australia regarding the question of a $4.5 million loan, of which the full details have only now surfaced due to the persistent pressure of the Labor Party.In conclusion, it is the Australian Labor Party that has had to enforce the Prime Minister's now defunct code of conduct. It is the Australian Labor Party that has had to drag this government, kicking and screaming, to the issue of tax avoidance. Sadly, this government puts ministerial or personal self-interest before the public interest. But this chamber can be assured that we in the opposition will continue to hold this government and its ministers accountable—as it is obvious that the Prime Minister will not do so.12:07:002199Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I am glad to have been preceded by my colleague Senator Cook, who has done a very capable wrap-up of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998. In his normal adequate and comprehensive manner, he has covered the issues raised by the legislation.This bill covers the denial of certain capital losses, deductible expenditure and capital gains cost bases, depreciation, average calculated liabilities of life insurance companies, passive income of insurance companies, dividend imputation and retirement savings account changes, the effect of bankruptcy on carrying forward tax offsets, company tax instalments, payments of tax by small companies and, to the particular benefit of small business, fringe benefits tax changes. That is an awfully boring list when you read it out like that.However, this kind of legislation is the bedrock of sound government administration. Most of these changes are very welcome and, in fact, improve both the integrity and the administration of the tax act and will contribute to the better management of tax affairs by businesses. So, overall, our compliments go to the government on the bill. As you would have gathered from my remarks, we do support the bill. In particular, we are happy to see some of the onerous requirements of fringe benefits tax reporting being lifted from small business.We also welcome the remarks of Senator Cook, although we probably would not express them in precisely the same manner. We certainly support his very strong urging of the government to pay attention to areas which are causing the tax office and the community at large—and, hopefully, the government itself—great concern. One of those areas is the erosion of our tax base and the integrity of our tax system through very aggressive tax planning which, to use a very commonly overworked term, is profoundly un-Australian, never mind anything else. I am sure that you are taking that to heart—at least I hope you are—and that both the tax office and the government will move to crack down on tax avoidance and unacceptable tax minimisation.I would make the point that, contrary to recent comments of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, the Australian Democrats are delighted to support fair and sensible removal of regulation from small business where that policy change is fair to all concerned—and we consider this to be one of those cases. We are also pleased to see the closing of the loophole in respect of artificially created capital losses.As you know, the non-government parties and the government itself receive a lot of submissions from interested parties where such legislation is of interest to them. We have received very little correspondence in this area, and that indicates the full support in the community at large for this bill, despite it being lengthy and, no doubt, having a few little glitches and twitches here and there. But I think it points to the difference between this kind of legislation—legislation which the Senate can accept and will deal with quickly—and that of the ANTS tax reform package, which also is before us.The other day, one of my fellow senators made a remark about the stupidity of those who need to take time to properly consider legislation in this place. Just briefly, in response to that, we all know that the Senate is traditionally the chamber that reviews government legislation and subjects it to far greater scrutiny than ever occurs in the House of Representatives. Indeed, it is as a result of this scrutiny, in my opinion—and in the opinion of Australians, who vote differently in the Senate from the way they vote in the House of Representatives—that better legislation is delivered.As we all know, this chamber has an extensive committee system, which allows for substantial public input and in-depth scrutiny of legislation; it is an invaluable process. But it is a process which, quite simply, takes time. It consumes a substantial amount of senators' time and a lot of resources. We are all in this chamber, across all the range of issues we deal with, generalists. There are very few specialists in this chamber. Therefore, we need to acquaint ourselves with the meaning of legislation and with its consequences.The senator who made the remark about the stupidity of those who need to take time to properly consider legislation, I believe, might have been reflecting his own frustration at the fact that he probably had a lot more impact on legislation when he was in opposition than he now has in government.Government senator interjecting—3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—That may reflect an overheard remark and, therefore, I will not attribute it to the senator concerned. But it does indicate the difference between the frustrations of those in government, for whom every bill is urgent and unchangeable, and those of us who are non-government senators, whose job it is to do the difficult, and sometimes awkward, job of review.The contrast between this bill and the 16 tax bills—which, I suspect, will increase to about 22—which govern the ANTS tax package is quite marked. Those bills represent over 600 pages of new legislation. Their effect will be to impose a new tax system. In contrast, we can, quite readily and easily, deal quite quickly with this bill. A new tax system strains the intelligence or the stupidity, depending upon your view of the rest of us in this chamber, much, much more.As a party committed to review, we make no apologies for the process of review. But we make no apologies either for at times allowing a bill straight through with no amendments from us because, in our opinion, it is a good bill. This is one of those instances. We commend the government for bringing the bill before us. We indicate to you our support for it.12:16:002200Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 contains an array of provisions, including a crackdown on tax avoidance measures relating to the artificial creation of capital losses, changes to the calculation of capital gains tax, changes to an entity's tax status to cut down on depreciation advantages, reduction in compliance costs relating to fringe benefits tax and clarification of dividend imputation credits for life insurance companies. On the whole, the Greens (WA) are supportive of these measures. However, I would like to focus on two main issues raised by this bill. Firstly, I would like to discuss issues relating to tax avoidance and, secondly, I want to discuss the fringe benefits tax regime.This bill attempts to tackle some areas that have been exploited for tax breaks. The Greens are certainly supportive of moves in this direction. However, we have major concerns about the government's general apathy in tackling some of the biggest issues in tax avoidance in Australia. The problem of tax avoidance in Australia is becoming more and more of a talking point. As Jennie George, President of the ACTU, has recently pointed out in committee hearings on the tax package, PAYE taxpayers are feeling that they are the only ones paying their fair share of tax in this country. They feel as if they do not have the ability to work the tax system and minimise their income tax as many high income earners are able to do. The average taxpayer does not have the money to be paying financial consultants, accountants and lawyers to devise elaborate schemes to evade the Australian Taxation Office. The average taxpayer cannot take advantage of the many tax effective products which are blatantly and aggressively marketed. Splashed unashamedly in our weekend newspapers are advertisements that are selling expertise in tax minimisation techniques.It may be argued that this is mere populist thinking that does not accord with reality. It may be argued that this is merely some kind of corporate bashing or cutting down the tall poppies. However, it seems that our very own Tax Commissioner shares elements of this populist thinking. It was reported earlier this month, on 1 February, on the news wire that internal memos issued by the Tax Commissioner, Michael Carmody, have warned that the tax system has been taken over by large companies and that they could not be trusted to pay their fair share of tax. Yes, our Tax Commissioner, who is absolutely in the thick of things, sees tax avoidance by large companies as a huge issue for Australia's revenue base.Of course, the government's answer to our declining revenue base is to hit us with a GST. Certainly a broadening of consumption tax is one option that will help add to the revenue base, but at what cost? The cost is that it is the PAYE taxpayers, especially those on low incomes, who will be affected the most by the implementation of a GST. Even on the government's own figures, it is the high income earners who will gain the most from the tax package.There is no real commitment to tackle the problems our Tax Commissioner has identified. Michael Carmody has also warned the government that the tax package will create fresh tax avoidance opportunities. Our Tax Commissioner is concerned that high income earners and businesses will take the opportunity to delay their income until July 2000 to take advantage of the tax cuts on offer. This will reduce revenue collection when the tax is finally paid. Michael Carmody estimates that it could deprive the budget of hundreds of millions—or even billions—of dollars. In addition, international experience suggests that the GST will create a whole new black market of its own.Along with the tax package that is currently before the Senate, we have the review of business tax, the Ralph review, taking place. This review is not attempting to tackle any issues such as how to maintain an adequate revenue base to meet our needs. The boundaries of the review are that it must be revenue neutral. It is also not attempting to tackle any issues of corporate tax avoidance. It would hardly be in many of the participants' interests to do so. The Greens have strongly argued that business tax should not be siphoned off into a separate debate. In fact, I moved a motion in the Senate last year to ensure the results of the review of business tax were known before the Senate debated the rest of the tax package. Unfortunately, this sensible motion was defeated so now we cannot look at the tax system as a whole and decide how we would like to structure it as a community. No, the business tax area has been shoved to one side so it cannot be touched in the more general debate about tax reform. So suggestions such as the minimum corporate tax that has been raised by many non-corporate players in the community barely rate a mention in the review of business tax. Many of these community and church groups do not have the time to engage in the RBT as they are struggling to try to inject some equity and fairness into the rest of the tax package.Tax reform in this country needs to be holistic, transparent and fair. It is totally hypocritical of the government to undermine the Senate committee process by threatening to pull the whole tax package if the Senate makes any substantive changes. Yet, what is happening with business tax? Is the government trying to tell all those business folk making lengthy submissions that it is all in vain and that it will not be giving any concessions, making any adjustments? If the government does make concessions and alterations in the business tax arena, how can it then turn around and argue that any other changes that may benefit low income people, charities, community organisations or the environment are not possible? Could it be that there is one rule for the government's big business mates and one rule for the rest of the community?While aspects of this bill are commendable, these measures to address avoidance do not go far enough and fail to address some of the most fundamental drains on our national revenue. While the Greens (WA) would not expect one piece of legislation to be able to fix all aspects of tax avoidance, the government is closing its ears and eyes to the really big issue of tax avoidance in this country and, indeed, around the world. Obviously, the tax package put forward by the government could have realistically looked to the future and had the vision to see the realities of taxation in a global economy.Tax officials have said that the growth of the Internet has made the use of tax havens easier than ever before. It is estimated that billions of dollars are escaping the tax net in this way. Is there any attempt to address this kind of issue? Not a mention.One of the biggest challenges that faces Australia and the world is the ability of transnational companies, their contractors and their skilled employees to massively avoid tax. This is done by exploiting differences between national tax regimes and by using tax havens such as the Cayman Islands to hide their true financial position from the tax office. Electronic funds transfer is facilitating this massive leak from national tax revenues everywhere. We in this chamber have actually been creating a necessity for electronic transfers more and more because that is what banks want, that is what the big institutions want, and, therefore, it is easier for those institutions to avoid scrutiny.A government with vision would be talking about the tough decisions that need to be taken to curb this kind of revenue leakage. What is really required is joint international action by governments to pursue transnational companies for tax avoidance. Others in the national arena are making these kinds of noises. It is about transfer pricing. It is about people who charge a lot for the goods they produce in the countries that charge the most tax. They make losses or only scrape even in those countries that charge the most tax, and they save their profits for those countries, or parts of their networks, which charge the least tax.John Ralston Saul has been drawing attention to the statement recently issued by the Group of Seven in which they basically said they are going to bail out the bankrupt devel oping countries. He points out that the third paragraph contains many statements of interest:We commit to develop and implement international principles and codes of best practice on fiscal policy, financial and monetary policy, corporate governance and accounting. And to work to ensure private sector institutions comply with new standards of disclosure.This is a good example of the moves toward joint international regulations—the way of the future that the government is failing to recognise. The Greens have been championing the kind of tax reform that goes to the heart of some of the biggest problems created by globalisation. Positive reforms such as the Tobin tax would assist in regulating the explosion of international financial speculation that acts like a giant vacuum cleaner sucking wealth from everyone around the world and concentrating it in the major financial centres located in the USA, Japan and Europe.The government are trumpeting the fact that Australia is leading the world in bringing down tariff and non-tariff barriers. They have unilaterally reduced these rates, often to the detriment of many Australian industries and communities, and yet they shy away from being international leaders in progressive policy areas such as the Tobin tax, other international regulations of capital flows or strong stances on human rights on the basis that Australia is just a `middle power'. The Greens would like to see the government starting to talk about and engage in finding solutions to some of these issues.The second issue I would like to briefly address is the changes to the fringe benefits tax regime. This bill relaxes the FBT regime in relation to small business and taxi travel. The Greens acknowledge that there is a difficult balance to be reached between fairly taxing all relevant income and creating enormous amounts of red tape that become a burden for small business. It is also important that strange anomalies be avoided or minimised in the quest to tax all Australians in a fair and equitable manner.The position of the Greens (WA) on FBT and cars and parking is well known. In principle, the Greens are not in favour of relaxing FBT for company cars and parking spaces as it encourages people to drive to work and generally use their cars more frequently. It is also an issue in terms of attempting to use economic measures and pricing mechanisms to encourage internalisation of the costs of the use of non-renewable resources.The use of cars is perhaps one of the most wasteful uses of non-renewable energy in modern society. The environmental and associated health costs of using cars are well documented. There are huge health consequences from the rising levels of air pollution, but the community spends significant amounts of money rectifying or trying to rectify these health effects. Air pollution is a growing problem in our cities and the use of cars is a huge contributor to this increasing pollution. In addition, considering the growing problem of greenhouse gases, the overuse of motor vehicles is an issue that requires urgent attention. What would it mean in reality if we removed the fringe benefits tax on car parking spaces, especially where this is a substantial amount? My feeling is that it may in fact benefit those more wealthy employees for whom this is part of a tax avoidance package.The Greens have acknowledged that compliance costs for small business is a significant issue. In our taxation platform for the previous election, one of the aims of the Greens (WA) was to reduce compliance costs where they are high, particularly where small and medium size businesses are affected. The issue of compliance costs will certainly be a big issue in the upcoming tax debate when every charity, community organisation and small business will become a mini tax agent for the government.Indeed, Ray Reagan of the National Tax and Accountants Association has warned today that businesses face a $15 billion start-up cost to meet the introduction of the GST. In addition, he said University of New South Wales research showed the continuing annual cost to small business would run to thousands of dollars, not the $130 which the Howard government claimed. Are we really specifically aiming towards compliance costs for small business? These figures show that it is unlikely that that is the aim of the government.These issues of red tape versus using the taxation system for positive environmental outcomes are often difficult to reconcile. The Greens do acknowledge the comment of Professor Dixon that the FBT regime may not be the most effective vehicle to attempt to alter behaviour. In the absence of a user friendly transport system, many employees may drive to work any way. If this is so, the reality is that a car park is worth around $2,500 per year—more if it is in Sydney or Melbourne—and is likely to go to the more senior staff, who are likely to be high income earners. These are difficult issues to reconcile. I will be opposing changes to the fringe benefits tax on car parking, and I will discuss this issue in more detail in the committee stage of the bill.Those companies who have located close to major transport routes, or those who have decentralised and located in areas where it is accessible and where there are not high levels of parking, may well be disadvantaged if we give a specific advantage to those companies who may be using a tax package to bolster the salaries and, therefore, competing unfairly with those companies who are trying hard to do the right thing. As I said, I will talk more about this issue in the committee stage of the bill.12:30:002203Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We have had a range of issues raised in the second reading debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . Some of the comments that were made by the speakers I applauded and agreed with, and some of them I did not. Some of them, particularly the end run of Senator Cook's speech when he was talking about the attitude of this government to tax avoidance, I totally rejected.Having said that, the bill contains a number of measures—some are designed to protect revenue, some make technical changes, while others demonstrate the government's commitment to assist small business. For example, small business will benefit from changes to the fringe benefits tax and from the arrangements to allow small companies to pay their tax later. The revenue will be protected by denying corporate groups the ability to multiply capital losses and by preventing taxpayers from claiming double deductions in certain circumstances.This bill also ensures that tax exempt entities that become subject to tax have depreciation deductions and balancing adjustments based on notional written down values as if the entity had always been subject to tax. Also, this bill requires life companies to use average calculated liabilities rather than calculated liabilities at the end of the year of income. Finally, the bill corrects a deficiency in the formula used to calculate passive income of controlled foreign insurance companies.I will give some brief comments on matters that were raised during the debate. First of all, Senator Cook brought to our attention a question that Mr Kelvin Thomson asked Mr Hockey during the debate in the House of Representatives on 26 November last year. That question was in fact responded to by Mr Hockey some days later on 1 December. I seek leave to incorporate that letter in the Hansard.Leave granted.The letter read as follows—The Hon Joe Hockey MPMinister for Financial Services and RegulationFederal Member for North Sydney1st December 1998Mr Kelvin Thomson, MPMember for WillsParliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Mr ThomsonI am writing in response to the question you raised last Thursday, during the 2nd reading debate of Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No 2) 1998 (TLAB 2). You referred to an article in the Financial Review of 20 November 1998 about creating capital losses by using structured finance products, and asked whether the measures to deny certain capital losses, contained in TLAB 2, will have an impact on such schemes.The article stated that the general anti-avoidance provisions contained in Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 will apply to deny the capital losses described in the Financial Review. I am advised that Part IVA can only apply to deny artificial capital losses in the financial year in which they are offset against capital gains, which can be significantly later than the year in which the losses are created. The measures contained in TLAB 2 include a proposed amendment to Part IVA so that artificial capital losses can be denied in the year in which they are created, if they are created by schemes entered into after this measure was announced (3 pm by legal time in the ACT, on 29 April 1997).I am further advised that the income tax law, as it stands, can apply to deny capital losses created by the schemes mentioned in the Financial Review. Whether Part IVA will apply to any particular scheme will depend on the facts of the case.However the amendments contained in TLAB 2 allow the anti-avoidance provisions to apply more efficiently to artificially created capital losses which are used in a later financial year than that in which they were created.Yours sincerely(signed)Joe Hockey, MPMinister for Financial Services and RegulationWW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Another matter raised by Senator Cook was the way this government deals with its business. My observation on that is that I think there is a difficult balance that I am not sure the Senate has fully addressed. If the Senate wishes to have very long, prolonged debates on bills, that is a matter for the Senate. On the other hand, those debates squeeze out other bills on the government's program, which inevitably leads to delays. I am not sure it helps when senators make bold claims about the mismanagement of the government's program when some very real issues are being addressed. I do not know at this stage how we successfully balance the legislative program with the right of the Senate to debate bills extensively.In relation to Senator Cook's efforts on tax avoidance in the last part of his speech, Senator Cook and I have debated these issues on many occasions. The sorts of responses that I would bring to this debate are probably well known. This government moved very rapidly in the area of trust losses, which I do not think the Labor government did in all its years in office. We have moved to look at high wealth individuals. We have closed down a variety of schemes which came to be exploited under the former government, such as R&D syndicates and so forth. So I put it on the record that this government has moved very strongly in this area to deal with what I think is a problem in relation to the aggressive tax planning that we see in Australia. We have moved to make sure we have a fair and equitable tax system.Senator Margetts raised a very wide range of issues in relation to the tax package, and they are going to be debated very extensively in the coming months. It may well start today, if Senator Cook's committee can bring down its report. I do not propose to address those matters in any detail now. I thought Senator Murray's speech—and I agreed with 90 per cent of his speech, except for his very kind remarks about Senator Cook—covered the field pretty well. We welcome the support that the Democrats are giving to this bill. With those comments, I close my remarks.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2205The bill.12:36:002205Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I can count, and I obviously counted during the second reading debate when senators were speaking on the fringe benefits tax, so I will give my arguments but I realise what the outcome will be. I seek leave to move Greens (WA) amendments Nos 1 to 6 together.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Senator Margetts, the clerk has advised me that you should start by asking that schedule 3, item 1, stand as printed. If this question is agreed to, then amendments Nos 2 to 6 will be redundant as they are all consequential.10000Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Fine, that sounds perfectly reasonable.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 3, item 1 stand as printed.10000Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I will speak to them all anyway and then we will go that way. The amendments oppose on three grounds the relaxation of the fringe benefits tax regime in relation to car parking for small business. The first is for environmental reasons where we are talking about pollution impacting on environmental health and greenhouse problems which are exacerbated by encouraging more extensive use of cars. That is what it will do—it will not just remain in the current situation; it will encourage greater use of cars. I would think in the current situation we should not be moving in that direction. It will also lessen economies of scale for strong public transport systems which has environmental implications with inefficient energy use as well as equity implications, because it will further disadvantage those who do not have a car—for instance, the young, the disabled, the low income and the elderly. We acknowledge that the red tape argument is a genuine concern. However, in this case it provides only marginal relief to a marginal number of small businesses. I believe it benefits only 0.4 per cent of small businesses. The type of small business that would receive the benefit would generally be located in the central business district. Consequently, employees are likely to be in proximity to public transport.The loss of revenue is $35 million per annum. I would think the government, ostensibly trying to avoid reduction of the direct tax base, should not be looking at losing further revenue. I believe the calculation of fringe benefit tax liability is not overly time consuming or draconian, because that particular reporting is something that can be done on a regular basis. There would not be a small business that did not know how many car parking spaces they make available; there would not be a small business that did not know how many of their employees were offered those car parking spaces. In fact, they are often highly sought after. Let us look at environmental health and pollution. Cars are a major problem. The Australian Energy News of December 1998 noted:Transport related emissions, exacerbated by chronic traffic congestion, are repeatedly identified by authorities around the world as the most difficult source of urban air pollution and greenhouse gas to control. There were 790,000 new vehicles registered in Australia in 1997-98, and very few of these were low emission vehicles. This was an increase of nine per cent on the previous year's records. The source of this data was also the December 1998 edition of Australian Energy News , page 37. Note that new vehicles do not automatically equate with scrapping of old vehicles. It often just means more cars. This is the assumption used by the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics in their modelling. Despite increases in energy efficiency in motor vehicles, the use of cars is still a relatively inefficient use of energy. It does not take a mathematician to see that public transport is a far more energy efficient means of transport than individual motor vehicles.There are a number of environmental health issues exacerbated by the over-reliance on cars. These include: noise; congestion and stress; air pollution mainly from octane enhancing constituents in petroleum products; life expectancy; and respiratory problems. These respiratory problems include cough, throat dryness, wheeze, chest pain, lassitude, malaise and nausea. That is taken from an article by Woodward et al in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1995, volume 49, pages 401 to 407. It can also cause the impairment of children's intellectual development, according to Menkes and Paul Fawcett. Decreasing the reliance on private automobiles for urban transport is the key issue in tackling these environmental health problems, according to David Menkes and Paul Fawcett of the Schools of Medicine and Pharmacy at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. That article is contained in Environmental Health Perspectives, volume 105. In addition, a recent report by the Victorian EPA identified motor vehicles as the biggest contributor to emissions, including particles, carbon monoxide and the primary pollutants that generate photochemical smog, which is a big problem in states such as Western Australia. The community spends significant amounts of money rectifying these health problems. It spends $7 billion per annum in health costs, according to Dr Hamilton from the Australia Institute.The increase in greenhouse gas emissions is another problem that the overuse of cars contributes to. We all know the ongoing problem and the ongoing cost that climate change has created in Australia. I refer to the CSIRO report on the implications of climate change for towns and biodiversity. So the facts are there if we look beyond just the dollars in tax. This goes against international trends. The relaxation of fringe benefits tax on car parking is at odds with the struggles of legislators around the world who are increasingly considering radical approaches to minimising car use in the CBD and encouraging public transport. Can you imagine if Senator Hill at the Kyoto summit said, `And, by the way, we're going to change our tax regime to make diesel cheaper in relation to gas and we are going to reduce the fringe benefit tax on car parking in central business districts?' Can you imagine how impressed those countries would be, especially the low-lying Pacific countries, about these policy decisions that the Australian government is taking after saying that it was absolutely impossible for Australia to do anything about the greenhouse issue.We believe the red tape argument has been overstated. Time and money depend on the efficiency of the business. Other measures in the bill go a long way towards reducing compliance costs. The government estimates that the revenue forgone would be around $35 million ongoing per year, as it will affect around 4,000 small businesses. So on average a small business will pay $8,750 less per annum. How many will be affected? I have mentioned that 0.4 per cent of small business will have reduced compliance costs. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that there were just over one million small private sector businesses in Australia in 1996-97. The government has estimated that this measure will affect approximately 4,000.What type of small business? The small businesses that get the benefits are those that were previously in a one-kilometre radius of a commercial car park. Essentially, we are talking inner city small businesses. The explanatory memorandum explicitly notes that the fringe benefits tax generally applies to small businesses in the central business district. Employees at these kinds of small businesses are more likely to be in proximity to public transport. The employees who receive the benefits are most likely to be those in senior management, lessening economies of scale for the viable expansion of public transport and increasing the disadvantage of those who do not have cars—that includes the young, the elderly, the low income and the disabled. I would like to speak further on the social security contrast; that is, the effort, time and money that the government takes to chase after relatively small differences in social security payments. Given the lack of time we have today, I would like to be able to continue that when next we continue the committee stage debate.Progress reported.Committees2207220722072207O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Calvert, a very fine senator, I present the second report of 1999 of the Selection of Bills Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEREPORT NO. 2 OF 19991. The Committee met on 18 February 1999.2. The Committee resolved to recommend—(a) That the following bill be referred to a committee:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateCustoms Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 [1999] (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyLegal and Constitutional10 March 1999(b) That the provisions of the following bills be referred to committees:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateQuarantine Amendment Bill 1998 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyRural and Regional Affairs and Transport31 March 1999Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyEconomics29 April 19993. That the following bills not be referred to committees:. Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998. Airports Amendment Bill 1999. Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 1999. Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998. Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999. Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999. National Health Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999. Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998. Privacy Amendment (Office of the Privacy Commissioner) Bill 1998. Sales Tax Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998. Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1998 [1999]. Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1998.The Committee recommends accordingly.4. The Committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 8 December 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. Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1998(deferred from meeting of 16 February 1999). Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1999. Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999]. Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999. General Interest Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 . Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999]. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1998. Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999. Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999. Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 18 February 1999). Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1999.(Paul Calvert)Chair18 February 1999Bills2208r6482208Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Newman) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.220812:48:002208Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—This bill reflects the continuing commitment of this government to securing legitimate title to traditional lands on behalf of the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory.The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 provides a mechanism whereby traditional Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory referred to in Schedule 1 of that act may be granted to Aboriginal Land Trusts to hold title on behalf of Aboriginal people. Since the act came into operation in 1977 a total of 59 separate parcels of land have been scheduled under the act. This amendment will bring the total to 61.The effect of this bill would be to bring within the Schedule to the Land Rights Act those areas of land which are subject to the Innesvale Land Claim and the Urrpantyenye (Repeat) Land Claim.The Northern Territory Government, the Northern Land Council and the claimants have entered into an agreement which settles the Innesvale Land Claim.A similar agreement which settles the Urrpantyenye Land Claim was entered into between the Northern Territory Government, the Central Land Council, Todd River Pastoral Company and the claimants.As part of both agreements the Northern Territory Government requested the Commonwealth to exercise its powers under the Land Rights Act to grant the claim areas to the traditional owners by scheduling the respective areas under the Land Rights Act.In the case of both land claims the result of such scheduling would be that no further hearing or report by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner would then be necessary in order for the Aboriginal people concerned to be able to have the full rights of enjoyment of their traditional lands in fee simple.The government has the assurance of all parties to the negotiations that representative views of all Aboriginal people concerned have been obtained and their wishes taken into account.The bill will also correct the anomaly which presently requires Aboriginal Land Commissioners, who are required to be judges under the act, to retire at age 65. They will now be able to perform the duties of office until the age of 70, as are all Supreme Court and Federal Court judges.There are no financial implications arising from this bill.I commend the bill.12:48:002209Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition supports this legislation. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 provides a mechanism whereby traditional Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory referred to in schedule 1 of the act may be granted to Aboriginal land trusts to hold on behalf of Aboriginal people. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 provides for two additional such places under schedule 1 of the act. The first of these pieces of land is the Innesvale Land Claim based on Innesvale Pastoral Lease, an area of some 2,820 square kilometres approximately 150 kilometres south-west of Katherine. The Northern Land Council has handled this claim on behalf of the Wardaman people.Older Wardaman claimants have had first-hand experience of the harsh conditions on cattle stations in the region and they have retained their strong oral tradition in relation to often violent conflict between traditional owners and frontier settlers. Many Aboriginal people from the area were killed in this early frontier period, including close relations and immediate forebears of present claimants.The claimants have maintained strong traditional attachment to the land, with detailed knowledge of sites on the Innesvale station, of the dreamings and mythology associated with them and of the rights and responsibilities to the different areas of Innesvale for which each descendant group has responsibility. Senior claimants have actively ensured that this knowledge will be passed on by younger claimants to succeeding generations.The claim itself is viewed as the basis for passing on this knowledge of and affiliation with at least this portion of the Wardaman traditional lands. Elders will, once this legislation is passed, be in a much stronger position to pass on knowledge of country that is traditionally theirs than currently is possible while they live in Katherine. They have expressed the desire to develop and live on outstations in parts of Innesvale such as the Flora River.The claim will benefit some 200 claimants and some 200 to 300 non-claimants. It does offer a focal point for the Wardaman people of the Katherine region. Being granted title to their traditional lands will be of fundamental benefit to the claimants and their people in the maintenance of their culture, particularly their traditional relationship to their lands.The second parcel of land to be returned to its traditional owners is the Urrpantyenye (Repeat) land claim. This claim was handled by the Central Land Council on behalf of the East Arrente people. I would like to thank both the Northern Land Council and the CLC for providing the opposition with details of their respective claims in their areas. This claim is a relatively small block of land between the Allambi and Horseshoe Bend stations, east of Maryvale.The area that we are talking about here was originally included in the Simpson Desert land claim No. 126. This claim was not recommended for grant. One reason for this was the isolation of the area and the difficulty of access which prevented proper investigation of the claim. In October 1991 the Northern Territory government purported to grant a crown lease perpetual over the area to the Northern Territory Land Corporation. The current land claim was lodged in December of that year. In September 1995 the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, Justice Gray, found that the grant of crown lease perpetual was invalid under section 67A of the Northern Territory land rights legislation because the earlier Simpson Desert land claim No. 126 had not been fully disposed of as provided for under that act.Following Justice Gray's decision, negotiations between the claimants, the CLC, the Northern Territory government and the Todd River Pastoral Co., the lessee of Allambi, resulted in the settlement of the claim and subsequently its inclusion in this amendment to schedule 1 of the act. While it is isolated, the area is rich in cultural significance and rich in culturally significant sites for the East Arrente people. The significance of this area to its traditional owners is amply illustrated by their persistence in pursuing the claim despite the original knock-back of the Simpson Desert land claim No. 126. The people look forward to maintaining their traditional knowledge and links with the land, and this would be enhanced by the return of the claim area.I would like to point out that both the land claims that we are discussing this afternoon are examples of the land rights act working through consensus. The traditional owners, the land councils, the Northern Territory government and private interests were able to come to a mutual understanding through negotiation rather than conflict. This is a way the opposition applauds and a way in which we would encourage the Northern Territory government to approach this process. I acknowledge there is a new leader there, and there is the oppor tunity to start afresh with relations with the Aboriginal people in the Territory.The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 is one of the most successful pieces of legislation affecting indigenous people in Australia. These two parcels of land will now bring to 61 the number of such areas listed under schedule 1 of the act. The act, it should be remembered, was initiated by the Whitlam Labor government and, after some modification, implemented by the Fraser coalition. It does represent a bipartisan approach to indigenous affairs. It represents an approach which has been clearly lacking since the election of this present government. That bipartisan approach of the 1970s, along with the goodwill of the people involved in the claims, has ensured that the act has worked in its objectives.I should mention, in closing, that this bill does remove a small anomaly. It raises the retiring age for the occupant of the position of Aboriginal Land Commissioner from 65 years to 70 years. The commissioner is required to be a judge of the Federal Court or the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, and that bill brings the retiring age of the commissioner in line with the judges of these courts. The opposition is happy to support this legislation and is happy to facilitate the quick passage of the bills.12:55:002210Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 is one that the Democrats welcome. The effect of this bill will be, one, to hand back two parcels of land to indigenous groups in the Northern Territory and, two, to raise the age at which the Aboriginal Land Commissioner must retire from 65 to 70 years of age to bring it into line with that of all Supreme Court and Federal Court judges.That we are considering this bill today clearly illustrates just how well the land rights legislation in the Northern Territory is working. In fact, it is working very well indeed. It is one of the legacies, as Senator Bolkus said, of both the Whitlam and the Fraser governments. It was under the Fraser government and the Tonkin Liberal government in South Australia that probably the two best pieces of land rights legislation were passed. In saying that I am not ignoring the 1993 native title legislation, but I see that in a different context. So we must underline that it was both Liberal governments that moved those two pieces of legislation. I would hope that the Liberal Party eventually may return to the more enlightened view that they had of Aboriginal land rights in those days.That this legislation is working so well makes it very difficult to understand why the Reeves report, which was released last year, recommends major changes to the existing legislation. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 passed by the Fraser government in 1976 is widely acknowledged as the most progressive land rights legislation in Australia. Enacted long before Eddie Mabo's case brought native title into common law, the Northern Territory act established an administrative system where applications could be made to return parcels of land to the traditional owners. The act also established the facilitators of such transfers, the first land councils.Those land councils have been successful in returning Aboriginal land to its traditional owners without a negative impact on local industry, which seems to be the rhetoric which is used so often these days to deny native title. While the recent review of the 23-year-old act was arguably due, there has been mixed reaction to the recommendations made by Justice John Reeves QC. In fact, indigenous people have expressed alarm at the call to replace the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council—both elected bodies—with new regional councils overseen by a new government-appointed Northern Territory Land Council. Aboriginal leaders, including ATSIC chair, Gatjil Djerrkura, a Territorian, say this would undermine self-determination by removing indigenous people's right to elect their native title representatives.The recommendations that the permit system, which gives Aboriginal people the right to permit or not permit access to their country, be scrapped is also a matter of deep concern to the Democrats. We are pleased that the House of Representatives Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs is going to inquire into the Reeves report, as at least this will give the indigenous people of the Northern Territory the chance to give their views on the changes which have been recommended. We will be closely monitoring the views expressed at those committee hearings, and I can give the undertaking that the Democrats will not be supporting legislative change that weakens the rights of Australia's traditional owners to own or control what occurs on their land. Thankfully, the bill we are considering today does not fit into that category, and the Democrats are very pleased to be able to support it.12:59:002211Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—This bill is very welcome for a number of reasons. Primarily, of course, it is welcome by the Aboriginal communities whose land rights the bill recognises. In the case of the Wardaman people's claim to Innesvale station, the member for Banks, Darryl Melham, explained the background to the claim to parliament in a speech based on material provided by the Northern Land Council. I do not want to repeat all of that material, but there are some key points I believe the Senate should take an interest in.Innesvale station is approximately 150 kilometres south-west of Katherine. The station is located on Wardaman country, of which seven Wardaman estates are located on Innesvale. Wardaman people are acutely aware of their history since white people first came to the region. Older claimants had first-hand experience of the frequently harsh and punitive conditions on cattle stations in the area. There is a strong oral tradition relating to the often violent early frontier period which saw many Aboriginal people from this area killed, including close relations and immediate forebears.Despite this recent harsh history, the claimants have maintained strong traditional attachments to the area they are claiming. Senior claimants see the claim as providing the basis by which younger generations will be able to maintain knowledge of and affiliations with at least this portion of Wardaman traditional lands. They emphasise, too, that they will be in a much stronger position to transmit knowledge on country that is traditionally theirs than currently is possible while they live in Katherine.The Wardaman people have been actively pursuing claims to regain control of their traditional country since at least the early days of the Northern Territory Land Rights Act. While they have had some success in the past, the current claim represents the most substantial parcel of Wardaman land to be claimed. That it has taken so long—when the area involved has such a high degree of traditional significance and there is such cultural coherence—is cause for concern.It is pleasing to note that these two claims come before the Senate today as a result of agreements reached between the claimants and their representatives and the Northern Territory government. But even so, nothing happens quickly when it comes to recognising Aboriginal rights. The original agreements were reached in 1996 and yet they are only coming to us now. How long will it be before the claimants actually get the title? They should not have to wait another 12 months. The minister can and should make the handover of title an urgent priority.While it is pleasing to note that these two claims have been settled by agreement, one has to ask, `Where are all the other agreements?' The Reeves review of the Land Rights Act spoke of 112 land claims outstanding, yet the Northern Land Council have been unable to get agreement from the Northern Territory government on any claims since the Innesvale claim in 1996—not one. The Northern Territory government is clearly adopting a combative approach.In his submission to the Reeves review, former Liberal Party minister, Ian Viner, described it like this:The political attitudes of Northern Territory governments over the last 20 years have been a disgrace, in their constant and unremitting opposition to land rights claims; their repetitive resort to anti-land rights propaganda and playing the `race card' at election after election; failure to honour the letter and spirit of the intention of the 1976 Act, or complementary sacred site and Aboriginal heritage laws and, now, the Northern Territory Government's desire to obtain compulsory acquisition powers over traditional lands, the weakening of the central position of the land councils, the further diminishment of Aboriginal consent to mining, objection to native title and the denial of recognition within future constitutional arrangements of Aboriginal customary law and traditional rights.I would add myself that the federal government is doing nothing to discourage such an approach. In fact, much of that catalogue of sins could be equally applied to them as well.Ian Viner is not alone in his damning critique of the Northern Territory government. Even John Reeves QC had to acknowledge that Mr Viner's views accord with the perception of the Northern Territory government held by most Aboriginal people. Reeves goes on to quote people at Utopia, Darwin, Alice Springs, Jabiru, Daly River, Booroloola, Maningrida and Yirrkala—all over the Northern Territory, in fact—expressing their distrust of the Northern Territory government—distrust based on bitter experience.I commend pages 67 to 70 of the Reeves review as essential reading for senators in their preparation for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill. If you have any doubt about what would happen to Aboriginal rights if responsibility for heritage passed to states and territories, read those quotes.In commending those pages, please do not think I am in any way endorsing anything else in Reeves report. The report is the latest attack on Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory. If implemented, his report would destroy the very basis of land rights by taking away the rights of traditional Aboriginal owners to control their country. The Land Rights Act is a complex piece of legislation with some simple aims: to recognise and protect Aboriginal interests in land and to ensure that Aboriginal people control what happens on their land.The Reeves report provides very few constructive suggestions as to furthering these aims, and makes many recommendations which would severely limit the achievement of these aims. Reeves titled his report Building on land rights for the next generation, but in fact what it is really about is a return to the days of assimilation and dependency. Under Reeves' land rights model, the current system where traditional Aboriginal owners must be informed about and consent to any use of their land would be replaced by decision making by a regional council who may have no rights in Aboriginal law to make such decisions.Reeves proposes breaking the Northern Territory up into 18 land council areas, with these 18 regional land councils then under the strategic supervision of a politically appointed Northern Territory Aboriginal council. The members of the Northern Territory Aboriginal council are to be chosen by the federal Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs in conjunction with the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Reconciliation? Self-determination? Ha!The loss of recognition of traditional Aboriginal law and land owners, and the establishment of regional councils who can make decisions without reference to the land owners, is one of the major changes—I was going to say `reforms', but I am not going to use that word, because it means a change for the better—which Reeves proposes which significantly disempowers those Aboriginal people who speak for country.Other unacceptable attacks on self-determination are the abolition of the permits system—itself based on Aboriginal law—the transfer of control of the compensatory Aboriginal benefits reserve and the compensation payments to the government appointed Northern Territory body, and this same government appointed body will assume overriding powers over all aspects of the regional councils.The Reeves report seeks to blame the Land Rights Act for not acting as a mechanism to improve the socioeconomic status of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, and tries to address this by legislating that all compensatory monies are to be put to community purposes such as health, housing or education. It is an absurdity to blame the Land Rights Act for the failures of Australian and Northern Territory governments, and it is unacceptable to use compensatory monies to provide basic citizenship services.Commonwealth money has been going to the Northern Territory to provide basic education services, including money that has been used so far to provide dual language education in outstations, but just the other day we heard that the Northern Territory government has decided it is going to stop teaching indigenous languages. How can you trust the Northern Territory government to work for the welfare of indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory?Reeves justifies these far-reaching changes through radical rewrite of accepted anthropology and legal theory. He tries to prove that Aboriginal people have never had any real ownership of the land, but simply gather `around geographically coherent resources' according to `seasonal fluctuations in available subsistence resources.' That is from page 147 of this report. This extraordinary anthropological revisionism is rejected by eminent anthropologists all over Australia, many of whom will shortly conveying their concerns to the House of Representatives committee inquiry into the Reeves report.His legal reasoning is equally faulty. Despite the finding of the High Court in the Mabo decision, Reeves argues that Justice Blackburn was right in 1971 when he said that the people of East Arnhem did not own the land. That is page 146. Like his faulty reasoning, the Reeves report takes Australia back more than 30 years to the days when land rights were not recognised and people thought that Aboriginal people had no law, no culture, no society. We should not let the clock be turned back.The present claim to Innesvale station is an example of what can be achieved when there is negotiation and agreement. The Wardaman people are now caring for their country, developing a cattle enterprise on Innesvale which is compatible with wider social, cultural and economic goals, including maintaining the integrity of the cultural landscape.The Wardaman people emphasise with pride the mythological richness of their country, including an unsurpassed heritage of archaeologically significant rock art sites. The area was described as tribal country, a reference to the persisting strong relationship between law, land and people that is evident there.When the claimants are granted title to Innesvale station, advantage will flow directly to approximately 200 claimants. In addition, it will provide security to approximately another 200 to 300 people. Holding freehold title will allow them to protect and maintain the values of Innesvale as a highly significant cultural landscape for succeeding generations.Similarly, the granting of the Urrpantyenye claim, which is for an area of the Simpson Desert in Central Australia will be of great cultural importance. This is an extremely isolated area and very difficult to get to. While it is probably unlikely that the people will return to live in the area, it is extremely important to them that the claim is recognised, because the area contains some sites of great cultural significance.This is another example of the Land Rights Act working as it should, albeit too slowly. After some initial attempts by the Northern Territory government to frustrate the impending claim back in 1991 by the granting of a perpetual lease over the area and then a finding by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, Justice Gray, that the lease was invalid, an agreement was finally reached between the Urrpantyenye, the Central Land Council and the Northern Territory government in 1996.All parties are to be commended for coming to agreement in this and in the Wardaman case. I only wish more such agreements could be reached, and reached with greater goodwill on behalf of the Northern Territory government, and progressed through the system in a much more timely manner.13:11:002214Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I thank all honourable senators for their contributions to the debate. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills2214r7252214Debate resumed.13:13:002214Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—The stated purpose of the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 is to encourage the voluntary disclosure and exchange of information about the year 2000 computer problems and remediation efforts by providing limited protection from civil liability for the year 2000 disclosure statements.Its so-called Good Samaritan activity allows large organisations to provide smaller organisations with advice relating to Y2K, and this issue has been the source of some interest in the federal parliament over the last couple of years.I would like to foreshadow an amendment that I will be moving in the Committee of the Whole that will require a process for parliamentary departments, Commonwealth departments and agencies to report back to the parliament for the purposes of improving public knowledge about progress to date with Y2K compliance.The whole issue of the year 2000 bug relates to a programming flaw that was done many, many years ago that required the shortening up of dates contained in both embedded chips and computer applications. The manifestation of this problem extends now to when the date clicks over on the first of the first in the year 2000. There is grave concern, both throughout the community and business, that business operations, community services—indeed, very serious and essential services—could be affected adversely by this change. Hence the program for testing, remediation and preparing contingency plans is of very serious public interest and is on the minds of government, business and community organisations everywhere.This legislation goes some way to addressing the ability of the community generally to talk about the issue and share information. The amendment that we are foreshadowing provides for the reporting of the progress to date of those testing, remediation and contingency plans to the Commonwealth parliament for the purposes of keeping the public informed about progress to date with Y2K compliance.This amendment has been agreed to by the government after extensive negotiations and comes on the back of a high level of frustra tion about the quality of reporting to date by the Commonwealth government to the public. Indeed, the extent of public disclosure about progress on remediation and contingency planning to date comes in the form of just a three-page report that was released by cabinet about mid last year.There is a need for extensive public awareness in relation to this problem. We heard just last night at an estimates committee that the government has finally, albeit belatedly, commissioned research in preparation for a public awareness campaign.In order to help me keep my comments brief, I seek leave to table some documents provided to the opposition by the government in relation to their intentions with respect to Y2K reporting of Commonwealth agencies.Leave granted.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—The other issue that needs to be traversed in the context of this debate is how the government can go about gaining the confidence as to their handling of Y2K of both the community and the corporate sector, at which this Good Samaritan style legislation is specifically aimed. I believe Labor's amendments will extend that confidence to a large degree to the community interests that will be addressed by allowing a far higher level of public scrutiny. The critical challenge that Y2K presents to the world over is something that must be addressed forthrightly and with leadership by governments.There are several other reports that have significant impact on the way the Y2K problem is being addressed. One, in particular, in relation to Commonwealth progress to date was prepared by the Australia National Audit Office entitled `Getting over the line'. That report identified a series of recommendations aimed at assisting Commonwealth agencies to progress their reporting, testing and compliance in accordance with the guidelines provided for by the department.The government has indicated that they will also be moving an amendment to extend the limited exemptions from civil liabilities to oral statements. I would like to indicate, at this point in time, that it is the opposition's intent to also support that amendment.13:19:002215Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I am speaking on behalf of the Australia Democrats and committing our support for this bill. As the previous speaker in this debate outlined, the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill is intended to provide a system of voluntary disclosure in exchange for information about year 2000 problems, remediation effects and compliance.This bill provides for limited liability for certain statements made between royal assent and 30 June 2001. The bill provides significant limitations on liability for statements made detailing the risks and compliance history of organisations. The rights of parties receiving year 2000 statements and the rights of third parties referred to in those statements are limited, except where statements are made fraudulently and recklessly.The Democrats support strongly an open and fair approach to the resolution of the year 2000 issues. We will be supporting this bill and the various amendments being moved today. But we make it very clear that we reserve the right, as does any one in this chamber, to make any further amendments that are required or any amendments that are appropriate if, at a later stage, we find the government's processes or this particular regime wanting.It is widely acknowledged that the year 2000 or millennium bug is one of the most significant challenges yet to face the information technology industry. The origins and the history of the bug provide a fascinating parallel to the information technology industry itself. Although many have blamed the cost, the limited capacity and the lack of availability of memory storage devices, it is more likely that this is just one of the many short cuts which programmers have taken over the years. Sadly, this short cut was entrenched in a number of different ways and with little foresight as to the consequences.We should be aware that one of the impediments to addressing the millennium bug has been the opaque nature of so many of the technologies which play a role in our lives. Significant developments are occurring in technology and in technology culture as a result of the recent dramatic spread of computer networking and the convergence among media communications and computing. The movement known as Open Source Software has become a major force in computer development. It promises a level of cooperation and peer review, which is likely to have a dramatic impact on business culture in the long term.This may be the appropriate time to suggest that we rethink the role of ethics and professional responsibility. For the last 50 years technology has raced ahead of our society's understanding of the consequences. Many of us are focused on the consequences of the year 2000 right now, but it is probably worth a reminder that the issues exposed by the millennium bug are also part of a broader range of problems created by the elevation of business and technology interests over those of consumers and of society generally.I am aware of at least three other significant dates and a number of triggers that could occur in other parts of the economy. The dates are 9 September 1999—it would be my birthday!—29 February 2000 and another `end of time' for many existing business computer systems around the year 2038. So there are at least three significant or `end of time' dates that may affect society.Recently there has been concern that the passing of the 10,000 mark on the Dow Jones industrial average might cause a US stock market meltdown, with systems failing to move from four- to five-digit numbers. We are still waiting for the US stock market to hit that magic level. These and other dates and thresholds point to an ongoing concern that we should all have with the extent to which we oversee, understand and control the technology in our lives.The problems relating to the millennium bug should not simply be seen as a single issue that needs to be cleanly and swiftly disposed of—while of course it must be—but also be an incentive to think about and discuss the ongoing role of government in regulating technology. This legislation is an important attempt to urgently encourage a spirit of cooperation and openness regarding the risks and preparations for the new millennium. We are all still quite uncertain as to the actual impact of the arrival of the year 2000. The range of systems, in both the computer and organisational sense, which may be vulnerable is wide. But we are still distressingly uninformed about the complex relationship between different systems and the real effects of failure of individual components.We certainly have many reasons to be cautious about the possible impact and that is why contingency plans and information are so important. There are risks that have been suggested in a number of areas ranging from health care to aircraft safety. On that note, I point out the encouraging words from the minister. I do not know if other members of the chamber are aware of this, but the information technology minister, Mr Alston, is so confident that the millennium bug will be zapped—this is according to AAP on 9 February—by the end of this year that he plans to take Prime Minister John Howard on a New Year's Eve plane trip. He is apparently going to be spending New Year's Eve in a cockpit of an aircraft. I am glad that the minister is so confident. It has actually been suggested in some countries that confidence in the resolution of safety issues should be demonstrated through such displays as airline executives and, of course, government officials taking flights that cross the threshold. Each to their own!We should be proud of the way in the which the Australian community has responded to many of the challenges and uncertainties of the year 2000 but we should not become complacent. On the other hand we should not, at the other extreme, use simplistic scare tactics to bring about action. We should all take the opportunities provided by this particular bill to further prepare.I do note with concern, on behalf of the Democrats, the government's lack of openness in the past about preparedness and the process of resolution. It seems that the threat of amendments requiring an obligation on the government to disclose has been instrumental, so that threat seems to be one reason that the government has responded, and has resulted in what I believe is a more open attitude from the government on this issue. We continue to call on the government to be fair, open and accountable on this issue, especially in the way that it communicates with the Australian population about the impact of this issue and about preparations. I do not believe that has been the case so far, certainly not satisfactorily. The general `your government knows best, so don't worry' approach is not an appropriate way to address the legitimate concerns of our community.There is no doubt that preparedness and contingency planning in Australia are proceeding well, but we must maintain our leading role in the international community and also play a part in world preparations. The Democrats, while currently supporting the framework before us and the framework of disclosure generally, still have some concerns in relation to the weakening of the Trade Practices Act, for example, and its particular protections. We believe that always sets a dangerous precedent, and we will be vigilant about the use and abuse of the disclosure rules contained in this bill. As I have mentioned, we reserve the right to amend this bill in the future if any abuse should be detected.This bill is a good faith, good Samaritan offering to the Australian community, and any abuse of its provisions cannot be tolerated. The bill does provide an important defence in the case where parties feel they have been defamed through the making of a year 2000 statement that is the truth. We are all aware that the truth is fragile; the truth defence is provided in an atmosphere of trust to the Australian community.In relation to the proposed amendments, we are mindful of the somewhat secretive nature of the government's year 2000 preparations. We are pleased that the government has added the commitments contained within these amendments. That is a good sign. We would also like to see extensive use of the provisions of this bill by government, departments and agencies, even where that has not been compelled. A system of voluntary disclosure could undoubtedly benefit from a strong lead from all government departments and agencies.As I have indicated, this bill is a timely reminder of the concerns we should all have with the failure of successive governments to tackle the difficult ethical questions arising from advances in technology. Internationally, we have often been in a leading position, but we must ensure that moves towards deregulation and self-regulation in critical areas of technology do not undo that success. Too often we are informed that regulation of or even public discussion about some of the matters relating to advances in technology is not appropriate. This, understandably, is part of the ongoing questioning of the role of government at a time when it seems to many that innovation is occurring faster than we can understand or appropriately regulate.In a number of other areas, our ability to regulate is being limited by lack of discussion. Among these I include the regulation of encryption technologies and a range of other areas, like privacy. We must be continually vigilant where business interests, technology, community interests and human rights collide. I look forward to the ongoing debate on these matters and look forward also to a satisfactory outcome.13:30:002217Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I thank Senator Lundy and Senator Stott Despoja for their contributions to the debate here in the chamber and outside the chamber—to the very important debate on year 2K preparations in the community and the negotiations that we have held around this bill. They have been entirely constructive and will result in Australia moving further ahead in her preparations as a nation for the date change, which will occur in roundabout 316 days time.Australia has, as has been referred to by both the other participants in this debate, led the world in many respects in Y2K preparations. There has been incredible cooperation between the levels of government and between government and industry. It makes one proud to be an Australian to see that we are able to achieve this sort of world leading role in what is undoubtedly a very complex and challenging problem that requires so much effort at so many levels. However, contrary to what has been said in relation to the disclosure regime, Australia is recognised internationally by leading organisations as having one of the best government disclosure regimes on the globe.The changes that took place to that regime as a result of a federal-state ministers meeting with industry on 17 December, to bring all of the states together to report on a common format, really did take Australia ahead of even the United States in terms of the quality of government reporting. Every state and the Commonwealth, as well as some utilities, I might say, will be reporting on a similar format as from the first couple of weeks of March—this coming disclosure period. That is something that has not been able to be achieved in any other nation. We are committed to continuing to increase the level of transparency and quality of information so that Australian citizens and businesses can make sensible decisions about Y2K preparedness.There are two other things I wanted to mention. Senator Stott Despoja made a very important point about being flexible in our approach. I do not think that was the word she used, but she said we need to reserve the right to alter our approach to this problem and that, indeed, is why we want to keep an open mind about improving the government's own preparations and assisting industry. Also, we cannot be complacent, even though Australia is regarded as being amongst the best nations as far as our preparations go. There are many areas in which we have to improve our game and we cannot be complacent about it with 316 days to go.Finally, I would like to say that Australia would not be in the position that she is in as a nation if it had not been for the efforts of a number of remarkable and quite outstanding individuals in the preparations—and there are probably hundreds of them. But I would like to take this opportunity to remark on the very good work of the Y2K unit in the Office for Government Online of the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts headed by Susan Page, who is here today; and also Maurice Newman, who has led the fight internationally. As chairman of the ASX and Deutsche Bank and head of our industry program, he has been one of the key people on the globe in terms of raising awareness and getting people to take action. Australians should be proud of Morris's work in this field and, of course, his chief executive officer, Graeme Inchley. There are many others who work with those people, but these individuals deserve mention here.I genuinely thank the opposition and the Democrats and all other senators who have allowed this bill to be progressed so quickly. It shows what can be done with a truly non-partisan agenda in Australia. It is something we should be proud of. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2218The bill.13:34:002218Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I move:(1) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 8), after the definition of data storage device , insert: electronic communication of speech means a communication of speech by means of guided and/or unguided electromagnetic energy (for example, a telephone call or a radio broadcast).(2) Clause 9, page 6 (line 28), omit "or reproduction", substitute ", reproduction, recital or reading aloud".(3) Clause 9, page 7 (lines 1 to 7), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) is made: (i) orally, or (ii) in writing, or (iii) in a data storage device; or (iv) by way of an electronic communication of writing; or (v) by way of an electronic communication of speech. (4) Clause 12, page 12 (after line 22), at the end of paragraph (1)(g), insert: (iii) by way of an electronic communication of speech; orI table the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Amendments agreed to.Amendment (by Senator Lundy) agreed to:(1) Page 20 (after line 12), after clause 19, insert:19A Quarterly reports about Year 2000 processing issues relating to Commonwealth agencies (1) At least once each quarter, the Minister must cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament a report about the progress of Commonwealth agencies in detecting, preventing and remedying problems relating to Year 2000 processing. (2) If the report has already been made available to the public, the Minister must cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report was made available to the public. (3) In this section: Commonwealth agency means: (a) a Department; or (b) an authority or instrumentality of the Commonwealth, except where the functions of the authority or instrumentality are wholly or primarily commercial functions. quarter means: (a) the period of 3 months beginning on that date of commencement of this section; and (b) each subsequent period of 3 months, being a period that begins before 1 July 2001.13:35:002219Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to ask the minister a question or two. Can the minister briefly outline what the impacts on liability will be as a result of this bill?13:35:002219Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Yes, that is a crucial question that Senator Margetts has raised. It effectively means that if someone or an organisation makes a statement in good faith about the year 2000 preparations, and that statement is not misleading or deceptive, then they will receive some relief from existing statute. The problem that this bill seeks to address is where companies, which are asked by a supplier or a customer whether they are ready for year 2000, have been given legal advice to be very careful about what they say.The whole solution to year 2000 problems is for organisations to understand the readiness of their own internal systems. Also, because we are in this incredibly interrelated, interconnected world—and I think the year 2000 problem has made people understand that even more than anything else—if your supplier, whether it be an electricity supplier or a bank or a transport system, has problems then your business will be affected. Similarly, if your customers have problems, you will be affected.This bill will give some relief from future liability for statements made in good faith to other organisations. It does not protect them, however, from false and misleading statements in relation to these matters. It is very carefully crafted and very closely modelled on the legislation which was signed by President Clinton of the United States in October last year.13:37:002219Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—You mentioned, Minister, in your statements at the conclusion of the second reading debate, that the representatives of the Deutsche Bank were at the forefront in Australia or in other countries in pushing these proposals. Where in general have these proposals come from? Have they come from consumer groups or have they come from the corporate interests?13:37:002219Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Maurice Newman, head of Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, has been at the forefront—I do not think it has any relationship with Deutsche Bank, I might say—and is someone who has had wide commercial interest. I have consulted with the consumer organisations on this legislation. They are very keen to see this disclosure legislation passed as well because it assists them in making judgments about their own interests. It is not just a big business thing; I think it is a genuine concern. It is something that benefits consumers because, if business organisations cannot communicate on Y2K readiness, the ultimate losers will be the consumers.13:38:002220Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—There is still a concern among many people and, of course, the Democrats that this bill does not address a number of outstanding issues in relation to preparation for the year 2000. Will you give an assurance now on behalf of the government that you will provide a further response to the reported low level of compliance by Australian corporations with the reporting regime established by the Australian Securities and Industries Commission? Will you give an assurance that you will maintain and monitor that and keep reporting to the parliament with regular updates?13:39:002220Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—That is a commitment that I am very relaxed about giving. I monitor these things on a daily basis. In fact, I have met with the head of ASIC, Mr Alan Cameron, within the last few days and am planning to meet with him again within the next couple of days to discuss this. I have met with people at the ASX who have actually put in place a disclosure regime that again led the world, because of the leadership of Maurice Newman, the Chairman, and Richard Humphry, the chief executive of the Stock Exchange. They have put in place systems that have now been copied by exchanges around the globe.It is crucial our corporations are ready. The bigger corporations have been, I think, improving their game considerably in the last few months. The main concern seems to be with the small to medium enterprise sector at the moment. We are putting additional time and effort into that sector. Senator Stott Despoja, you can be assured that I, who have daily responsibly for this problem, the minister, who has cabinet responsibility, and even the Prime Minister will be doing everything we can to see Australia go through the date change with minimal impact.13:40:002220Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Finally, and briefly, I want to put on record the ongoing concern in relation to the professional liability position for those helping to resolve the problems, but also ask the minister to comment on whether he has a view about concerns about the lack of appropriate insurance mechanisms to cover the year 2000 risks. I am happy for that to be taken on notice.13:41:002220Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—This legislation is a major step forward in the professional liability area. We will monitor very closely the effectiveness of it. We have been trying to get information from the United States about that problem you talked about since President Clinton signed that legislation into law. I guess it only commenced in October. We did, in the preparation of this bill, seek to get as much information as possible from the United States, but it is fair to say there was a paucity of it. We will be monitoring what is happening in the United States; we will monitor what happens here. We are talking, on an hourly basis, to people who are in that area and we have spoken to the insurance industry as well.Back in, I think, December, when the Insurance Council made that announcement about Y2K clauses in legislation, I took the opportunity to say to media who inquired of me that it should send a message to businesses and other organisations about the reality of the Y2K problem. I am sure there are millions of people out there in our community and certainly around the world who do not understand the enormity of this problem. The fact that insurance companies cannot cover that risk and strike a premium for that risk should actually send a very loud message that organisations must take responsibility for the problem. The best way of judging whether an organisation understands and has responsibility for the problem is to talk to their chief executive. If the chief executive of any organisation—small, medium or large—does not understand the Y2K problem, the organisation will not be ready. It is a problem that these people must take responsibility for. I hope that answers your question.13:42:002221Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I have one quick question. Can the minister outline what penalties exist under this legislation for companies or corporations making false or misleading statements to their clients and to the general world about the level of Y2K readiness?13:42:002221Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The penalties apply under civil law and under the Trade Practices Act. In some respects, this legislation seeks to give relief from those existing penalties, where you make a Y2K statement in good faith. The penalties that apply at the moment are the penalties that have applied for making false and misleading statements. In many respects, this law seeks to lift the burden of those penalties where the statements are not made in a false and misleading way but rather made in good faith. That is where the balance has had to be struck.13:43:002221Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I do not wish to delay this too much longer. I am very concerned that I should have looked in more detail at this legislation. It has come on very quickly. I have the distinct impression that what we are pushing is a corporate-friendly bill that is not necessarily going to be helpful for those people whose entire livelihood or lives may be destroyed as a result of the Y2K problem. It seems clear that we are going to provide protection, that we are going to have court cases on the word `knowingly'. I think the remedies for those people whose lives may be destroyed by not careful enough consideration may be totally inadequate. I am rather concerned about the passage of this bill. I have to apologise to my constituents for not insisting that we spend more time before putting this through as a lunchtime bill in the first week of a 13-week sitting.13:44:002221Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I want to respond briefly to Senator Margetts's comments because I think it is important to note that this bill has come up very quickly and that everyone would have been advantaged by additional time. I think time is the particular issue here. This bill was exempt from the cut-off, it was debated as non-controversial simply because of the urgency associated with this matter. As far as I can tell, that does not mean that anyone in this chamber, and certainly not the Australian Democrats, is keen to provide an unfair advantage or break for corporations. Quite the opposite: we share the concerns that Senator Margetts has raised. That is why I have put very clearly on record some of the outstanding concerns that we have and the fact that we will continue to scrutinise and to monitor this bill and its workings, and the role of government.We have had some assurance from the minister today that he will continue to report to us on this matter, but we do reserve the right to make changes if we feel that this bill is abused in any way. We have no interest in watering down the rights of consumers or individuals who may be affected. I certainly put the minister on notice that we will seek the right to make change, if need be.13:45:002221Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I too would like to add some comments with respect to the timing and the pressure to progress the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 . It was Labor late last year that called publicly for Good Samaritan-style legislation in Australia, on the basis that what was happening in the community was that no-one was talking about the issue. This is one of the few legislative mechanisms available to a community to actually get people talking about the problem, about the implications of the problem, about the compliance challenges and about the contingency plans that may or may not be required come the year 2000.The timing is of the essence. Indeed, when President Clinton put his legislation through the American Congress, he was widely criticised—and this was July-August of last year—that it was in fact too late, that the impact would be diminished. Indeed, this is one of Labor's concerns with respect to this legislation now and prompted our call for it late last year.As for the impact of this legislation coming at this late time, we weighed up the benefits versus the disadvantages and came to the conclusion that having Good Samaritan legislation at this point in time is far more advantageous to promoting disclosure, discussion and communication within the community about Y2K and its effects and implications and, hence, found obvious support for this bill and have facilitated its passage through this place.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.2222Bill (on motion by Senator Ian Campbell) read a third time.Bills22222222Debate resumed from 9 December 1998, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.13:48:002222Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition supports this legislation. The primary act gives effect to Australia's obligations under international law and is the basis for Australian conservation related efforts to control the export and import of wildlife and wildlife based products.The primary act already makes it an offence, broadly speaking, to import, export or possess a product containing endangered species. However, at present forensic difficulties make it virtually impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that traditional medicines contain material from endangered species as claimed on their packaging. It is necessary to make some amendments to the relevant evidentiary provisions in the existing act in order to more readily achieve prosecutions.We feel that this legislation allows Australia to more fully implement its obligations under relevant treaties and, as a consequence, we support it.13:49:002222Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—These amendments to the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 will finally allow for successful prosecution for the illegal import of traditional Chinese medicine containing endangered species, such as tigers and rhinos.Currently it is virtually impossible to prosecute for illegal import of traditional East Asian medicine, or TEAM, containing endangered species. The required forensic test to prove the medicines actually contain the endangered species are just not available. A TRAFFIC study in 1955 showed that during an 18-month period over 30,000 medicines were seized and labelled as containing endangered species. Not a single prosecution took place.Traditional East Asian medicine practised for over 5,000 years uses more than 1,000 plant and animal species. TEAM is used throughout Asia and by Asian communities worldwide as well as increasingly by non-Asian consumers. However, some of the plant and animal species used by TEAM are now threatened with extinction, including the tiger, the rhinoceros and the musk deer. For these species, poaching for TEAM has been identified as the most immediate threat to the survival of the populations in the wild.These amendments will allow for prosecution for illegally importing medicines claiming to contain endangered species without the requirement for forensic proof that the medicines actually do contain these species. This brings Australia in line with its obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species on Wildlife, Flora and Fauna, or the CITES convention.It is, however, very important that the government continues to work with the traditional East Asian medicine community in Australia on this issue to raise awareness and understandings of the laws and regulations and streamline these, where necessary, to help compliance. We note the upcoming symposium in Melbourne on this issue and hope the government continues to give it full support.It is worth nothing in this context that the tiger is endangered. There may have been as many as 100,000 tigers at the beginning of this century, but today only 5,000 to 7,500 are believed to be in the wild. Three subspecies of tiger have already become extinct. Demand for tiger parts for medicinal use is one of the most immediate threats to the survival of the tiger in the wild.The trade in traditional Chinese medicines is but a small part of the global trade in live wild animals and their parts and derivatives. TRAFFIC Oceania has recently reported that the annual world trade in wildlife products and live specimens is estimated to be worth somewhere in the region of $US20 billion. TRAFFIC also estimates that up to one-third of this massive trade is illegal, concluding:Illegal and unsustainable wildlife trade threaten more than individual species. Population collapses can threaten entire eco-systems and thus the quality of our own lives. Keeping wildlife trade under control will never be easy, because the trade in wildlife involves more than 350 million animals and plants each year.The Greens (WA) support this legislation.13:52:002223Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I would like to make a couple of points about the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] . First of all, anybody with poetry in the soul would want to preserve the wildlife of the world. I think later in the year we are going to have a full discussion about biodiversity and the need to preserve the world with the magic presently in it.The second point I want to make is about traditional medicine, to which a reference appears in the second reading speech. I would like to make it clear, of course, that Chinese medicine—some call it traditional Chinese medicine—is an ancient art and a very honourable one. I would like to make clear that the exploitation of rare animals and beautiful animals is not at the heart of Chinese medi cine. It can and does do a great service to humankind, without relying on those products.Indeed, in Melbourne there is a move to regulate Chinese medicine—I think it might already be under regulation—by the Victorian government, and the government deserves credit for that. I put in this context the work done by Professor Chiang Lin (I know the minister, Senator Kemp, would have heard of him out Footscray way) working through the RMIT to see that regulation of medicine is properly instituted so that the good parts that come from Chinese medicine—as, indeed, with the good parts that come from any particular profession or any particular practice—are the parts that are preserved. That needs regulation. He fought hard for the regulation and, in spite of all, has got it through. May I say, just to balance up the matter, Senator Kemp, that Senator Crowley, when she was the minister, did a lot of good work in this area.They are the two points I want to make. Firstly, this bill goes to protect, as I say, the poetry of the world and, secondly, Chinese medicine should not be seen as dependent upon illegitimate products or on the killing of beautiful animals, but does have a legitimacy which, I might say, is equal to the legitimacy of Western medicine; and by marrying the two, as Professor Lin wants to do, we get a much better outcome for all people.13:55:002223Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I will be very brief, to enable the legislation to get passed in the four minutes we have remaining. Firstly, the Democrats support this legislation, the aim of which, of course, is to enable more successful prosecution of those who seek to use endangered species in various products. I note that the act creates a specific definition of convention listed species and, in a sense, only addresses convention listed species rather than other animals that are currently listed under the wildlife protection act. I understand the rationale for that, in terms of what this is aimed at, but I am not sure if it was necessary in the sense that it may have been helpful to actually have this sort of mechanism applied more widely to other wildlife.I think it is important to emphasise, given that the bill itself is only four pages long, that the quite comprehensive explanatory memorandum lists various options that were considered and the costs and benefits of each and even lists the option of doing nothing, or taking no specific action. As it quite pithily says, there are no foreseeable benefits in maintaining a stance of no action. I think that is the important part of this legislation, that it does seek to take concrete and positive action to address what is a real problem. And the Democrats support that.Briefly, we would also like to note, as is also mentioned in the explanatory memorandum, the government's commitment to undertake a broad review of the wildlife protection act. That is certainly something the Democrats will be paying close attention to. It refers to recommendations in a recent Senate committee report. The Democrats do have a strong concern about the potential for an expansion of trade in wildlife without very clear and strong protections to ensure that environmental benefits are protected for the long term. We will certainly be watching closely to ensure that economic measures do not gain too much precedence and that environmental matters and the very survival of species, as well as the broader environment, are not sacrificed for trade measures. With that, given the time, I will simply indicate again the Democrats support for this legislation.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Questions Without Notice222422242224Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—My question is to Senator Alston as Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, is it not a fact that the government's industrial relations policy at the last election assured workers that the no-disadvantage test would protect them from the erosion of their conditions of employment during agreement making? Didn't the government promise that no worker would be worse off? Has the minister's attention been drawn to those aspects of Minister Reith's proposals that contemplate `a separate stream within the workplace relations system applicable to the employment of unemployed persons'? Does the minister believe that exempting some employers from unfair dismissal laws and discounting wages honours the government's commitment that no worker—not just existing workers—would be worse off?2224Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Madam President, it is a very interesting question, isn't it? We are really being asked about how you can solve unemployment in this country. That is what the debate is all about. The debate is about flexing up the labour market and trying to resolve some of the social difficulties caused by you lot, who are not interested for one moment in anything like—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, your remarks will be directed to the chair, not directly across the chamber.LD4Senator ALSTON—Thank you, Madam President. Of course the commitment that we gave at the last election, which is reflected in Mr Reith's letter, is that the government would ensure that no worker was any worse off than under the award safety net. Of course what the Labor Party would want to do is to lock in time a lot of outmoded practices that are clearly contributing to higher levels of unemployment than we need to have in this country.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Like a living wage!LD4Senator ALSTON—Yes, there is a great living wage for those who are unemployed through no choice of their own, for those who could be in the work force if you were prepared to flex up the labour market. Come clean. Is Mark Latham wrong? Is Lindsay Tanner wrong? Or do you just not have any policy? Is Max Walsh right when he says Kim Beazley is purely a figurehead leader? Is that the position—you have no policies until 2001? So when Mark Latham says that Plan for the Nation was simply a way of allocating more money to more programs of the old kind, that the unemployed have responsibilities, that the old welfare system was failing—a whole lot of proposals; sensible policy changes—you are not even prepared to debate that?It is critically important to look at what freeing up the labour market would achieve. What Labor essentially wants to do is to go back to the old Working Nation, which cost squillions. It ended up, I think, averaging about a $140,000 per outcome. That is the sort of $2 billion program that Martin Ferguson and Simon Crean think makes a lot of sense. But we know those policies have failed. Mark Latham knows they have failed. Lindsay Tanner knows they have failed. Two-thirds of those on your labour market programs ended up back on the unemployment scrap heap. You have rejected our reforms for unfair dismissals, you were opposed to Work for the Dole, you were opposed to stimulating the economy through tax cuts—in other words, every sensible policy proposal is something you are not allowed to contemplate because your union bosses say, `It might jeopardise our power bases. We are not interested in the unemployed; we are interested in hanging on to those that we have got.' That is a tragic abdication of responsibility. What Mr Reith is saying is that we need to continue to update the policy approach that we take for endemic social problems like unemployment. We are the party prepared to have an open mind on these issues; you clearly have no interest of all.We are not going to walk away from our election commitments but, by the same token, we are going to ensure that the best policy outcomes are put in place to actually benefit those people that you pretend to be concerned about. But, of course, when it comes to policy solutions you simply sit on your hands. All I can say is that Mr Reith is on the right track, so is Mark Latham, so is Lindsay Tanner, but you lot could not care less. It is a tragedy. You thought you would sneak in at the last election by having no policies. Clearly Mr Beazley has not learned from that experience. You have got another two years of being a policy-free zone, so make the most of it.2225Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, does the government propose to establish two classes of Australians—those who are currently in employment, and who will enjoy certain rights, and the unemployed, who upon obtaining work will find that their rights have been suspended?2225Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Senator Collins's proposition is that any change in the rules, any change in existing arrangements, constitutes two classes. You have got people on award systems and you have got people on enterprise bargaining agreements. Is that two classes of employees? Of course it is not. If you have got a system that you want to refine or improve, does that mean that as soon as you make a change and someone benefits from it you have two classes? You are locked into class warfare. You cannot get your minds above that. Of course it did not get you anywhere because the electorate treats that sort of attitude with contempt. You might as well go back to the 1950s and start bleating about communism. It just does not work any more. Wake up to yourselves. Find out how you can solve these problems. Come up with something positive and look around the world at what can be done to flex up the labour market. Go and talk to Tony Blair, who was good enough to write a foreword for Mr Beazley in that remaindered edition that is floating around the bookshops. Mr Blair knows what reciprocal obligation is about. Mr Blair knows how to flex up the labour market. Mr Blair knows that you need to provide incentives. (Time expired)22252225Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I direct a question to Senator Hill. Under the coalition government's proposed reforms on the tax system the states will be given all the revenue from the GST in return for abolishing nine state taxes. Can you explain the benefits to the many small business retailers, including chemists, newsagents and so forth, of this tax system?2225Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Madam President, I am pleased to do so, and I acknowledge Senator Boswell's interest in and support of small business. It is very well known. I guess what is most appreciated about the tax reform package is in fact the $13 billion of personal income tax benefits that would flow therefrom. But, beyond that, there are of course many other benefits, particularly for small business. Small business, I have to say, recognises the good policies of the Howard government—in particular, the lower interest rates, lower inflation and a more flexible labour market. In fact, that recognition has been shown up again in the latest survey by the National Australia Bank, which indicates that business confidence has returned to the high levels prevailing before the onset of the Asian economic crisis. That is very pleasing, Madam President.But small business also knows that it suffers from an outdated taxation system and it has demanded reform in that area for a long time. Unfortunately, it got no reform from 13 years of Labor. By contrast, under our government it will. This tax reform package, and the return of all the GST to the states, will allow a number of state based taxes to end—nine, in particular—including the financial institutions duty, the debits taxes, a range of stamp duties, conveyancing duties on business properties and the bed taxes—all taxes, as Senator Boswell knows, that small business wishes to see the end of. That will occur under our tax reform package. It has the advantage, of course, of reducing the compliance costs for small business, which means that small business has greater opportunity to invest in creating wealth and providing job opportunities, which is what it should be all about, rather than incurring the cost and time of unnecessary compliance.If we went down the Australian Democrats path of taking food out of the GST, it would be so much more complicated, and that would add a new burden of compliance cost to small business. That is why small business does not wish to have the Democrats' answer to the GST—that is, to remove food. Small business is clear and loud in its condemnation of the Democrats' attempted changes to the GST package. We have been told, in fact, by the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants that to go down that path would add an extra $100 million a year in compliance costs—that is, compliance costs largely paid for by small business. No wonder small business does not want it. The National Association of Retail Grocers, representing some 10,000 independent retailers, has said no to the Democrats' position. All council members of COSBOA, the peak body representing small business, have said no. The National Farmers Federation has said no. Small business knows that to go down the path of removing food adds to compliance costs and therefore reduces the benefits that would flow from the government's tax reform package. It is not the way to go.The Labor Party, on the other hand, has no policies at all. It has no tax reform policy. It has no alternative to put to the Australian people. It has no interest in the compliance costs that small business pays on all of those state based taxes. It has no interest in allowing small business to grow and to employ and to create wealth. What a contrast—one side with an alternative, the other side with nothing. (Time expired)22262226Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—My question is to Senator Alston—again—as Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Does the minister agree with his senior colleague, Minister Reith, that couching Work for the Dole schemes as employment relationships will lead to a drop in the recorded levels of unemployment? What is the minister's estimate of the percentage reduction in the unemployment rate that will be achieved by such a visionary policy? In what other ways is the government planning to rort a reduction in the recorded unemployment rate through inventing new descriptions for the unemployed?2226Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Madam President, that is a classic example, isn't it, of the pot calling the kettle black. Those opposite turned this business of coming up with new names into an art form over 13 years. Even the aficionados lost track of the number of occasions on which schemes were renamed, ideas rebadged and programs called by other names; and, of course, the recipients were totally confused in the process. We are not interested in changing names and symbols just for the sake of it. We are interested in serious programs that will reduce levels of unemployment. We believe that Work for the Dole and other schemes will significantly contribute to ensuring that people are properly motivated and that they set their minds to acquiring employment skills rather than simply getting into a position where they can become almost permanent beneficiaries of the state. Once again, our good friend Mr Latham had a lot to say on that subject.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Is this the new way or the third way?LD4Senator ALSTON—The fourth way, of course, is the do-nothing option which Mr Beazley is so assiduously promoting. But, of course, they do not really know whether they believe in the third way or another way or New Labor or modern Labor. If you disagree with Mr Latham, all you have to do is stand up and say so in your supplementary question. He said, `The days of open-ended welfare are over. Our welfare system is still designed—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—So you are going to cut welfare under the GST?LD4Senator ALSTON—I am sorry you wish to change the subject and you do not want to focus on these very cutting and pithy assessments by one of your seminal thinkers—someone who has, basically, been sent to Coventry. But he hasn't yet been expelled for breaking the party line. The simple reason for that is that there isn't a party line anymore. They have thrown it out of the window. You are not allowed to have policies until 2001. It is the only rule that operates in the Labor Party at the moment: `For heaven's sake, don't commit yourself to anything. By all means, float a few ideas, kick them around. Say it sounds interesting, we are thinking about it. We will go back and consult. We are listening. But don't promise anything.'10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Alston, I invite you to answer the question.LD4Senator ALSTON—I am sorry, Madam President. I got a bit carried away. Mr Latham said that our welfare system is still designed to give people a handout rather than a hand up in life. That says it very well. What that is really saying is that work for the dole schemes are positive because they give you an incentive. They give you an opportunity to acquire work skills that you can put into good use on a later occasion. They make you more attractive to prospective employers and in all sorts of ways give you a positive outlook on life, not a negative approach to life—`What about your rights? Don't you bother going back to work because you might jeopardise your welfare entitlements.' That is what you want: you want to protect your mates who still happen to be in the work force. You are not interested in those who are not; we are.2227Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister does not seem to know a great deal about Mr Reith's new policy. Perhaps he can tell us whether, under this policy, Work for the Dole participants will be informed of the good news that they are no longer unemployed.2227Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—My advice is that the Work for the Dole recipients do show up on the unemployment statistics. I am not quite sure what Senator Collins is mouthing on this subject. The issue here is not what column you fit into. You are talking about people's lives. You are talking about whether you are doing them a favour or not. You are not doing them a favour by telling them to stay on the dole, sit on their hands, stay in bed till midday and not worry about the future. Work for the Dole is a program overwhelmingly supported by the Australian public, and you know it. That is why you rolled over at the 11th hour. You know it works. You know it is working.22272227Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—My question is addressed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Will the minister advise the Senate of recent indicators of the strength of the Australian economy? How have the policies of the coalition government contributed to this situation? What does the government plan to further strengthen the economy?2227Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Macdonald, for that important question. Yes, there is further good news on the Australian economy. The good news continues to roll on. I am delighted to say that the latest Westpac- Melbourne Institute consumer sentiment index was out today. This survey shows that consumer confidence has reached its highest levels since 1994. The index in fact rose 3.1 per cent in February. This is further strong evidence of the health of the Australian economy. As many people in the wider community will appreciate, we now have the lowest interest rates in 30 years. We have balanced the budget and got rid of the black hole of $10 billion that was left to us by Mr Beazley. Inflation is at historically low levels, and we have created some 400,000 jobs since coming to office.But we are not complacent. Unlike Labor, we are a government of reform. One of the reasons we have been able to achieve these major gains in the economy is the reforms that we have put in place. One of the major reforms we are moving forward on is tax reform. As the Australian public know, our tax reform plan will deliver some $13 billion worth of personal tax cuts to the Australian people. Under our plan, Australians earning up to $75,000 will get a cut in their marginal tax rates. That is about 95 per cent of all Australians. The average wage earner will get approximately $40 to $50 a week extra in their pocket—another boost to consumer confidence. Unlike Labor, we are a low tax government. The Labor Party is a high tax government. We recognise that the taxation system is in need of reform. There was further evidence yesterday of the critical need for tax reform. The report by Access confirmed that our existing tax system is indeed broken.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—When you were ministerial adviser for Margaret Guilfoyle, the highest tax rate was 66c in the dollar.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Robert Ray keeps on calling out. He is upset by the fact that I called Labor a high tax government. I will read from a quote by Senator Peter Cook, still a member of the front bench of the Labor Party. At a seminar in the mid-eighties, Senator Cook, as reported in the West Australian , said, `The Labor Party will always be a high taxing party.' That is what Senator Cook said. Thank you for the interjection, Senator Ray. Senator Cook was quoted as saying, `The Labor Party is a high taxing party. It needs to be to carry out its reforms.' That is what he told the tax forum at the University of Melbourne. That is not me saying that the Labor Party is a high taxing party; it is the Labor Party. As I have said, in our tax reform program we plan to deliver major tax cuts, worth some $13 billion in all, to Australian taxpayers. There is a lot of good news about the Australian economy. It is good news because this is a government of reform and a government that continues its major reform program. (Time expired)22282228Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. Is the minister aware that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, in the cabinet document he released yesterday, indicates that she, Senator Newman, has also been invited by the Prime Minister to extend the concept of mutual obligation? Has the minister's department canvassed Minister Reith's proposal for a `redirect allowance' and to `couch work for the dole in terms of an employment relationship'? What is the response of the minister's department to the idea of giving people's allowances directly to local councils or community organisations, such as the Salvation Army, so that their benefit payment is hidden through make-work schemes? Does this proposal just double up administration processes for Centrelink, having payments paid by remote control, just to hide the real long-term unemployment figure, which blew out by another 11,000 last month to a total of 239,600 people?2228Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I think it is important to note, before considering the answer to this question, that Mr Reith's paper was a discussion paper.UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—Oh!BE4Senator NEWMAN—That response is amazing coming from an opposition who has no policies and does not have much in the way of discussion papers, except a couple of people who have to publish books to get their views known to the Australian people.My department has not been involved in drafting the paper on the workplace relations reform options but it has been involved in considering options to assist in the reduction of unemployment. The Prime Minister stated in his federation speech that work is being undertaken to extend coverage of mutual obligations, and that work is ongoing. My department continually reviews the interaction of social security income tests and taxation. Work incentive problems for families with children identified by my department are now being addressed in the tax reform measures that the opposition is not prepared to support. Work on incentives is continuing in my department, as one would expect from a department being led by a government that does have ideas and does have commitments to improving the lot for Australians. But there are no plans to impose limits on the duration of income support for the unemployed despite the wilful and mischievous misrepresentation by the opposition spokesman in his press release. Let me reinforce this point: there are no plans to impose limits on the duration of income support for the unemployed. Access to income support for the unemployed is an indispensable element of the social safety net. The government is unshakeably committed to its maintenance.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of intervention in the chamber is far too high.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, I notice that the noise from the opposite side of the chamber always increases when they do not like the message. But I am advised that the implications of discounted wages for long-term unemployed people have been examined by my department over many years, most notably during the Hawke-Keating years. Discounted wages clearly have implications for work incentives and the level of payments to low income families, but this government is not going to cut the level of income support. We have been very supportive of the Work for the Dole scheme which we are interested in looking at for expansion, but we are not cutting the level of income support. In the last term of the government we promised to maintain the real value of unemployment payments. This term the government has promised to increase payments in real terms by 1½ per cent to ensure that beneficiaries are more than compensated for the cost of living effects of the GST. In other words, people on income support after the introduction of the GST will remain ahead of where they are now.2229Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. It seems then, Minister, that we can conclude that you are differing from Minister Reith. In his blueprint to pulverise the unemployed, Mr Reith asserts that, in changing—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Do you know your way through the supermarket yet?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Crowley, your remarks should be addressed through the chair.ZF4Senator CROWLEY—I am waiting so that you will be able to hear, Madam President. In his blueprint to pulverise the unemployed, Mr Reith asserts that in changing the definition of work `we could expect to record a genuine increase in measured employment levels in the economy as a whole'. Minister, isn't this just Reith-speak for using the Salvos and local councils to launder unemployment payments?2229Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Work for the Dole recipients have continued to be shown up and included in the unemployment statistics. There would be no such intention to do that. My department keeps those records, as does the ABS. So the nation has two sets of unemployment statistics to study: one is provided by my department and the other is provided each month by the Bureau of Statistics. Work for the Dole has not been classified as being in employment for the purposes of those studies.22292229Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Given the minister's last response, I ask the minister to clarify whether she will be taking up the invitation issued by Minister Reith in his paper to discuss the issue of extending the concept of mutual obligation. Does she agree with the minister's claim that a more radical approach to addressing the perception that people are entitled to income support is needed? Is the minister also aware of a departmental review of the Work for the Dole scheme which shows that it is less effective in funding work for the unemployed than the job clubs and the Jobstart programs that her government slashed? If so, will she recommend as part of these discussions to Minister Reith that they refund jobsearch assistance under job clubs and reinstate Jobstart, which provided real wage subsidies and real training, not wage cuts, as a more effective way of getting the unemployed into real jobs?2230Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Before I answer Senator Stott Despoja's question, let me also point out that Senator Lees grossly misrepresented Mr Reith's position when she claimed in her press release that he was foreshadowing cuts to the social security system for this term of government. I think it is dishonest of Senator Lees to have said that. It is quite clear when you read Mr Reith's paper—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Why don't you just admit that you're having a colossal blue with Reith, and you're likely to lose.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner.BE4Senator NEWMAN—The Prime Minister asked my department and me to work closely and collaboratively with Mr Reith and his department.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—No, he didn't.BE4Senator NEWMAN—That has been taking place—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Just like you did on the tax package.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, stop shouting.Opposition senators interjecting—BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, I would like to answer Senator Stott Despoja's question, but she sits at the end of the chamber. She has to listen to the interjections from the opposition before she can hear what I am saying.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There are far too many interjections. The likelihood of anyone at the end of the chamber being able to hear is quite limited.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, fo Senator Stott Despoja, the two departments and the two ministries have been working closely together since the establishment of this discussion paper at the request and the direction of the Prime Minister. We will be continuing that work. It is by no means completed. Different propositions are coming from the two departments for collaborative work.2230Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for confirming that her department has been working closely in collaboration with Minister Reith. I am wondering if, as part of that collaborative effort, the minister endorses Minister Reith's belief that moving towards a New Zealand style labour market and welfare system would create more jobs and endorses his views that we should adopt that system. I am also wondering what work they may have done in this collaborative arrangement on adopting New Zealand style welfare reform in Australia. I point out to the minister that she did not answer my question in relation to the cost effectiveness of Work for the Dole. I ask the minister: do you acknowledge that only 32 per cent of Work for the Dole recipients were finding work compared with, say, 50 per cent under Jobstart?2230Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—As to the question of successful achievement of jobs, I think Senator Stott Despoja is approximately right in her figures. But that is not the only outcome. People do not go immediately into jobs, but many of them go from Work for the Dole into further training and education because they have become aware of the need to acquire skills to be really competitive in the job market. The Work for the Dole scheme is, in fact, a success in that area as well. I think it is better to wait until you have a proper evaluation available to you, Senator.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Newman, you should address the chair and not speak across the chamber to Senator Stott Despoja. BE4Senator NEWMAN—I beg your pardon, Madam President. There are so many interjections that I have tried to project my voice to the Democrats down on the cross benches.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—If you speak into your microphone, they should hear.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Thank you, Madam President, I will. If you like, I will shout.UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—Ooh!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The behaviour in question time today is absolutely unacceptable.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The behaviour on my left is unacceptable and in breach of the standing orders.BE4Senator NEWMAN—The reference which Senator Stott Despoja made to the mention of New Zealand in Mr Reith's paper I think is a misrepresentation of the text. He was drawing a comparison between the United States and New Zealand. (Time expired)22312231Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I direct my question to the minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Senator Alston. What tender processes were employed prior to the government contracting Mark Textor to conduct research into their jobs strategy? What was the contract price for this research? How much has been paid to date? What procedures were put in place to ensure that copyright integrity was maintained? Is the minister now ready to reply to a question I put on notice three months ago as to how much work that department has given Mark Textor? Given that 11 ministers have replied so far, will he now concede that the department's failure to do so was an effort to cover up its sneaky and politically motivated research?2231Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not have any information on any of those matters. I will seek some assistance from Mr Reith's office. I would have thought they were the very sorts of matters that Senator Ray enjoyed trawling over ad nauseam in estimates committees, but if he did not manage to get around to them there and he wants to waste question time putting something else on notice, I will attend to it. I can assure him that any delay on the part of Mr Reith's office to provide an answer to an outstanding question is in no way a result of any attempt to cover anything up. It probably reflects the priorities of the issues that Mr Reith's office has to deal with.2231Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Would Senator Alston like to explain why he has written to me on other questions on notice to explain why they were late, yet again, but has omitted this one? Why has it taken three months, when this research was done in July last year, to actually come forward with the figures showing how much this particular contract cost? Will the minister find out whether it went to a tender process? After all, Mr Mark Textor did all the Liberal Party research in the last election.2231Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I will make those inquiries. But just so that Senator Ray does not get away with the usual smear campaign, let me say that Mark Textor's skills are well recognised around Australia.AW5CARRSenator Carr—By the Liberal Party.LD4Senator ALSTON—From our point of view, he delivered the goods, didn't he? He called it right. He knew exactly what was going on out there. If you are asking whether the bloke has credentials, whether he has a decent track record, the answer is yes. I hope you are not suggesting for a moment that he is not properly qualified. I can understand the usual political partisan game playing in the sandpit—that because someone is associated with the Liberal Party he is not capable of doing anything else in the real world—but the fact is he is capable of conducting very effective research in a range of areas.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Because you are funding him through government contracts.LD4Senator ALSTON—If you want to say that outside, make his day. You used to be a great man for saying, `Take the walk.' Well, away you go. If you really want to make him happy, go out and say that. (Time expired)22322232Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Hill. I ask whether it is true, as was quoted in the Australian this morning, that:The Prime Minister has ditched the Government's promise that the award system will protect the wages of all workers, opening the way for lower pay for anyone starting a job for the first time.Is the government to follow Mr Reith's agenda of total deregulation of the labour market, which will leave the most vulnerable employees unprotected, unrepresented and exploited? Will this not also mean a vast expansion of the army of underemployed within Australia?2232Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—No, I think there has been a misunderstanding. The government's policy and its commitments are clear: no worker making an agreement will be worse off than under the award safety net. The no disadvantage test will be retained. This applies to existing and new workers entering a workplace agreement. Laws will be retained ensuring that agreements are made without duress and that employees will be free to make the type of agreement that suits their needs. The AIRC will maintain a safety net to protect the low paid. This means that both existing and new workers are protected by the safety net.It is true that the government is determined to look at all credible options to address Australia's unacceptably high unemployment—notwithstanding that we now have the lowest unemployment in eight years, thanks to the policies that we have implemented. But there is still a lot to be done, seeing what we inherited. Certainly we will look at options including increasing real wage flexibility, further reform of workplace relations and removing work disincentives in the tax/welfare system. Proposals are at an early stage of discussion, and it is obviously premature to speculate on what will be finally decided. But initiatives that are adopted will be consistent with the government's commitments.2232Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can I get a guarantee from the government that there will be no interference with the AIRC's responsibility to set minimum wages and conditions for workers in this country? If that guarantee cannot be given to me, isn't what is being proposed by the government, or being proposed by Mr Reith, a fundamental attack on something that is ingrained into the culture of Australia—and that is the right to a fair go through an umpire? Won't the minister recall, for political purposes, what happened to the last conservative Prime Minister who went to the people on an anti-umpire, anti-arbitration approach? Can he not understand that every conservative Prime Minister since Bruce has upheld the system of conciliation and arbitration—and that goes from Menzies right through to Fraser? (Time expired)2232Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—There are really two points. The first is, as I said, that the AIRC will maintain a safety net to protect the low paid, which means that both existing and new workers are protected by the safety net. That is the fundamental safeguard. But this government also recognises that there is the potential for people to do better when you have employers and employees able to negotiate agreements that best serve their mutual interests. This government recognises and respects the right of individuals to negotiate with employers and get a better deal for both sides.I guess that is what is in stark contrast between the coalition's position and that of the Australian Labor Party, because the Labor Party believes that a third party will always make a better decision for a worker; we do not. We think if you give workers `a fair go', to adopt Senator Harradine's expression, they will get a fair go that is in their interests with better terms and conditions. (Time expired)22322232Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Minister, why is the Howard government in the business of publicly releasing government documents classified as `cabinet in confidence' and highly protected, as it did late yesterday afternoon? Was this only done in an attempt to limit political damage to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Rela tions and Small Business? How can the government ever again argue that personal correspondence between ministers—particularly the Prime Minister—material marked `cabinet in confidence' or polling material conducted for the government should be protected from release?2233Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I find that an extraordinary question because, as I understand it, what happened yesterday was that there was a leak of certain materials. In answer to that, the government believed that it should come clean and explain exactly what Mr Reith's paper and options were, and the Prime Minister's response thereto, in order that there might be a public debate on the full facts and the accurate facts. How could anyone reasonably complain about that? Is Senator Faulkner saying that he wished there to be a debate on part-facts, on not the full story, on inaccurate misrepresentations? I would be surprised if that were his wish. I would have thought that he would want a debate on exactly what Mr Reith wrote and exactly how the Prime Minister responded. The government has facilitated that, because this is a government that supports transparency, that supports debate on an accurate, factual basis—and you can now have that.If we are to debate that, what are we debating? We are debating new options to build upon this government's proud employment record: we have unemployment down to the lowest figure in eight years; we have created 400,000 new jobs. We are pleased about that, but we want to do better for the future. So we want to debate the options that are available that will create more jobs and give small business, in particular, the incentive and possibility to employ more Australians. We welcome that debate, but we want it to be on a sound factual basis, and we are pleased to have facilitated that.2233Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. On the precedent for this government actually coming clean, given that that is a precedent, will the Howard government also be inserting a new clause in the cabinet handbook and all security briefings, stating that highly classified documents should not be released but now add the words `unless you are in government and you need to protect your own and a few ministers' backsides'?2233Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—What Senator Faulkner is confirming is that he wanted this debate to take place on a partial-fact basis, on an inaccurate representation basis. He wanted to use that for his own political purposes because he thought that could be to his advantage, rather than have a debate on all the facts and circumstances.We are pleased to debate the issue of unemployment. We are pleased that employment has grown 2.1 per cent over the last year alone. We are pleased that we now have the lowest unemployment in eight years. But we will build upon that through sound policies. We want policies. We are not like the Labor Party, that has wiped all policies clean. We have a sound basis, and we are going out there and we are building upon it. To the extent that Senator Faulkner wants to facilitate that process by debating our policies rather than attempting to produce a few of his own, we welcome that as well.22332233Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice and Customs. Minister, you have previously informed the Senate of the Commonwealth's successful approach to the interception of drugs at our international borders. The drug scourge affects us all, however, in many other ways such as property crime. Minister, can you tell the Senate about the trends in drug related property crime against persons, such as armed and unarmed robbery?2233Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Ferguson for his most appropriate question on a matter that does concern Australians. It is true that there have been significant divergences in the rates of armed and unarmed robbery in the various Australian states over the past five years. In the recently released Report on Government Services , a number of interesting and pertinent statistics are presented that clearly show that property crimes, such as armed and unarmed robbery, are increasing in certain states over the period 1993 to 1997 and are stable or decreasing in other states.If I might, I will choose my own state of South Australia, since the question comes from Senator Ferguson, and Australia's `Premier' state, New South Wales, for comparison of rates of armed and unarmed robbery, two crimes that are very closely related to the use of illegal drugs. In 1993, the rate of unarmed robbery in South Australia was 82.9 per 100,000 of population, but by 1997 this had dropped to 57.4 per 100,000, a decrease of 31 per cent in five years in South Australia. No doubt this was due to fine police work and a good Liberal government. By stark contrast, the rate of unarmed robbery in New South Wales over the same period increased from 61.5 per 100,000 to 121 per 100,000, an increase of 97 per cent over the same time. So unarmed robbery goes down by 31 per cent in South Australia and soars by 97 per cent in New South Wales.If we turn to armed robbery, the picture is even more disturbing. New South Wales and South Australia started roughly neck and neck in 1993 at 38.6 and 33.5 armed robberies per 100,000 of population but, as the full effects of the Carr government's failed law enforcement policies began to take hold, New South Wales accelerated to a frightening lead with 79.3 armed robberies per 100,000, an increase of 105 per cent over that same time period. This is three times the Victorian figure for armed robbery in 1997. South Australia, on the other hand, declined to a modest 25.3—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of noise is unacceptable. It makes it impossible for people listening, either on radio or television, to hear what is being said.7E4Senator VANSTONE—The rate in South Australia declined to a modest 25.3, a decrease of 34 per cent over the same five years. So armed robbery was up by 105 per cent in New South Wales and down by 34 per cent in South Australia. These startling statistics show that there are ineffectual law enforcement policies in New South Wales under the Carr Labor government. It has utterly failed the people of New South Wales, who must now live in constant fear for their person and property. I am told that there are so many bars on some windows in Sydney that you are not sure if you are in a prison or a zoo, and it should not be that way.To be fair, I might add that rates for murder and attempted murder—if I do not get there, Senator Ferguson—in New South Wales are quite in line with the national average, demonstrating again it is the failed drug policies of the Carr government that have allowed property crime to escalate to rates twice the national average. I repeat what I said the other day: Premier Carr has shown himself to be not interested enough to do something about this. He should put up or shut up.22342234West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister explain why the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is supporting a seminar on women in leadership featuring Ms Kerry Chikarovski in Sydney on 25 March this year, just two days before the New South Wales election?Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease shouting.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—What, do you want Carmen Lawrence?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Abetz!1X4Senator WEST—Does the minister believe it is appropriate for the senior department of the Commonwealth Public Service to be lending its support to the Liberal Party in this way?2234Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I would understand why they would use Ms Chikarovski in a seminar on women in leadership—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Yes, there's a state election two days later!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ray, stop shouting.BH4Senator HILL—Firstly, because she is a woman and, secondly, because she has fine leadership qualities. In relation to the role of the Department of PM&C, that is something upon which I will seek advice.2234West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister also inform the Senate as to precisely what support Prime Minister and Cabinet is providing for these seminars which, apart from promoting Ms Chikarovski on the eve of the New South Wales election, feature other Liberal luminaries such as Senator Newman and Mrs Kate Carnell?2235Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I understand that too because they are a further two fine women leaders within Australian politics. Mrs Carnell has led the ACT in difficult circumstances and in a commendable way. We all know Senator Newman is a fine minister and represents ably not only her sex but also Australian politics generally. I am pleased that you have given me the opportunity to endorse all three women today, Senator. We are proud to stand behind them as fine representatives of the Liberal Party in politics. Senator Vanstone should have been included as well. If it is not too late, we will see if we can make arrangements.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—I have a busy schedule.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—And use public funds to promote the Liberal Party.2235Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I am sorry, I understand she had prior commitments, otherwise she would have been invited.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Nick wouldn't put you on the list!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The Senate will come to order! The behaviour is absolutely unacceptable, and all sides are in breach of the standing orders.BH4Senator HILL—As I have already said in relation to the role of PM&C, I will ask.22352235Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, and I refer to the recent elections for the new World Heritage Bureau. Can the minister tell the Senate whether it was he as minister for the environment or Mr Downer as Minister for Foreign Affairs who ordered the Australian delegation in Kyoto to lobby against the election of the Thai ambassador to the seven-member World Heritage Bureau? On what basis was the order given to the Australian delegation to lobby against Thailand?2235Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I would be surprised as to the accuracy of that, Madam President. Thailand has a real interest in these matters and is currently on the World Heritage Committee—and, I am sure, contributing capably to that task. I would suggest that the honourable senator should not believe everything that falls off a truck.2235Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. This did not fall off the back of a truck; this was a cable dated 23 December from Kyoto to Canberra. I ask again: can the minister inform the Senate whether the Australian government has organised to have the Thai ambassador dumped because he strongly reminded the committee of its world heritage obligations and further reminded the committee that a world heritage site can be placed on the in danger list without the consent of the state party?2235Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I thank the honourable senator for doing her bit to enhance Australia-Thai relations by relating what would appear to be a cable that she has found after it fell off the back of a truck.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Madam President, I rise on a point of order, and it is one of relevance. I asked the minister whether it was he or Minister Downer, and I wonder if you would direct the minister to answer that question?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The minister is dealing with the topic. If he wishes to say something on that particular matter, he may.BH4Senator HILL—I was just going to acknowledge this latest attempt by the Australian Democrats to undermine Australia's international relations, which builds upon their attempt to undermine the Australian government position by lobbying the Kyoto committee directly. It reminds me of when former Senator Kernot, in relation to climate change, wrote to the chairman of the committee and said, `Don't believe the Australian government.' The Australian Democrats have an appalling way of dealing with these international relations matters, and I think Senator Allison should reflect upon what she is doing.22362236Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin. I ask whether the minister can confirm that on Tuesday his department emailed a press released entitled `Government confirms commitment to new oil code', which said:The government will be releasing the draft oil code by the end of this week and the petroleum repeal bill will not be effective until the oil code is prescribed in regulation.Can the minister also confirm that his department yesterday emailed a follow-up note saying:A draft media release entitled `Government confirms commitment to new oil code' was inadvertently emailed to you yesterday afternoon. Please disregard the release.Minister, why should the media disregard the release? Is the government committed to an oil code or not? Will the government be developing policy in future by using inadvertent press releases?2236Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator Conroy very much for the opportunity to announce that the government has released today a comprehensive draft oil code for discussion purposes. I did have a dorothy dixer lined up, but I thank Senator Conroy very much for giving me the opportunity to use a question from the opposition to announce the release of this draft oil code.This is very much a part of our comprehensive reform of petrol legislation. We will be repealing the two relevant pieces of legislation, and there is a repeal bill currently before the parliament. We made a commitment at the time of the election that the repeal of those two pieces of legislation would not take place until an agreed oil code had been tabled as regulations to the Trade Practices Act.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—So both sides have agreed to the code?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Schacht, you can follow it up later.JX4Senator MINCHIN—We have devoted enormous resources to developing that oil code under the leadership of Rogers QC and extensive negotiation. That oil code is now at a point where, as I say, it has been released today. It has been sent to all relevant parties. I have just signed letters to all the participants in this debate giving them the oil code and asking them to come back to the government within three to four weeks with any further comments they have on that oil code.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It's not agreed. This is just another draft. You've just released another draft—that's about five already.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, cease interjecting!JX4Senator MINCHIN—I asked them to participate in the consultation phase with a spirit of compromise to ensure that we do get a satisfactory and workable oil code which will protect the interests of the small players. All senators and members in this parliament would have a legitimate and proper concern for the interests of the smaller players in this industry. That is why we want to put out and get entrenched into the Trade Practices Act a workable oil code which will protect their interests. The repeal of the franchise act and the sites act will not take place until that oil code is agreed and put into the Trade Practices Act as a consistent set of regulations.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It's just another draft!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, cease shouting!JX4Senator MINCHIN—Thank you, once again, Senator Conroy, for giving me this opportunity to formally announce the release of the draft oil code.22362236Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—My question is to my Tasmanian colleague the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. This week marks the 10th anniversary of the Burdekin report being made public. Given the Howard government's continuing commitment to improving the social and economic welfare of young Australians, will the minister advise the Senate what progress has been made in the vital areas of youth homelessness?2236Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Calvert for his question. It has been 10 years since the Burdekin report was brought down, and now is really a valuable time to stand back and look at what has been achieved. Our government, when it came into office three years ago, put youth homelessness at the top of its priorities for social policy programs and policy development. We well understand the problems that are faced in our communities by the break-up of families and the homelessness that sometimes is produced as a result. The Burdekin report made very clear the social problems the nation faces as a result of youth homelessness.You can contrast the approach of this government with that of the Hawke and Keating governments, both of which were very much focused on the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff rather than the fence at the top of the cliff. We have introduced a concerted attempt to make prevention rather than bandaids the priority of this government in terms of young people who are at risk of homelessness.When we first came into government, the Prime Minister called together the major welfare organisations and set up a task force to work in cooperation with three of the major federal departments to try to establish a pilot program to prevent youth homelessness and help those who were homeless. Following the evaluation late last year of that pilot program, which has been a great success—and I think those senators who have had anything to do with it would recognise that—the Prime Minister launched a new $60 million program to combat youth homelessness with a focus on early intervention. At the heart of that, we are recognising the need to try to keep families together wherever possible, because the research does show that early intervention is a really important way of preventing young people becoming trapped in the cycle of homelessness and long-term welfare dependency.An independent evaluation of the pilot program showed that reconciliation was achieved between the parents and young person in 72 per cent of the cases, and improvements to relationships and greater stability also resulted from these reconciliations. The program is designed to encourage the young to reconcile with their families and re-engage with education, training and employment in the community, which are the linchpins as we all know to a whole and meaningful life.This new program, now with the extra funding, will assist thousands of Australian families each year, including about 7,000 young people and 5,000 parents. When it is fully operational, there will be 100 services funded across Australia targeting areas of highest need at a cost of $20 million a year. That is, of course, only part of what this government is doing to attack the problems that were identified in the Burdekin report. For example, $230 million this financial year is going into the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, which is helpful for those who are already homeless. The government has also allocated $13.8 million this year for the Job Placement, Employment and Training program. But the Burdekin report also very significantly identified the lack of literacy skills as an important thing that needs to be overcome in these young people who are showing up as unemployed and homeless. Few of them have the qualifications necessary to gain employment. That is why we have put such a priority on helping young job seekers who have been unemployed for six months to focus on and access the money that is available for literacy and numeracy programs. We have to get their skills up so they are able to get a job.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous223722372237Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have some information for Senator Gibbs, who asked a question yesterday about the child disability assessment tool and its affect on customers. I promised to look at the detail and report back. The figure of 3,800 was the original estimate of the number of children who would not qualify their parents for child disability allowance in a full financial year. As the new assessment arrangements for child disability allowance were introduced on 1 July 1998, it is too early to assess their full impact on the number of recipients. Once this information is available, I will provide it.223815:04:002238Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (Senator Alston) to questions without notice asked of him today.What we had yesterday was the unedifying sight of a Commonwealth minister releasing in a complete blind panic very thick documents stamped `cabinet-in-confidence' and `highly protected' throughout the press gallery and to anyone who was interested in them. You have to ask yourself why Minister Reith took this course of action. It was not, of course, to protect the national interest. It was not, of course, to protect the integrity of any government papers or documents. It was simply to try to dilute the effect of those documents on the media and the public. You also have to ask yourself whether that is now going to be the way the government reacts in relation to a whole number of things at Senate estimates committees and at question time. Will the government say, `That is a matter of cabinet-in-confidence and is certainly something the Senate should not be pursuing'?What these documents do conclusively is show the untruths and the deliberate misleading of the Australian electorate in the 1996 and 1998 federal election campaigns by the Prime Minister and Mr Reith. These documents graphically highlight that the Prime Minister never intended to give the sorts of promises we talked about at question time today—on the no disadvantage test, the award safety net and the protections offered to workers in this country.There are many other things that these documents show. What about the fact that the Minister for Family and Community Services put out a very rushed press statement this morning saying that she `deplores the misrepresentation of Mr Reith's paper by the opposition,' and that `Mr Reith did not seek to impose limits on the duration of income support for the unemployed.' That is a deliberate attempt to mislead the Australian public, because if you go to page 11 of this cabinet-in-confidence document, Mr Reith says:There would be merit in considering whether this Mutual Obligations approach could be applied to all adults once their receipt of allowance extends beyond, say, six months. I have in mind that beyond this duration, continued receipt of allowance could be conditional on the recipient being engaged in useful education activity, community service or other productive workplace activity.Either Mr Reith or Senator Newman is not telling the truth. It is an open-and-shut case in this regard. The real situation is that, again, Senator Newman has been treated like a mushroom by the Prime Minister and Mr Reith. Her department has not been in the loop on this. They have had no involvement. This extraordinarily rushed press statement was put out this morning in the press gallery to try to ensure that the damage is minimised.If you look closely at this cabinet-in-confidence document, you see what Mr Reith is all about, because this document says a lot about the relations between the minister for employment and the Prime Minister. You have to ask a very important question: has anyone ever heard from a minister of state a more grovelling, cringing, toadying and obsequious comment than the sort of thing we see in this document? Let me quote what Mr Reith said to the Prime Minister:For what it is worth, my assessment is that if the electorate will accept your lead on the GST then there is no reason to think that you could not successfully present and implement a genuine jobs plan.Who said it? The sycophantic utterings of none other than Mr Reith—Penthouse Pete. Is he a man or a mouse?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner!AW5CARRSenator Carr—He is a landlord.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, could I ask you to withdraw personal imputations against the minister and use the correct title for him, please.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—What would you like me to withdraw, Madam Deputy President? I withdraw the fact that I said `man or mouse'.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No, I would request you to withdraw your unparliamentary language—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I withdraw any unparliamentary language that I have uttered.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you—and refer to ministers by their correct title.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Penthouse Pete is a nickname and should be used in this chamber.AW5CARRSenator Carr—It is a well-known fact.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ray and Senator Carr.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—If I should not use `Penthouse Pete', I will withdraw it. What I want to say is this document really goes to the state of the virulent, poisonous relationships in the leadership dogfight—and I use the word advisedly—in the Liberal Party. That is a canine word I actually can use.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—That is parliamentary.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The interjections are not.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—This is where this government finds itself just a few months after the election. What a commentary on the state of play in the Australian government. (Time expired)15:11:002239Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—One of the most riveting outcomes from the last election, if I may say so, has been the disintegration of any ideas in the Labor Party. About all that the Labor Party can do is to sneak about, try to find a document, something past, try to find somebody who has leaked and then come along to the Senate and be critical of the minister who is trying genuinely to talk about real issues in the community and in particular what is happening to jobs.I do not really know what is wrong with the opposition and what they have against really discussing unemployment in this country. It is just extraordinary that none of those on the other side appear to be capable of having a sensible discussion about properly thought-out national goals on the unemployed. All they can do is look backwards into the past and be a reactionary bunch who cannot look forward to the future. They cannot look forward to the fact that, if we actually get together and try to discuss some of these issues, there can be some real advantage to the unemployed in Australia.The Labor Party has become such a vacant lot, such a policy free zone, and all you can do is write books. You cannot write down a policy; you are incapable of writing down a policy. You scrub policy and all you can do is to write books. What is it about the opposition that has made you shut down any ideas? Why are you so frightened of having a policy? What is wrong with having a policy on the unemployed? Why are you so hostile to ideas? It is far too important a subject to be simply quibbled about in question time. It is not much wonder that the public out there are disillusioned with the way in which both sides of politics are behaving when it comes to debate in this House on matters that affect so many people.Having put absolutely nothing forward yourselves, not only can you not actually articulate a policy on unemployment but also you cannot even cooperate to look, in a proper review mode, at job creating policies that the coalition is bringing forward. There is no doubt that the ABS labour force figures that came out last week are encouraging, but there is a lot more that can be done. I don't think there would be anyone who would suggest that there is not.No-one suggests that there should not be further labour market reform to get jobs for all Australians. Certainly, that is what Mr Latham seems to be suggesting. And, like it or not, Mark Latham is right when he said—I quote from the AustralianFinancial Review last year—`Those in the Labor Party know that Australia has a unique opportunity to improve the flexibility of its labour market.'But those opposite do not seem to be taking much advantage of the fact that there might be a little chip there, a little encouragement, and that you have an opportunity to accept some responsibility to cast a vote for or against lower unemployment in Australia. So far, you have fallen at the first fence because you have not only refused to pass the unfair dismissal law but also repealed the regulation. And, in the words of small business, the legislation is worth more than 50,000 jobs. I do not know how you can live with that outcome.Not only that, but you are now refusing—you could support it if you wished—to preserve the youth wage structure legislation. We all know that this will protect the jobs of some 225,000 young Australians. If you were sincere, if you were fair dinkum, if you had any concern about the future of young unemployed people in Australia, you would stop worrying about cabinet documents and you would start trying to come up with a policy—if you don't agree with ours—which might at least not be beneath contempt. You have had three chances. You have knocked off one of them. You could do something for the young unemployed. The other thing you could do is pass the GST package and create a better economic environment for jobs.15:16:002240Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I start my contribution by expressing my disappointment that Senator Coonan didn't comment on policy, but rather said that she believes Labor lacks it. The only policy point Senator Coonan made was that she thought the GST should be introduced. Mr Reith's statement highlights the cynicism the Australian public feels with respect to the GST. That cynicism is highlighted by Mr Reith's references to New Zealand. He talks about the 500,000 jobs we would have had, had we gone down the same path as New Zealand. We know what happened in New Zealand—the GST was introduced there and welfare was cut. So why do you think we are cynical when we see a document such as this that refers to every other possible avenue Minister Reith can think of to cut, cut, cut? That is not policy.Let me highlight one area which reinforces that point. Minister Reith refers to the OECD 10 points and tries to redefine himself to fit in with them. That redefinition is very interesting when you look at OECD point 7, which says that countries `should emphasise an active labour market policy or policies'. How does Mr Reith describe that? Mr Reith describes that as `reform of labour market programs' because reform to Mr Reith is nothing but cut, cut, cut—cut rights to unfair dismissal, cut junior rates, et cetera.I go back to Senator Hill's comments, since he has remained with us today, in response to Senator Harradine's question. Senator Harradine was concerned about the report in this morning's Australian which said that the Prime Minister had redefined his election commitment as only relating to existing employees. Senator Harradine sought clarification on that point. He got no clarification from Senator Hill. All Senator Harradine got was a re-reading of the election policy platform. Senator Hill, can you reassure us that the Prime Minister has not come out and said that it will only apply to existing employees? That was Senator Harradine's concern. That was the issue Senator Hill did not answer. We got no guarantee from Senator Hill that the Prime Minister was not referring only to existing employees. Senator Hill did not reassure us on that point at all.Senator Newman was the only other minister here today who actually made some comment on the policy issues. She tried valiantly to demonstrate that she had actually been consulted. Unfortunately, she failed dismally. The one ounce of reassurance we had were her comments in question time today that unemployment figures will not be redefined to rule out people on Work for the Dole. What a bodgie, rorting system this government is looking at if they are looking at forcing all unemployed onto Work for the Dole and then redefining them as employed.I want to conclude on a point that highlights exactly what Minister Reith is talking about. On page 12 of his statement he says that what he envisages as the employer-employee relationship would be established and employers would have the right to expect work of an acceptable standard. `The scheme would thereby be easier to administer with non-compliance resulting in termination of payment.' So we will now have employers determining whether workers on Work for the Dole payments have their payments terminat ed if they are not working hard enough. That is sheer slavery. Mr Reith is talking about sheer slavery. That is what he is describing in this program—nothing more, nothing less. It is dismal that members of the government here today can make no contribution to this policy debate except for Senator Newman's reassurance that they will not be cut off the unemployment figures. That is the only reassurance we have had on policy issues in this debate today.15:21:002241Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—I want to start today by quoting a couple of lines I have here that go back to 1990.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Oh, you have come in today, have you?WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—I have been in every day, I think, Senator Faulkner. With respect to the allegation Senator Collins just made that we take people from the unemployed and put them onto Work for the Dole and that then reduces unemployment, of course it does. Any form of work reduces unemployment. But that is a lot better way to enter the 21st century than the Labor Party could ever do. The Labor Party is expert in the employment of labour. Do you know what your former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, the mafia millionaire, said? On 20 February 1990, in contrast to our approach, he said:We've got to go now and intensively interview them, make `em apply for work, and if they don't apply for work we'll bump `em off.What a disgraceful thing to say about unemployed people! Once people become unemployed, in your view, they cease to be important because you do not get union dues out of them. I know that because of the unions that I have belonged to. You do not get union dues out of them when they are unemployed. They cease to become important. That is why unions are dropping below 30 per cent in work forces. That is why you are losing them.Let me go on. Under your administration unemployment reached the highest—Senator Collins quoted the OECD—level in the OECD. Unemployment in Australia under your administration reached the highest level in the OECD. It is now down to 7.5 per cent—not the lowest in the OECD but one of the lowest in the OECD. Certainly a long way from the 11½ per cent it was under you people. You had the temerity to criticise this administration for bringing unemployment down. I do not know what you are going to do. You are not doing too well now, but when Senator Robert Ray leaves you shortly, sometime through this term, certainly at the end of this term, the IQ will drop by about 50 per cent on the other side. What is going to happen then?The problem is that there is a focus on the other side on the wrong areas. The focus has to be on the unemployed. This government is committed to bringing unemployment down. It has brought it down. It is performing. It is an abysmal lack of action on your part. You left us with high unemployment. You left us with high interests rates. The government is doing everything in its power, and it is doing it properly and methodically. I do not know how the documents were leaked. You are concentrating on the documents. Why do you not concentrate on some policy that helps your fellow Australians that are unemployed? Why do you not do that? Why do you not join with us? You do not have policies in this area, and this is one area where you should have some expertise. But you do not even have any expertise in the unemployment area. You do not offer anything. You criticise, but you do not offer anything.It is not complete blind panic, as Senator Faulkner said. It is a studied way from the Prime Minister through his ministers through his cabinet to bring down unemployment, to sustain it at a level that is acceptable. There is no question that we will always have some unemployment, but there must be some acceptable level. This government is doing precisely that with a combination of low interest rates and low rates for business. If you people had voted through the acceptance of the small business package, where we would have employed 40,000 to 50,000 more people, we would have brought unemployment down to a lower figure than what it is now.15:25:002241Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Senator Coonan said the Labor Party was hostile to ideas, but what is absolutely obvious from Senator Alston's answer to me today is that he is hostile to scrutiny. The one thing this government hates is for its actions, its administration and the decisions it makes of an administrative nature to be scrutinised. The government hates it. It has this obsession with saying, `All we ever want to do in this chamber is discuss ideas and policy.' That is a role for this chamber, but our duty and an equal role for this chamber is to scrutinise the actions of this government, to make sure probity is there, to make sure there is an ethical approach to government.In relation to the opinion polling for the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, it is a sleazy, stinking rort and nothing more than that. I put questions on notice to all departments. I asked how much work they have given to Mark Textor. Eleven departments have answered but not this department, even though the research was done in June/July last year. They have deliberately obstructed because the answer is embarrassing.All the departments know. All the whispers are there. The departments are being strongarmed to give Mark Textor work. Why? Not only is he the Liberal Party pollster; the more work he gets, the nearer a critical mass to a credible polling organisation he becomes. He is not credible out there in the commercial world. They do not give him work. So he relies on his work from the Liberal Party and government departments. That is where he gets his work from. Senator Alston said this is just spite from us because Mark Textor got the last election right. No pollster got the election more wrong than Mark Textor. The Bulletin employed him, and his figures, as every other polling organisation knows, were absolute nonsense.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—I thought you said he couldn't get any commercial work.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—He had you, Senator Ferguson, 15 points in front at one stage. If that is the case, we must have run the most magnificent campaign in history to reduce that 15-point margin to actually lead you on election day in primary and preferred votes. The fact is that Mark Textor's research is not worth the paper it is written on. If you go back to this document, this now tabled leaked cabinet-in-confidence document, you will never see more pathetic qualitative polling than the results shown there. The methodology is trash. The results in interpretation are incompetent.All you are doing is propping this person up, with his snout in the trough, strongarming contracts across to the Textor organisation when they should be going to competent polling firms. Let us have a look at his record. The Bulletin got rid of him after six weeks because he was so wrong. If you look at his track record in the Northern Territory, he leaked all the government paid research over to the Country Liberal Party. All of it went to them, illegally, in breach of copyright and in breach of contract. Let us look at whom he has allied himself with now. This is the great freedom loving Liberal Party with principles. Their pollster is part of Wirthlin, and Wirthlin is connected to every right-wing ratbag group in the United States that exists. They align themselves with the anti-Semites, with the white supremacists, with the flat-earthers and the gun-toting rednecks. That is their record in the United States. Sure, they do some work for the Republican Party but only to destroy other Republican moderates. Not even the Democrats are their enemy in the US; moderate Republicans are their enemy.Questions need to be answered. How indeed did Textor get this contract? Given the fact that he did his research in July and given his track record in the Northern Territory how much of this research went to the Liberal Party before the election? The fact is that it took him four months to report to the department with this research. You can bet it got up to Robert Menzies' house a lot quicker. This ethical position that we have of Textor being strongarmed in and basically doing the Liberal Party's research is a national disgrace. We will not be bluffed out of scrutiny in this place. No matter how many dirges you go on with, we will be there scrutinising the actions of this government and exposing it when it is involved in corruption.15:30:002243McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—The first thing to say about Peter Reith's views on progressing reforms in the paper that we have all now well and truly seen and read is that this is a minister who has always pushed the envelope of industrial reform. He has always been at the forefront, and he has previous form on the board—so much so that he has, in fact, impressed Cheryl Kernot and the Democrats enough to get his first tranche of industrial reform through the parliament. His form on the board is now coming through, the success is coming through, in the statistics.First of all, he was the minister and we are the government that introduced a more flexible enterprise bargaining regime of three streams, three choices and options, for wage agreements. The attractiveness of that reform is shown in the figures. More than 45,000 AWAs have been approved, and 90 per cent of those have been in the last year. It has taken more than a year for those reforms to filter through, but they are coming through now. The attractiveness of AWAs is now showing through in the figures. Some 7,500 certified agreements have been made, including some 805 non-union agreements, covering around 100,000 workers. And there is still the award system, and there is still, underpinning that, the no-disadvantage test. From that, we have the low paid workers still receiving wage increases of more than five per cent through the Industrial Relations Commission, so there is a real wage increase.Peter Reith was at the forefront of that very successful change. He is the minister who has overseen the unfair dismissal legislation, which has come through here. There was no reform held up more by the previous government than unfair dismissal. It was held up for ridicule. They know it themselves. They wanted to change it themselves prior to the 1996 election, yet when it came into this parliament they were against that particular reform—an area that of course, particularly for small business, deterred employment.Another change introduced in the first tranche of our industrial relations reform was the secondary boycott. It had a positive effect. We reintroduced legislation—45D and 45E— about secondary boycotts. It had a positive effect on economic activity, that flowed on to employment. And where would we be if we did not have those clauses reintroduced into this parliament? Where would we be in relation to the waterfront dispute that we had last year? We would be right back to the bad old days. That one single change, introduced by Peter Reith, had the greatest effect down on the wharves to bring about change. We would be still living under the extortions, the strikes, the expenses and the rorts that were going on down on the waterfront. Now we have a revolution; we have world's best practice occurring down on the Melbourne waterfront. The union told us that they could not meet the container lifts rate. They were the worst in the world at 18 an hour; we were only asking for 25 an hour in our reforms. They are now reaching, at times, 32-plus down on the Melbourne waterfront. And that is because, more than anything, we had the legislation prior to the disruption to win that dispute, and we had to win it.AW5CARRSenator Carr—But you lost it!WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—No. Senator Carr, we know you were seen down there linking up with your old union mates, defending all the lies of the MUA, all the protection rackets of the MUA. The results of Peter Reith's reform are now being seen down on the Melbourne waterfront. Senator Harradine made a point about the umpire system being enshrined in Australian culture and in industrial relations.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—He's right.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—He may well be right about that. But, Senator Harradine and those on the other side of the House, what is also enshrined in Australian culture and industrial relations is freedom of association. That, more than anything, is what is enshrined in Australian culture and workplaces—the right to belong to a union or not. And that is a right you and your union masters wanted to take away from the workers. That was a right that Peter Reith reintroduced into our industrial relations system, and that is in fact very much working out there in the workplace. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees22442244224410000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate seeking variations to the membership of a committee.Motion (by Senator Ellison)—by leave—agreed to:That the following senators be appointed substitute members of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee for its 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:Senator Watson to replace Senator Synon for 4 March 1999Senator McGauran to replace Senator Synon for 22 February 1999.2244224415:37:002244Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I present the report of the Select Committee on a New Tax System on the economic theories, assumptions, calculations, projections, estimates and modelling which underpin the government's proposals for tax reform, contained in Tax reform: not a new tax, a new tax system , together with the Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.On 25 November 1998, the Senate referred issues relating to the GST and the proposed new tax system to this select committee and to three references committees of the Senate. The select committee was instructed to undertake its inquiries in two stages.In this initial stage, the inquiry has focused on a preliminary analysis of the economic modelling and projections underpinning the Howard government's tax package—known by the acronym, ANTS. The second stage of the inquiry will examine the broader economic effects of the government's taxation reform package, with regard to the fairness of the tax system, the living standards of Australian households—especially those on low incomes—the efficiency of the economy and future public revenues. The second stage of the inquiry will draw on the findings of the three related inquiries conducted by the references committees. The references committee inquiries are due to be completed by 31 March this year and the final select committee report is expected to be presented by 19 April this year.The terms of reference of the committee's inquiry were advertised in the national press in December last year and submissions called by the end of January this year. The committee is continuing to accept submissions and, to date, has received over 1,300 submissions. To date, the select committee has conducted nine public hearings in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne. The intention is to conduct a further 12 hearings over the next month. In addition, a substantial number of public hearings are being conducted by the three references committees, as part of the separate inquiries.The select committee reporting today heard 36 witnesses, some of them more than once, and sat for 61½ hours, including for five hours on Monday. The timetable, Madam Deputy President, is, indeed, very tight and getting our report out on time imposed, I believe, incredible strains and left insufficient time to seek a consensus among the committee. In the report, there may be some editorial mistakes which reflect this fact.Having said that, I will turn to the findings of myself and my Labor colleagues. This committee has served for Australia a quite important purpose. Up until now, funded by a $20 million taxpayer-supported publicity campaign, Australians have heard the government's view about a GST. We have been force-fed on glossy documents, televi sion and newspaper advertising, the cheer squad that supports the government, and ministerial statements telling us all that the GST is good for us. Those statements have been wrapped around pseudo-truths with some political and economic assertions in them.What this inquiry has done is expose many of those statements by the government as having no particular basis in fact or no particular basis in modelling or research. This report, for the first time, enables independent voices in Australia to model and test the assumptions that the government has put into the public domain and make findings which are now public, through this report. This report has enabled industry groups, community organisations and unions to express their views in an inquiry setting about the tax and about the impacts of the tax on their organisations and on Australians generally. The propositions that the government has put in public debate and which featured in its advertising during the last election have at last come under independent scrutiny and test.The conclusion is that, if you looked at what the government has said, most Australians have not been told the truth. As I said earlier, there is no basis for much of what the government has said in modelling; no basis for much of what the government has said in research; and no basis for much of what the government has said in advice to the government from Treasury. The worst feature of all that is that Australian taxpayers' money has been used to broadcast that situation—despite the lack of evidentiary proof of the assertions the government was making.Let me turn to the major findings made by Labor senators from the evidence in this inquiry. The primary claim that the government based its assertions on was that the tax system is broken and in need of repair. The significant test as to whether that is true or not is the ability of the tax system to generate revenues to meet the needs of the Commonwealth. The truth is that the Commonwealth budget is in surplus. The aggregate of all state budgets is in surplus. The tax system, thereby, is doing its job at this point. As well, the modelling that was produced by the Monash Centre established that the current system, in fact, will produce more revenue for future needs than the system proposed in the GST package called ANTS by the government. That is a significant finding. It is significant because some in the welfare sector have assumed support for a GST based on the belief that the government was right when it said that the current tax system will not produce that outcome. Independent modelling shows that view—the foundation for the whole reason for reform—not to be true.The second important finding concerns the inflation rate. We were told that the inflation rate that would be produced by the ANTS package—the GST package—is 1.9 per cent. In fact, the real truth is that it will be more like four to five per cent when the GST is introduced. Let me take you through why that is the case. The Treasury figure of 1.9 per cent is the second year effect. That is what we were told. The first year effect, produced by Treasury, is 2.4 per cent. When you take housing and cigarettes and tobacco into consideration, it is 3.1 per cent. Based on the fact that, in New Zealand, only 70 per cent of the savings under their GST flowed through to consumers as benefits, the real impact in Australia would be between four and five per cent—not 1.9 per cent, but four and five per cent.We were also told by the government that their package would increase economic growth. Those assertions were made by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. Treasury admits that this is an assumption. No Treasury modelling was done to establish that this is true. It was an assumption based on Econtech modelling—it was not done of the ANTS package but was done of an assumption that Econtech had made. Based on that, Treasury appropriated an assumption in this case. No advice has been given by Treasury to the government on quantitative assessments on economic growth. The government got no numbers advice on employment, unemployment and economic growth figures. That, too, is a finding that comes through in the evidence.The other assertion is that the GST will produce jobs. I have to say, on the evidence, that there is not a job in it. Any jobs that are created by this package are not created by a GST. The expert economists who gave evidence were unanimous on the fact that jobs, if they occur, will be created by the fiscal stimulus provided by raiding the surplus. That is old-fashioned Keynesian stimulus of an economy, by making a fiscal injection. But the evidence also found that there will be job losses. If wages track the increases in the consumer price index, 100,000 jobs will be lost in the early years of the GST. If there is a delay in passing on savings—that is, savings by cuts to indirect taxes such as wholesale sales tax—15,000 jobs will be lost. Where will they be lost? They will be lost in states like Queensland and Tasmania. In what industries will they be lost? They will be lost in industries like tourism and education exports—industries that are growth industries in this nation, providing the area in which job expectations rise. It will be in those areas that jobs will be lost.The accountants association gave evidence that the assertion that a GST is a simple tax is doubtful—that in fact the GST is a complex tax. They could not tell us how complex because they were not able to complete their own survey of the complexities in time to give that evidence to the inquiry. Will the GST promote exports? This is the advice given to Australia by the Minister for Trade. On Treasury's own evidence the exchange rate will rise. That will in fact limit the ability of this nation to export and, again, the industries of tourism and education exports—two of the fastest areas of growth in the economy—will be hardest hit.We were not able to take a lot of evidence on the black economy, but what is also true is that in other countries where a GST applies the black economy is often rampant and bigger, in some cases, than is the case in Australia. (Time expired)15:47:002246Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—I commence my remarks by thanking the secretariat, under Rob Diamond's secretary-ship, for the enormous work that they have put into this report and to the inquiry to date. Under short time frames they have managed to organise hearings and produce a report, and they have been working exceptionally long hours. I would like to acknowledge the tremendous effort that has been made by the secretariat in working to that time frame.I have just heard Senator Cook talk about the Labor Party's report. It is no wonder he talks about the Labor Party's report, because one of the reasons there was such a rush to produce this report was, by Senator Cook's own admission, that preparing the Labor Party report was his highest priority. The body of the report, which we all had to read, came second. That is why there was such a rush yesterday. I only want to make three major points in relation to this inquiry.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—It's not fair.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Senator Murray says, `It's not fair.' In a meeting I had with Senator Cook early yesterday morning, he said he had been working on the Labor Party report because that was his priority. That is exactly what he said to me.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—That was a private conversation.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Sherry, you do not interject from outside the chamber.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—It was not a private conversation, Senator Sherry. We had a meeting.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—You have got a bad habit of repeating private conversations.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Sherry, do not interject outside.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Keep your blood pressure down!10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Firstly, the Labor Party came to this inquiry with a predetermined position. So what they have to say about the tax reform system is irrelevant. It does not matter what this inquiry hears from witnesses because the Labor Party's position was determined prior to their listening to the very first witness we heard. Their position on the matters that we have been hearing evidence on is quite irrelevant. Although I have only had half an hour to see the Labor Party findings—and I have just been looking briefly through them—in the executive summary of the findings there is no basis for the assumptions that they draw in relation to government assertions and committee evidence.Secondly, I have looked at the conclusions in the Democrat report and I have seen the evidence that the Democrats have supplied in that report in relation to those conclusions. The Democrats agree with the majority of the government's conclusions that are drawn from the ANTS package. The Democrats in their conclusions found that there was agreement by analysts on the revenue forecasts underpinning the government's tax reform. The Democrats accept that tax reform is necessary and required to repair the revenue base—that is, they accept the government's view that the current tax system is broken. We acknowledge that in our report.They accept that the government's tax package will provide a more sustainable and secure revenue base for the states and territories—from a quick appraisal of their report, this is something not even mentioned by the Labor Party. Nowhere do they mention anything about the more sustainable and secure revenue base for the states and territories. Above all else, the Democrats in Senator Murray's report accept that the macro-economic effects of the tax package are positive. They accept that, from the evidence we have heard from all of the supposed experts who have come before our inquiry, the macro-economic effects of the tax package are positive. So in all of those areas we agree with the Democrats.Senator Murray, as the Democrat senator on this inquiry, has come to the inquiry and the public hearings to listen to try to expand his knowledge so that some determination can be made. He did not come with the predetermined position that the Labor Party had that they will oppose the tax package in its entirety. The Democrats have come to the conclusion that they want to look at the evidence and draw their conclusions from that.Unfortunately, from the government's point of view, the Democrats were not convinced by the bulk of witnesses who argued that food should remain in the tax base. In all of the modelling that was done by those eminent modellers—Professor Dixon, Professor Neil Warren, Professor Ann Harding, David Johnson from the University of Melbourne, Chris Murphy and anybody who came before our committee—every one of them said that food should remain in the package. Not one said that it should be exempt. The reason they said that and the key reason for the government's position in wanting to maintain food in the GST system is that, if you want to provide equity for low and middle income earners and welfare recipients, the most effective way of delivering equity is through the existing social security system where the compensation can be targeted to those people who really need it. That is where we differ from the Democrats.While the evidence was overwhelming from all of the modellers that food should remain in the tax package, the position the Democrats have taken on food in their report is that they have chosen to exempt it because they say that is more equitable. Those experts who came before us said, `No, that is not the case. If you want to deliver effective compensation to low income earners, to low wage earners and to welfare recipients, do it through the system that has been designed to do it—that is, through the social security system.' We totally support that point of view, although unfortunately it is not a view that the Democrats have accepted.In relation to all of those other matters that I spoke about, the Democrats agree with the government's position that the tax system is broken, not the report that Senator Cook has made. This is one of the remedies that we are going to use to make sure that we fix the tax system for good. It is also evident that, because of the Labor Party's pre-determined position in relation to outright opposition to this tax package—and I have had a brief look at their report—they choose only those assumptions and the results of modelling using the most unrealistic assumptions, particularly in relation to jobs and wage demands. International experience has shown and evidence was given to us that, when a value added tax or a goods and services tax has been introduced in other countries, it has not been followed by wage demands.The income tax cuts that are delivered in this package more than compensate for any increase in the CPI. So wage and salary earners will have more take-home pay than they currently have. How can you possibly factor in wage demands when wage and salary earners are going to have a bigger take-home pay under this package than they currently have today? It is unrealistic for the Labor Party to suggest that wage demands will follow, regardless of what the ACTU and one of the other unions which gave evidence to us said. International evidence does not support it and neither does the evidence that was brought before the committee.One of the reasons that has been used by the Democrats in particular in trying to justify the exemption of food rather than using the social security system to compensate low income earners is that at some stage in the future governments can take that away. They cite New Zealand as an example. The Labor Party in some of their questioning also cited New Zealand where the compensation package was reduced some time after the introduction of the GST.Let me say that most people tend to forget that, if they use New Zealand as a case, New Zealand has a unicameral system of parliament. The government of the day can do what they like without any review by an upper house. If the day ever comes when a move is made to reduce compensation levels—I can only presume that the Democrats and the Labor Party will still be sitting in the Senate and I cannot presume that any of us will ever have a majority in the foreseeable future—can you imagine any scenario under which this Senate would allow compensation to be reduced from the current compensation that is being offered by the government in this package?In our supplementary report we have tried our best to provide you with evidence that was not in the main body of the report which supports our conclusions. We have also used a wide variety of quotes from people who appeared before us in the inquiry. (Time expired)15:57:002248Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I wish to commence by thanking the President of the Senate for the additional finance and assistance she gave to the committee for the very complex modelling task we had before us. I do wish to concur with the earlier speakers in thanking the secretariat for operating under considerable pressure and for the printers in producing this on time. In doing so I must colour my thanks slightly by indicating that the page numbers of our report have been put out of sequence. Anyone reading this report had better follow the page numbers, not the pages. I would be grateful if further copies could be corrected accordingly. It will merely make the people think that the Democrats are more confused than some think otherwise.The other person that I particularly want to thank is my adviser. As you know, the Democrats have limited resources and particular note needs to be made of John Cherry. I want to turn to the chair of the committee. The conduct of the chair was very good in sometimes trying circumstances and he has been of great assistance to the proper conduct of the inquiry to date. I thank him accordingly. I thank the deputy chair for his input. I thank Senators Conroy and Ferguson for their occasional repartee which has enlightened and enlivened the committee.I drew attention in an interjection to the fairness of Senator Ferguson's remarks about the chair paying more attention to the Labor Party report than to the report of the committee. I thought that was appropriate since the chair had already just about completed the secretariat's analysis and review. It was quite proper that he should then turn his attention elsewhere, but I am sure he will defend himself in due course.I also want to thank the modellers—numbering around nine—whose professional input has been extremely helpful to the committee. Regardless of their particular political persuasions and inputs, they seem to me a class of people whose professionalism does credit to both their industry and themselves.I draw attention to some of the conclusions delivered in my colleague Senator Ferguson's address. We have had conversations with Professor Harding, as you would expect, and our understanding of her views on food is that the jury is still out for her and that the issues of adequacy and permanency are very much at hand.Turning to the report itself, it was necessary, because of the failure of the government to release any substantive modelling of their tax plan before the election, to have this committee do modelling. I think it has been a very unusual experience for the Senate to have to commission quite such extensive work. The findings have been more than interesting to all of us. As Senator Ferguson outlined, the coalition and Democrats have both concluded, based on the evidence put before us, that the tax reform plan is likely to have a small but positive impact on the economy—somewhere up to about a 0.2 per cent increase in consumer welfare, fairly cautiously defined. So tax reform on the economic margin appears to be worth doing.The coalition and Democrat senators have concluded that the indirect tax base is declining and is in trouble and the matter is serious—a point backed up, I note, by Access Economics today. If we fail to fix that indirect tax base, by the year 2002 we will need a nearly $3 billion increase in sales tax rates to restore them to the 1995-96 level. On the basis of the evidence, the coalition and Democrat senators concluded that the fiscal stimulus from the package will boost employment in the short term by around 30,000 jobs. But we should note that the long-term result on the employment side seems to be negligible.As I read their report, interestingly, the coalition—and I noticed that Senator Ferguson did not draw much attention to it—have now finally conceded in their conclusions the Democrat assertion that exempting food will not reduce the economic boost from tax reform. That is a fundamental finding for us because now all the attention is on equity and simplicity with regard to the food issue. So that is the common ground—the things that the coalition and the Democrats have agreed on—but I think the Labor Party has similar views on many of those areas.The Democrats have reached a number of other conclusions based on the evidence. First, the government's stated impacts of a GST on households deliberately underestimates the impact on low income households and overestimates the impact on high income households. That conclusion was backed up by six university professors and the Australian Bureau of Statistics in evidence to the committee. All recommended that the government should have used the data from the Households Expenditure Survey to calculate the impact on different household cameos with different levels of spending and saving. The committee has unanimously agreed that the tax plan needs to be remodelled at the distributional end of things using the HES data, and that report is due on 1 April.The other key evidence—key from our point of view—has been on the exemption of food on economic efficiency grounds. Both modelling reports to the committee from Peter Dixon and Chris Murphy concluded that a GST without food would deliver the same economic benefits as a GST with food, but on equity grounds all witnesses conceded that taxing food is regressive. Why? Because low income earners spend twice as much as high income earners on food as a percentage of income, so taxing food will hurt them more.Even witnesses who support a tax on food—such as Neil Warren and Geoff Carmody—acknowledged not only that the government's compensation was inadequate but also that the government's compensation is fragile. We have seen today, with Minister Reith's expose of his plans for the future, the exposure of what may be seen to be a secret agenda by the coalition for the next term, which is welfare reform, as they conceive it, and glowing praise for the way in which New Zealand has gone.We all know—and Senator Ferguson drew attention to it—that they introduced a GST in New Zealand in 1987. They introduced compensation and withdrew it three or four years later in 1991—a withdrawal which, I must say, was much promoted by the Business Round Table there. If this government is working to the same game plan, we have a real problem on our hands, and the problem relates to trust. The surveys of the Australian people indicate that they do not trust governments. It does not matter which government; they do not trust governments. It is very difficult to gainsay that because survey after survey says that. I do not trust this government or any other government to keep their compensation in place if they develop other priorities.On those grounds, the marginal economic benefits of the tax plan are more than offset by the unfairness it will generate, and it will then fail the equity test, in our view, if food is kept in. As we have said consistently all along, the package gets a tick on economic efficiency—well, we have not said that all along, but we have worked it out from the evidence—but it gets a cross on equity and fairness; and that is a big cross. The evidence before the committee has confirmed our view on these issues.Finally, the committee heard strong evidence about the impact of the GST on housing and inbound tourism. In my report, I have a few comments to make about the need for action in this area. I will draw your attention, if I may, to some of the conclusions we came to. We listed them as 1 to 10. We also provided a summary of the findings of the two key final modellers that the committee used—Peter Dixon's and Chris Murphy's various measures of how the GST looks with food in and food out.The modelling before the committee concluded that the long-term macro-economic effects of the tax package are likely to be positive, albeit small, with increases in capital investment and traditional exports, a small but positive rise in economic welfare, a negligible effect on employment and negative effects on industries such as tourism, housing and personal services.The job of Labor will be to persuade the Australian people that alternative plans would produce as good, or better, results on the tax revenue front, on tax reform, on GDP and on the equity areas which the government is addressing. Our job, we believe, is to accept that the government's intent is right but its package is wrong in substantial detail. Unless we can persuade you to change your mind on that, we will find it very difficult to take a position in support of your package—and food, of course, is a fundamental issue within that. So I look forward very much to working with my colleagues further in this matter, and I compliment both the chair and the deputy chair on what they have done to date. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees22502250225016:08:002250Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—I present the government's response to report No. 355 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts entitled Aboriginal councils and Torres Strait Island councils: Review of financial accountability requirements , and I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—Response to the Report by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts (JCPA)REPORT 355ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND TORRES STRAIT ISLAND COUNCILS: REVIEW OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTSJune 1998FOREWORDThe Joint Committee of Public Accounts (JCPA) " Report 355: Aboriginal Councils and Torres Strait Island Councils: Review of financial accountability requirements" was tabled in Parliament on 27 November 1997.In its report JCPA made 19 Recommendations of which Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, and 16 had policy implications. As ATSIC is the agency with prime carriage of these issues the response has been prepared by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs after convening an Interdepartmental Committee with representatives from:Department of Finance and AdministrationDepartment of Health and Family ServicesDepartment of Transport and Regional Development—National Office of Local GovernmentAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—Queensland State Manager. The Torres Strait Regional Authority sent a position paper. Apologies were received from Prime Minister and Cabinet.The Australian National Audit Office participated in the discussions although not as a Commonwealth Government Representative.The representatives concurred with the response.The report is hereby tabled.Recommendation 2The establishment of a Grant Providers Forum at Ministerial level comprising representatives of the Commonwealth and Queensland Government agencies funding the councils, together with representatives of the Aboriginal Coordinating Council and the Island Coordinating CouncilRecommendation: Not supportedCommonwealth representatives of the IDC do not support the recommendation to establish a separate Grant Providers Forum at Ministerial level. There are a number of forums already in existence where these matters can be dealt with, for instance the Ministerial Council on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (MCATSIA) and Health Minister's Forums.However, merit is seen in establishing some Regional Grant Providers Forums to ensure the program responsibilities are implemented appropriately (see comments under Recommendation 4).Discussions held between ATSIC and the Queensland State government indicate that there was no interest in a separateMinisterial forum.Recommendation 3The Grant Providers Forum should:(a) develop standardised grant procedures and acquittal processes, which satisfy the requirements of the major stakeholders.Recommendation: Agreed in principleCommonwealth representatives of the IDC agree in principle with the report's findings in relation to the need for standardisation of procedures across agencies provided that various legislative requirements can be met. However, it was felt that advances may be achieved only in the longer term.ATSIC has recently undertaken a major review of its grant procedures and modified them in line with the Australian National Audit Office—Administration of Grants Better Practice Guide and has put forward the view that the new 1998/99 Grant Procedures be adopted as the model procedures.(b) establish an information source for Aboriginal Councils and Island Councils and other interested parties, which detail the grants that are available and information about contact points within agencies. There should be Internet access to this information.Recommendation: Not supportedCommonwealth representatives of the IDC do not support this part of the recommendation, which appears to be aimed at establishing a service point where clients can obtain information about grants from all agencies. In theory this sounds like a good idea however important issues to consider include possible reliability problems if the information is not constantly updated and the costs to provide the service.(c) require agencies to report back to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and the Queensland Public Accounts Committee on a biannual basis regarding implementation.Recommendation: SupportedCommonwealth representatives of the IDC support reporting biannually on the implementation of (a) only.It is also noted that the report only covers about 25% of indigenous people in Queensland—those in DOGITS.Recommendation 4At the regional level, Regional Grant Providers Forums should be created comprising representatives of all stakeholders. The role of these regional forums should mirror the role of the Grant Providers Forum, but address issues at the regional level.Recommendation: Supported(See also comments for Recommendation 2).Commonwealth representatives of the IDC do support the development of Regional Grant Providers Forums or their formalisation where they already exist, with the Queensland State Government sponsoring the establishment or formalisation of the regional forums.ATSIC Queensland State Office has advised that a joint forum of ATSIC Project Officers and Community Service Officers was held in May 1997 and that a further joint forum is currently being arranged for approximately the same time this year.More frequent Regional based forums will supplement this forum. A joint forum has already been initiated in Cairns with Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) as the main focus, given that the largest amount of funds provided to Councils comes through this program.ATSIC Queensland State Office has also advised they intend to enter a formal arrangement by way of a joint letter signed off by the State Manager ATSIC and the Director of Office of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Affairs (OATSIA) to make the State forum a biannual event. Recommendation 12The Grant Providers Forum should form a Training Working Group comprising representatives of all stakeholders. The tasks of the Training Working Group should include:(a) the assessment of the training needs of Aboriginal Councils and Island Councils;(b) the coordination of training provision to Aboriginal councils and Island Councils;(c) seeking advice from the Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Development about the Remote Area Management Project with a view to assessing the usefulness of this initiative in providing a model for computer-based training to Aboriginal councils and Island Councils.In performing its task the Training Working Group should take into account the training provided by Community Service Officers, internal auditors and others.Recommendation: Not supportedWhilst the Commonwealth representatives of the IDC do not support the establishment of the Grant Provider Forum at Ministerial level, they do see great merit in establishing a structured training program for the boards and management of Aboriginal Councils and Torres Strait Island Councils.There was concern also that training itself will not resolve issues associated with management instability within the Councils. There are many instances where problems have occurred in the grant administration area not as the result of lack of commitment but simply through a lack of basic administrative skills and knowledge of roles and responsibilities.A number of Commonwealth agencies already have programs in place to provide support and training and it was considered that the co-ordination of assistance from agencies could best be handled at the regional level.ATSIC will examine the possibility of whether Training Working Groups (TWG) be established as part of the proposed Regional Grant Providers Forums to formulate and coordinate training for the Councils at local level.Recommendation 14Grant controllers should liaise with the Training Working Group to assist with identifying the training needs of Aboriginal Councils or Island Councils.Recommendation: Support in principleCommonwealth representatives at the IDC discussed the differing roles played by grant controllers and no common outcome was reached. ATSIC agrees that where a grant controller is appointed they should liaise with the Training Working Group to assist with identifying the training needs of Aboriginal Councils and Island Councils. The appointment of grant controllers is seen by both the Commission and the Queensland Government as an interim measure to enable community services to be maintained while further remedial action is implemented to restructure or strengthen community management.Recommendation 15When agencies that provide funds to Aboriginal Councils or Island Councils undertake risk assessments of indigenous organisations they should take account of the results of risk assessments by other agencies and provide the results of their own risk assessment to other agencies via the Grant Providers Forum.Recommendation: Supported in principleCommonwealth representatives of the IDC indicated general support for this recommendation. It was also agreed that better results would be achieved if the exchange of information was made via the proposed Regional Grant Providers Forums rather than the overarching forum. The IDC agreed that prior to implementing the recommendation the relative legal and legislative requirements would need to be considered and clear advice provided to all agencies about the type of information that could be exchanged.Recommendation 16The Grant Providers Forum address the issue of financial compliance, and maladministration of Council affairs, with a view to applying an interim step between full Council control of its affairs and the appointment of an administrator.Recommendation: Supported in PrincipleCommonwealth representatives of the IDC supported ATSIC's belief that this recommendation was aimed at encouraging the Queensland Government to work through ATSIC appointed grant controllers rather than appointing administrators in the first instance.Aboriginal Councils and Torres Strait Islander Councils are incorporated under Queensland legislation, therefore Commonwealth does not have power to appoint administrators. The IDC also understand that the Queensland Government does not currently have any powers to appoint grant controllers.When funded organisations fail to comply with Commonwealth agency grant conditions there are a number of options available:1. Agree on and implement a strategy to rectify breaches and prevent recurrence, this would also usually involve some tightening in report ing requirements (eg. Quarterly financial reports to monthly financial reports);2. Appoint a Grant Controller; or3. Implement defunding processes—this action is usually implemented when it becomes apparent that a funded body is incapable or unwilling to meet compliance standards.Whilst the IDC did not support the recommendation to establish a Grant Providers Forum at Ministerial level there was agreement that the Regional Grant Providers Forum could liaise with the Queensland agencies to ascertain whether the use of Commonwealth grant controllers to assist with the administration of state funding is an alternative avenue.Documents22532253225310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 31 of 1998-99—Performance audit—The management of performance information for specific purpose payments—The state of play .Miscellaneous225316:09:002253Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—On behalf of Senator Carr, I move: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.The motion addresses four issues: firstly, the future structure of ABC Online; secondly, the apparent government intent to part-privatise ABC Online services; thirdly, the activities of a range of government and Liberal Party personnel actively orchestrating the move for privatisation; and finally, four, a call upon the government to reject any move to privatise ABC Online services. My contribution to this debate will touch upon the following five issues: firstly, the history and role of ABC Online; secondly, the future of media delivery in Australia; thirdly, why ABC Online is critical to the future of the ABC itself; fourthly, the position of government and the minister, as discussed in various public forums; and, finally, the position of the ABC expressed through its board and managing director, Mr Johns.Turning firstly to the history and role of ABC Online, like everything, ABC Online had a relatively modest beginning. It commenced planning at the beginning of 1995, and operational work was delegated by the board in mid-1995. That decision resulted in the multimedia unit being instructed to build the ABC web site. Two staff were given that job and, on 14 August 1995, the ABC web site was launched.Mr Johns has recently advised that the original grant to establish the ABC web site was in the order of only $750,000. Within 12 months the site had become one of the most popular in Australia. It had 2,500 pages of content, and 140,000 pages accesses per week. Some three years later, a successful service results: 24 full-time staff; extensive internal ABC ancillary support; and exceptional consumer demand, with 2,000 weekly page accesses as at August 1998.ABC Online is not only successful in terms of growth in satisfying consumer demand but is also a critical success. ABC Online is one of the most visited web sites in Australia. ABC Online is consistently rated as one of the top five web sites in Australia. It has won, as we are all aware, numerous awards. In both 1996 and 1997 it was given the award for the best media web site in Australia. In 1997 it received four Australian teacher of media awards. In both 1997 and 1998 again it received specific awards for the production of CD-ROMs in a whole range of diverse areas—to mention a few: ingenious animated scientific adventure; Bananas in Pyjamas, winner of seven awards; and the Lab, the ABC science gateway. In January 1998, the Lab ABC science outline was listed as one of the top 40 web sites in the world by Australian Personal Computer magazine.In summary, therefore, it is fair to conclude that ABC Online is a growing and productive area of the ABC. There is considerable consumer demand for its services. It has great critical recognition for delivery of those services around Australia. Also it is a critically important link in generating revenue for the ABC shops through the sale of products and services, and it has enormous capacity to increase that revenue in future years.The future of media delivery in Australia is relatively easy to forecast. The Internet has developed, and is developing, as the third form of media delivery right around the world. First there was radio, second there was TV and now we have come into the age of the Internet. In five years time, the use of the Internet will be as simple as turning on a TV. So to restrict development of ABC Online, to sell it off, to sell it off in part or to privatise ABC Online is to say the ABC has no viable future.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—What?O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Nonsense.2L6Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP—Why don't you listen to the debate and you will find out why.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—We are. We cannot believe such nonsense.2L6Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP—It is akin to pulling out the brain from a human body. We all know that you can keep a body alive through the provision of advanced medical services. People survive in comas and on machines for many years. They do not function as rational normal human beings in the way we have come to understand. Getting rid of the ABC Online service is akin to turning off that survival machine.TV, radio, Internet, computers and telephones are all in the process of convergence. The delivery system is in the process of being perfected. Look at the alliances developing all around the world—Microsoft, IBM, broadcasters, Telstra and big overseas telcos. The hardware, the software, the delivery methods and data reception are all in a process of convergence. The ABC Online Internet service is the first service with a true ability to provide text, data, sound, image and interactivity. From 2001 that capability will be available via TV. With the introduction of digital broadcasting, these traditional media services will all meld into one form. It is called convergence, and within two or three years it will be a fact of life in this country. The ABC board, if nothing else, was diligent in its planning for this new media world. The future of ABC Online is a future of convergence, traditional media services coming into one medium.So the future of media delivery in Australia is fairly clear, but begs this question: why is the ABC Online service critical to the future of the ABC? That question was asked in the Senate estimates last week. ABC's Managing Director, Mr Brian Johns, addressed it in some detail. He described the ABC Online service as being at the heart and core of ABC activities. A press release of Thursday, 11 February states:"ABC Online is at the heart of the ABC. It is a core asset. It is indivisible from radio and television, drawing resources and content from ABC program makers across all networks and around the country," Mr Johns said. ABC Online depends on input from the ABC's 800 journalists, the producers, presenters and program makers of each of the five radio networks, the television network and staff in 57 broadcast centres across the nation."The ABC has had to work smart to get where we are today. As a result we have one of the most popular and highly regarded Internet services in Australia. Despite lean funding we have been able to create a public asset of great value, by applying the information gathering resources of the national public broadcaster to the new communication medium."ABC Online is not a commercial service. Its roots are in the ABC Charter which requires us to serve a diverse range of different audience interests without reference to the ability to attract commercial revenue. It is a publicly funded national resource."Of course decisions about the future of ABC Online and any other policy matters affecting the development of digital broadcasting are continuing matters for the Board."The ABC has never shirked from the task of searching for external sources of funding revenue, provided these meet the requirements of the Charter."The success of ABC Enterprises, for instance, is the envy of many public broadcasters. Over the past five years it has increased its contribution to the ABC program budget six fold."ABC Online is the gateway to the future of digital communication for Australian audiences and ABC staff.. . . . . . . . ."The ABC's Online venture is our first foray into this new media world. We have been diligent and successful in developing our online expertise. ABC Online is the entry point for the organisation into a new media environment, and the entry point for millions of Australians to content on the Internet . . . The managing director put it succinctly in estimates at page 143 early last week, when he said about ABC Online services:It is not a limb to be cut off. It is not a limb to be amputated. It is right at the heart of the ABC.I turn now to the position of the minister and the government. The subject was canvassed extensively at recent estimates hearings, as I said. There is no sense in reading out slabs or large extracts from Hansard . The government's position, as I understand it, is reasonably clear. It has four points: firstly, the government—or Minister Alston, as its representative—sees privatisation in whole or in part as whether you allow commercial involvement without compromising charter obligations and standards set for the ABC generally; secondly, the ABC should seriously consider all options that might benefit from synergies that derive from commercial operators; thirdly, convergence leads to commercial opportunity and new marketing opportunities—the ABC suffers from lack of expertise in this area; and, fourthly, future revenue streams or significant additional funding arrangements are linked inextricably with new commercial opportunities.Minister Alston refuses to comment on the views of Mr Johns or the board. It appears to be fairly Alice in Wonderland stuff. For example, if we sell 33 per cent or 49 per cent of Telstra, we call it part privatisation. If we sell the ABC or 49 per cent of ABC Online for $250 million to retire debt, as is suggested, the minister says it is not privatisation, not a substantial sale of an asset, but the selling off of a portion or entering into a joint venture.On the contrary, in respect of ABC Online services, Mr Johns said it is an integral part of the ABC's future. It goes to the core of the ABC. It is a core asset, he said. It is central to its very digital future. Minister Alston said of ABC Online services that it is simply another ABC delivery platform, that it is not integral to the ABC, that the charter obligations are integral to the ABC and that the fulfilment of charter obligations can be done through commercial means. So the minister is being quite straightforward here. The ABC, whether by design, planning or accident, for relatively low cost has created something of real value, something of real commercial appeal and something attracting and retaining significant markets. Mr Kroger understood that as a merchant banker.The value derives from a number of aspects of ABC Online services—firstly, additional revenue from online services, presumably the huge cashflows that are generated, and, secondly, access to other ABC markets because of digital conversion and delivery system convergence. For example, ABC radio has 25 per cent to 40 per cent of the market in every state and territory of Australia. It has strong brand names in Triple J, Radio Classic FM, various regional stations and news radio. The TV has a strong brand name in terms of the national network. The third area of value is the physical assets of the ABC, which are declining. Buildings are losing value and the technology is making a lot of equipment very cheap to replace. As a consequence, operational costs will become lower over time for a range of reasons.So commercial access, commercial control and commercial ownership in whole or in part will be like owning a printing press at the Treasury. Mr Kroger knows that. Minister Alston knows that. Mr Johns, the Managing Director of the ABC, knows that. Hence this whole sorry episode. Of course, members of the public also know that. If we look at the letters to the editor section of, I think, today's Australian, we will see a whole heap of letters under the heading, `Hands off! It's our ABC, Mr Kroger'. Mr Walter Bass, Founding President of the Friends of the ABC, Turramurra, New South Wales, says:If Michael Kroger's extraordinary letter . . . reflects the views of the Government he represents in a de facto capacity, the ABC is indeed, as he says, condemned to a bleak future.From its inception, it was intended that the national broadcaster should provide independent, government-funded radio—and later television—providing world-class entertainment and information. Mr Kroger ignores the fact that it was never the intention nor, as many polls have demonstrated over the years, is it the wish of the public, that the ABC "should seriously compete with the commercials," as Mr Kroger implies.Seen in that light all Mr Kroger's talk of cyberspace, digitalisation and "financial resource bases" becomes irrelevant. It is clearly the duty of the Government to adequately finance the ABC and to preserve its independence. Perhaps when Mr Kroger has digested this fact, he might pass it on to his colleagues in Canberra.Similarly, a Mr Peter Symons from Brunswick East in Victoria said:Mr Kroger doesn't seem to understand the inherent danger to the ABC's editorial independence if any part of it is privatised. To have a member of the ABC board ignorant of these basic tenets of our public broadcaster is deeply worrying.There is a whole range of other letters that follow the same theme. In a nutshell, the government and the minister know and say the following: digital conversion and media convergence create huge value in ABC Online services. That value comes in the form of huge surplus cash flows generated from advertising revenue and from gatekeeper to other ABC services and markets. This is a commercial opportunity and should be exploited by partial sale. The stalking horse here is a merchant banker from Victoria, presumably acting on behalf of his own interests or a range of commercial interests.The position of the ALP, the position of the opposition, is very simple in this matter. We will not be in it. We will not participate in the flogging off of any part of ABC Online. Whether it be 10 per cent, 25 per cent, 35 per cent or the lot, we will retain it in public hands. The value will remain in the hands of the government on behalf of taxpayers. An additional value through commercial services is a matter properly for resolution by the board, not merchant bankers in Victoria.On a final note, we are satisfied that the ABC charter properly allows ABC Online services to remain in public hands and not be partly privatised or fully privatised in due course. In particular, we refer the Senate to section 6(1)(a)(i) and section 6(2)(a)(iii). Section 6(1)(a) says the functions of the corporation are:. . . to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard as part of the Australian broadcasting system consisting of national, commercial and community sectors and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to provide—(i) broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community . . . The key phrases in that ABC charter are `innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services' and `the responsibility of the corporation as the provider of an independent national broadcasting service'. There is a certain logical position that derives from the inclusion of those provisions in the charter.If the ABC Online service is a gateway after digital conversion and media convergence, it is absolutely necessary that it remain in public hands. If ABC Online services are integral and critical to the entire future of the ABC, it should remain in public hands. It strikes me that, when one looks at those particular phrases in the ABC charter, it is absolutely counter to the intent of the charter, as decided by parliament, for the ABC Online services when it becomes a gatekeeper—(Time expired)16:29:002257Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—We are considering Senator Carr's general business notice of motion on the ABC's Online Internet service and I sat and listened with interest to some of the comments of Senator Bishop. I recall, with some amusement actually, Senator Carr's involvement in this whole area some five years ago when we had an inquiry into the ABC, and I will be referring to that in a few minutes. What we have here again is an attempt by the opposition to portray this government as anti-ABC. Nothing could be further from the truth.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—You have cut the ABC's funding.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I will get to that point in a minute, Senator Bishop, if you just give me a second. I have observed public broadcasting in countries like the United States, and Australia is way ahead. We have a terrific public broadcasting system. Along with the United Kingdom with the BBC, we have a world-class service of a very high quality.It always seems to disturb members on the other side when we want to try to bring some sort of efficiency measures or the natural laws of economics into some of these operations. I remind the Senate that we contribute almost half a billion dollars of taxpayer funds into the ABC, and the ABC has developed, in response to that, a very comprehensive range of television and radio programs and now Internet services, which is the subject of this motion. So I think we have a lot to be proud of. Senator Bishop seems to be disturbed by the fact that, in our budget savings program in 1996, we reduced the revenue of the ABC. It was not by too much, but we did reduce it.TW4BOURNESenator Bourne—Not by too much?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Senator Bourne, I would be amazed if a commercial station like Channel 9—TW4BOURNESenator Bourne—Channel 9!O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—or Channel 7 or Channel 10 would be disturbed if their revenues varied by a few per cent. That is the commercial world, and particularly the commercial world in this area of media. The ABC have been cocooned for decades by a set budget that just keeps expanding and expanding and expanding. When we came into government, we put into place quite a number of efficiency operations right across the whole span of government. It was not just the ABC involved; it was the whole span of government. In that way, we closed off the Beazley black hole of $10 billion and got the economy back on the right track, and that is why we enjoy the prosperity we do today. We were not taking services away from the ABC; we were actually making them more efficient and they had to respond in that sort of way. If they chose to cut programs, that was the decision of their board. There are many other areas they could have cut if they had chosen to do so, but they did not.We have a situation with this Online service where people like Senator Carr get very upset if there is a proposal—and let me say that it is just a proposal by one board member—that they privatise part of this operation. Perhaps we might get involved in some joint operation with other players in the whole Internet industry. Wouldn't that be a terrible thing to have commercial alliances with other operations that are possibly more efficient!TW4BOURNESenator Bourne—With Channel 9 perhaps. Channel 9 is very efficient.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—And that have better technology! And that have better programming! These sorts of alliances in the commercial world, Senator Bourne, happen all the time. The whole industry grows and becomes more powerful because of those sorts of alliances.TW4BOURNESenator Bourne—Read the charter, John.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—We had Senator Bishop using all these medical analogies. I am trying to give you the medical analogy that what we are proposing here is a transfusion—actually giving something that can be developed. Senator Bishop talked about this whole system being the heart of the ABC. He talked about cutting off limbs. It was a very depressing medical analogy, but I would like to turn that around and say that, as we have discovered with operations like Telstra and as even the last Labor government discovered with operations like the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas, when you privatise, you actually get a more efficient operation and a more profitable operation.TW4BOURNESenator Bourne—Rubbish!O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Oh? The Commonwealth Bank is not profitable? I assume you are speaking later in this debate, Senator Bourne. You will have plenty of time to have your say. There is none so deaf as those who don't listen. If you listen, you might learn something in this debate.TW4BOURNESenator Bourne—Come on! Not from you!O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I would be humble enough to say you might, so let us push on. The whole thing about what has been proposed so far is that the board has the right to make a decision to do this if it wants to. We have an independent charter for the ABC. The ABC is not run by the minister. It is actually run by an independent board. If that board decides it wants to increase its revenue in certain ways—provided they are within the charter—it can certainly do so. On a number of occasions in the past, it did so under the Labor Party. I am sure Senator Carr will remember this, and I am thinking back to 1993—or was it 1994, Senator Carr?—and the Senate Select Committee on ABC Management and Operations. Do you remember that?AW5CARRSenator Carr—That rort that Alston organised.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I am glad you remembered, Senator Carr.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Yes, I do. That scam.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—You will recall, Senator Carr, that the ABC was under the ill-fated direction of David Hill at that time, and you remember him. He crashed and burned when he ran for the seat of Hughes recently against the redoubtable Danna Vale. He did not do particularly well. You will recall, Senator Carr, when we were on that inquiry that it was revealed that he had taken the ABC in a number of very ill-fated commercial directions at that time.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Kroger wants to do it again.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Senator Carr, if I recall, you were arguing at the time that this was a matter for the ABC and you said, `It wasn't a matter for us in government to be interfering in. We shouldn't be having inquiries into it.' As a matter of fact, if I remember correctly, you spent most of the inquiry talking to Senator Forshaw, talking and laughing fairly loudly through a great part of it. That is when you were not defaming Senator Alston. You really got your fingers burnt on that. But I will not go into that rather delicate matter.Let us go into some of the things that were done by David Hill as managing director, with the agreement of his board at that time and under the independence of the ABC—the sorts of things that they did to raise additional funds for the ABC. Senator Bourne, the ABC must have felt that, under the previous Labor government, they did not have enough money because they kept going out and trying to raise money in various commercial ways.TW4BOURNESenator Bourne—That is true.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Let us have a look at what they did. They set up ATI—we all remember that. That was their ill-fated Asia TV service, which was set up in such a way that it was supposed to break even. But it was such an ill-conceived concept and operated so poorly that that never happened. It eventually went broke and was wound up.Then there was the infamous infotainment saga. I am sure that Senator Carr remembers that. That little scam was eventually wound up after it was exposed—with rather dubious commercial connections, the way it was all done—by an expose program on Channel 9. So that was the end of that one.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Now you want to sell the ABC to Packer.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—We are just going through the disastrous record of commercialisation with the ABC under your government, Senator Carr.Let us get to the third one, which was pay TV. The government were going to form an alliance between the ABC and Fairfax press. That started under way, but Fairfax press must have realised what they were dealing with commercially and, quite sensibly, they got out of the deal. So that one did not go anywhere as well. That was a great pity, because the public broadcaster should have moved into pay TV. But, under the ill-conceived policies of the previous government and the way in which the ABC was operated by their managing director, they did not get the chance. Then there was one other: the news service which was supposed to be the Reuters of Australia and was going to compete with AAP. But they could not get enough takers for that news service so that eventually folded. That inquiry really called the ABC to book at that time. Within six months of the end of that inquiry, the managing director, David Hill, and the top of the ABC hierarchy had all departed. But we had Senator Carr and other members of the government at the time defending the ABC's fierce independence and right to do this sort of thing under their charter.In contrast, it is interesting to go to the ALP election policy of last year, which said that they would direct how the ABC should spend its money. They seem to have reversed their policy last year because Senator Carr's motion now criticises the government, saying that it is up to the ABC and its board of management. What a confused party! With the ALP being in such a policy free zone, I suppose we just get these flip-flops from one side to the other. Perhaps we should read Mark Latham's or Lindsay Tanner's books; we might get some guidance on where the ALP is going in this area.Let us get back to the nub of what Senator Carr's motion is suggesting. Here we are occupying the time of the Senate—for about an hour and a half, I assume—on a matter that is subject to the view of one board member of the ABC. One board member has made a suggestion—shock, horror!—and that suggestion is to bring some privatisation, up to a certain percentage, into the Online service. That is a suggestion of a member of the board. Why on earth is it occupying the time of this parliament? This is quite a silly motion. Of all the issues facing Australia, why are we debating this?I went to a drug crisis summit in Newcastle last night, and we had 400 people turn up. A lot of them were parents of children who died and children who were on drugs. If you want an issue, boy, is that an issue. Then look by contrast at what we are considering: the comment of one board member from the ABC.Senator Carr, if you look at international practice you will realise that what is being suggested by Mr Kroger—indeed, what was attempted by your last government with four ill-fated attempts which were badly managed by the former managing director—is moving in the direction of the ABC raising funds in legitimate ways within its own charter and that it actually fixes the problem that Senator Bourne has raised. She has been grumbling and complaining all through my contribution here today. Her basic point is that the ABC does not get enough funding. Well, if that is your view, Senator Bourne, you should support these sorts of arrangements, because the ABC will get more funding under them.Senator Bourne interjecting—O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Yet you seem to object to that. You seem to have the view that government is an endless pit of money and all we need to do is just keep expanding the budget of the ABC.TW4BOURNESenator Bourne—What do you do with taxes, for goodness sake?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—What do we do with taxes? We spend it on a very wide range of services, all that are demanding more and more. Senator Bourne, most of the increase goes into the health and welfare areas which are not very good at self-funding. What about activities that can raise funding; what about a high quality broadcaster like the ABC which has the capacity—through the selling of programs through commercial alliances such as the Online service—to actually raise additional funds and fund the organisation in the way that they want. This motion by Senator Carr is a total nonsense. It is a waste of the Senate's time. Senator Carr, I would invite you to get real and to get on with some real issues.16:45:002260Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I don't know where to start. Yes, I do know where to start. I am going to start with a motion for the suspension of standing orders that was moved by Senator Alston. We all know Senator Alston. Senator Alston is currently the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. On 30 June 1994 he moved a motion for the suspension of standing orders because there was a matter he thought was so important that it should take up the time of the Senate. And it was a very important motion. I supported him on this. The motion was:. . . that the Senate deplores the blatant politicisation of the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in flagrant disregard of its statutory obligations.That was an extremely important motion. I supported him. The fact was that the ALP was putting ALP people on the board. The fact was that they had not adequately explained why they were doing that. The Liberal Party at the time, through Senator Alston and through other senators, was totally outraged that this was happening. They, of course, would never do such a thing—they would have put people on the board who could demonstrate that they had no close connections with the Liberal Party and that they were being put on the board purely because they were worth having on that board.Let me tell you how Senator Alston finished that speech. It was a very good, strong finish. It is probably right as we speak today. He said:I say in conclusion—this is from the Senate Hansard of 30 June 1994—that what we have here is a classic stacked deck of which a Mississippi gambler would be very proud. It is yet another example of Mr Keating's `all spoils to the victor' approach to politics. It has, I think, a serious capacity to undermine the integrity and reputation of an esteemed Australian institution.That was what he was saying on 30 June 1994. On 27 June, just before that, he made a few other very pertinent points. They were that the appointment of people who had a very obvious connection with one side of politics to a board such as the ABC board was dangerous because it raised the more serious concern about the imminent appointments to the board of the ABC. Senator Alston stated:The board of the ABC, when it started out under another name, was one that prided itself on its independence. Indeed, as Professor Armstrong, the chairman of the ABC—on 27 June 1994—says in his commentary on communications law and policy in Australia:On the ABC's inaugural broadcast, the Prime Minister, Mr Joe Lyons, declared that the government's purpose was to appoint able and impartial trustees for an important national service.Senator Alston goes on to say:. . . it is absolutely critical that the ABC is not compromised in its work and that it does have a genuine and impartial board . . . Otherwise we end up with a stacked deck . . . to have people there who will not act in the best interests of the taxpayer but simply in the best interests of the ALP . . .In this case it was the ALP. Let me suggest that in the current case it seems to be the Liberal Party. I don't think anybody can deny that Mr Kroger has very, very strong links with the Liberal Party, but his friendships go further, into commercial broadcasting.Mr Kroger has been suggesting several things. One of the things Mr Kroger has been suggesting is that the ABC look at privatising just under half of ABC Online. We heard from Mr Kroger. He was writing to the newspapers saying that the ABC has to stop being reliant on government handouts. I don't think Mr Kroger quite understands what the ABC is based on. I don't think he quite understands that it is supposed to be completely impartial, that it cannot have advertising on it because, once it has advertising on it, it can't be completely impartial. The quality and the type of broadcasting we have in Australia in all its forms depends on its source of funding. So it is really important that we have a national broadcaster.I agree with Senator Tierney when he says that we have a terrific public broadcasting service in this country—but we won't for long unless we fund it properly. We fund it from the public purse. At the moment each of us is paying, I think, less than 6c a day. It is not 8c a day. I am happy to pay 8c a day, I am happy to pay 10c a day, I am happy to pay a $1 a day—but then, I am a high income earner. If you look at the latest survey about what people think of the ABC you will find that 86 per cent of the respondents to that Newspoll survey said that they thought ABC television can be rated as good, compared to commercial television, which 44 per cent rated as good.So twice as many Australians—86 per cent—think that ABC television can be rated as good compared with the number who rate commercial television as good. That is almost exactly the same result we keep getting in these surveys. It is going to have to go down sooner or later once the funding downfall, the dreadful slashing in funding, that has happened under this government really starts kicking in. At the moment 86 per cent of Australians still believe that ABC TV is really good, whereas only 44 per cent of Australians think the same about commercial TV.So Australians do believe that the ABC is something they want to maintain. In a survey two years ago they said that it was the greatest force for good in this community. It beat the police, the judiciary, politicians and journalists into the ground. It beat everybody. The ABC was seen by more than 85 per cent—I think it was 85 per cent—of respondents as being the greatest force for good in this country. `Oh, well let's get rid of it. Let's stop it being what it is and what it is seen to be.' Is that what this government wants to do? Is that why it is slashing all these funds? Is that what is happening here? I wish somebody would tell me it isn't, because I cannot believe that is not the case.ABC Online is an integral part of the ABC's broadcast role. To sell it off would be like selling off the TV part, or the radio part. It is one way that the ABC achieves its charter obligations—unless you want to change the charter, nothing much is happening—to reach as many Australians with as much information as possible. Just as the ABC had a responsibility to make use of TV to reach Australians when that medium reached Australia, so it must use digital formats like the Online service. This is a really popular and valuable service. That is obviously why Mr Kroger thinks it should be got rid of. He thinks there will be a one-off injection and then the government will not have to pay that money.The government seems to think that income from tax revenue belongs to it, that it is its money, that it belongs to every member of the cabinet, that it belongs to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to do what they like with. It doesn't. It belongs to all Australians. It belongs to me, it belongs to you—it belongs to you, Madam Acting Deputy President. It belongs to everybody in this chamber. Most importantly, it belongs to every Australian outside this chamber, outside this Parliament House. That is who the ABC belongs to.The ABC is not the plaything of this government. It is not the plaything of Mr Kroger. It is not the plaything of this minister. The ABC belongs to every Australian, and the ABC ought to be able to be used by every Australian. It ought to be able to be used in an impartial fashion. It ought to not have advertising on it, no matter what. It ought to be something that is funded so that it cannot be influenced by outside influences, such as corporations which might advertise on the ABC, ABC Online or anywhere on the ABC.ABC Online is the digital precursor of more things to come in the ABC in Australia. The expertise that has been developed now in ABC Online will be used in digital television. It will be used in digital radio. It will be used in the convergence of other technologies that are coming. We all know they are coming. The minister keeps telling us that these things are about to hit us. That is where the technology is going to train people. The use of that technology will train people within the ABC to be able to switch over to digital TV, to be able to switch over to digital radio. ABC Online is an integral part of the ABC as it stands at the moment.Mr Kroger tells us that the sale of ABC Online will give the ABC funds to do its job and meet its charter obligations. It is the government's responsibility to fund the ABC adequately to do its job under the charter. It is not the ABC's job to sell off bits, to cobble together some inadequate service for all Australians. Just as the government of the day—the Menzies government—enthusiastically funded the ABC to go into television and to go into Radio Australia—and I will say a bit about that later—it should fund the ABC adequately to meet the digital age.Broadcasting in Australia has depended on the ABC for innovative programming, training and development of services. The reason the ABC has done these things is that its funding base is different from the commercial sector. Its different funding source and charter have driven the ABC to provide programming which is different from the commercial channels. That is very important. We all remember Mr Bob Mansfield and we remember Mr Mansfield's report on the ABC. I am reasonably certain that the minister expected it to come out differently from what it did.Mr Mansfield believed, and I am sure still believes, that you would need $500 million to run a national broadcasting service. Keep in mind that is a national television and a national radio broadcasting service, with several radio networks—$500 million. That is not what this government is giving the ABC to run its service. What this government is giving the ABC according to the figure in the last budget was $486 million and that included the orchestras. I think it was $467 million without the orchestras. That is spectacularly down from what it needs. Obviously the strain is beginning to show.Despite that, ABC Online is one of the best online services in Australia. It is one of the most popular online services in Australia. It is not just that: the funding for the ABC has to include in the future the change to the digital era of television and the digital era of radio, and we do not even know where that is going yet. Goodness knows where the funding for that is coming from, because as far as the funding for digital television is concerned the government has promised $20.7 million. They will get that. They need at least $184 million. So they will get $20.7 million.The estimates given by the Arthur Andersen report into the digitisation strategy of the ABC are that it will take about $184 million for the ABC to be able to fully digitise. That is quite small when you consider that they will have to digitise an entire national rural and urban network of television. It compares extremely favourably when you compare it with what the commercial television networks believe they would need, which was somewhere in the vicinity of between $500 and $700 million—that is off the top of my head, so I am not sure—between the three of them to do the same thing only with their urban networks.The Arthur Andersen report was completely independent—utterly independent. I do not see the government getting independent reports into what everybody else thinks they are going to need for digitisation, but that bill went through anyway. Still, they got an independent report into what the ABC would need, and the independent report agreed with what the ABC had estimated in the first place, which I believe was $184 million. Where is the ABC going to get the $184 million? They will not get it from selling ABC Online, and they are not going to get it from the government at this rate either. The government have promised $20.7 million. They have promised to underwrite another $24 million, and the minister says, `Don't worry, of course we will fund the ABC to go to digital television.'Then I see a quote from the minister after Mr Kroger's suggestion was made public which says that this may be a very good way for the ABC to fund going to digital. Excuse me, I believe the minister said that the government would fund the ABC going to digital. I think that is the only reasonable way to fund going to digital. The government has, after all, given the commercial free-to-air networks free spectrum in the digital spectrum for a number of years because they believe it will cost them a lot of money to go to digital, and it will not cost them as much as it costs the ABC. If the government is willing to give the commercial networks a foot-up in relation to exclusive digital spectrum for a number of years because of the costs, they really ought to be looking after their own duties—and it is a duty on their part—to fund the ABC properly to go into digital television.I would like to make one last point about ABC funding. It is one of my favourite points: the funding of Radio Australia, which is of course part of the ABC. If you look at the ABC Online service, you will find that they have Radio Australia as part of that service. You can find what has been on Radio Australia recently. You can find transcripts of some of the articles, and you can find a lot of other information.The problem with Radio Australia is that if you live, work or are in most of Asia, and particularly most of South-East Asia, you will not be able to hear it on short-wave radio. The reason for that is that the state-of-the-art transmitter, which is located in Darwin at Cox Peninsula, has been turned off by the ABC. It has been turned off by the ABC because the government told them to do that. The government is very proud of the fact they told them to do that because they have saved $1.4 million year. For that saving of $1.4 million a year what they have achieved is that they have got off side a huge number of ordinary citizens in South-East Asia.And what about the heads of state that wrote and said, `Would you please not turn off the Radio Australia short-wave service'? They cannot be particularly pleased that it was, in fact, turned off. I had a prominent Cambodian in my office only a couple of weeks ago and, after discussing matters that were going on in Cambodia, he said, `I have to ask you one more thing: is it at all possible for you to influence the government to turn back on the Radio Australia short-wave service? We need it so much in Cambodia.' They do need it in Cambodia. They need it in Vietnam. They need it in Indonesia. They need it in all those countries of Asia, and particularly South-East Asia, that are currently having problems. They are sorting out their problems, but they are currently having problems.That Radio Australia short-wave transmission is desperately needed by the people of South-East Asia. It is desperately needed by Australians travelling in South-East Asia. It is one of the most unbiased and respected services in the world. At the moment you can get it if you have a satellite dish and satellite receiver. It is going out on satellite into Asia, but it is not going out in the form of broadcast which is affordable to pretty well all South-East Asians, in the form of broadcast which is really difficult to block and in the form of broadcast which is widely listened to around South-East Asia not only by the ordinary South-East Asians on the ground but also by Australian tourists, by Australian business people, by Australians travelling in South-East Asia. It is an absolute disgrace that this government has turned that off and has left that off. It is a disgrace that they are not listening to the people or even to the governments of South-East Asia who would like that service turned back on.In conclusion, it would be a huge backward step for the ABC to sell any part of its basic service to all Australians. Let us just remember: all Australians own the ABC—not this government, not this minister and not even the board. It would be a dreadful backward step for any part of the ABC, including ABC Online, to be sold off, to be commercialised, to be beholden on advertising from someone who can then take away that advertising if they do not like what is going on at the ABC.It would be a dreadful shame if any Australian government believed that they did not have to fund a public broadcasting service. It is called a public broadcasting service because it is a public broadcasting service, because it does not depend on any one commercial interest in order to be on the air. That means it can be innovative. That means it can be ahead of its time. That means it can take risks. And those risks have led to so many things that Australians value. Its unbiased nature has led to so many things that Australians value. Any diminution of that is a dimin ution of the Australian lifestyle, and I would fight it to the end.17:03:002264Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—I rise to make a brief contribution to this afternoon's debate on general business notice of motion No. 119 standing in the name of Senator Carr. In doing so I would like to note that the observations that are made in the motion noting the unique and valuable contribution that the award winning Internet service ABC Online has made to the multimedia services of the ABC and that the online gateway structure is closely integrated with most ABC broadcasting services and fully integrated with ABC news services are, in fact, statements with which I am happy to agree.ABC Online, established in 1995 to initiate the ABC's involvement with multimedia, is an excellent valuable resource for all Australians and, obviously, for those much further afield. It is the network within the ABC that coordinates all ABC online activities and web sites as well as multimedia projects. It is an award winning Internet service. But, as such, it and any other aspect of the ABC should not for some bizarre reason be absolutely immune from any discussion of progress or change within that community of communications and information technology.It seems to me curious that the opposition is not even prepared to look at, to consider, issues around the idea floated because that would somehow be breaking new ground. It would somehow be an idea which they would totally reject. I find it ironic in the extreme that they would attack Michael Kroger—or anyone else, for that matter—for floating ideas about the operations of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It is ironic that people who were always so protective of the capacity of the ABC to float ideas from outside the mainstream would be critical of someone for doing exactly that, critical of somebody for being independent and free-thinking. Apparently the only way you get to make a statement in this country anymore is if you agree with the ALP.I was fortunate enough to be in estimates last week when this issue was discussed, and I think the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts said some very useful things that regard, which I would like to refer to today. It is important to the ABC and it is important to public broadcasting in this nation that there is not just a knee-jerk response to the issues that we are discussing today and that the ABC itself, I guess, does not get caught up in what the minister described as `political crossfire' about whether this amounts to privatisation or whether it amounts to commercial encroachment.Senator Bourne referred simply to advertising in her speech in relation to matters of commercialisation, but it is important to note that we are talking about more than one source of possible revenue in that regard. It could be advertising but, more than that, it could be subscription or the sale of products. You can have one, any or none of those. But it is not the case that you should exclude consideration of the options, and that is what the opposition is suggesting today.I am highly diverted by the fact that the mover of the motion proposes that we give support to the ABC chair, Mr Donald McDonald. He is a person who does an excellent job in that capacity but—at any turn, at any moment, no matter what he says or what he does—he is usually attacked and criticised by those opposite for somehow being tainted in that environment. But today, apparently, it is okay to support Mr McDonald. I, for one, am a very strong supporter of Mr McDonald and am happy to see him in that responsible position.It seems to me that what we should be talking about today is how ABC Online can look to its future and look at opportunities for innovation and change. A good online service, a good web site and any of its services do not need to be 100 per cent government owned to make it effective. What it needs to be is informative, expeditious and easily accessible. Look at how many other web sites—commercial and otherwise—have been pioneers of the information age. Dare I make reference to the classic case of the Drudge report in the United States, which breaks news reports of enormous international proportions and is operated by only one man? Not that I would ever make a comparison between that and ABC Online, I hasten to add.Nobody disagrees with the importance of a vibrant online community. In fact, as far as this government is concerned, this is an absolutely integral part of our move into the next century. An Online Australia Day is going to provide a national focus for exactly that. In the launch of Online Australia 1999, we have a national focus on the information economy. I am sure that those interested will know that ABC Online will play a very important part in that area.Australia is already a globally recognised leader in the use of new technologies, including the Internet, e-commerce, IT, the development of computer software and hardware and all sorts of other online applications. These are transforming the daily lives of Australians. But to try to say, as the opposition has this afternoon that, as a knee-jerk reaction or automatic response to an unusually heightened level of paranoia, we should not even consider or discuss some of the suggestions which are around on this issue is extraordinarily narrow-minded and extraordinarily focused on their own interests.The minister put the point particularly well in estimates last week, when he said that it was important `to look at whether there are ways in which they'—meaning the ABC—`can benefit from the synergies that derive from involvement with commercial operators'. Unless looking at synergies is now a crime under the laws created by the opposition is this regard, I think that is a very valuable suggestion to make. People who often regard each other as competitors are constantly, I believe, being involved in things like joint ventures—sometimes quite outside their traditional areas of activity—because, as the minister has said, there is `mutual benefit in understanding and getting new perspectives on the way in which business is done'. If members of the ABC board, or anyone else for that matter, see fit to make suggestions in that regard, Mr Acting Deputy President, I and the government, I think, see no reason why those issues cannot be explored in a mature, sensible debate. But it would seem that those opposite would disagree.The contribution of ABC Online to the health of the ABC's digital services is also well recorded in some of the statements of Mr Brian Johns at estimates last week. ABC Online uses `specialist program makers' providing material online from over `800 journalists'. That is a very important part of access, particularly for rural and regional Australia, right through Australia's radio networks. The ABC uses the full weight of the corporation to back that up, to maximise results and to capitalise on them, as Mr Johns as said. Nobody disagrees with the contribution that ABC Online can make to the provision of news and information. The issue is, apparently, whether it needs to be government owned. Ultimately, of course, that is a matter for the board and a matter which the board will consider, I am sure, in the due course of events.The whole debate should not be about one side or the other of politics. It should be about the provision of quality services. In terms of discussion of ideas for the future, there has only been the suggestion of a small element of commercialisation in this regard. The issue is about the future; it is about considering the best operation of ABC Online within the whole ABC corporation and the best contribution that it can make to the sorts of things that Senator Bourne was talking about. I think she used the phrase `cobbled together'. I do not know whether she meant that people in Australia find that the ABC is cobbled together, but I would absolutely reject that. The government supports a strong and independent ABC; it always has and it always will. In discussing the future of parts of the ABC, like ABC Online, the government, at least, is prepared to be open minded and to consider all the options available.17:12:002265Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The motion that I moved today calls on the government to support the position of the ABC chair, Mr Donald McDonald, and the ABC managing director, Mr Brian Johns, in their rejection of any sale of the Online services. Given that the Prime Minister's friend, Mr McDonald, has made his strong position clear on this, I think it is only appropriate that this Senate agree with him on this matter which is at the heart of the future direction of the ABC.It is clear from the debate we have had today that it is left once again to the opposition to come to the defence of the ABC. It is the Labor Party that seeks to defend the organisation from a government which is intent upon undermining its pillars of independence and intent upon dismantling its key functions. The move to privatise the ABC's Internet vehicle, Online, is just one of a series of attacks on the viability of the organisation. This is an organisation that is doing very well despite the persistent financial and rhetorical attacks launched upon it by this government. It follows constant attacks upon the ABC and its integrity. It follows severe budget cutbacks, programming cutbacks, attacks upon Australian content and Radio Australia cutbacks—the list goes on—all of which stem directly from the government's policy of removing hundreds of millions of dollars from the budget of the ABC.This motion is as much about the activities of a Liberal stalwart and the ABC board member Mr Michael Kroger as it is about protecting ABC Online itself. We should all remember just who this Michael Kroger is. He has a record of attacking the ABC for what he perceives to be its biased political coverage. By that he means that it does not agree with the Liberal Party's point of view in any election campaign. Senator Abetz's very good understanding of an even-handed approach to broadcasting is that both the National Party and the Liberal Party get a fair cut of the action to the exclusion of all others.We saw, for instance, in regard to Mr Kroger's complaints about the ABC during the election campaign that the Age reported on 20 September 1998 that the ABC received 22 written complaints over its election coverage. One-third of those 22 complaints came from the Liberal Party director, Mr Lynton Crosby. At least another three had been made by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Richard Alston, who is the failed manager of the Liberal Party's election campaign in Victoria.It is the same Mr Kroger who promised and failed to deliver the Age newspaper to Mr Packer. He spearheaded the PBL's failed campaign to convince the government to change its cross-media laws to allow Mr Packer to take over the Fairfax Holdings. It is the same Mr Kroger who also failed in his work that he did for News Ltd. He was at least even-handed in that regard. Remember when he sought to reverse the decision to give free spectrum to the commercial networks for digital television? It is the same Mr Kroger who was unsuccessful in his lobbying on behalf of the National Bank for the government to relax its four pillars policy to enable the NBA to merge with the ANZ.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—So far.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—That may well be the case, Senator, that it is so far. But up to this point it is a failed lobbying effort. It is the same Mr Kroger who has acted as the chief spin doctor for the Solomon Lew family in their unsuccessful takeover of Country Road. He was the chief lobbyist for Solomon Lew's attempt to keep his Reserve Bank board seat. Importantly, his merchant bank, J.T. Campbell and Co., despite its enormously weak financial record, makes most of its money out of these various predatory moves against various other entities directly tied with lobbying government.It is well known that J.T. Campbell lacks the financial resources to pitch for the mega deals, so therefore he concentrates on these niche arrangements. Mr Kroger's only real big money-spinner seems to be from his role as the deputy chair of Gina Rinehart's Hancock Prospecting. It is a role that many in Melbourne are only too happy to talk to the press about because it has upset them so much, particularly given Mr Kroger's role as a spokesperson in Rinehart's bitter legal battles with her father's ex-wife, Rose Porteous.In short, Mr Kroger's business and lobbyist activities to date have been unsuccessful, and at best one could say they have been entirely dependent upon what is perceived by some as his links to government. In fact, what you see from this is a record of failure, of waning political influence within the halls of power within the Liberal Party. Mr Kroger strongly advertises what he sees as his success fees. This is why he is doing so badly financially, because his business deals hinge so strongly on receipt of success fees, which he very rarely obtains. His well-known political affiliations and close personal contacts and friendships with Mr Costello and Senator Alston have been a real negative for him and, I suspect, for them. One has to admire Mr Kroger for his persistence and his determination to battle on.Now his latest business venture is the sale of ABC Online. One has to speculate that perhaps in the future Mr Kroger might resign from the ABC board and set himself up as a go-between for the Packer organisation and the government, given the Packer organisation is so intent on establishing itself in this Internet arena of business activity. However, we have to acknowledge the issue of Mr Kroger's influence on the Liberal Party itself. It raises real questions as to the extent to which he is able to influence anything at all.We saw the great adventure he had with the Liberal Party preselections in Victoria just last year with Senator Synon and with the way in which Jeff Kennett comprehensively did him over. Even Jeff Kennett, who has made so many comments about other senators here, has made it very clear what he thinks about Senator Synon and her chief patron—ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Has he ever said anything about Eric?AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—He probably would not know him at all. Jeff Kennett understands Mr Kroger's waning influence in the Liberal Party and his attempt to promote Mr Costello, naturally enough, against the interests of so many. I suspect it is understood, in fact it is well known in Melbourne these days, that Mr Costello has been strongly advised by all the key players in the Liberal Party in Victoria that he should distance himself from Mr Kroger and seek his advice elsewhere. This is a well-known fact. It is a shame that Mr Costello seems so reluctant to accept this political advice.Mr Kroger's declining influence on the Liberal Party and the broadening of his attempts to gain some sort of predatory advantage, in terms of commercially provid ing advice to government about the privatisation of the ABC's Online service, has shown that he has acted entirely separately—and we acknowledge this—from his responsibilities as a member of the board of the ABC. He has not consulted with the managing director. He has not consulted with the chairman of the board. He has not sought to raise these issues with the board. He has sought to obtain some cheap publicity for himself which one might suggest was fully supported by Mr Costello—in fact pre-organised with Mr Costello, because it reflects the Liberal Party's deep and abiding hatred of the ABC. It also suggests to me his clear intention to punish the Liberal Party by his continued attempts to present himself as the great powerbroker within that organisation.Mr Costello ought to make a clean break with this man. He should do the country a favour, do the Liberal Party a favour, and get out of his relationship with Mr Kroger. Mr Packer ought to do much the same himself, because the links there are quite clearly unproductive. Mr Kroger has not delivered what he claimed he would be able to deliver. He has not been able to deliver on so many occasions now. One trusts he will not be able to deliver on this. One simply has to acknowledge that this proposal does not make any sense at all. I hope that, like many of his other financial adventures, it too will fail. The attempt to privatise the ABC's Internet service is ill judged and, given Mr Kroger's membership of the ABC board, I would have thought he would have at least understood the vital part that the ABC's Internet service now plays in the whole organisation.Mr Kroger estimates that Online's value is about $500 million. What a preposterous concept that is. The whole point about the value of the ABC is that you cannot put a price on it. That is what makes the ABC such a valuable institution to the rest of the country. You cannot put a price on its integrity, on its impartiality, on its objectivity. What he is proposing is essentially to separate out that fundamental premise that the ABC is above price. It is above purchase. It is not like the rest of the media in this country. It has an independent role free from those sorts of commercial pressures. He is proposing to somehow or other place a dollar value on the integrity of the ABC. What we all accept and respect about the ABC is its integrity. Frankly, we do not see that with regard to the Liberal Party view of what the ABC should be—that is, a commercial outfit just like the others and subject to the same sorts of pressures and open to the same sorts of influences.The great value of Online is that it is directly linked both to the corporation's future convergence plans and, as I say, the basic integrity of the organisation. You cannot possibly separate those two issues. You cannot possibly separate the integral part of Online from the rest of the ABC. The estimates of its value based on a privatised Online assumes that advertising could be introduced to the service as a whole. This is a concept that I find quite preposterous. Given any understanding of the charter of the ABC—and one would have thought that, as a member of the board of the ABC, Mr Kroger would have at least grasped that proposition—the charter of the ABC precludes the use of advertising for very good reasons.What we have noticed throughout all of this is that the ABC is increasingly relying upon Online's services. The brochures that I have seen outlining the services that are provided by Online provide another alternative news source to many Australians in regional parts of this country. Those issues are directly put at risk by Mr Kroger's proposal. Frankly, in an era of convergence when the boundaries between radio, TV and the web are blurring, it is simply impossible to extract one aspect of the service delivery from the other. To do so would severely weaken the ABC as a whole and frankly weaken all of those services that are being provided.I say to you that the idea of advertising in this context is quite reprehensible. What Mr Kroger and the Howard government fail to recognise is that the ABC's primary function is to deliver a high quality service to the Australian people which has the respect and the support of the Australian people. It cannot do so when it is seen as a mere commercial operation. Despite the limited resources that the ABC has at its disposal, it is now quite clearly competing, particularly in the Internet field, very strongly with the rest of the private sector.This is what is really at risk here. This is what the real question is—that is, the great threat the Liberal Party sees. All the enterprises that have been closed down by this government have been those enterprises that the ABC has embarked upon to expand upon its activities which are perceived to be in direct competition with the private sector. Its news gathering role and its capacity to move out into Australian society has been restricted by this government, a government which quite clearly hates and despises the ABC and all that it stands for.What we are seeing is a government that frankly is not interested in protecting the viability and the long-term interests of this organisation. That is why we have moved this motion today to try to draw attention to the failure of this government in this regard and to acknowledge that it is very important that the ABC be provided with the opportunity to play a key role in developing and promoting Australian content, Australian media and Australian culture both in this country and abroad.Mr Kroger as an ABC board member should understand that. He should get his mind above these narrow commercial pursuits and he should concentrate on his responsibilities and ensure that the ABC is protected as a viable organisation. His attempts to link the future of ABC funding to the privatisation of key services clearly spells out what the Liberal Party's plan is. It is totally unacceptable in that policy. What we are seeking in this motion, and I trust that the Senate will be able to support it as a whole, is to reaffirm the great values that have made the ABC a tremendous organisation.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—A real force for civilisation.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Yes, it is a very important institution to the culture and to the people of this country. It is deeply appreciated by the people of this country. In relation to the constant vilification of the ABC by this government and that conservative body of thought which thinks that the only views that support its values are the ones that should be given coverage and that commercial values are the only ones that should be promoted, those sorts of values in my judgment should be rejected. The ABC is a very important part of Australian cultural life, and this parliament ought to acknowledge it.17:28:002269Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—It is always a joy to be able to follow Senator Carr in a debate in this place. He always leads with his chin and he always allows you to score off him very easily. Indeed, Senator Carr's contribution today highlights the reason why he has been so much the overlooked person, so much the pretender, to the Labor Party front bench. Successive Labor leaders and successive Labor caucuses have said, `With contributions such as that, we will not appoint him to the front bench'—and no wonder.His vitriolic and destructive contribution sought to highlight the failures in others. But I would suggest that it is disingenuous in the extreme to seek to highlight and fabricate so-called failures in other people's lives when one's own political career is a littered expressway of failures. All you have to do is ask the former Labor Premier of Victoria—Senator Carr's home state, his home party—John Cain what he thinks of Senator Carr. We know what he thinks. It is not too nice, is it?AW5CARRSenator Carr—What does he think?N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—I think he wrote about you in his book, didn't he? He called you stupid or something of that nature, which is unparliamentary—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Tell us all about it.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—But seeing that you have now invited me to state what was written in a book, I will say so and put it on the record, Senator Carr. The greatest spectacular failure of the left wing in the Australian Labor Party in recent times in Victoria was the successful manoeuvring by the left wing—undoubtedly, Senator Carr was involved—in the dramatic demise of one Theo Theophanous, the former leader of the opposition in the upper house in Victoria. The left wing was making a power play against the right wing leader of the Labor Party in Victoria—a complete and spectacular failure.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. We have listened to this for a few moments—in fact, for some considerable minutes—and I do not think we have heard the ABC or Mr Kroger mentioned yet in this speech. It is nothing but this senator's distorted view of factionalism in the ALP.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! I have listened carefully to previous speeches and they have been quite wide ranging. There is no point of order.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—You always know when you are hitting the mark with the Labor Party because they try to get you off your train of thought by jumping up with a spurious point of order. Mr Theophanous in Victoria is undoubtedly licking his wounds, thinking about the adverse advice—the quite poor advice—that the good Senator Carr gave him in the latest power struggle.I will not go on with the many other political failures of the good senator opposite but, given that sort of track record, it is the height of disingenuousness to try to come into this place and assert failures against a person who is on the ABC board—Mr Kroger, who runs a very successful merchant bank. To try to denigrate that person's business under parliamentary privilege is completely unacceptable.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—Reprehensible.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Indeed, reprehensible as well, Senator Coonan. The Democrats also sought to make a contribution in this debate, through Senator Bourne. Most of it was by way of interjection on my friend Senator Tierney but, when it was actually Senator Bourne's turn to make a contribution, there was nothing of substance. Indeed, she seemed to come into this debate like she came into the world—eyes closed and mouth wide open. I would suggest to Senator Bourne and the Democrats that they open their eyes and have a look at what is actually going on in the real world, what the benefits would be to the ABC if certain courses of action were even just considered. Then, after she has taken it in, she might consider opening her mouth and making a more substantive contribution to this debate.She sought to link Mr Kroger as a political appointment in the same fashion as the Labor Party used to stack the ABC board. Failed Labor Premier John Bannon—from your home state of South Australia, Senator Quirke—bankrupted the state of South Australia, had no financial capacity whatsoever and his only record in public life was to bankrupt his home state. So what do his federal mates do? They appoint him to the ABC board. In contradistinction, Mr Kroger has a reputation throughout the business community—well in excess of anything Mr Bannon ever had—and his appointment was on the basis of expertise and capacity. We on this side say that a party membership of itself should not disqualify you in relation to an appointment, but if the only characteristic is your party membership—as with John Bannon—then that is something to be condemned, and we in opposition quite appropriately did that. We condemned some of Labor's appointments because they were only appointments of mates. There was no objective standard by which you could say, with that abysmal track record of John Bannon, that he should have been presiding on the ABC board.Senator Carr, as I indicated earlier, has this unique capacity to lead with his chin. He told us in the debate—and, indeed, in his motion—that the Senate is called upon to `condemn the anti-ABC ideology'. It is interesting to do an analysis of the news reporting during the last federal election campaign. A very respected body—the Institute of Public Affairs—did an analysis. It showed that, during the whole election campaign, National Nine News was the most balanced; Ten News was, in fact, the least: pro-ALP and anti-coalition comments outnumbered pro-coalition and anti-ALP comments on Nine by a 20 per cent margin, on ABC by 23 per cent, on Seven by 40 per cent and on Ten by 60 per cent.You could say that is a pretty good record for the ABC, but then you have a look at the detailed figures. I want to read from the Institute of Public Affairs analysis because it is very interesting. Three academics, having done a very detailed and considered study, found with respect to the ABC that:ABC News made a spectacular U-turn during the campaign. In the first two weeks, it was the least balanced of the networks, favouring ALP policies by 56%. However, during the last three weeks of the campaign, ABC News was the most balanced of the four networks, favouring ALP policies by just 8%.The shift in the ABC coincided with a number of high-profile events—ABC Radio came under fire for promoting a rock concert called `Howard's End'; an interview with Verity James in which she questioned the Prime Minister about the impact of the GST on the price of heroin;—I do not think even Senator Bolkus would stoop that low—and the IPA's first press release critical of ABC-TV coverage. The most dramatic shift on ABC News occurred after week two, when the coverage shifted from being highly favourable towards the ALP (by 120%) to favourable towards the Coalition (by 60%).If you can see that sort of change within the ABC's national news reporting, assessed and undertaken by independent people studying the issues of the federal election campaign very carefully, you do have to ask the question: how unbiased and how balanced is the ABC? I have to ask Senator Bourne: with all the lovely words about ABC independence and how it is such a great institution in Australian society, how could the ABC, from being so biased at the beginning of an election campaign, have the ability to make this dramatic U-turn halfway through; and why did it make the U-turn? Undoubtedly, it was for the reasons outlined by the Institute of Public Affairs.AW5CARRSenator Carr—It is not independent; it is a Liberal front!10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Carr!N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—I hope that interjection went into the Hansard , because it indicates that the ALP's overwhelming support of the ABC is motivated by only one thing; that is, the unfortunate bias that certain elements have shown which has been demonstrated by these figures provided by the Institute of Public Affairs. I think the Australian Broadcasting Corporation would do itself a great service if it were to consider the IPA Backgrounder report and learn from it. I believe that in my own home state of Tasmania the ABC is fair and balanced, and I have no quarrels with it.But, having said that, for Senators Carr and Bourne to try to paint the ABC as being a lot better than commercial channels that are somehow tainted because of advertising is, quite frankly, beyond the pale and completely insupportable by the objective evidence. This motion, written by the vitriolic pen of Senator Carr, should not be considered by the Senate. It is inappropriate, it demeans the Senate, and I would urge honourable senators to reject it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The time being 5.40 p.m., for the purposes of presenting the address-in-reply to the Governor-General and pursuant to order, the sitting of the Senate is now adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, 8 March 1999.17:40:002271Senate adjourned at 5.40 p.m.Documents22712271The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Customs Act—Notice No. 1 (1999)—Notice of declared rate in respect of diesel fuel rebate.Excise Act—Notice No. 1 (1999)—Notice of declared rate in respect of diesel fuel rebate.Film Licensed Investment Company Act—Film Licensed Investment Company (Reporting Requirements) Determination 1998.Product Rulings PR 1999/5 and PR 1999/6.Statutory Rules Publication Act—Statement under section 5(3B)—Film Licensed Investment Company (Reporting Requirements) Determination 1998.Therapeutic Goods Act—Therapeutic Goods Order No. 63.Answers to Questions on Notice2272The following answers to questions were circulated:2272(Question No. 11)112272Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray3M6WAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 November 1998:(1) (a) Can a list of successful amendments to the Company Law Review Bill 1997 be provided; (b) what date were these circulated to the Senate; and (c) what date were they passed by the Senate.(2) Of the successful amendments, please indicate: (a) those which were foreshadowed in the majority or minority reports on this Bill by the Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities in 1996 and March 1998; and (b) what dates drafts of those amendments were supplied in writing to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, and by whom.(3) Did the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer consult with any business or professional organisations on any draft amendments or amendments circulated to the Senate; if so, on what dates.(4) When was the Bill introduced into the House of Representatives and the Senate; (b) when was the second reading; and (c) when was the committee stage.2272Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:1 (a) A list of successful amendments to the Company Law Review Bill is attached. The list was provided by the Table Office of the Department of the Senate and I am advised is the same as the list recorded in the House of Representatives Hansard of 25 June 1998 at page 5458.1(b)—(4) The Government consulted extensively with business, shareholder organisations and other interested parties on policy issues raised by the elements of the Company Law Review Bill 1997 (the Bill). The substance of the Bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities (the Joint Committee) in 1996 and 1998. The Government considered the Reports of the Joint Committee and its position was represented by the Company Law Review Bill 1997 (the Bill) which was introduced into the House of Representatives on 3 December 1997, and into the Senate on 3 March 1998. Amendments were received and moved during the course of passage of the Bill. The Government was not in a position to consult widely on the text of the amendments moved. The amended Bill was passed on 25 June 1998 and commenced operation on 1 July 1998.1996-97-98THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIATHE SENATECompany Law Review Bill 1997Schedule of the amendments made by the Senate(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 15 (lines 17 to 24), omit subsection 5.2, substitute: 5.2 Appointment of new directors It is a replaceable rule (see 1.6) that shareholders may appoint directors by resolution at a general meeting.[section 224C](2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 47 (table item 2), omit the table item.(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 78 (line 21) to page 79 (line 2), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 79 (line 16), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 79 (line 18), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 81 (after line 24), after section 249C, insert:249CA Calling of meetings of members of a listed company by a director (1) A director may call a meeting of the company's members. (2) This section applies only to a company that is: (a) incorporated in Australia; and (b) included in an official list of the Exchange. (3) This section applies despite anything in the company's constitution.(7) Schedule 1, item 4, page 84 (after line 27), after section 249H, insert:249HA Amount of notice of meetings of listed company(1) Despite section 249H, at least 28 days notice must be given of a meeting of a company's members.(2) This section applies only to a company that is: (a) incorporated in Australia; and (b) included in an official list of the Exchange. (3) This section applies despite anything in the company's constitution.(8) Schedule 1, item 4, page 91 (lines 10 to 18), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(9) Schedule 1, item 4, page 94 (lines 27 to 30), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(10) Schedule 1, item 4, page 96 (lines 8 to 17), omit subsection (4).(11) Schedule 1, item 4, page 96 (after line 21), after section 250B, insert:250BA Proxy documents—listed companies(1) In a notice of meeting for a meeting of the members of a company, the company: (a) must specify a place and a fax number; and (b) may specify an electronic address; for the purposes of receipt of proxy appointments. (2) This section applies only to a company that is: (a) incorporated in Australia; and (b) included in an official list of the Exchange. (3) This section applies despite anything in the company's constitution.(12) Schedule 1, item 4, page 98 (lines 17 to 22), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(13) Schedule 1, item 4, page 99 (line 5), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(14) Schedule 1, item 4, page 99 (after line 14), after subsection 250J(1), insert: (1A) Before a vote is taken the chair must inform the meeting whether any proxy votes have been received and how the proxy votes are to be cast.(15) Schedule 1, item 4, page 99 (lines 15 to 21), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(16) Schedule 1, item 4, page 99 (line 16), after "result", insert ", provided that the declaration reflects the show of hands and the votes of the proxies received".(17) Schedule 1, item 4, page 99 (line 26), omit "chairman", substitute "chair". (18) Schedule 1, item 4, page 100 (line 7), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(19) Schedule 1, item 4, page 100 (lines 20 to 26), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(20) Schedule 1, item 4, page 102 (line 11), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(21) Schedule 1, item 4, page 102 (line 16), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(22) Schedule 1, item 4, page 103 (lines 18 to 21), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(23) Schedule 1, item 4, page 104 (after line 4), after section 251A, insert:251AA Disclosure of proxy votes—listed companies (1) A company must record in the minutes of a meeting, in respect of each resolution in the notice of meeting, the total number of proxy votes exercisable by all proxies validly appointed and: (a) if the resolution is decided by a show of hands—the total number of proxy votes in respect of which the appointments specified that: (i) the proxy is to vote for the resolution; and (ii) the proxy is to vote against the resolution; and (iii) the proxy is to abstain on the resolution; and (iv) the proxy may vote at the proxy's discretion; and (b) if the resolution is decided on a poll—the information specified in paragraph (a) and the total number of votes cast on the poll: (i) in favour of the resolution; and (ii) against the resolution; and (iii) abstaining on the resolution. (2) A company that must notify the Exchange of a resolution passed by members at a meeting of the company must, at the same time, give the Exchange the information specified in subsection (1). (3) This section applies only to a company that is: (a) incorporated in Australia; and (b) included in an official list of the Exchange. (4) This section applies despite anything in the company's constitution.(24) Schedule 1, item 4, page 114 (line 26) to page 115 (line 2), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair". (25) Schedule 1, item 4, page 118 (lines 4 to 7), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(26) Schedule 1, item 4, page 122 (line 20), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(27) Schedule 1, item 4, page 123 (lines 6 to 12), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(28) Schedule 1, item 4, page 123 (line 17), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(29) Schedule 1, item 4, page 123 (line 27), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(30) Schedule 1, item 4, page 124 (lines 14 to 16), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(31) Schedule 1, item 5, page 183 (line 26), at the end of subsection (4), add: ; and (d) whether, in the directors' opinion, the financial statement and notes are in accordance with this law, including: (i) section 296 (compliance with accounting standards); and (ii) section 297 (true and fair view).(32) Schedule 1, item 5, page 185 (line 31), at the end of subsection (1), add:; and (f) if the entity's operations are subject to any particular and significant environmental regulation under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory—details of the entity's performance in relation to environmental regulation.(33) Schedule 1, item 5, page 191 (after line 15), after section 300, insert:300A Annual directors' report—specific information to be provided by listed companies (1) The directors' report for a financial year for a company must also include: (a) discussion of broad policy for determining the nature and amount of emoluments of board members and senior executives of the company; and (b) discussion of the relationship between such policy and the company's performance; and (c) details of the nature and amount of each element of the emolument of each director and each of the 5 named officers of the company receiving the highest emolument. (2) This section applies only to a company that is: (a) incorporated in Australia; and (b) included in an official list of the Exchange. (3) This section applies despite anything in the company's constitution. (34) Schedule 1, item 5, page 207 (after line 16), after section 323D, insert:Division 8—Disclosure by listed companies of information filed overseas323DA Listed companies to disclose information filed overseas (1) A company that discloses information to, or as required by: (a) the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America; or (b) the New York Stock Exchange; or (c) a prescribed securities exchange in a foreign country;must disclose that information in English to the Exchange on the next business day after doing so. (2) This section applies only to a company that is: (a) incorporated in Australia; and (b) included in an official list of the Exchange. (3) This section applies despite anything in the company's constitution.(35) Schedule 1, item 6, page 220 (line 24) to page 221 (line 2), omit section 352, substitute:352 Documents lodged with ASIC electronically (1) A document may be lodged with ASIC electronically only if: (a) ASIC and the person seeking to lodge it (either on their own behalf or as agent) have agreed, in writing, that it may be lodged electronically; or (b) ASIC has approved, in writing, the electronic lodgment of documents of that kind.The document is taken to be lodged with ASIC if it is lodged in accordance with the agreement or approval (including any requirements of the agreement or approval as to authentication). (2) Any agreement or approval must provide for a signed copy of the document to be held by the person lodging the document and for the person to make the signed copy of the document available to the ASIC if required.(36) Schedule 2, page 336 (after line 20), after item 375, insert:375A Section 1355Repeal the section, substitute:1355 Doing act without payment of feeIf a fee is payable under section 1351 for a matter involving the doing of an act by the Minister or ASIC, the Minister or ASIC may refuse to do that act until: (a) the fee is paid; or (b) if a deposit on account of the fee is required under section 1357—the deposit is paid.HARRY EVANSClerk of the SenateThe Senate25 June 19982275(Question No. 25)252275Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BartlettDT6QLDAD00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 10 November 1998:(1) (a) How many people are currently undertaking some form of voluntary work, not including work for the dole, as part of their obligation to receive unemployment allowances; and (b) can a breakdown of age groups be provided.(2) What procedure is involved in people having voluntary work included as part or all of their obligation, for example, do they need to have that included under a case management agreement and what about those not under case management.(3) What, if any, ongoing responsibilities does a person who is involved in approved voluntary work have to Centrelink, for example, do they need to provide information fortnightly to Centrelink regarding their voluntary work or other activities.(4) What restrictions, if any, are placed on the: (a) type of voluntary work which can be undertaken; (b) duration for which the voluntary work can be undertaken; and (c) amount of voluntary work which can be undertaken.(5) What monitoring or supervision, if any, is conducted by Centrelink of those undertaking voluntary work as part or all of their obligation for receiving unemployment allowances.(6) Is voluntary work only approved if it can be shown that it is likely to lead to employment; if so, what criteria are used in this assessment and who makes that assessment.2275Newman, 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) (a) There are currently two ways an unemployed person can meet requirements for the receipt of Newstart Allowance or Youth Allowance through voluntary work. These are approved voluntary work involving at least 32 hours of voluntary work per fortnight and, for young people subject to Mutual Obligation, voluntary work of 12 hours a fortnight for 7 out of 13 fortnights.A total of 17,213 customers as at 13 November 1998 are participating in Mutual Obligation, of those, 10,659 customers are participating in an activity to meet their obligation with 1,687 participating in part time voluntary work, 363 participat ing in a combination of voluntary work and part time work, 944 participating in a combination of voluntary work and/or part time work and/or education and training and 19 are participating in full time voluntary work.In addition to the above 17,213 Mutual Obligation customers, a total of 2,094 customers aged over 25 years are participating in approved voluntary work. Of these, 61 are participating in Voluntary Work and Paid Work, 369 are participating in Voluntary Work with Agreement, and 1,664 were participating in Voluntary Work with no agreement.(1) (b) Mutual Obligation customers are aged 18 to 24 years inclusive. There is no age group breakdown available to date for the other 2,094 customers from the over 25 years age group.(2) Procedures for entering into a period of approved voluntary work vary according to the unemployed person's age, their duration on Newstart Allowance and the length of the period of voluntary work they propose to undertake. No Activity Agreement is required to participate in approved voluntary work for unemployed people aged over 50, or unemployed people who have been in receipt of Newstart Allowance for less than 12 months and who wish to participate in voluntary work for a period of 12 weeks or less. A Newstart Activity Agreement is required for unemployed people aged under 50 who wish to participate in approved voluntary work and who have been in receipt of Newstart Allowance for more than 12 months, people who have been unemployed for between 3 and 12 months and who wish to do more than 12 weeks voluntary work and those subject to Mutual Obligation who choose to do voluntary work to satisfy their requirement. The terms of these Activity Agreements must be negotiated with Centrelink.(3) Customers in approved voluntary work are deemed to satisfy activity test requirements and are not required to report their job search efforts to Centrelink. However they must continue to lodge their "Application for Payment" form with Centrelink. The approved voluntary work activity is recorded on this form which is lodged on a regular basis by the customer (this can be between two and twelve weekly depending on the customer's particular circumstances). If a customer ceases approved voluntary work, then they are required to notify Centrelink and meet the job search requirements of the activity test.Young Unemployed people subject to Mutual Obligation who choose to satisfy their requirement through voluntary work, are required to record their participation in voluntary work fortnightly in a Mutual Obligation Jobseeker Diary. This diary is assessed by Centrelink every 12 weeks. These customers must maintain their normal level of job search, which will be verified through the diary and through the lodgement of their "Application for Payment" form with Centrelink every 4 weeks.(4) (a) All approved voluntary work must be undertaken with a Centrelink approved, not-for-profit, community based organisation with volunteer insurance. Under Mutual Obligation requirements, voluntary work must be undertaken with a community based not-for-profit organisation. Certain types of voluntary work would not be approved by Centrelink.This includes work:- that replaces a paid worker;- undertaken in one's own home, with one's family or for one's own organisation;- that involves violence towards people or property;- that does not have a community focus; or- primarily focused on promoting particular religious or political views.(4) (b) Unemployed people aged over 50 may participate in approved voluntary work of an unlimited duration.Unemployed people aged under 50 who have been in receipt of Newstart Allowance for between 3 and 12 months can participate in approved voluntary work for a period of up to 12 weeks without the need to negotiate a Newstart Activity Agreement with Centrelink.Approval to participate in longer periods of approved voluntary work must be negotiated as part of a Newstart Activity Agreement.Approval for unemployed people aged less than 50 will not normally be given for a period exceeding 12 months in duration. After 12 months participation in approved voluntary work, Centrelink reviews each case to determine whether it would be appropriate to approve a further period of voluntary work.Unemployed people subject to Mutual Obligation who choose to participate in voluntary work to satisfy their requirement undertake voluntary work for 7 of the 13 fortnights of their Mutual Obligation compliance period.(4) (c) Participants in approved voluntary work must undertake at least 32 hours per fortnight of voluntary work with a Centrelink approved organisation. There is no upper limit for participation.Unemployed people subject to Mutual Obligation who choose to participate in voluntary work to satisfy their requirement undertake 12 hours per fortnight voluntary work for 7 of the 13 fortnights of their Mutual Obligation compliance period.(5) Centrelink monitors customers on approved voluntary work through the lodgement of their "Application for Payment" form. Under the Social Security Act customers must advise of changes to their circumstances (eg cessation of voluntary work) within 7 days.Unemployed people subject to Mutual Obligation who choose voluntary work to satisfy their requirement will record their participation in voluntary work fortnightly in a Mutual Obligation Jobseeker Diary which is assessed by Centrelink every 12 weeks. Job search efforts will be verified through the diary and the lodgement of their "Application for Payment" form with Centrelink every 4 weeks.(6) Centrelink does take into consideration whether a period of voluntary work is the best option for an unemployed person when deciding whether to approve a voluntary work placement. However, there is no requirement to demonstrate that a particular voluntary work placement will lead to paid employment for that placement to be approved.2276(Question No. 164)1642276O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 12 November 1998:(1) Can a copy be provided of the deed of grant between the Maritime Industry Finance Company Limited (MIFCo) and the Commonwealth on 30 June 1998.(2) What are the conditions governing the $155 million syndicate cash advance facility for MIFCo.(3) (a) What guarantees has the Commonwealth given in relation to the $155 million syndicate cash advance facility for MIFCo; and (b) to whom have these guarantees been given.2276Macdonald, Sen SandySenator Sandy MacdonaldCX5NSWNP10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) A copy of the grant agreement is available from the Table Office.(2) The following conditions govern the syndicated $155 million cash advance facilityMIFCo can only use the funds from the cash advance facility for:(a) paying redundancy related payments;(b) payment of interest and fees under the loan agreement;(c) the payment of bona fide establishment and operating expenses of MIFCo, including any directors' and members' fees and expenses, reasonable fees and expenses of advisors or any person engaged by MIFCo to, directly or indirectly, assist MIFCo to perform its obligations under the Commonwealth Deed, and for no other purpose.(3) (a) The Commonwealth has provided a financial guarantee in respect of the syndicated $155 million cash advance facility; (b) the guarantee has been given to the participants to the syndicated $155 million cash advance facility: Commonwealth Bank of Australia; National Australia Bank; Deutsche Bank AG; and Deutsche Australia Limited.2277(Question No. 199)1992277Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator ReynoldsXI4QLDALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) In each of the past 5 financial years, and in the current 1998-99 financial year to date, what has been the cost to Australia of association with the World Bank in the following categories: (a) any annual dues by way of membership or association; (b) any contributions to loans or so-called rescue packages to foreign nations; (c) any contributions, and to which, specific bilateral or multilateral development projects; and (d) any other costs for any purpose.(2) What has been the source of this funding (eg annual revenue, foreign loans) and, in each case, which departmental votes have been the source of the payments.(3) In each of the past 5 financial years, and in the current 1998-99 financial year to date, what has been the cost to Australia of association with the Asian Development Bank in the following categories: (a) any annual dues by way of membership or association; (b) any contributions to loans or so-called rescue packages to foreign nations; (c) any contributions, and to which, specific bilateral or multilateral development projects; and (d) any other cost for any purpose.(4) What has been the source of this funding (eg annual revenue, foreign loans) and, in each case, which departmental votes have been the source of the payments.(5) In each of the past 5 financial years, and in the current 1998-99 financial year to date, what has been the cost to Australia of association with the United Nations, and with each of the following agencies: United Nations Development Program, United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organisation, Food and Agricultural Organisation, United Nations Fund for Population Activities, United Nations Development Fund for Women, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund and the International Labour Organisation in the following categories: (a) any annual dues by way of membership or association; (b) any contributions to loans or so-called rescue packages to foreign nations, (c) any contributions, and to which, specific bilateral or multilateral development projects; and (d) any other cost for any purpose.(6) What has been the source of this funding (eg annual revenue, foreign loans) and, in each case, which departmental votes have been the source of the payments.2277Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Presented below are costs for each of the past five financial years and an estimate of costs for the current 1998-99 financial year. Estimates of costs for the whole current financial year have been presented as these reflect more accurately Australia's commitments in 1998-99 than the actual expenditure to date, as sought.(1) (a) Nil. Capital subscriptions and replenishments to the World Bank Group—which are not strictly "annual dues by way of membership or association"—are dealt with below in answer to question (1) (d).(1) (b) Nil. Australia has made no contributions to such "loans or so-called rescue packages" as a result of its association with the World Bank, but has made pledges of financial support to Thailand (US$1 billion currency swap), Korea (US$1 billion loan) and Indonesia (US$1 billion loan) at the request of the IMF. Of these, US$758 million of the Thai currency swap has (as of December 1998) been drawn down.(1) (c) Australia's contribution—through participation in co-financed projects or other cooperation—to World Bank Group development projects or programs ($A):CountryProject1993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-99 (estimate)BangladeshFourth Population & Health1,791,6612,652,18418,906 CambodiaCambodia Veterans Assistance Program203,403100,000 ChinaGuangxi Urban Environment1,025,000457,000ChinaChongqing Urban Environment123,000ChinaHighway Investments Project300,00016ChinaSeed Sector Commercialisation980,000ChinaTarim Basin II Project2,000,0001,000,000 ChinaFeed Industry Development Project1,066,00025ChinaSichuan Urban Environment130,000ChinaSecond Shanghai Sewerage Review Panel177,500ChinaGrain Distribution & Marketing Project888,488ChinaShanghai Environmental Masterplan Study359,000ChinaHighway Planning and EvaluationChinaHubei Urban Environmental Project1,440,040ChinaAgricultural Support Services—Aust Assistance24,7141,081,5082,178,1421,742,90142,642ChinaHousing and Social Security Reform293ChinaWB Disease Prevention & Health Promotion19,7981,022,663118,00036560,000ChinaAction Program for the Water Sector735,0002,300,261ChinaIFC Private Sector Development Facility1,000,0001,000,000 EritreaWorld Bank Recovery & Rehabilitation Project850,000395,410IndiaDistrict Poverty Initiatives1,000,000 IndiaAndhra Pradesh Highways70,000900,000 IndonesiaWB Rapid Assessment of Poverty Programs119,125 IndonesiaBack-to-School Program2,495,950 IndonesiaSocial Monitoring and Early Response Unit814,500 IndonesiaLand Administration Project10,5844,202,0816,884,5985,593,4173,726,6102,869,053 MongoliaUlaanbataar Services Improvement Project496,578346,600880,0001,300,000 Palest. Terr.Education & Health Rehabilitation Project527,00052PNGAusAID (NFCAP) Trust Fund11,573200,0002,000,000 PNGPNG-Aust. Consultants Trust Fund300,000300,000720,000PhilippinesUrban Health & Nutrition164,4791,187,614759,686405,3491,082,5092,165,226 PhilippinesFIAS Study on Foreign Investment108,000 PhilippinesIFC Study: Southern Philippines52,806SamoaPublic Works Institutional Strengthening800,000 ThailandSocial Investment Project Support439,54252,916 ThailandEst. of Chao Phraya Basin Organisation250,000ThailandScience & Engineering Education Project73,912989,7154,137,8276,500,000VietnamWB: Land Management Project400,000VietnamWorld Bank : Higher Education500,000VietnamDanang Water Supply and Sanitation Project3,300,00013,2431,329,999455,000 VietnamAudit of Bank of Agriculture750,000VietnamDanang Water Supply Project Feasibility485,971991,75878,299Total7,345,25913,407,09116,579,31310,520,38816,202,51026,570,937(1) (d) Cash payments (including capital subscriptions and drawdowns of promissory notes lodged, but excluding contributions to co-financed projects listed in (1) (c) above) made to the World Bank 1993-1999 ($A million):1993-19941994-19951995-19961996-19971997-19981998-99 (estimate)IBRD* (capital subscription)1.34.35.2IFC* (capital subscription)6.56.98.4MIGA* (capital subscription)6.1 IDA* (contribution to replenishment)139.2113.1109.9127.4121.5115.5 * BRD-International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; IFC-International Finance Corporation; MIGA- Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency; IDA-International Development Association (soft loan arm of the World Bank for poorest developing countries).(2) Funds for activities under (1) (c) and (d) have been provided through annual Budget appropriations as follows:Institution/ActivityResponsible Department/AgencyInternational Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentTreasuryInternational Finance CorporationTreasury (capital subscription)/Australian Agency for International Development (projects)International Development AssociationAustralian Agency for International DevelopmentLoans or rescue packages to foreign nationsTreasuryDirect contributions to development projectsAustralian Agency for International Development(3) Presented below are costs for each of the past five financial years and an estimate of costs for the current 1998-99 financial year. Estimates of costs for the whole current financial year have been presented as these reflect more accurately Australia's commitments in 1998-99 than the actual expenditure to date, as sought.(3) (a) Nil. Capital subscriptions and replenishments—which are not strictly "annual dues by way of membership or association"—are dealt with below in answer to question (3) (d). (3) (b) Nil. Note answer to (1) (b).(3) (c) Australia's contribution—through participation in co-financed projects or other cooperation—to Asian Development Bank development projects and programs ($A):CountryProject1993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-99 (estimate)KiribatiKiribati Aerial Photography250,000LaosBasic Girls Education Project200,000NepalThird Livestock Development—ADB700,000265,000PhilippinesRegional Municipal Development39,13672,20546,0351,221,7413,555,9406,194,605PhilippinesWomen's Health Training Project83,2471,372620,8332,899,4592,823,7733,765,360PhilippinesIntergrated Community Health Services Project72,58522,0181,042,4475,659,523SamoaTreasury Institutional Strengthening103,446337,2811,598,3261,136,4201,704,912South East Asia RegionalADB Greater Mekong Sub-regional HIV/AIDS198,905Sri LankaParticipatory Forestry Project915,6401,432,9351,695,4512,066,7831,808,6721,287,656Total1,038,0231,609,9582,772,1858,957,23210,367,25219,077,056(3) (d) Cash payments (including capital subscriptions and drawdowns of promissory notes lodged but excluding co-financed projects listed in (3) (c) above) made to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) 1993-1999 ($A million):1993-19941994-19951995-19961996-19971997-19981998-99 (estimate)ADB (capital subscription)1.02.22.42.7 ADF* (contribution to replenishment) 1.339.377.875.7107.8113.8 * ADF-Asian Development Fund (the soft loan arm of the ADB for the region's poorest countries).(4) Funds for activities under (3) (c) and (d) have been provided through annual Budget appropriations as follows:Institution/ActivityResponsible Department/AgencyAsian Development BankTreasuryAsian Development FundAustralian Agency for International DevelopmentLoans or rescue packages to foreign nationsTreasuryDirect contributions to development projectsAustralian Agency for International Development(5) Presented below are costs for each of the past five financial years and an estimate of costs for the current 1998-99 financial year. Estimates of costs for the whole current financial year have been presented as these reflect more accurately Australia's commitments in 1998-99 than the actual expenditure to date, as sought.(5) (a) Nil. Assessed and voluntary contributions to the United Nations and UN agencies—which are not strictly "annual dues by way of membership or association"—are dealt with below in answer to question (5) (c) and (d).(5) (b) Nil. Note answer to (1) (b). (5) (c) and (d) Australia's contribution—including through projects and assessed and voluntary contributions to core budgets—to the UN and UN agencies 1993-99 ($A million*). *Figures have been rounded to the nearest $100,000. Amounts of below $50,000 have been shown in italics.Year1993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-99 (estimate)United NationsCore budget22.320.721.920.323.925Total22.320.721.920.323.925United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)Core budget6.77.47.37.54.18.1Total6.77.47.37.54.18.1United Nations Development Program (UNDP)Core budget17.617.918.59.06.56.7 Projects (details below)2.21.52.85.351.4 Total19.819.421.314.311.58.1 United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA)Core budget3.33.94.02.02.02.1 Projects(details below)2.02.42.40.30.5Total5.36.36.42.32.52.1 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)Core budget7.57.913.513.513.513.7 Projects(details below)0.50.35.33.10.7Total8.08.218.816.614.213.7 United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM)Core budget0.30.30.40.40.30.4 Projects(details below)0.30.0 $22,4200.3Total0.60.40.70.40.30.4 United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF)Core budget5.44.64.84.44.54.6 Projects(details below)5.47.311.89.110.011.7Total10.811.916.613.514.416.3 International Labour Organisation (ILO)Core Budget4.94.85.74.45.35.4 Projects(details below)0.40.50.0 $31,249Total5.35.35.74.45.35.4 Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)Core budget8.87.37.26.56.98.0 Projects(details below)1.11.14.74.953.2 Total9.98.411.911.411.911.2Details of Australia's contribution to development projects with the United Nations Development Program ($A million):Year 1993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-99 (estimate)Disaster Management (Cambodia)0.1Mine Clearance Enhancement (Cambodia)1.021st C Urban Water Management (China)0.60.10.1 Hebei earthquake (China)0.1UNDP/GEF Renewable Energy Project (China)2.50.0$25,569Constitution Commission (Eritrea)0.20.2 Assistance to Alemaya Ag Uni (Ethiopia)0.7Training in Hydropower Development (Laos)0.0 $24,8600.50.40.0 $2,9580.1 UNDP/Lao PDR UXO Trust Fund (Laos)0.30.80.3ASEAN Integration (Laos)0.10.3SNDPS Project (PNG)0.80.0 $15,5040.2MNLF DE-MOB (Philippines)0.2Peace Building Mindanao (Philippines)1.01.0 Regional Fruit Fly Project Phase 2 (Pacific)0.30.30.4Forests & Trees Support Program (Pacific) 0.30.2Codes of Logging Practice Workshop (Pacific)0.2PIF&TSP Silvicultural and Logging Wksp (Pacific) 0.2Coal Technology Training Program (South Asia)1.01.01.11.1South Pacific Disaster Management (Pacific)0.1Mining Legislation (Vietnam)0.20.0 $3,072Bush Fires (Mongolia)0.0 $20,000Emergency Assistance (Dominica) 0.1UNDP HIV/AIDS Program0.1Total2.21.52.85.351.4 Details of Australia's contribution to development projects with the United Nations Fund for Population Activities ($A million):Year1993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-99 (estimate)Women Population & Development (China)0.10.1IEC Project (Pakistan)0.90.30.4Pilot Project on Population (Vietnam)0.20.1IEC Program (South East Asia)1.31.31.2Escap Regional Population Advisor (South East Asia)0.20.2Integration pf Pop&Env Project (South East Asia)0.20.2Maternal & Child Health/Family Planning0.30.3UNFPA Demographer (Zimbabwe)0.20.1Total2.02.42.40.30.5Details of Australia's contribution to development projects with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ($A million): Year1993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-99 (estimate)Human Rights monitors for Rohingyas (Burma)0.3Rohingya Refugees (Burma)0.2Reintegration of Refugees (Cambodia)0.5Repatriation Program (Ethiopia)1.3Appeal for repatriation and resettlement (Ethiopia)0.8Emergency Assistance (Former Yugoslavia)0.51.5Refugee relief (former Yugoslavia)1.51.0Repatriation Program (Rwanda)1.0Health activities for returnees (Rwanda)1.0Human Rights Officers (Rwanda)0.3Total0.50.35.33.10.7Details of Australia's contribution to development projects with the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund ($A million):Year1993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-99 (estimate)Urban Children (Bangladesh)0.0 $35,000IDEAL (Bangladesh)3.02.7 Floods (Burma)0.1EPI and WSS (Cambodia)1.01.01.60.1Iodine Deficiency Disorders (China) 0.40.2UNICEF Health (Rwanda)1.0Infectious Diseases Vaccines (Rwanda)0.5Child Survival and Safe Motherhood (India)2.12.52.7Primary Education (India)0.0 $20,0002.63.04.7 Back-to-School (Indonesia)0.82.5 Integrated Health and Nutrition Program (Korea Demorcatic Republic)0.5Integrated Area Based Rural Project (Namibia) 0.2HIV/AIDS Education (Namibia)0.3Girls Primary School Education (Pakistan)0.0 $24,2130.5 Mindanao Maternal & Child health Project (Philippines)2.92.35.91.21.81.1 Polio Eradication (Vietnam)0.70.7Vaccine Independence Initiative (South East Asia)0.7UN Appeal (Sudan)1.0 Basic Education for Minority Children (Vietnam)0.2Multisectoral Program (Vietnam)0.0 $44,000STD Control for Pregnant Women (Zambia)0.50.30.40.4Int Community Health (Zimbabwe)0.30.50.20.2Total5.47.311.89.110.011.7Details of Australia's contribution to development projects with the United Nations Development Fund for Women, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation and the International Labour Organisation ($A million):UNIFEMYear1993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-99 (estimate)Pacific Planning Project0.30.00.30.0 $22,420Total0.30.3FAOYear1993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-99 (estimate)Technical Assistance for Drought Relief0.2Foot & Mouth Disease Project (Philippines)0.10.22.32.4Pacific Regional Workshop0.3Pacific Fruit Fly Project Phase III0.60.4Integrated Pest Management: Rice and Vegetables1.00.90.92.21.73 Household Food Security1.20.90.3Supply Seeds & Agricultural Tools1.2West Africa Special ADS0.0 $31,000Control of the Larger Grain Borer0.2Total1.11.14.74.95.03.2ILOYear1993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-99 (estimate)International Labour Organisation (Asian Study)0.40.40.0 $6,249Feasibility study—Indonesian workers' education0.10.0 $25,000Total0.40.50.0 $31,249(6) Funds for activities under (5) (c) and (d) have been provided through annual Budget appropriations as follows:Institution/ActivityResponsible Department/AgencyCore budget and multilateral projects for:United Nations Development ProgramUnited Nations Fund for Population Activities United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees United Nations Development Fund for Women United Nations International Children's Emergency FundAustralian Agency for International DevelopmentMultilateral development projects for:International Labour Organisation United Nations Food and Agriculture OrganisationAustralian Agency for International DevelopmentCore Budget and projects for:International Labour OrganisationDepartment of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small BusinessUnited Nations Food and Agriculture OrganisationDepartment of Agriculture, Fisheries and ForestryCore Budget for: United Nations United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganisationDepartment of Foreign Affairs and Trade2285(Question No. 201)2012285Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) Have any export licences been granted for the export of jarrah wood chips or residue; if so: (a) when were they granted; (b) for what period; (c) to what company or companies; (d) for what annual amount; (e) for export to what country; (f) for what purpose are the wood chips/residue used; and (g) for each year of the currency of the licence, what amount of wood chips/residue has been exported.(2) Have any export licences been granted for the export from Western Australia of softwood wood chips; softwood logs, plantation hardwood wood chips or hardwood logs; if so: (a) when were they granted; (b) for what period; (c) to what company or companies; (d) for what annual amount; (e) for export to what country; and (f) for each year of the currency of the licence, what amount of product has been exported.2285Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) There are no current licences issued specifically for Jarrah wood chips or residue.In relation to general hardwood wood chip licences granted to WA exporters:In answer to questions (1)(a-d), please refer to the copies of licences attached.In answer to question (1)(e-f), this information is not supplied within those licences.In answer to question (1)(g), companies provide the Wood chip Export Monitoring Unit (WEMU) details of actual exports. However, these reports are provided on a commercial-in-confidence basis.(2) Please also see the answer to Question on Notice No. 1228.Since 19 September 1997, licences to export materials sourced from plantations in WA are no longer required. This follows the approval of that State's code of practice for plantations as satisfactorily protecting environmental and heritage values.2285(Question No. 330)3302285Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:(1) On how many occasions did the department refer unauthorised disclosures to the Australian Federal Police between March 1996 and October 1998.(2) In each instance where an investigation has been undertaken has that investigation been concluded.(3) Have any officers been charged with offences relating to unauthorised disclosures that occurred during this period; if so, how many.2285Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) During the period in question, one case of alleged unlawful disclosure was referred to the AFP for investigation.(2) The AFP advise that an investigation was undertaken and has been concluded.(3) No officers have been charged. 2286(Question No. 348)3482286Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 7 December 1998:(1) What data was used to calculate the amount of carbon dioxide released by clearing or logging native vegetation in Australia for the greenhouse gas inventory, including the estimated carbon content of each vegetation type for which a separate calculation was made and the references to the scientific studies on which each of the carbon estimates is based.(2) With reference to native forests: (a) what is the estimated carbon content of: (i) tree trunks, (ii) tree branches and leaves, (iii) tree roots, (iv) understorey vegetation, and (v) soil; (b) on what data are these estimates based; and (c) are they from logged or unlogged forests.(3) (a) What studies have been mate of the carbon content on unlogged native forests; and (b) could references and details be supplied of when and by whom the work was carried out.(4) (a) How much carbon is stored in unlogged compared with logged native forests; and (b) if there is no data for comparison, is it thought that unlogged forests contain more carbon and approximately how much more.(5) (a) How much greenhouse gas is released when an old-growth forest is logged, burnt and converted to an 80 year rotation forest; and (b) what allowance is made for this in the greenhouse gas inventory.(6) By how much could Australia's greenhouse gas emissions be underestimated because forest carbon data is based on logged forests instead of unlogged ones and/or does not include an estimate of emissions from logging old-growth forests.2286Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1), (2), (3) and (5) The detail of how the emissions inventories are compiled and their construction can be found in Workbook 4.2, Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere (1997). This conforms with the requirements laid out in the Revised 1996 Guidelines of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Workbook is published by the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) and is available at their Website at http://www.greenhouse.gov.au. Supplemental information can also be found in the supporting information to the 1996 Inventory which introduces some updated data and methods to the inventory procedures. The 1996 Inventory also provides the working tables behind the current emissions estimates for 1990 and 1996. The answers to points (1) to (3) of your question can be found in the Workbook and 1996 Inventory with references to source materials provided.(4) Undisturbed mature forests are generally considered to be in balance between carbon sequestered and emitted. An event, such as fire or harvest which removes carbon from the system generally promotes plant regrowth and leads to net sequestration until a new equilibrium is achieved. The type of disturbance, site growth potential and a variety of other factors will determine the rate at which carbon is sequestered, while the level of carbon storage at the new equilibrium will also be a factor of site growth potential, which is unlikely to change during disturbance.(6) Forest carbon data (storage) takes account of emissions from clearing and sequestration during regrowth, and therefore, is not considered to be a potential source of estimation error.2286(Question No. 349)3492286Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 7 December 1998:Was 12,000 kg of the banned chemical pesticide Aldrin imported into Australia between April 1997 and January 1998 from the Indian port of Mumbai; if so: (a) why was it imported; (b) by whom; and (c) what was it used for.2286Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:I have made enquiries on this matter.Aldrin is prohibited for import into Australia under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, specifically Schedule 9. Goods in Schedule 9 can only be imported if a permit is granted by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The Australian Customs Service has advised that no declared imports of Aldrin from India occurred between 1 January 1997 and 1 December 1998 (which includes the timespan specified in the question).The Australian Customs Service and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry have previously investigated a similar question, based on information provided by Greenpeace in late 1997. In that case it was stated that imports of Aldrin to Australia from India in the years ending March 1996 and March 1997 totalled 27,440 kilograms. The Ministry of Environment and Forests of India and Greenpeace (India) were contacted by Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry officials seeking verification of this information but there has been no response to Greenpeace's claim. Neither the Australia Customs Service nor the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry were able to find any evidence to verify the alleged imports of Aldrin.Regarding this specific claim, officials in my Department have been unable to find supporting evidence for the claim that 12,000 kilograms of Aldrin was imported from India into Australia between April 1997 and January 1998 (based on the Greenpeace publication `Toxic Legacies; Poisoned—Futures',*November 1998). I would suggest that any further enquires on this matter be directed to the Minister for Justice and Customs and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry who have portfolio responsibility for the control of imports of organochlorine pesticides.2287(Question No. 356)3562287Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BartlettDT6QLDAD00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 8 December 1998:(1) Is the Minister aware of recent reports regarding possible export of saltwater crocodile penises to Japan.(2) Have any requests been received for the approval for the exportation of such crocodile products; if so, will the Government agree to such requests.(3) Is the Minister aware of the recent reports regarding crocodile products, taken as a result of trophy hunting, being exported.(4) Have any requests been received for approval for the exportation of such crocodile products.(5) What is the current situation in relation to the export of crocodile parts as hunting trophies.(6) Will the Government agree to any requests for export of crocodile hunting trophies.2287Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) I am aware of reports on the possible exports of crocodile penises to Asia, in particular South-East Asia. I was not aware of reports of possible exports to Japan.(2) No specific requests have been received for approval for export of penises.Crocodile farms, once approved under the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982, are not restricted in the crocodile products which they may sell for export.(3) No.(4) No individual requests have been received for approval for export of crocodile products taken as a result of trophy hunting. The Northern Territory Government sought approval for trophy hunting under its management program for crocodiles under the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982.(5) Trophy hunting is not permitted under the currently approved crocodile management programs.(6) The Government does not support trophy hunting and it is not permitted under the currently approved crocodile management programs.2287(Question No. 357)3572287Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 8 December 1998:Has Austrade provided assistance to Westfarmers Bunnings or any of its subsidiary companies to develop overseas markets for Jarrah and/or Karri timber or timber products; if so: (a) what is the nature of that assistance; (b) in which countries has Austrade provided assistance; (c) for what products and what quantity of products; and (d) with which overseas companies.2287Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator's question:Austrade has provided assistance to Westfarmers and Bunnings to develop overseas markets as per the following:(a) Austrade has provided market research, organised appointments overseas, arranged interpreters and booked accommodation for company representatives;(b) Austrade has provided assistance in Europe, North America and Asia;(c) and (d)The disclosure by Austrade of the Commercial-In-Confidence information requested is prohibited under the Secrecy Provisions of Section 94 of the Australian Trade Commission Act 1985.2287(Question No. 360)3602287O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:With reference to the Government's commitment to spend $12 million over the next 3 financial years commencing from 1999-2000 on the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy, contained in the policy document, `Primed for Growth': (1) How much money was spent on this strategy in the financial years 1996-97 and 1997-98 and committed in 1998-99.(2) What level of funding was in the forward estimates for this program prior to the 1998 federal election.(3) Can details be provided of how this funding will be spent over the next 3 financial years.(4) (a) How many additional officers will be employed; (b) where will they be located; and (c) what will be their duties.2288Alston, 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:(1) Actual expenditure for the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy (NAQS) was $6.3 million in 1996/97 and $6.6 million in 1997/98. A total of $6.8 million is allocated for 1998/99.(2) AQIS receives a base allocation in the forward estimates for its on-going Community Service Obligation (CSO) activities from which it has allocated funding for the NAQS program. In 1998-99, $2.8 million is earmarked for NAQS. The forward estimates for AQIS's base CSO funding would enable similar allocations to be made in future.(3) and (4) In June 1998 the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr John Anderson, asked the Quarantine and Exports Advisory Council (QEAC) to undertake a review of the NAQS program. This review has now been completed and will shortly be released publicly for consultation.The details of future NAQS activities will be determined in the light of the outcome of the Review process. The Government's commitment to spend $12 million over the next 3 financial years will enable current NAQS activity levels to be maintained.2288(Question No. 361)3612288O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:(1) When was the AUSVETPLAN established.(2) What was the purpose of that plan and on what funding basis was it originally agreed.(3) When was the AUSVETPLAN last reviewed.(4) (a) Was that review undertaken by the Australian Animal Health Council.(b) When did that review commence and (c) when was it completed. (5) What action followed that review.(6) What is the membership of the Australian Animal Health Council.(7) Was any upgrade resulting from that review endorsed by the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ); if so, when was it endorsed.(8) Can details be provided of the changes endorsed by ARMCANZ.2288Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions:(1) The concept of a national plan along the lines of AUSVETPLAN was proposed at a seminar in 1985. The structure of the plan was developed over the next few years with the first documents finished in 1989. The first edition of AUSVETPLAN was published in 1991.(2) The purpose of that plan was to:- provide a planning structure for the management of an exotic animal disease emergency in which each element has an identifiable place;- to provide greater coherence and improved recording and indexing of exotic disease plans;- to avoid gaps and duplication in exotic disease planning and compatibilities of operation and procedures between Commonwealth/State/Territories animal health authorities and Counter-disaster Organisations;- to improve the technical validity of the underlying assumptions in the development of strategies to combat exotic disease emergencies; and- to identify deficiencies in technical knowledge required to combat an exotic disease emergency and establish research priorities.Initial development of AUSVETPLAN was undertaken from existing resources in the former Department of Primary Industries and Energy. Funding of $0.1 million was provided by the Commonwealth in February 1990 to progress the development with the States contributing in kind through membership of writing groups.(3) Development of AUSVETPLAN continued from publication of the first edition in 1991 with the inclusion of additional disease strategies, industry preparedness manuals and considerable revision to the first edition documents. Publication of the second edition occurred early in 1996. Since then AUSVETPLAN has remained constantly under review by the Veterinary Committee of SCARM, the Australian Animal Health Council and a special editorial group. (4) (a) Since 1997, the Australian Animal Health Council has contracted the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry to coordinate continual review, development and maintenance of AUSVETPLAN in conjunction with the States/Territories and industries. This is ongoing, being driven by new disease incidents, scientific developments and a planned program of review of selected documents.(b) & (c) As stated above the review of AUSVETPLAN is ongoing.(5) and (7) The second edition of AUSVETPLAN was approved by ARMCANZ in January 1996. ARMCANZ agreed that Veterinary Committee should in future approve technical changes to manuals arising from new knowledge and/or experience, but that significant changes to policy continue to be submitted to ARMCANZ for approval.(6) The membership of the Australian Animal Health Council consists of the following:Commonwealth of Australia; State of New South Wales; State of Victoria; State of Queensland; State of South Australia; State of Tasmania; State of Western Australia; Northern Territory; Australian Chicken Meat Federation Inc; Australian Dairy Farmers' Federation Limited; Australian Egg Industry Association Inc; Australian Horse Industry Council; Australian Veterinary Association Limited; Cattle Council of Australia Limited; Pork Council of Australia Limited; Sheepmeat Council of Australia Inc; Wool Council of Australia Inc; Australian Lot Feeders Association; CSIRO.(8) Since January 1996 ARMCANZ approved a new strategy manual for Japanese encephalitis on 27 February 1998.2289(Question No. 362)3622289O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 15 December 1998:(1) Has a new set of policy and funding principles for pest and disease emergency management been finalised by the Australian Animal Health Council.(2) (a) When did the process of developing these principles commence; (b) who initiated this process; and (c) when was the process completed.(3) How will costs of managing such incursions be allocated between the states, the Commonwealth and industry.2289Alston, 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 (AAHC) for response. The Council is a non-profit public company whose members are the federal and state governments and peak industry organisations. It is the peak animal health body for developing strategic policy advice and for funding of agreed national animal disease programs.(1) The Council has advised me that work on new cost sharing arrangements for funding of emergency animal disease outbreaks, although well advanced, is currently the subject of more detailed development.(2) (a) I am advised by the Council that the process of developing new disease emergency funding arrangements commenced in February 1997.(b) The process was initiated by Commonwealth and State Ministers at the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) meeting in February 1997.(c) The process has not yet been completed as this is a complex initiative requiring agreement on details between industry and government. ARMCANZ is likely to consider detailed proposals in August 1999.(3) I am advised by the Council that the principles underlying the proposed arrangements are:- categorisation of the disease/incursion based upon scientific assessment of its relative impact on human health, trade, animal/plant production and environment;- a cost sharing formula based on relative responsibilities of the three parties (industry, Commonwealth and state governments) and assessment of apportionment of public/private benefits based on the four considerations above; and- triggering of the new cost-sharing agreement by relevant portfolio's Ministers and industry based on scientific and technical advice (in the same way the current cost sharing agreement is triggered on advice from the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Diseases), but with formal industry involvement.The details of how some of these principles will work in practice are being considered by AAHC at the moment.2289(Question No. 365)3652289O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:(1) What role has the Minister and the Department had in the Food Regulation Review process.(2) Did the department make a formal submission to that review; if so, can a copy be provided of that review.2290Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided that following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (then the Department of Primary Industries and Energy) was represented on the Food Regulation Review Committee and has contributed to the Review process through formal submissions, provision of comment on issues identified during the initial public comment phase and workshop participation. The Report of the Food Regulation Review, released in August 1998, was provided to the former Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, his Parliamentary Secretary and the former Minister for Resources.Subsequent to the release of the Report, the Prime Minister indicated, in a letter to all Premiers and Chief Ministers, that a whole-of-government (Council of Australian Governments (COAG)) response to the Review Report would be developed by COAG Senior Officials. The Prime Minister also asked the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) (which I chair), the Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture (MCFFA) (which I co-chair) and the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council (ANZFSC) to develop an agreed response to the report recommendations for COAG consideration by July 1999.A joint ARMCANZ/MCFFA High Level Working Group has been established to develop a position on the Food Regulation Review Report for the consideration of ARMCANZ and MCFFA and their Standing Committees. It is anticipated that ARMCANZ and MCFFA will put their position to ANZFSC, in the first instance, to seek an agreed response to take to COAG. ARMCANZ and MCFFA will also consult with industry through the industry peak bodies in developing their response to the Report.(2) The Department made two formal submissions to the Review, the first during the initial round of public submissions in November 1997 and the second following the release of the Draft Report of the Food Regulation Review for public comment on 27 May 1998. The Department has provided a copy of each of these submissions for the Honourable Senator's information. Copies of the Food Regulation Review Report may be obtained from the Australia New Zealand Food Authority.2290(Question No. 366)3662290O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:(1) Did the former Minister for Primary Industries and Energy establish a transition team to manage the implementation of reforms to the red meat and livestock industries.(2) (a) When was that team established; (b) who were its members; (c) on how many occasions did it meet; and (d) was the transition team given specific terms of reference; if so, can a copy be provided.(3) Did the transition team develop a framework for oversight and handling of all issues relating to both safety and hygiene of the whole meat chain; if so, can copies be provided.(4) Was a key part of the transition team's brief to achieve efficiency savings in the meat processing chain.(5) Did the transition team identify savings in the meat processing chain.(6) Can copies be provided of any reports or other documents relating to this aspect of the transition team's work.(7) Has the transition team been replaced by a permanent body.(8) (a) What is the title of the new body; (b) who are its members; (c) on how many occasions has it met; and (d) was the new body given specific terms of reference; if so, can a copy be provided.(9) (a) What is the structure of the new body; (b) does it meet on a regular basis; and (c) does the department provide the secretariat; if not: (i) who does provide the secretariat, and (ii)how was the selection made.(10) Does industry meet any of the costs associated with this body; if so: (a) what is the annual budget for the new body; (b) what percentage of these costs are met by industry; and (c) how is the industry contribution raised.2290Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions:(1) Yes.(2) (a) Industry provided their consent on 17 April 1997 to form the transition team and it held its first meeting on 6 May 1997. (b) The members of the transition team were as follows:Cattle Council of Australia; Sheepmeat Council of Australia; Australian Lot Feeders' Association; Australian Livestock Exporters' Council; Australian Meat Council; National Meat Association of Australia ; Meat & Livestock Australia (after the board was appointed on 19 August 1997); Australian Meat Processor Corporation; Australian Livestock Exporters Corporation; Australian Meat & Livestock Corporation; Meat Research Corporation; Freehill, Hollingdale and Page (legal advisors) and representatives of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy's office and the Department of Primary Industries and Energy.(c) The transition team held 26 meetings from May 1997 to June 1998, plus numerous other smaller working groups also met to discuss various issues in relation to the new red meat industry arrangements.(d) Yes. A copy of the Terms of Reference is attached.(3) Yes. A government and industry partnership called Safemeat was developed to oversight safety and hygiene issues for the whole meat chain. The agreed framework for its operation is included in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which is on the internet at the following address:www.affa.gov.au/dpie/agriculture/meat-livestock/mou/contents.htmlA copy of the relevant Schedule of the MoU is attached.(4) (5) and (6) No. The achievement of efficiency savings in the meat processing chain was not a key part of the transition team's brief. However, the new arrangements have enabled the processing industry to move from providing statutory levies to voluntary contributions which has substantially reduced their costs.(7) (8) (9) and (10) No. The transition team has not been replaced by a permanent body. The transition team was only established to represent the varied interests of industry bodies and Government in implementing reforms to service delivery mechanisms for meat and livestock industries in Australia within the policy framework set out by the Government.TRANSITION TEAM FORUMTERMS OF REFERENCEPurposeThe purpose of the Transition Team is to represent the varied interests of Industry bodies and Government in implementing reforms to service delivery mechanisms for meat and livestock industries in Australia within the policy framework set out by the Government. RoleThe Transition Team Forum is an important cross linking mechanism which will facilitate a smooth transition from the current Statutory arrangements to the proposed Industry controlled Corporations, while addressing issues of concern to both Industry representative bodies and Government.Ultimately industry is responsible for grasping the opportunities provided in the meat reform package through development of the most appropriate corporate structure to operate within the boundaries established. This forum will act as a vehicle for ensuring that industry takes full opportunity of this initiative. It provides a mechanism for linking Government needs through the Department of Primary Industries and Energy and ensuring minimum standards of accountability required by Parliament for Commonwealth Appropriations are met.Industry has given the Transition Team members the responsibility and the authority to negotiate on behalf of their respective body/members and to deal with the details associated with implementation of the meat reforms. This may need to be achieved on an ad referendum basis. That is, Industry and where necessary Government representatives, have been given the authority to negotiate on behalf of their respective bodies/members, but with the final position may need to be approved by the respective body/members.PrinciplesImportant principles for the operation of this Forum are as follows:. it is the responsibility of all members of this Forum to work constructively and collaboratively in achieving a co-ordinated approach to implementing meat and livestock reforms. the Forum will recognise that there are substantial differences between Industry representatives and Government in relation to the diversity and complexity of management issues which need to be taken into account in the decision making processes.. this Forum will consult on decisions and their implementation in a full and timely manner. decisions will be made in an open and transparent mannerSchedule 4—SafemeatCommencement date 27 April 19981 Parties1. Peak Industry Councils (other than ALEC)2. MLA3. The Commonwealth2 Definitions in addition to those in Statement of Principles States/Territories Meat and Livestock Authority means the State or Territory government organisation in a State or Territory with the responsibility for registering and overseeing industry standards.3 Purpose of ScheduleTo describe the arrangements for the establishment and operation of Safemeat.4 Detail4.1 Membership (a) The members of Safemeat will be: (1) the Secretary, Department of Primary Industries and Energy: to represent the Commonwealth and facilitate management and implementation of Commonwealth responsibilities; (2) the CEO from a State Department of Agriculture/Primary Industries: to represent States/Territories and facilitate management and implementation of States/Territories responsibilities; (3) the Chairperson from a States/Territories Meat and Livestock Authority to represent States/Territories Meat and Livestock Authorities; (4) the Chairpersons/Presidents of each of CCA, SCA, ALFA, AMC and NMA: to be responsible for actions needed to ensure hygienic and safe product throughout each industry sector they represent; and (5) the Commonwealth Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO ), who also is in charge of the Commonwealth Office of Food Safety: the CVO has direct links into the human health network and has a key responsibility for international market access negotiations and international organisations such as the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). (b) Each member will have the right to nominate a person to act on their behalf in any of the activities carried out or to be carried out by or through Safemeat. The person must be senior and able to take decisive action on behalf of the government or industry sector they represent. (c) The members will appoint the chairperson of AMC or the chairperson of NMA to be chairperson of Safemeat and determine the period for which that person will hold office. (d) (1) The chairperson of MLA will be a full participant in discussions and MLA will provide back-up support by way of research, analysis and advice. Services which MLA may be asked to provide to underpin the operations of Safemeat will be delivered in an efficient and cost effective manner. (2)The chairperson of MLA will have the right to nominate a senior person to act on their behalf who has authority to take any decisive action which may be required. (e) Other persons may be called upon from time to time to have direct and full participation in Safemeat, depending on the issues involved. This applies particularly to the Commonwealth or States/Territories Chief Medical Officers.4.2 RoleThe role of Safemeat will be: (a) to work with the objective of establishing world best practice in ensuring the safety of meat; (b) to ensure each industry sector implements sound management systems to ensure safe and hygienic product is delivered to the market place; (c) to ensure adequate and nationally consistent government standards and regulations relating to meat safety and hygiene; (d) to ensure that effective crisis management strategies are in place by the appropriate industry sectors and, to this end, ensure that there is a fully integrated and effective communications network; and (e) to monitor industry meat safety performance.4.3 Operations (a) Safemeat will operate as a working partnership of Commonwealth and States/Territories government interests and industry sector interests, with each participant responsible for reporting to their respective government or industry sector and ensuring that outcomes required of them are delivered. (b) Safemeat participants will appoint working groups which will have direct responsibility for carrying out work required and delivering outcomes. (c) The secretariat will be selected by competitive tender. (d) Members will meet at least 4 times a year.Signed on behalf ofCattle Council of Australia Inc.by: J Wyld Signature John Wyld President Name and Position Signed on behalf ofSheepmeat Council of Australia Inc.by: A J Martin Signature Jim Martin President Name and PositionSigned on behalf ofNational Meat Association of Australiaby: G Edmonds Signature Grant Edmonds Secretary/Treasurer Name and PositionSigned on behalf ofAustralian Meat Council Limitedby: C Creal Signature Chris Creal Company Secretary Name and PositionSigned on behalf ofAustralian Lot Feeders' Associationby: M J Foster Signature Malcolm Foster President Name and PositionSigned on behalf ofMeat & Livestock Australia Limitedby: R I Brooks Signature Richard Brooks Managing Director Name and PositionSigned on behalf ofCommonwealth of Australiaby: John Anderson Signature John Anderson Minister Name and Position2293(Question No. 369)3692293Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:(1) What impact will the Government's goods and services tax package have on the price of wine: (a) per 750 ml bottle of wine `Made in Australia'; (b) per 750 ml bottle of wine `Product of Australia'; (c) per 750 ml bottle of imported wine; (d) per 750 ml of cask wine `Made in Australia'; (e) per 750 ml of cask wine `Product of Australia'; and per 750 ml of imported cask wine.(2) Millilitre for millilitre, will the package advantage average prices of cask wine as against bottled wine; if so, by how much and why.(3) Has the Minister been approached by Tasmanian vignerons concerned by the impact of the package on sales of their produce; if so, what action is to be taken to assuage those concerns.2293Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The reforms to alcohol taxation do not distinguish between domestic and imported products. Incorporating both the direct and indirect impact of tax changes, including reductions in industry costs, a medium priced bottle of wine, either domestic or imported, is expected to rise by between 2 and 3 per cent, and cask wine is expected to rise by no more than the general CPI impact of the tax reform package, ie 1.9 per cent.(2) As noted above, the price of cask wine is expected to increase by no more than the estimated general price increase associated with tax reform, ie 1.9 per cent; bottled wine prices are expected to rise by between 2 and 3 per cent. The difference is due to the higher product value of bottled wine over cask wine, and the higher retail margins on bottled wine compared to cask wine.(3) Tasmanian vignerons have made representations on tax reform. These concerns are being examined.2293(Question No. 370)3702293Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Forestry and Conservation:(1) What was the total volume of woodchips from broadleaved forests exported from Australia in the 1997-98 financial year.(2) Of this: (a) what volume came from native forests; (b) what volume from eucalypt plantations; and (c) what volume from any other source, (please specify).2293Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation has provided the following answer to the Honourable senator's question:(1 and 2) Due to changes in regulations under the Export Control Act (1982), this information is no longer available from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. With the introduction of Regional Forest Agreements in Tasmania, East Gippsland and the Central Highlands (both in Victoria), it is no longer a requirement to hold an export licence to export material from these regions, and no longer a requirement that they report their exports to the Department.Similarly, the removal of plantation controls in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and New South Wales, makes licensing for the export of materials sourced from plantations in these States unnecessary. It is therefore no longer a requirement that exporters report details of wood chip exports sourced from plantations to the Department.However, the Australian Bureau of Statistics is able to provide some statistics on wood chip exports.2294(Question No. 371)3712294Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:(1) What is the current dollar value as a carbon bank (ie a permanent carbon store) of each of the following vegetation types (per hectare and total in Australia): (a)old-growth native forests; (b)logged native forests; (c)eucalypt plantations; and (d)pine plantations.(2) What markets or transactions were used to derive the values for carbon credits used to calculate the amounts in paragraph (1).(3) (a) How is the value of stored carbon expected to change over time; and (b) What is the basis for this estimate.2294Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) There is no data available on the dollar value of the carbon sequestered in Australian forests. However, the physical quantities of carbon in Australian forests have been estimated in studies undertaken by the Bureau of Rural Sciences. The following are based on the results of these studies:(a) Because of the lack of available data there is no estimate of carbon contained in the old growth component of native forests.(b) The carbon pool in productive Medium and Tall Eucalypt Forests is estimated at 3 000 million tonnes.(c) The carbon pool in hardwood plantations is estimated at 19 million tonnes.(d) The total carbon pool in Australia's softwood plantations is estimated at 108 million tonnes.The above categories do not cover all forest types. For instance the carbon pool in woodlands is estimated at more than 7 000 million tonnes. The total carbon pool in Australian forests is estimated at 13 136 million tonnes.(2) There is currently no regular trading in carbon credits in Australia and therefore no market price on which to base a calculation of the value of forest carbon in Australia. Some preliminary trading in carbon credits has, however, taken place. In NSW, Pacific Power has embarked on a trial of carbon trading by purchasing the carbon rights for 10 years to 1000 hectares of the State's hardwood plantations. Delta Electricity has also provided land for softwood plantations in exchange for the carbon rights. Details of the prices paid in any such transactions are likely to be commercially confidential.The Government has no plans at present to introduce a domestic emissions trading system, though it is carrying out in depth investigations of whether such a system would be feasible or desirable.(3) The value of stored carbon will not be known until a regular carbon trading scheme is established.2294(Question No. 372)3722294Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:"With reference to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998:(1) Was any assessment made of the potential exposure of the Commonwealth to financial liabilities resulting from the compensation provisions in regional forest agreements; if not, why not.(2) What is the Commonwealth's potential liability, under each regional forest agreement, in compensation payments to affected parties if the Commonwealth takes action at any time during the 20-year life of each regional forest agreement to `protect the environment and heritage values in native forests'.(3) How much compensation would the Commonwealth have to pay if its actions directly or indirectly curtailed forestry or mining operations in areas covered by the regional forest agreement, as a result of Australia's obligation under the Climate Change Convention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.(4) How much compensation would the Commonwealth have to pay if an action by it resulted in curtailment of forestry or mining operations in areas covered by the regional forest agreement for any of the following purposes:(a) nomination or listing of an area under world heritage, for either cultural or natural values; (b) nomination or listing of an area under the Ramsar Convention or any other international treaty;(c) protection of species or communities that are found to be threatened during the next 20 years;(d) protection of the quantity or quality of water in a water catchment; and(e) flood mitigation."2295Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) include compensation provisions in order to maximise certainty in forest areas covered by the agreements. In the interests of such certainty, RFAs set out the processes by which any compensation liability will be assessed, agreed and paid. Further, Clause 7(1) of the Regional Forest Agreement Bill 1998 would ensure that the Commonwealth is liable for any compensation it is required to pay to a State under compensation provisions contained in an RFA in force at the time the Act commences or at the time the RFA commences, whichever is later. The Bill would also ensure that any Commonwealth liability under this subsection, which may be incurred when an RFA is in force, remains even though the RFA may subsequently be terminated or expire, and that compensation payments liable to be paid by the Commonwealth to a State under Clause 7(1) may be recovered as a debt and are payable from funds appropriated by Parliament.Any such Commonwealth compensation liability could only arise from a Commonwealth breach of an undertaking in an RFA. The Commonwealth has no intention of breaching any such undertakings. As any potential Commonwealth compensation liability could only be assessed in the light of the specific nature and circumstances of any alleged Commonwealth breach of an RFA, it is not possible to assess the extent of any potential liability that may arise in relation to the operation of RFA compensation provisions.(2) See response to (1) above.(3) See response to (1) above.(4) See response to (1) above.2295(Question No. 376)3762295Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:With reference to the Government's commitment that electricity retailers and other large buyers will be required to source an additional 2 per cent from renewable or specified waste-product energy sources: (1) (a) What technologies and energy sources will be permitted within the definition of `renewable or specified waste-product energy sources'; and (b) which ones will be excluded.(2) Can it be confirmed that technologies to improve the efficiency of fossil fuel use or to use wastes from fossil fuels, in particular coal, will not be allowed in the 2 per cent target.(3) (a) Has the `competitive model' used in Britain (where its renewables target has been met through least cost tendering) resulted in the demise of the british renewables industry; and (b) will this model be ruled out for Australia.(4) (a) Can it be confirmed that key objectives of the implementation mechanism for the 2 per cent renewables target in Australia will be to expand jobs and industry in the renewables sector; if not, why not; (b) consequently, will the assessment of implementation options include a comparative estimate of the jobs and industry development that would flow from each option; if not, why not; and (c) will this assessment be made public; if not, why not.(5) Will the implementation mechanism include: (a) separate tranches for different technologies; and (b) a phased approach to the 2 per cent target with milestones (for example 0.5 per cent by 2002 etc); in each case, if not, why not.(6) When will the implementation of the 2 per cent target begin.2295Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) and (b) This is yet to be determined. Implementation options for the 2 per cent target are currently being considered by a technical working group comprising representatives of Commonwealth and State/Territory governments and industry. The working group has consulted widely with affected parties. The working group reports to the Greenhouse Energy Group, which in turn reports to the Council of Australian Governments High Level Group on Greenhouse (CoAG HLG). It is expected that the CoAG HLG will consider final implementation options before mid-1999.(2) This is yet to be determined. See answer to question 1.(3) (a) I am unable to comment on whether the competitive model used in Britain to introduce renewables into electricity supply "resulted in the demise of the British renewables industry".(b) This is yet to be determined. See answer to question 1.(4) (a) The 2% target has multiple objectives to:. accelerate the uptake of renewable energy in grid-based applications, so as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; . as part of the broader strategic package to stimulate renewables, provide an on-going base for the development of commercially competitive renewable energy; and. contribute to the development of internationally competitive industries which could participate effectively in the burgeoning Asian energy market.The measure's second objective is focused on supporting the development of a robust domestic renewable energy industry.(b) Economic and financial analysis undertaken to determine final implementation options will consider the possible employment outcomes of the 2 per cent target within the renewable energy industry. A study into the Potential of the Australian Renewable Energy Industry to Expand Capacity to Meet the 2% Target has already been commissioned.(c) The results of the study into the capacity of Australia's renewable energy industry to respond to the target will be publicly available, through the Australian Greenhouse Office's website when it is completed. The results of any economic and financial analysis will be considered in making final decisions on implementation options.(5) (a) This is yet to be determined. See answer to question 1.(b) This is yet to be determined. See answer to question 1.(6) This is yet to be determined. See answer to question 1. It is recognised that the scale of investment required for achievement of the measure argues for early implementation to assist long-term planning.2296(Question No. 377)3772296Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:(1) What Commonwealth government programs specifically fund renewable energy research.(2) Can funding from the Greenhouse Office be used to fund research,not commercialisation; if so, can a list be provided of the research projects that have been funded in 1998 and the amount allocated to each; if not, why not.2296Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Renewable energy research is supported through Government funding for. support to the Co-operative Research Centres, such as the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy and other energy-related CRCs;. The R&D Start program administered by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources—substantial funding is available under the program for energy related projects;. funding of the CSIRO, particularly through specific programs being run within its Energy Technology and Forestry and Forestry products divisions, and other research institutions including universities; and. the 125% tax concession on company R&D.The Government is also. through the 2% renewables target, establishing a major incentive for energy providers to increase private sector support for the research, development and commercialisation of renewable energy technologies; and. supporting an ethanol R&D program and the construction of an ethanol pilot plant to demonstrate Australian technologies, especially for the production of renewable transport fuels.(2) The Australian Greenhouse Office is responsible for the delivery of grants and venture capital programs worth more than $60m over 5 years to facilitate the commercialisation and application of renewable energy technologies.This assistance is being provided through three programs:. Renewable Energy Showcase;. Renewable Energy Commercialisation Program (originally announced as the Renewable Energy Technology Commercialisation Loans and Grants); and. Renewable Energy Equity Fund (originally announced as the Renewable Energy Innovation Investment Fund).These programs are not designed to support research projects, although some incidental research may be undertaken in the process of demonstrating a technology and proving its commercial potential.2296(Question No. 383)3832296O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 15 December 1998:(1) What is the status of the `strategic priorities for animal health' prepared by the Australian Animal Health Council (AAHC).(2) What are the major recommendations contained in the strategy. (3) Who is responsible for implementing each recommendation.(4) What is the timetable for the implementation of each recommendation.(5) Can a copy be provided of the AAHC report.2297Alston, 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 federal and state governments and peak industry organisations. It is the peak animal health body for developing strategic policy advice and for funding of agreed national animal disease programs.(1) The Council has advised me that the status of `Strategic Priorities for Animal Health in Australia 1998—2003' is current. The plan was completed in 1998. Some of the strategies are now completed and others are in various stages of implementation.(2) I am advised that the plan is a comprehensive document containing key programs and strategic priorities for Australia's animal health services for the next five years (1998—2003). A detailed rationale for the recommended strategic directions is contained in the plan. Strategic priorities in the plan have been developed under the following categories:- legislation and administration;- diagnosis, surveillance and reporting;- integration of the private sector;- animal welfare; food safety and residues; and- emergency preparedness.(3) The Council has advised me that responsibility for each of the actions under the strategic priorities is detailed in the plan.(4) The Council has advised me that target dates for each of the actions under the strategic priorities are detailed in the plan.(5) I understand that the Council has directed a copy of the plan to the honourable Senator's office.2297(Question No. 385)3852297O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry upon notice, on 15 December 1998:(1) What was the cost of eradicating avian influenza in New South Wales.(2) (a) What was the allocation of the cost between the Commonwealth, the states and the industry; and (b) on what basis was that allocation determined.(3) Has compensation been paid to affected producers.(4) (a) What level of compensation has been paid; (b) how many producers received compensation; and (c) how was the level of compensation determined.(5) Has `country freedom' status from the disease been reinstated in Australia; if so, when did that occur; if not: (a) when will Australia be given `country freedom' status; and (b) why has the declaration been delayed.(6) Are all countries now accepting poultry products from New South Wales; if not: (a) which countries are still refusing product from New South Wales, and (b) what is the basis of their refusal.2297Alston, 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:(1) The cost of the Virulent avian influenza outbreak in New South Wales in 1997 eligible for reimbursement under the "Commonwealth/States cost sharing agreement for the eradication of certain exotic animal diseases" (CSA) totalled $4.445 million. This is subject to audit. This does not include the costs of salaries or wages of staff who are, or would be, employed by the responsible Commonwealth, State or Territory organisations, irrespective of the disease emergency who were deployed on, or in connection with, the eradication campaign.(2) (a) The allocation of the $4.445 million subject to the CSA was:GovernmentShare(%)Amount($ million)New South Wales19.360.861Victoria12.170.541Queensland8.590.382 South Australia3.780.168Western Australia4.760.212Tasmania0.550.024Australian Capital Territory0.510.023Northern Territory0.280.012Commonwealth50.002.222(2)Total100.004.445(b) The total costs are apportioned between the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories in accordance with Sections 13 and 18 of the Commonwealth/States cost-sharing agreement endorsed by the Agricultural Industries and Food Committee of the Standing Committee of Agriculture and Resource Management (SCARM) on 3 January, 1996. The allocation between the States and Territories is based on the three-year mean of State/Territory laying hen numbers and poultry slaughterings.(3) Yes.(4) (a) $2,167,965; (b) 5; and (c) The level of compensation is based on the "farm gate value" in accordance with the Commonwealth/States cost sharing agreement, with the endorsement of the Consultative Committee for Emergency Animal Diseases of SCARM. Independent valuation of livestock and property was undertaken where appropriate.(5) `Country freedom' status was reinstated for Australia on 13 June 1998 in accordance with the guidelines of the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) International Animal Health Code chapter for highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI).(6) In relation to the effects of the outbreak of Virulent avian influenza in New South Wales on exports of Australian poultry products, no trade restrictions by importing countries remain in place.2298(Question No. 1244)12442298Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 17 July 1998:(1) (a) Is the Minister aware of continuing concerns being expressed by a broad range of Aboriginal people in the Gammon and North Flinders Ranges region over the environmental and cultural impacts of development of the proposed Beverley uranium mine site; (b) how are these concerns being addressed; and (c) does the Minister intend to consult with dissenting Aboriginals in the area. (2) (a) Is the Minister aware that the proposed mining technique and leaching agent (acid leaching) being proposed for the Beverley site is no longer permitted to be used in commercial operations in the United States of America (USA) because of documented adverse impacts; and (b) can an explanation be provided as to why South Australia should be afforded less environmental protection or regard than in New Mexico.(3) (a) Can the volume of uranium extracted to date from the `trial' mining operation at Beverley be clarified; (b) where is the uranium currently stored; and (c) how did it get to this location and who owns this product.(4) Can clarification be given in relation to persistent anecdotal reports that exist in the region that the trial in-situ leaching operation conducted by Heathgate Resources at Beverley has experienced significant difficulties and irregularities in relation to pressure and containment and that these difficulties have required the attention of South Australian and Commonwealth agencies and international personnel.(5) Can an explanation be provided as to why the current licensing arrangements make no requirement on Heathgate to restore ground water quality to pre-mining levels, unlike the situation in the USA, and indeed allows the company to directly discharge acid, mine and radioactive waste materials directly to the aquifer.2298Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The amended answer to the honourable senator's question, which updates the previous answer, is as follows:(1) (a) I understand that the concerns of the local Aboriginal people have been addressed by the proponent and that agreements have been signed with all four native title claimants to the area. (b) The EIS and assessment process has provided a means of exposing all aspects of the project to public review and consultation. (c) Consultations were held with local Aboriginal people during the assessment process by the proponent and State agencies.(2) (a) Acid leaching as a mining technique is not banned in the USA. Most uranium mines use the in-situ leach mining technique in conjunction with an alkali leach, because the generally high levels of carbonates make acid leachates inefficient in the groundwater associated with the mines; (b) The environment protection for the Beverley mine is of the highest standard. The geology of US uranium deposits is not suitable for acid leaching and an alkali solution is used instead. Nevertheless ISL mines are required to be carefully monitored and controlled whatever type of leachate is used.(3) (a) Approximately 32 tonnes of uranium oxide stored in 200 litre steel drums; (b) In a secure enclosure within the processing area at Beverley; (c) Uranium produced is owned by the South Australian government.(4) I understand that the trials at Beverley have been very successful in their stated purpose of determining optimum operating conditions including environmental matters. There have not been any significant difficulties and irregularities in relation to pressure and containment. I understand that the only international personnel involved are engaged by Heathgate Resources which is US owned.(5) The groundwater at the Beverley mineralised zone aquifer is highly saline and contains uranium and radon with no potential use for people or stock. In contrast, several US ISL mines operate in or immediately adjacent to aquifers from which nearby communities draw drinking water supplies. If approval is given for the proposed Beverley mine final conditions will be determined as part of the EIS process. Compared to pre-mining levels, radioactivity of the water in the mine zone will not change after mining. Heathgate Resources is proposing to use a technique known as `groundwater sweep', where water from a mined out area is exchanged with groundwater from the next area to be mined. This results in a reduction of acidity in the mined out area. However, there will still be an elevation in the amount of some metals in the aquifer which could take up to 20 years to return to pre-mining levels.23002300Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:A question (Hansard page 421) regarding:. Industry cost reductions of $10 billion each year due to the Government's tax reform package.2300Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question:Industry costs will be reduced by an average of 3.2 per cent. The GST will allow governments to reduce the tax burden on Australian business by more than $10 billion each year from 2001-02.The industry cost reductions stem from:. the removal of the wholesale sales tax (WST);. diesel excise reforms; and. the abolition of State and Territory taxes such as financial institutions duty, debits tax and most stamp duties on business activities.The most significant reduction in industry costs comes from the abolition of the WST. The current WST is a hidden tax. It is a tax on tax that increases the cost of producing goods and services, including exports.