1999-03-083912SENATE230101999-03-08The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Address in Reply2301230110000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I inform the Senate that after the Senate adjourned on Thursday 18 February, accompanied by honourable senators I presented to the Governor-General the Address-in-Reply to his speech at the opening of parliament, which was agreed to on 17 February 1999. The Governor-General indicated that he would be pleased to convey the address to Her Majesty the Queen.Bills2301r6522301Debate resumed from 15 February, on motion by Senator Minchin:That this bill be now read a second time.12:31:002301Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—This is Minister Reith's so-called youth employment bill, and I say so-called because it would be more aptly named the `youth wages bill'. This is a bill that not only because of what it contains but because of the process that is involved should not even be before this parliament. Let me deal firstly with the real agenda of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 . It is not, as the title seems to indicate, a bill that will improve working conditions or increase job opportunities for young Australians, nor will it even reasonably address youth unemployment in areas such as the bush. The real agenda is consistent with the typical approach of Minister Reith, an approach which has been mean-spirited and designed to ruthlessly cut costs and attack victims.Let me go to the bill itself. If we look at the explanatory memorandum of the bill we would see what we might anticipate in relation to this legislation, which is legislation to deal with the exemption of junior rates—an issue that was canvassed during the workplace relations bill inquiry and which was the subject of an arrangement between the government and the Democrats. But, no, this legislation goes much further than this. If we look at what this bill represents, it covers permanently exempting junior rates, as one might expect. It also seeks to include in the principal object of the act and in the objects of part 6 of the act the protection of the competitive position of young people in the labour market, and the promotion of youth employment and the reduction of youth unemployment—laudable aims, but I will deal further with how it seeks to do that.The third dot point also highlights that this bill seeks to promote the inclusion of junior rates of pay in awards and agreements. It actually promotes the inclusion of junior rates. When this matter was debated in the House of Representatives the question was asked, `What is a junior rate?' It appears that the answer could be `a rate for those up to 21 years of age'. This legislation is actually seeking to promote the inclusion of junior rates for Australian workers, who are up to possibly 21 years of age, in the roughly 50 per cent of awards that do not actually contain them.This brought back memories to me. I did a search and found a Sydney Morning Herald article which proposed a $3 an hour youth pay proposal. This was part of the government's Fightback campaign. There is nothing new in this proposal. There is no new measure to assist youth unemployment. It is simply a matter of cutting costs, cutting wages, with the arguable claim that it will increase employment. This was rejected around the time that this community, this country, debated Fightback. This was rejected then and, as this morning's Australian points out, it is not something that the government has a clear mandate on. In a front-page article in today's Australian, Richard McGregor reports—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Read Glenn Milne—it is much better reading.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—It is actually much better reading, but that was two weeks ago, Senator Campbell. But, back to the point, in relation to Reith's call-up of business, it says:. . . after he—Minister Reith—agreed to soft-pedal on the issue during the election campaign.So where is this mandate that Minister Reith had agreed to soft-pedal on in order that Australians would not really understand that what he is actually after is the insertion of rates as low as $3 per hour for Australia's junior workers? If there is any concern about whether this is really the case, whether this bill really does mean this, let me take you to some of the provisions of the bill. Point 3 of the bill says:3 After paragraph 88B(3)(b)Insert: (ba) the need to protect the competitive position of young people in the labour market, to promote youth employment, and to assist in reducing youth unemployment, through appropriate junior wage provisions;Anyone dealing with industrial law would then ask the question: `What do we mean by "appropriate"?' What would the commission regard as appropriate in such matters? And if you look further you would find what the commission might have to refer to on this issue. In the explanatory memorandum again, at point 2.3, there is an explanation of what is meant here. It states:2.3 The provision recognises, however, that there may be circumstances in which it is not appropriate for awards to contain junior rates. For example, under some awards the employment of people under a certain age is effectively precluded for reasons such as legally imposed barriers (for example, in relation to legal driving ages) . . . This one is actually a non-example because the provision with respect to where the commission was to apply these powers is meant to relate to areas where young people actually work. So the first example the commission has to refer to is a non-example because it is not even relevant to where it is meant to be exercising its powers. The second example is of course a good one. It is:. . . or the qualifications required for the work (for example, nurses or engineers). There would be very few examples today of people under the age of 21 who have concluded their nursing training or their engineering training. I will tell you what, if they have been good enough to get through the education and qualification systems by the age of 21, they deserve the adult rate of pay. They are the only examples referred to. The government is seeking to extend this provision to the other 50 per cent of awards where, in the past, the commission has determined junior rates not to be relevant and where juniors up to 21 years of age do work, or potentially work, in those fields.The final reference point for the commission that I want to highlight is in the minister's second reading speech, because this dispels any doubt about what this legislation is really about. About half way through the fifth last paragraph of the speech, the minister says:By protecting existing junior rates, and making junior rates more widely available, these provisions will contribute towards enhanced job opportunities for young people and complement the changes to the principal object of the Workplace Relations Act.That is the object I highlighted. But the important point is the next one, which is:They recognise the links between junior wages and youth employment and unemployment.These links are very arguable links. But the minister has written that into his second reading speech. The commission, with its new powers, would need to refer back to that speech to see how it is to apply those powers. It would say, `The guidance we have on this issue is that there is a link between junior wages and youth employment. This is even though America does not have them. But, in Australia, in this context, there is that link; therefore, we should introduce them, under the new provisions in our objects, right across all of our awards. That is, of course, unless there is a non-example such as young people who cannot work under that award anyway, or there is an example where someone has gained qualifications in nursing or engineering.' Therefore, I go back to my original example. We are looking at rates of pay cuts right across the board. That is what this legislation represents. That is why the opposition will reject this bill.We will have the minister claiming that it is, once again, Senate obstructionism; that we are not allowing his legislation through; that we are denying the Australian community thousands and thousands of jobs. We had the unfair dismissal bill that was meant to provide 50,000 jobs. We had the proposals that were meant to provide half a million jobs. In this case, the minister is not quite as consistent. In the More Jobs, Better Pay proposal they took to the election, the quote was 300,000 jobs but, in the ministerial discussion paper on protecting job opportunities, we are looking at 220,000. Once again, the minister is plucking figures out of the air as to how many jobs there would be.The financial impact that is cited in the explanatory memorandum is another example of how shoddily all this has been put together. If we are talking about inserting junior rates right across Australian awards and affecting the 50 per cent of awards that currently do not include them, then we are looking at a significant drain, I would have thought, on our social security budget. There are many people under the age of 21 who have families—who have children—who currently would not be eligible for social security benefits but who, if they had their wages cut under this sort of proposal, would thenceforth become so.This is another example of how minister Reith is throwing up legislation which seeks to cast the Senate in a particular light of being obstructionistic when what he is really doing is backing away from his previous commitments and not taking no for an answer. The minister simply cannot accept no as an answer from the Senate. He keeps presenting to us legislation which he knows will be rejected. The question, then, is why is he doing it? How does he see it as furthering his objectives? If it is going to cast him in a strong light to assist him to drag himself out of the charade he dug for himself over the waterfront dispute, that is one thing. But the minister is not addressing his own objectives. The minister is casting himself as a class warrior. He is doing that in the way he described to a Perth business luncheon late last year, when he said:Never forget the history of politics and never forget which side we're on. We're on the side of making profits. We're on the side of owning private capital.This comment from the minister is not consistent with the objectives that he is meant to represent in his role as minister for workplace relations. He is meant to be promoting cooperative workplace relations whereas his style is one which simply seeks to generate further conflict and further difficulties. The only policy options he seems able to come up with are cut wages, cut benefits; cut wages, cut benefits. This is yet another example of this. This is consistent with his attack on the award system that we saw with the workplace relations bill. It is consistent with the letter that was leaked and then released three weeks ago, and it is consistent with his agenda as a whole.But the amusing thing is that the minister seeks to claim a mandate in relation to this bill. He says it was mentioned in More Jobs, Better Pay. But the reality is when this approach was last canvassed it was quite clearly rejected. Nobody could claim that the past election debate was over introducing cuts to wages and junior rates. The only memory that sticks in people's minds about that debate was that it occurred during Fightback. It is stretching the point a long way to say that you have a mandate on the very same day as a major national newspaper announces that you had actually agreed to soft-pedal on the issue. I am sorry but the two are just not consistent.Going back to the issue of mandate in general that has been relied upon by various parties in relation to other issues before the parliament, to claim a mandate when less than 40 per cent of people voted for the government and 48 per cent of people in the House of Representatives is quite ludicrous, but it is even more ludicrous when it is an issue that you soft-pedalled on. You hid. You might have written two lines in a policy statement, but that was it. That was the extent of the debate. There was no debate over a proposal to cut the wages of 50 per cent of people under the age of 21 currently in the work force. That is what this bill is seeking to do.Not only did the minister misrepresent his mandate, but he also ran some very interesting arguments in support of his proposals. Let me give one example of misrepresentation. He misrepresented the SDA when on 2 December last year he claimed that the SDA supported junior rates. Instead, let me use SDA's actual submission to the Industrial Relations Commission inquiry, which I will come to later, to highlight their concerns with this bill. The SDA speaks with some authority as it covers more than half of Australia's junior work force who are employed in the retail and fast food service industries. The submission states that those junior rates are discriminatory in that they pay employees in accordance with their age, rather than in accordance with the value of the work performed. So it is discriminatory.The submission states that junior rates are illogical in a society where the emphasis is not on discrimination but on equity. But the minister wants to keep discrimination. The submission also states that parallels can be drawn with women workers achieving equal pay for work of equal value and young workers who should also be paid in accordance with the value of their work. I can certainly recall the arguments in the seventies about how many jobs would be lost if equal pay or work for equal value was extended fully to women. But now the minister is applying the same arguments, the same form, to young people.A final reference to the SDA's submission is the comment that junior rates are a form of exploitation of young workers: they perpetuate the financial difficulty facing young workers as their income is set at a fraction of the adult rate, whilst their living expenses are not discounted in a similar way. That is hardly the sort of statement one would expect from a submission that is meant to be supporting junior rates.The SDA did seek to be balanced in its submission to the commission. It did seek to say, `We can understand that there are some circumstances where it is difficult to find competency based measures or other means of assessing skill in relation to young people.' It made the suggestion that for young people under the age of 18 years, if—and I stress `if'—training is a component of their job, reduced rates might be appropriate. That was the closest thing that could have been taken to support junior rates: an attempt to provide some balance into this debate by saying that if there was recognised training linked to a job—training obviously recognising the fact that many young people do not have the full skills of an adult worker—then that might be the best way to assess it. But there was certainly not a statement that age should be the only factor which sets a person's rate of pay and certainly not above the age of 18 years.Again, we are left with a situation where half of the junior work force who are not currently on junior rates could end up on them. There is no discussion of how transitory problems might be dealt with in any of this legislation. There is no guarantee that `no worker would be worse off', to quote the Prime Minister. There is no protection of people's current rates of pay. There has been no statement from the minister to that effect. So I do not think I am stretching a long bow to say that that could quite easily be the consequence. If you go back to the explanatory memorandum, the statement is quite clear: we are going to promote the inclusion of junior rates into awards. There is no mention of protections for current workers—nothing at all.Let me conclude my remarks on the issue of how we got to this stage. We got to this stage because when we were debating the workplace relations bill in 1996 the government reached an agreement with the Democrats that the commission would conduct an inquiry. I think it is important to say what they will assess in that inquiry: whether it is desirable to replace junior rates with non-discriminatory alternatives—so we are looking at alternatives; we are not just talking about abolishing junior rates—and the utility of junior rates for different types of employment, for different industries and in the school to work transition.Again, that inquiry will deal with a myriad of issues that are completely ignored in this bill to the extent that from the opposition's point of view, and pre-empting an amendment that Senator Murray will move, this bill is so flawed that it should not be allowed through the parliamentary process without being re-presented. It needs to be re-presented to the House of Representatives. We need to start the process afresh after the commission inquiry is concluded.I am still waiting for an answer to a question I put on notice during estimates: how much has the government paid for this inquiry to date? How much public expenditure has been put into this inquiry that the minister is pre-empting? The minister is pre-empting the inquiry in the same way that he pre-empted the unfair dismissals legislation; and we are yet to see whether that is going to present itself here again. So the minister is completely pre-empting all of the terms that he put to the Industrial Relations Commission inquiry. In fact, it is arguable that he is perhaps doing more than that. Perhaps he is seeking to bully and intimidate the commission into the sort of finding that he wants from them. (Time expired)12:51:002305Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I am extremely disappointed that the government has chosen to bring the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 forward. I am extremely disappointed because this bill brings into question the worth of the word of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Peter Reith. I have a lot of time for Peter Reith. I spent 60 hours in negotiations with him prior to the passage of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and found him very engaging and open. I find him a likeable person. But a deal is a deal and I expect him to abide by it.What was the deal? It is worth repeating because the words were hammered out over many hours and were released under the signature of both Peter Reith and the Leader of the Australian Democrats. Let me repeat them, from page 20 of the agreement signed by Peter Reith on behalf of the government:Junior rates will be exempted from anti-age discrimination requirements for the Industrial Relations Act for a further three years from 22 June 1997. The legislation will require a full bench of the Commission to report to the parliament on the feasibility of the replacement of junior rates with non-discriminatory alternatives. The full bench is to be convened by the President and is to report not later than one year before the expiry of the exemption. The report is to include assessments of whether it is desirable to replace junior rates with non-discriminatory alternatives, the consequences for youth employment of an abolition of junior rates and the utility of junior rates for different types of employment for different industries and in the school-to-work transition. The act will empower the AIRC to extend the exemption on an award by award basis in accordance with guidelines which were established by a full bench of the Commission convened by the President.That is what Minister Peter Reith agreed to do and this bill is the evidence that he refuses to abide by his own agreement. His word, it seems, is not worth the press release paper it is written on. What he agreed to do was to place all of the evidence before the Industrial Relations Commission and test it. That commission is scheduled to report on 22 June 1999, in 3½ months time. But Minister Reith will not wait for that report. And why? It is not because they are under any risk; the act will only come into question a year after that. I suspect it is because he knows that all of his assertions about youth jobs being at risk by replacing junior rates with competency based rates do not hold up to scrutiny. He does not want his assertions and his grandstanding on cutting wages scrutinised. He would prefer instead to break an agreement, his solemn word, than risk his radical labour market agenda being exposed as flawed.This is not the first time the minister has failed to abide by agreements he has made. In our agreement on workplace relations he agreed to a new principle in the Workplace Relations Act ensuring that employee organisations were able to operate effectively and recognising the right of employees to join or not join unions. Then during the waterfront dispute he sought to undermine his own act, breaking that agreement by trying to destroy the maritime union and its members. Of course, he was humbled in that instance by the law, with four Federal Court judges and five High Court judges finding an arguable case that his own act had been breached.Then there was unfair dismissals. He promised that there would be a fair go all round for employees and employers in unfair dismissals. He agreed to insert a new principle in the act that the law would `assist in giving effect to Australia's international obligations in relation to labour standards'.Then he brought forward regulations and laws to deny workers in small businesses the right to challenge an unfair dismissal in breach of his electoral commitments, in breach of international obligations and in breach of the general framework of the act itself. He has promised time and again that no worker would be made worse off as a result of the Workplace Relations Act, yet the law in front of us not only just allows but actively encourages the Industrial Relations Commission to cut the wages of young people in industries that currently do not have junior rates.This is the evidence of a repeat offender, of a minister whose word is not his bond, whose assurances are not to be trusted and whose laws are to be tilted against the interests of ordinary workers. The Workplace Relations Act and the agreement underpinning it were very important. It was the Democrats' first major dealing with this government. We tried to work with them, to understand their position and to deliver the bulk of their agenda while protecting the low paid and the vulnerable. That involved a great deal of trust. We have kept our side of the deal and we do expect Minister Reith and his government to keep theirs, and they haven't.I should draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the government now wants us to negotiate tax reform and to trust them on their word that again no-one will be left worse off. Once bitten, twice shy. If an agreement is to be reached on tax reform, based on our bitter experience on workplace relations we will have to leave nothing to chance, nothing to interpretation and nothing to goodwill or trust. This government cannot expect to make deals and then break deals on one set of issues and then expect the Democrats to accept their assurances and trust them on other issues. We are prepared to talk about tax reform but we will be dotting every `i' and crossing every `t'.I would draw my colleague Senator Harradine's attention to the government's failure to keep its side of the agreement he made on the sale of Telstra, as well. Service levels have fallen, Telstra's employment levels have fallen, a commitment never to sell the rest of Telstra has been breached. Even a commitment to spend $1.1 billion on the environment has been breached, with over half the funding funnelled back into primary industries and farmers.In regard to Senator Harradine's agreement with the government that families who suffered under youth allowance should be assisted in the health package, again that was an agreement broken, with dependants for the purposes of the youth allowance means test denied access to the increased family assistance payments—another assurance broken.This builds up a regime which the rest of us cannot trust, and that is a fatal thing to happen to the Senate. The word of this government is now no longer worth the press release paper it is written on. The Democrats are prepared to debate the merits of abolishing youth rates, but only when all of the claims, assertions, counterclaims and headline grabbing ministerial statements from Minister Reith have been tested by the Industrial Relations Commission test case—and everybody else's assertions tested as well. That is why I am moving a second reading amendment to force the government to abide by its agreement. What has it got to hide? Why won't it wait for its claims to be tested by the umpire? Why won't the government abide by the agreements it has made?The second reading amendment I am moving is a clear test for this government. If it is serious about encouraging youth employment then it will support my amendment and await the independent umpire's assessment before proceeding with legislation. If, as I suspect, all the government is interested in is a political stunt and some immoral, deceptive grandstanding, then obviously it will proceed with the bill.What is that inquiry looking at? First it has been asked to look at the desirability of replacing junior rates, particularly in light of the act's stated intention to remove age based discrimination. This is a moral issue, in my view. Why should two workers working side by side doing exactly the same work and exercising exactly the same skill be paid different wages simply because one is five or six years younger than the other?The government will tell you that many countries have these kinds of laws, but they don't. International experience indicates that of 20 OECD countries which have a minimum wage, seven have no junior rates at all, four only have junior rates applying to minors and only two—the Netherlands and Australia—have junior rates up to the age of 22 years.Yes, it is true: according to our government, 22-year-olds are still kids. Youth and junior rates have been abolished in Canada, Greece, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, Poland and Spain. They apply for minors aged 17 and below in the Czech Republic, France—just for the first six months of employment—Luxembourg and Turkey. They apply below the age of 18 in Ireland, Korea—just for six months—and Portugal. New Zealand has youth wages only below the age of 19 and Belgium, the United Kingdom and the United States—only for three months in the case of the United States—below the age of 20. Australia is out of step with all these, and yet the government wants to entrench a situation where we discriminate against young people far in excess of that which applies in the OECD.The Industrial Relations Commission was asked expressly to look at the consequences for youth employment of abolishing junior rates. This is clearly the `but' that Minister Reith is keen to avoid. Why? Because there is no evidence that junior rates are necessary to maintain youth employment—none whatsoever. A 1992 study by the Reserve Bank stated:The recent deterioration of the youth labour market does not seem to be due to any change in relative wage levels, which have been declining steadily since the mid 1970s. Indeed, despite declining relative wages of young workers, youth full-time employment has fallen and youth unemployment rates have risen. So wages have been going down and youth full-time employment has fallen and youth unemployment rates have risen.Research by NATSEM shows that from 1982 to 1995, the number of young workers in full-time work halved while youth wages fell 30 per cent. Even that arch-defender of labour market deregulation, the OECD, in its 1998 OECD Employment Outlook, had to reluctantly concede that junior rates have had little employment effect, conceding:. . . it is not clear that a rise in minimum wages has unambiguously led to job losses for youth in all circumstances.If anything, the studies have tended to find very small employment effects one way or the other. Indeed, the OECD said that teenage employment trends could only be marginally attributed to the evolution of minimum wages and must be explained by other factors—a point also borne out by Australia's experience of rising youth unemployment despite falling relative wages.What is clear is that it is not wage rates driving youth employment, but perceptions of employers about young people. Indeed, a 1990 Confederation of Australian Industry survey showed that it was not wage rates but experience, skills and maturity that were regarded as more important in employment decisions. That is what young people should be employed on—the skills and experience that they bring to a job, not their age, the colour of their hair or whatever else employers like to discriminate on.What is this debate about? I think it is no coincidence that the junior rates bill cops a mention in Peter Reith's recent `101 ideas on employment' paper, as part of a broader discussion on labour market deregulation. This bill is the first serious step in cutting the wages of the lowest paid. This bill is not about just entrenching junior rates; it is about spreading them to other industries where they do not exist—industries like building and metals, with proud employment records of young people, particularly in apprenticeships, without junior rates. Let us remember that the vast bulk of young workers in Australia are not employed on junior rates. In Australia, 31 per cent of young people are on adult rates, 14 per cent are on traineeships and apprenticeships and 56 per cent are on junior rates.On 10 November 1998, I asked a question with notice—No. 14—of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The question was as follows:How many workers are there on youth rates: (a) by industry; (b) by State and Territory; and (c) by each of the 6 industrial relations systems operative in Australia.The minister—in figures that I will check—answered that there were 405,000 workers on youth rates in Australia, of which 251,000 were in the retail trade. The 405,000 was the total of all industries excluding agriculture. According to him, there are 724,000 non-farm employees aged under 21—but I remind you that present youth rates go to the age of 22 anyway. He was unable to break these figures down by state and territory and was unable to estimate how many workers were on youth rates for each of the six industrial relations systems operative in Australia.Who will this bill affect? We do not know. The minister cannot tell us. If we crudely guessed—and it would have to be a crude guess—that this bill covered one-sixth of the 405,000 youth rates workers, because there are six industrial relations regimes, the number of young people affected would be 68,000. This is a far cry from the 200,000 figure I recall the minister using. To me, this signals that, like unfair dismissals, we are again going to get into a battle over what is a lie, what is propaganda and what is fact. If the government succeeds in winning its dubious argument that cutting minimum wages for young people will create jobs, then why not for older people; why not for all vulnerable workers? Let us cut wages for everybody over 55, or maybe for all women over 40, shall we? Where does it stop?That is what this debate is about—the first instalment of this government's determined agenda to push us towards the New Zealand system of lower wages for the lowest paid, of pushing more workers into the ranks of the working poor. And are there jobs at the end of this rainbow? No, there are not. Australia's jobs growth has exceeded New Zealand's by a factor of almost two to one over the last decade. Unemployment has risen sharply in New Zealand since 1996 and fallen in Australia. At the other end, countries like Ireland and the Netherlands—countries with more regulated wage systems than ours—are leading the OECD jobs growth tables. No, cutting minimum wages does not create jobs—a point clearly shown by the research of labour economist Professor Bob Gregory in comparing Australian and US employment trends.In conclusion let me restate the Democrats' position. We support the Industrial Relations Commission investigating the issue of whether discriminatory wages based on age should be abolished or retained in the interests of promoting employment. We believe we should wait until 22 June 1999, 3½ months away, to hear their response. We are prepared to wait for a decision of the Industrial Relations Commission to deliver case-by-case wage resolutions for industry on appropriate payment systems for young workers based on proper consideration of the evidence. We are not prepared to back a bill to entrench and extend discriminatory wages, to cut the wages of tens of thousands of young workers and to further a hard Right agenda of undermining the minimum wages system. We will warn business and we will warn the government that the pursuit of these kinds of agendas make us awfully suspicious of whatever else you ask us to look at and trust you on.I would like to conclude by quoting from two elements of international law. The first quote to ponder is an extract from the United States Code, title 15, Commerce and Trade, section 17, which states: `The labour of a human being is not a commodity or an article of commerce.' The second quote is from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Australia signed in 1948, article 23, paragraph 2. Listen carefully. It states: `Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.' We are a signatory to that Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Are you going to tell me that you wish to walk away from that commitment? I move:Omit all words after "That", substitute "further consideration of the bill be an order of the day for the day after the day on which the report from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on junior rates, prepared in accordance with section 120B of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and pursuant to the commitments made by the Government to secure the passage of that Act, is tabled".13:10:002309Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—It is clear that the government's credibility is in tatters. We have just heard Senator Murray express his view and the view of the Australian Democrats that the word of this minister is not his bond and that the word of the government may not be able to be trusted on a whole range of matters and cannot be trusted on such an essential issue as this. It involved an agreement between the Australian Democrats and the government. That agreement involved the provision in the legislation. The Democrats have honoured their part of the bargain; the minister has not. That is for them and him to consider, but it is for us to recognise and to listen to what has been said by Senator Murray and the Democrats.It means that at least half of this Senate cannot accept from this government at face value what it says. That must cause concern amongst those ministers whose word you are inclined to believe. There are a number of issues which I have mentioned from time to time, and some of them that I have not, where the word of certain ministers cannot be taken at face value. I will give you one example, because it was given by Senator Murray and it is in response to what Senator Murray said.Senator Murray indicated that I had accepted the word of the government in relation to the common youth allowance. It is true that I decided not to block the passage of the common youth allowance bill after receiving personal assurance from the highest level of government that that issue would be taken into consideration and that the parents upon whom there would be a greater burden would have their benefits or tax arrangements altered to cover for the extra burden. Indeed, the minister for social security as well as the Leader of the Government in this place had indicated that something would be done about that. A shift in the age of dependency was introduced with the common youth allowance and that did place a greater financial burden on families, which the government had said it would take account of. It has not done so. It will be interesting to see whether it does so in the forthcoming budget. Otherwise the government is assuming that an adult sibling is sharing in their parents' income and then turning around and ignoring the income sharing when it comes to taxing the parents. That is a matter that has concerned me for some considerable time. I have just got it off my chest.Senator Murray interjecting—6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I had it in the bottom draw, actually. I thank Senator Murray for indicating what he did to give me the chance to do that.Turning to this particular piece of legislation, the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 , clearly the legislation is not necessary and clearly it ought to be defeated. Under the present section 120B of the Workplace Relations Act there is a provision for the AIRC to examine youth wages. As has been indicated by Senator Murray, it is doing that, it is proceeding to do that, and it is doing so in a manner that will mean that there will be a report to the government on this particular matter by 22 June of this year.It seems that the exemptions are in the legislation until the year 2000. What is the rush? Why can we not see what the Industrial Relations Commission will say about it? For example, are they going to tie junior wages to at least some sort of training? Presumably they are not going to adopt the attitude of the government that youth is a source of cheap labour—in other words, the exploitation of the most vulnerable. I say: let the commission proceed as they have been asked to do by the government. Let not this sort of interference take place with the AIRC in the performance of their functions. I will have a bit more to say about that shortly.Having disposed of that, I think we can talk generally about the whole system of industrial relations, and I ask the chamber to at least acknowledge that I am entitled to say some thing about industrial relations. For many years I have worked for the development of a system of industrial relations in this country which will see orderly industrial progress. I believe also you need to have a philosophy, a set of values, a set of principles, upon which this can be achieved. You should not do it by personalities.So, when I became the Secretary-General of the Trades and Labour Council in Tasmania in 1964, one of the first things I thought of doing was changing the objective of the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council. That objective was the old Wobblies objective of the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. We turned that around and had inserted into the rule book the objective of assisting in the development of an economic and social order in which persons can live with freedom and dignity and pursue both their spiritual development and their material wellbeing in conditions of economic security and equal opportunity. That was framed into our objectives.Against that objective, we had to time and time again defend the trade union movement, defend industry and defend Tasmania against the push by the extreme Left, particularly in Victoria and particularly amongst some of the thugs in the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, to some personal sorrow, I might say. But eventually we were successful. We were able to defend the workers of Tasmania against the constant attacks and disruptions, for example, to our lifeline—the shipping services. I have to acknowledge the wonderful work that people within the trade union movement in Tasmania did and the support they gave me and my executive, including the support that we received from the Waterside Workers Federation in Tasmania. We kept the Ship Painters and Dockers out of Hobart.We believe that the industrial relations system should be built on a fair go for all and on trust and mutual obligation, to promote a productive Australia, to protect the vulnerable from exploitation and to achieve orderly, peaceful industrial progress and the settlement of disputes by an independent umpire. In other words, we want a fair go.I am very sad to have to relate that, in my view, the action of the current minister, Mr Reith, is reversing that progress. It is based upon a nihilist philosophy of the survival of the fittest. His grand plan for workplace deregulation, instead of building trust, will mean distrust. Instead of mutual obligation, the power will be where the balance is, and that will be upon the exploitative employer, who is in fact the minority. Instead of a productive Australia, there will be seething discontent within industry; and the vulnerable, the weakest, will become the most exploited. Instead of orderly and peaceful industrial progress, there will be at least disaffection within industry and, indeed, disputation.This gives me the opportunity to refer to the 101 suggestions of Mr Reith. These were, of course, leaked—I do not know how. I will turn to some of these to indicate how I see they would apply to workers in Australia. These measures, the Reith plan, are contained in the document which is attached to Mr Reith's letter to the Prime Minister. The Reith plan will allow exemption of small businesses—that is, 15 employees or fewer at the moment—from having to pay award wages and conditions, leaving their employees unprotected. It would provide scope for large firms to opt out of rules governing wages and working conditions if they meet some sort of vague standard of best practice. Employers would be able to hire unemployed on cut-rate wages and working conditions, leading to lower wages throughout the whole of industry.The Reith plan waters down the no disadvantage test, weakens the right of unions to fully represent their members and provides a big push for ordinary pay only for work at night and on weekends and public holidays. It attacks the independence of the industrial umpire, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. It proposes that Reserve Bank and Treasury government officials will be able to hear living wage hearings. It provides for lower minimum wages in regional areas and a further cut in the number of protective clauses in industrial awards.Might I say something to the Australian Democrats. I feel certain they will not be conned again but, when the workplace relations legislation came before us, they obviously did not see some of the problems. One of those problems, for example, related to the reduction in the number of allowable questions to be determined in an award. A provision in the Victorian awards—and I am sure Senator Collins will recall this—protected Victorian shop assistants from being required to go topless or wear skimpy clothing, as was being sought by certain auto spare parts retailers and some other employers. The award that was obtained by the SDA at that time protected those employees, but because Mr Kennett abolished the system in Victoria, these employees now come under federal awards. But this is not an allowable matter under the new legislation, so these people are not protected. I do not say that the Democrats knew what would happen—of course, Mrs Kernot did not know that but she ought to learn and I hope she has learnt her lesson.Finally, I believe that Australia deserves better than to go down that path of Mr Reith's into conflict, disruption and distrust. That path will mean that the most vulnerable employees will ultimately be unprotected, unrepresented and exploited. That path will only lead to the expansion of the vast army of underemployed workers now. What it is all about is the acquisition of profits over the rights not only of the employees but also of those decent employers who believe in a fair go.You know as well as I do that the trend now in the United States of America is for the big companies to make their profits hand over fist. Each of them has a certain cost cutting percentage. It is not being done in the normal way, but they are cost cutting. Unilever, for example, is one of those companies which has just made an enormous distribution to its shareholders. That appears to be the only rule for companies like that: never mind the customer and never mind the employees, just do the begging of the shareholders. (Time expired)13:29:002311Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 is part of the government's continuing agenda of marginali sing and disregarding young people in Australia. Since the Howard government first came to office, they have sought to denigrate young people by any and every means possible. Sugar-coated rhetoric to the contrary is transparent and disenfranchisement amongst young people is growing as the coalition's shallowness becomes clearer.If you are a young person—and for this government that means 21 years or under—then you are fodder to be used up and disregarded rather than treated according to competence and ability. Young people, especially those under the age of 21, are now facing yet another attack on their worth as the government seeks to reduce their earning capacity by entrenching junior pay rates in federal awards. This legislation is all about reducing the wages of young people. Instead of waiting for the Industrial Relations Commission to finalise its report, the government is proceeding without any care or respect for due process, and the losers, once again, will be young Australians.It is an anachronism that people aged 18 to 20 years in Australia are adults for all intents and purposes. They are permitted to purchase and consume alcohol, they are permitted to enter into contractual arrangements, and they are both entitled and obligated to vote in elections. They are adults in respect of all societal regulations except, according to this government, in respect of their entitlement to full and fair minimum award wages.Paying junior wages to these workers is part of an outdated and irrelevant industrial approach based on the 1907 view of an adult male wage being the amount needed for a male to support himself, his wife and his two children. It is both false and discriminatory to assume that all workers under 21 are automatically of less value than older workers are and therefore should receive less pay. There are many examples of youth who are in very responsible positions—for example, those in retail and food industries being supervisors, opening and closing shops, and working late at night; not to mention those youth who are entrepreneurs themselves, always pushing the outer boundaries of what is possible within the work force—but these employees are still being paid junior wages.In a full bench hearing of the Industrial Relations Commission, the government argued for the removal of these awards for public servants such as police, teachers and nurses. They argued that all future salary increases should be based on recognition of skills and increases in productivity. However, according to the government, if you are under 21 the only thing determining your salary should be your date of birth. This is yet another example of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business at his hypocritical best. The subliminal impact of these attacks day after day on education, social support and wages reinforces to the young people of this country that they are worth nothing in the eyes of this government. Once you get beyond some of the brutal and overt insults that this policy and this bill represent, it is this subliminal message to our young people that represents one of the most damaging approaches that I have ever experienced by an administration.One of the problems with this bill is that, by its nature, it fails to recognise the positive contribution of so many young people who are at the cutting edge of innovation in this country with respect to their work. The new ideas that young people bring into workplaces, whatever the nature of their work, are valued considerably by employers. One example is in the new technology areas, be it environmental technology or information technology. If you look at the driving force and the intellectual minds behind these new industries, you find that young people are the programmers, the application designers, the web developers—the ones who care enough about the environment to drive technological innovation to find a way forward and a sustainable future. It is young people that bring inspiration to a workplace. The best this government can do in recognition of that is to penalise them through a discriminatory wage structure.If this bill is passed it will effectively mean that these young men and women leading the field in new technology areas could be subject to lower wages than their less qualified, less able and less inspired older colleagues. It will mean that their intellectual property will not be judged on merit, on their contribution or on their experience but purely on their date of birth, on the age of the employee in question. I wonder how much of this policy is a reflection on generational elitism. I ask: how much of its motivation lies in the perceived threat that these clever young people represent to the entrenched group of ministers and decision makers that have driven this policy forward and whose hearts and minds lie back in the 1950s? In the same way that the dignity of older Australians is being undermined by these ministers and decision makers, the dignity, hope and potential of young Australians is also being undermined.We know only too well the priority that everyone in the political sphere place on jobs or at least says they do. The extension of youth wages will not impact significantly on the youth unemployment levels in Australia. The reasons for this are simple: there is no correlation between wage rises and increasing youth unemployment, nor are wages holding back the rising opportunities for people in part-time work. As this is the case, an increase in wages will not necessarily reduce young people's labour market opportunities and neither will a cut in their wages necessarily improve their labour market prospects. All this legislation will achieve is the ultimate reduction in the earnings of 217,000 workers under the age of 21 who are currently receiving adult wages. By the government focusing solely on maintaining junior wages, rather than making substantial changes to the employment opportunities for youth or making improvements to the provision of education and training services, the youth of Australia are likely to end up in a worse situation—a situation where young people are paid less and rely more on social security, with no real improvements for those actively seeking work. Peter Reith repeatedly uses the Productivity Commission report Youth Wages and Employment to justify his claims that an increase in junior rates of pay will reduce youth employment. However, findings contained within this report actually contradict the claims made by the minister for industrial relations. The report acknowledges that part-time employment for teenagers has increased at the same time as their real hourly earnings have risen. This has led the commission to conclude that:. . . rising wages costs do not appear to have affected teenage part-time employment adversely.In addition, the report noted that teenage full-time employment has fallen relative to adult employment by 60 per cent between 1984 and 1997, at the same time as their relative hourly earnings have fallen by seven per cent.But this is not the only report to acknowledge that youth unemployment is a result of a much broader collection of employers' concerns. A survey conducted by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in October 1998 gauged the importance of junior rates of pay on youth employment. What these results showed was that junior rates of pay are not seen as the major reason for employing juniors. In fact, the highest responses to the question were identified as the willingness of young people to do certain kinds of work and the increased flexibility of youth with regard to working hours. However, the most common response by far was employer preference for training their employees.The ACCI went on to survey firms already employing people aged under 21 as to the reasons why no additional juniors were being placed in jobs. And again their results confirmed the irrelevance of junior rates of pay in the decision making process related to employing more young people. Twenty-six point nine per cent of employers surveyed responded that award wages being set too high was of no importance in hiring more young people. This figure represents more than double the percentage of respondents who believed that wage levels was a factor of major importance.Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the survey identified that the major barrier relating to the employment of youth is that young people are not always as work ready as adults. Surely, this is more a reflection on the downgrading and the cuts to education that have been experienced in recent times under a coalition government. For this reason, rather than any real or perceived problems associat ed with the level of wages, employers repeatedly voice their concerns regarding the employment of school leavers.It is time for this government to become more inclusive of the needs of Australia's youth and it is time for the government to realise that it has a significant role to play in eliminating Australia's youth unemployment crisis. The evidence is clear. The Howard government must shift its focus from one which perpetuates the discrimination of youth to one which is directed at providing adequate training and support networks in order to facilitate the school-to-work transition for young people. It must work on improving the economic stability of our economy to strengthen the labour market—a labour market which promotes youth employment.My own experience in this area gave me a lesson of life that I will never forget. As a 16-year-old I was able to enter the work force on adult wages. This provided me with an opportunity to participate in society with economic independence. Other young people have had that opportunity, but I find it so ironic that it was back in 1984 that this occurred, and that in 1999 I find myself in this place defending this simple notion of dignity for young people in the work force; defending this simple and fundamental right of young people to be able to get a job and be paid wages that are not discriminatory.Australia's youth deserve a better deal from the Australian government and they deserve the right to prove their financial worth based on merit, not on their date of birth. They also deserve access to training and education programs, rather than a regressive attack on their living standards; rather than this government's willingness to relegate them to a period of underemployment and of working poverty that some of the lower junior rates force young people into at a critical stage of their development.For these reasons, the opposition will not be supporting the passage of this bill.13:42:002313Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to begin my contribution to the second reading debate with a quote taken from an article by Mike Steketee in the Australian on Thursday, 4 March. The quote was:There is plenty of evidence that permanent marginalisation of particular groups will generate high social costs down the track and can have inter-generational consequences as well.Who was this quote from? It was in fact from employment minister Peter Reith—if it is reported correctly—writing to John Howard on 3 December 1998. The article mentions that in an interview the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman, had argued against the relevance of the Henderson poverty line as an indicator of what is happening in our society.The Henderson poverty line is the most commonly used measure. Updated to 1996, it shows that 16.7 per cent of households in Australia are below the poverty line and this is compared with 12.5 per cent when the line was first calculated in 1973. What does this say? We know that those figures do not coincide strictly with unemployment figures. We know that they are a fair indication that what we are seeing in Australia is a growing number of working poor. If you put that in line with the quote from Minister Reith you begin to see that he seems to understand part of the problem, but has not quite linked up his own actions with the creation of this marginalised underclass of working poor.As other senators have indicated, the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 —although I am not sure where the employment is in this bill—amends the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 to promote the inclusion of junior rates in awards and workplace agreements, and to exempt junior wage rates from the antidiscrimination provisions of the Workplace Relations Act. It is an issue that we have debated at least twice during my time in the Senate and it may not surprise the Senate to know that the Greens have not changed their position.There are two aspects to this issue in the context of the current bill: the first is a process issue, and the other is the substantive issue. The process issue relates to the fact that, when we last debated junior wage rates in 1996, section 120B was inserted requiring the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to undertake an inquiry into the whole question of youth employment and junior wages. The report, as we have heard from other senators today, is required, under the act, to be presented to the minister before 22 June 1999.The simple question therefore is: why are we debating this bill prior to the presentation of that comprehensive report? The Greens certainly do not see any rational explanation for this fast tracking. Also, as we have heard today from Senator Murray, there is a signed statement, a signed commitment from the minister, indicating that that would not happen. So I think the public, and perhaps the House of Representatives, will need an explanation.The substantive issue—that is, whether we should be paying lower wages to workers between the ages of 16 and 21 and whether the discrimination provision in the Workplace Relations Act should be waived in relation to junior wages—as I have indicated earlier, has been debated previously in the Senate. In 1994, for example, during debate on the Industrial Relations Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1994, I quoted from a submission by the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition.The government has, or has certainly tried, to close this group down because it dared to criticise the government, or it dared to represent its constituents. This group has had done to it what so many groups and so many voices in our society in recent times have had done to them: it has been gagged for daring to speak up for the people whom it represents. But in this particular case, at that time AYPAC stated:Young people are entitled to a living income. While acquiring work experience is crucial, it should not be a mechanism for exploitation. AYPAC regards competency, not age, as the crucial determinant for wage income. AYPAC has consistently advocated the removal of youth provisions for industrial awards.The arguments that I outlined in 1994 are as pertinent now as they were then, and I would like to quote from a speech I made at that time, because the points made by AYPAC succinctly counter many of the arguments put forward by the government. AYPAC stated:The practice of paying young people lower wages than adult workers is based on a number of unsustainable arguments:. Young people do not have the same social needs as older workers (such as families to support) and should be paid less.This concept of `social need' has been applied to wage determinations for most of this century and has been the philosophical underpinning of reduced wages for women and Aboriginals. This argument also implies that young people receive some form of parental support, when, in fact, many young people who are working and living at home contribute to the household from their earnings and receive no financial support from their parents.I am not sure that there are many landlords or landladies who actually look at a person's age and say, `Fine, you're young, I'll charge you less.'Another assumption was:. Young people are less productive and less competent than older workers.AYPAC responded:Some employers consider that young people are, by virtue of their age, immature and inexperienced. Physical labour performed by a junior worker may have a higher work value than an older worker but would automatically be paid the lower youth wage. Similarly, a young clerical worker with knowledge and skills on computers and new technologies is assumed to be less skilled than an older clerical worker and paid less regardless of either person's actual skill level. AYPAC believes that young people in employment must be paid on the basis of competency, not age, and age discrimination must be removed from industrial awards.Another assumption was:. Lower wages provide an incentive for young people to remain in training and/or education instead of entering the work force.AYPAC responded:It is assumed young people are easily tempted by the immediate gratification of a waged income. It is assumed that high wage incomes may induce young people to desert education or training (perceived as having a long term benefit) and that this would not be good for the overall quality of the Australian work force. There is no evidence to substantiate this argument. In fact, data indicates that an increasing number of young people are staying in education when (if employment opportunities were available) they could be receiving an adult wage. The next assumption was:. Increasing youth wages would cause an increase in youth unemployment and a decrease in youth wages would cause a decrease in unemployment.AYPAC responded:International and Australian research—as has been mentioned today—indicates that there is inconclusive evidence to support this assertion. Youth unemployment cannot be attributed to "high" youth wages. In fact, youth wages are 5 per cent lower in real terms than they were a decade ago. Spiralling youth unemployment is primarily attributable to major structural changes in the nature of the work force.These arguments are not new. Groups such as AYPAC have been pursuing this issue for many years and government departments and parliamentary committees have similarly examined the question of youth wages. Why, then, do we need to delay any further the implementation of competency based awards for young people in the work force? Are we to continue to allow some employers to exploit the youth of this nation with wage levels below the poverty line.It is important to note that this push by the Government to push down costs for business so that we can be `internationally competitive' is only leading to a race to the bottom in terms of wages and conditions for workers. If we are to be truly competitive should we be paying the same wages as workers in developing countries who are forced to subsist on a few dollars a day . . . or less?In more recent times AYPAC staff, working part time and without any funding, have managed to make a submission to the AIRC inquiry on junior rates which is being ignored by this government. In that submission, they expand on some of the points that I have just outlined and they summarise their position as follows:AYPAC is opposed to the retention of junior rates of pay and considers that they constitute a barrier to finding lasting solutions to youth unemployment. An alternative system based on the recognition of skills must be put in place. Young people should be paid based on their output not on their age. Junior rates do not provide young workers with an incentive to acquire skills and training, because they are paid regardless of their contribution to the workplace.The AYPAC submission to the AIRC inquiry also refers to research in the United States by David Card and Alan Kreuger, which throws serious doubts on the government's claim that the elimination of junior wage rates will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Professor Richard Freeman from Harvard University has acknowledged in an article reviewing Card and Kreuger's book that many economists have overestimated the danger of job losses from increases in the minimum wage.I believe this government should have undertaken similar research and a thorough examination of the forthcoming AIRC report before embarking on any legislative change. Their claims to date about the impact of not making the changes they have proposed are based on hearsay and very questionable assumptions. One of those assumptions is that, by eliminating junior wage rates, all young people will be paid full adult wages. On the basis of the relevant skills of young people and adult workers, that claim has no foundation.We have a really good idea of what is behind this issue. We know that it is likely to add to the working poor in Australia. But I would also like to add another dimension from the Mike Steketee article on 4 March, which states:Reith acknowledged another wrinkle.This is from the discussion paper from Minister Reith to John Howard on 3 December 1998. It continues:"Discounting wages would also likely require complementary action on the social security entitlements for this group if adequate work incentives were to be provided," he wrote.In plain English, this means that unless welfare benefits were cut along with wages, the unemployed would not find it worth their while to get a job.I think that is the nub of the issue. The government are just planning to throw $3.5-plus billion a year into subsidising diesel users and destroying the environment in the process. But they want a further excuse to reduce the wages, reduce social security benefits, pathetic and pitiful as they are, to young people. By making this push in relation to youth wages, they will use the argument to reduce even further the common youth allowance and any other social welfare benefits to that group of people.In summary, the Greens will be opposing this bill because of the failure of the government to live up to its commitment to examine the AIRC report on junior wages and also because of the substantive issues related to discrimination against young workers. I have read the second reading amendment put forward by Senator Murray for the Australian Democrats, and I indicate that the Greens (WA) will be supporting this amendment. It certainly makes no sense at all to not look at this bill. I think the bill itself is flawed, but it makes no sense whatsoever to be having this debate and putting this question until the Australian Industrial Relations Commission have presented their report. What was it all about if the government have no interest whatsoever in the outcomes of that report and appear to have no interest whatsoever in what the wider community has to say on the realities of youth wages in Australian society? I hope the message will be quite clear to the government that what they are doing is silly, short-sighted and quite clearly goes against their own statements and commitments.13:56:002316Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I rise to oppose the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 as proposed by the government. The government's line in introducing this bill is to promote youth employment and reduce youth unemployment. Underlying this is an objective to permanently exempt junior rates of pay from the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act intended to prevent and eliminate age discrimination in awards and agreements and to promote the inclusion of junior rates of pay in awards and agreements.Amendment to section 88A of the act direct the AIRC to encourage employers and employees to make agreements and when determining such an agreement for the commission to ignore discrimination on the basis of age. In fact, the AIRC is directed to ensure that they support junior rates of pay where young people are involved in a determination. With further amendments to the legislation, the way is open for junior rates of pay to become enshrined in the Australian workplace.The motion to repeal subsection 170LU, paragraph (7), which currently excludes junior rates of pay from the operation of antidiscrimination provisions of the act until 22 June 2000, seeks to make this exemption permanent. This has been introduced before a conclusion has been reached by the AIRC in its inquiry into junior rates of pay, and the AIRC is required to report to the minister by June 1999.I want to pose the question: why the sudden urgency in the government introducing this legislation? They introduced legislation back in 1996 which required the AIRC to inquire into junior rates of pay. Junior rates of pay have been the subject of inquiry and discussion in the commission for the past decade or so in terms of trying to find ways and means of dealing with the issues that are inherent in that debate. Why all of a sudden have we seen this rush of blood to the minister's head in terms of the introduction of this legislation into the parliament in order to get a result before 30 June?ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—He wants to be leader.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—Senator Sherry says that he wants to be leader. I think the competition between the two Peters is hotting up in terms of who is going to get to the wire first, should the boss fall over or get hit by a bus or retire to Lord Howe Island, seeing how he enjoyed it so much over the Christmas and New Year period. He got a bit of golf in, read a few books. Maybe that is a better proposition than sitting in the hot seat of the Prime Minister's office.The reality is that you have to question what the real objectives are behind the introduction of this legislation. It goes to two speeches which the minister has made this year. One was to the legal firm Freehill Hollingdale and Page, where he put the question of junior rates of pay fairly and squarely on the agenda.Debate interrupted.Questions Without Notice231723172317West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. I ask: how does the minister defend the massive 22 per cent rise in premiums for the 44,000 members of the Defence Health benefits fund in light of the billions of dollars the coalition government has pumped into the private health insurance sector?2317Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank the senator for the question, and I will shortly have the answer for her.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Look it up!VW4Senator HERRON—I do have to look it up, Senator Faulkner, because I want to have the opportunity of telling you that Dr Wooldridge supported the proposal for the Defence Health benefits society to increase their premiums from 1 March this year. To deny a health fund a premium increase in circumstances of financial need could result in the health fund closing and disruption for its members. I am sure that is what the Labor Party would want, because their whole ethos has been to destroy the private health insurance industry.Members face an average increase of 22.3 per cent. While this is a significant increase, it is reasonable considering that the last increase was on 1 November 1997. It was one of the few funds not to seek an increase last year. We well know that the cost of private health care is increasing dramatically. The population is ageing, technology is improving and increased costs are occurring. Senator West may well want this particular fund to go broke, but we on this side do not. We want it to continue in a viable fashion.Defence over the last two years has experienced a large increase in members due to the significant product price advantages and marketing campaign. It is a responsible management practice for the fund to maintain adequate reserves to meet the future needs of members. An investigation has shown that the appropriate way to maintain reserves in this case is to increase premiums. None of us like to pay increased premiums, but the facts of the matter are that they are unavoidable. If costs rise, the premiums have to rise to meet those costs if you are going to provide a service—and that is what has occurred in this case. The industry operates in a market system. It does not operate in a socialist system, as some senators on the other side would want. It has to be funded, and it is market forces that bring this about. At the very least, it must ensure that the premiums collected each year from members can cover the cost of claims by its members—even the ACTU health fund operates on market forces. I am sure they do not call on their members to subsidise those who are not privately insured. So it is purely a market phenomenon—costs rise, premiums rise.2318West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. In light of continuing low inflation and the government's injection of $1.7 billion of public funds into the private health system, how far does the minister expect private health insurance premiums to come down when they are adjusted in June-July this year?2318Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I have said on previous occasions, as has the minister, that the prediction of the future is fraught with difficulty in all regards. Senator West may be aware of this or she may not be aware of it, but to try to put a figure on any particular thing in relation to the economy—Opposition senators interjecting—VW4Senator HERRON—Look at what the Labor Party did to the economy. Look at what happened to inflation under the Labor Party.RF4COOKSenator Cook—It came down!VW4Senator HERRON—Even Senator Cook is getting into the act. I am starting to stir them up a bit. The facts of the matter are that the economy will have an effect. The costs, the inflation rate—every factor—will be taken into account. It will be up to the insurance companies to determine what the premiums are. We will look at them at the time and then determine whether the reserves warrant those premium increases, and that is what will occur in the future.23182318Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—My question without notice is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Under the Howard government Australians are benefiting from sustained low interest and low inflation. Is the minister aware of further economic data which shows that the Australian economy is well placed under this government to continue its strong performance?2318Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Under the sound economic management of the Howard government the Australian economy is well placed to continue its strong performance and to continue to provide low interest rates, low inflation and more job opportunities for all Australians. As I said, Australia continues to enjoy low inflation. With a 1.6 per cent annual inflation rate to December, it has now been under two per cent for more than two years—the best sustained low inflation outcome in over 30 years. Home owners are paying the lowest mortgage rates also for more than 30 years, with savings on a $100,000 variable home loan now worth some $330 dollars a month. This low inflation, low interest rate environment has been a major benefit for Australian businesses. We are now seeing strong jobs growth, with more than 370,000 new jobs created since this government was elected.Last week we saw the latest evidence of the underlying strength of our economy with the release of the December quarter national accounts. The figures showed that the Australian economy grew by 1.1 per cent for the December quarter and by an amazing 4.7 per cent through the year to the December quarter. Do you remember what Labor was saying a few months ago? Former shadow Treasurer Gareth Evans said in July:Obviously there's nothing like 4 per cent growth in prospect for the next year or two.And, again, in September he said:All the evidence is that the Australian economy is on a precipice, hanging on by its fingertips:And again, later the same month, he said:There is absolutely no foundation for the Treasury assumption that there'll be—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I am sorry to interrupt, Senator Hill. There is disorderly behaviour in the chamber and senators are shouting across the chamber. I would ask them to abide by the standing orders.BH4Senator HILL—Thank you, Madam President. I am reminding Labor senators that Gareth Evans said:There is absolutely no foundation for the Treasury assumption that there'll be a 3.5 per cent growth rate.The other good thing about this news is that it is sustainable; it really does now look as if we have got a recovery that will last—in contrast to what happened in the 1980s. Again, I quote somebody close to the Labor Party. John Edwards, former economics adviser to Paul Keating, said of the comparison:I think this one is going to be much more durable, and I think it will be much more durable because productivity is three times as high over this expansion as it was in the eighties. Inflation is very low, we're globalising rapidly and our industrial structure is changing very rapidly in ways I think that will support . . . long term expansion.Again, Alan Oster, the chief economist for the National Australia Bank, said:In terms of comparison back to the eighties, Australia is fundamentally better positioned than it was in the late eighties.So this government is taking the hard decisions to tackle debt, which Labor was never prepared to do, and taking the hard decisions to tackle labour relations, which the former Labor government was never prepared to do, has laid the foundations not only for the economic strength that we now see in the economy but for the confidence that it is going to last over a sustainable period.It was not surprising that last week, when that excellent result came out in terms of economic growth, Labor's shadow minister, Mr Crean, went missing. Labor is embarrassed by the fact that the Howard government has been able to deliver economic growth that has brought benefits to all Australians—so starkly in contrast to the pitiful efforts of the former Labor government.23192319Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Could the minister explain what action the government is taking to halt the decline in bulk billing which, in the December 1998 quarter, fell to its lowest rate in three years?2319Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Gibbs for the question. There has been no mass exodus from bulk billing. Bulk billing levels are still close to their historical peak levels. Individual doctors, especially GPs, may change their bulk billing practices by either increasing or reducing rates in response to a wide range of business pressures. Competition with other GPs remains the primary influence on whether or not GPs bulk bill. Senator Gibbs would be aware that, in her own town of Ipswich, the rate is much higher than it is in country areas. The percentage of all services bulk billed has been steady at an average annual rate of 71.8 per cent for the last two calendar years—its highest level ever. For GP services, the figure for 1998 is 79.5 per cent, marginally below the peak level. This government remains firmly committed to Medicare, preserving it in full, including our commitment to bulk billing, which remains central to Medicare. We have no intention of weakening Medicare by the introduction of patient co-payments for bulk billed services.To ensure that the Australian public continues to have high level bulk billed access to GP services, this government, in the last budget, provided an additional $127 million to increase the scheduled fee for a GP attendance. The first instalment of this increase was introduced on 1 November 1998 with an additional increase provided on the first of this month. The government is engaged in negotiations with the medical profession on the possibility of a general practice financing agreement to further strengthen and modernise Medicare and so protect bulk billing into the future. The end of bulk billing, which we seem to have heard so much about lately, has clearly not arrived.2319Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. If the minister thinks that there has not been a decline in bulk billing, can he confirm that the 1.6 per cent drop in bulk billing rates over the two years from 1996 to 1998 represents an extra 400,000 GP services a year for which patients have to pay out of their own pockets? I ask again: what action the government is taking to halt this decline?2320Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, there is a false premise in the question from Senator Gibbs. The patients do not have to pay; they can go to another doctor who bulk bills. We have freedom of choice in this country. Patients may or may not wish to go. It is obvious that Senator Gibbs does not understand. In her own town of Ipswich there is probably a 90 per cent bulk billing rate. If you want a doctor who bulk bills and that is your wish, then you should go and find one.23202320Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. The one-third sale of Telstra delivered more than $1 billion through the Natural Heritage Trust and $250 million through the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund to regional and rural Australia. Minister, does the government remain committed to improving services in the bush and delivering an additional $671 million to rural and regional Australia from the sale of a further 16.6 per cent of Telstra? Is the minister aware of alternative policy proposals to the government's clear, consistent and up-front position on the sale of Telstra?2320Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to both of Senator Tierney's questions is yes. Let me elaborate. The government remains committed to the further privatisation of Telstra because it will provide us with $671 million from the sale of the next 16 per cent, which we could use for a whole range of vitally important activities in rural and remote Australia. It will enable people in outer economic zones to have access to local calls for the first time and points of presence for the Internet so people can access the Internet at local call prices. People in remote and island communities will get decent community services for a change. The Natural Heritage Trust will get another $250 million. Black spots will be plugged in a number of major areas. There will be a television fund to expand SBS, and on it goes—rural transaction centres, continuous mobile phone coverage. All of these are conditional upon the further sale of Telstra.So what is the attitude of those who mindlessly oppose this? You only have to go back to 1994 when Mr Beazley said on Meet the Press, `I mean, you could privatise Telstra if you set your mind to it.' That is the problem. His mind has been in neutral ever since. He is basically a political and policy burnt out case. He is not interested in doing anything other than holding on. As Max Walsh said, he is simply another figurehead leader for the Labor Party. We know what happens when you have a vacuum. You get the likes of Mr Brereton getting up there trying to raise his profile. I commend Senator Faulkner for the bucket job he did on him in caucus recently. I thought it was very commendable for Senator Faulkner and Cheryl Kernot to take the position they did. But it is not good enough to do it behind closed doors. You have to get up there and spell out where you stand.There are a few people who are prepared do this. Paul Keating came clean recently and said that there is no good reason to be owning telephone companies. The only problem is that when he was in government he did not take that line entirely, but the guy who sat there and knew that he was going to offer to sell Telstra to BHP was no doubt his deputy, Mr Beazley—the Deputy Prime Minister, the man who never was, the man who wants to pretend that you cannot see him in government, only in opposition.One person who is really on the record in proposing an alternative approach is Senator George Campbell. Senator Campbell says, `We ought to consider breaking up Telstra into a number of separate identities.' That is what he is in favour of. Of course this is quite contrary to official policy, but Senator Campbell has not been rebuked. The reality is that Senator Campbell is also in favour of breaking up the Labor Party frontbench, presumably so they can install a few high impact facilities like himself. That is not a good enough substitute for policy. The approach to take is firstly to read the textbooks and find out what would happen if you actually broke it up. Your problem is that you listen to the trade union movement.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, do not address your answer across the chamber.LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, the trade union movement will not allow the further privatisation of Telstra, but they are more than happy to see it break up a bit because they know their members would not be affected by it. Once again, we have another wholly owned subsidiary of the movement in here, spruiking the union line but not in any shape or form being interested in policy.If Mr Beazley is fair dinkum about hanging on to the leadership, then he ought to abandon his policy, get serious, get out there and support this approach which, as you know, has momentum all around the country. Unfortunately, you cannot bring yourselves to do it. Even Senator Lundy, in the lead-up to the last election, said, `We will not entertain any structural separation of Telstra at this point in time.' In other words, they have an endlessly flexible approach. As soon as it suits them, they will be in like Flynn. Why not do it when it really matters? Why not look after regional and rural Australia? Why not get out there and provide the resources to do the job? (Time expired)23212321Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Herron. Can the minister explain why the government consulted private hospitals and health funds in preparing its Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) yet failed to consult the AMA? Is the minister aware that his own union, the AMA, has stated that it is simply beyond explanation that there was no consultation with any of the organised medical profession? Why is the AMA being punished by this government?2321Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—As a former president of the Queensland division of the AMA, I find it interesting that it is now called a union. The AMA is certainly not a union; it is a voluntary organisation. All doctors actually belong to it—it is just that only about half of them pay their dues. There are a few benighted souls who meet in telephone boxes who are probably card carrying members of the ALP, such as members of the Doctors Reform Society. Having said that, whether or not the AMA was consulted is not terribly relevant because the government consults everybody. They even consulted members of the AMA who are members of the cabinet. And that is not me. As you know, I am not in cabinet. I am sure the minister was consulted. He has frequent meetings with the AMA, as Senator Evans well knows.I do not know which particular bodies the government consulted with. We are an inclusive government. We consult with everybody. There may or may not have been formal links with the AMA. I would be surprised if there were not consultations. I would never doubt that Senator Evans would tell us anything but the truth. If Senator Evans asserts that, I will ask the minister whether that was so and then get back to Senator Evans.2321Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question, but I do struggle to ask a supplementary after that. The point of the question went to why you did not consult the AMA. It is on the record that they were not consulted. Do the last minute changes that the government has now introduced to that bill reflect that you got it wrong the first time or is it that the minister is simply susceptible to last minute lobbying, as was the case with the MRI services? What are you about?2321Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—We are about radical change in relation to health care in this country in that we are the government that introduced a 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance on 1 January. The Labor Party tried to destroy private health insurance. When Senator Evans asks me what we are about, the answer is that we are about freedom of choice. We are about allowing people the choice to take out private health insurance.The rebate is available to all Australians with Medicare eligibility who have an appropriate private health insurance policy provided by a registered health fund. The rebate can be received as a premium reduction through a private health fund, as a refundable tax offset, or as a direct payment from the Medicare office. That is significant. That is the most fundamental change that has been introduced within policy in this government. The Labor Party is a policy free zone. Where is the Labor Party's policy in health care? They have not got one. We are still waiting. (Time expired)23222322Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Is the minister aware that Employment National, a wholly government owned employment service provider, is abolishing maternity leave from its new workplace agreements and the safety net award? If so, what action has the minister taken, if any, or does she plan to take, to protect the working conditions of the approximately 60 per cent of Employment National staff who are women?2322Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am not aware of that. I will certainly follow it up. As Senator Stott Despoja would no doubt be aware, the government has been very strong on encouraging workplace agreements where people can negotiate conditions for the conditions of service that appeal to them and that have high priority with them. What we have found at the end of the first year of operation of the workplace agreements is that, where there is a heavy predominance of women, family friendly workplace arrangements have increased and improved. So while I cannot say anything about Employment National, Senator, I will be very happy to have a look at that and see what sorts of arrangements were made to achieve that. I cannot answer you further on that.2322Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for her commitment to chase that up but I ask if she will give the chamber another commitment, especially on this International Women's Day. Will the minister at least assure all women and all female workers that she will endeavour to ensure that maternity leave is considered a basic working condition to be present in all workplace agreements? Will she give us that commitment here and now?2322Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I don't think Senator Stott Despoja listened as carefully as she might have. I said that the government believes that workplace agreements give workers and their employers the opportunity to negotiate for the conditions which are of most relevance to the workers in that particular workplace. I believe that is what most workers would want. They would want the choice themselves to determine what was their highest priority. I am not suggesting in any way that maternity—3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—Most of the employees are men. What happens to the women in those workplaces?BE4Senator NEWMAN—I am not suggesting in any way that maternity assistance is not important.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—Madam President, I take a point of order. For the record and for clarification, I only asked about female workers.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.BE4Senator NEWMAN—This government is very concerned to support pregnant women in the workplace. That is shown by the concern we have expressed over the need for an inquiry into discrimination against women who are pregnant. That is under way. If we were concerned to have pregnant women not in the workplace, Senator—if that is the implication behind your question—we would not have been pursuing that inquiry. (Time expired)23222322Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is directed to the minister representing the Minister for Transport. Can the minister confirm that Airservices Australia has written to Qantas, Ansett and the Sydney Airport Corporation attempting to offload its responsibility for managing Sydney Airport's Long Term Operating Plan? Is it a fact that the letter under signature of Mr Bill Pollard, the Chief Executive of Airservices Australia, cites flack over the plan and the resultant pressure as a reason for ditching their responsibility? Given that the letter imposes a deadline of 19 March so that a proposal can be presented to Minister Anderson, does the government support Airservices Australia's bid to shift their responsibilities to the Sydney Airport Corporation?2323Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The first part of the question asked was I aware of that, and I must confess that the answer to that is no. I understand that a letter from the Chief Executive of Airservices Australia was sent to the Sydney Airport at the end of the week. Mr Pollard sets out some personal views, I understand, not his own. Airservices Australia has statutory responsibility for air traffic control. Was that the issue you were talking about, Senator?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Macdonald, you should not be addressing remarks across the chamber.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I am sorry, Madam President. The answer to the question the senator first asked is no, I am not aware of it.2323Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. As the minister is obviously clearly aware of the issue in that he referred to the letter from Mr Pollard, can he please answer the first question? While he is doing so, perhaps he could comment on Brendan Nelson's public comments. Was Brendan Nelson stating government policy when he slammed the idea as `preposterous' and `bizarre' and claimed that when he first saw the letter he thought it was a prank?YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I must confess that during the last week I was out meeting with local government and I didn't actually see what Dr Nelson said. He is a very distinguished member of parliament—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—And a former trade union official—President of the AMA.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—A former trade union official, is he? Does that mean that Senator George Campbell supports him? If he does, then Senator George Campbell would be supporting a very good member of parliament. But they are issues that the senator obviously is interested in and I will get from Mr Anderson a response to the question that Senator Mackay has raised.23232323Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill. During hearings of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee on a new tax system, we heard evidence that the reduction in diesel excise, planned in the government's tax package, will bankrupt oil recycling companies in South Australia and Western Australia. Given that the decimation of the oil recycling will mean that 149 million litres of oil per annum that is collected for recycling will be dumped in roads for dust control, dumped in pits or out in the bush or burnt in cement kilns or just dumped down the drain in our water system, has the minister any plans as to how these huge waste oil stocks will be handled? Has the minister considered the environmental impact of this possibility in his assessment of the tax reform package? Has the minister determined how much it is going to cost taxpayers to clean up this excess waste oil?2323Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The issue of oil recycling has been one that we have been addressing even before consideration of the GST. It is an ongoing issue of environmental importance in this country. We would obviously like to find ways in which we could encourage the reuse of oil through recycling rather than see it end up where it has traditionally ended, and that has been in landfill.The honourable senator might be aware that there were changes made to avoid recycled oil being used as a diesel extender in a tax free way, and it is argued by the industry that this has had inadvertent consequences that have placed further pressure upon their industry when it actually refines the waste oil into a new product—something which we would seek to encourage. The government is addressing that matter that the industry has brought to its attention, and is looking at possible ways to assist, because the effect of the change—if restructuring the product in this way is putting pressure on industry—was inadvertent. It was not the government's intention that it would do so.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Oh, you got it wrong, did you? BH4Senator HILL—No, we did not get it wrong at all. It is a matter that is currently being addressed. The honourable senator might be aware that we have recently offered support for an initiative in the Northern Territory, where further effort is being made to look at new markets for recycled oil, and we will support other projects that can give greater opportunity for development of other market opportunities.Yes, it is an important issue, and I am pleased that Senator Margetts has picked it up. We will be looking at ways in which we can further encourage and support what is an important industry for not only economic reasons but also environmental reasons.2324Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister mentioned that it is being addressed. Could the minister tell us when that information will be available? The minister would be aware that new markets are no good at all in Australia if the price mechanism precludes them. Given that the reduction in diesel excise has massive environmental impacts that will go well beyond the oil recycling industry—including increased air pollution; associated health impacts; increased greenhouse emissions of an estimated additional five million tonnes by 2010; disincentives for gas, solar and renewables, et cetera—will the minister comment on the fact that this tax reform proposal undermines key elements of the government's own program for reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions and contradicts recommendations of the National Inquiry into Urban Air Pollution and Australia's obligations under the framework convention on climate change? What is the government going to do to oppose the reduction in diesel excise in this tax package, as it is patently a disaster for the environment?2324Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Madam President, the honourable senator has asked a second question in the form of a supplementary question. It is true that our tax reform package is designed in part to reduce the cost of transport fuel in Australia. We do not apologise for that, because we are interested in continuing to grow the economy and provide jobs. That is part of our win-win outcome. The other part of the win-win is that it can be done in an environmentally responsible way. What we are doing is implementing a range of programs to encourage and support renewable energy. There are a number of direct grant programs. We are establishing infrastructure for natural gas vehicles within Sydney, which we are going to extend to Melbourne. If I had the time, we could have a long debate on all the initiatives that this government has introduced to support the renewable energy industry, which is also vitally important to Australia's future.RF4COOKSenator Cook—So why are they all cancelling contracts?BH4Senator HILL—They are not.23242324Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer.Senator Knowles interjecting—ZF4Senator CROWLEY—Have you stopped calling witnesses liars?Senator Knowles interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Knowles, cease interjecting.ZF4Senator CROWLEY—Is the minister aware that in the Sydney Morning Herald of 2 March, the Chief Commissioner of Guides Australia, Mandy Macky, stated:Under the GST, these volunteers become tax agents for the government. When children bring in their weekly contribution of a few dollars, the leaders will need to put on their accountant's hat and skim off 10 per cent for the government.If Ms Macky does not believe the minister's denials, why should the Australian public? Is it not the case that scouts and girl guides will, in fact, be tax collectors when they perform an activity that is equal to 50 per cent or more of the market value of an equivalent activity?2324Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am not aware of the comment referred to by Senator Crowley. Of course, I would always read closely comments that are made by the scouts and the guides. They are bodies that are very much respected in this country and that, in my view, perform a very effective task. I point out to you, Senator, that the non-commercial activities of bodies such as scouts and guides will be GST free. Non-commercial activities will include supplies by such institutions for consideration of less than 50 per cent of GST inclusive market value. It is astonishing that you have raised this issue, because the Labor Party policy is to actually stop $13 billion of tax cuts to the Australian public, including the parents of scouts and guides. The Labor Party policy is to prevent real rises in pensions and benefits that we are trying to get through with our tax reform package. It is a great irony that you stand up here and intend to score a pathetic political point. We have made the issue quite clear on bob-a-job. I have made a statement on that matter.Senator Cook interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—I know you do not believe me, Senator Cook. That is a great pity. I am awfully upset that you do not believe me, Senator Cook, I must confess. We have made the position clear. I underline the fact that Senator Crowley and her colleagues are trying to prevent—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Didn't you see that letter? Did you understand it?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my left, and on my right, will cease interjecting.WW4Senator KEMP—I make the point that, in raising these issues, the public should be aware that Senator Crowley and her colleagues are trying to prevent some $13 billion of tax cuts—arguably the largest tax cuts in Australian history—being delivered to Australians, including the parents of scouts and guides.2325Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you might get a profile of the parents of the scouts and guides with a conclusion that does not accord with what you say. Is it the case that the minister's denial that the GST would apply to bob-a-job week services applied strictly to activities performed during bob-a-job week? What about activities performed outside the bob-a-job week? Isn't it the case that, where scouts perform ongoing activities that are equal to more than 50 per cent of the market value of an equivalent service, these activities will attract the 10 per cent GST, as I understood you to just say, Minister?2325Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Again I make the point that a bob-a-job activity is, as I understand it, a non-commercial activity and therefore is not subject to the GST. I have made that clear in my public statements. Commercial activities carried out by bodies are a different matter. Senator, you purport to raise concerns in this area, but the truth of the matter is that you are trying to deny huge tax cuts to the Australian public, including the parents of scouts and guides. That is what you are trying to do. Your standing up here and pretending to weep tears over this issue is pathetic.23252325Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Today, on International Women's Day, will the minister advise the Senate of the initiatives and achievements of the government in the area of women?2325Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Despite the noise coming from the opposition benches, International Women's Day is a very important day. It gives us the opportunity to reflect on the advances in the lives of women in Australia. I was disappointed that I think only the Leader of the Opposition managed to tear himself away from the parliament to go and recognise the achievements of previous generations of women at the War Memorial today. I also announced today an extension of the government's executive search pilot program and the early warning system, which are initiatives aimed at increasing the number of women appointed to Commonwealth boards and committees. Only last week the government reported to the UN in New York about a series of initiatives and successes—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Why don't you front up to the OSW estimates?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, there is an appropriate time to raise that matter.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, the Leader of the Opposition sledges and shouts every time I get up to speak. How much longer do I have to put up with his noise? Australia has one of the healthiest populations in the world and high life expec tancies. Despite the opposition's lack of interest, let me tell those who would listen and the media what we have done.We have introduced the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate, which is terribly important to a lot of women with families or older women with illnesses; screening services to detect breast and cervical cancers; increased breast cancer research funding; education strategies on the benefits of folate for the prevention of spina bifida in children—we were talking about pregnant women earlier, and this is a very important initiative; the maternity allowance initiative through the social security system; encouragement for families to immunise their children—this is terribly important for the girl child when you think of the danger of measles, for example; campaigns targeted to preventing domestic violence, such as the $25 million partnership against domestic violence; the fly-in fly-out female GP services for women in rural and remote areas who do not have access to a woman doctor; and the all-important Medicare program and the pharmaceutical benefits program. That statement I am advised was received very well and with great interest in New York by the delegations who were there at the UN.Let me also remind the Senate of the $1 billion family tax initiative when we first came into government that supports women's choice as to when and whether they are in the work force totally, only in part or at home while the children are young. The government's tax reforms will be building on that initiative. The coalition will be spending $24 million over four years on a return to work initiative for those who are returning to the work force after an absence of two or more years. That is primarily women who have been in a caring role for either children or relatives and they come back with a loss of skills, a loss of confidence and a need for assistance.Senator Carr interjecting—BE4Senator NEWMAN—The government's spends over $1 billion a year on child care. In the last year of the Labor government they spent $875 million.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, things are unruly, and this constant shouting makes it impossible. This is a serious answer to a serious question, and a little courtesy from the other side would be appreciated.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on a point of order: first of all, Senator Hill just stood up and did not take a point of order. Even when he did stand up and address the chair, quite improperly in that regard, it was a hypocritical load of claptrap.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There have been far too many interjections today. It is very difficult to hear question time, and I imagine it is difficult for those listening on radio to hear as well. Reasonable interjections from time to time can be tolerated, but there has been a great deal of shouting and sledging going on during question time today.BE4Senator NEWMAN—The opposition would put misinformation about because it hates the public hearing the truth. But the Senate child-care inquiry, which involved all parties of course, has supported the government's main changes.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Why don't you go to OSW estimates?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, stop interjecting!BE4Senator NEWMAN—Tax reform will also add extra assistance to families with child-care assistance. Those opposite would hate to hear about the extra places that have been provided and the extra money that has been spent in child care since they were in government, but they are the facts. That is the truth. The Workplace Relations Act provides increased opportunities to balance work and family responsibilities. The first Workplace Relations Act report in October last year showed that female workplaces are more likely to have the family leave provisions.AW5CARRSenator Carr—What! What about Employment National?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr and other senators on my left will cease shouting!BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, at the very least I would have thought the Labor women would have been glad to listen to the advances that have been provided for women in Australia. (Time expired)6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. I believe the minister has reflected on honourable senators. I for one had accepted an invitation to go to the War Memorial but had to cancel because I then heard that I had to make a speech on workplace relations before lunch.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is a matter of personal explanation rather than a point of order, Senator.2327Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister further expand on the Howard government's successes and achievements for women, particularly in respect of the new jobs that have been created for women in Australia and also in terms of domestic violence prevention programs?2327Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The job situation for women in Australia is one of the best success stories of the Howard government's first three years. Women's unemployment is 7.2 per cent, the lowest rate since 1990—and all the noise from the other side of the chamber will not hide that. The labour force participation rate for all women remains high at 53.7 per cent in January 1999. The labour force participation rate for women with children under the age of 15 has been consistent at around 59 per cent for the past three years. The Workplace Relations Act has removed restrictions on women's access to permanent part-time work. Jenny Macklin, the shadow minister for the status women, has claimed that women's wages need to be protected. She is clutching at straws. In August last year, women's average hourly earnings were 87.5 per cent of men's, an increase over the 86.3 per cent prior to the commencement of the Workplace Relations Act. In the 12 months ending November last year, women's full-time adult earnings—(Time expired)23272327Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question without notice is to Senator Ellison, the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of the concerns expressed by the Victorian education minister, Mr Honeywood, that the establishment of the new private university, Greenwich, on Norfolk Island late last year has serious implications for the quality and reputation of Australian university education? How does the minister respond to the charge by Mr Honeywood that the federal government has turned a blind eye to its duty of care to ensure that the same scrutiny of curriculum standards in mainland Australia is applied to Greenwich? Can the minister confirm the chancellor of Greenwich's claim that `the approval was given by the Commonwealth to proceed with the university in December 1997'?2327Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In relation to Greenwich University, I can advise the Senate that it has now changed its own description on its web site from `fully accredited' to `self-accrediting'. Governmental recognition is being sought on behalf of the university by the Norfolk Island minister responsible for higher education. In late January, he wrote to the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs seeking MCEETYA's agreement to include Greenwich University on the Australian qualifications framework register of bodies authorised to accredit Australian courses of study and issue Australian qualifications. These registers are the policy instrument by which Australian governments vouch for the quality of Australia's higher education and training system.I understand that the minister for education has instructed the department to undertake a rigorous examination of Greenwich University to assist him in forming a view on the minister's request to include Greenwich University in the AQF registers. The department has also flagged the minister's intention to invite the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee and also state and territory colleagues to consider this and other relevant information before forming a view on the matter.2327Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can I infer from the Minister's answer that he is in fact confirming a response from Mr Honeywood that the government has turned a blind eye to its duty of care to ensure the quality of Australian education? Can the minister confirm that the only contact between DETYA and the territory's office before the minister for the territory approved the legislation creating Greenwich University occurred in December 1997? Can the minister also inform the Senate whether claims by the chancellor of Greenwich University that the university was examined and approved by DETYA in 1997 and 1998 are true?2328Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—What I said in my previous answer was that the government indeed was not turning a blind eye to this issue. In fact, the minister concerned had initiated a rigorous examination of the university concerned. This matter is going to be canvassed at MCEETYA in great detail, and the government is taking it seriously.23282328Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Can the minister confirm that senior bureaucrat Mr Howard Bamsey is about to head off on another world trip to prop up the government's Jabiluka mine decision? Can he confirm that Mr Bamsey is going to the UK, Italy, Switzerland and the United States, and is it not the case that he has already been to the US on Jabiluka within the last eight weeks? Can the minister confirm that his mission is to persuade industry to pressure their governments leading up to the world heritage vote this year? Will Mr Bamsey also be admitting that traditional owner Yvonne Margarula is facing a gaol sentence for walking on her own land? Can the minister advise the Senate how much Mr Bamsey's trips are costing the Australian taxpayers and how long he will be spending out of the country in total on this mission?2328Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I will get details of Mr Bamsey's travel program for the honourable senator. As the honourable senator will know, he is a highly respected former ambassador for the environment. He certainly would not be going overseas to `prop up' the government's position on Jabiluka. It does not need propping up. All we need to do is have the opportunity to convey the true facts—not undermined by the mischief of the Australian Democrats—to parties that are members of the World Heritage Committee and seek an objective judgment and a fair assessment. There will be no alternative but to dismiss this nonsense idea of putting the world heritage area in the endangered category.As to the reference to Yvonne Margarula, it would have been more accurate to say that she is facing a penalty for a conviction that has occurred. In relation to the cost of any travel, I will get that, but I have said to the Senate before that we estimate the cost of defending the government's case in relation to Jabiluka will be in the vicinity of $1 million. That is money which we would have much preferred to put into world heritage conservation and management but, unfortunately, largely through the actions of the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats, we have had to spend it on these other causes of less value.2328Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister says that Mr Bamsey is going overseas to carry the truth. The minister also said that some time ago a report was being developed which would have such truths in it. My question then to the minister is: when will this report be available? Did the minister also know that Yvonne Margarula has now appealed against that gaol sentence for walking on her own land and that Jaqui Katona and Christine Christopherson have spent time in the Berrima gaol? Why is the minister still engaging in these international dirty tricks by sending public servants overseas?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Allison, I ask you to rephrase your question and not reflect upon the minister in that fashion.1M6Senator ALLISON—If I can ask then, Madam President, how many more public servants will be—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Allison, you should not leave your question in that fashion.1M6Senator ALLISON—I withdraw that part of my question and ask: how many more public servants will be sent overseas to undermine the integrity of the world heritage convention? Wouldn't it save us a lot of money, time and face if we just let the World Heritage Committee make up their own minds—(Time expired)2329Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—What the honourable senator is saying is that they should make up their own minds on the misinformation provided by her and her party. No, we do not believe that is the right way. We want the truth put to the committee so they can then make a decision objectively and fairly.We actually want to protect the integrity of the world heritage system from being undermined by the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party. For 18 years, the Australian Labor Party stood by the Ranger mine and did not suggest once that it threatened the world heritage values of Kakadu—not once. As soon as they were thrown out of government, they thought that, yes, a much smaller, more modern underground mine means the whole of the park should be labelled as in danger. What a nonsense. It is that sort of nonsense that we are seeking to correct. We are preparing the consultation reports that were requested by the World Heritage Committee in Kyoto. When they are available, we will make a copy available to the honourable senator.23292329Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. Does the minister agree with Mr Honeywood, the Victorian education minister, that the Commonwealth government has turned a blind eye in its duty of care to ensure that the same scrutiny of curriculum standards that apply on mainland Australia are applied to Greenwich University on Norfolk Island? Why did the minister—again, according to Mr Honeywood—fail to apply pressure on the Norfolk Island administration to do the right thing and allow it to choose unilaterally to go ahead and authorise tertiary education providers that do not have a track record in Australia, even if they have miraculously changed their web site in the last two weeks? Given that Senator Ellison has now revealed that the government has undertaken a rigorous examination of Greenwich University, does the minister now accept that his statement in estimates that `all legislation of Norfolk Island only affects Norfolk Island' was ignorant, inaccurate and dangerous?2329Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Mackay obviously was asleep while Senator Carr was asking his question. I do not blame her, I might say. Senator Ellison has answered that question already, and I do not know that I can add a great deal more.I do want to emphasise to Senator Mackay—as I did at estimates—that the Greenwich University is set up under Norfolk Island legislation. In case Senator Mackay does not know—and she should know, because I think she shadows me on territories—the Norfolk Island government is a self-governing government of the self-governing territory of Norfolk Island and it has responsibility for higher education in the same way as, for example, the University of Notre Dame is the responsibility of the Western Australian minister for higher education. The Norfolk Island minister for higher education has the responsibility for that.Senator Carr, as I understand it, mentioned a number of matters that happened in 1997. I have to say that, regrettably, I was not the minister at the time so I have no personal knowledge of that.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You signed it off, though.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Not in 1997, I did not. I was not in the ministry in 1997, unfortunately. I do underline the fact that the university may not operate as a university on mainland Australia and that the bona fides and standards of the Greenwich University are essentially a matter for the territory's government. As my colleague has mentioned—Opposition senators interjecting—YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—The application has been made by the territory government and the ministerial council on education—what is it called?9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—MCEETYA.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—It has been referred to MCEETYA and the universities will consider all of these matters. I cannot add much more to the answer that Senator Ellison has already given.2330Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister prefer that in future we ask our questions as multiple choice? When the minister approved the creation of Greenwich University, was he aware that the Victorian government had raised concerns about this same university in 1993? Given Minister Ellison's answer to Senator Carr that a rigorous examination would be taking place, what steps did the minister take before approving the creation of the university to assure himself that it would not create problems in other jurisdictions?2330Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I thought that was pretty funny, Senator Mackay, but my colleagues did not appreciate your humour. I also thought a lot of your press releases that came out of the estimates committee hearings were pretty funny as well. I regret from your point of view that you did not get much of a run on them. Senator Ellison has answered the question very fully and fairly—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—And eloquently.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—And eloquently. I emphasise again that higher education and the question of the Greenwich University setting up on Norfolk Island is a matter for the Norfolk Island government. When the matter was raised with my department, we made all the usual inquiries and spoke with the Norfolk Island government about it. (Time expired)23302330Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Our government has shown a strong commitment to indigenous affairs with a record $1.9 billion in spending this financial year. Given that today is International Women's Day, what is our government doing to promote the safety and wellbeing of women, particularly indigenous women, in remote communities?2330Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Ferris for the question because I know of her own interest in indigenous affairs and the fact that she is convening two meetings in the next few weeks in relation to this issue. I also listened with interest to the response given by Senator Newman to the question from Senator Synon. It is important, as Senator Newman mentioned, that we make progress in other matters as we approach the new millennium. It is important to reflect on progress that the government has made in the area of family violence and to think about what still needs to be done.It is of grave concern to me that, around the country and particularly in remote areas, some indigenous women continue to experience appalling levels of physical and psychological abuse. It is absolutely unacceptable for women and children to live their lives in such threatening and dangerous circumstances. A determined effort is required. That is why next month I will convene a round table conference of key indigenous groups, health organisations and government officials to canvass ways of stopping family violence in indigenous communities.It is important that we consult women and men directly about this issue. It must be remembered that this is predominantly a men's issue. Women and children are the victims. From my discussion with community leaders, there is support for mandatory counselling of those convicted of family violence abuse against women and children in the same way that sex offenders receive mandatory counselling.Another area which needs to be explored is the option of removing offenders from family homes rather than the victims who are often forced to flee to women's shelters for protection. We need renewed thinking about this. It is absurd that we take the women and children out of these situations, put them in refuges and leave the men there in the home—in many cases contributing to destruction in the homes. That is why we should be making it easier for the victims and also preserving the housing stock which in many cases can be damaged by an angry abuser.Finally, indigenous communities themselves can and must take action to control the sale and use of alcohol because violent men and alcohol is a dreadful combination. In turn, we need the communities to take control. The existing indigenous community organisations, including the Aboriginal Legal Service, must do everything within their power to assist and defend the women. There is obviously a role for state governments and communities themselves in terms of licensing, policing, counselling and intervention services. While the Commonwealth does not have a primary role in this area, if there are effective strategies which we can implement to help make these communities safe, then we should do so as a matter of priority.I am currently taking stock of all the programs the Commonwealth has in place to prevent family violence in indigenous communities and to help the victims of family violence. In particular I have asked ATSIC, as the responsible agency in my portfolio, to give close attention to the ways in which it can address family violence. I want to see a range of coordinated government programs that tackle the issue in indigenous communities. To this end, I will be raising the issue with my state and territory colleagues at the next ministerial council meeting to determine how different levels of government can work together effectively to target those most in need.In 1997 the Prime Minister convened the National Domestic Violence Summit at which heads of government agreed to work together in partnership against domestic violence to find better ways to prevent family violence across Australia. As Senator Newman stated, the government provided $25 million for this initiative and has since made a commitment to contribute another $25 million. I will be focusing on rural and remote areas to ensure that indigenous women and children more readily receive assistance. This year I want family violence to be a high priority issue.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice2331233115:07:002331Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—During question time, Senator Evans asked me a question about the involvement of the AMA. Madam President, I would draw your attention to the Senate legislation committee hearings on 17 February when Senator Chris Evans said:I understand you have a prepared answer, Ms Briggs, but that was not the question. The question was: you have listed the people you have consulted. Why did you not consult the AMA?Ms Woodgate replied:We did consult the AMA, and the AMA policy officer has, in discussions with us, apologised for the fact that he said they were not consulted.Senator Chris Evans then asked:Why didn't you put that in the explanatory memorandum? I am not getting this information from the AMA; I am reading your explanatory memorandum and they are not listed.Madam President, I should tell you that Ms Woodgate is the assistant secretary, private health industry branch, portfolio strategies division of the Department of Health and Aged Care. Ms Woodgate said:They were part of general meetings that we held with health insurers and private hospitals.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I understood that this procedure was available for ministers to provide extra information. If he wants to debate the issue about the AMA's consultation and their submission that they were not consulted, I am happy to have that debate. But the minister is just having a political debate, which I am happy to have with him, but he is not answering the question asked.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—On the point of order, Madam President, I said that I would come back with any additional material. This material has been provided to me. I am directly reading from the Hansard of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. Surely, Senator Evans cannot object to my reading from the Hansard .10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. The minister can provide what additional information to a question he sees fit. You can take note of it during the next period if you wish.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—Ms Woodgate continued: We had local representatives and we had an informal meeting with the policy officer from the AMA.It goes on and on. Senator Evans continued that in the next couple of pages and I do not intend reading it.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Did you read the AMA submission?VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—It is available to everybody and they can read it, if they wish, in the Hansard of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee of Wednesday, 17 February.233215:09:002332Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have answers to two questions which I took on notice, and which I will seek to have incorporated. The first was from Senator West regarding the role of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in a women in leadership seminar. The second was from Senator Bishop in relation to tracking polling conducted in relation to the government's tax information campaign.Leave granted.The documents read as follows—LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SENATE AND MINISTER REPRESENTING THE PRIME MINISTER SENATE QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICEOn Thursday, 18 February 1999 (Hansard page 2109) Senator West asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister and Leader of the Government in the Senate, about the role of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in the women in leadership seminars being held in Sydney on 25 March 1999, and about the nature of the support the Department is providing for the seminars.I have sought the Prime Minister's advice and the Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. "The seminar series, Women in Leadership—Public Sector Governance, has been developed by executive search firm Profile Ray & Berndtson to provide a range of information for those interested in serving on Commonwealth boards and to educate public servants involved in Commonwealth board appointment processes. The Office of the Status of Women (OSW) within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has provided advice on possible seminar topics, venues and a range of potential speakers. Costs to OSW for this have been limited to staff time. OSW has also given in-principle agreement to help publicise the seminars through its networks as the seminars complement other initiatives underway aimed at encouraging an increase in the number of women in decision-making positions. Through an oversight, the initial advertising of these seminars was inadvertently published by Profile Ray & Berndtson without OSW's authorisation. OSW has requested that further advertising by Profile Ray & Berndtson clarify that OSW is only a co-sponsor of this initiative. Conduct of the seminars, their timing and final selection of speakers are a matter for the company concerned."I refer to a question from Senator Bishop on 16 February asking who had access to the tracking polling conducted with the government's tax information campaign.I have made inquiries and have been assured that access to the polling results was confined to those persons in government who had a legitimate right to know whether the campaign was succeeding in its aim of successfully informing the community of the tax reform proposals.233215:10:002332Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp), to a question without notice asked by Senator Crowley today, relating to the impact of a proposed goods and services tax on the guide and scout movements.The boy scouts and girl guides associations of Australia should be prepared to be patronised and misled by this government. The Taxation Institute of Australia, a body that represents all the tax experts in this nation, said to the Senate inquiry into the GST just last week that, even if you believed in a GST, the operative date for the new legislation should be deferred for at least six to 12 months because there are too many devils in the detail. We have been told about the headlines; the experts have looked at the detail, found too many flaws and said that, even if you believe it, it should be put back.An example of why it should be put back is one of the devils in the detail that affects boy scouts and girl guides in this nation. There are over 100,000 boy scouts and girl guides in Australia. They learn self-reliance, resourcefulness, community service and bush craft, and you do not find them in the juvenile courts. These are young kids in this country carving out a more sustainable and self-reliant lifestyle for themselves and they are not juvenile offenders. This is a very positive community based activity for young teenagers in this country.But what do we discover? We discover that the GST will tax their activities. If you go to a camp, you will pay a 10 per cent GST on top of the service provided by the scouting masters in providing that camp. And, if you are out there collecting a bob-a-job, you will pay in certain circumstances a 10 per cent GST on bob-a-job.Let me illustrate that. This is a letter from the office of the Assistant Treasurer to the scouting organisations of Australia. They say in the concluding paragraph:During jobs week, scouts appear to be acting on behalf of Scouts Australia, as any payment goes to Scouts Australia. These activities are taxable in the same manner as if they were provided by a private sector organisation.That is a letter from the Assistant Treasurer. When that became public, the Assistant Treasurer rushed out and had a doorstop and breathlessly told the Australian media there assembled, `But hang on, it doesn't apply to non-commercial activities.' He has repeated that line again today and let us get it right.Among the 16 bills this government has presented to the parliament is legislation which deals with non-commercial activities by organisations such as the scouts and the girl guides. This means that, if a boy scout cuts someone's lawn and the commercial rate from Jim's Mowing is $50 a week, for example, and you donate to that scout for doing that same job—the non-commercial job—more than half the cost, that is $25.01, then the scouts pay 10 per cent GST on that cost. If a boy scout or a girl guide cleans someone's car, and the cost of the nearest commercially located car cleaning operation is $30, and you donate to the scout or the girl guide more than $15, a 10 per cent GST is payable.What the government has not told the scouts and guides, and what the government has misled the public about, is that there is in fact this test about non-commercial ability in the legislation. The test goes to activities that are equal to more than 50 per cent of the market value of an equivalent service. These activities will then attract a 10 per cent GST. What do we have from the minister? A totally misleading piece of information.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—He misled the Australian people.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—The girl guides and boy scouts organisations in Australia are not revolutionary organisations; they are made up of children of solid citizens of this country and command respect from everybody. This government has misled them. They do not believe this government. After the minister having come out and said what he did, the girl guides wrote to the Sydney Morning Herald on 2 March—and here is a copy of the letter—and said, among other things:Under the GST these volunteers become tax agents for the government. When children bring in their weekly contributions of a few dollars, the leaders need to put on their accountant's hat and skim off 10 per cent for the government.(Time expired)15:15:002333Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I find this debate on the taking note of an answer given by Senator Kemp during question time today really interesting. I think it is the first time ever I have heard the opposition mention the scouts or the guides. I just want to bring Senator Cook up to date: they are no longer called girl guides; they changed their name some time ago to the Guide Association of Australia. But he would not know that. He talked about scouting masters, not scout leaders—RF4COOKSenator Cook—I was a scout; I was not a guide.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—It is a shame they did not teach you more.Senator Ferguson interjecting—LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—A senator just interjected with, `There weren't delinquents in the scouts.' But I am sure you were an exception to that rule, Senator Cook.What the parents of scouts and guides have been subjected to over the years is a ramshackle wholesale sales tax system. We do not hear those on the other side saying that the parents of scouts and guides, many of them middle and low income earners who, in fact, have been subjected to high income tax rates, now will in fact see tax cuts. We have not heard them talk about the fact that the parents of scouts and guides now, currently, are seeing in their pockets, because of reduced interest rates, higher family income enabling them to actually support some of the activities that the scouts and guides participate in.But individual scouts and guides currently pay wholesale sales tax on individual purchases they make, such as tents, camping equipment, boots, and everything else they might use—and you stand in here and say that they will pay GST on their bob-a-job! Let me say to you: it has been a long time since anything called `bob-a-job' was done, and it is not called that any more. I do not think you would find a kid who does a chore who gets anything like 50 per cent of its commercial value. The whole aim of that activity was to teach young people to be self-reliant, not to ask for handouts.I was reared in this tradition and I am still a part of it. I must state a conflict of interest in this debate: I am a member of the State Council of the Guide Association of Victoria, and I have been a member since I was 10 years of age. Members in that organisation are taught self-reliance, not to ask for handouts, not to ask and beg; they are taught to work for what they earn—a mutual obligation. That is what the association is on about.RF4COOKSenator Cook—And then they pay tax on it.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—But young people who undertake to do a chore do not get 50 per cent of its commercial value. If somebody makes a donation to the scouts organisation or the guides organisation itself, that donation is tax deductible.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Not to the scout or the guide.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Cook.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Very few of those young people ever would receive 50 per cent of the real commercial rate for a chore they would do.RF4COOKSenator Cook—They would often receive more.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I have to say that, looking at the ramshackle system that Labor left us with, looking at that totally incomprehensible system—a system where you have a scout or a guide paying wholesale sales tax on strawberry Quik and not on chocolate Quik—I find it incredible that those opposite would even try to get up here and defend it. It is a taxation system which is outmoded, outdated and outrageous.What we want to do for scouts and guides, and all young people in Australia, is to provide them with a future; provide them with a tax system which will take them into the next millennium, which will serve them well in ensuring that the states have sufficient revenue to deliver services. These are the issues we are concerned about—not nitpicking at little tiny things which need addressing.RF4COOKSenator Cook—They say that the organisations will go down the drain. They do. Read their letter.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Senator Cook says that the organisations will go down the drain. I have to say to you that I would have preferred the association to come to us directly, to speak to us and have the thing clarified.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You wrote the letter.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I did not write the letter.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Senator Kemp's office sent them the letter.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order on my left!LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—What I am saying is that the wholesale sales tax system and the tax system to which all young people are subjected now is outmoded, outdated and irrelevant. We are going to put a tax system in place that is more relevant to young people in Australia than the outdated, outmoded tax system that we inherited from you.15:20:002335Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—What we have seen in this example from the scouts and guides associations is another expose of the government having misled the Australian people. We have seen the government go to an election with $20 million worth of advertising before it and fail to mention the following fact: there are no jobs in the package. It is acknowledged by all the modellers that there are no jobs in the GST.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—There are 30,000 jobs.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ferguson.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—There are no jobs in the GST. What we have seen is Treasury refuse to do any analysis. Treasury knows that, if it does some analysis of the tax package, it will blow the government out of the water. The way that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have misled this debate has been a disgrace. We have had the government claiming that there are jobs. We have had the government claiming there is an improvement in national savings. That is another furphy.There is no modelling whatsoever by Treasury to support it, no modelling at all. Why? Treasury officers had to admit in front of estimates the other day that they know that this tax package will lead to a reduction in national savings. The Prime Minister proudly claimed during the election that there would be no short-term job losses. That is what he said—no short-term job losses. When we get the Prime Minister's preferred modeller, Chris Murphy, the Liberal Party stooge, up in front of the committee, what happens? He has to admit—EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I had thought, Madam Deputy President, that you might have drawn Senator Conroy's attention to his language. But I think he should be made to withdraw the slight he made on a professional person by calling him a stooge in this chamber—any more than we would call Professor Dixon a Labor Party stooge.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—The Liberal Party stooge, Chris Murphy, comes before the committee and has to admit that, on his modelling—the Prime Minister's preferred modelling—there will be short-term job losses. Where was Chris Murphy during the election, you might ask? He had to admit that jobs in Queensland, jobs in Tasmania, jobs in the tourism industry, jobs in the housing industry and, last week, jobs in the book industry will all be lost.What happened during the election? He was out there supporting the Prime Minister, trying to pretend otherwise. He issued a press statement during the election claiming the benefits of the GST package. And, accidentally, what fell off the side of his paper that he prepared earlier was the potential job losses. It was there in his original modelling that he issued around the country and he says he publicised well. But during the election campaign when the pressure was on he issued a press statement that did not mention the job losses that were there in his earlier modelling.The beef industry came out last week and said, `We are a bit worried about the impact on beef. We think the National Farmers Federation are out of touch. We think the National Farmers Federation support for this package shows they are not in touch with their own constituency because the impact in the beef industry is going to be negative.' The banana industry came out last week and said, `We think the impact is going to be negative.' But, worse, we had Mr Symond from Aussie Home Loans really blow the issue on this government. Mr Symond said that this package will see interest rates go up by possibly two to three per cent. Why, you might ask? Because this package favours the banks. It is no surprise to find the Liberal Party looking after their mates again.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—You were looking after your mates with Brumby.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—This package favours the banks, and you know it, Senator Ferguson. You know it favours the banks.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, would you please address the chair and make your language a little more temperate.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you, Madam Deputy President.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—You look after John Brumby. That is all you have to do.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ferguson.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—The banks are favoured by this package. John Symond from Aussie Home Loans says that the red-hot competition which exists now, which he helped create, which brought bank interest rates down and which stopped the banks ripping off ordinary Australians, will not continue. He says it will be back to the bad old days under this package. That is right; back to the bad old days. There will be no competition for banks. He will lose 60 per cent of his profits. He says he will have no choice but to introduce higher interest rates or fees and charges on new accounts. That is John Symond, Aussie Home Loans.What did the Treasurer tell him when he told them about it? `It is an unintended consequence.' Where was the Treasurer admitting to this unintended consequence—that interest rates will go up—during the election? Evidence from builders last week said that the proposed package will see a massive increase in tax avoidance in their industry. Everybody knows that the building industry has been full of shonks and part of the black economy for years. (Time expired)15:25:002336Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—I think it is in extremely poor taste for any senator to come into this chamber and accuse a professional person who has no capability of defending themselves in this place of being a stooge for some political party. He said that Mr Chris Murphy was a Liberal Party stooge. Those of us on this side might think that Professor Dixon is a Labor Party stooge, but none of us on this side of the chamber would say it. Professor Dixon has now been commissioned, as I understand it, by a Labor Party dominated committee to do some more work because they want to get some more evidence from this person who they think supplies them with information that suits their particular argument. It would be very easy for us to say that Professor Dixon is a Labor Party stooge. I am not saying that, but Senator Conroy did accuse a professional person of being a stooge. I think that is totally unwarranted. I think Senator Conroy would have satisfied the tone of this debate had he withdrawn that type of allegation against a professional who has no opportunity to defend himself in this chamber.What a mob of nitpickers. Of all the important things that are happening in Australia today, of all the important issues that they could raise in this chamber by way of questions that were asked of ministers today, questions that asked about a lot of serious matters, what does Senator Cook choose to take note of—bobs for jobs. What a thing to choose to take note of. Senator Cook must be running out of ideas. They got up and said that the government did not consult with scouts and guides prior to the introduction of the package. Most scouts and guides, in the old terminology that I know, are certainly well below voting age. The people they did consult with were their parents, their mums and dads. They are the people who make the decisions. They are the people who make the financial decisions in those families.This reform package that the government has put together delivers to the mums and dads of scouts and guides the greatest benefits that this country has seen for a long time. It gives them some incentives to work more and to earn more because the personal income tax cuts that are available in this package put some incentive back into doing extra work and working overtime.Someone raised the issue of authors, booksellers and printers. The other morning we had booksellers, printers and authors coming before a committee suggesting to us that they supported the tax package but that there should not be a tax on knowledge. All books, newspapers and magazines should be made GST free according to them. When questioned further, the printers and the authors were asked whether that meant they were quite happy for there to be a GST on clothing, housing and other essential items of life but that pornography and books of less repute should all be GST free. Their answer was yes. Have you ever heard of anybody pushing their own industry or their own particular barrow in such a way?DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—The mining industry do it all the time, and you listen to them.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—I do not think you are on the list, Senator Margetts, and I am not surprised. These people were pushing their own particular industry. Sure, we think there should be a tax on clothing, housing and even on food but we must make pornography GST free! They are the sorts of ridiculous arguments that we are now getting as this roadshow goes around Australia and all the likely suspects come before the Senate committee pushing their own particular barrow. `Yes, it is a good idea but we need something special just for us.'Senator Conroy says there will be no jobs created. Their preferred modeller, Professor Dixon, says that it is quite likely there will be 30,000 jobs created in the short term. Their modeller says 30,000 jobs.RF4COOKSenator Cook—And 100,000—EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Mr Chris Murphy from Econtech says 30,000 is a minimum. The only time you will get a 100,000 loss is if you model the most unrealistic scenario. The most unrealistic scenario says there will be a 100,000 loss, and that is the one that this unrealistic opposition chooses to use. Do not use the ones that have some credibility; use all of those modelling reports and modelling results which provide the most unrealistic figures. Senator Cook knows that because he has sat there and listened to the modellers give the evidence. You come into this chamber talking about `bobs for jobs'. Why don't you get back onto something serious? (Time expired)15:30:002337Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—The issue that Senator Cook highlighted in commencing this debate—the issue for the scout association of the adverse impact of the GST on what is known as Jobs Week—is but one of many examples. Some are more serious than others, depending on your par ticular perspective. If you were involved in the scouting movement the issue of paying a GST on moneys raised in Jobs Week would be a very serious one. But it is just one example of the many issues that have been raised before the Senate committee on the GST. Senator Cook said earlier that the devil is in the detail and, as this committee has heard from many organisations about their concerns with the goods and services tax that the Liberal government is proposing, there are some very big devils in the detail of a goods and services tax.Senator Patterson, who prides herself on being a member of the scouting association—and a lifetime member, apparently, since the age of 10—said, `It is a pity that they did not come to us directly and have the matter clarified.' I do not know what Senator Patterson has been doing in terms of the scouting association, but that is exactly what the scouting association did. They wrote to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, seeking clarification about the impact of a goods and services tax on Jobs Week, and I will come to that issue in a moment. They got a letter back from Senator Kemp's office saying:During "Jobs Week", Scouts appear to be acting on behalf of Scouts Australia as any payment goes to Scouts Australia. These activities are taxable—that is, the GST is to be paid—in the same manner as if they were provided by a private sector organisation.So they did exactly what Senator Patterson urged them to do. They wrote to the office of the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. And they received a letter signed not by Senator Kemp but by his taxation adviser, Ms Lesley East. You know a minister is in trouble when you see in the press that it was not Senator Kemp but his adviser who signed the letter. So the minister, Senator Kemp, blamed his adviser. He dashed around to the press and said, `I didn't sign the letter. My adviser signed the letter.'What does Senator Kemp do in his office? Doesn't he read the correspondence that goes out in his name? There is no surer sign of a minister in trouble than one who blames his adviser for giving out what is correct advice in terms of the application of the GST on the activities of the scouting industry. There is another interesting aspect of this letter. In the second paragraph, it says:Under the GST it is anticipated that the cost reductions to the sport, gambling and recreation services industry will be in the order of 3.9 per cent.We are hearing a lot about cost reductions given out by the government to various industry sectors but, of course, cost reduction is not the final price effect. In fact, the impact on the sporting, gambling and recreational services industry will be a substantial increase in prices—not 10 per cent, but a substantial increase in prices; not a reduction of 3.9 per cent, as the government likes to falsely claim in this particular letter.And what is the impact, for example, in the sport, gambling and recreational services industry? What do we have from Mr Murphy, who is I think Mr Howard's, the Prime Minister's, preferred modeller, his favourite modeller? My colleague Senator Conroy referred to him earlier as `a stooge of the government', and I think that is accurate. What do we have from Mr Murphy? We know that in this gambling and recreational services sector there will be some 8,000 jobs lost as a result of the price increase effect in the services sector.I said earlier, of course, that this is not the only area where we have received substantial evidence. I urge senators to look at the effect on the Adelaide City Mission, a very important organisation providing a range of welfare and community services. It is going to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars as a consequence of the GST. The Blind Association in Western Australia will lose tens of thousands of dollars as a result of the GST. And, more importantly, they cannot provide replacement income to offset the income they, like the scouts association, are going to lose. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Condolences2338233810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is with regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 27 January 1999 of former Senator George Howard Branson, a senator for the state of Western Australia from 1958 to 1971.15:36:002338Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I move:That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death on Wednesday, 27 January 1999, of George Howard Branson, a senator for the State of Western Australia from 1958 to 1971, places on record its appreciation of his parliamentary service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.George Howard Branson was born on 23 February 1918 at Perth, Western Australia. George's father was a gold miner who pushed a barrow from Geraldton to Lawlers Creek. In 1924 the family moved to Babakin.In 1940 George enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force and was appointed a lieutenant in August 1941. He served with the 2/4 Machine Gun Battalion in Malaya from 1942 until 1945. During this time George was captured and spent almost four years as a prisoner of war, when he worked on the now infamous Burma railway.After the war, George returned to Babakin and farmed there for several years. In 1955 he moved his family to Perth. Then in 1958 George entered federal politics when he was elected to fill a casual vacancy. He was re-elected in 1964.During his parliamentary career, George had wide service within committees, including the Privileges Committee, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. He was also Chairman of the Select Committee on Air Pollution from 1968. In addition to this, George was the Australian Political Adviser to the United Nations from September to December 1968. In his maiden speech in February 1959, George spoke optimistically about the future for Australia, which he described as being one of `unlimited potential', and particularly sang the praises of his home state. Through his parliamentary career he remained faithful to Western Australia and played a part in achievements such as the extension of television into the state's rural areas; Australia's northern beef roads program; and the Ord irrigation scheme. On his retirement from the Senate, colleagues commented that George had `brought into this place the patience and wisdom of the country man'.On behalf of the government I extend to his wife Hannelore, his sons and their families, our most sincere sympathy in their bereavement.15:38:002339Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam Deputy President, I wish to associate the opposition with the condolence motion that has been moved on the death of former Senator George Howard Branson. We in the Labor Party also express our sincere regret at his recent passing.As the Manager of Government Business has indicated, former Senator Branson was a Western Australian by birth. He also clearly had a most distinguished career in the 2nd AIF. He was a prisoner of war for quite a considerable period—from 1942 to 1945—on the notorious Burma-Siam railway. He obviously suffered very great hardships during that period of time.He served in the parliament from 1958, when he came in to fill a casual vacancy, through to his retirement in 1971—which, of course, represents two terms in the parliament. Like many others, he had very distinguished service on numerous parliamentary committees. He was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Air Pollution and, from all reports, was a dedicated member of parliament who very genuinely felt an obligation to the people of Western Australia and to his state. He demonstrated that commitment through great loyalty and hard work over a long period in this parliament.Madam Deputy President, on behalf of the opposition I extend to former Senator Branson's family and friends our sincere condolences on his passing.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I ask honourable senators to stand in silence to signify their assent to the motion.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places.233910001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:233911410000VICE-CHAIRMANTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned strongly opposes any attempts by the Australian Government to mine uranium at the Jabiluka and Koongara sites in the World Heritage Listed Area of the Kakadu National Park or any other proposed or currently operating site.Your petitioners ask that the Senate oppose any intentions by the Australian Government to support the nuclear industry via any mining, enrichment and sale of uranium.The President10000The President(from 114 citizens)23395DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in the Parliament.The Petition of the undersigned draws attention to the potentially damaging effects of National Competition Policy on small business such as newsagents.Your petitioners ask the Senate in Parliament to call on the federal government to review the decisions of the Australian Consumer and Competition Tribunal which threaten the viability of newsagents and introduce legislation to override these decisions and preserve the current system of distribution for magazines and newspapers through Australian newsagents.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from five citizens)2339353I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned demand the Australian Government implement regulation for the mandatory labelling of all food or food components which are genetically modified and/or irradiated.Senator Stott Despoja3I6Senator Stott Despoja(from 35 citizens)Petitions received.Notices23392339Senator Crossin to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) 8 March 1999 is International Women's Day, (ii) Australia's country statement to the 43rd Session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in New York fails to respond to the recommendations made by the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in July 1997, which include in particular that the Government should carefully monitor the impact of policy changes in all areas covered by the convention and conduct analyses of the successes and shortcomings of the policies and design a long-term strategy aimed at the full implementation of the convention, (iii) the Government has failed to conduct an evaluation of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 assessing its impact on women workers, particularly in the increase or decrease in part-time and casual work, and (iv) women's wages may have risen more rapidly than men's over the past year but still lag $127 a week behind the average pay packet of a working man; and(b) calls on the Government to resume its active and visible participation in international forums on women's equality.Senator Margetts to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) recognises that 8 March 1999 is International Women's Day, when women of all ages, cultures and background across the world will come together and celebrate the gains women have made and recognise current disadvantage, discrimination and violence faced by women and take action on relevant issues;(b) notes that: (i) major political decision-making in Australia is currently dominated by men, with women constituting only: (a) 5.9 per cent of the Coalition Cabinet, (b) 16.3 per cent of the ministry in all states and territories, (c) 31 per cent of federal senators, (d) 22 per cent of members of the House of Representatives, (e) 20 per cent of state parliamentarians, and (f) 25 per cent of local government members, and (ii) women have constituted 100 per cent of all federal parliamentary representation of the Greens (WA) to date and currently constitute 66.7 per cent of the Greens (WA) state parliamentary representation; and(c) calls on the major parties to commemorate International Women's Day by taking a leading role in the advancement of Australian women to decision-making positions within their parties by making a major statement on their internal priorities, commitment, strategies and programs for advancing equal opportunity for women.23402340O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Murphy, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3 standing in the name of Senator Murphy for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee.2340O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Bolkus, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4 standing in the name of Senator Bolkus for today, relating the the reference of a matter to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee.2340Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that 8 March is International Women's Day and that, in 1998, Australian women comprised only: (i) 7.6 per cent of all board members, (ii) 9.7 per cent of non-executive directors, (iii) 1.3 per cent of all executive directors, (iv) 34 per cent of all academics, (v) 13 per cent of all academics above senior lecturer level, and (vi) 21.4 per cent of all members of Federal Parliament;(b) expresses concern that although equal pay for equal work was granted by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in 1972 women's full-time earnings are only 84 per cent of men's; and(c) supports equality for women in all areas of Australian society. Senator Bartlett to move, two sitting days after today:That the Senate—(a) notes that the company Pangea has written to the Australian Government and made public statements that it would like to site an international nuclear dump site on Australian soil; and(b) will never, under any circumstances, support or allow an international nuclear dump site to be developed in Australia by Pangea, any other company or any government.Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator McKiernan to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional References Committee on Commonwealth privacy legislation be extended to 25 March 1999.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Before we move on from notices of motion, I remind senators of standing order No. 76. Several of those notices of motion given today I will be asking the President to look at in light of that particular standing order.Miscellaneous234115:46:002341Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to Commonwealth Day.Leave granted.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I move:That the Senate, recalling that 8 March 1999 is Commonwealth Day—(1) reaffirms Australia's strong commitment to the work of the Commonwealth in bringing together a diverse group of countries across the world;(2) notes that 1999 is a special year for the Commonwealth as it celebrates its fiftieth anniversary, marking the adoption of the London Declaration in 1949; and(3) looks forward to the first Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting of the 21st century to be held in Canberra in 2001, the same year as Australia celebrates its Centenary of Federation. I also table a copy of the Queen's Commonwealth Day message and I seek leave to incorporate the message in Hansard .Leave granted.The message read as follows—A message for Commonwealth Day 1999From Her Majesty The QueenHead of the CommonwealthMusic is the theme for Commonwealth Day this year. Throughout our fifty four countries, people will be celebrating and making music in as many ways as that, or more. Of course people of different generations and cultures tap their feet to quite different beats. But for all of us, young and old, music is an essential part of life for parties and entertainment; for ceremonies and celebrations.For music knows no differences of language, no national boundaries. And because it has become such an important part of our cultural lives, it is a universal means of communicating with each other. The variety of music illustrates our diversity; its common tones and harmonies bring us together. Just like the Commonwealth.In 1999 we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the modern Commonwealth. Fifty years ago, in 1949, India became the first republic with its own head of state to be a member of the Commonwealth. That paved the way to membership for many other countries, especially from Asia and Africa, all sharing links of history, a belief in democracy, and a will to work together. Today, the Commonwealth includes over a quarter of the world's population, spanning differences in race, creed and language, but sharing the same aspirations towards a better future.This November, the leaders of the Commonwealth states will gather in South Africa for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. I look forward to joining them there as they discuss the challenges of the new Millennium, as well as celebrating the Commonwealth's achievements in its life so far.Let us then, in this anniversary year, look both backwards as well as forwards as we mark Commonwealth Day. While we continue to enjoy our favourite music, either by making it or listening to it, let us also celebrate the vigour and creativity that the next generation will bring to their music making. That is just one of the bonds that all the young people of the Commonwealth will share together on this special day.Elizabeth R.8 March 1999Issued through The Chairman. The Joint Commonwealth Societies' Council. c/o The Royal Commonwealth Society, 18 Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N 5BJQuestion resolved in the affirmative.Notices23422342Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 6, standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Procedure Committee, be postponed till 10 March 1999.Motion (by Senator Forshaw) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 123, standing in his name for today, relating to the National Institute of Dramatic Art, be postponed till 11 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 10 March 1999.Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 5 standing in her name for today, relating to the disallowance of item 1301 of Schedule 1 of the Migration Amendment Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 304, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees234223422342Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Payne)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the reports of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 [1999], the provisions of the Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 1998 and provisions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 be extended to 22 March 1999.Notices23422342Motion (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.Committees234223422342Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Knowles)—by leave—agreed to:That time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 be extended to 9 March 1999.Notices23422342Motion (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 (Senator Ian Macdonald), be postponed till 22 March 1999.Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Lundy) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 124 standing in the name of Senator Lundy for today, relating to youth suicide, be postponed till 11 March 1999.Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That general business notices of motion nos 96, 98 and 99 standing in her name for today, relating to uranium mining, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Leave of Absence2342Motion (by Senator Calvert)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence be granted to Senator Colston for the period 8 to 11 March 1999, on account of ill health.Motion (by Senator O'Brien)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence be granted to Senator Hutchins for the period 8 to 11 March 1999, on account of ill health. Notices23432343Senator Reynolds to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate calls on the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to formally recognise International Women's Day 1999 by:(a) reinstating a national agenda for women to conform with Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW);(b) implementing the 11 recommendations made by the United Nations CEDAW Committee in July 1997 when it formally reported its concern about the impact of government policies on women;(c) restoring resources and staffing levels to the Office of the Status of Women; and(d) initiating a full inquiry into the current punitive policies affecting women and families dependent on Centrelink for their basic living standards.Documents2343234310000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—On behalf of the President, pursuant to standing order 166 I present the document Trade: Outcomes and Objectives Statement 1999 , which was presented to the President on 25 February 1999. In accordance with the terms of the standing order, the publication of the document was authorised.Bills2343r646234310000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—On behalf of the President, pursuant to standing order 38 I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998, together with submissions and Hansard recording of proceedings which were presented to a temporary chair of committees, Senator Knowles, on 25 February 1999. In accordance with the terms of the standing order, publication of the documents was authorised.Motion (by Senator Calvert) proposed:That the report be printed.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Madam Deputy President, I seek leave to speak to—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Can we dispose of the printing. Then you can move to take note of the report.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I seek some guidance because I want to seek leave to make a statement with respect to the opposition's presentation of a minority report to this report. Question resolved in the affirmative.15:56:002343Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement.Leave granted.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—I sought leave, and I am grateful that it has been granted, to indicate to the Senate that with respect to the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill that has just been referred to, the opposition will be seeking leave later this week to present the opposition minority report. The minority report was not contained within the report that was presented out of session last week. I want the Senate to be informed of that. The reason why I jumped up earlier was because I was concerned—obviously incorrectly—as to whether I needed to advise the Senate of the minority report before any motion to print the report was adopted. Having clarified all of that, I indicate to the Senate that we will be presenting our minority report later this week.15:58:002343Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.The tabling of this report on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 is a very important part in the progression towards one of the worst social and environmental outcomes through legislation that has come before this place certainly in the time I have been here, and in a long time. This committee was set up at the request of the Senate last year to look into the legislation by which the government intends to remove pretty well all environmental laws which would give it the ability to discharge its responsibility to look after the great wild forests of this country for the next 20 years. It also moves to give corporations which are logging those forests, in particular the big woodchip corporations, the ability to be compensated for any future federal move to protect the forests in the interests of the Australian public. So the corporations which have not paid a red cent for anything get compensated by the owners for acknowledging the owners' interests.This is reprehensible legislation. I would have thought that with its ramifications on the Australian public's commercial interest, let alone its environmental interest, with the enormous amount of interest the Australian public has in its natural heritage and in particular its forest heritage, and with the phenomenal public alarm being demonstrated around the country, not least at the moment in Western Australia over the fate of the forests, there would have been a Senate inquiry open and available to the competing interests right around the country.As I said at the time, and have said in my report, this inquiry was effectively a sham if it was meant to produce a popularly available forum from which a diligent evaluation of popular feeling in this country could be made and the information made available. The Labor Party has not yet presented its report, but the government members on the committee, of course, have submitted a majority report which effectively rubber stamps what the government's legislation stands for.I ask everybody interested in this matter to look at that report. What you will see is a ringing support of the interests of the woodchip corporations. But what more could be expected when this committee met only once at the outset in Melbourne—Melbourne being in the one state on the mainland which does not have an export woodchip mill, although valuable forests from Victoria are now being exported through the wholly owned Japanese woodchip mill, Harris Daishowa, in Eden—and had a supplementary hearing here in Canberra one night? Although the advertising of this committee's deliberations occurred in the week before Christmas and members of the Australian public were given only a month in which to make submissions, nearly 400 submissions came to this committee. That is surely something out of the box! But the way in which the hearings were held effectively excommunicated most of those people who had gone to the trouble in the Christmas holidays to make those submissions, and one only has to look at the submissions to see how much people cared.If you were from Tasmania, you had to cross Bass Strait to get to the hearings. If you lived anywhere but in Victoria, you had to travel an enormous distance. If you were in Western Australia, you had to cross the Nullarbor. But even then, the odds were totally stacked against the public making live representations to this committee. A handful of people were able to present their case. Of course, they presented a compelling case on economic, environmental and employment grounds for the government not to be able to get away with this legislation, which cuts away the Commonwealth's responsibility for forests and effectively hands it to the woodchip corporations. The logging interests, of course, certainly had to have their balanced say to the committee.I must say that I feel a great deal of thanks should go from this chamber to the staff who were working on this committee, because they had to do a Houdini act to try to appear to balance the presentation, at the behest of the committee, in a situation which was totally imbalanced. If you look at those submissions, you will see that the representations from the public saying `Do not pass this legislation' far outweigh the sectional interests of the big logging corporations. You would not know it from the time and space allocated in this report—the majority report—to this chamber.The majority report to this chamber does not deliver a fair reflection of how the public out there feels and what the committee was given in evidence. If this is an example of how the committee system works, I think there is something seriously wrong with it. Obviously, the `something' is the govern ment's ability to use a committee like this to get the outcome it wants through the dint of numbers—not through the dint of reasoning, not through the dint of evidence coming from the public, but through the sheer dint of numbers to deliver an outcome wanted by the woodchip corporations.Why would they do that? As the evidence to the committee made it clear, the woodchip corporations are very big contributors to both the major political parties in this place—over half a million dollars in the last year for which we have the figures—and I can only come to the conclusion that that money counts extraordinarily well as far as influence is concerned in outcomes. Otherwise, how can you have it that opinion polls around this country show 70 per cent—or, in Western Australia, over 80 per cent—of people are opposed to the continuing destruction of the great wild forests of this nation and the wildlife in them—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—How much does Dick Smith give you?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—That is an unparliamentary comment, but it is the sort of loutish comment I would expect from the Labor Party on this matter. The fact is that the corporations are having their way against a huge preponderance of public feeling.The government believes that, after this legislation gets through—if it passes this chamber, and one has to accept that it probably will, with Labor supporting the government—there will thenceforth be so-called peace in the forests. One thing that became abundantly clear in these hearings—and you will not see this reflected in the majority report—is that there will be nothing of the sort. Every community group, every indigenous group and every environmental group which appeared before the committee, opposed to the woodchippers digging deeper and chainsawing deeper into our forests, made it abundantly clear that they will not give up on their fight to have the right thing done—the forests protected—and, moreover, the industry translocated across to the plantation option which is there and available now.Instead of that win-win situation, we have the cloud of big corporations working through the political establishment of the old parties, and the end result of that is this majority report which does not reflect community thinking. In that sense, this committee has been a total failure in representing the interests of the Australian people.16:07:002345Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I will not speak long on this Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee report and not in great depth on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 because we will have the opportunity to address that when the legislation comes before the Senate. Suffice it to say the Democrats, my colleague Senator Woodley and I have a dissenting report. The Democrats do not believe that this legislation should be passed as it stands.Whilst it was a very unsatisfactorily brief and truncated inquiry, it was quite sufficient to at least highlight the number of problems that are present with the RFA process around the country and the real con we will be putting over ourselves if we actually think this is going to solve the so-called forest problem. Clearly, if this legislation did go through, it would entrench many of the concerns that have been expressed over many years and indeed are growing in terms of both the extent of them and the number of people in the community who also share those concerns.It does not resolve one of the longest running and contentious issues to face this nation. It fails to deliver on jobs. It unfairly discriminates against the plantation industry. It will destroy more areas of native forest, including old-growth areas. It does not protect biodiversity. It discriminates unfairly against other important cultural values. It will mostly be controlled by state governments which have vested or financial short-term interests in the outcomes. It removes the Commonwealth's legitimate oversight of Australia's biodiversity in our world heritage obligations, among other things.I would like to speak briefly of the concerns about the processes of this inquiry, which have been alluded to by Senator Brown and Senator Forshaw in his brief comment before, in terms of the unnecessary speed of the inquiry and the somewhat unusual process of the committee reporting out of session last week. I would like to also repeat the commendation of the committee secretariat because I think the pressure that was put on them to try to deal with the huge number of submissions, the great deal of public interest and the extremely short time frame was very unreasonable. I am concerned that it potentially places committee staff in a situation where they can unfairly be portrayed as not being competent or capable when clearly they were put in a situation that was virtually untenable.I am also concerned about the reputation of the Senate and Senate committees as a whole when we have processes such as this which clearly generate an enormous amount of public interest and make people from whatever side of the argument feel that they are not being taken seriously, that it is a sham inquiry just for the sake of appearances and that legitimate concerns of the public are not taken on board. I think, unfortunately, that is the situation that did occur with this inquiry. It ends up reflecting very badly on the Senate itself, on the parliament and on the Senate committee process when clearly inadequate time frames are allowed to consider issues of great importance, great significance and great public interest. I would like to register the Democrats' concern and dissatisfaction about that.The need for Senator Forshaw to make his statement before indicates the problems that have occurred in terms of the correct printing of this report. I assume our dissenting report is appropriately incorporated in the report that has been tabled, although I know there were some problems last week with that. Again I think that highlights the inadequate time frame that was allowed for this. I have no idea why the report needed to be tabled out of session last week and supposedly in some urgency when, when we get here this week, the bill is not listed for debate. Apparently we were meant to do all this irregular process and put enormous pressure on Senate committees that are already under-resourced and overstretched so that we could meet the apparently absolutely urgent imperative of the government to bring on this legislation today. It is not only not on today but, at least as far as we know, it is not listed at all for this week. Regardless of one's views about the content of this legislation—whether you feel it is good or bad—that process makes it very difficult for us as parliamentarians, makes it impossible for the Senate committee staff, Senate staff, and generally brings the parliament into disrepute.It is probably also worth noting the action, prior to this debate coming on, of the withdrawal of a notice of motion of Senator Murphy's which was aimed at referring these broader matters relating to regional forest agreements to a Senate references committee in recognition of the range and importance of the issues that relate to forestry, particularly the regional forest agreements and, again, the depth and strength of public concern. If that motion had been continued and voted on and the issues were put to a Senate committee, it would have at least enabled these issues to be examined in the depth that they deserve, but, unfortunately, that motion was withdrawn by the Labor Party just a few minutes ago as well. So clearly we are not going to have that opportunity.We have not had an adequate opportunity with this legislation to address those issues. Unfortunately, that looks like all the examination we are going to get of what is clearly a crucial issue. In the Democrats' view it clearly puts the future of our forests, indeed the future of our forestry industries and people dependent on the timber industries, very much at risk. To lock up some public resources for the long-term benefit of foreign owned woodchip companies is an outcome, from the Democrats' perspective, we find hard to believe and something that should be adequately examined.Unfortunately, because of the time frame imposed on the committee—and, again, this is no reflection on the committee staff or the members of the committee from all parties who had to work within the time frame that the Senate imposed on them—I think this is a perfect example of an inadequate process which reflects badly on the Senate and on the parliament. I hope senators keep that in mind next time there is consideration given to appropriate reporting dates for contentious legislation.16:14:002347Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I had not intended to speak in this debate on the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee report because my colleague Senator Brown has been following this committee and working very hard to put the community's view and give the community a chance to give their view in this regard. I just wanted to make a comment on one of these issues of process. Here we have a situation where the committee, with the votes of the Labor Party opposition and the government, agreed to table this report out of session. For all the arguments we have heard, we have realised that the government basically have not lived up to any commitments that they made or may have made on this issue.What concerns me, however, is that, given the agreement by the Labor opposition, the Labor opposition's response is not here. It was an out of session tabling, and we have the actual report being tabled in the Senate today. I would be concerned that what we are seeing here is the desire of the Labor opposition not to be seen to be part of this process, part of the debate, to try to take the heat away from their own position on this issue because we do not know what their position is.This whole process is of great concern to me. Firstly, they agreed to the out of session tabling but, secondly, when we get here several days later, the smaller political parties with fewer resources are able to present their response on time and the Labor opposition is saying `some time later this week'. That is not good enough. Perhaps I could seek leave to continue my remarks, and maybe this document will still be on the table. Then we can look at both these reports together at some stage in the future when they are available.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—You can only seek leave to continue your remarks provided nobody else wants to speak, Senator Margetts. I understand Senator Forshaw is seeking the call. 16:16:002347Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Firstly, I was going to make some comments at greater length when the time came later this week, provided leave will be granted, with respect to the opposition's position on this legislation, the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . I will no doubt still have that opportunity. Secondly, we will deal with the legislation when it comes on, and that will provide a further opportunity to consider all of the reports of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—the majority report, the dissenting reports from the Greens and the Democrats and the opposition minority report. But I do need to correct a couple of things that have just been stated by Senator Margetts and Senator Bartlett.Absolutely no inference can be drawn from the fact that the opposition has not presented its report today along with the majority report that somehow we are trying to dodge this debate. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. I can assure the honourable senators from the Democrats and the Greens that we have almost finished our report. In fact, a large part of the draft has been prepared and is with the secretariat, and I am in the process of finalising that.Senator Brown interjecting—656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—I will ignore that, the start of what I think was going to be a rather snide insinuation.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Please do, Senator.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—The reason we have taken a little bit longer than the majority report and, indeed, the dissenting reports is that we are looking at the specific options and propositions that would be available to the Senate to deal with this legislation properly. The majority report has come down after quite a detailed analysis of evidence. It is quite a lengthy document—and we received the full copy, I think, just a day or two before it was presented to the President—but all the majority report from the government says is `pass the legislation unamended'.Basically, the position of the Democrats and the Greens is that they do not agree with this legislation at all, they do not agree with the RFA process, throw it all out. That is their position. Rather, the Labor Party's position, as has already been flagged in the debate in the lower house by the shadow minister, is that we are looking at some specific proposed amendments which we believe will go to the heart of the issues raised by many of the witnesses during the proceedings concerning the RFA process.Senator Brown interjecting—656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—You can sit there and make your snide interjections, but why don't you just wait a couple of days?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—We know it's coming. It'll be more of the same cop-out.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Brown! Senator Forshaw has the call.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Senator Brown, you know nothing.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Wait and see.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Yes, you wait and see. Mr Acting Deputy President, we are giving very detailed consideration to the sorts of amendments that we believe this Senate should look at when the debate comes on, and we flagged that as well in the debate in the other place.It has been put to us that the opposition should not have agreed to the tabling out of session. It is important to understand the process that occurred here. This bill was referred to this committee late last year. At the time the issue came on in the Senate, we argued that there should be a later reporting date than was first proposed, namely 15 February. The reason was that we wanted more time to allow for more public hearings and to allow the committee to have the opportunity of possibly going to other states and, given that the intervening period would encompass Christmas, New Year, the school holidays and so forth, we thought this legislation deserved more time. We argued that position here in the chamber, but we lost.The government said at the time that this was urgent legislation and had to be dealt with at the start of the session this year. When the committee's hearings got under way and key constitutional issues were raised regarding the legislation, there was a need to get a response from the department and from the Attorney-General's office. The government then acknowledged that maybe the committee did need a bit more time, so there was a further extension.At that time, the government put forward that it wanted the report to be tabled out of session—from memory, the date was 25 February. It wanted it to be tabled on that day so that the parliament would be in a position to deal with the legislation on the first day of the sitting week—today. It was put to us that it needed that extra time between the 23rd and today to consider the report.Opposition senators of the committee—and I do not wish to go into confidential or private discussions—maintained our position that we thought more time was still required. But understanding the numbers on the committee and understanding the numbers in the Senate, we were not going to win that argument. That is the position. We wanted the opportunity for that extra time to consider in even greater depth than we had been allowed all the submissions and information that had been raised. I imagine we will be presenting our minority report within the next couple of days, certainly this week. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Documents2348234823482348The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)10000PON/A10—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 32 of 1998-99—Performance Audit—Management of Parliamentary Work Flow .Miscellaneous23482348The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)10000PON/A10—In accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Act 1974, I present a proposal by the Joint House Depart ment for construction of the Western Formal Gardens, together with supporting documentation.2349Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—by leave—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 , the Senate approves the proposal by the Joint House Department for construction of the Western Formal Gardens.Bills2349r637Billsr636Billsr635Billsr633Billsr63423492349O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Eggleston, I present the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 and four associated bills, together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills2349Message from His Excellency the Governor-General reported, informing the Senate that he had assented to the following laws: Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 Bills2349Message from the House of Representatives reported agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bill: Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 Bills2349r696Billsr680Billsr669Billsr6682349Bills received from the House of Representatives.2349Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.234916:27:002349Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SUPERANNUATION) BILL 1998The Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1998 will amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to remove the regulation of superannuation as an allowable matter in federal awards. The bill will mean that businesses and employees would no longer be forced to have their superannuation rights and obligations governed by duplicate layers of regulation—the existing layer of regulation created by the award system will be subsumed by rights and obligations under the Superannuation Guarantee legislation. This measure will reduce compliance costs, minimise complexity and simplify administration.It will also enhance the process of award simplification.This proposal is not new. When the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1996 was originally introduced, the allowable award matters proposed did not include superannuation. The amendments subsequently agreed with the Australian Democrats retained superannuation in the list of allowable award matters as a temporary measure, on the in-principle basis that superannuation could be removed from award regulation in conjunction with the implementation of the Coalition's `choice of funds' legislative package.The continued pursuit of this sensible measure to remove the regulation of superannuation from the award system was specifically reaffirmed in the Coalition's workplace relations policy More Jobs Better Pay released during the recent 1998 federal election campaign.The Australian Industrial Relations Commission, in its 1994 superannuation test case decision, recognised that the Superannuation Guarantee legislation established the safety net for superannuation entitlements. Removing superannuation from award regulation reflects the safety net role of the Superannuation Guarantee legislation. Those employers and employees who wish to use the workplace relations system to regulate occupational superannuation beyond the safety net level can continue to do so through the agreement making processes of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 or through over-award payments.An earlier bill dealing with this matter, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997, was introduced in the House of Representatives on 4 December 1997, along with the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997, which contained provisions for the choice of superannuation funds. That bill was passed by the House, but did not pass through the Senate in the previous term of the Coalition Government. The bill introduced today is similar to the previous bill, but now includes transitional provisions that were not previously necessary (as the removal of superannuation from awards would have then been effected as part of the award simplification process introduced by the 1996 amendments).The present bill will amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to prevent the Commission from dealing with disputes about superannuation by arbitration. Superannuation will cease to be an allowable award matter, and the Commission will not be able to make exceptional matters orders about superannuation.The transitional provisions in the bill will have the effect that existing superannuation provisions in awards will cease to operate after a six-month transitional period, and the Commission will then be required to remove superannuation provisions from awards. The bill will preserve existing superannuation clauses beyond this six-month period, where they are `special consent provisions'. This is consistent with the treatment of special consent provisions by the award simplification process under the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996. Special consent provisions are provisions of awards made in accordance with particular Wage Fixing Principles of the Commission that were put in place through National Wage Decisions from 1991 to 1995. Such special consent provisions are no longer provided for and therefore this preservation will not be an avenue to introduce new or amended superannuation provisions into the award system.Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 so as to enable employers to continue to use `notional earnings bases', based on current award provisions, in determining obligations under that act, even after the award provisions cease to operate. This will ensure that employers do not incur additional superannuation costs as a result of the removal of superannuation from awards. In combination with the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Bill 1998, the changes in this bill will mean that `flat dollar amounts' will also continue to be recognised for superannuation guarantee purposes. These amendments will complement the new choice of funds arrangements contained in the Choice of Funds Bill, introduced into the Senate on 17 February 1999. In combination, these bills deliver genuine superannuation reform.This bill will have no significant impact on Commonwealth expenditure.I commend the bill to the Senate.MOTOR VEHICLE STANDARDS AMENDMENT BILL 1998The Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill 1998 amends the legislative framework for the setting of standards for motor vehicles when first supplied for use in transport in Australia and provides for improvements to the administration of the act.The proposed amendments will provide a wider definition of a "vehicle standard" to include standards designed to promote energy saving. This will allow the development of a standard for model specific fuel consumption labelling as announced by the Prime Minister on 20 November 1997 in his statement on greenhouse issues "Safeguarding the Future: Australia's Response to Climate Change". This amendment is an important early step in implementing Australia's international commitments to reducing the level of growth in emissions of greenhouse gases to 8 per cent above 1990 levels by 2010.This standard is being developed by the Australian Greenhouse Office and will be subject to the normal consultative and development processes. The standard will provide consumers with comparative information about the fuel consumption of particular models of motor vehicle so they will be able to take this information into account when purchasing a vehicle. In the longer term, it is hoped that this initiative will encourage industry to develop more fuel efficient vehicles.The bill also includes amendments to establish the position of "Associate Administrator". The Administrator performs the function of my delegate and can exercise certain of the powers under the legislation. The appointment of one or more Associate Administrators allows more routine matters to be dealt with at a more appropriate level.The remaining amendments improve the administration of the act by correcting errors and restoring the connection between this act and the Customs Act 1901. They are mechanical in nature but designed to improve the enforcement provisions of the legislation. Importantly, one amendment removes a duplication of penalties by removing criminal sanctions where there are already administrative sanctions.The net budgetary impact of the amendments will be nil.The amendments will come into force on the day on which they receive Royal Assent.AUSTRALIAN SPORTS DRUG AGENCY AMENDMENT BILL 1998Purpose of the BillThis bill amends the Australian Sports Drug Agency Act 1990.The Australian sporting community has been fully consulted on these amendments, from the administrators of our peak national sports bodies to the elite athletes who are themselves subject to drug testing. They recognise that the Agency must have the flexibility to keep abreast of change.The proposed amendments will ensure that Australia's anti-doping regime is more efficient, fairer to athletes who are themselves subject to drug testing, but, importantly, tougher on drug cheats.BackgroundIn 1990, Australia became the first country in the world to establish a national sports drug testing authority under legislation. However, the act, in its current form, has hampered ASDA's pursuit of best practice principles. In late 1997, the Government initiated an independent review of the ASDA legislation. That review recommended the removal of significant levels of operational detail from the act. The Government endorsed those recommendations.Major Features of the BillThe amendments streamline the ASDA Act so that it clearly establishes the legislative framework under which ASDA will operate. The act will no longer contain detailed operating instructions. These will be removed to subordinate legislation.Through the Regulations, ASDA will be required to conduct testing in accordance with a "charter of athlete rights" that preserves all rights which this Parliament guaranteed for athletes in 1990.The bill strengthens the capacity of ASDA to deal with positive test results recorded by foreign athletes. If an international body takes no action, ASDA will be able to notify a relevant Australian sports body so that it may take appropriate action. This creates a level playing field for Australian athletes in Australia.The bill puts in place a mechanism to enable the Australian Customs Service to pass information to ASDA about prohibited imports which are also banned for use in sport. The Agency will use this information to better plan its testing activities.The bill provides for the establishment of an Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee. The Committee will provide scientific and medical expertise to support ASDA's drug testing activities, and the anti-doping policies of national sporting organisations. The establishment of this Committee is strongly supported by the Australian sporting community.The Committee will assist laboratories determine whether the presence of a banned endogenous substance is due to the substance being present at naturally high levels for that competitor, or due to doping—in other words, cheating.Secondly, the Committee will provide independent approval of athlete requests to use prohibited substances for therapeutic reasons where the athlete has a serious medical condition. The Committee will only do this where the rules of the sporting organisation permit therapeutic usage.Finally, the Committee will be able to provide expert medical advice to the sports doping tribunals that hear cases of alleged doping offences.The bill also provides a legislative framework for State and Territory governments to enact complementary legislation that will enable ASDA to undertake drug testing on State level competitors. This measure has the strong support of all State and Territory Ministers for Sport.In addition, the bill will enable ASDA to provide `safety checking services' for sporting organisations to test for the presence of substances such as alcohol, which can impair judgement and compromise the safety of competitors.Financial Impact StatementThe Agency's 1998-99 budget will absorb the costs of the establishment and operation of the Medical Advisory Committee. Annual funding required by the Committee in future years will be taken up in the 1999-2000 budget.I am sure that most Australians will want to ensure that the Australian sporting ethos based on honesty, fair play, excellence, and opportunity for all, is preserved for future generations of Australian sports people. This bill will enable ASDA to adopt world's best practice when delivering drug testing services. It will provide the Australian sporting community with an independent, high quality and accessible anti-doping program, and so enable Australian sport to deter drug use by athletes.I must also take this opportunity to stress that this bill is only one expression of the Government's commitment to drug free sport. The Government is currently working on pulling together a whole suite of anti-doping measures with a view to developing a comprehensive and coordinated anti-doping strategy.I commend the bill to the Senate.AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1998This bill amends a number of acts within the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio.The government announced on 11 December 1996 that Article 39(3) of the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights required Australia to provide protection for undisclosed test data submitted in respect of the evaluation of a new active constituent for an agricultural or veterinary chemical product. The proposed amendments to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992 will provide five years protection for such data and thus remove any doubt as to whether or not Australia is fulfilling its obligations under Article 39(3).The proposed amendments to the Dairy Produce Act 1986 will correct the unforeseen impacts of the operation of the Government's Domestic Market Support scheme during the recent Victorian gas crisis. During the crisis, many milk manufacturing plants in Victoria incurred significant financial losses due to lost production, factory conversion outlays and higher operating costs. In addition, the operation of the Domestic Market Support scheme during this period imposed further hardship on farmers and manufacturers, and created inequities within the Victorian dairy industry.The proposed amendments will remedy this problem by providing for two special payments. The first payment is a rebate to those manufacturers who, under the Domestic Market Support scheme, were required to pay a levy on milk disposed of at the factory during the gas crisis. This rebate is designed to offset financial losses incurred by manufacturers through the imposition of levy in this situation.The second payment is a payment to the producers of milk which was disposed of on-farm during the gas crisis. Under the Domestic Market Support scheme, milk has to be delivered to a manufacturer before a farmer becomes eligible for a Domestic Market Support payment. This payment will allow producers, upon application, to receive the same entitlement as if their milk had been delivered to a factory. This payment does not extend to market milk.The payments will be financed from the Australian Dairy Corporation's Domestic Fund. This Fund finances the Domestic Market Support scheme, using monies collected from dairy industry levies on manufacturing and market milk. Accordingly, there is no financial obligation upon the Commonwealth.I would note that these amendments constitute the government's response to concerns raised by the Australian Dairy Industry Council, and clearly illustrates the government's preparedness to facilitate a lessening of the impact of the Victorian gas crisis on the Australian dairy industry.The bill amends the Export Control Act 1982 to ensure that Australia's export control legislation provides appropriate coverage for contemporary administrative arrangements.Under current export inspection arrangements there is a strong move for exporters to assume more responsibility for the quality of their product under quality systems approved and supervised by AQIS. The amendments to the Export Control Act 1982 seek to facilitate this move by allowing for the appropriate coverage of these systems in delegated legislation, and by strengthening the enforcement powers in the act in line with Commonwealth law administration policy.The purpose of the amendment to the Imported Food Control act 1992 is to clarify some aspects of the act which have previously been confusing and to enable consistent application of the act across areas which have previously been left open. This is sought as a result of inconsistencies being found by officers working with the act.As a result of the amendment, AQIS anticipates a more effective and efficient service to industry as it clarifies areas of the act that have previously been in doubt.All food imported into Australia must firstly comply with the requirements of the Quarantine Act 1908 before being inspected against the requirements of the Imported Food Control Act 1992. Accordingly the proposed amendments to the Imported Food Control Act 1992 will have no effect on Australia's quarantine standards.The purpose of the proposed amendment to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 is to make naming of new varieties easier.Currently, an anomalous restriction exists which precludes any duplication of plant variety names regardless of whether varieties are protected or currently in commerce.The need not to repeat a name makes the checking of proposed names to ensure novelty, an unnecessarily laborious process for both the applicant and the PBR office.Therefore it is proposed to allow limited duplication of variety names provided varieties with the same name are from an entirely different "plant class" and are unlikely to be confused in the market place. Duplication of names in closely related cereal crops such as wheat, barley and oats would not be accepted.A list of plant classes, maintained by the PBR office, will be accessible to prospective PBR applicants free of charge. This proposed amendment is in conformity with the international standards on the matter and will promote the use of a single name for each variety, regardless of the country in which it is marketed.Debate (on motion by Senator Quirke) adjourned.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills2353r6612353Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Macdonald) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.235316:28:002353Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998 delivers on the Government's commitment to address legitimate community concern regarding possible exploitation of consumers and excessive profit taking by business in the transition to the new tax system.The bill inserts a new Part VB into the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA) to give the ACCC special transitional powers to monitor prices for 3 years from 1 July 1999. The monitoring will identify instances where consumers have not fully benefited from reductions in tax rates, or would otherwise be exposed to greater than necessary price rises.The bill prohibits price exploitation during the 3 year transitional period. Price exploitation occurs if the price for the supply of a good or service is unreasonably high, having regard to the tax changes under the new system. It is recognised that many factors may affect price and, therefore, price exploitation will not occur if the unreasonably high price is attributable to the supplier's costs, supply and demand conditions, or any other relevant matter. The ACCC will issue guidelines relating to price exploitation, in particular, about when prices will be regarded as unreasonably high.Prosecutions for breaches of the prohibition on price exploitation will be taken by the ACCC in the Federal Court, with penalties of up to $10 million for a body corporate, and up to $500,000 for a person other than a body corporate.The ACCC will have extensive information gathering powers to facilitate its price monitoring and prosecution roles. It will also be able to seek injunctions to restrain breaches of the prohibition. As an alternative to taking court action, the ACCC will have power to accept voluntary undertakings relating to prices and price setting, using its existing powers under the TPA to accept undertakings.The ACCC will also have power to issue a notice to a corporation that it considers has contravened the prohibition against price exploitation. These notices will constitute prima facie evidence, in proceedings by the ACCC to seek penalties or to obtain an injunction, that the price charged is unreasonably high, and is not attributable to supplier's costs, supply and demand conditions, or any other relevant matter. It will be for the corporation to whom the notice is issued to provide evidence to the contrary.The ACCC will also be able to issue a second type of notice to a corporation, relating to supplies that may be made in the future. In this notice the ACCC will specify a maximum price which, in its opinion, may be charged for a supply referred to in the notice. That is, the ACCC will be able to provide a warning to a corporation that if it supplies above the maximum price specified, that price will, in the ACCC's opinion, constitute price exploitation. This notice will not constitute prima facie evidence in future proceedings, but the ACCC will be able to publish details of the notice as it sees fit, including in national newspapers. Adverse publicity should help to discourage price exploitation and in addition provide consumers with information of assistance in avoiding unnecessary price rises.Limitations on the Commonwealth's constitutional power mean that these measures cannot extend across the whole economy without the cooperation of the States and Territories. To facilitate that cooperation, the bill creates a form of text to be known as the New Tax System Price Exploitation Code. This Code replicates the provisions of the new Part VB in the Schedule to the TPA, and also contains the other provisions and regulations of the TPA so far as they relate to Part VB, modified to refer to "persons" rather than "corporations". The application of this Code by State and Territory legislation will provide economy-wide coverage of these anti-profiteering measures.Competitive pressures that already exist in the economy should largely ensure that the benefits of reductions in tax rates are passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices. Nevertheless, this bill is necessary to deal with those instances where price exploitation could occur. The substantial penalties that can be imposed, demonstrate the Government's determination to ensure that consumers receive the full benefits of the changes to the tax system.I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned till 19 April 1999, in accordance with the order agreed to on 25 November 1998.Ordered that A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998 and the package of bills relating to the new tax system be taken together for their remaining stages.Miscellaneous235416:29:002354Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I move:That the Civil Aviation Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 234 and made under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 , be disallowed.The proposed amendments to the Civil Aviation Regulations represent, in our view, the next step in the Howard government's plans to privatise air traffic control services and firefighting services at certain airports. Already we have seen the launch of the firefighters campaign to resist this government's plans to privatise their service. Firefighters have grave concerns about the impact that the plan will have on their future and on the future of airport safety in general.The same concerns, the same issues, arise from the government's plans to privatise air traffic control services. Of course, no-one knows exactly the current state of those plans or how far they have been developed—not the air traffic controllers whose jobs and futures may be at stake, not the aviation industry, not the travelling public and certainly not this parliament. Air safety and the aviation bureaucracy have been very topical of late. We have seen the chairman of CASA launching a damning public attack on the highly regarded BASI. At the Senate estimates committee hearings we heard of `letters in the bottom of the drawer', threats to careers, `cronyism and capture', influence by major airlines, lawyers taking action to get hold of important documents, et cetera. It was quite an extraordinary day. These are issues that the government would obviously prefer that the opposition did not raise. I think they would prefer the `let's not talk about it and it might go away' approach. It certainly is not going to go away in relation to this matter. Despite what we have seen and heard, much about aviation policy and direction remains unclear. In the opposition's view we need transparency, we need a clear message and we need to have the government clearly articulate where it wants to go. I suspect, however, that the government has no clear idea that its own traffic control system and navigation is on the blink and that its own destination is unknown. What we do know is this: we know that Airservices has been reviewed, but we do not know the results of the review or the results of the review of the administration of air safety. We know that last year the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, confirmed that the government had agreed to `consider introducing competition into some aspects of Airservices Australia's tower business'. He went on to say:The action we have taken accords with a number of firm expressions of interest that the government has received from new airport lessees seeking to make tower services contestable.We know that he has told us not to worry about it when the issue was discussed in the other place. We know that in December last year Airservices Australia announced:In line with Government policy on competition for air traffic services, an immediate start will be made with a process to test the market for alternative Air Traffic Control service providers.We also know CASA has been asked to develop standards to use in the provision of air traffic control services. We know that there have been discussions between Airservices and potential providers of air traffic control services. And we also know that Minister Anderson gave in the other place what amounted to an unpaid advertisement for a possible provider, Serco—an organisation, in our view, with a questionable industrial relations record if ever there was one.We get glimpses of what is going on, but we do not get to see the full picture. The one full picture we have seen is of widespread industry concern about the government's plans. We know pilots, air traffic controllers, airport operators, the airlines, small general aviation businesses and a plethora of others within the aviation industry believe that they are not being properly consulted about the government's plans for Australian aviation. We still have not been told what the introduction of `competition into some aspects of tower business' means in reality, or what `making tower services contestable' actually involves in terms of the specific detail. We have not been told which of the lessees want their tower services privatised. What is more, we have no guarantees yet on the price or standard of the privatised services. We have absolutely no guarantee that new private operators will not cut corners or compromise safety. We have no guarantee that the public's capacity—through the government and the parliament—to control, direct and scrutinise these services will be maintained. We have no guarantee that, given possible increased insurance costs and the costs of regulating any private providers, overall costs to Airservices would not increase.Privatisation or `alternative sources of supply' or `introducing competition' or `making services contestable' or `local ownership'—or whatever euphemism this government may be able to come up with—has generally led to the following wherever it has been implemented: job losses, higher costs, lower levels of service and compromised standards. In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration has been ordered by the judicial system to cancel its program of privatising some of the towers and to reconsider its whole contracting out pro cess. Why we don't take the lessons from overseas, I do not know.We cannot allow the profit motive to obscure a clear focus on safety. We must have transparency; we must have openness; we must make sure that the issue can be publicly scrutinised. The Airservices operation is already an extremely lean outfit. The only way to make a profit in a number of towers would be to increase costs to the industry and therefore the public, or to reduce costs to business and therefore cut services. Promises by Minister Anderson that somebody else can do it cheaper are simply hollow. A cheaper service is often, and in this case almost certainly would be, a poorer service. That is a risk that I think recent events in Australian politics have shown that we cannot afford. We certainly cannot afford the risk in the critical area of air traffic control.What controls are proposed on costs? What will happen at the busy general aviation airports that are significant training institutions? Who will provide the services there? We cannot afford to let the issue of safety in the air be buried in company boardrooms. Who will be responsible if an accident occurs under a privatised air traffic control system: the private operator, the airport lessee, the government or nobody? Whose responsibility will it be ultimately? Would it be, as we have seen in many areas of this government's operations, a commercial-in-confidence matter and therefore devoid of parliamentary scrutiny as well? In such a critical issue as aviation safety, this is simply not good enough.In short, on this issue we believe that we are being kept in the dark, that we are being patted on the head and told not to worry about it and told that `safety will not be compromised'. Labor does not believe that that is an acceptable way to go about making decisions and devising policies in these utterly crucial areas. There are too many questions arising from this for the Australian public to sit relaxed and comfortable in their seats.Making fundamental change to the law of the land by regulation without prior parliamentary debate seems to be this government's new approach to parliament. It seems that, in question time in the other place, the time is used to boost the sales of recent publications by opposition members, while the government make their fundamental changes by regulation rather than by legislation.These amendments redefine air traffic service as including Airservices Australia, the current provider of air traffic control services, or a person providing air traffic services in cooperation with Airservices Australia or under an arrangement with Airservices Australia. This redefinition enables the government to sell the responsibility to provide air traffic control and the air traffic control towers and potentially other air traffic control services by recognising providers other than Airservices Australia. That is axiomatic and that is the crux of the matter. No fancy footwork or attempts to disguise the plans by saying that Airservices Australia will still be responsible for the standard of the service will suffice. That will not suffice. This is about privatisation, in our view. We have absolutely no doubt that that is ultimately what this will lead to.In this case, the parliament is being asked to sign off on a measure that potentially shifts responsibility for providing these services away from Airservices Australia with absolutely no detail backing it up. In effect, we are being asked to sign off on the privatisation of air traffic control without the faintest clue about what that will mean in reality. We are simply not prepared to give the government this kind of licence. Irrespective of their ultimate views on the question of privatisation of these services, I do not believe that the Democrats, the Greens or Senator Harradine should let the government get away with such an extraordinary snub to parliamentary and public accountability.What we should be saying to the government is: if you want to privatise these services, come back into this place and put your specific plans on the table. You tell us exactly what you are planning to do, what the government's timetable is, what the standards will be, what guarantees there are that prices for services by private providers will be regulated, what the impact on aviation costs will be and how the government is ultimately going to go about it. The government should come in here openly and in an air of transparency and tell the chamber how many jobs it thinks will be lost, what guarantees there are about the integrity of potential providers, how the government is going to guarantee safety and how the government is going to make sure small regional airports are not adversely affected.The government should come in here and explain and justify its plans to the Australian public. It should come in here and justify its plans. Until the government does this and until the government provides these concrete assurances on safety for travellers in the community, the government is not entitled to ask us, the Senate, on behalf of our constituents, to blithely sign off on these amendments. But I do not think, and I doubt very much, that the government is in fact going to take up what I believe is a fairly generous offer on behalf of the Labor Party. Why is that? Because the government knows that the majority of Australians are going to say, as the opposition is saying, that air traffic control should remain a public operation motivated by the need to protect safety, not the need to make a profit.In opposing these amendments, the opposition is saying very firmly and very clearly that air safety is not an issue of service provision; it is primarily an issue of government responsibility. I urge all senators to put the brakes on this headlong rush to destination unknown and support the opposition in rejecting amendments that effectively give the government the go-ahead to privatise vital air traffic control services without divulging details of their plan, without doing the work on what that would mean and without having the courage to engage in a full public debate about this issue.16:41:002357Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I commend Senator Mackay on her speech. She has convinced me. The Democrats are very happy to support this disallowance motion, but I would like to give a couple of comments as well for the minister to cogitate over. Perhaps he will also support the disallowance motion when he understands the nature of the problem.It would be good for the minister to know that I have in my office a stack of submissions and letters from people. I suppose I should not exaggerate. I am not sure just how high the stack would be, but they come from every industry group associated with aviation—that is, from many private operators, from individual people and from some who, I must say, will not even give me their names, and one really cannot take seriously that kind of evidence. Nevertheless, there are submissions and letters that have come from many people who are prepared to put their name to the accusations they are making, if you like. I have to say that there is a tremendous concern represented by all of those industry groups and all of the individuals who have contacted my office, and I am sure Senator Mackay's office and no doubt Mrs Kernot's office as well.There is tremendous concern out there. That is why we are appealing to the government at this point. We are saying to the government, `Look, you really cannot jump too quickly on this one. You really would be doing yourself a great service to agree to this disallowance.' As Senator Mackay has so eloquently said, we want the government to come back to us with some real proposals. This minister is also the minister for regional Australia. I would not want to say anything about his ability to represent regional Australia. There is no doubt about his commitment to it. He does care about regional Australia, but whether we can always agree on how services should be developed is another issue.In all of this, one of the points made to me is how regional airports have been affected. I have three examples. The first is Maroochy airport in Queensland. Great concern exists there about the whole issue of the privatisation of air traffic control. A whole debate has gone on between the Maroochy Shire Council and the private operators of training schools at Maroochy airport who are very concerned about the problem they have with the new landing fees. They want to know whether, in the event that air traffic control services are privatised, it will mean greater costs. That is their concern.The second example is the airport at Coffs Harbour in New South Wales from where a great stack of submissions on exactly the same issue have come. The third example—and Senator Eggleston, I know, is very concerned about this issue because he himself has had conversations with me about it—is the airport at Port Hedland, Western Australia, and problems there. So going from Queensland to New South Wales, and I am sure to Tasmania, and certainly to Western Australia—in fact, to every state—the same concerns are being raised.The issue of air safety is one that every Australian who flies is concerned about. There is not a lot of confidence out there. Too many questions are being raised and not answered. As Senator Mackay said, in the estimates hearing we had a most remarkable day: in the blue corner, we had Dick Smith; in the red corner, we had Airservices and BASI—and I am not sure whether some of the senators were referees or in the fight. But it was a fascinating day. It was all to do with who was to blame, who was going to take the blame and who was being snowed by whom. It was just amazing.I have to say that, out there in aviation customer land, people are very concerned. We cannot go ahead with this proposal unless the government does far more work on it. And today, just to further underline the concern that is out there, there have been media stories about toxic fumes in aircraft. I suppose all of us in this place have a vested interest in this matter because we fly on those BAE146s; they are used on the direct flight from Brisbane to Canberra. So there we have the thought that there might be pilots who are unable to land those aircraft because they are too sick from those fumes—if it is indeed the fumes that are causing the sickness.All of these issues raise very serious questions about air safety and public health and we need to have these questions answered and these issues cleared up. I know that the government is taking some account of these matters, but its reaction time has just been too slow. I understand that this issue of toxic fumes has been around for 16 years; CASA at least has known about it for that long. It was only when it got wind that there were to be media reports about this on Friday that it finally decided to do something. So these are the problems.Not only are we to vote now on this disallowance, but also there are at least two propositions for return to order, and both the Democrats and Labor are proposing that there be inquiries into a number of issues, which I hope will also be supported. So, Mr Acting Deputy President, we just cannot proceed with the regulations which are being proposed, statutory rules 1998 No. 234, without a pause. This disallowance motion gives the government, and indeed all of us, an opportunity to pause, reconsider and get all the facts on the table.16:49:002358O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—These regulations provide, as we know, for the privatisation of air traffic control services in Australia. They represent just another step by this government to privatise at all costs. It is a path this government has followed since it came to power in March 1996. These regulations also provide a clear illustration of how this government goes about its business—not in an open way, not in a considered way, but as quietly and as privately as possible. It has chosen in this area not to seek to win the support of the community for a particular policy change with the merits of its case; rather, it seeks to change policy by regulation and present the public with a fait accompli.An answer to a question on notice from Mr Tanner, the member for Melbourne, on this very matter makes the point that I seek to make. The answer appeared in Hansard on 14 May last year. Mr Tanner asked whether Airservices was proposing to privatise air traffic control. The answer reads as follows:I am not aware of any substantive discussions between airport lessee companies and Airservices on this issue.That is a slippery answer, to say the least, but it is true to form from this government generally, and the minister in particular, on this sort of matter. Less than four weeks later in an estimates hearing, we got the facts from Mr Bill Pollard, Chief Executive of Air services Australia, when he told the committee:We are looking at the possibility of someone else providing air traffic control services in Australia at the smaller locations.That evidence was given four weeks after the minister's answer to the question on notice to which I referred—Mr Tanner's question. Mr Pollard then tried to give the minister some protection by saying that Airservices had not had any substantive discussions on privatisation. Mr Quinlivan, who also gave evidence at the estimates hearing, then advised that the department and Airservices had conducted a structural review of air services. He said:That review considered the alternative supply of air traffic services.Mr Quinlivan also confirmed that the minister had been provided with a copy of the report that flowed from the Airservices Australia review. He said that the department had had discussions with the owners of privatised airports about the transfer of air traffic services to them. Despite the minister's attempt to mislead Mr Tanner in that answer, we now know the extent of the work that has gone on and the minister's role in that work. It is very clearly on the public record.Airservices Australia and its predecessors have provided quality and safe air traffic control systems to the aviation industry and to the wider community. Errors have been made, but generally we have been very well off in this country when it comes to aviation safety. However, since the election, this government has sought to lower those standards and the worldwide reputation we enjoy when it comes to air safety. The standards are under threat. This plan to privatise air traffic services presents yet another significant threat to these standards.In many smaller locations around Australia, the combination of privatised airports, location specific charges and now privatised air traffic services provide a dangerous cocktail for a reduction in safety standards. General aviation airports, such as Moorabbin, Bankstown, Archerfield, Parafield and Jandakot, are the busiest in Australia. They are used predominantly by numbers of inexperienced pilots undergoing training. These airports require a safe and high quality air traffic control service. Frankly, it is the government that has the responsibility to ensure that those services are there. If the government proposed action—and this regulation is the means by which it would act—succeeds with the privatisation plan, then the safety at those airports will be under threat.Yet another example of how this government is downgrading safety has just come to my attention. In answer to a question on notice dated 20 October 1997, the member for Barton asked the then Minister for Transport, Mr Vaile, whether or not weather conditions preclude the safe operation of westerly take-offs from runway 25, the east-west runway at Sydney airport. The answer was yes. Mr Vaile advised that the runway was unsafe to use `when the crosswind component on the runway exceeds 20 knots and/or the downwind component exceeds five knots.' There is also an International Civil Aviation Organisation recommendation relating to landing in crosswinds. ICAO has recommended that compliance with published noise abatement procedures should not be required in `adverse operating conditions' such as when `the cross-wind component including gusts exceeds 15 knots'.A Bureau of Air Safety Investigation's report concerning air safety operations at Sydney airport dated August last year stated:A recent landing accident at Amsterdam involving a Boeing 757 has highlighted the risk of continued operations on runways with cross-winds of up to 25 knots.In that incident the aircraft veered off the runway whilst flight crew were attempting to land in crosswinds. The BASI report said:. . . whilst this level of cross-wind is within the structural capacity of the aircraft and the capacity of flight crews, it has reduced the margin for error when aircraft are required to land on close set parallel or short runways, when safer options are available. In addition, an increased level of complexity is added to the airspace environment when flight crews operationally require a landing on an into-wind runway while cross-wind operations are in progress, thus compromising structured airspace concepts. However, we now find things have changed. I asked a question on 24 November last year about that BASI report and the use of the east-west runway. I wanted to know what Airservices Australia had done in response to the BASI finding that the use of runway 25 reduced safety margins. Only today I received the reply. The answer from the minister representing Minister Anderson, Senator Macdonald, advised that Airservices Australia consulted CASA in its review of the crosswinds policy in Sydney. There was no reference in the answer to Airservices Australia consulting with BASI.The answer confirms that risk increases with increasing crosswind. It confirms the ICAO standard that for noise abatement purposes 15 knots is the maximum recommended crosswind, and it also states the same limit for operational purposes and noise abatement purposes is acceptable. It then states that the limit is 25 knots. So we have an ICAO recommended limit for noise abatement of 15 knots. We have the then minister, Mr Vaile, telling us in December 1997 that the weather conditions preclude the safe operation of runway 25 when the crosswind component reaches 20 knots, and we have a BASI report saying that 25 knots, while technically possible for both aircraft and crew, compromises safety. That is, the use of this runway in those conditions erodes the safety margin.Now we have Airservices saying, `Yes, we know about the BASI concerns. We have talked to CASA, not BASI.' They say that it does not impose an unacceptable safety hazard. This policy has changed. It has changed despite BASI's concerns to the contrary. The minister said in his answer that if any pilots were worried about the safety of runway 25 in crosswinds they can use another runway. He knows full well the pressures that pilots are under. He knows that, if a pilot chose not to use runway 25, he or she would have to go to the end of a long queue, at Sydney airport in particular, and that would not be an acceptable option. It is the policy applied for the use of this runway that must be right. Give pilots an opt-out clause that in no way runs a risk to the safety regime at the major airports.So, in addition to the disallowance of the regulation that we are debating to privatise air traffic services and the erosion of standards applying to the use of the east-west runway at Sydney airport, we now have the government seeking to transfer noise management responsibilities to the Sydney airport authority. In a letter which was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald over the weekend to Qantas, Ansett and the Sydney Airport Corporation, the chief executive of Airservices, Mr Pollard, said that his organisation had taken too much flak over the airport's long-term operating plan. And he said in the letter that Airservices does not own the airport, does not fly the planes nor does it control the weather that frequently dictates flight path configurations. But he does control air traffic control services, and that service determines traffic movements.The government has made an absolute mess of the management of noise around Sydney airport. It has failed because it has sought a political objective by trying to shift noise from politically sensitive conservative seats to politically expendable Labor seats. It has ignored the option of seeking to minimise the noise impact on the greatest number of people living around KSA, and that strategy has now clearly failed.So here we have a government which is trying to shift the blame to someone else. And the latest move by Airservices Australia on behalf of the government, I am sure, is just one more step down a very dangerous path—that is, a continuing process by the government of reducing its involvement in the provision of safe aviation services in this country. Unfortunately, if this process continues, a desire for profit will gradually override the desire to maintain our current high safety standards, and I fear we will pay a terrible price.17:01:002360Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I suggested to Senator Mackay when she was delivering her speech that she should write a book. And I think she should get Senator O'Brien to join her because the speeches from both of the Labor Party senators were very interesting, quite entertaining, but very, very inaccurate—the sort of fantasy stuff you might read in a storybook being written for entertainment value and for a bit of `gee-whizzery' reaction.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Lindsay Tanner.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Lindsay Tanner's I think was an accurate book, Senator O'Chee. The speeches delivered by the two Labor Party senators would seem to be pure fantasy, pure story telling. Can I ask the two senators from the Labor Party a question? I understand Senator Mackay has a response, and I would very much like to hear why the Labor Party are opposed to this position when the Air Services Act of 1995—note that is when the Labor Party was in power—at section 11(3) says: (3) Where AA may provide a facility or service, it may do so:(a) itself;(b) in cooperation with another person (including the Commonwealth); or(c) by arranging for another person (including the Commonwealth) to do so on its behalf.That is Labor Party legislation that actually went through the parliament under a Labor Party minister and was voted for by the Labor Party. What we are doing in the regulations is almost word for word for that. You obviously have not read the regulation, Senator, and whoever has given you that speech to read has sold you the dump, I would suggest respectfully, because our regulation simply puts into effect what the Labor government legislated for in 1995.Can I just read the regulation, because it is fairly obvious that you have not. It has one simple clause. It say that you will delete the definition of air traffic service and substitute this definition of air traffic services:"Air Traffic Service means any of the following:(a) AA in its capacity as the provider of air traffic services under subparagraph 8(1)(b)(i) of the Air Services Act 1995 ;—the act that I just quoted to you—(b) a person providing air traffic services in cooperation with AA for paragraph 11(3)(b) of that Act; (c) a person providing air traffic services under an arrangement with AA for paragraph 11(3)(c) of that Act.".It is putting into effect exactly what the Labor Party legislated for in 1995. I would be interested to know what has caused the change of heart of the Labor Party since 1995. It is your legislation under which this regulation is introduced, and the regulation simply puts into effect what your piece of legislation did. That to me smacks, at kindest, of simple story telling and, at worst, that you are simply in this to try to score a political point out of air safety. I think that really is what the Labor Party is all about today.You pass legislation when you are in government and when we do exactly the same thing you suddenly change your mind and you oppose it for purely political purposes. Senator Mackay, I would like you to explain in your right of reply why it was good enough when you were in power and why, now that we are implementing your act by way of regulation, you suddenly find it no good.I might say to Senator Woodley, who kindly said that I had an interest in regional services—and I do, Senator Woodley, and thank you for acknowledging that—that it is very simply because of my interest in regional services and because of my determination to make sure that regional airports continue to have air traffic control services at a reasonable price that I support this regulation. Senator, that is what it is all about. It is not about safety. It is not about privatising air services—quite to the contrary. It is about providing safety initiatives, safety services, for regional airports. Senator Woodley, can I say to you—and I hope Senator Mackay might be interested in this as a Tasmanian senator; and I see Senator Denman here as a Tasmanian senator and my colleague Senator Newman—that unless we are able—6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—There is another Tasmanian senator here.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—And Senator Harradine. I beg your pardon.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—And Senator O'Brien.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—We are all here.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order!YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I am sorry, I had not realised Senator O'Brien was from Tasmania; and now I have Senator Calvert as well from Tasmania—so we have all the elements. Are there any Democrats from Tasmania?Honourable senators interjecting—No.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Okay—Tasmanians showed some sense. Let me emphasise that, unless we are able to do something about reducing costs and getting private contractors under the auspices and control of Airservices Australia, landing charges for Tasmanian airports will increase. I happen to have a couple of examples of that for Senator Mackay's benefit. The current charge per tonne is $6.75. Unless we are able to get a cheaper service, that charge will have to go up to $7.49 per tonne. In Launceston the current charge of $6.75 per tonne will have to go up to $9.66 per tonne. Senator, what is that going to do to the people that you represent? It will mean that charges in Tasmania will go up dramatically because the subsidy runs out at the end of next year. It cannot be continued under the budgetary constraints. In fact, under the court case Airservices Australia v. Monarch Airlines, it was indicated that those charges had to be recovered from the users. So the difficulty is that for regional airports—I named two and there are a number of others right around Australia—prices will have to go up unless we can get a better way of doing it.I re-emphasise that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the intention of the amendment to this regulation. I want to state categorically that it is not about privatisation of Airservices Australia. That misunderstanding is largely the result of material distributed by Civil Air, the union representing air traffic controllers. Nor is it a question about safety. Under the proposed amendments, Airservices will retain control of the service provider and will continue to apply current safety standards. I hope you understand that, Senator, because Airservices Australia will retain control—I repeat that— and it will continue to apply current safety standards.The question is one of providing tower services at regional airports at reasonable cost. The amendment will permit organisations other than Airservices to provide for air traffic services under contract, exactly as your government intended when it passed the Air Services Act back in 1995. This means that while Airservices retains the regulatory responsibility of providing air traffic control services, someone with better flexibility in their cost structure than Airservices, with lower overheads, or who is able to operate at different hours, would provide air traffic control services at an individual tower. But I repeat that the act will still require that the standard of provision of this service would be that of Airservices Australia itself.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Like Sydney Airport.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I can only repeat that it was your government, Senator, that recognised the possibility that Airservices would contract out air traffic services and the Act specifically allows, in the section that I have read out, for Airservices to either provide the air traffic services itself, in cooperation with another organisation, or to arrange for another organisation to provide the services on its behalf. Your Act said that, so why the change of heart? Our regulation puts into effect your legislation.In entering into any arrangements with another organisation, Airservices would still be bound by the requirements in the Act that require Airservices to regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration in exercising its powers and performing its functions. These regulations will enable owners and operators of airports to use organisations other than Airservices to provide air traffic services. This should allow airports to address the cost of their control towers, which the industry has subsidised for many years and which the government is currently subsidising heavily in an $11 million annual budget contribution.It is important to understand that the number of organisations with expertise to provide these services is pretty limited. They are highly qualified and experienced and they are certainly not fly-by-night operators. The main operators at this stage would be Serco, an organisation with experience in providing these services in the United Kingdom, and any Airservices air traffic controllers presently providing these services at airports who choose to form a corporation of their own for that purpose. So there is really only those two groups—either Serco or the current air traffic controllers who want to go out and establish their own business. There are also flow-on benefits if the opportunity for alternative service providers is opened. Serco intends to use the option available under these regulations to set up an international training centre in Australia. If these regulations are disallowed, this opportunity for new business in Australia will be lost.To fully understand the implications of disallowing this regulation, consideration needs to be given to the current situation at general aviation and smaller regional airports. It is vital, I suggest to you, Senator, that we understand which airports will be most affected by any decision to disallow these regulations. The currently subsidised airports are capital city general aviation centres, which are, as you know, major centres for small aviation businesses; Tasmanian airports—I hope you understand that; and regional airports in rural New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. That concerns me, both as a regional person and as the minister with responsibility for regional Australia.Airservices has introduced charges for its services, including tower services in regional areas, which are based on costs it incurs at each location. The Federal Court has ruled that Airservices must take this approach—I mentioned previously the Airservices Australia v. Monarch Airlines case.Without the subsidy or the changes to the cost structure at individual towers, there would need to be huge increases in the charges to pay for tower services. As I mentioned, charges at Hobart airport would have to increase from $6.75 to $7.49 per tonne, an increase of some 11 per cent. Charges at Launceston would have to increase from $6.75 to $9.66 per tonne, an increase of 43 per cent. Senator, your proposal to disallow these regulations would be a great blow to Tasmania because those charges will increase and add to the cost of all Tasmanians. Why are you wanting to penalise the people you are supposed to be representing?In contrast, the government's approach differs significantly in that we will offer very significant savings for the Australian aviation industry and for rural and regional communities. Already Serco has indicated that it can provide as effective a service at a price significantly lower than that presently charged by Airservices at a number of locations. New airport operators have approached the government seeking to open up this option. They know that this is a process which has for many years operated successfully overseas, and I give the example of the FAA in the United States.Senator, these regulations will not affect air safety at regional airports because Airservices Australia will still be in charge of the air safety regime at the airports. The regulations will ensure that the charges be maintained at an affordable level. Regrettably, your approach would greatly increase the cost of air travel for Australians, like me and you, who live in rural and regional areas. For those reasons, I think it is vital that we allow Airservices Australia this flexibility.I conclude by saying that this regulation puts into effect what the Labor Party legislated for in 1995. Unfortunately, I do not have the voting slip in front of me to tell me who voted for that Airservices legislation in 1995. Senator Woodley might remember whether the Democrats supported it. I suspect they probably did. I suspect that the current government also supported the Labor Party proposal to do this, because it made sense. It made sense to the Labor government of the day and it makes sense to us. If you can get a cost-effective service into aviation, then you should do it. Otherwise, regional travellers, like me and the Tasmanian senators, will have to pay more. There is an alternative. I urge the Senate to reject this motion so that regional travellers can have those cheaper services but in a way that is absolutely safe because Airservices Australia will still maintain the overall regime of safety.17:18:002364Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—in reply—I will not take long.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—You have 20 minutes.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I may have 20 minutes, but I will not take that time, fortunately for the chamber. There are a couple of things I want to rebut in relation to the submission from the minister, who has become an expert on Airservices Australia in about three hours and 20 minutes. In question time today he had some vague memory about a letter from Mr Pollard, who is CEO of Airservices Australia, but not enough to answer any questions in relation to it. That issue went to the heart of air safety. Mr Pollard was saying that it was all too hard in relation to Sydney airport, that the safety regime was too difficult for Airservices Australia, and he was suggesting that the whole box and dice be given back to Sydney airport. How can we accept a guarantee from the minister when we have this tangible example in front of us that Airservices Australia are basically flying the white flag and saying, `It is too difficult for us'? This is what is happening at the moment at Sydney airport.Senator Macdonald made much of the Labor Party's legislation. That was there for a very good reason. I am surprised he did not understand the nature of the reason, which was to allow the RAAF to provide services in Darwin, for example. It was never intended to precipitate the full privatisation of air traffic control in Australia. If it were, why on earth have this regulation in the first place? Why come into the chamber with a regulation? Why not just go with the legislation? Why do they need to do this? The answer is very obvious: the legislation from this government's point of view is clearly insufficient to ensure that there is full privatisation of air traffic control. Therefore, they need the clarification of the regulation in order to do it.The other fairly astounding thing from Senator Macdonald was the issue of prices going up in regional airports. There is a very easy way for Senator Macdonald to rectify that—that is, keep the subsidy going.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Do you want to put up taxes?9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I remind Senator Macdonald of the many comments by Mr Costello about the size of the budget surplus to the extent that this government is able to fund massive tax cuts to high income people. So why not use some of the budget surplus to keep the subsidy going for regional airports? Why not do that, rather than give massive tax cuts to people who do not need it?The other interesting point I wish to comment on briefly is Senator Macdonald's assertion that air safety will not be compromised at all by this new regime. If air safety is not to be compromised, how will the savings be made? The illogical conclusion of this regulation is that virtually anybody could provide air traffic control. That is something I do not think one person in Australia wants. I do not think one person in Australia wants one iota more of safety to be removed from the whole regime of air safety in Australia, certainly not by the privatisation of air traffic control, which I notice was not denied either by Minister Anderson or Minister Macdonald here today.Senator Macdonald went into some detail with regard to one of the groups that is looking at the provision of services—that is, Serco. I have to say that is more information than we have ever got before. Senator Woodley is nodding in agreement. That is more information than we have ever got before in relation to exactly what this is going to mean. The government comes in here, through Senator Macdonald, and, in defending its actions, without the transparency of amending legislation or whatever, gives a lot more detail about the privatisation of air traffic control and Serco's activities than we have ever had before.I think that pretty much QED proves our point—that is, too much has been done by regulation in relation to the activities of this government. If this government really wants to privatise air traffic control, which it clearly does, it should not have done it by the promulgation of the regulation. It should have come in here with a proper amendment to legislation, so that it could be fully debated, so that we could refer it to a legislation committee, which Senator Woodley, me and others are on, so that we can look at it, so that we can get submissions from interested parties and so on, and so we don't have a situation that we have at the moment whereby Airservices Australia is saying that air safety at Sydney airport is too difficult for it.We do not want a repeat of what has happened elsewhere. We do not want a repeat of the situation in the US, where they are having to relook at this entire situation. They are having to consider revisiting their initiatives in relation to this area because of concerns about air safety. I thank Senator Macdonald for his contribution in strengthening our case in relation to opposing the privatisation of air traffic control. I do not think our case has been dented one bit. I would also like to thank other senators for their contributions.Question resolved in the affirmative.17:23:002365Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—by leave—I just wanted to indicate that, in regard to saving the time of the Senate by not dividing, Senator Harradine had indicated to us that he would be supporting the disallowance motion.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—I had no such indication.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—No, I am telling you. That is why we are not dividing—because we would have lost the division. We are saving the time of the Senate.Miscellaneous2365236517:24:002365Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Pursuant to the order of the Senate of 18 February 1999, and on behalf of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill), I present documents relating to the Jabiluka Uranium Mine, together with a tabling statement and a list of the documents presented. I also seek leave to have the tabling statement and the list incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—The attached documents constitute key documents held by or generated by Environment Australia between 1 October 1998 and 18 February 1999, including important correspondence and information documents dealing with the Jabiluka development, the UNESCO World Heritage Mission and Australia's response to the decisions of the Kyoto meeting of the World Heritage Committee.The Government has already released a large number of documents relating to the environmental impact assessment process for the Jabiluka development, including the assessment reports produced by my Department, the independent scientific review undertaken by scientists from the University of NSW and the Australian Government's submission to the Mission which visited Kakadu National Park in 1998. The release of the attached documents again highlights the Government's commitment to transparency.The documents also demonstrate the commitment of the Government to:. respond to the flawed Mission report based on strong and well-constructed scientific, legal and logical arguments;. ensure the strictest environmental and cultural heritage protection standards are applied to the Jabiluka development;. protect the World Heritage values of Kakadu; and. defend Australia's national interest in the face of misleading and inaccurate representations about the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park.I am not tabling draft documents, legal advice, diplomatic communications or electronic mail messages not placed on file. I am also not tabling certain documents dealing with Australia's relations with other members of the World Heritage Committee and certain internal advice provided to me by my portfolio. The release of such documents could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth, or they are internal working documents the release of which would be contrary to the public interest, or they are subject to legal professional privilege.There is also a mass of supporting documentation (for example, papers, notes and correspondence) held throughout the bureaucracy on the issue of Jabiluka. To exhaustively search for and process this mass of material at very considerable public expense would not be justifiable.Senator the Hon Robert Hill8 March 1999The list read as follows— DateDocument description8/10/98Minutes of Jabiluka Minesite Technical Committee.9/10/98Example of letters from Dr Wardrop to listed stakeholders regarding the UNESCO World Heritage Mission's visit to Australia and attaches its draft itinerary.9/10/98Letter from Ms Sullivan to the Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre attaching recommended program for the UNESCO Mission to Kakadu.12/10/98Letter from Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre to Ms Sullivan.12/10/98Letters from Dr Wardrop to listed stakeholders attaching a paper prepared by Environment Australia and provided to the World Heritage Centre for use by members of the Mission.13/10/98Letter from Mr Marr of The Wilderness Society to the Director of the World Heritage Centre.13/10/98Letter from Ms Katona on behalf of the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation to the Director of the World Heritage Centre.14/10/98Letter from Minister Hill to Chair of the World Heritage Committee.15/10/98Letter from Ms Sullivan to the Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 23/10/98Explanation of Decisions from Minister Hill on recommendations to Minister Parer on the Proposal by ERA to mine the Jabiluka No 2 Orebody in the Northern Territory utilising on-site processing, the project being known as the Jabiluka Mill Alternative. 28/10/98Document titled Supervising Scientist Group Comments on Assertions made by NGO and some academics on perceived inadequacies and Risks related to the Jabiluka project.1/11/98 Submission by the Government of Australia to the UNESCO World Heritage Mission to Kakadu National Park, October-November 1998 .3/11/98Letter from Secretary Beale to Chair of the World Heritage Committee.12/11/98Letter from the Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre to Minister Hill.20/11/98Letter from Ms Sullivan to Delegates to the World Heritage Committee meeting in Kyoto, attaching Executive Summary of Australia's submission to the UNESCO World Heritage Mission to Kakadu.23/11/98Letter from Chair of the World Heritage Committee to Minister Hill.23/11/98Letter from Minister Hill to Chair of the World Heritage Committee.Undated—likely to be 24/11/98Open letter from Yvonne Margarula to World Heritage Bureau and Committee.24/11/98Letter from Minister Downer to Director-General of UNESCO. 24/11/98Letter from Chair of the World Heritage Committee to Minister Hill.24/11/98Letter from Minister Hill to Chair of the World Heritage Committee.25/11/98Media Release from Minister Hill titled Australia Outraged at Kakadu Report.25/11/98Letter from Jonathon and Sharon Nadji to Minister Hill.Undated—late Nov 1998UNESCO World Heritage Committee agenda paper for the 22nd session of the World Heritage Committee in Kyoto, 30 Nov—5 Dec 1998 titled Information Document: Report on the mission to Kakadu National Park, Australia, 26 October to 1 November 1998 .27/11/98Letter from the Northern Land Council to Minister Hill.27/11/98Letter from Minister Hill to Chair of the World Heritage Committee.1/12/98Australian Statement on World Heritage Committee's decision arising from its consideration of the Mission's report.1/12/98Text of the World Heritage Committee's Recommendations arising from its consideration of the Mission's report.Undated—likely to be Dec 1998Paper titled Jabiluka—Legislative and Regulatory Framework .Dec 1998Six-monthly report to the Alligator Rivers Region Advisory Committee from the Supervising Scientist16/12/98Letter from Director of the World Heritage Centre to Minister Hill.18/12/98Letter from Dr Jonathon Nott to Senator Hill.12/1/99Jabiluka Mine Development Project—Radiological Management Plan.14/1/99Paper titled Commonwealth Environmental Requirements for Ranger and Jabiluka , produced by the Science Group.15/1/99Letter from Mark Daniell, Manager Environment, Safety & Health—Jabiluka, to Tony McGill, NT Director of Mines.18/1/99Letter to Chair of the World Heritage Committee from Dr Bridgewater.19/1/99Minute from Peter Waggitt, Principal Environmental Scientist, Office of the Supervising Scientist to Alex Zapantis, Health Physicist, Office of the Supervising Scientist.20/1/99Minutes of Jabiluka Minesite Technical Committee20/1/99Letter from Chair of the World Heritage Committee to Dr Bridgewater.27/1/99Letter from Minister Hill to Ms Yvonne Margarula of the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation.29/1/99Letter from Stewart Needham, Office of the Supervising Scientist to Tony McGill, NT Director of Mines.29/1/99Letter from Secretary Beale to Director of the World Heritage Centre.3/2/99Letter to Bob Wasson from the Supervising Scientist.10/2/99Letter from Chair of the World Heritage Committee to Dr Bridgewater.Bills2368r6522368Debate resumed.17:25:002368Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—When the debate on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 was adjourned before question time I was raising a question as to why the urgency for the introduction of this legislation, given that the matter had been referred under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to an inquiry by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Such inquiry is due to report to the minister by June of this year. Obviously one has to come to the conclusion that the introduction of this legislation is a blatant attempt by the minister to circumvent the outcomes of the AIRC inquiry.If the minister wanted to ignore the inquiry, if he felt that the inquiry was not going to bring down a set of findings that would allow him to run the sort of agenda he wants to run, which he spelt out in the letter he sent to the Prime Minister and in the speech he made to Freehill, Hollingdale and Page in February of this year, then clearly he could have introduced legislation here which would have amended the Workplace Relations Act and abolished the inquiry altogether. Instead of that he has seen fit to introduce legislation in here dealing with the question of youth wages while, parallel, the Industrial Relations Commission is looking at the whole issue and is due to report to the minister in June of this year.Once again, this demonstrates that this government and this minister in particular are not driven by a desire to implement good policy. They are not driven by a desire to put policies in place that will benefit the section of the community those policies are supposed to be targeted at. They are driven by an ideological agenda, a political agenda, which has as much to do with the minister's ambitions to be Prime Minister of this country as it has to do with trying to get young people into employment.The message is clear in the letter to the Prime Minister. The minister clearly spells out the government's agenda for cutting youth wages, for keeping the wages of young people down. He again spells it out in the paper to Freehill, Hollingdale and Page in February this year. That agenda is a key focus of both those documents. The government's whole agenda on wages from when they came to power—despite the rhetoric they put before the Australian people in 1995, and in 1996 prior to the election about no worker in this country being worse off—has been exactly to achieve that. Their whole political strategy, their legislative strategy, is about setting in place the circumstances to cut real wages in this country, to create the same sorts of circumstances that apply in many countries overseas—to create a class of working poor. Young people are a part of that target in the wages agenda of this government.It is as if a panacea has suddenly arrived—that if we keep the wages of young people down, if their wages are less than we pay to adults, then they will suddenly get employment because we will create jobs. I think the minister referred somewhere to 300,000 new jobs being created for young people in the current situation—a view that has been utterly rejected by both the ACTU and AYPAC.But the reality is that junior rates of pay are not the problem in terms of unemployment of young people. If they were, then the problem would be easily resolvable. I will just give you an example in my own state. In the 12 months to December 1998, the average full-time youth unemployment rate in the Illawarra statistical district was 27.9 per cent. In the Richmond/Tweed/Mid North Coast statistical district, the rate was even higher—35.8 per cent. In comparison, adult unemployment for the month of December 1998 was 10.9 per cent in the Illawarra and 12.9 per cent in Richmond/Tweed/Mid North Coast. The reality is that, if young people worked for nothing in both those districts, you would not create enough jobs to significantly reduce the unemployment level. It is a nonsense to suggest it.Over the past decade or so, as a result of structural changes in the economy, many entry level jobs have disappeared out of our economy. The number of apprenticeships and traineeships have fallen. The number of job opportunities in the banking industry and the finance sector—which was a major employer of young people—have gone. They have been displaced by technological change, privatisation and corporatisation and a contraction of the public sector. Through structural change, we have abolished thousands and thousands of what were essentially job opportunities for young people, and they have not been replaced within our economy. It is also true to say that those structural changes in our economy that occurred right throughout the 1980s and the 1990s occurred in conjunction with the application of junior rates of pay. The fact that junior rates of pay applied under our award system through the 1980s and the 1990s did not help to alleviate the impact of structural change on job opportunities for young people. Growing unemployment amongst young people continued throughout the 1980s and the 1990s because of that structural change and not because of any significant shift in the rates of pay that young people were paid over that period. It is a fallacy to suggest that somehow or other keeping pay rates at a lower level is going to all of a sudden contribute to a huge demand or a groundswell for employment of young people in the community.Senator McGauran interjecting—NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—Senator McGauran, you will have your opportunity to get on your feet and demonstrate exactly how the young people are going to be employed. Show us where the 300,000 new jobs for young people are going to be created in this economy as a result of your policy on youth wages. You get up and demonstrate it, and I will listen intently to your contribution, because it will be just as hollow as every other contribution you have made in this chamber since you have been a senator.We continually get bombarded in this place with political rhetoric saying, `If you only do this 50,000 new jobs will be created there, 100,000 new jobs will be created here, 300,000 new jobs will be created there.' None of it has been demonstrated. None of it has, in fact, been targeted in terms of where those actual jobs are or where they can be created as a result of these policy changes. I do not think we ought to spend too much time dealing with or being concerned about that type of rhetoric.In the last 20 years, we have seen a fall of 18 per cent in real wages for young males and a fall of 12 per cent for young females. On the other hand, real wages for adult males and females have risen by seven and 12 per cent respectively. In fact, over the past decade, the gap in wages between young people and older adults has grown—the disparity has widened. Despite that fact, there are a greater number of young people unemployed today than 10 or 12 years ago—and, as I said previously, it has nothing to do with the issue of wages.The 1997 inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training heard from Ms Felicity Thomson of the Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association. In relation to subsidies to encourage employment, she said:I definitely find that most employers are not interested in the fact that they have to pay a salary . . . they are more interested in getting the right person for the job in the long run and whether that person is going to perform to the standards they require.That argument, I would suggest, is just as valid with respect to the question of junior rates of pay. It is, in fact, strengthened by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in its own publication, Review , of December 1998 in an article entitled `Youth Employment and Junior Rates' in which it said that, in a survey by ACCI of 400 businesses, the reasons given for employing juniors were: preference to train their own employees—of major importance, 27.4 per cent; willingness of juniors to do certain types of work—18 per cent; and lower wages for juniors—third on the list at 17.5 per cent. So wages is not the determining factor in decisions by employers to employee juniors—to put juniors on.In a press released dated 5 September 1998, the minister says he believes that by encouraging junior rates of pay, more young people will be employed, giving more of them a `toehold in the labour market. Without them, young people would be competing against more experienced adults for jobs—they would be squeezed out and left with little opportunity for getting a start in life.' That is very clearly not the case.AYPAC, the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition, agrees with the position of the Labor Party: there is no evidence to suggest that young people's jobs will be jeopardised if the Senate votes against this bill—no evidence at all. It is interesting to note, however, that funding for AYPAC, the peak national youth affairs body, was cancelled in December 1998. Further, AYPAC has been denied observer status at Dr David Kemp's national youth round table as the organisation has criticised government policy in the past. It appears that, as soon as a lot of community organisations express a point of view that is not consistent with the policy agenda of this government, all of a sudden they seem to have real difficulties in getting funding to continue their operation. It appears that funding decisions by this government to community organisations are not predicated upon the contribution those organisations are making in the community but upon whether or not they are prepared to toe the policy line of the government.The reality is that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is conducting an inquiry into the question of youth rates. That inquiry has been going on just on two years. It has had a wide range of submissions to it in terms of what ought to be done in the area of youth wages. There are a variety of proposals, as I understand it, that have been put before that inquiry of ways and means to deal with this question. It may well be that that inquiry will find that there is more than one way to skin the cat in terms of this issue; there are a variety of mechanisms that can be applied to deal with the questions of wages, wage rates, wage relativities of young people in employment, which go to the question of skills and training and the type of policy settings that were adopted by the Labor Party when it was in government in terms of the youth trainee wages, which is one element of the process.It appears that the inquiry's outcomes or findings have already been prejudged by this government. They are not concerned to have the views of an unbiased umpire. They are not concerned to listen to the findings of a group of people who have had a long period of experience in dealing with the issue of wage fixing, in dealing with the issue of industrial relations matters and in dealing with the issue of youth in employment. They are not concerned to try to understand the myriad of arguments that have been put before that inquiry or to look at the suggested outcomes that that independent tribunal may come up with in terms of dealing with these issues.The minister has already circumvented the inquiry. He circumvented it some six months ago. He has not shown the slightest bit of interest in what the independent umpire might find in terms of how to address this issue. Why? Because this government has got an ideological bent against workers. It has got an ideological bent against their organisation. It has an agenda that is driven by serving the needs of capital, which the minister himself has said his agenda is, that is his only purpose for being here. It is driven by a desire to cut real wages. No-one in this community across the spectrum believes any longer in the rhetoric of 1996 that no worker would be worse off in this country, because there are thousands and thousands of examples out there in the community that repudiate that statement of the Prime Minister.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Real wages have gone up.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—It is true real wages have gone up. What feeds into that? The huge boost in executive salaries. Don't you know how average wages are calculated in this community? Don't you know that, when salary increases at the top go in, they boost average weekly earnings? Don't you know that, when there is employment at the lower end of the spectrum, average weekly earnings go up? Don't you know that, when people on low incomes are unemployed, they go down?WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—That is false.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—Is it? Come around some day, Julian, and I will give you a lesson in how wages and wage fixing, not wage fixation, operate in this country, because you obviously do not understand. (Time expired)17:42:002371Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—We are now debating the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 . It talks about the competitive position of young people. Schedule 1, item 1, in the bill talks about the competitive position of young people. Item 2 again refers to the competitive position of young people, and so does item 3. There is no mention in this bill of fairness to young people or fairness to employees, or of what is a fair and reasonable amount to pay to people who might be working, whether they are children, young people or otherwise.The sort of language in this legislation is quite distinct from the sort of language that was used in the classic case decided in 1907 by Mr Justice Higgins in the H.V. McKay case. The sort of language he used there is in contrast with the sort of language this bill uses. His Honour's speech says:I may add that the view which I have stated of my duty under the Act seems to be supported by a critical verbal examination of the words "fair and reasonable" used in collocation. Under an English Act, an agreement between a solicitor and client as to costs can be set aside, unless the solicitor show that it is "fair and reasonable"; and it has been held by the Court of Appeal that "fair" refers to the mode in which the agreement has been obtained, and "reasonable" means that the amount payable must not be out of proportion of the work done—and he quotes a case—Applying the reasoning to the present case, I cannot think that an employer and a workman contract on an equal footing, or make a "fair" agreement as to wages, when the workman submits to work for a low wage to avoid starvation or pauperism (or something like it) for himself and his family; or that the agreement is "reasonable" if it does not carry a wage sufficient to insure the workman food, shelter, clothing, frugal comfort, provision for evil days, &c., as well as reward for the special skill of an artisan if he is one. We have gone back a long way from there over the intervening years, the intervening decades.There is another passage that His Honour stated which I think is worth considering. In this context he is talking about the people bringing the case—the objectors, as they were called in those days—wanting to look at the books of the company that manufactured the machinery. He said, `No, it is not a matter of how much money the company earns. Your wages are set not on the basis of what can be afforded by the company, but on the basis of what is fair and reasonable to you as an employee.' So, if the company earned great profits, that made no difference to the sort of wage that should be paid because the wage had to be appropriate to the work done. If on the other hand the company did not make great profits—indeed, made a loss—that should not make any difference either to the wage because the wage had to be measured in terms of what was fair to the person who was working.It is in that context that I think of a statement by Charles Dickens in, I think, Hard Times, where he said that the big business people in those days—19th century capitalism at its worst—did not think that the Good Samaritan was a good economist. To use that expression here now, I do not think this particular legislation thinks that fairness to young people, or indeed to any particular worker, is necessarily good economic policy either.I say that because of certain matters set out in the second reading speech which talks in terms of the competitive advantage of young people. They say this bill is all about competition, and the only way youth can do any good in the labour market is to take less than others. That is quite a horrible sort of attitude to have to people.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Horrible?SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Yes, Senator McGauran, because it shows an attitude to people which is merely based on an economic principle. Senator McGauran is, unfortunately, perhaps not the sort of person who can see beyond economics. He is the sort of person who would condemn the Good Samaritan because he was not a good economist. We on this side of the chamber see people differently. We see them as people who not only want to work but also want to work in a place where they are properly rewarded, where they have dignity and where they learn.The one thing this bill is not interested in is having youth educated. Why do I say that? I say that because item 3 in schedule 1 of the bill says:After paragraph 88B(3)(b)Insert: (ba) the need to protect the competitive position of young people in the labour market, to promote youth employment, and to assist in reducing youth unemployment, through appropriate junior wage provisions.How does section 88B(3)(b) read? It says:In performing its functions under this Part, the Commission must have regard to the following:. . . . . . . . .(b) the need to support training arrangements through appropriate trainee wage provisions;That is the provision that deals with the education of young people. That is the provision that deals with the empowerment of youth by giving them skills. That is the section that deals with that.This is a separate section. This is not a section that is directed towards giving young people skills. This is not a section devoted to the vocational education of children at all. This is simply a section that says that youth should be able to be exploited, that employers should be able to pick them up at whatever price they can and that the only thing that should motivate them is the issue of what is competitive.It will no doubt be said that, if you look at section 88B in its entirety, you will see that it refers to other issues, such as minimum wages and conditions of employment. But this piece of legislation before us talks only in terms of the competitive position of young people and does not purport to go any further than that. It has been brought in at a time when there is an examination of the whole issue by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, and that point has been made again and again.The point has been made—and I think it ought to be made again and again—that this chamber ought to have great concern about a government that brings in legislation before a proper conclusion has been reached about it. What is a proper conclusion? It is that conclusion which the Industrial Relations Commission is going to bring forth, and the second reading speech bears that out quite clearly. The government has put in a submission to the Industrial Relations Commission, and the second reading speech says:In that submission we demonstrate the critical role played by junior rates in maintaining the competitiveness of youth in the labour market and encouraging youth employment. We show that junior wages help young people by giving them a foot in the door into employment.We also demonstrate that any move to abolish junior rates would lead to an increase in youth wages, and in turn have a detrimental effect on youth employment.Why make a submission and then treat it as a conclusion? Why let the Industrial Relations Commission have this inquiry? Why not just simply bring in the legislation? As I understand it, the reason the Industrial Relations Commission is looking at it is to keep faith—if that is the right phrase to use—with undertakings which were made with other parties in the chamber. But it is hardly keeping faith to run an inquiry about matters which you have already come to a conclusion on and which you have stated in the second reading speech to be undeniable fact.One point made prior to my speech—and, as I said, it is to be emphasised again—is that this is a very topsy-turvy way of going around an inquiry. The tragedy of it is that a conclusion has been reached and has been set out in legislation. That conclusion says that children—I keep using the word `children' and they are not much beyond children, but I mean the young people—are going to be thrown into the labour market without any adequate protection.There are passages in this second reading speech which come close to being cynical. Again, I will demonstrate that by reading one such passage. It says:Madam President, the anti-discrimination provisions of the Workplace Relations Act are concerned with equality of opportunity just as much as with equality of treatment. In this context, junior wages are a special measure that operates beneficially to meet the particular needs of young people in the labour market, who are generally recognised as needing special assistance. Lower wage costs relative to adults assist young people to gain employment by compensating for the disadvantage that young people experience due to their relatively lower skills, experience and maturity compared with adults.The only conclusion you can draw from that is that these children, these people just above being children, these youth, these young people, will replace adults. What else does that paragraph mean? It says that, if you were going to pay young people the same as adults, you would employ the adults, which means that, since you are going to pay them less than adults, they are going to replace adults. There is discrimination, and you cannot get out of the discrimination. You are either discriminating against youth or you are discriminating against mature aged workers. So the whole basis upon which this argument goes forward is quite flawed. The second reading speech goes on to say:Madam President, the uncertainty surrounding the current interim arrangements does not create a stable environment for the employment of young people. Young people and employers are entitled to know that their jobs and employing rights are secure. This bill will create that certainty.What this second reading speech is saying to young people reading it is this: if they take lower wages their jobs will be secure. It specifically says that not only will the jobs be secure but also they will know that their jobs will be secure. If that promise is made, will it be carried out or will it receive the same fate as promises made to other people? We have heard people complain about their experiences with promises made to them.This is a bill the philosophy of which is flawed, the reason of which is flawed and the results of which will be flawed. A proper way out of this is for the inquiry that is presently taking place by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to proceed to its end. I finish by saying that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is a body which has served this country well. You, Mr Acting Deputy President Hogg, have had great experience before that body and know it well. I think you would, if I may say so with respect, agree with what I say.It seems to me to be quite insulting to give that body a task to undertake and then to take steps which interdict the very decision that it is going to make. In other words, the government is saying to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, `What we're doing is sending you on an exercise which we don't think is a very serious exercise. We are sending you on the exercise of looking at this matter of youth wages but we really don't care what you say.' That body, which has that aura and that respect that we have come to know over the years, should not be treated in that cavalier way.18:02:002373Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise on behalf of the Australian Democrats as their youth affairs and employment spokesperson to speak on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 . Our industrial relations spokesperson, Senator Andrew Murray, has outlined a number of concerns that the Democrats have with the legislation before us, including our primary concern in relation to the process.I begin where I guess Senator Cooney left off. One of the most offensive aspects of this particular bill is that it does involve the breaking of a commitment, the breaking of a word and the breaking of a written understanding. But, more importantly, it is a minister pre-empting the outcome, the findings, of an Industrial Relations Commission inquiry and report—a report and a process that was agreed to by Minister Reith and his colleagues. For that minister to pre-empt that process in such a blatant manner is disturbing to many people and not just some of the parties represented in this chamber.I wish to address some of the principles behind the Democrats' opposition to this bill. We have concerns on a number of fronts: the effect of the retention and extension of youth wages on young people; the current state of the labour market; and the possibility of viable alternatives to age-based discriminatory wage levels. At the outset, there are two points that I think must be emphasised and understood in this debate. Firstly, the proposed alternatives to youth wages do not involve the abolition of differential rates of pay, but rather their replacement with a different system of competency based rates. Consequently, as a result of these alternatives that have been put forward that do not abolish the notion of differential rates of pay, many of the arguments being advanced for the retention of these wage rates are completely irrelevant.The minister knows this. I think he has been quite disruptive and inappropriate in the way that he has spread this propaganda that differential rates somehow would be off the agenda. In doing so—and I acknowledge this—he has caused some concern among different businesses and some industries. But we are not talking about the abolition of differential rates, we are talking about replacing a system that is based on age alone with a system of differential rates based on competency, training, a recognition of skills and experience. That is exactly how we should operate in our work force today, not with age-old, antiquated, discriminatory wage levels based on someone's age.Secondly, the government is not merely proposing the retention of youth wages in existing awards under this legislation but is proposing the extension of these wages to awards where they do not currently exist. Despite the minister's rhetoric, this is not about retaining the status quo; it is in actual fact about reducing the income levels of thousands of young Australians. It is in line with this government's perpetual agenda of scapegoating, targeting and vilifying young people. We are talking not about the status quo and its maintenance but about the extension of these youth wages into areas where they do not currently exist.I do not think it can be denied—certainly contributors to this debate so far have not denied this—that youth wage levels based on age are discriminatory and grossly unfair to young workers. They fundamentally contravene the `equal pay for equal work' principle enshrined in international labour and human rights conventions to which Australia is a signatory. On this basis alone, the Democrats have significant concerns with the government's attempts to flout its promise to examine non-discriminatory alternatives.Young workers do not have access to `junior' rates, if you like, for rent, food or clothing and only full-time students qualify for travel concessions. This is a point that my leader, Senator Meg Lees, makes continually. Indeed, last Friday at a business function she was explaining to people that young people do not have junior rates or concessions when it comes to some of those necessities of life. Young people incur the same costs of living as adult workers, yet many of them receive heavily discounted incomes.Those over the age of 18 in our society are deemed adults. They are old enough to vote, to drive and to drink. They are tried as adults and they undertake financial obligations. Yet in many areas of policy and legislation this government believes they are not mature enough to be treated as adults—certainly in relation to being paid an equal rate for equal work carried out by their older counterparts.Over the past 20 years in this country real wages have declined markedly for young people despite a significant increase in adult wages over the same time. Real wages for young males have fallen by 18 per cent, from $395 in 1976 to $322 in 1996. Real wages for young women have fallen by 12 per cent, from $361 in 1976 to $316 in 1996. We are all conscious of the wage disparity between male workers and female workers, a point that has been made a number of times today, which is fitting given that it is International Women's Day. Over the same period real wages for adult males have increased by seven per cent and by 12 per cent for adult females.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—I'm all for the day.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Senator McGauran says he is all for the day. I think that means that he has just thrown his support behind International Women's Day. Perhaps you could have a chat with Senator Newman and advise her of your support for policies that actually boost women's participation in areas like education, training and employment. Senator McGauran might also raise the fact that a lot more young women these days, as opposed to young males, are looking for full-time work and not getting it.Youth wages further undermine the value of youth labour by determining the worth of a young worker according to his or her age rather than their skill, competence and experience. This perpetuates the view that youth labour is of less worth than adult labour, a view often based on such intangibles as immaturity or maturity when, in many cases, particularly in the sectors which tend to employ young people, the work of different aged workers may not differ in any material way. This raises the possibility for young labour to be exploited. Most young workers do not belong to a union and many work in insecure casual or part-time jobs at a cut pay rate.Youth wages are profoundly inequitable and should be resisted for that reason alone. The Democrats certainly believe that. We are also aware of the need to examine and re-examine means of creating job opportunities for young Australians. We do not believe that wage reductions are the way to achieving increased employment opportunities. Those who seek the retention and the extension of, as this bill proposes, youth wages claim that the alternatives would be worse. However, this argument ignores the real nature of the type of work many young people are engaged in. The majority of young people are employed in the retail and services sectors. The type of work they undertake shares a number of common requirements—that is, flexibility, projection of a particular image or marketing strategy, adaptability to new sales techniques or technologies and physical stamina.The growth in the consumer market, particularly the youth consumer market, has increased the demand for highly productive, flexible and easily trained employees who reflect the image and marketing of particular retailers and service providers. There are many clear incentives, other than cost, to hire young people. They should not be discounted in the debate over the effect on employment opportunities for young people by replacing youth wages with competency based rates. In my home state of South Australia Mitsubishi and another car plant, Holden, have recently abolished youth wages, recognising the particular value of the younger employees and understanding that workers should be paid according to their skill and their productivity rather than according to some inflexible model which offers them no incentive to necessarily improve their competency or their productivity.The nature of youth work has also changed profoundly. Youth wages grew out of the apprenticeship tradition which involved a clear training wage level trade-off between employers and employees, long-term job security and a basis in pay increments according to skill acquisition. The past decade has seen a massive reduction in the number of apprenticeships and traineeships in favour of institutionalised training, usually and increasingly at the students' own expense. Most work that is undertaken by young people is low skilled involving minimal training which generally tends to take place in the first few months of employment, with all employees retained on the basis of their acquisition of a particular level of competency regardless of their age.The justification posed for the retention of youth wages we have heard from various quarters and from the minister is that they have a positive effect on youth employment levels. That argument is being put with a lack of supporting evidence. That is one of the reasons why people were keen to see an investigation into this issue so people could assess what the likely impact would be on employment or unemployment levels and young people's work. Youth unemployment levels have continued to rise since the introduction of youth wages, which is also worth noting.In fact, the youth unemployment rate has undergone a more rapid rate of increase since 1968, more so than any other group in this community. The unemployment rate of 15- to 19-year-old males was 2.9 per cent in 1968 compared with the current rate of 25.3 per cent. For females it was 3.9 per cent in 1968 compared with today's rate of 27.9 per cent. Young people have been severely impacted and have really borne the brunt of structural change in the work force today, something Senator Cooney was referring to. The impact of recessions on the pool of available employment, of course, has been felt by young people severely.The entry level positions which used to be available for young people do not exist. State and federal governments have greatly contributed to this, though the substantial reduction in Commonwealth and state public service positions in particular are reasons for a lot of that loss. Today there are next to no under-20-year-olds working in the public sector, yet the government continues to place the blame for high levels of youth unemployment on young people. Under the current government's policies on a federal level, we have seen a halving in the funding available for employment assistance. Under most of these policies, young people are no longer eligible for intensive work search or job search assistance.One of the dangerous effects of this legislation is that it will serve as a proxy for the real action which needs to be taken in relation to creating jobs for young Australians. A lot of this is designed to deflect from the real issue—that is, a lack of sustainable policies designed to create meaningful and long-term jobs, not just part-time or casual positions, but sustainable long-term meaningful jobs for young Australians. What we are doing here today is deflecting away from that debate.It is for that reason Minister Reith has put forward this particular piece of legislation. Minister Reith's agenda is all about wage and condition reductions in an attempt to spread available work more thinly—basically, extending the growing numbers of the working poor in our society. I certainly look forward to Senator McGauran outlining and telling us about—as he promised Senator Campbell he would—the government's options for creating jobs for young Australians.In relation to the eroding of conditions and wages of Australian workers, be they older or younger, the Democrats do not accept that agenda. We resist that agenda, and we will resist this government's attempt to shirk its responsibility for job creation. This is a government which, in only November last year, reneged on a commitment to invest in job creation through industry support. Instead, it prefers to pursue a regressive approach which will reduce the income of hundreds of thousands of Australians.This legislation breaks faith. It breaks faith with the Democrats to whom Minister Reith gave his word—primarily, to our former leader—one that some of us had grave concerns about; but no, we were assured that Minister Reith would keep his word. I find it hard to believe that even he would have the audacity to not only pre-empt the findings of an inquiry but also break his word to young people, to the Democrats—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—What about Cheryl Kernot? She broke hers to you.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I am not responsible for her, thank you, Senator McGauran. Not only did he break his word to young people and to the Democrats; he also had the audacity to pre-empt the findings of an inquiry to which he had given a commitment and his support. Surely, if there were no non-discriminatory alternatives to youth wages available, he would not feel the need to pre-empt the inquiry's findings.His rationale for doing so, that it will lead to job creation, is based on little evidence. Even the evidence that was presented in the submissions is deeply flawed. The minister is quite fond of quoting employer surveys—only those in his favour, of course—while conveniently failing to mention that they are based on selective sampling and often misleading questions. And, even so, the results often show employers citing reasons other than mere cost for hiring young people. I think that already had been alluded to in a previous speaker's comments here today.International evidence is similarly inconclusive and cannot support such an inequitable policy. Past Australian experience shows that the reduction of wage levels has little effect on unemployment levels. For example, between 1981 and 1983, youth wages declined relative to adult wages but youth unemployment rose by 64 per cent. In 1992 the Reserve Bank of Australia stated:. . . the recent deterioration of the youth labour market does not seem to be due to any change in relative wage levels, which have been declining steadily since the mid-1970s.The same arguments now being advanced for the reduction of youth wages previously were put in favour of retaining gender based differential rates of pay. Yet the disastrous effects that it was predicted would result from paying women the same rates as men for work of equal value never eventuated.In the submission I presented on behalf of the Australian Democrats to the IRC, we argued for the replacement of discriminatory age based junior rates of pay with a competency based structure. Young people must also be offered the opportunity to develop skills through training and, of course, to receive appropriate remuneration for doing so. This would recognise the value of young people's labour and end the discrimination and exploitation that currently exists in over half of industrial awards.This government wants to entrench youth wages where they exist but also to extend them to awards where they do not necessarily currently exist. In doing so, the government is breaking its promise to wait for the AIRC's findings on examining non-discriminatory alternatives; it is proposing the drastic reduction in pay rates for hundreds of thousands of young people. The government, by suggesting this course of action, is turning its back on meaningful job creation.If this government is serious about creating opportunities for young people in employment, it would do better to direct its employment efforts towards extending the eligibility for job search assistance to young people, improving access to education and training and other opportunities for young people to develop their skills, and making and maintaining commitments to investing in sustainable industries to create meaningful and secure jobs.The Democrats will be opposing this bill before us today on principle grounds, on employment grounds and on procedural grounds in the sense that the minister has pre-empted the findings of a meaningful, important and worthy inquiry, and also because he has broken his word with legislators and young people, and the Australian people generally. I see this as just another part of this government's ongoing targeting and scapegoating of young Australians, with the suggestion that their lives, their worth, are somehow less valid than those of older Australians.Many people, young workers and old workers, have felt the brunt of structural change in the work force. I think this government would do well to start investigating opportunities to create jobs for those many displaced or out of work Australians as opposed to continually bashing them over the head, whether through so-called mutual obligation policies, extension of policies like work for the dole, cutting employment assistance, or even the extension and retention of youth wages in law. Perhaps this government could look at sustainable opportunities for meaningful and full-time work for all Australians. I would hope perhaps that Minister Reith could investigate those areas more thoroughly.18:21:002377Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—We have heard many times before about the purpose of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998, and we now know that it is just another of this government's attempts to permanently exempt junior rates of pay from the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act. At present, this act exempts junior rates of pay from the operations of its antidiscrimination provisions until 22 June in the year 2000; that is, unless the Industrial Relations Commission otherwise decides, on a case-by-case basis, that the exemption should continue to apply.This bill is intended to amend the Workplace Relations Act and to permanently exempt junior rates of pay from the operations of its antidiscrimination provisions. It requires the Industrial Relations Commission to promote the inclusion of junior rates of pay into awards and agreements which currently do not include such rates. So what we have before us is not only a permanent exemption of junior rates of pay from the operations of the antidiscrimination provisions but also a requirement for the Industrial Relations Commission to promote—which seems in one respect an analogy when you look at enter prise bargaining—the inclusion of junior rates of pay; to ensure that junior rates of pay operate where they probably do not currently exist.Why do we have this bill before us at all in the Senate? In order to get the Workplace Relations Act through the Senate in October 1996, Minister Reith agreed with the Democrats, as we have heard time and time again today. We have been reminded time and time again that the agreement with the Democrats was an undertaking that an inquiry be conducted by the Industrial Relations Commission into youth wages and it would report by June 1999. Here we are in early March talking about the effects of this bill and the impact of this bill. There was also an agreement to exempt junior rates of pay from the age antidiscrimination provisions of the Workplace Relations Act until June 2000.So this bill is before the Senate, which shows that this government has completely reneged on this agreement. It is an act to intimidate the Industrial Relations Commission. It is an act that questions, I believe, its effectiveness. It disregards the evidence of the people before it, and it clearly says a lot about what this government views as the role of the Industrial Relations Commission in the future. It pre-empts the outcomes of this inquiry, and there is still a year at least before the current provisions in the Workplace Relations Act run out.Historically, junior rates provisions have been included in a wide range of awards. They appear to have originated from consensus, by and large. The age of majority in Australia in the early decades of this century was 21 years. Well into the second half of the century persons under the age of 21 were not entitled to vote in state or federal elections and were not entitled to purchase alcohol. They were not able to enter into certain legally binding agreements. The living costs of juniors, by and large, were subsidised by their parents through their teenage years. This is no longer the case in contemporary society in Australia. The make-up of contemporary society in Australia when it comes to young people seems to be completely ignored and forgotten by this government.The age of majority for Australians these days—the age at which they are treated as adults—is 18 years of age. At 18 they are now entitled to vote. They can make wills, they can buy alcohol, they can enter into mortgages and hold passports. They are adults before the law. Yet the provisions of this bill treat them as if they are still minors rather than adults. School retention rates have risen dramatically over the last couple of years, and many children now complete year 12. They turn 18 the following year. They enter into part-time work while studying, certainly while going through university. Generally, the skill level of school leavers is higher than it was many years ago. It is common for young people these days to live independently.They support themselves through their own earnings, and they usually live with a couple of kids in a flat or a house together. Persons aged 18 to 20 in Australia are adults for all intents and purposes, except in respect of their entitlement to full and fair minimum wages—and that is the case in some industry sectors but not in others.In September 1997 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training presented the report Youth employment: a working solution. The inquiry was chaired by a member of parliament, Bob Charles, and the report has commonly become known as the Charles report. The inquiry's aim was to examine factors which influenced the employment of young people. It had to identify recommendations to improve their employment prospects. In the summary the report notes that the employment environment for young people has changed enormously since their parents and most of their teachers first entered the labour market. It says that full-time and part-time employment for 15- to 24-year-olds has fallen by three per cent since 1982, and by comparison total full-time employment has grown 16.2 per cent and total full-time and part-time employment has grown 31.2 per cent. The decline in the number of full-time jobs has been particularly severe for teenagers, falling 59.2 per cent over 15 years. On page 114, though, the dissenting report makes this statement:The coalition members displayed a worrying disregard for the quality of life of young workers. This is evidenced by their refusal to incorporate in the report data relating to young people's standard of living, such as a comparison between the Henderson poverty line and junior wage rates.There was evidence there to show that young people's standard of living is well below what we would expect it to be. It goes on to say that their disregard is also evidenced by their commitment to remove junior rates from the purview of the Industrial Relations Commission.Together with the employment issues, the Industrial Relations Commission also considers questions of equity and fairness. But one of the recommendations is not to remove junior rates of pay. It is simply that the members of the coalition parties recommend the government make a submission before the Industrial Relations Commission opposing the abolition of junior wages. Back in September 1997 this government was prepared to make a submission before the commission. It still recognised that the commission had a role in conducting this inquiry. There is no recommendation at all in here that this government should break their promise, break their agreement and move to abolish junior rates of pay by the enactment of this sort of legislation.The most significant factor influencing the employment of young people is the availability of jobs. Increasing the competitive advantage of young people within the labour market does not expand the size of the market itself. Principal determinants of youth employment include technological change, structural change and changing social mores. Again, the Charles report noted these factors.In response to the Charles report, the ACTU had the following to say. They have calculated an optimistic view by applying the current age based relativities in the retail industry to the current minimum adult wage, and they calculated a realistic view by applying current apprenticeship rates for a commencing 18-year-old hairdresser. Substantial wage cuts for young people result either way. Optimistically, the cuts amount to 12 per cent for retail workers at each year of age from 15 to 20, while the realistic view sees cuts of up to 41 per cent in the basic minimum rate payable to these young workers for ordinary hours of work. Minimum award rates for teenagers in Australia are much higher in the retail industry than in the manufacturing industry.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.7Y6Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN—Prior to the dinner break I was making some comments on the Youth employment: A working solution report, commonly known as the Charles report. I want to put on record that this report does not claim that cutting wages will create measurably more jobs for young people. It rests on the conventional belief that lower wage costs will cause employers to offer more jobs and vice versa. In fact, there is a huge body of international research that contradicts this conventional belief. Facts in Australia also challenge it. This report went on, under a section `Lack of information on wages and employment', to say:In examining the relationship between youth wages and employment the Committee was amazed by the dearth of current Australian information on the issue. It is the Committee's view—it went on to say—that a detailed study of the empirical evidence in Australia to provide a clearer picture of the extent of the relationship must be undertaken.In fact, one of the recommendations of this report was:. . . that the Department of Industrial Relations undertake or commission empirical research on the relationship between the changes in the level of wages and employment levels.Minimum award wage rates for teenagers in Australia—as I was saying before the dinner break—are much higher in the retail industry than in manufacturing, with a differential of 35 per cent at age 16 falling to 15 per cent at age 20. But the retail sector employs five times as many 18- to 20-year-old sub-trade workers than does manufacturing and it employs more than 12 times as many 15- to 17-year-olds. On the same measure, between 1986 and 1997, youth employment in the retail sector grew by about 70,000, or 30 per cent, but fell by around 25,000, or 40 per cent, in manufacturing, despite youth wages for retail workers rising relative to manufac turing by about eight per cent over the same period.Also, the Charles report noted that over the last 15 years there have been major structural changes in the labour market for young people aged 15 to 24. Overall there has been a decline of nearly 32 per cent in the number of full-time jobs available for young people in this age group, which has been offset by the growth in the number of part-time jobs. The decline in the number of full-time jobs has been particularly severe for teenagers, falling 59.2 per cent over 15 years. Growth in the number of part-time jobs has failed to offset the decline in the number of full-time jobs, and the total employment of teenagers has declined by 10.6 per cent over 15 years.The changes in youth employment recorded in this country over the past 15 years have occurred in conjunction with a decline or no change in the relativity of junior to adult award wages and with falls in the relativity of junior to adult earnings. Wage rates simply have not been a decisive influence driving these changes—to the contrary, award rates of pay for juniors appear to be wholly or substantially unrelated to teenage employment outcomes over the past 20 years. In fact, junior rates of pay have been amongst the few factors held constant throughout this period of change. The incomes earned by teenage workers are, however, significantly affected by any changes in the junior rates submission.I would like to draw the Senate's attention to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 28 November last year, headed `Youth need wage justice'. The author of this article, Adele Horin, makes a number of very true points. She said:When women workers were treated as second-class citizens, dire predictions were made about the economic consequences of granting them equal pay. History proved the doomsayers wrong. Women's employment grew in leaps and bounds, all of it after the historic 1969 and 1972 equal pay victories.. . . . . . . . .For the young, it is never a right time to improve their wages.She continues:A government intent on overhauling the industrial relations and taxation systems is fiercely committed to maintaining the outmoded and unfair concept of junior wages.. . . . . . . . .. . .. research points to increase numbers of impoverished young workers in Australia who cannot support themselves despite having a full-time job.. . . . . . . . .. . .. Judy Schneider of the Social Policy Research School at the University of New South Wales maintains that it is virtually impossible for full-time workers under 18 to support themselves, even at an austere standard of living.. . . . . . . . .Even when you compare industries, youth wages are lower in manufacturing and retail, but youth employment has fallen faster in manufacturing.~. . . . . . . . .Wage rates have not been the decisive factor in youth unemployment. But they have been the decisive factor in the poverty of young workers.In conclusion, let me just refer back to the fact that the most significant factor influencing the employment of young people in this country is the availability of jobs. As my colleague Senator Stott Despoja mentioned, it is not in fact the rate that you pay these people but the availability of jobs. She was correct when she talked about the spreading of available jobs even further and thinner.The benefits of economic growth have not transferred into jobs for young people. Many entry-level positions have disappeared. There is no evidence to suggest that young people are less job-ready now than in the past. The cause of youth unemployment cannot be found in asserted deficiencies of young people themselves but in the economy which increasingly fails to provide them with employment opportunities. It is imperative to find innovative ways to approach the problem of youth and employment, including adopting a more interventionist approach to industry policy so as to promote job-intensive industries.The intended cuts to youth incomes through this bill, the cuts to the provisions maintaining junior rates and the conditions contemplated by this government are unjustified and are suggested without considering the consequences for young people themselves. There is a wish to maintain junior rates of pay rather than to accept competency based pay. There is no evidence at all that the abolition of junior rates of pay will increase youth unemployment. Competency based wages in this country should be allowed to proceed.19:37:002381McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 amends the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Act 1996. It promotes the inclusion of junior rates and awards and workplace agreements and exempts junior wage rates from the anti-discrimination provisions of the Workplace Relations Act. In essence, the legislation before the Senate maintains the junior rates of pay in awards beyond June 2000, when they are due to expire because of legislation introduced by the previous government.While I do not wish to waste my valuable time on comments made by some of the speakers on the other side of the chamber, I particularly wish to single out Senator Campbell's comments and respond to some of the falsehoods he put about this government. I know that he often wraps up his speeches with the old cliche that this government is against the worker. Although this description is general, I would like to point out to Senator Campbell and those on the other side of the house—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—George Campbell.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator George Campbell, to be correct. Your interjection is utterly correct—how could we possibly get the two of you wrong when you are chalk and cheese? In response to Senator Campbell, this government produced a real wage increase of five per cent in its first term. Because that real wage increase has been linked to productivity, we have a falling unemployment rate—now 7.5 per cent—which is the best rate for over a decade. Added to this, the average worker with a mortgage has saved over $400 through this government's tight and responsible fiscal and monetary policies—that is, a lower interest rate regime. That is what we have put directly into the pockets of the workers. So the last thing we should hear in this debate on youth wages is an ideological attack on the workers; rather, what we are seeing is a commonsense approach to protect young Australians in the work force. Senator Cooney used biblical terms which were utterly incorrect. We are giving young people a far more competitive advantage, by not pricing them out of the market. This pretty basic and commonsense attitude towards the workplace and the marketplace is to the advantage of over 420,000 youth workers on the junior rates of pay.Instead, we hear tonight from the other side—particularly from Senator Campbell—the old line that the level of wages is not linked to the level of employment or the ability to employ; that the employers take no notice of the level of employment; and that the cost of labour has no effect. That is the old line we have had run here tonight. Besides being very dangerous, it is nothing more than a defence of the old union ways of the seventies and eighties—during those years when the unions really did have some economic and political power which they used to devastating effect. It was a time when we had crippling interest rates, crippling inflation rates and crippling unemployment rates. It was a time when unions thought they could pull on a strike at any time to devastate big business, to bankrupt small business and to hold the nation to ransom. It was really the glory days of the union movement; and we have heard every argument they used then being run again here tonight by that arch monument to old unionism, Senator George Campbell.Employment was never a factor during those times, nor does it seem to be a factor now. It is just simply a matter of putting the ambit claim—the highest wage claim possible. Whether it is sustainable or whether it is linked to productivity has no relevance at all. You were running a protection racket for the employed. It does not matter who drops off or who cannot get into the marketplace, it is a protection racket for the employed. That is the philosophy we have had here.Senator Campbell has got a nerve to make the same old mistakes. He blames technology and structural change as the reason for youth unemployment in this country. As evidence of that he quoted the manufacturing sector, for example. Yes, there has been a shedding of employment—young and old—within the manufacturing sector. But he has got a nerve to mention the manufacturing sector when over 200,000 jobs were lost when he was head of that union. One single ambit claim, one single wage rise, brought about over 200,000 being unemployed in his time. And he says there is no link between wage rises—excessive wage rises—and unemployment in his period. Well, there is.He also failed to mention—and I attempted to make this point by interjection—that the retail sector employs the most young people on junior rates. He uses the manufacturing sector as his prime example—the sector which he personally devastated—but he never mentions the retail sector, which is the biggest employer of young people. Presently, there is an incentive to employ young people; there is an incentive to give them the training and experience they need for their first time in the workplace. For most of them, it is the first time. This is a sector that has not been subject to a great amount of structural change or technical change at all; it is simply price sensitive. We are told by the Retail Traders Association that if this legislation does not pass and junior rates are abolished, virtually overnight we will have some 60,000 unemployed.Whether you believe that figure or not, one thing you can be sure of is that, if this legislation does not go through in that sector, there will be the non-employment of young people; that is what you will have. You will have a percentage shed, and you will certainly have no new ones coming in, certainly not at the current take-up rate.This debate is all about employment. It is about the government's responsibility to undertake policies that will reduce unemployment. That includes no less, of course, than youth unemployment. We all know that no single approach will solve the problem. Governments must act on a wide front, and we have acted on a wide front. We have promoted policies of low inflation and low interest rates so as to stimulate business investment, which, of course, follows on to employment. We have also tackled social welfare, where there is quite often a disincentive to take job opportunities should they come up.We have tackled the industrial relations area. This government has introduced a more flexible wage system. We have introduced a fairer dismissal system et cetera. We have undertaken these measures in our first term with success. We know we have achieved the lowest unemployment rate for over a decade. Much more can be done and should be done, and we are attempting to do it. We have a pretty good record in this area.On each of those occasions I have mentioned, let alone tonight, we have been blocked, hindered and frustrated by the Senate, regardless of our good record. The irony is that the scourge of unemployment requires immediate action. The public would expect this government, after winning its second term, to immediately get on with the job of tackling unemployment. It does not want us to sit around waiting for reports to be produced or tabled, especially given that we went to the election with this policy.The Democrats have been complaining about some commitment that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business broke with Senator Murray. But a greater commitment than anything we might make with Senator Murray in the corridors of this place is the commitment we make to the Australian people at an election.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—More of whom voted for us than for you. More Australian people voted for us than for you. If your commitment is to the Australian people, the majority of them do not agree with you.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I confess that I am distracted by that point because it is central to the debate. Senator Forshaw interrupts and says, `We got more votes than you.' That is a pretty humble, if not pathetic, interjection from someone who happens to be sitting in opposition. It is not quite like that, and Senator Forshaw knows it.Let us dispel this. Your primary vote did not jump at all. Your primary vote jumped by one per cent, so you did not get more. The Labor Party in fact had the second lowest primary vote. It jumped by one per cent from 1996. It was the second lowest primary vote in the history of the Labor Party. You jumped up a bit on preference votes, but you got most of them from One Nation. You won three seats in Perth from One Nation preferences.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Four.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—You won four seats in Perth. If One Nation, which is now imploding, had done the right thing, you would not have won four seats. It would really then have looked like a devastation. But you are dressing it up as something else. That is the distraction I have taken up. I will now get back to the debate. That point is important to this debate, because we have a mandate to act. Like most of the policies we have attempted to pass since the election, we put them to the Australian people before the election. I know that Senator Forshaw is tired of the word `mandate'. Those opposite are pig-headed about frustrating the Senate, so that is what they are going to continue to do.I assure the Senate that we will continue with our strategy to reduce unemployment and all the policies we took to the people of Australia in the last election. We have not just the political confidence to do that now; we have the empirical evidence, particularly on this issue. It is from no less than the Productivity Commission, which produced a paper that supports our view. It states the obvious. The conclusions are unambiguously clear.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Oh, wow!WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—You are scoffing at the Productivity Commission. After you amended it so much, there could not be an organisation further at arm's length from this government than the Productivity Commission. It looks into matters such as this and other economic matters. Do not forget that you amended it so that it was much more to your liking. That is how you got it. This is what it says:The empirical results indicate a strong and robust negative relationship between youth unemployment and youth wages. This relationship suggests that a 1 per cent increase in youth wages would lead to a decrease in youth employment of between 2 and 5 per cent in industries employing a relatively high proportion of youth.It should be noted that the opposition has been running the false argument that the introduction of this legislation will reduce all young people's wages. It does not. It simply maintains the existing junior rates and encourages junior rates for other awards.Remember that the industrial relations reform package has written into it the no disadvantage test. So what is the problem? A measure of just how out of touch and out of date the opposition is is that many unions are now embracing the junior wage rates that we have in place now in their enterprise bargaining agreements. They are there now. They are writing them in. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry report claims that age-based junior pay rates were common in the last batch of enterprise agreements struck with the bosses.Imagine that out of the blue in June 2000, not linked to any productivity outcome or wage negotiation, employers were faced with pay increases of greater than 40 per cent just for 18-year-olds. For example, a junior shop assistant employed under a retail award would, with the abolition of junior rates, cost an employer $43.20 more to employ; that would be for a 20-year-old. It would cost $86.35 extra to employ a 19-year-old and $130.55 extra to employ an 18-year-old. You are trying to tell us that it will have no effect. In one hit, it will have more than a $1 billion effect throughout the economy on the wage rates of this country.The coalition's strategy is to reduce unemployment based on empirical evidence and common sense. The surest way to handicap a young person in obtaining employment where junior wage rates are part of the award—and they have been there since federation—is to increase the employers' costs to the extent that there is no difference between the wages of an experienced adult employee and those of an inexperienced junior employee. So the onus is upon those supporting the removal of junior rates to show that such a change would not damage the jobs of young people. It is not discrimination to pay less to young people who are less skilled and who have less experi ence. Rather, the prime interest of young people is to gain experience and develop labour market skills.It has been said that the alternative to what we are offering is competency based wages. That is what the opposition now wants to put in place. The great theorists in this debate are promoting the competency rate against age based rates. The point is that junior rates specifically target the youth unemployment problem. They go straight to the heart of the matter. This is a prime aim of the government in introducing its legislation.Competency based rates are not a solution to youth unemployment. It is a complicated and very subjective system, and it will cut out young people from early employment opportunities. One of the main complaints of young people—I am sure you have heard it—is that they are unable to get a job because they are inexperienced. Yet how do you get experience without a job? Competency based rates will only accentuate this problem.I refer to a committee report which quotes major views on competency based wages. Senator Crossin had much to say about this report, Youth employment: A working solution. It is a report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, September 1997. It quotes extensively the likes of Coles Myer, Woolworths and McDonald's, the three biggest employers of the junior sector and shows just how complicated, subjective and ill-advised the competency based system is. I refer to pages 79 and 80 in regard to this matter. Together all of these employers employ hundreds of thousands of young people.Further, we need to consider the impact of a competency based rate on adult earners. Not only does it make employees vulnerable to a very subjective assessment of their competency but it may well have the effect of dragging many adult wage earners down to what was once a junior rate, the lowest of the competency rate—in particular, working women.Consider a working woman with a family to support who has lost her job in which she had become skilled over, say, 10 years in the manufacturing sector—a most common occurrence. The area of growth is the retail sector. So she takes up a job in that area and is plummeted to the wage at the lowest level, the former junior wage rate, because of her competency, because she is judged not to have the skills required for this industry. So the system that once supported the adult worker with a family now does not recognise her contribution and her working life as an adult. It will simply pull away the safety net for many adult workers. So in conclusion, in the words of the Canberra Times on 26 October, `You have to wonder about how serious some people are about lowering youth employment' when they stand against this legislation.19:58:002384Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 Bill typifies this government's total lack of understanding and ineptitude with regard to industrial relations in Australia in 1999. It also represents just another aspect of their sustained attack on young Australians. The bill seeks to exempt junior rates in awards and certified agreements from the age discrimination provisions of the Workplace Relations Act. The present statutory exemption is due to expire on 22 June 2000. The most worrying aspect of this bill is contained in item 5, which will require the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to ensure that in making any award it must give consideration to inserting junior wage rates. This provision will mean that many young people who have gained jobs on the basis of their skills, ability and performance will subsequently have their wages cut because of their age. The AIRC will be compelled to insert into every industrial award and agreement a junior rates of pay clause, even where such clauses have never before been required or sought.It is important to understand that a junior differs from apprentices and trainees in that he or she is expected to be working full-time receiving no training. A junior's pay is usually based on their age, starting at 45 per cent of an adult's pay for a 16-year-old and increasing in steps on each birthday until age 21 is reached and he or she is considered to be an adult. At the moment many industrial awards and agreements do not incorporate junior rate clauses. Young people employed under these arrangements have competed for their jobs on an equal footing with everyone else in the labour market and have been employed entirely on the basis of merit.These young people are now to be penalised for their achievements. In many industries these penalties will be highly significant, creating a huge disincentive for young people to continue their employment. At present, under the metal engineering and associated industries award, there are no junior rates of pay. As my colleague Arch Bevis stated in the other chamber, an 18-year-old would now be earning $434.60 per week. With the enforcement of junior rates of pay, the same person would be paid $296.83 per week. This is a pay cut of $137 each week. Arising out of this statement, the question has to be asked: if this legislation is passed, will those people who are working at the current rate of pay suddenly find their pay packet lighter on the next pay day? Obviously it will be so. This, of course, would mean that there would be a very large number of very peeved people out there in voter land—rather stupid politics, to my way of thinking.This government has to realise that it will not just be a few young people who will find themselves taking crippling pay cuts. While 56 per cent of all people in the work force aged under 21 are currently employed on a junior rate of pay, some 44 per cent are not. Therefore, 44 per cent of under-21-year-old workers are now faced with the prospect of being forced to accept less pay for the same work. This approach seems particularly contradictory, given the government's supposed commitment to performance based industrial relations arrangements.The competency based or skills acquired system is supposed to determine wages according to performance. The only people the minister thinks should not be paid according to their skill are people under 21. Under his system, you could be 18 and get paid 20 or 30 per cent less than someone who is 21 performing exactly the same job with the same responsibilities. Where is the incentive for young people to work hard and get ahead when they will be denied a fair day's pay for a fair day's work? It will be interesting to see whether the coalition intends to inflict a junior rate of pay on Tasmanian Liberal member for Franklin, Matthew Smith. After all, Mr Smith is only 20 years old and would hence be subject to these new arrangements. I wonder if he thinks this proposal is fair.The unnecessarily contradictory nature of this bill is further illustrated by the Queensland government's submission to the AIRC inquiry into junior pay rates. The Queensland submission proposes a competency based system by progression. This would bring legislation in line with the arrangements that prevail for the rest of the work force. The submission endorses the gradual introduction of competency based wages for those under 21 on an industry by industry basis. These would initially be based on current junior rates of pay. Until such arrangements are established, the existing system in each industry would remain.There is no need to implement a hurried and inequitable policy like the one proposed in this bill. It would be far more appropriate to progressively work through each industry and agreement in order to establish a non-discriminatory basis for paying young people what they are due according to their work contribution. However, given the minister's disregard for the AIRC inquiry and its findings, I doubt whether he would have contemplated any sensible transitional arrangements put forward by the Queensland government. Instead, Minister Reith has set about undermining the AIRC and its inquiry into junior rates of pay. Section 120B of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 established that the full bench of the AIRC would conduct an inquiry into the feasibility of replacing junior rates with non-discriminatory alternatives. The fact that the AIRC was directed to examine non-discriminatory alternatives clearly indicates that it would not be preferable to discriminate against young people.When he instigated the inquiry, Mr Reith said it would ensure `a fair deal in the end'. Non-discriminatory alternatives, like those put forward by the Queensland government, have been uncovered during the process of the inquiry, but now Mr Reith wants to institutionalise junior rates of pay before the inquiry has made its report. How can the inquiry ensure the fair deal for young people that Mr Reith promised when its findings will not even be taken into consideration? Junior rates of pay will be a fait accompli before 22 June, when the inquiry is due to present its findings to the minister.This incredible turn of events begs a couple of questions. Why is Mr Reith trying to rush this bill through parliament when the inquiry pertaining to it has not been completed? The date of 22 June was chosen for the presentation of the inquiry's findings because this will still be a full year before the current provisions are due to expire. There is no need to hurry the process along at this stage unless Mr Reith is feeling frightened that the inquiry will scuttle his plans to enforce junior rates of pay. At this stage, it looks like there might be a number of preferable options that do not involve unnecessary discrimination against young Australians. Why is Mr Reith so set on enforcing discriminatory industrial relations arrangements on young people? He seems to be hell-bent on persecuting the young, even if it is proven to be entirely unnecessary and avoidable.Many Australians will also be wondering why their tax dollars are being spend on an inquiry when the minister has already disregarded its findings. It seems that no-one is receiving the fair deal the minister promised from this inquiry. Minister Reith's actions indicate a complete disregard and disrespect for proper parliamentary processes and accountability. He has initiated an AIRC inquiry to which he is completely unaccountable. It does not matter what the inquiry concludes, he has already gone ahead and done exactly as he pleased. All the expert witnesses and submissions made to the inquiry obviously cannot surpass the overarching wisdom of the minister for industrial relations! This inquiry has been a farce and those who have taken part in it have the right to be thoroughly insulted by the arrogance of this minister who brings the entire parliamentary process into disrepute by his actions.Mr Reith's recently leaked cabinet-in-confidence plans to restore full employment revealed an underlying desire to do away with the AIRC altogether. This seems totally logical in the context of the junior rates issue. Why would the purveyor of all wisdom need such a body? He is already making all the decisions himself.The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association is one of the largest unions in Australia and represents an extraordinarily large proportion of young people in the work force in this country. They have presented an excellent submission to the federal commission outlining an effective case to show that Mr Reith's proposal to maintain junior rates of pay is a discriminatory practice. They acknowledge that in some cases there may be a need for junior rates of pay, but stress this is not across industry in general. Their argument is that, if people in the workplace are doing exactly the same job on an equal level, why should the person who is 18 receive less pay than his or her work mates who are 10 or 20 years older? The principle here—and it is a very important principle—is that work of equal value demands equal pay. This is the crux of the matter. That is the real issue of this debate.In justifying the Work for the Dole program, the coalition's rhetoric leaned heavily on the concept of mutual obligation. I would therefore like to revisit this notion of mutual obligation in the context of the current debate. Work for the Dole was touted as a way for young unemployed people to contribute something to the community in return for government support. This government now seeks to shirk its obligations to support young people who are already willingly contributing to Australia's community and economy. It seeks to institute a set of disincentives so severe that many young people will be reconsidering whether it is worthwhile looking for work at all. How does this government dare to speak of mutual obligation when it is trying to remove the very provisions set in place to ensure that young people are not discriminated against in the workplace? It is trying to prevent young people from getting an honest day's pay for an honest day's work when no other group in the community has been singled out for such treatment. Why don't the concepts of fairness and equity extend to young people as well?This government has been hypocritical in promoting mutual obligation while shirking its own responsibility to support younger Australians in the work force. This bill is intrinsically discriminatory towards young people, and it is not just a matter of denying them an honest day's pay either. This bill has significant social implications for the way young people are perceived within our community. It also has implications with regard to how young people perceive themselves and their own social responsibilities within Australian society.Since 1973, 18-year-olds have had the right to vote. This means that young Australians play an equal role with all other adults in deciding who governs their country. At 18, people are held criminally liable for their actions and are sentenced in court as adults. At 18, young people can join the military and go overseas to fight and even die for their country. An 18-year-old also consumes alcohol and for all intents and purposes is considered to take on the responsibilities of an adult before the community and the law. Becoming an adult involves all of these responsibilities, but it should also involve some rights as well.If this bill becomes law, 18-year-olds will still have all of these responsibilities, but the right to be paid an honest day's pay for a hard day's work will be removed. This government cannot have it both ways. As a community we expect young people to assume responsibility for themselves and their actions. How can we in good conscience ask them to fulfil the responsibilities of adult life without giving them the rights we take for granted as adults in a democratic society?This bill portrays people under 21 as second-class citizens who do not deserve the rights bestowed on other adults. How are young people ever to feel a sense of belonging in an atmosphere that denigrates them and singles them out for contempt? The duplicity of this government's concept of mutual obligation can be more fully appreciated if we consider the social upheavals being faced by this generation. A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Mr Richard Eckersley highlighted some of the major social problems facing young Australians. Surely, if this government takes its commitments to mutual obligation seriously, it must have a responsibility to address some of these long-term problems that continue to plague our youth in the 1990s.Mr Eckersley cited increases in family breakdown, youth unemployment, child poverty, education pressures and media influence as some of the main pressures on young Australians. The youth unemployment rate was 20.3 per cent in 1997-98, up from 3.3 per cent in 1967 and 14.9 per cent in 1989-90. Opiate overdose deaths, excluding suicide, among Australians aged 15 to 44 increased almost sevenfold between 1979 and 1997. The suicide rate for males aged to 20 to 24 rose from 29 per 100,000 in 1986 to 42 per 100,000 in 1997.Recent surveys of youth attitudes have shown they are regarding social institutions, especially government, with growing cynicism and mistrust. Many are no longer willing to serve or believe in the system, and who could blame them? A lot of young people are feeling alienated and detached from mainstream society. Governments have failed to adequately address the very real problems facing our youth every day. Now this government is jamming the concept of mutual obligation down their throats as though they have something to be thankful for.While this government has failed to solve the problem of youth unemployment, it continues to begrudge young people unemployment benefits. This has already been demonstrated by its dogged commitment to the Work for the Dole program under the banner of mutual obligation. Now apparently young people are mutually obliged to forgo an honest day's pay in return for the wonderful opportunities this government has provided for them. What an insult! No wonder young people are increasingly feeling alienated from the mainstream. No wonder they are expressing a growing contempt for government institutions and authority.Young Australians are continually being used as scapegoats for the problems in society this government has failed to address. `What is wrong with the youth of today' seems a very popular catchcry in the 1990s. Maybe what is wrong with the youth of today is they are becoming increasingly angry and frustrated by government rhetoric and inaction on the issues that are most important to them.If this bill goes ahead, they will not even be able to be properly paid for the daily contributions they make to our economy and society. No wonder our youth often seem disrespectful and irreverent. This bill is a nonsense. It is designed to exploit the young people of this country so they can be used as nothing more than cheap labour, and it deserves to be defeated and thrown in the rubbish bin.20:17:002388MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—There is a very long speaking list on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 and I do not want to be repetitive, so I will not take an encyclopaedic approach to it. I just want to enter a plea for some fairness in the Australian parliament for those less fortunate than the members of parliament, namely, the youth of Australia who are trying to get a career established. I would also like to bring a little bit of reality to the debate, particularly after the hoary old mythology we have had from the trade union representative who has just spoken.In essence, this is a very simple bill. It is just about retaining a specific wages policy for the youth of this country. Those who oppose it really are saying that we have to pay full adult wages to people who are just learning a job. That is just not the real world. I have employed people for 40 years. I have employed people not because they are black, white, female or male; I have employed them for the job they can do, for their professional skills and for their productivity. That is what you are paid for in this world. To not recognise that means that you get off with the wrong set of assumptions, and we have had those assumptions paraded extensively by the Labor Party today.I support wholeheartedly the concept of equivalent pay for women and men doing the same tasks, but we have had an attempt to muddy the waters through this debate and somehow move equivalent pay for women into the business of adult wages for the youth. If you are an employer, why on earth would you pay the same rate to a young person who has to learn on the job to do the job when you can employ a fully trained person with experience to do the same task for the same price? It is just not logical. You also have to remember that in the real world what you pay someone is not the end of the business. Because of the proliferation of awards, long service leave and a thousand other things, your oncost as an employer is at least 50 per cent on the notional up-front weekly wage or salary. So you are asking a great deal from an employer.If you go down the path the Labor Party wants us to go down, you are denying the opportunity to countless hundreds of thousands of young Australians to get a career. They do want to work. The great majority of young Australians are not gifted enough to go to universities and become professionals, and a very large proportion of them are not gifted enough to become tradesmen. They want to climb the ladder the way millions of Australians have done before them.If you look around this community, there are many successful retired Australians. When I say successful, I am not necessarily talking about someone with a multimillion dollar house and a big car in the garage; I am talking about Australians who have had satisfying and rewarding careers and have often made a great contribution to the society they live in. A lot of these people started with nothing. They left school at whatever the minimal age was 40 or 50 years ago, got themselves a job and worked their way up from there. That is very much part of the Australian ethos, and I will defend the right for someone to do that to the end.I will go further to say that it is our duty to give people the right to lead a fulfilling life. That is at the heart of this bill. That is what it is about. It is giving people an opportunity to get started. It is not a messianic plot in any way at all to enshrine child slave labour in the Australian work force; it is all about giving an opportunity to the young and to the unskilled to get a job because the absolutely most crucial thing in their lives is that first start. Once they get on the ladder, if they have the will, they will go somewhere.Before I wind up, I would just like to look at contemporary United States experience. In the last five or 10 years, the United States has transferred millions from the unemployed to the productive work force. A lot of it has been done by having low starting wages for youth. It is not much fun to go onto a wage of a few dollars as a starting position but, once you get your foot on the ladder, six months later there is the opportunity for getting a promotion or another job—you have something to sell, you have experience. The experience in the United States, as I say, is that millions have been transferred from welfare to productive employment.Once they get through that door and start in the work force, they go on to better things. They have the psychological satisfaction and the self-esteem that come from being employed and achieving. It is not only the economic benefits for them; it is a benefit for the whole community. Once you transfer people from the unemployment field into the employment field, the whole of the economic pie in that country grows and everyone benefits. That has been a significant part of the economic growth and the unprecedented boom they have enjoyed in the United States.Conversely, against that argument, we have very clear research in Australia which shows that, if we abolish youth wages, we will get an increase in unemployment for the reasons I have outlined. In the most recent research conducted by the Australian Retailers Association—and the Retailers Association employ most of the young people in this country—the respondents claimed that 16.8 per cent of them would lay off some juniors if junior wages were abolished, 18.4 per cent would lay off most of their juniors and a staggering 50.6 per cent—over half of them—would employ only adults. This is a very chilling statistic for the youth of this country. What it means is that, if we reject this bill, we will add to the social misery, the discontent and all the dislocations in society that it brings. There really is a huge cost to society in the longer term. What has happened to the social conscience the Labor Party once used to aspire to? Why are they condemning these children to lives of unemployment, disillusionment and misery?Only last sitting week, the Senate rejected the unfair dismissal amendments that we brought before it. That was a very bad decision, it is quite indefensible, but I will not redebate it here. I want to put another dimension into this debate and it is one that Senator Cook will appreciate very well. He, like me, spends quite a bit of time in Asia, and he knows very well we cannot dissociate ourselves from what is going on in our region. I am not talking about places like Burma, or Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos or some of those countries with a low standard of living. I am talking about places which have a competitive standard of living or a higher standard of living than Australia—like Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan.When you go to those countries and talk to employers and business people, they just cannot believe that we have the restrictions on employers that we have. They cannot believe that we have things like unfair dismissal. They say, `How can you bind an employer so that he cannot get rid of an unsatisfactory employee who is not performing?' They cannot believe that we want to get rid of youth wages.I want to return to the starting point. We do owe it to the youth of Australia to give them the best of opportunities parliament can. The best of opportunities do not involve, necessarily, a university education, because that is enjoyed by only a minority of youth. The very essence of this argument is getting a start in life, and this bill does that.20:25:002389Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I have no doubt about the sincerity of Senator MacGibbon but, unfortunately, what he put forward can best be described as quaint naivety.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Hogwash.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Thank you for the interjection, Senator Collins. I can declare that I come from the retail industry. I worked in the retail industry. I worked on both sides. I worked as an employee and I worked on the industrial side, as both an industrial advocate and the secretary of an organisation which had a great deal to do with retailers and their employees over a long period of time. Let me just say that Senator MacGibbon's concept of a career being established—whilst it is very nice and very quaint—is not the reality. As for your concern about an increase in unemployment—whilst, again, that is very nice—most of these people you are talking about are high school students who are working in the industry, as opposed to those people who are genuinely long-term unemployed. One must necessarily make the distinction between the classes of people whom you are talking about in this debate.The fact remains that the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 is about providing cheap labour for the marketplace in the retail industry. The issue of junior rates just defies logic. Junior rates had meaning when they were first introduced in the earlier part of this century, as others have already pointed out. Then the majority age was 21, most people finished school at year 8 or lower, most of them were 13 years of age or younger and, of course, in joining the work force, they had knowledge and skill formation and education as part of their employment process.Today, however, that has dramatically changed. The majority age is 18, most finish school at year 12 at about 18 years of age and, when they go into the service industry and the retail industry, in particular—which seems to be the main area of focus in this debate—there is minimal knowledge and skill formation or education as part of the employment process. So we are talking chalk and cheese, from the scenario under which junior rates were first established to what we have today. The scenes are completely different.Senator McGauran mentioned that there had been no technological change in industries such as the retail industry. That is complete nonsense. The Australian retail industry has been the fastest industry of any nation in the world to take up new technology. That is through scanning and EFTPOS. Everyone, whether walking into a supermarket, a department store or the local corner store, is confronted with EFTPOS, scanning and the like today. So to say there has not been major technological change within the retail industry—I can peg when it first started to come in; it was back in 1980—is a complete lack of understanding of what that industry is about.In the retail industry, the majority of employees—who are juniors—invariably get no more than two to four hours training in their induction. Part of their induction process may even involve something as complex as being shown where the lunch room and the toilets are. However, after that induction program, which on average may last two to four hours but could even last up to a day, one finds that these people are expected to perform at the same standard as a person who has been there for five weeks, five months or five years. That is regardless of that person's age, sex, race, religion or anything else. So the fact that they have been through an induction program and are then out on the floor does not in any way lessen the requirements of their employer—these people have to perform to the same standard.You will find that the junior is required to do the same as the senior. You will find that that junior is subject to the same threat of dismissal. The fact that they have been through a two- to four-hour induction program and are out working on the floor is of no relevance whatsoever. The juniors are subject to the same abuse from management for alleged non-performance; they are subject to the same threats of dismissal for any measure of non-conformity in their personal outlook; they are subject to the same abuse from a cranky customer as any senior may well be; they are subject to the same dress standards as any senior that might be employed there; and they are subject to the same output standards. Even though employers may refuse to acknowledge publicly that they have such output standards, they do exist. Whether it be scanning rates or carton counts, these people are required to do exactly the same work for less money. The juniors get the same treatment as seniors in all but one respect, and that is in respect of their wage—they are paid less.If one looks at a typical example of a retail award, one finds that the 21-year-old receives the adult rate, 100 per cent; the 20-year-old receives 90 per cent of the rate; the 19-year-old receives 80 per cent; and the 18-year-old receives 67½ per cent. In today's dollar terms for juniors working full time—and I am quoting now from an actual award that applies throughout Australia with a major retailer—that 21-year-old person receives $463.10; the 20-year-old, $416.80; the 19-year-old, $370.50; and the 18-year-old, $312.60. So the 20-year-old who is doing exactly the same work and facing exactly the same work requirements as the senior gets paid $46.30 less, the 19-year-old gets paid $92.60 less and the 18-year-old gets $150.50 less. In terms of full-time employment, this is really about paying people lower rates of pay. The same applies if those people are casual. Junior employment, particularly in the retail industry, has plummeted over the last 25 years. Casual employment dominates the industry. So the argument that junior rates are going to provide some stimulus for full-time employment in industries such as the retail industry is just not true. It has not done so for the last 25 years and to believe that it will do so now is just nonsense. We have here a proposal that effectively will seek to entrench rates of pay which will keep people being paid far and away below what they should legitimately be entitled to be paid. But there is more. These juniors get no discount for their rent, food, electricity, clothes, public transport and a whole wide range of other issues. So the discrimination is compounded, the discrimination is blatant and the inequities are clear. In the past some people had difficulties coming to grips with the concept of equal pay for women. At the time we had forecasts of dire consequences as a result of women achieving equal pay. It was a barrier; it was a hurdle that many people had to overcome. However, all the dire consequences that were forecast have not come to be. Women have continued to be employed and, of course, in greater numbers. Dire consequences are now being forecast for youth employment with a great amount of hype, a great amount of emotional argument, as if something is being done for young people. But my experience in the retail industry has been that, regardless of the fact that youth wages have been there, the fact remains that retailers set about sacking people when they reach the ripe old age of 17 and 18. It did not just happen for a short period of time during my association with the industry; it happened for the whole time of my association with the industry—and my ongoing association with the industry—that people were sacked simply and solely because they had reached the age of 18. It had nothing to do with their being full-time employees. It was purely and simply because they were casuals, they were disposable and they could be replaced by a new semi-skilled or unskilled work force in next to no time.What needs to happen is that junior rates need to be put to one side such as to force employers to employ people for the right reasons—that is, to give people a genuine career and not just to be used as dollar cannon fodder. Young people deserve and are entitled to better. This legislation will perpetuate injustice and will see the young people in our society continuing to face a disadvantage which they should not have to face. In the last 25 years, as I have said, full-time employment, particularly in the retail industry in which I have some experience, has fallen quite dramatically. Junior wages did not provide then, nor will they provide now, the basis for full-time, real, meaningful jobs. If that is what this is about—that is, junior wages—then the history of junior wages in the last 25 years certainly does not sustain the contention that it will provide real, meaningful jobs.The fact is that the structure of the industry has changed. Full-time employment is what is needed. It will provide those people who are unemployed with dignity. However, those people will not achieve it through casual employment. As we have already heard in this debate, large numbers of young people are unemployed. However, those people are not the people being employed in industries such as the retail and service industries because of youth wages. Junior wages are not preventing these people from getting jobs but the structural problems in the industries put in place by employers are. That is a different issue which is certainly not being addressed by this legislation.The employment practices in many industries, particularly the retail and the service industries, leave many people unemployed or underemployed. As a matter of fact, the retailers have affectionately called the retail industry—this is their terminology—a vestibule industry, because people are in there one day and before you can bat an eyelid they are out of it. So to use the argument that junior rates are necessary to sustain people in careers and to allow people to learn the job is nonsense. These people are turned over faster than you can bat an eyelid.As Senator Cooney rightfully pointed out, the minister claimed in the second reading speech:We show that junior wages help young people by giving them a foot in the door into employment.The only thing I can say about that statement is that it is a revolving door. You are no sooner in the place than you are out. Anyone who does not believe that should go and have a close look at the industry. All the plaintive pleas from the retailers amount to nought.There is no career based structure and no career based industry. This was one thing that the industry was moving towards some three to five years ago. It was looking at accomplishing genuine careers based on competency based rates of pay so that people could get genuine, meaningful and lasting employment within the industry. But what we have heard from many of the people on the other side in this debate is very much uninformed, unintelligent comment, particularly about the retail industry, of which few of them, if any, have any real knowledge whatsoever.What is needed is an abolition of the junior rates, but it was never advocated that junior rates would disappear overnight. It was always advocated that there would be a phasing out process and that that would be accompanied by an increase in the career based opportunities and the skills of those people in the industry. To entrench what the government is seeking here tonight is purely, as I said, to put up junior people as dollar cannon fodder for the retail and the service industry labour market. It serves no good and no purpose for the young people of this nation. I am sure and confident that this bill will meet its proper fate this evening.20:42:002392Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The Australian Greens oppose the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 . We oppose it for all the reasons we gave two years ago when opposing the industrial relations bill and the way in which that worked against the interests of not only workers in general but also young people.I begin by commenting on Senator MacGibbon's contribution. He first of all referred to the United States situation. He argued that low starting wages for youth have led to millions of young people being placed in jobs. The situation in the United States is that it is low starting wages for everybody across the board. The sort of Hewson $3 an hour basic wage formula that horrified Australians is in place in the United States. The working poor have become a major factor in social disillusionment and social disruption in that country.In Senator MacGibbon's statement we see that this is the thin end of the wedge and it is going to be followed by further efforts by the government under new industrial relations legislation to minimise wages to people right across the age spectrum. We are seeing a move towards the American situation, which would be intolerable to most Australians and will become much more a debate in this country as new and more draconian industrial relations legislation is brought into this parliament, no doubt during this current period of the Howard government.Senator MacGibbon also referred to Asia. He said that over there they cannot believe that we have unfair dismissal laws and that we want to get rid of junior wage rates. In response, I cannot believe the social condi tions levied by governments in many parts of Asia and elsewhere around the world either, and I do not think they should be tolerated.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Only South Korea is worse than us.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, in this matter. But for Senator MacGibbon to say that employers in that part of the world are tut-tutting about workers' conditions in Australia is, again, to beg the question: do Senator MacGibbon and his government colleagues want Australia to follow the path towards those working conditions which are levied in so many countries to our north which, again, would horrify Australians?That having been said, I would pause for a moment to speak of the situation that the Democrats have gotten themselves into. Had the Democrats two years ago voted with the Greens in support of Labor's amendments to end discrimination against young people in this country as concerned wages, this situation would not have arisen. But they did not.From that point on, the argument put forward by those from the Democrats contributing to the debate ran thin. On the one hand, they said that they have had a policy going back years for non-discrimination, but that, on that particular occasion, to get legislation through which was draconian—but less draconian than the government was planning as far as workers in this country are concerned—they had to give up that policy. There is a lesson there to be learnt by some of the younger Democrat members, including Senator Stott Despoja, about real politics.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—She was there.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—About the minister, Senator Murray said this: his word, it seems, is not worth the paper it is written on. There was a lot of negotiation that went on with Mr Reith, you will remember. I can remember Senator Kernot leaving this chamber to go and talk with Senator Reith behind the partition—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! I do not think Mr Reith is a senator.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—with Minister Reith—thank you, Chair—behind the partition when the going got a bit hot during that debate; on that occasion, it was in connection with the secondary boycott legislation. The assurance that came back into the chamber was that if it did not work, if it injured the interests of community groups—including conservation groups and indigenous groups—in this country, they would change the legislation later on. That told the Senate that unsatisfactory legislation, as far as the Democrats were concerned, could be changed in some way or another by future negotiations with the government. That is an obvious nonsense because the Democrats do not have any members in the House of Representatives; there is no way an amendment going through the Senate could alter that legislation, because it would simply die once it got to the House of Representatives.Senator Stott Despoja, for whom I have great respect, argued strongly for the end of discrimination for young people but then said that the political reality was that, on that occasion, they had to go along with the amendments that had been negotiated between her party and the minister. Senator Stott Despoja said today, `I didn't think he had the audacity to break his word with young people.' Apparently, the Democrats have no corporate memory, and I want to refresh their recollection here and now.Mr Reith, on the very first day he was elected to the parliament, broke his word with young people right across this country. It was during the occasion of the Flinders by-election in Victoria that Mr Reith was strong on saving the Franklin from being dammed—although the Fraser government was non-interventionist and, effectively, supported the dam. On that occasion, the Democrats had just got legislation through this chamber supporting world heritage status which would have saved the Franklin, although of course they could not get it through the House of Representatives.In that Flinders by-election the Democrats ran strongly, with 40 per cent of the voters going out of their way to write `no dams' on their ballot papers. Mr Reith was elected by a whisker. When asked on the Sunday after the election what his position on the Franklin dam was, whether he was still in favour of there being no dams, Mr Reith effectively said, `That was 24 hours ago.' His position had changed overnight. There were young people right across this country who had been supporting the position he took during the campaign but did not take afterwards. Moreover, the Democrats, with their high profile in that election, took great umbrage with the Liberal's campaign, which effectively was to say, `After the Democrats, vote for us.' The Franklin dam was the big issue. The Liberals were saying, `After the Democrats, vote for Mr Reith.' But after the election, things changed dramatically.The Democrats, a party which does not have a corporate memory on a fundamental issue like that, who repeatedly, and quite rightly, talks about its role in the Franklin campaign, will run into trouble repeatedly further down the line and be caught out. On this occasion, the Democrats have been caught out selling out the interests of young Australians. They ought to have taken this issue up to Mr Reith, the minister, two years ago and said, `We will not be letting this opportunity pass to end discrimination against young people in the Australian work force.'The Democrats, of course, knew that the Greens or the Labor Party would move just such an amendment when the legislation came before the Senate. They were caught in the situation where it was up to any one of them—Senator Murray, Senator Woodley, Senator Stott Despoja—to come out and declare that they would vote against the Kernot-Reith pact by supporting Labor's amendment on that occasion. But they did not do so.Tonight we are dealing with an amendment from the Democrats which, on the face of it, I would be supporting on behalf of the Greens. Its effect is to delay this legislation until the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has carried out the task which Minister Reith promised he would wait upon before making a decision like that incumbent in this legislation—that is, to see whether there are feasible alternatives to the current discriminatory legislation.Let me say again to the Democrats that the Industrial Relations Commission are not being asked to adjudicate in their favour. They are being asked to come up with alternatives if they are feasible. There are a lot of ifs and buts in there. Again, I do not see that it is going to come up with a solution to their dilemma as to whether or not they should vote to end discrimination. Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Murray have both beautifully outlined the cases for ending this discrimination. The only thing to be done tonight is not to delay but to end that discrimination by opposing this legislation. It is a very important moment for the Senate to make up for the lost opportunity of 1997. It is an opportunity which we should take now to bring on track the policies of the Greens, the Labor Party, the Democrats and hopefully Independent Senator Harradine, and we should end this discrimination.Finally, Senator MacGibbon said that junior wage rates were there at the start of the century; so was hanging and so was the horse and buggy. That is no reason why we should be seeing it through into the next century. I think this is the moment we should choose to make sure that we go into the next century without this discrimination against young Australians.20:54:002394Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I thank honourable senators for contributing to this debate. As the penultimate speaker, Senator Bob Brown, said, this is an important debate. He was referring to comments by my colleague Senator David MacGibbon about references that Senator MacGibbon made to the comments he had picked up in leading economies in South-East Asia. If Senator Brown were accurate, he would have noted that Senator MacGibbon was careful not to infer or imply that we are looking for a labour market system that is comparable to that in developing countries in the region. He quite clearly said developed nations with living standards higher than Australia's.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Which countries are they?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—He went on to name them—countries like Japan, for example.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—And where else?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—He picked on Japan and Hong Kong. They were the two that I remember. I think he named a couple of others. So he was very careful there. That is not the point that I am trying to make. The point I am trying to make in thanking honourable senators for their contributions is that this is a very important debate to have. That is where Senator Brown is correct. Senator Brown went on to talk about concepts of the working poor and what an absolute scandal it is in the United States to have people who are earning low rates of pay.My personal opinion is that it is incredibly patronising to cast judgment upon some low income earner in another country who chooses to work and probably makes a decision that there is more dignity involved in working and still being relatively poor than in being a recipient of the dole or a recipient of welfare benefits. Some people would make the decision that they would rather be working poor. I do regard it as incredibly patronising and snobbish of senators opposite and other commentators in the labour market debate that there is something incredibly wrong—ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Have you got any views on slavery as well?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Senator Quirke lives in a nice house, he earns a nice wage and he is going to retire on a nice superannuation, but he along with his snobbish Labor mates—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Can you say anything about this bill?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I am talking about this very important debate. Senator Jacinta Collins lives in a nice house and will retire on a nice superannuation if she gets to stick here long enough. But there are some people out there who have blue collars in this country who do not mind working on a low income and who probably do not choose to be poor but who would rather be working and poor than not working at all. But people on the other side would rather keep the poor living on government handouts. A lot of people with blue collars do not want to be forced to do that.There are a lot of young people who would like the chance to hang on to their jobs. Back in 1994 when Laurie Brereton was the minister and writing policies for the previous Keating government, they made a decision that they would ensure that there would be junior wage rates from 1994 to 1997. All of the Labor Party members opposite voted for the provisions in the then industrial relations law to ensure that junior wage rates would be available in this country for young people from 1994 to 1997.What did the Australian Labor Party say back in 1994 to justify having age discrimination in the law then, Senator Brown? You talk about the hypocrisy coming from the senators who sit to your left, the lack of corporate memory from the Australian Democrats because they could not remember what someone said in the Flinders by-election. What about the hypocrisy of what the Australian Labor Party said back in 1994 when they put the exemption from the discrimination laws in the Industrial Relations Act? They said, `We will leave it in there till 1997.' Senator Murray will remember this because he has followed this debate. `We will leave it there until 1997 and we will hope that someone will come up with a solution to this discrimination problem.' What has the Labor Party's incredible policy machine done since 1994—this brains trust, the third way? God help Australia if they ever find the third way. When the Labor Party talk about the third way, there is 3(a), 3(b) or 3(c). You have to listen to either Laurie on one day or Kim, if he ever comes up with an original idea, on another day, or Gareth Evans. He rewrote the entire policy. When I was preparing for this debate I asked what the Australian Labor Party had done to come up with an alternative to junior wage rates. What was your policy at the last election? They did not have one. You hear Senator Hogg opposite saying, `This is a historic chance to get rid of junior wage rates and just see what happens.' That is their policy.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Oh, rubbish!H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—That's their policy—`Let's not come up with an alternative.'GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—There was an alternative.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—`Let's have one of these sort of Labor policies.-GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—You don't know what you are talking about.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—They came up with a tax policy and then quickly backed off it. Their best policy was to tax four-wheel drives and caviar and then copy the rest of our policy and hope no-one noticed that they were a policy-free zone. Luckily, enough people understood it.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Can you address the bill?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—That is their policy. They do not have an alternative to junior wage rates.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Yes, we do.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Their alternative is to do nothing, to sit there and do what they always do here when they are in opposition and say no. They vote no to everything. They say no to everything. When someone like Mark Latham in the other place comes up with a policy, they say no to that too—`Don't be so bold. You can't come out and publish policies. We are in opposition.'GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Can you address the bill?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—And do you know what Mr Beazley's opposition does, with all his sycophants sitting opposite here?GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Tell us what this bill does.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Do you know what their policy is? Their policy is to have no policy.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Do you know what this bill does?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—The honourable senators asks, `Do you know what this bill does?' Mr Acting Deputy President, do you know what this bill does and what they are going to vote no to within a couple of minutes? They are going to say, `No, we don't want junior rates.'What does the ACTU say? They have got an alternative. At least they have had to put a policy forward. The ACTU put forward a policy the other day. Back in February they put forward a submission to the junior rates inquiry, and what they have said is, `We will ensure everyone over 18 has an adult wage.' I presume that senators opposite back the ACTU submission. John Quirke—Senator Quirke—is at least behind it. So he wants to say to all of those 18-year-olds out there on junior rates that if this were accepted and this became policy in Australia all their wages would be put up.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—You don't know what you are talking about.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—That is Senator Quirke to you.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I did say Senator John Quirke. You were not listening, Senator Quirke. And that is what they would have done.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Who are `they'?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—The Australian Labor Party. Senator Hogg says, `Let it rip.' They say, `We will replace the junior rates environment with a nothing environment. We will replace it with a Labor policy blackout, a policy vacuum.' That is the Labor Party's policy. They have no policy. They just want to say no to everything. They will vote no to this. They will vote no to the Telstra sale. They will vote no to a new tax system. In fact, they will vote no to anything that has got a hope of improving the employment prospects of Australia. They want to see Australia stuck in the double-digit unemployment that was the mark of their 13 years in power. They like, for some reason, to have double-digit unemployment rates—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—You are being childish now.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—double-digit interest rates and double-digit inflation rates. They tried for 13 years to implement some policies. The policies were an unmitigated disaster. They created the highest interest rates this country has seen since the 1930s over a sustained period.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—They were higher when you were in government.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! Senator Collins.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—They flicked up for a short period under the Fraser government, but these guys were able to keep unemployment—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Oh! Just a short period.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Collins, you have persistently and repeatedly interjected during this debate. I take it that generally vigorous debate is appropriate for the chamber and an occasional interjection is tolerated, but a continual barrage of interjection I regard as unparliamentary.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The honourable senator opposite who has just been called to order did make a long and rambling speech of nearly 20 minutes in duration. I sat here and listened very carefully to see if she could come up with an argument for tossing tens of thousands of young Australians onto the unemployment scrap heap by pricing them out of the labour market, and there was not an argument. So it is very hard to respond to whatever she had to contribute to the debate. But I do appreciate your calling her to order and asking her to allow the debate to be conducted in a sensible manner.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—This is not a debate. You are not even addressing the bill.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Collins.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Mr Acting Deputy President, if you had the policies of the Australian Labor Party and of the honourable senator opposite whom you have just called to order, you would not have had waterfront reform in this country. What they promote is a society where nothing changes—it is back to the 1950s. They want a waterfront where the ships would come in and hang around for days. You would get a crane to move every now and again. If you were lucky you would get a container in and out. We all remember those days. Mr Acting Deputy President, you must remember all the ships lined up off Adelaide in the Gulf of St Vincent—you would look out to sea and all you would see is ships at anchor out there, waiting to come in, waiting to get the containers moved.And, of course, the Labor Party said, `That is the sort of Australia we like.' The Australian Labor Party are like that. Do you know why? Some people do wonder why the Australian Labor Party is the party of the status quo, the quaint naive party that says, `As long as the unions have got a stranglehold on the work force, we don't want any change in workplace relations.' The sad thing for the unemployed in Australia is that the unemployed do not have a strong union representing them, because they are the one part of the work force that misses out under Labor.As Senator MacGibbon pointed out, here is a government that has said, `If you want to get the country going, if you want to expand the economic capability, if you want to see Australia be a success and see everyone who wants a job get a job, then you can't put up with a waterfront that is controlled by the Maritime Union and that ensures that the crane rates are half what they should be.' And Labor said, `We like that. We like having twice the number of people we should have on the waterfront moving the cranes, moving the containers, at half the rate they should move at'—twice the number of people and half the number of containers, and that is what Senator Jacinta Collins and Senator Quirke opposite want.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—And running extortion rackets.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—I think we will have that withdrawn, Mr Acting Deputy President.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Are you raising a point of order?ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—I am raising a point of order. I believe the honourable senator said that we in the Labor Party are into extortion. I believe that is a criminal offence in this country, and I ask that the senator withdraw that remark.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—I made no such comment, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I will leave it up to your best judgment. What I said was—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—You are a liar!10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Collins, withdraw.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—I will withdraw if in fact the Hansard record demonstrates that the senator did not make that remark. I believe that the record will show that he did.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Collins, I was allowing Senator McGauran to give his response to the point of order, and it was not for you—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—I said I will withdraw my remark if the record shows that the senator did not make the remark which he denies.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You will withdraw unqualifiedly, Senator Collins.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—I will withdraw unqualifiedly, but I would like to refer to the record on this matter.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You may refer to the record, Senator Collins, that is your privilege. Senator McGauran, you were speaking to the point of order.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Mr Acting Deputy President, my comment was directed towards the Maritime Union—not those opposite in the chamber but towards the union—that they were running extortion rackets.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I accept the veracity of your explanation, Senator McGauran. There is therefore no point of order.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I was actually accusing members opposite—and I would be very happy for them to take a point of order on this—of supporting the status quo on the waterfront. They, for some perverse—ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Mr Acting Deputy President, we will take him up on that offer. There is a point of order here. We are debat ing—even though I think it has escaped the present debater—the bill before us. It has nothing to do with waterfront reform, the MUA or all the rest of it that has gone on for the last four or five minutes.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator, there is no point of order.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I ask that you call the senator to order on the matter of imputing to me a position that I do not support waterfront reform. I would challenge him to find any factual basis for that allegation.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Collins, that is not a point of order; that is a point of debate.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Senators opposite in the Labor Party were opposed to the reforms that Peter Reith, the minister for industrial relations, put in place on the Australian waterfront during 1998. I think the minister and this government will be judged very positively for those reforms. We have seen the biggest jump in productivity in the history of the Australian waterfront and a reduction in the work force needed to increase the crane rate at which Australia's produce and goods are transported across the waterfront. Of course, we are an island nation that requires an efficient waterfront. It was one of the most significant reforms in the industrial relations area in the history of Australia. The press, the television cameras, the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party put all sorts of floss and gloss on it. I am sure that Minister Reith and the leadership at Corrigans would have preferred that the public relations surrounding the exercise had been more conducive to our point of view. But the cold reality of course—ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Are you telling me that this is relevant to this bill? Because if it is, I reckon you could get away with anything in here.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. This is workplace relations legislation. The parliamentary secretary is addressing issues that are relevant to jobs and employment, so I believe his comments have relevance. But I remind the parliamentary secretary that it is important to remain relevant to the matter under debate.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Thank you.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will remain strictly relevant to a workplace relations debate as it relates to employment in Australia. We are talking about a vote that is about to take place in this Senate. The Labor Party have informed me they will be voting against it. The Democrats have proposed an amendment which will seek to have this legislation halted within a couple of minutes in this chamber. We are talking about the prospects of employment for tens of thousands of young Australians.I led this debate, I thought, in a very succinct way. I am not arguing the point of order here—I am saying why this is so relevant. Mr Acting Deputy President, I know that you understand the relevance of this but I can understand that senators opposite do not see it as relevant. At times I think they question the control that the union movement has over their organisation. I know that some in the Australian Labor Party are doing that, that some are saying, like Tony Blair said a couple of years ago, that you cannot have faceless men or women having control of a political party and getting away with it.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—This is a new one. Who are the faceless women?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—There are lots of very successful women trade unionists and that is a great thing for Australia—a fantastic thing. But, Mr Acting Deputy President, this debate is all about jobs in Australia. If you stick with the Labor Party's policy on the waterfront which is to say, `Let's stay in the 1950s on the waterfront,' then you will cost younger people and older people jobs. We now have a more efficient waterfront and it could be argued—and I will do so—that there are probably thousands more people in employment as a direct result of Mr Reith's and this government's reforms on the waterfront in 1998 than there would have been if those reforms had not been put in place.Mr Acting Deputy President, the Labor Party's position is that they are about to vote this down. They are making a decision to protect the unionised workers who elect them against the interests of unemployed young people. This legislation will give young people a chance. The Labor Party are standing up, as they do so often in the Senate, with a lollipop stick that has a great big stop sign on it. It is the same one that they have at the gates of the construction sites around Australia saying `Stop'. They are saying, `Stop. We don't want any change in this place. We want to be stuck in the 1950s and the 1960s. We do not want to give young Australians a chance.'The Democrats are not as bad as that. Their attitude is to hang on, to wait and see. They use the other side of the sign. They have turned it around and it says `Go Slow'. Senator Murray, you have got the lollipop stick saying `Let's just go a bit slow'. Senator Quirke, Senator Collins, good old Senator Peter Cook with his trade union background and good old Kim Beazley are standing up there in front of the Australian people saying, `Hang on. Let's not change a thing. No reform legislation will get through the Senate. Just stop right there.' Mr Acting Deputy President, that is what they are saying and that is what the Australian people are sick of. It is time for some change. It is time for some reform. But for the old Labor Party, this is not the Third Way—this is just no way. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Murray's ) be agreed to.21:19:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)8Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Lees, M. H.Margetts, D. Murray, A.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.55Abetz, E. Bishop, T. M.Brown, B. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Lundy, K.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Minchin, N. H. Murphy, S. M.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.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.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Those of that opinion say `aye', to the contrary `no'. I think the noes have it. Division required?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I'm dividing, anyway.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Nobody called for a division.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I heard about five people up there calling for a division, Madam President.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is a division required? Ring the bells for one minute.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Nobody has left the chamber, and the rules provide for a one-minute division in these circumstances. People have one minute to come in.A division having been called and the bells being rung— 5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, Madam President: because of Senator Campbell's indecision about whether he was voting for or against the second reading of the bill, I think a number of senators left the chamber.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, the doors hadn't been opened at that stage.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, that is not correct, as I understand it. I have been informed by the whips that that is not correct. As I understand it, senators did leave the chamber. I have been so informed. And given that senators are walking into the chamber, I think that is rather unlikely.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—With the leave of the Senate, the bells will now be rung for four minutes. Question put: That the bill be now read a second time.21:29:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)32Abetz, E. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tierney, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.Alston, R. K. R. Carr, K.Boswell, R. L. D. O'Brien, K. W. K.Ferguson, A. B. Hutchins, S.Tambling, G. E. J. Sherry, N.Troeth, J. Bolkus, N.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bills2401r6742401Debate resumed from 15 February, on motion by Senator Minchin:That this bill be now read a second time.21:32:002401Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The Judiciary Amendment Bill 1998 reintroduces the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1997, which lapsed without amendment when the previous parliament was dissolved. The bill forms part of the government's policy to open the Commonwealth's litigation services to the private sector and to private sector competition, applying the principles of competitive neutrality. The bill establishes the Australian Government Solicitor as a government business enterprise and establishes a mechanism whereby the Attorney-General can issue legal service directions to service providers as to the conduct of Commonwealth litigation.In government, Labor opened up various other Commonwealth legal services to competition, but Commonwealth litigation services were not opened up to competition, subject to ongoing public interest assessment. The principles of competitive neutrality do not currently apply to the AGS. Labor previously opposed the enactment of this bill on three grounds—namely, that the government's overall policy failed to: one, acknowledge the likely increase in the cost of Commonwealth legal services arising from the enactment of the bill, particularly the application of competitive neutrality principles to the Australian Government Solicitor; two, provide adequate resources for the new market regulator, the Office of Legal Services Coordination; and, three, provide transitional arrangements for staff who could be removed from their conditions and entitlements under the Public Service Act 1922 and moved onto public sector employment conditions. This opposition still remains.We are concerned about the cost on Commonwealth legal services. While considerable market competition can be expected if the Commonwealth's litigation services are opened up to competition, it is expected that the price paid for acquiring those services will, in fact, rise. This is because the AGS, in terms of both its current taxation liability and employment terms and conditions, is highly price competitive. It is widely recognised that most private sector legal service providers are loss-leading in order to acquire market share in the wider Commonwealth legal services market.A review of the AGS found that the effect of the application of competitive neutrality would increase the AGS's costs by some $5.154 million per year. These costs principally consist of sales tax, stamp duties on expense, leases and depreciable assets, payroll tax, financial institutions duty and professional indemnity insurance. The AGS will also be expected to contribute a dividend on investment similar to those expected from private sector service providers. This dividend will be set by the Attorney-General and the Minister for Finance and Administration and is expected to be in the order of some $5 million a year. Some of these costs are, of course, hidden within the current arrangements for the AGS and, as such, represent forgone income on the part of the Commonwealth, particularly those federal taxes and the target dividend. However, state taxes and the cost of financing the additional risk associated with and arising from the fixed nature of the target dividend would increase the cost structure of the AGS.The most significant saving to the AGS results from the current use of public service terms and conditions. This, however, also decreases the ability of the AGS to attract suitable staff. While this is an ongoing con cern for the AGS, there is no evidence as yet that the quality of, or the client satisfaction with, the AGS's output has, in fact, been affected. During Senate estimates it was revealed that the new AGS would no longer employ persons under the terms and conditions of the Public Service Act. The loss of many of these terms and conditions are, of course, of major concern to many AGS employees. Interestingly, however, some staff will receive substantially higher salaries as a result of this change, particularly those employed at partner levels. For such persons, private sector market forces are likely to drive up their salaries from current SES levels to amounts approaching $250,000 a year or more. Such people will also be eligible for fringe benefits and a range of benefits currently applying to private law firms.If private sector terms and conditions are implemented, there will be an inevitable increase in the cost of the Commonwealth providing legal services, as prices generally paid within the Commonwealth legal services market then rise. As I said earlier, we are concerned that other staff, particularly junior staff, will have to cop cuts in their terms and conditions. It is a concern that we had in the previous parliament. It is a concern that we have in this parliament as well.We are concerned with the significant transitional costs associated with the government's policy. They could range from some $20.3 million to $29.8 million across items such as systems and communications costs, policy work functions, AGS establishment costs, staffing costs, termination of leases and so on. As a result, any financial return to the Commonwealth will have to defray these costs. Accordingly, our concern is that this will lead to increases in fees charged by the AGS.In terms of fee increases, a Senate estimates committee was told just a couple of weeks ago that there had been an increase in fees charged for AGS services already, by some five per cent in September last year. These increases reflected in part the increased costs to the AGS of meeting the competitive neutrality principles. It was also of concern to us at that estimates hearing that the AGS could not give any commitment that its prices would not rise in the near future.Private firms which the Labor Party has spoken to have also admitted that they would be likely to take advantage of an increase in the fees charged by the AGS and likewise increase their fees. As a result, as I said earlier, we are concerned that there are cost pressures in the system—pressures that either are transitional or relate to matters I have already mentioned. This will essentially mean that the savings the government anticipates could be illusory and the cost increases of the AGS could be reflected in increased costs to government.We are also concerned in respect of legal service directions. As I mentioned earlier, the government's policy has recognised that there is a considerable public interest in the Attorney-General retaining some control over the conduct of litigation services to the Commonwealth. The good name of the Commonwealth could quite often be degraded if even some lawyers were to conduct sharp practices in the Commonwealth's name. To this end the Commonwealth has introduced a complex system of directives that the Attorney can issue for litigation matters generally and in relation to specific cases. These directives would be enforceable by contractual remedies only and would, of course, be subject to breaches of the directives coming to the Attorney's attention.This is a wide ranging task. It is a task which covers the breadth of government. The office established to perform such a task was originally staffed by only three people. Given that the Commonwealth manages some 15,000 pieces of litigation per year, it was and continues to be our concern that this function could not be adequately performed with the resources allocated. Now the government has said that it will apply six staff to this function. However, it is fair to say that our concerns are real and they still remain in respect of administration of the directions under this part of the government's proposal.Our concern is also heightened by the fact that the office is also expected to coordinate Commonwealth legal services to ensure consistency of advice. In essence, model litigant rules will become meaningless if there is inadequate means to enforce them. Our firm opinion is that the resources applied by government to this particular task will mean inadequate resourcing.As I said earlier, the Public Service terms and conditions are of concern to us. While the AGS must have greater flexibility in its future staffing arrangements, this should not be done at the expense of the rights of employees. All current AGS staff must have the right to retain employment with the APS or to an adequate redundancy package if they do not wish to be employed by the new AGS. So we will be moving amendments in the committee stage to protect these terms and conditions. The amendments will give the AGS employees the option of electing to retain their current APS terms and conditions. The government is looking only upward in terms of flexibility as to terms and conditions and it should have no problem supporting these amendments.In conclusion, can I say that, given the very real interest in the Commonwealth's retaining control over the government related litigation services, we believe that the model proposed by the government does not adequately protect that public interest. Accordingly, we submit that, firstly, the bill should be opposed unless the government does agree to provide an independent mechanism to review the impact of the reforms and to recommend the supplementation of departmental and agency resources to take into account the increase in the price to be paid for legal services. Secondly, we believe the government should agree to increase the resources of the Office of Legal Services Coordination to ensure it can meet the full range of functions intended for it. Thirdly, we believe the government should provide appropriate transitional arrangements for the staff of the AGS.We have approached the Attorney and his office over some period of time with these concerns—some couple of years now. We have also sought to raise these concerns with the government through third parties which have an interest in seeing the bill passed. As of the current date, unfortunately the government and the Attorney have shown little interest in responding to these concerns. We have to ask ourselves whether the government is really committed to this policy or whether it is grandstanding for some of its big corporate mates. We do want to see this issue resolved. As I said, we will be moving amendments to try to target the three most immediate and pressing concerns that we have in respect of this legislation. I indicate now that, at the appropriate time, I will be moving the amendments circulated in my name.21:42:002403Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—As Senator Bolkus has said, the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1998 is directed at placing the Australian Government Solicitor on a basis that it has been moving towards, I suppose, for some time now—that is, on the basis of being a separate legal entity, a little like the private enterprise firms. When I say `a little like' I mean that advisedly because the Australian Government Solicitor now has to go into competition with private firms, some of very big size indeed.The work they go into competition for is very much government work. They cannot go into competition for work outside the government or the semi-government sector. This means that the firms that they are going to be contesting against have available to them a very wide range of work indeed—not only government work but non-government work, the work that they have been pursuing for years. That gives them economy of scale. It gives them economy of personnel, if you like, because they can have personnel in all fields of law and they can employ that personnel in all sorts of places amongst all sorts of clients whereas the Australian Government Solicitor is going to be confined very closely indeed. It seems to me that it is a misnomer to say that is competition. It is certainly not fair competition in any event. I want to come to that again a little later, but there is one other matter I want to deal with before I come to that. Under part VIIIC of this bill the Attorney-General may issue directions. Proposed section 55ZF, `Attorney-General may issue directions', says:(1) The Attorney-General may issue directions (Legal Services Directions ): (a) that are to apply generally to Commonwealth legal work; or (b) that are to apply to Commonwealth legal work being performed, or to be performed, in relation to a particular matter.And it goes on. But the issue I want to raise is whether or not those directions should be disallowable instruments. The attorney has said that, insofar as they are legislative in nature, they should be disallowable. He has had some correspondence with the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and, as usual, has been very frank and very full in his explanation to that committee. While I am on my feet in this matter, I should perhaps note that, as far as the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is concerned, the Attorney-General has been always very prompt in his answers and very forthcoming.On this occasion, he says yes, if these directions are of a proper nature, they should be disallowable, but the problem is that at the moment there is no way by which they can be made disallowable because we really need to have the legislative instruments bill made into an act before we can take a proper course with such directions as the Attorney-General makes which are appropriate to be disallowed. It would be proper, I think, not to bring this part of this legislation in until the legislative instruments bill is made into an act or, pending that, until some amendment has been made to the Acts Interpretation Act.No doubt all this sounds very technical, but it does raise issues of some importance. The importance is that parliament should not be blocked out from its duty and its function of looking at subordinate legislation that it should look at and it should not be stopped from scrutinising the executive when that is appropriate. As the legislation now stands, together with the statutes that are in operation, a gap will be left in the ability of parliament to carry out its function if this legislation goes through and the legislative instruments bill does not and while there is no amendment to other legislation. So the position is that the Attorney agrees, `Yes, in certain circumstances these directions I give should be disallowed. Yes, there is no legislation presently in operation which would allow that to happen but, nevertheless, the bill should go on.' I now want to return to the issue of the Australian Government Solicitor. I notice it is almost 10 to 10, but perhaps I can read this bit from the second reading speech and then make some comments on it. It states:The bill—that is, the Judiciary Amendment Bill—will establish the Australian Government Solicitor, the AGS, as a statutory corporation that will operate as a government business enterprises. It will strengthen the position of the AGS in the market for Commonwealth legal work with private sector law firms.I have already said something about this, but this is another example of a very topsy-turvy approach to how services ought to be provided—a very strange approach, may I say, to getting good service from the Australian Government Solicitor. That has been with the Attorney-General's Department over the years that I have known it and has been a most distinguished body. It has been run by distinguished secretaries and been staffed by distinguished people.Debate interrupted.Adjournment240410000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 9.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.240421:50:002404Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I rise this evening to remind the Senate of the ongoing situation at the Gordonstone mine, near Emerald in Central Queensland. The Gordonstone picket line is now into its 17th month, making this the longest ever picket in Australian coalmining history.The conflict stems from the unfair dismissal of 312 miners by the multinational giant Arco back in October 1997. In February 1998, the AIRC ordered Arco to compensate for the unfair dismissals, additionally instructing the company to give preference to former workers in the recruiting of their new work force. Having failed to de-unionise Gordonstone, Arco packed up and left, selling out to another multinational giant, Rio Tinto.In December, Rio Tinto commenced recruitment for Gordonstone in secret, employing 23 workers under a non-union agreement. The agreement overrides all existing obligations of any employer at the Gordonstone mine and was ratified on 2 February. The AIRC has no discretion when ratifying agreements under coalition legislation and union submissions were not even allowed at the hearing. Rio Tinto had intended to employ up to 200 workers under this new certified agreement.Workers who had fought for 17 long months to try to regain their jobs were not about to take this latest attack lying down. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union went to the Federal Court in a bid to have Rio Tinto joined as a party to the proceedings being brought against the former owners, Arco. This would compel Rio Tinto to employ the workers unfairly dismissed back in 1997. The continuing dispute will come before the Federal Court in April.As the industrial dispute at Gordonstone continues, I think it is of the utmost importance that we do not forget about the personal situations of the sacked workers. These are people who had worked hard for Arco and were rewarded with nothing but unfair dismissal for their service. There was never any evidence that these workers had been lazy or unproductive; on the contrary, they were among the most productive by international standards. Just months before their dismissal, Arco had erected a statue to the Gordonstone miners describing them as `the best miners in the world' after they had broken a succession of international production records. These were undoubtedly hardworking people. Suddenly, in October 1997, they were sacked en masse, and just before Christmas.Since the closure of Gordonstone, the town of Emerald has experienced considerable economic and social upheaval. In a recent interview with the Courier-Mail, Emerald Chamber of Commerce president, Tony Webster, spoke of the impact the dismissals have had on local businesses. Mr Webster said that many businesses were struggling and more had actually sold up and moved on as a direct result of the ongoing dispute. Since October 1997, Emerald's population has declined from around 10,500 to 8,500 people. Those who have been able to secure work elsewhere have done so, but many former Arco workers remain in Emerald and are suffering severe financial hardship. These people have maintained the picket line as they continue to fight for the jobs that were unfairly taken from them.The Courier-Mail article of 22 February also outlined the considerable emotional distress suffered by the dismissed workers and their families during their 17-month ordeal. In the article, local Salvation Army Captain Stephen Metcher spoke of a number of attempted suicides by former Gordonstone miners and their children. These people are not rabblerousers. They are people who just want a fair go after having been unfairly sacked by their employer. They do not want more money or better conditions; they just want to go back to their jobs the way they were before.Now Rio Tinto has sought to capitalise on their weakened condition after such a long dispute by seeking to implement a non-union agreement with substandard conditions. This multinational has sought to divide the community by offering an unfair agreement to individuals who are desperate to go back to work. It has replaced decent working people with scabs, it is as simple as that. Rio Tinto has a ready-made work force at its disposal in the form of the dismissed workers. Instead of getting on with the job at hand, it has sought to crush the union by instituting enterprise agreements that undermine prevailing standards and conditions. It has effectively put the boot into the workers after Arco already had them down. This government has abandoned the people of Emerald in favour of multinational corporations.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—What? The Beattie government?6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS—No, your government. The decisions of the AIRC were disregarded by Arco, who blatantly refused to re-employ the dismissed workers when the commission instructed them to do so. Now Rio Tinto is showing a similar flagrant disregard for Australian industrial relations provisions. The AIRC has the authority under Australian law to determine the outcome of such disputes, and our government should not condone the actions of foreigners who seek to undermine that authority. However, we currently have a government that actually seeks to do away with the AIRC altogether. Who is to defend the rights of Australian workers if this government is determined to undermine the authority of the AIRC and take the side of multinational business interests?This government has even sought to crush the union that has provided workers with their strongest support. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 24 February outlined secret government plans to undermine the CFMEU. Employers who fall foul of the CFMEU will receive extra time to complete government projects, according to a leaked document from the defence minister, Mr Moore. The article claimed the leaked document was `a further indication of the government's determination to reduce the CFMEU's power'. Without the AIRC and unions, workers would be left at the mercy of these multinational corporations which have no regard for their employees and their families. This is supposed to be a government democratically elected to represent the Australian people. It could more accurately be described as being representative of the interests of big business and big money as far as industrial relations are concerned.On Saturday, 27 February, I attended a huge march and rally with the Gordonstone miners in Emerald. Over 1,000 people were in attendance at Emerald to offer their support to the miners and their families. Speeches mingled with the laughter of children at play nearby as the traditional Aussie Saturday afternoon barbecue got under way. That is what this dispute is really about—families. The miners have received constant support from their wives and children, who have also had to endure this long running stand-off with the foreign multinationals. These people are fighting to secure a livelihood for their families and that is what it all comes down to. The multinationals will always want to make more money, but all the Gordonstone miners want is a fair go for their families. I think it is a disgrace that a democratically elected government has left them to make this stand alone. In conclusion, I would just like to say that, even though a lot of the miners have moved on and work in other areas, those who are left on the picket line have told me that, because of their involvement in the mining industry and the union, they are black-listed by other mine owners. They are totally black-listed because they are seen as agitators when they are merely there in a peaceful picket.One guy said to me, `I might never work again. If I go and look for a job in another mine, my resume says I have worked seven years in the mining industry, but I might as well put on my resume that I have been in gaol for seven years.' An employer may say, `Okay, I will give you a go,' but they will not give him a go because he has been working at Gordonstone and has been active in supporting himself, his family and his fellow workmates.240622:00:002406Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I rise to speak about an industry of importance to this nation and an issue that concerns many Australians: the egg industry and its method of production. On 17 February in this chamber, Senator Ferris launched an outrageous attack on the RSPCA in relation to their campaign against battery egg farming and tried to suggest that that organisation was operating solely from a personal interest perspective rather than a concern about the welfare of the hens that were involved. I am sure this is an issue of great interest to you, Madam President, as a representative of the ACT, because in September 1997 the ACT Legislative Assembly passed legislation that would make it illegal to produce, sell or bring battery eggs into the ACT. This would have made the ACT only the second place in the world where battery cages are banned. The first was Switzerland in 1992. In January of this year, the European Parliament voted to phase out battery cages by 2009—perhaps, in part, inspired by the lead that the ACT had provided. In my own state of Queensland, barn-laid eggs—as opposed to free range—have only recently become available on supermarket shelves. These eggs, which are produced at Beerburrum just north of Brisbane, are being promoted by the RSPCA who quite openly promote the fact that they get two per cent of the sales income. I have spoken and written about this issue of the need to phase out battery cage eggs in recent times, because the recognition of animal welfare interests as part of primary food production is an important issue. This prompted a response from the egg industry. The head of the Australian Egg Industry Association, Mr Hugh McMaster, responded to an article I put in the Canberra Times on this issue, inviting me to examine modern egg industry production and suggesting that battery cage production is something that these days is much better than what it was in the bad old days. I should indicate to the Senate that I have inspected the operations of battery egg farms here in Canberra some three or four years ago. It was not as a result of an invitation, it was a matter of going and looking for myself a few years ago at what the conditions were like. I recall at that time, which was before I became a member of this chamber, the efforts of some of the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory, to try to indicate to the broader population the situation that was being faced by battery egg hens not only in Canberra itself but also around Australia.A number of people had gone into an establishment in Canberra and videotaped the situation that was faced there. They then provided that footage for the television news—as often occurs in these sorts of actions. The response from the egg industry at that time was to say that this was fake footage from Zimbabwe or some other far removed country which had far more barbaric practices than Australia had. Of course, this was not the case but, to prove their point, the same people went back in to film exactly the same footage. To demonstrate that they were not making it up, they chained themselves to the cages and invited police in to see them there chained to the cages.Being a balanced and responsible person, I did not chain myself to the cages that night; nonetheless, I did go in and have a look at the situation. On that particular occasion the reality and the accuracy of the footage that was provided were indisputable. It is a bit hard to dispute dead and decaying hens pulled out from cages, eggs laying on top of dead hens and hens outside their cages walking around starving in manure pits. When provided on videotape, I suppose those sorts of things can be described as gratuitous, deliberate attempts to provide individual and unrepresentative samples of the situations that birds face. But, having seen it myself, I can quite legitimately say it is not an isolated case. It is a regular occurrence.If any person were to witness what these birds endure, then they would agree that such a mechanism for trying to produce eggs is clearly inhumane and unacceptable. It is that basic principle that the ACT parliament was trying to address when they passed legislation to phase out this inhumane practice. Many organisations have campaigned against this practice for many years, and the RSPCA is just one of them.It is unfortunate, to put it mildly—disgraceful, to be rather more direct—that people such as Senator Ferris should suggest that those sorts of campaigns are motivated solely by financial gain, which is what she implied the RSPCA were motivated by in their campaign. She suggested that the whole code of practice in relation to the egg industry was supported by the RSPCA purely because they had participated in an investigation into the operation of the egg industry.It is those sorts of accusations—where anybody who tries to participate constructively in the development of any sort of code of practice or operation is automatically stapled and welded to the outcome of that investigation—that put people off trying to participate in such measures. There is no doubt at all that the RSPCA did not support and do not support that code of practice. They have had a longstanding policy against battery cage farming.The RSPCA simply tried to participate in a constructive manner to try to get the best outcome possible from what is an unacceptable practice from their point of view. To suggest that, by their attempt to participate constructively, they were endorsing the eventual outcome as something that met all appropriate animal welfare standards is an outrageous misrepresentation. It goes hand in hand with the even more outrageous suggestion that the only reason the RSPCA campaigns against battery egg production is that they get a very small royalty from barn-laid eggs.The outcome of the ACT parliament's attempt to phase out battery eggs was the need for that to be approved by all other state governments and the federal government because of the Commonwealth mutual recognition act which all states and territory and federal parliaments are signed on to. That requires the agreement of all governments for any exemption to be provided. The ACT legislation triggered a public benefit test which assesses whether the community benefit associated with the so-called restriction on competition outweighs the so-called costs.The test was undertaken by the Productivity Commission, which is a body better known for examining tariff impacts and measures such as that rather than assessing the animal welfare components of various industries. Despite that fact, the Productivity Commission's report, which runs to about 200 pages and is a comprehensive document on battery egg production and practices, found that a move away from the use of battery cage systems would lead to an improvement in hen welfare, particularly in the longer term.Most objective observers, particularly those who have been into battery egg farms and observed them in practice, would hardly need the Productivity Commission to tell them that that is the case. It is a significant finding that an economic body has managed to determine that fact. The report also found that the economic cost to the ACT community was fairly minimal and the amount that each resident would have to pay extra for non-battery produced eggs would be less than 50c per carton at this stage and that that would quickly become much less than that as it moved into more widespread production.The Democrats concern about this is that, despite the fact that the ACT parliament have passed this legislation, the Victorian and South Australian governments have indicated they are not willing to support the ability for the ACT parliament to determine their own affairs and they are more interested in listening to the broader concerns of the industry than recognising state and territory rights. (Time expired)240822:10:002408Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I rise to speak tonight in celebration of International Women's Day. When the Prince song 1999 was first released, my friends and I all calculated how old we would be in the year 2000 and speculated as to what we would be doing, where we would be living and how many kids we would have. It seems like yesterday and yet it was 15 years ago. The intervening years have taught us that the future does not just happen; we actually make it happen. We shape it through our actions, our decisions, conscious or unconscious. This ultimately determines not only our lives and our experiences but also those of our children.Whether it is female intuition or a lifetime's experience of doing a hundred things at once, whatever the reasons, so many young women at the doorstep of the new millennium are feeling like they just got home. For 21st century women, the future is our comfort zone. I attribute my own optimism to an esoteric combination of having an interest in technology, being committed to exploring cyberspace and being thoroughly intrigued by the phenomenon that is Lara Croft. It is now 1999, a year of transition in which we find ourselves on the cusp of passing the generational baton. I have always felt that I have ridden the crest of the feminist wave, and I have spoken about this in this place previously. The realm of new opportunities open to women of my generation has been created by the activities of women from a previous generation. I would like to acknowledge them in this place this evening.Just over the horizon is the year 2000 and it is presenting a new set of challenges in a completely new environment. Reaching the year 2000 is having a far greater impact on the way many people perceive the world and how they live their lives, far more so than I would have ever anticipated. It is forcing contemplation of the future in the context of the past. I keep asking myself: how can we, society in general and women specifically, do things a little better?Whilst many older feminists may in fact believe that they are passing the baton to an unworthy generation, the reality is that today's young women are determined and focused. We do see what the past has brought us through the struggles of women previously. Regardless of how feminism defines itself in the 21st century, women will continue to make positive assumptions about their status in society and make life choices accordingly. The gains that women have already made in terms of gender equity will be challenged and transformed by the changing technological landscape. Those challenges will continue into the future as we have experienced them in the past.The new millennium is more than just a date; it signifies a turning point in human history. The pressure is on this generation to find new ways of approaching the problems that plague our society. On the other hand, frustration is growing as things seem to be getting worse, not better. For example, the politics of globalisation represent not one single challenge but the context in which all decisions of government must be made. The greatest weakness we have is to confront these challenges with conservatism and linear, not lateral, thinking. What Australia needs is a vision, one that positions jobs, security and confidence as tangible expressions of our vision for social justice.As we are part of a globalised society, this vision must be part of a world view that promotes global social equity. This may sound like lofty idealism; however, like many women I speak with, I do not empathise with the art of political understatement or seek refuge in economic-speak. Many women have a deep and compassionate attitude about what happens next and are ready and able to articulate a philosophical position on a range of social and economic issues. I believe that this will provide the motivation required for dynamic and progressive change.The strength and number of women engaged in world peace, environmental and social equity movements are an indication of the depth of this motivation. Young women in particular are finding a profound level of personal satisfaction by involving themselves in focused causes. Such commitments usually outweigh the downside that comes from adding extra activities to already jam-packed time-critical lifestyles.I have been asserting for some time that the Internet is facilitating a new level of global political activism. It is empowering a whole generation of young people, and women, in ways that mean little to the `unconnected' but represent a new way of life for those who embrace it. The recent Heywire initiative, an ABC sponsored radio mouthpiece for rural youth, highlighted to me the power and value in providing young people with a voice through our communications infrastructure—and I was truly inspired.The Internet is one of the most inspiring advances on the technological front, not just because of its technical feats or even its central position amidst converging media but for its potential to empower global movements for progressive change. The Internet is resetting power relationships. It is a global electronic medium that will be a circuit-breaker for the frustration and cynicism felt by so many young people. It is a generational mouthpiece. For many women the Internet's chaotic overload of information and worldly scope presents not an intimidating technical mass but a glorious opportunity for us to put our intuitive lateral approach to life to work and good use.In the past, new technologies have tended to be both fortress and playground for men; the Internet is different. Statistically, men and women are using it in almost equal numbers. This is not surprising in some respects, given that many women—in fact, more women than men—have the skills to access the technology.However, equity of access continues to be a dream, and the high cost of computers and connections is keeping many people `locked out'. Outside of metropolitan areas, exorbitant connection costs and low bandwidth resulting in low quality service present a real barrier to many who seek to use the Internet, despite the fact that connectivity is clearly the key to creating regional employment opportunities and economic growth. It is for this reason alone that the level of access to the Internet for women in 1998 stood at only 21 per cent.There is no doubt that the issue of access, and equity of access, to the Internet is one of the primary social policy challenges of the next century. Not to address this in a forthright and confronting way will be to produce a society of information haves and have-nots, with the resultant economic and social division that will entrench itself.The ascendancy of the Internet also marks a turning point for modern society, a tangible generational change. We see many baby boomers reaching retirement age and decision making in our society is no longer the domain of, or indeed captive to, old guard misogynists. Young women have the opportunity now more than ever to map out the goals and objectives that they believe are worth fighting for. With growing numbers being represented in this place, and with the support of infrastructure and the society within which they are placed, women stand to lead this nation in an ever-increasing range of endeavours.The Internet gives young leaders the opportunity to bypass the conservative establishment's pre-determined channels of communication. It will give a voice to youth culture, human rights activists and environmentalists the world over. It allows global movements to work cooperatively at a local level like never before. The turn of the millennium is therefore an opportunity to skip ahead in the attitude stakes and relegate sexism and misogyny to a 20th century `what's out' list.241022:19:002410Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—It is a great pleasure to follow on from Senator Lundy's speech commemorating, among other things, International Women's Day. I also rise to speak on the issue of IWD.The idea for a national women's day came about at the turn of the last century when, in accordance with a declaration by the Socialist Party of America, the first National Women's Day was observed in the United States on 28 February 1909. The following year the Socialist International meeting in Copenhagen, a conference of more than 100 women from 17 countries, established a women's day—to be celebrated across the world—to honour the women's movement and to assist in the campaign for universal suffrage. This day was celebrated for the first time on 19 March in Austria, Germany, Denmark and Switzerland when more than one million men and women attended rallies demanding the right for women to vote, to be able to hold public office, to participate in education and training and to work free from discrimination.While the idea of a day of commemoration of the women's movement is only around 100 years old, the origins of the struggle of women for equality are ancient—yet they are as relevant today as they were, some would say, centuries ago. The women's movement can be traced back many centuries; indeed, we could go back as far as classical Greece where Lysistrata initiated a sexual strike against men to end war—and those in the chamber who are aware of their classical studies would know that story only too well.Today women around the world campaign for social justice and to bring about an end to discrimination. They do that through varying ways and techniques—and Senator Lundy has just mapped out a very present, but also future, way of achieving change through an increasingly democratic medium, that of the Internet.Tonight, if I get time, obviously I will touch on women's participation in a range of areas and sectors and professions. But I would begin by looking at women in the political arena, women in leadership positions. We have yet to assume our fair share of leadership roles in this country, but that is not to say we have not had a number of female pioneers.The first women to stand for election in the country was Catherine Helen Spence, from my home state of South Australia. She ran for the National Australasian Convention prior to the turn of the century and came 22nd in a candidate field of 33. She was not elected in 1897, but a century on I think she remains an inspiration on state, national and international levels. More than 100 years on from Catherine Helen Spence's electoral defeat, women comprise only 21.4 per cent—that is around one in five—of members of the parliament. This is one of our best results yet, so we have still got a way to go.In almost 100 years we have seen 25 men in the position of Prime Minister; not one woman has attained that position yet. The laws of probability are stacked against this result, but the laws of patriarchy have weighed the balance strongly in its favour. One could assume from this statistic that politics is either not very scientific or is not a good bet for Australian women. In truth, it is neither at present. However, Australian politics are still a far better bet for Australian women than for many of our international sisters. While there is certainly a great deal of improvement needed in our country, our representative levels are something like double the international average when it comes to women's participation. Indeed, Australia has some reasons to be proud of our her story of political women and our role in the journey towards political equality.In politics and in public policy, Australia has often led the way. While many would be aware that Australia led the way in the fight for women's suffrage, when in 1894 South Australia became one of the first places in the entire world to grant women not only the right to vote but also the right to stand for parliament, I imagine some people would share my surprise in noting that the word `femocrat', like the Hills Hoist, is also an Australian invention. In the parliamentary web site, I note that there is reference to the fathers of the house. Tonight I would like to pay tribute to some of the mothers of the house. These are women who have achieved significant firsts in our parliamentary herstory, and they include the Hon. Joan Child, who became the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives in 1986. Madam President, I pay due deference to you, the first female President of the Senate. You join Senator Sue West in an all female leadership team.I am particularly proud that in 1986 the Australian Democrats led the way with the election of Senator Janine Haines as the first woman to lead an Australian parliamentary party, an achievement reflected three years later in the states and territories when Rosemary Follett from the ACT became the first female to head a government, an achievement followed by the Hon. Joan Kirner in Victoria and Carmen Lawrence in WA in 1990. In the law, women have made other achievements. In 1987 Mary Gaudron became the first woman to be appointed to the High Court of Australia.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—What about the achievements of Dame Enid Lyons or Annabelle Rankin?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I hope dearly that Senator Macdonald will take on this theme because, as he so rightly interjects, there are many women all over on different sides of politics who have been—YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—But apart from the President you did not mention one from the non-socialist side.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—For the information of the house, I was talking about the first women in those positions. I am sure that Senator Macdonald does not mean to impute those particular women or their party status in any way. We have mentioned a number of women from different political parties. I hope that he does not seek to reflect in any negative or partisan way on tonight's celebration of International Women's Day. In 1990 Deidre O'Connor became the first female Federal Court judge and president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In 1991 the Law Institute of Australia appointed Gail Owen as the first president in its 132-year history.As a passionate republican, many of whom are in this chamber tonight, I believe we have a great opportunity to right some of the wrongs in errors of our past through that particular discourse. Unlike the women of this nation, denied the opportunity to participate in the Federation and constitutional debates some 100 years before, last year I and other women were proud to take our places as delegates at the Constitutional Convention alongside women like Lowitja O'Donoghue, Poppy King, Janet Holmes a Court, Misha Schubert, Mia Handshin, Nova Peris-Kneebone and Heidi Zwar. A number of younger and older and certainly diverse Australians were represented at the Constitutional Convention.These women were all compelling advocates for an Australian republic. Heidi Zwar was not a republican, but I think she deserves acknowledgment as a young woman being involved. They were all in favour of a new era of liberty, egality and fraternity but also sorority. The choice of a woman as the first head of state is something that I personally think would symbolise our move into the next century as a nation committed to equality between sexes. It is appropriate that we progress from the system of a monarchy, a system which is essentially patriarchal, and embrace the system where it does not matter whether a person is male or female to be a head of state—that is, a republic. Gender equality must be placed at the top of the agenda if we are to capture our full potential as a nation.Politics and law are not the only places where women do not always get a fair go. Despite their prowess and success in the sporting arena, women are not treated equally to their male colleagues in that particular area of Australian life. In 1990, women's sports coverage in Australian newspapers stood at an abysmal two per cent. Between 1980 and 1996, this figure increased by 500 per cent, with women's sports attracting 10.7 per cent of newspapers' coverage. In the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, the proportion of medals won by female athletes was 44 per cent higher than their representation in the Australian team. I look forward to more balanced coverage in the 2000 Olympics.In education, one of the most important tools for preparing girls and women, despite the gains of women participating in undergraduate and prior levels of education, they are still under-represented in higher and further education. Women are participating in undergraduate education in greater numbers than men, but then their participation drops off quite dramatically in postgraduate study, in particular in those courses that attract up-front fees.In employment, there is still a lower status, prestige and pay attached to women's work, although equal pay for equal work was granted by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in 1972. Despite that, women's earnings are still 84 per cent of men's full-time earnings. While we celebrate many gains tonight and today, and indeed as we progress to the next century, there are still some struggles, some battles, some campaigns left to be fought and resolved. I hope that all legislators, those currently serving and aspiring politicians, will take on board working for social justice and equality for women as part of their goals.241222:29:002412Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—There is no doubt that International Women's Day has provided the inspiration for many speeches during the day and in the Senate tonight. In the brief time that one has in an adjournment speech, it is wonderful to see the record of so many prominent Australian women mentioned.It is difficult to fit them all in, but who could seriously overlook the extraordinary achievement of Dame Margaret Guilfoyle who, of course, was the first ever woman cabinet minister. That is a pretty significant achievement. We have not yet had a female Prime Minister, but we on our side of the record are very proud of the fact that we have produced not only the first woman cabinet minister but also such an outstanding one. When you look at achievements in the judiciary, who could overlook the extraordinary achievements of Dame Roma Mitchell, who was the first woman appointed to any Supreme Court in Australia and who served her state and her country with such distinction and continues to do so. I just thought it fair to mention the fact that both sides of the record can produce outstanding women.International Women's Day is a very important day both for men and for women and was celebrated almost a century ago, as Senator Stott Despoja mentioned. It is embraced by millions of women from all races, all walks of life and all political parties. It recognises and highlights the achievements of women in their struggle for equality, social justice and freedom, and its message proliferates further and with more resonance every year. It is as much a celebration of the past as it is for the future.It is a rare opportunity that we get to really compliment all women in parliament. I want to commend the work and dedication of all the women in the Australian parliament. Women in politics, like women in all spheres of Australian life, face a raft of challenges and impediments and often have to perform at quite extraordinary levels to achieve what may seem unexceptional outcomes. The women of the Australian parliament, both past and present, should be proud of their achievements. Hopefully through our work we are able to encourage other women to enter political life, because our nation needs a parliament that is truly representative of Australian society—and we are not there yet.Over the last week, women across Australia and across the world have been gearing up for International Women's Day in a number of ways, and I have been privileged enough to have been involved in some of these celebrations. I want to mention an important Australian initiative launched last Monday by the Australian Business Women's Network, Women's Business Week, which celebrates the success stories of 50 Australian business women from all over Australia and from a diversity of backgrounds.Women's Business Week and the Business Women's Hall of Fame celebrate women's progress in the traditionally male dominated world of business, and there are some quite extraordinary stories. The Hall of Fame honours 50 inductees who have shown outstanding vision and drive and who have made opportunities for themselves as women where often opportunities did not exist. For many of them, it has been a hard slog, a fight to the top and a fight for recognition, and they have had to fight in a way that makes their achievements all the more remarkable.Today I want not only to acknowledge, celebrate and salute the work of Australian women and the significance and importance of International Women's Day but also to comment on some of the more significant coalition achievements in this area where the government has been unjustly criticised. Over the last three years, the government has begun to comprehensively address the role women should be playing not only in society as a whole but also in parliament and in our governmental structures. Although significant progress has been made, it is important to note that there is still a great need on both sides of politics and from all sectors of the community to recognise and embrace the potential talent that women can offer Australia.It is fair to say that, for too many years, both business and politics in particular have missed out on the potential talent of some 52 per cent of the population and are in need of a truly gender balanced work force. Why is it that women still comprise only 7.6 per cent of private sector boards, 9.7 per cent of non-executive directors and 1.3 per cent of executive directors? Why is the female participation rate in the Australian parliament still only 25.4 per cent when the United Nations has set 30 per cent as the benchmark for meaningful participation in a country's parliament?These statistics, while they are encouraging, do paint a bit of a dismal picture when political equity has been recognised for a century. Is the principle of political equity rhetoric or reality? What is being done to close the all too obvious gender gap? Is Germaine Greer—love her or loathe her—correct in her assertion that the rhetoric of equality is being used in the name of political correctness to mask the hammering that some women are taking?All these questions are still valid as we approach the new millennium—and, yes, I do think there are some answers. Women still face an uphill battle to attain true equality and true representation, and women still face fundamental conflicts—the balancing of work and family is still something that besets most women—that need to be adequately addressed if true equality is to be realised. However, the coalition must be commended for recognising this and working to resolve the all too prevalent gaps. The government has worked hard to identify and address the problems and issues faced by women and continues to remain committed to resolving them practically, sensibly and with energy and vigour.I think it is encouraging to see that women now comprise one-third of small business operators and farm managers, and this number is increasing at a much faster rate than men. Women are also the winners in the coalition's tax package, with a proposal to extend the family tax initiative. This will increase the tax-free threshold for families and is worth an extra $490 a year to single income families—many of whom, of course, are women—with one child under five. Families with two working parents and one child under five will receive benefits worth an extra $140 a year.The coalition's pledge to inject $25.3 million into domestic violence prevention strategies is a huge leap forward in recognition of this pervasive problem and will provide a lifeline to those women trapped in violent relationships, particularly those in isolated rural situations.But I think, as indicated by the Prime Minister in question time today, that the coalition's greatest achievement and most significant step forward for women has been in the economy. We have got the economy humming like a well-tuned engine and this can be nothing but beneficial to all Australian women. The coalition has delivered lower interest rates and ensured that Australians now have more disposable income and thereby more choice. And if women are to achieve real and true equality then they must have choice. The coalition, through good economic management, has been able to provide many women with a range of choices that have not been available to them before.Australian businesses also need to be not only encouraged but also commended for the way in which they have taken up affirmative action programs. It has not always been easy for businesses to see the value of promoting women within their organisations and a lot of credit for that is due to the brilliant and inspired directorship of Catherine Harris of the Affirmative Action Agency, who finished her term a week or so ago. Her practical commonsense and down-to-earth attitude really did promote the cause of women in many businesses.Participation of women in the labour force has increased steadily but, despite equal pay decisions dating back to 1969, women still have not achieved real earning parity and the progress of women into management positions has been relatively slow. This is not acceptable, and we must admit that we have to do better. I can only agree with the United Nations that no enduring solution to society's most threatening problems can take place without the full empowerment of the world's women.On this very special commemorative evening, I want to conclude my remarks by saluting the women of Australia—not only women in parliament, but the women of Australia. As some speakers have said tonight, together we are forging the Australia of the future, and I believe there is every reason to be proud.241422:39:002414Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—The history of International Women's Day dates back to 1910 internationally and to 1928 in Australia, but socialist women in the United States organised the first national women's day in 1908 and helped to inspire the international event. This day has traditionally been seen as a time for asserting women's political and social rights, for reviewing the progress that women have made or, as a day of celebration. Tonight I would like to take this opportunity to talk about pioneer women in Australia and a little place in Alice Springs that is seeking to ensure that these women hold a place in our history and are not forgotten.A pioneer woman is considered to be any woman who was a pioneer in her chosen field, referring not only to the traditional meaning of the word as colonist, explorer or settler in a new land, but to anyone who is an innovator or developer of something new, who has striven to make a new path in their chosen career. We have heard many examples of that tonight. This means we should commemorate not only those women who were the early settlers in Australia and who battled considerable hardships but also those who have attained pioneering achievements and who have been the first in their field.The National Pioneer Women's Hall of Fame was established in Alice Springs in 1993. It is a museum of national importance that is not only unique in Australia, but unique in the world. This national project is dedicated to preserving women's place in history and their contribution to Australia's heritage. Only two similar women's museums exist in Australia. The Pioneer Women's Memorial Folk Museum near Brisbane and the pioneer women's hut at Tumbarumba in New South Wales, although both of these are more of a local or regional nature.Why a national pioneer women's hall of fame and why in Alice Springs? Molly Clarke, a feisty central Australian pastoralist, was bitterly disappointed when she visited the Stockman's Hall of Fame to find that very few women pioneers were celebrated in this hall of fame. This lack of women being represented led to a public meeting being called in February only five years ago in 1993 to gain some interest in developing this hall of fame. It became an incorporated organisation or association in April 1993 and was launched at Molly's home at Oldandado Homestead, just 330 kilometres south-east of Alice Springs. A committee of 10 to 15 local people meet once a month to run the organisation and the hall of fame only remains open to the public through the efforts of volunteers.In March 1994 the Museum of Art and Galleries of the Northern Territory leased the old courthouse to the organisation for five years. Finance to keep this project going has stemmed from membership fees, fund raising, donations or the sale of merchandise and the occasional grants from local council, the Northern Territory government and the National Preservation Office. In July 1996 the courthouse was closed for renovations and was re-opened on International Women's Day in 1997.With its first professionally designed exhibition titled `Ordinary women, extraordinary lives, women first in their field'. This project was funded by a Northern Territory heritage grant. It displays 100 photographs and stories of pioneering women and houses a collection of historic women's work tools. It features women who were pioneers in over a dozen largely male dominated professions—academia, medicine, law, veterinary science, architecture, public service, politics at all levels, telecommunications, the film industry, aviation, the arts, the church and sport. Such an exhibition has never been compiled before in Australia and aims to inform, inspire and generally heighten the status of women.Some of those women whose achievements are on display in the National Pioneer Women's Hall of Fame in Alice Springs include: Constance Stone, Australia's first female registered medical practitioner who was refused entry to Melbourne University in 1884 and trained overseas; Florence Taylor who qualified in 1907 as Australia's first woman architect and had to wait 13 years before being permitted membership of the New South Wales Institute of Architects; Australia's first female Olympiads, Fanny Durack and Minnie Wylie, who were forced to pay their own way to Stockholm to compete in the 1912 games; Deborah Wardley the first woman to fly for a major airline; Rosie Cannuth Monks the first Aboriginal female star who, of course, played the role in Australia's first feature length film Jeda; Edith Cowan the first woman member of any Australian parliament; and Peg Christian the first veterinary surgeon to establish a private small animal practice in the Northern Territory.The courthouse continues to be manned by over 50 volunteers who sit for four hours daily so the general public can enjoy the National Pioneer Women's Hall of Fame. The NT Regional Museum has provided funding for their first salaried curator from October 1997 to June of last year. The organisation aims to have their own purpose-built museum and research centre in Alice Springs and are currently conducting a buy a brick campaign for the building fund to be established.So why am I taking the trouble to raise this on International Women's Day? Mainly because we know that the Shearer's Hall of Fame in New South Wales recently received $6 million from the federal government and the Axeman's Hall of Fame in Tasmania has had similar support. Of course, we all know, as I have mentioned, about the Stockman's Hall of Fame in Longreach and their bicentennial funding. So I ask the federal government this question: isn't it time we commemorated the women who have contributed to the development of Australia? Isn't it time, after five years, that we recognised the commitment of these people and mainly women in Alice Springs in establishing the National Pioneer Women's Hall of Fame? I call on the government on International Women's Day to recognise this museum and this monument and to fund it as much as they do the Shearer's Hall of Fame, the Axeman's Hall of Fame and the Stockman's Hall of Fame.The National Pioneer Women's Hall of Fame aims to inform, inspire and heighten the status of women in Australia. It is time that they were funded by the federal government. They commemorate women throughout Australia who were pioneers in their chosen field and collectively act to gather their stories, photographs and related artefacts. It is a new museum and a monument that we should be proud of. It is a museum and a hall of fame which does promote what ordinary women have done in Australia and how extraordinary their lives have contributed to the development of our country. So I say to the federal government: it is time that we commemorated the women who have contributed to the development of Australia and it is time that the federal government provided this group with the funds they need to continue to National Pioneer Women's Hall of Fame in Alice Springs.241622:47:002416Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I rise very briefly to join my colleague Senator Coonan in recognising the great contribution women have made to public life in Australia. Perhaps I will start with you, Madam President, and your achievement, what you have done, as a senator for this territory but perhaps more importantly in your role as President of the Senate. I listened with interest to Senator Stott Despoja, who rattled off a list of prominent women. Apart from you, I do not think any of them were from anything but the left side of politics. I just wanted to mention Dame Enid Lyons, the first female federal MP and minister, and Senator the Hon. Dame Annabelle Rankin, who was the first minister federally in charge of a department and was also I am told the first female head of mission for the Australian diplomatic service.Who could talk about the contribution women have made without recognising the vibrant and very able current Chief Minister of this territory, a person with whom I have the pleasure and honour to deal in my role as minister for the territories. Of course I am very proud of Joan Sheldon, who was the first female leader of a political party in the Queensland state parliament. Who could forget the magnificent contribution that my friend Sallyanne Atkinson made to public life as mayor of perhaps Australia's largest—in area at least—city. I was surprised that Senator Stott Despoja had forgotten the contribution Sallyanne Atkinson had made.In my role as minister for local government I come in contact very often with a great number of very committed Australians who happen to be women but who are also mayors of their communities. I recognise the head of the Northern Territory Local Government Association is a female. There are very significant mayors like Liz Cunningham in Queensland, who was the Mayor of Calliope, and Anne Portess, who is the Mayor of Herberton. I should not do this, because there are literally dozens and dozens of female mayors right throughout Australia and, by mentioning some, you obviously leave out others. But some that immediately spring to mind are the mayors of Broadsound, Beaudesert and Longreach in my state. There is also Mayor Joy Baluch from South Australia, who I have had some very interesting meetings with and who is a very significant and interesting person in her own right.I also, not in recent times but in previous years, have been impressed by the number of women leaders—chairmen, mayors, presidents—of some of the community councils in Cape York who, under very difficult circumstances, have done magnificent work. Madam President, they, like you, have all made a major contribution to public life in Australia which is very much worth recognising today.22:51:002417Senate adjourned at 10.51 p.m.Documents24172417The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposal No. 3 of 1999.Broadcasting Services Act—Broadcasting Services (Events) Notice No. 1 of 1994 (Amendment No. 1 of 1999).Cattle Transactions Levy Act, Live-stock Transactions Levy Act and Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 23.Child Care Payments Act—Vaccination Schedules Amendment Guidelines (No. 1) 1999.Childcare Rebate Act—Childcare Rebate (Specified Persons) Amendment Determination 1998 (No. 1).Christmas Island Act—Exemption order under section 6 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) (CI) , dated 20 February 1999.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders— Directive—Part— 105, dated 28 January 1999 [5]; and 8 [9], 10 [7] and 12 [20] February 1999. 106, dated 28 January and 1 February 1999. 107, dated 12 February 1999. Exemption No. CASA 4/1999. Instrument Nos CASA 38/99 and CASA 48/99. Currency Act—Currency Determination 1999 (No. 1).Defence Act— Defence Determination 1999/6. Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—Determinations Nos 4 and 5 of 1999. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 27.Export Control Act—Export Control (Processed Food) Amendment Orders 1999 (No. 1).Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 21.Extradition Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 32.Federal Court of Australia Act—Rules of Court—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 15.Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 30.Fisheries Management Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 22. Health Insurance Act— Health Insurance Determination HS/1/1999. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 16, 17 and 19.Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 — Income Tax (Farm Management Deposits—Deduction Exemption Certificates) Guidelines 1999. RHQ Company Determination 1999 (No. 1).Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act—Approval of form of identity card, dated 11 February 1999.Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 33.National Health Act— Determinations under Schedule 1—IHS 2/1999 and IHS 3/1999. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 18.National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act and Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 24.Navigation Act—Marine Orders—Marine Order No. 6 of 1999.Pasture Seed Levy Act—Pasture Seed Levy Declaration 1999 (No. 1).Payment Systems and Netting Act—Approvals under section 9, dated 19 February 1999 [2] (in substitution for documents previously tabled on 10 November 1998 ).Privacy Act—Public Interest Determination No. 7A—PID 7A (Amendment to Public Interest Determination No. 7).Product Rulings PR 1999/7 and PR 1999/8.Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 25.Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 26.Public Service Act— Attorney-General's Department Determination 1999/1. Public Service (Australian Agency for International Development) Determination 1999/1. Public Service (Defence) Determination 1999/3. Senior Executive Service Retirement on Benefit Determinations 1999/8-1999/12.Sales Tax Determination STD 1999/1.Superannuation Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 29.Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 31.Telecommunications Act— Carrier Licence Conditions (Telstra Corporation Limited) Declaration 1997 (Amendment No. 1 of 1999). Telecommunications Labelling (Customer Equipment and Customer Cabling) Notice No. 2 of 1997 Amendment Notice 1998 (No. 2). Telecommunications (Provision of Pre-selection for a Standard Telephone Service) Determination 1998. Telecommunications (Provision of Pre-selection for Specified Carriage Services) Determination 1998. Telecommunications Technical Standard (CDMA Customer Equipment—ACA TS 200-1998). Telecommunications Technical Standard (Customer Equipment and Customer Cabling)—ACA TS 102-1998.Veterans' Entitlements Act— Instruments under section 196B—Instruments Nos 21-32 of 1999. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 34.Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 28.Answers to Questions on Notice2419The following answers to questions were circulated:2419(Question No. 15)152419Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BartlettDT6QLDAD00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 2 November 1998:(1) (a) Will a health survey be conducted of former British Commonwealth Occupation Force (BCOF) veterans; if so, when will the survey commence; (b) has any representation been received from organisations representing BCOF veterans or from individuals requesting such a study be undertaken; and (c) will there be a review of the health status of personnel who participated in the Chemical Warfare Research and Experimental Unit's 1944 `Mustard Gas' north Queensland trials.(2) Will a review be conducted of the position of those widows who are denied a war widows pension due to having remarried prior to 28 May 1984; if so, when will that review be conducted and what issues will it be considering.(3) Have concerns been raised in the past 12 months relating to the operation of the department's office in Brisbane; if so, what were those concerns and what progress has been made to address them.2419Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) No. There are no plans to carry out a health survey of BCOF veterans. My Department has, however, carried out research of a small number of veterans who were in Nagasaki on the day that the plutonium implosion bomb (known as "Fat Man") was exploded over Nagasaki. In August of 1945, unbeknown to allied forces, there were a number of Prisoners of War in and around the city of Nagasaki, including 27 Australians. Beginning in 1974, Professor P L T Ilbery, an expert in the field of the health effects of radiation, was commissioned by my Department to study the surviving veterans for evidence of radiation damage. By this stage, several had died, and only 21 were available for study. Of these, the research team regarded four as being not the subject of radiation, with 17 receiving some dose of ionising radiation. Of these, three were demonstrated to have chromosomal aberrations indicating radiation damage. The result of this research was published in the Journal of Radiation Research, Vol 18, pages 132-8, in 1977, in an article written by Professor Ilbery, writing with C A K Chee.My Department has monitored the death rate of these 27 veterans. Sadly, 21 of them have now died, with five known to be still alive, with the status of one veteran being unknown. These veterans appear to be dying of diseases that are common in our society, although the small number restricts the ability to observe increases in death from some causes associated with radiation, such as leukaemia. By the time that the last of these veterans dies, my Department has calculated that their average life span will have been at least 70 years of age, which is not noticeably different to the Australian male population born prior to 1920. Given that this group of Prisoners of War has not shown marked health effects, there appears limited benefit in studying BCOF veterans.I might add that this matter has been extensively reviewed by the Repatriation Medical Authority (RMA). This body of experts has concluded that the effects on human health from radiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were restricted to those who were at the bomb sites within seven days of the actual explosion. The earliest Australian BCOF troops did not enter the area until February of 1946, by which time the best scientific advice is that the levels of radiation had returned to essentially background levels.(b) Yes. Numerous representations have been received from individuals and organisations representing BCOF veterans requesting such a study.(c) No. The health status of personnel who participated in the mustard gas trials in North Queensland during 1944 is not being directly examined, and there is no immediate intention to undertake such a study. My Department regularly reviews the literature associated with mustard gas. A broad range of conditions, such as lung and throat cancers, are already accepted as possibly due to exposure to mustard gas. Due to this recognition, claims for compensation for these conditions have been accepted by the Repatriation Commission since 1945.(2) The situation of widows who remarried prior to 1984 is well known to the veteran community. Any decision to vary the existing arrangements would be made by the Government in a Budget context. (3) No. The only general "concern" that the Queensland State Office of my Department is aware of in the past 12 months has been the motion raised at the State Congress of the Returned & Services League in August 1998. The motion which was moved by Rockhampton Sub-Branch read:"That the Federal Government is asked to explain what reductions have taken place in staffing in the Department of Veterans' Affairs since it took office."The motion was lost on the floor of the Congress.Since 1996, there have been a number of important changes in the way the Queensland State Office of my Department delivers services. The Health Insurance Commission is now responsible for the payment of treatment accounts. Information technology and voice services have been contracted to IBM Global Services Australia. The Defence Service Homes subsidy function has been consolidated in Victoria. Single Point of Contact processing has been introduced in the income support areas so that veterans and their spouses deal with just one person for all changes that affect their pension.Staffing reductions have not affected the collective performance of the Queensland State Office of my Department against the national performance targets of the Corporate Plan. In fact, performance outcomes are particularly sound and in some areas are ahead of the national figures. This has been achieved by the development of better and more efficient levels of service for veterans and war widows.The Veterans' Affairs Network (VAN) has been expanded throughout regional Queensland with offices opened in Maroochydore (August 1997) and Toowoomba (April 1998). In addition, contracts for agents in Rockhampton, Emerald and Roma to deliver services on behalf of my Department have been let and business commenced on 4 May 1998. In addition, my Department is training agents under the Queensland Government Agents Program (QGAP) with a view to delivering services to the veteran community through another 50 sites in rural and remote areas of Queensland. Training QGAP agents has continued at every opportunity pending the completion of formal arrangements with the 50 sites throughout Queensland.2420(Question No. 24)242420Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BartlettDT6QLDAD00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1107 (Hansard , 13 May 1998, p.2786) which stated that the Area by Area employment declaration form (EDF) best practice examinations identified a total of some 517 cancellations as having been inappropriately recorded:(1) What is the total number of cases examined in the Area by Area EDF best practice survey.(2) What percentage of all cases examined as part of the Area by Area best practice examinations were identified as incorrectly recorded.(3) What was the nature of misrecording of review activities identified in the Area by Area EDF best practice examinations.(4) Can a breakdown be provided of the 517 cancellations inappropriately recorded in the Area by Area EDF best practice examinations, detailing how each of these cases was recorded and how each should have been recorded.(5) Have Area by Area best practice examinations been undertaken for any other review activities other than EDF; if so, what were the findings of any such activities.(6) What percentage of the recording of cancellations of any such review activities was found to be incorrect.(7) What was the total number of cases examined in any such review activities.(8) What was the total number of cases found to be recorded incorrectly for any such review activities.2420Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The 517 cancellations identified in the answer (No 1107) of 13 May 1998 were part of a review of 5,679 EDF matches re-examined in the Area by Area best practice reviews. (2) and (3) The primary intention of the Area By Area reviews was to identify where best practices were being followed by the different Customer Service Centres (CSCs) conducting EDF reviews, rather than a traditional audit. This being the case, the application of a broad `incorrectly recorded' outcome measure is not appropriate as the findings of the individual surveys are, to a degree, subjective. The general nature of the suggested procedural and recording shortcomings identified by the surveys is consistent with the breakdown outlined below in the answer to Question (4). Statistically valid national outcomes cannot be drawn from the aggregation below of the individual results of the various Area by Area best practice surveys.(4) A breakdown of the previously identified 517 cancellation cases is as follows: 58 Customer surrendered benefit greater than one month after EDF review contact letter was sent out. 101 Customer failed to lodge benefit continuation form (SU19) after EDF selection but prior to review contact letter being sent out. 60 Cancellation more appropriately linked to some non-income related event (eg. marriage or death of customer). 7 Customer failed to lodge cyclic review after EDF selection but prior to EDF review letter being sent out. 12 Customer previously advised of return to work. 36 Cancellation more appropriately attributed to a review category other than EDF. 27 Payment previously identified as suspended pending cancellation.156 Customer surrendered benefit payment after EDF selection, but prior to review contact letter being sent out. 10 Documentation on system insufficient to verify result. 9 Customer advised full-time study resumed. 3 Payment reduced rather than cancelled. 5 Customer transferred interstate. 12 Incorrect interpretation of policy. 8 Customer transferred to another payment type. 12 Breach penalty imposed rather than cancelled. 1 Incorrect cancellation code used.517While all of the above cases were originally recorded as cancellations linked to EDF match selections, the best practice reviews proposed to the various Area offices amendments to their CSCs records to ensure that the resultant cancellations and reductions were attributed to the most appropriate initiating causes. Where these proposed amendments were accepted by the Area administrations, the review results were amended and staff advised of the correct procedures to be followed in the future. That said, it should be noted that, while in the context of the EDF best practice surveys the above results were deemed to be inappropriately recorded, the cancellation of the payment to the customer remains quite valid.To clarify this, the issue is how results have been recorded on the National Selective Review System (NSRS), not on the payment systems ie. there is no suggestion that any incorrect adverse action has been taken against customers as a result of the EDF review activity. What is at issue essentially is whether cancellations which actually occurred have been claimed to be the result of an EDF review when they were not, and whether cancellations have been claimed on NSRS when the decision on the customer's payment was actually, for example, a rate reduction or a transfer to another payment.(5), (6), (7) and (8) Area by Area best practice examinations have not been undertaken in respect of any review activities other than for EDF.2421(Question No. 152)1522421Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Does the Minister's office currently hold share registry information in relation to Telstra Corporation.(2) From where and on what basis was the information provided to your office.(3) Was the information used by Coalition staff members to ascertain shareholdings at the time of the float.(4) Have results of this research been made available to the Prime Minister's office.2421Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) A copy of the share registry information was obtained shortly after the float in November 1997.(2) The information, which is available to any member of the public, was obtained from the Share Registrar.(3) It was obtained to provide sufficient information in relation to enquiries regarding the allocation process. OASITO also obtained this information for the same purpose.(4) Not as far as I am aware.2421(Question No. 166)1662421Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja3I6SAAD00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 18 November 1998:(1) What savings were achieved by the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act 1990 scheme between the commencement of the Act and 11 November 1998.(2) What proportion of this saving was from: (a) fraud; (b) overpayments, which were not fraudulent; and (c) other reasons (please specify). (3) What savings have been achieved in the past 2 years, as set out in the second reading speech to the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Amendment Bill 1998.(4) What other fraud control mechanisms are in place within the department.(5) How many misuses of tax file numbers have occurred.(6) What savings have been achieved by the Australian Taxation Office from tax fraud between the commencement of the scheme and 11 November 1998.(7) With respect to the claims made in the second reading speech to the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Amendment Bill 1998 of future savings of $560 million, what proportion of this saving will be from; (a) fraud; (b) overpayments, which are not fraudulent; and (c) other reasons (please specify).(8) What are the Government's projected savings from tax fraud over the same period as set out in part (7) of the question.(9) Will tax file numbers be provided to any person as part of an outsourcing agreement.(10) Will tax file numbers be provided to any other person outside the Government and the Commonwealth.2422Newman, 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) It is not possible to provide data to 11 November 1998. However, the savings achieved by the Data matching Program from commencement of operations in April 1991 to 30 October 1998 are $919.3 million.(2) (a) It is not possible to identify what proportion of Data-matching Program savings was as a result of detecting fraud. There were, however, 1,083 successful prosecutions with a debt value of $12.3 million, as a result of the Data-matching Program in the period 1 July 1996 to 11 November 1998. System restrictions mean that it is not possible to retrieve data for the preceding years. It is important to note that, due to the high cost of preparing prosecutions, only the more serious cases of fraud are referred for possible prosecution action. It is therefore incorrect to suggest that the incidence of fraud is limited to these 1,083 cases.(b) It is not possible to identify the proportion of savings due to recovery of debts which did not involve fraud.(c) For social security payments, the proportion of savings resulting from other reasons from April 1991 to 31 October 1998 was:. rate reductions/cancellations-45.8%; cancellations for failing to provide a tax file number- 23.8%; debts recovered from customers who had failed to provide tax file numbers—0.4%; and debts from following up incorrect customer information (Personal Identity Discrepancies)—0.8%It is important to appreciate that administrative errors are not a significant proportion of all incorrect payments. Surveys by Centrelink show that less than 5% of all recoverable debts are caused by administrative error.(3) The savings for the Data-matching Program for all agencies from 1996 to 1998 were $377.3 million.(4) Key components of fraud control are prevention, detection and deterrence. To enable the detection of incorrect payments, Centrelink has a number of mechanisms and procedures in place. These include:• reviews based on customer characteristics, random samples and duration on payment;• identity fraud checking; and• data matching with identity, income or other information held electronically by other organisations. The most significant of these, other than matching under the Data-marching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act 1990, which saved $ 1 95 million in social security payments in 1997-98 is matching with Employment Declaration Form data supplied by the ATO, which saved $255.8 million in social security payments in 1997-98.(5) It is not possible to determine the number of misuses of tax file numbers that have occurred, however the Data-matching Program as well as the Accelerated Claimant Matching process, enables the identification of tax file numbers that have been recorded for more than one person or that have been recorded against a different name to that held on the Tax Office system.The majority of these Personal Identity Discrepancies (PIDs) have been found to be the inadvertent use by a customer of the tax file number of another member of their family (usually their partner's). These are corrected after contact with the customer. Further details of this process can be found in the Data-matching Program—Report on Progress—October 1995.For cases where the tax file number belongs to an unrelated person, Centrelink liaises with the ATO to correct the tax file number information.'(6) This question would more correctly be answered by the Australian Taxation Office, however the ATO has attributed raising $10.8 million in debit assessments to the Data-matching Program. The ATO's participation in the Program has principally been one of supplying data to the Data Matching Agency. The principal benefit to the ATO from the Program has been the improved voluntary compliance by clients of assistance agencies and the improved quality of client data made possible through actioning discrepancies of personal identity data The ATO also uses a range of other methods, including internal matching, to detect tax fraud.(7) (a) It is not possible to estimate the percentage of future savings directly attributable to fraud for the reasons outlined previously.(b) For social security payments, the proportion of estimated future savings resulting from debts from January 1999 to 30 June 2002 is 34.2%.(c) For social security payments, the estimated proportion of savings resulting for other reasons for January 1999 to 30 June 2002 is:. rate reductions/cancellations-50.8%; cancellations for failing to provide a tax file number- 14.4%; and debts from following up Personal Identity Discrepancies—0.7%.(8) This question would more correctly be answered by the Australian Taxation Office, however no projections have been made of tax fraud savings from the Data-matching Program.(9) There are no plans to provide tax file numbers to any person as part of an outsourcing agreement.(10) There are no plans to provide tax file numbers to any other person outside the Government and the Commonwealth.2423(Question No. 167)1672423Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 19 November 1998:(1) Is the operation of the register of environmental organisations eligible to receive tax deductible donations under item 6.1.1 of subsection 30-55(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 being reviewed, or has it recently been reviewed; if so; (a) who is carrying out the review; (b) what are the objectives and terms of reference; (c) who is being consulted; (d) who will receive its recommendations; (e) when did it start and when is it due to be completed; and (f) will the review be published.(2) Is there any intention to change the criteria or any other aspect of the operation of the register as part of the wider changes to tax legislation.2423Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The register referred to in the first question is the Register of Environmental Organisations (the Register), which is administered by my Department. It was reviewed last year.(a) The review was carried out internally by officers of my Department.(b) The objectives and terms of reference of the review were to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the Register, and to ensure that best practice standards were being maintained. The review focused on internal and procedural matters.(c) The review was internal. Some issues were discussed with the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of the Treasury, and officers of the (then) Department of Communications and the Arts with responsibility for the administration of the Register of Cultural Organisations (a tax register similar in operation to the Register of Environmental Organisations).(d) The recommendations arising from the review have been provided to me for information. These were prepared for use within my Department to improve the administration of the Register.(e) I approved my Department's proposal for the review in February 1998, and the internal report on that review was completed in August 1998.(f) No.(2) The Government has made no policy changes in relation to this matter.2423(Question No. 183)1832423O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Is the Minister aware that: (a) in 1991, the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) published a research report entitled, Limitations of the see-and-avoid principle: and (b) the report concluded that: (i) `the see-and-avoid principle in the absence of traffic alerts is subject to serious limitation' and (ii) unnalerted see-and-avoid has a `limited place as a last resort means of traffic separation at low closing speeds [and is] completely unsuitable as a primary separation method for scheduled services'.(2) Is the Minister aware that BASI repeated this warning in the BASI `Asia-Pacific Air Safety Magazine', dated September 1998, in its article entitled, `Traffic separation in Class G airspace'.(3) Did the Minister seek advice from BASI about the limitation of `see-and-avoid' and how this impacted on the Class G airspace arrangements; if so, when was that advice sought; if not, will that advice now be sought. 2424Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Yes(2) Yes(3) It is not my role to determine what airspace and procedures are safe. That is a matter for the experts. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), which had responsibility for the Class G airspace demonstration, does not completely concur with all of BASI's recommendations in the report Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Principle.There were six recommendations included in the BASI report and CASA's responses are as follows:Recommendation 1: "That CAA should take into account the limitations of see-and-avoid when planning and managing airspace and should ensure that unnalerted see-and-avoid is never the sole means of separation for aircraft providing scheduled services".CASA Response: Firstly, we will be using our existing cost benefit formula (which is based on the proven FAA Formula) to mandate Class D airspace where traffic densities require.CASA also proposes a complete package to address this important issue. Unfortunately, unnalerted see-and-avoid cannot be eliminated entirely, as even if primary and secondary radar, Class A airspace, mandatory radio, TCAS and transponders were deployed there can always be a time, because of human factors or technical breakdown, that unnalerted see-and-avoid becomes the primary means of separation.The CASA proposal is to do everything we can, while still allocating the safety dollars effectively, to reduce the chance of unnalerted see-and-avoid being the primary means of separation, whilst at the same time educating pilots on how they can improve their scan to improve the effectiveness of both alerted and unnalerted see-and-avoid.In relation to our package to improve the availability of alerted see-and-avoid, we have proposed to the airlines that in future, all airports serviced by scheduled services of over 10 passengers must have third party confirmation that the radio is on frequency. This will reduce the chance of an airline aircraft being on the wrong frequency or the speaker being deselected. We are also encouraging the fitment of Aerodrome Frequency Response Units which will operate 24 hours per day and reduce the chance of unnalerted see-and-avoid. We are proposing to increase the number of recommended calls at non-tower aerodromes to seven, following the USA procedure . This will greatly assist alerted see-and-avoid. In order to reduce the necessity to rely on see-and-avoid, we will be training VFR pilots to remain clear of areas of IFR traffic density, such as IFR air routes or IFR approach paths. These will be marked on maps in future. In relation t o IFR aircraft, we will be training pilots to follow a recommendation to fly 1MV to the right of track when flying on a marked air route between navigational aids or reporting points when the airway is used for two-way traffic.In places where a tower is not cost effective and that have RPT services of over 10 passengers, we will have mandatory procedures in relation to alerting.Recommendation 2: "In light of the serious limitations of the see-and-avoid concept, CAA should continue to closely monitor the implementation of TCAS in the US and should consider the system for Australia".CASA Response: Agreed and will be introduced where cost effective.Recommendation 3: "The CAA should ensure that pilots are trained in effective traffic scans"CASA Response: Agreed and CASA will continue to emphasise that see-and-avoid is a key factor in collision avoidance and pilots should be vigilant.Recommendation 4: "The CAA should require white strobes rather than red rotating beacons to assist visibility when aircraft appear against dark backgrounds".CASA Response: CASA feels that rotating beacons and strobe lights should be used whenever an aircraft i s airborne or is taking off, landing, or taxying or being towed (including temporarily stopped while being towed) on an active runway. Pilots are not always able to assess when the display of these lights is effective, so CASA recommends their use on every flight.Recommendation 5: "The CAA should ensure that pilots are aware of the physiological and psychological limitations of the visual system".Recommendation 6: "Pilots should recognise that they cannot rely entirely on vision to avoid collisions. Consequently, they should attempt to obtain all available traffic information, whether from Air Traffic Services or a listening watch, to enable them to conduct a directed traffic search".CASA Response: CASA agrees with both the above recommendations. However, CASA believes that the limitations have been promoted to the extent that benefits of the visual system may have become seriously discounted. As a consequence, CASA will continue to emphasise the requirement to be vigilant.In summary, recommendations 2,3 5 and 6 have been classified by the Bureau as CLOSED- ACCEPTED, which means that the Bureau accepts the response without qualification. BASI sought and has received further clarification of the responses from CASA regarding recommendations 1 and 4. BASI has classified these responses as PARTIALLY ACCEPTED and is continuing to negotiate with CASA aspects of those two recommendations.2425(Question No. 195)1952425Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:Given that the Australian population of the dugong is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which permits controlled trade, and given that all other populations of dugong are listed in Appendix I, which prohibits trade completely:(1) With reference to a formal proposal which has been submitted to the department by the Humane Society International urging the Government to nominate the Australian population of the dugong for an Appendix I listing in CITES: does the Minister intend to list the dugong population in Appendix I; if not, why not.(2) What investigative work has been carried out by Australian authorities to determine the extent of illegal trade in Australian dugong meat between North Queensland, Torres Strait, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia.(3) Can copies of any reports be provided.2425Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) A decision has not yet been taken as to whether a proposal to nominate the Australian population of the dugong to Appendix I should be made. I would anticipate receiving advice from my Department in the near future on whether a proposal should be developed.My Department is awaiting comments from State and Commonwealth Government agencies, and industry, conservation and professional organisations on the proposal prior to providing me with its advice.(2) My Department has made inquiries with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), the Australian Customs Service, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service on this issue.The Torres Strait is subject to the Torres Strait Treaty between Australia and Papua New Guinea. The provisions of this Treaty (for continued traditional interaction between the people of Torres Strait and the people of Papua New Guinea) is recognised in the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 which implements the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species in Australia.Torres Strait Islanders are involved in the development of the management regulations for dugongs and other marine species and actively support enforcement. AFMA and the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol have officers based in Torres Strait who regularly work in all the communities. I am advised they have not received reports of the sale of dugong meat, either domestically or in the traditional trading that occurs with Papua New Guinea. I am also advised that in the Torres Strait there is no trading of any kind with Indonesia.Torres Strait Islanders have recently commenced developing community-based management plans for dugong hunting in order to further protect dugong stocks.None of the other agencies contacted have any additional information on this issue.(3) There are no specific reports available relating to illegal trade in dugong meat.2425(Question No. 245)2452425Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Worthington Di Marzio since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Worthington Di Marzio.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Worthington Di Marzio (open tender, short list or some other process).2425Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Details of consultancies let by the Department of Health and Aged Care are to be found in the Department's Annual Reports. 2426(Question No. 261)2612426Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd (open tender, short list or some other process).2426Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Details of consultancies let by the Department of Health and Aged Care are to be found in the Department's Annual Reports.2426(Question No. 277)2772426Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Canberra Liaison since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Canberra Liaison.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Canberra Liaison (open tender, short list or some other process).2426Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Details of consultancies let by the Department of Health and Aged Care are to be found in the Department's Annual Reports. 2426(Question No. 302)3022426Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:With reference to the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA):(1) What was the staffing establishment of OGIA as at 18 October 1998, including the number of actual positions and the number of staff and their classifications.(2) (a) When and by whom was the decision taken to transfer OGIA from the Department of Finance and Administration to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C); and (b) when were staff informed of that decision, including the time and date.(3) In which division of PM&C is OGIA now located.(4) What is the new structure and what are the reporting arrangements for OGIA; and (b) can an outline of the former structure and reporting arrangements for OGIA be provided.(5) What were the names, classifications and job titles of all senior executive service staff in OGIA as at: (a) 18 October 1998; and (b) 24 November 1998.(6) How many OGIA staff, and at what classification level, transferred to PM&C.(7) (a) How many OGIA staff, and at what classification level, took a redundancy; and (b) how many of these were voluntary.(8) How many OGIA staff, and at what classification level, applied to transfer to PM&C.(9) Will OGIA have a name change; if so, what is the proposed name.(10) In July 1997 a review of the future roles and functions of OGIA was provided to former Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Jull): (a) what were its key findings; (b) has the review been released; and (c) can a copy be provided.2426Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) At 18 October the OGIA had 17 staff, including one who was on maternity leave. Her position was filled by an officer on temporary transfer from another department. This temporary transfer ceased when OGIA was restructured. The staff classifications were:SES Band 2—1Exec Level 2—2 Exec Level 1—8APS 6—1 (maternity leave)APS 5—2APS 4—2APS 3—1(2) (a) The Prime Minister's decision to transfer the function was reflected in the new Administrative Arrangements Order made on 21 October 1998. The formal instrument transferring the staff was signed by the Prime Minister on 23 October 1998.(b) Staff were informed at approximately 10.30am on 20 October 1998.(3) The Government Communications Division.(4) (a) The Government Communications Unit comprises three sections Government Advertising; Policy and Secretariat; and Communications Strategy. It is a unit of the Government Communications Division which is part of the Government and Corporate Group in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.(b) OGIA comprised 3 sections: Advertising and Policy; Strategic Communications and Communications Research and Evaluation. Each section was headed by an Exec Level 2 who reported to the First Assistant Secretary, OGIA/AusInfo. OGIA was part of the Resource Management Framework Group in the Department of Finance and Administration.(5) (a) Greg Williams, SES Band 2, First Assistant Secretary, OGIA/AusInfo.(b) Greg Williams, SES Band 2, First Assistant Secretary, Government Communications(6) Eight.SES Band 2—1Exec Level 2—1Exec Level 1—3APS 5—2APS 3—1(7) (a) 2 staff at Exec Level 1(b) 2A further seven staff transferred to the Department of Finance and Administration's Staffing Redeployment Unit.(8) (a) Twelve staff expressed interest in positions with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, two subsequently withdrew from consideration. The classifications of the staff who had a continuing interest were:SES Band 2—1Exec Level 2—2Exec Level 1—3APS 5—2 APS 4—1APS 3—1(9) Following its restructure OGIA was renamed the Government Communications Unit.(10) (a) In summary, the review found that OGIA would add more value if it focused more on strategic and whole-of-government activities and less on process or transactional issues. It recommended that OGIA re-examine its role, purpose and modus operandi. It proposed a better level of support to the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications, a greater focus on media buying and placement, a more proactive approach to the management of the Central Advertising System, more effective evaluation of campaigns and a greater focus on skills development.(b) The report has not been generally released.(c) A copy has been provided to Senator the Hon Robert Ray. He was asked to treat it as confidential because all the recommendations had yet to be finalised.2427(Question No. 311)3112427O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 1 December 1998:(1) (a) How many employees of stevedoring companies have taken redundancy packages since 8 April 1998; or plan to take a redundancy package and (b) where were the employees located.(2) How many of the above companies received assistance, or have applied for assistance, to meet the cost of redundancy packages through the Maritime Industry Finance Company Limited (MIFCo).(3) What is the value of assistance provided by, or sought from MIFCo, to each of the above companies.(4) Have any of the employees who have taken redundancy packages been re-employed by a contractor engaged by their former employer, or re-employed by their former employer; if so: (a) how many employees have been re-engaged; (b) when were they paid out; (c) when were they re-engaged; (d) which company did they work for; and (e) what is the name of their new employer.2427Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:1 (a) The Maritime Industry Finance Company Limited (MIFCo) is responsible for making redun dancy related payments, when it is authorised by the Commonwealth to do so, and for deciding the amount of the redundancy related payment which should be offered and made to a redundant employee.I have been advised by MIFCo, that as at 14 December 1998,766 people formerly employed through the five companies associated with Patrick Stevedores have received a redundancy related payment since 8 April 1998. I am also advised that a further 60 former employees of these companies plan to take a redundancy package.1 (b) MIFCo has advised me that it does not collect details concerning the locations of the employees made redundant.(2) As stated in 1(a) five companies have received assistance. As at 31 December 1998 a further twelve companies had applied to the Commonwealth for assistance.(3) MIFCo has advised me that at 14 December 1998, it has provided $102,150,237.50 assistance for redundancies to the Patrick labour hire companies under Administration and Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd.As at 31 December the submissions from the twelve companies that have applied for funding assistance for redundancies had not been considered by the Commonwealth and therefore, MIFCo has not been advised of the funding requirements.(4) Companies receiving funding assistance from MIFCo are required to reimburse MIFCo the full amount of any redundancy related payment paid to a redundant employees, if the redundant employee is employed or otherwise retained by that Company (or any related body corporate) in any capacitywithin 12 months of the redundant employee receiving a redundancy related payment.I have been advised by MIFCo that it has not received any information concerning redundant employees who may have been re-employed by a contractor engaged by their former employer. I am also advised that to the best of MIFCo's knowledge none of the employees that have been made redundant have been re-employed in any capacity by their former employer.2428(Question No. 314)3142428Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 1 December 1998:(1) What is the Government ministerial staffing establishment under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 as at 1 December 1998, including members of parliamentary staff employed in the: (a) Government Members' Secretariat; (b) the Cabinet Policy Unit; (c) Whips offices; and (d) the Leader of the National Party in the Senate.(2) Which positions have not been filled.(3) What is the breakdown by office of these staff and, in each instance, what is the employment classification.(4) How many of these staff have Canberra as their nominated home base.2428Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) to (4) The following tables contain the information sought. Details are correct as at 1 December 1998.MinistersOffice ofConsultantPrincipal AdviserSenior AdviserMedia AdviserAdviserAssistant AdviserPersonal SecretaryTotalCanberra based staffMr Howard22107 (1 vacant)511 (1 vacant)3727Mr Fischer121 (vacant)3231210Mr Costello13 (1 vacant)1223128Mr Anderson114 (1 vacant)22109Senator Hill21422119Senator Alston2132 (1 vacant)2106Mr Reith226 (2 vacant)2 (1 vacant)3158Senator Newman12333128Mr Downer12423128Mr Moore123 (1 vacant)33127Dr Wooldridge232293Mr Fahey11413109Dr Kemp114 (1 vacant)22104Senator Minchin21 (vacant)322107Mr Williams12323118Mr Vaile11422109Mr Ruddock12 (1 vacant)423 (1 vacant)128 Senator Vanstone1121274Mrs Bishop111 (vacant)253Mr Scott112266Senator Herron111254Senator Kemp113164Senator Ellison1113 (1 vacant)64Mr Truss113275Mr McGauran1112 (1 vacant)52Senator Macdonald111252Mr Abbott111252Mr Tuckey1111263Mr Hockey111251Miss Kelly1111263Parliamentary SecretariesOffice ofAssistant AdviserPersonal SecretaryTotalCanberra based staffSenator Campbell2 (1 vacant)1 (vacant)3noneSenator Tambling1121Ms Worth1121Senator Troeth1122Mrs Sullivan1121Senator Patterson112noneMr Slipper11 (vacant)2noneSenator Abetz1 (vacant)1 (vacant)2noneSenator Heffernan1122Mr Anthony112noneMrs Stone1 (vacant)12noneMr Entsch1121Government Members SecretariatOffice ofSenior AdviserAdviserAssistant AdviserPersonal SecretaryTotalCanberra based staffMr Ronaldson143 (1 vacant)1 (vacant)96Cabinet Policy UnitOffice ofPrinci-pal AdviserSenior AdviserAssistant AdviserPersonal SecretaryTotalCanberra based staffMr Howard12 (1 vacant)143WhipsOffice ofWhip's ClerkPersonal SecretaryTotalCanberra based staffMr Ronaldson1121Mr McArthur111Senator Calvert111Mr Forrest111Mr Neville11noneSenator O'Chee11noneMrs Elson111Leader of the National Party in the SenateOffice ofAssistant AdviserPersonal SecretaryTotalCanberra based staffSenator Boswell112none2430(Question No. 315)3152430Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 1 December 1998:(1) How many staff are employed by the Government Members' Secretariat (GMS) as at 1 December 1998.(2) What are the names, nominated home bases and employment classifications for each of the staff members of the GMS.(3) To whom does the GMS report.2430Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Seven(2)—NameNominated home baseClassificationChris FryarCanberraSenior AdviserAndrew SchullerCanberraAdviserLinda ReynoldsCanberraAdviserKeith BlythAdelaideAdviserDawn CrosbyCanberraAdviserTim Archer Canberra Assistant Adviser Reginald ChamberlainCanberraAssistant Adviser(3) The Hon Michael Ronaldson MP, the Chief Government Whip.2430(Question No. 316)3162430Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 1 December 1998:With reference to travel undertaken by staff of the Government Members' Secretariat from 31August 1998 until 4 October 1998, in each instance:(a) what was the name of the staff member;(b) the dates and locations for which travel allowance was claimed;(c) the cost, details and dates of any airfares paid for by the Commonwealth; and(d) the cost of any cabcharge and other hire car charges during this period.2430Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(a) Name(b) Travel Allowance dates and locations(c) Airfare costs, details and dates(d) Cabcharge* and Hire Car total costsChris Fryar31/8-18/9Melbourne(not paid for 2-3/9)$232.00Cbr-Mel 31/8$244.26$628.00Mel-Cbr 2/9Cbr-Mel 3/9$314.00Mel-Cbr 18/920/9-3/10Melbourne$628.00Cbr-Mel 20/9Mel-Cbr 3/10Linda Reynolds23/8-4/9Brisbane$341.00Bne-Cbr 4/9$266.435/9-2/10Brisbane$682.00Cbr-Syd 5/9Syd-Bne 5/92/10-3/10Melbourne$693.00Bne-Mel 2/10Mel-Cbr 3/10Keith Blyth31/8-12/9Melbourne$544.00Adl-Mel 31/8Mel-Adl 12/9$296.0213/9-3/10Melbourne$544.00Adl-Mel 13/9Mel-Adl 3/10Tim Archer31/8-20/9MelbournePrivate vehicleallowance $274.20Cbr-Mel 31/8Mel-Cbr 20/9$31.3022/9-3/10MelbournePrivate vehicleallowance $274.20Cbr-Mel 22/9Mel-Cbr 3/10Aileen Wiessner$71.23Leander Klohs31/8-19/9Melbourne$464.00Cbr-Mel 31/8Mel-Cbr 19/9$146.5820/9-3/10Melbourne$232.00Cbr-Mel 20/9$232.00Mel-Cbr 3/10Reginald Chamberlain31/8-20/9Melbourne$232.00Cbr-Mel 31/8$67.9322/9—3/10Melbourne$232.00Mel-Cbr 3/10* Cabcharge records cover the period 22 August to 16 October due to payment procedures2432(Question No. 317)3172432Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 December 1998:(1) Has the Melbourne-based public relations firm Corporate Kudos been engaged by the department; if so, what project have they been contracted to carry out for the department.(2) What is the estimated cost and duration of the project.(3) What process was used to select Corporate Kudos for this project.2432Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised that:(1) Corporate Kudos has been contracted by my department to provide public relations expertise in relation to a community awareness campaign to promote and publicise the Australian Honours system.(2) The budget for the campaign is $900,000 over the three financial years: 1997/98, 1998/99 and 1999/2000. The amount paid to Corporate Kudos will depend on the services actually provided during the campaign.(3) Proposals were sought from six public relations firms, selected in conjunction with the former Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA). The proposals were evaluated by an assessment panel comprising representatives from my department, Government House and OGIA. Two firms were shortlisted for evaluation by the Ministerial Council on Government Communication. Corporate Kudos was selected as the preferred consultant.2432(Question No. 331)3312432Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources 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 during this period; if so, how many.2432Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10 The answers to the honourable senator's questions are as follows:(1) Once.(2) Yes.(3) No.2432(Question No. 333)3332432Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) On how many occasions did the department refer unauthorised disclosures to the Australian Federal Police between March 1996 and October 1998.(2) In each instance where an investigation has been undertaken has that investigation been concluded.(3) Have any officers been charged with offences relating to unauthorised disclosures that occurred during this period; if so, how many.2432Alston, 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) Nil.(2) There were no investigations.(3) No.2432(Question No. 354)3542432Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister tor Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 December 1998:With reference to the Barbara Preston report for the Australian Council of Deans of Education dated 11 November 1998, which shows that from 1999 to 2004 there will be a severe shortage of teachers:(1) Does the Minister accept those projections; if not why not; if so, how is the Federal Government planning to alleviate this shortfall.(2) Do the department's projections indicate a shortfall of teachers in regional, rural and remote areas; if so, can details be provided. (3) (a) What measures are being taken by each state government to encourage the recruitment of teachers; and (b) can details be provided.(4) What inter-governmental mechanisms are in place to ensure that sufficient teacher graduates are available to meet enrolment demands.(5) (a) Are teachers currently being offered any incentives to teach in country areas; (b) would the Minister consider dropping Higher Education contribution Scheme (HECS) fees for teachers and/or teachers who opt to commit to teaching in a rural area; and (c) would the Minister consider dropping up front and HECS fees for teachers returning to university.(6) Have any studies been commissioned to determine why enrolments in teacher training have fallen; if so, can details be provided.(7) Will medium-to long-term planning be implemented in teacher training programs in order to avoid destabilising structural changes such as those in the early nineties.(8) Would the Minister consider dropping HECS fees for students who undertake studies in mathematics and science education.(9) Have studies been commissioned to determine the availability or otherwise of teachers from overseas; if so can a copy be provided.(10) What effect will the youth allowance legislation have on demand for teachers in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004.(11) Was an agreement reached with the states on how this demand would be met; if so can copies of such agreements be provided.2433Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The report by Barbara Preston for the Australian Council of Deans of Education Teacher supply and demand to 2004 (1998 update) itself acknowledges the difficulties in making projections of teacher supply and demand. On page 3 it states "What are provided are projections, based on expected future values for many of the relevant variables. The actual outcomes may be quite different—because of actions of stakeholders such as universities and school authorities, and because of the general uncertainty inherent in such labour market projections". This report is the fifth in a series dealing with teacher demand and these reports have demonstrated this inherent uncertainty by consistently overstating the future demand for teachers. The projections have also been challenged by the major employers of teachers, that is the States and Territories. The balance of evidence suggests that predictions of a widespread shortage of teachers are overstated.(2) The Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs publication Skills in Australia—Trends and Shortages states that "Recruitment difficulties are more pronounced in some rural and remote locations". These projections are not broken down by individual region. A copy of this document has been provided separately for the honourable Senator.(3) Such recruitment difficulties as exist are not common across all States and Territories and priorities for recruitment also vary across the States and Territories. These are matters for teacher employers and the Commonwealth does not hold information on any individual State and Territory initiatives to recruit teachers.(4) The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs has established arrangements to monitor teacher supply and demand and the Conference of Education Systems Chief Executive Officers has arranged for the first report on this to be prepared for the Council. The Council has also established a Teacher Recruitment Taskforce which is oversighting market research into and the development of a market strategy which can be adapted by individual states and Territories to suit local needs(5) (a)The employment of teachers in country areas is the responsibility of State and Territory authorities responsible for schools. The Government believes that the States and Territories are best able to determine local work force needs and to design targeted programs which direct public subsidies to ensuring those needs are met. It is understood that some States and Territories are targeting recruitment for country areas but the Commonwealth does not hold details of State and Territory initiatives.(b) With regard to the proposal that HECS charges should be reduced for teachers and/or teachers who opt to commit to teaching in a rural area, it should be emphasised that the Commonwealth already makes a significant contribution to the tuition of students enrolled in HECS liable places in higher education institutions including teachers. On average, students in publicly funded places contribute 37 per cent of the cost of their tuition. The Commonwealth pays the remainder. The Commonwealth also bears the cost of the interest rate subsidy which is provided through the interest free HECS loan and of unrepaid debt. The proposal would substantially increase the cost to the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth contribution is already substantial.(c) As indicated in the response to part (b), the Commonwealth already makes a substantial contribution to the tuition costs of teachers. (6) Available data show that initial teacher education enrolments have remained relatively stable since 1991.(7) Strategic planning in disciplines is a matter for individual institutions. However, teacher education is discussed at Joint Planning Committee meetings with States and Territories and reviewed in the educational profiles meetings held each year with the universities(8) As indicated in the response to Question 5 (b) students enrolled in a HECS liable place at a higher education institution, including those undertaking mathematics and science education, contribute only part of the cost of their tuition. The Commonwealth contributes the remainder. The proposal to drop HECS contributions for these students would substantially increase the cost to the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth's contribution is already substantial.(9) The Commonwealth has not commissioned any studies to determine the availability of teachers from overseas.(10) It is expected that some 8 200 young people may return to school on a national basis in 1999 as a result of the introduction of the Youth Allowance education and training requirements which will come into effect on 1 January l999. It is not possible to convert this to a number of teachers by dividing by the average pupil teacher ratio as some commentators have suggested because the flow will not be uniform across all schools. To assist schools to address the needs of these students the Commonwealth Government has introduced the $22.6 million Full Service Schools initiative. The initiative provides assistance to schools to undertake a range of activities including the employment of specialist teachers or counsellors and the provision of professional development for teachers and other staff.(11) The Commonwealth has not sought to impose any conditions on or reach any agreements with the States as to the employment of teachers.2434(Question No. 359)3592434O'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 Coalition policy document, titled `Primed for Growth', in which the Government committed itself to spending $10 million over 3 years from the 1999—2000 financial year for an expanded rural and regional floodplain management program:(1) Given that the policy (which) states that, `metropolitan areas will be excluded because of their capacity to pay for local measures from their rate base': can a definition be provided of metropolitan and regional areas for the purposes of this program.(2) On what basis was it concluded that all metropolitan areas are able to meet the cost of flood mitigation from their own tax base.(3) Will areas participating in the program be based on local government areas.(4) (a) How will funding be allocated between competing applications for assistance; and (b) who will determine the distribution of funding.(5) Have discussions commenced with the states about their funding contribution; if so: [a] when did those discussions commence; [b] which states have participated; and [c] what has been the outcome of those discussions; if not, when will discussions with the states commence.(6) Have discussions with local government authorities about their contribution to the flood plain management program commenced; if so, [a] when did those discussions commence; [b] which local governments have participated; and [c] what has been the outcome of those discussions; if not, when does the Government plan to commence negotiations with local government about its contribution to the flood plain management program."2434Alston, 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 honourable senator is referring to the commitment of the Government to spending an additional $10 million over three years for an expanded floodplain management program. Responsibility for this and for assistance for flood mitigation in regional Australia has been transferred to the portfolio of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon. John Anderson, MP. It will be for him to make any necessary definitions concerning metropolitan and regional areas.(2) Flood mitigation is the responsibility of State and local government, not of the Federal Government. The additional Federal funding for rural and regional floodplain management, which includes flood mitigation works and measures, will be targeted at regional areas and centres as part of a pro-active policy initiative. Experience in floodplain management since 1983-84 has shown that metropolitan areas have been able to maintain investment programs for a larger range of flood mitigation and other structures within their existing tax bases when compared with country areas.(3), (4), (5), and (6): The Minister for Transport and Regional Services will be responsible for the administration of assistance for the new regional floodplain management and flood mitigation program, together with negotiations with other authorities (and the private sector) concerning funding shares.2435(Question No. 364)3642435O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 10 December 1998.(1) Have all states formally agreed to participate in the Government's FarmBis program.(2) When was agreement reached with each State.(3) If not all states have signed an agreement with the Commonwealth, which States have not signed the agreement and why have they failed to do so.(4) Can details be provided of the Commonwealth/State partnership agreements entered into, and program elements agreed to, in relation to the FarmBis Program.2435Alston, 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 majority of States have signed agreements with the Commonwealth. Tasmania has agreed in principle and minor details are being concluded. Negotiations with Queensland are continuing.(2) Victoria reached agreement on 22 August 1998; South Australia reached agreement on 26 August 1998; Western Australia reached agreement on 7 September 1998; Northern Territory reached agreement on 1 October 1998; New South Wales reached agreement on 1 December 1998.(3) Negotiations with Tasmania and Queensland were interrupted by both State elections (in each State) and the Commonwealth election. Key issues in negotiations were the sharing of program funding and the relationship between activities funded by FarmBis and the Property Management Planning (PMP) campaign.(4) The agreements deal with the following key matters: FarmBis objectives; Strategies to achieve objectives; Supported activities; Delivery principles; Administration; Performance; Funding; Reporting.The program elements agreed to may include, but are not limited to: Assist participants in learning activities by contributing to costs; Coordinate flexible, responsive delivery of education/training through engaging coordinators or a coordination system; Communicate benefits of continuous learning to eligible participants; Assist participants to identify and prioritise learning needs; Develop partnerships with key stakeholders and utilise existing networks; Improve access to information on learning opportunities by providing reference tools; and Establish a monitoring, reporting and evaluation regime on the performance of the program.2435(Question No. 367)3672435O'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 Bureau of Resource Sciences as part of its work program priority projects for the 1998-99 financial year engage Professor Snow Barlow to undertake a study entitled `Re-evaluation Rural Australia'.(2) Did Professor Barlow investigate the effectiveness and efficiency of the various government programs offering farm assistance.(3) (a) When did the study commence; and (b) when was it completed.(4) (a) Which programs did Professor Barlow evaluate; (b) against what criteria was each program assessed; and (c) what was the outcome for each program.(5) Can a copy be provided of Professor Barlow's report.2435Alston, 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 questions:(1) The Bureau of Rural Sciences undertakes Priority Projects as part of its annual work program to provide integrated scientific advice to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—Australia. Professor Snow Barlow, a staff member of the Bureau of Rural Sciences, is overseeing a project entitled `Revaluing Rural Australia' in the 1998/99 financial year.(2) The project aims to provide evidence on the potential for redevelopment and further development of Australia's rural regions. The project focuses on specifying biophysical and socio-economic parameters to identify opportunities for revaluing rural Australia. The project is not aimed at evaluating government programs.(3) (a) the project commenced 1 July 1998 and (b) is due to be completed 30 June 1999.(4) See (2). The project is not evaluating government programs. (5) Discussion papers and maps will be available when the project is complete.2436(Question No. 368)3682436Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:What study has been done, information gathered, or evidence obtained to show that the increased rate of various forms of cancer in Australians is not related to exposure to, or consumption of, fluorides.2436Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is currently reviewing its 1991 publication, The Effectiveness of Water Fluoridation. The publication, based on a study undertaken in 1989—1991, reported that the weight of evidence establishing a link between fluoridation of the public water supply and an increased risk of cancer, was not convincing.As part of the current review, the issue of possible carcinogenicity relating to fluoride exposure is being considered. Fluoride intake from other discretionary sources such as toothpaste, tablets, gels and mouth washes is also being considered.The review is undertaking a literature search of the scientific evidence of the past ten years, and is taking a risk benefit approach to data analysis. The issue of cancer and possible correlation between fluoride exposure and cancer incidence is one of four components of the assessment of the evidence.The review group is expected to deliver its report to the Health Advisory Committee in early March 1999.2436(Question No. 380)3802436O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 15 December 1998:(1) (a) On how many occasions since March 1996 has Australia advised its trading partners of the outbreak of an economically important disease, or the presence of a pest, that may present a danger; and (b) were these declarations made under the provisions of the World Trade Organisation agreement; if so, under what provisions were these declarations made; if not, what was the legal basis for these declarations.(2) (a) When was each outbreak detected; (b) what was the nature of the outbreak; and (c) when did Australia notify its trading partners of the outbreak.(3) If trade was suspended: (a) was the suspension imposed by Australia or by importing countries; and (b) how long was each suspension in place.(4) What process was followed while the suspension was in place to satisfy importing countries that the disease or pest no longer presented a risk.2436Alston, 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) (a) Since March 1996 there have been seventeen (17) disease and/or pest incidents considered to be sufficiently significant to warrant international notification by Australia.(b) Australia has certain notification obligations stemming from the provisions of agreements reached at the conclusion to the Uruguay round of trade negotiations. These notification obligations arise under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement administered by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) which encourages WTO member countries to harmonise standards in line with recommendations and guidelines (including notification requirements, if any) of specified international health organisations, specifically:. the Office International des Epizooties (OIE, the World Organisation for Animal Health); - under Article 1.2.0.3 of the OIE International Animal Health Code member countries are to notify OIE of occurrences or re-occurrences of specified diseases (List A diseases), and new findings for all animal diseases that are of exceptional epidemiological significance to other countries; - similarly, Article 1.2.0.3 of the OIE International Aquatic Animal Health Code defines Australia's obligations to notify on specific aquatic animal diseases;. the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC, regionally managed through APPPC, the Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission); - Article VII of the IPPC requires reporting periodically to the FAO, of the existence, outbreak and spread of economically important pests of plant and plant products which may be of immediate or potential danger; and. the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a subsidiary body of the FAO and the World Health Organisation, which develops food standards and recommends International Codes of Hygienic/Technological Practices.Australia has endeavoured to meet both the letter and the spirit of these obligations however, notification provisions under these guidelines are not standard across all agricultural sectors, for example;. notification of animal or aquatic animal incidents where required is usually through the OIE, whereas. formal notification of Plant pests/diseases is now either direct to trading partners or through organisations such as the Pacific Plant Protection Organisation (PPPO), which is the FAO sanctioned body for the region; - such notification was previously through the FAO World Reporting Service and the FAO Plant Protection Bulletin, however these services were disbanded two years ago; - Australia reports annually to the PPPO and once every two years to APPPC on the plant pest status of Australia and these reports constitute official FAO notification.Trading partners are advised of diseases and pests that could effect bilateral trade of Australian plants, animals or fish, and their products as a matter of course. Timely reporting of accurate information and consultation between scientific peers can also be important in managing incidents and minimising market impacts. This occurs both formally and informally, through various mechanisms including overseas posts, direct contact and through the PROMED reporting system on the internet.(2) With regard to seventeen specific incidents and notifications since March 1996, I provide the following information:(a) Detected(b) Nature of outbreak(c) NotifiedTrade SuspensionApril 1996Sorghum Ergot signs were detected and subsequently confirmed on several properties in Gatton and Darling Downs, QLD.April 1996 trading partners, then PPPO for annual reportNoJune 1996A new Lyssavirus was detected from sick flying foxes near Ballina, NSW.2 July 1996 to OIENoSeptember 1996Equine Morbillivirus (now known as Hendra virus) was discovered in flying foxes near Brisbane29 October 1996 to OIENoSeptember 1996Lupin Anthracnose was detected on properties in Geraldton WA and subsequently found at several locations in SA, Vic And NSW.August 1997 to PPPONoJanuary—March 1997Unusual outbreaks of Anthrax in northern Victoria.24 March 1997 to OIENoApril 1997A Paramyxovirus was isolated in August 1997 after investigations into reproductive difficulties, initially thought to be an endemic virus, in a Menangle NSW piggery.21 September 1997 to OIENoMay 1997Detection of Fireblight signs in Melbourne Royal Botanic Garden cotoneaster and other.May 1997 trading partners, then PPPO for annual reportNoJuly 1997Black Sigatoka was detected on one Daintree organic banana property, QLD.July 1997 trading partners, then PPPO for annual reportYesJuly 1997Panama Disease was detected in a Berry Springs banana property.July 1997 to PPPONoNovember 1997Philippine Fruit Fly adult flies were detected in early warning traps in Darwin, NT.December 1997 trading partners, then PPPO for annual reportNo November 1997An outbreak of highly pathogenic Avian Influenza occurred in three poultry farms in close proximity near Tamworth, NSW.1 December 1997 to OIEYesMarch 1998Detection of Pine Aphid on a radiata pine in the ACT with subsequent detection of aphids widespread in ACT, NSW, Vic and QLD.March 1998 to trading partnersNoMarch 1998Two human cases of Japanese Encephalitis (JE) were diagnosed in Torres Strait and Cape York Peninsular in QLD. Sub-clinical infection of pigs was demonstrated.24 April 1998 to OIENoMay 1998Adult Ash Whitefly was detected on pomegranates in Adelaide, SA with subsequent detection on several other hosts in Vic, NSW and ACT.May 1998 trading partners, then PPPO for annual reportNoJuly 1998Sugarcane Smut was detected on several cane properties in the Ord River Irrigation Area, WA.July 1998 trading partnersNoSeptember 1998Virulent Newcastle Disease occurred in three associated poultry farms, two in western Sydney and one at Rylstone, NSW.21 September to OIEYesOctober 1998A Pilchard mortality event associated with a pilchard herpesvirus commenced off the coast of SA then moved into WA and Vic.14 October 1998 to PROMEDNo (but see detail below)Note: Concurrent with the above notifications individual trading partners were advised of relevant incidents as a matter of routine.(3) For the purpose of this response, trade suspension is taken to mean Australia wide suspension of trade for a product or group of products.Any general suspension imposed by Australia on exports is usually for a very short period while the incident is scoped and suitable, usually localised quarantine restrictions are determined and implemented. Where practical the aim is to eliminate the pest or disease, and regain the international `status' that previously applied.While Australia may impose export suspensions or other trade limiting measures, other countries may also impose restrictions on that trade. This occurs particularly where the relevant disease or pest is significant to that country. There are numerous instances where individual countries have imposed restrictions on specific products, or products from specific States or regions, or have required additional certifications. For example, after the September 1995 Equine Morbillivirus incident, Thailand instigated bans on the import of horses from Australia from 30 November 1995 until a new protocol was negotiated and imports recommenced on 30 May 1996. Another example followed the March 1998 Japanese Encephalitis (JE) incident, where revised requirements were imposed by China, Vanuatu, New Caledonia and Argentina relating to certification that JE was not present on the property of origin or within 200 km of that property. While such restrictions can be very significant to individuals or companies, they are not considered to constitute a suspension of trade.Of the seventeen incidents notified and listed above, three resulted in suspension of Australia's trade, and a fourth (1998 Pilchard mortality) is included because it is in progress.Black Sigatoka in July 1997 resulted in the suspension by Australia of trade in organic bananas. At the time trade involved only small volumes of product to Japan. Trade was suspended at the request of industry. This has been the only suspension relating to a plant pest/disease incursion in the period in question. At the instigation of the Banana Industry Protection Board (an industry body) the affected plantation was destroyed to prevent further disease spread. Industry has not sought to have trade resumed.The highly pathogenic Avian Influenza incident in November 1997 resulted in an interim short-term suspension on the export of all poultry and poultry products by the Australian Quarantine and inspection Service until the extent of the disease and appropriate controls on the movement of product were implemented. Such action ensured that international obligations were met and reinforced the technical trust and cooperation established with most export markets. Animal health authorities from thirty two countries subsequently imposed additional conditions/bans on the imports of poultry and poultry products. These varied according to the products and regions, from the whole of Australia to only the area under quarantine. The restrictions were progressively removed over periods that varied from weeks to one year. The last restrictions were removed on 14 December 1998.Similarly, the September 1998 Newcastle disease incident also resulted in an interim short-term suspension by Australia and the implementation of appropriate controls on movement of the product. It also resulted in restrictions being imposed by some thirty five trading partners. Restrictions to varying degrees are still in place for more than twenty countries.Although Pilchard mortality in October 1998 did not result in trade suspension, Commonwealth and State Fisheries authorities have implemented commercial pilchard fisheries bans in areas of mortality. These have typically lasted for approximately four weeks each (the duration of mortality plus a `safety' period).(4) Satisfying importing countries that the disease or pest no longer presents a risk can be a long and involved process. Countries that may have imposed restrictions on Australian imports usually require evidence of appropriate control measures before they will consider resumption of trade. The notification process, combined with appropriate general and/or bilateral updates is of assistance in this process.Once specific and scientifically sound local quarantine restrictions/controls are implemented, and/or eradication is effected, detailed advice is provided to the concerned countries. A proactive and iterative negotiation process is undertaken aimed at reducing and ultimately removing these restrictions. This usually involves input from all parties including industry, State and Commonwealth authorities.Regarding the July 1997 Black Sigatoka suspension, industry has not sought to have trade resumed.The November 1997 pathogenic Avian Influenza and the September 1998 Newcastle disease incidents were managed under the nationally agreed AUSVETPLAN procedures for disease containment, eradication, and surveillance. These procedures ensure that Australia can meet OIE requirements to regain regional and subsequently country disease freedom. The latter incident is still under active management.The 1998 pilchard mortality incidents are being managed through restrictions on fishing imposed by South Australian, Victorian, Western Australian and New South Wales Fisheries Authorities in consultation with the Commonwealth.2439(Question No. 382)3822439O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 15 December 1998:(1) What process is followed by the Australian Government to suspend imports from a country where a disease, or pest, that presents an economic risk has been detected.(2) Is the authority to suspend imports found in the provisions of the Quarantine Act 1908 (the Act); if so, what are the relevant provisions.(3) What provisions of the Act were applied in the suspension of imports of fresh fruit from the United States of America announced on 29 October 1998 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister.(4) Did the Government seek legal advice about the suspension prior to, or following, the imposition of the suspension; if so: (a) who sought the legal advice; (b) why was the advice sought; and (c) what was the nature of the advice received.2439Alston, 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 process followed by the Australian Government in suspending imports from a country where a disease, or pest, that presents an economic risk has been detected is for the Director of Quarantine, or his or her delegate, to take a decision to refuse to grant import permits to products from that country which are hosts to the pest (or disease) or to amend the conditions for the granting of an import permit in order to mitigate the risk (for example, sourcing product from areas free of the pest). Without an import permit, such product cannot enter Australia.Product en route at the time such a decision is made is held in quarantine when it arrives in Australia. In addition, an interrogation of the AQIS Export Management System can be used to track any imports which have already entered the country and which may need further investigation.(2) The authority to suspend imports is found in the Quarantine Proclamation 1998. The mechanism by which suspension is achieved is through the Director of Quarantine deciding, pursuant to his discretion under section 70 of the Quarantine Proclamation, not to grant a permit for the importation of goods which present an unacceptable level of quarantine risk. The Quarantine Proclamation derives its authority from section 13 of the Quarantine Act 1908.(3) A delegate of the Director of Quarantine exercised his/her power under sections 64 and 70 of the Quarantine Proclamation 1998 not to grant a permit for the importation of fresh fruit from the United States.(4) The Government did not seek legal advice prior to, or following, the imposition of the suspension of imports of fresh fruit from the United States announced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister on 29 October 1998.2440(Question No. 391)3912440Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 21 December 1998:With reference to the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) program and the list of NHT grants belowFunding to protect endangered species—Threatened Species network (September 1998) Victorian major coastal and clean seas projects (September 1998) 491 NHT projects for Victoria (first round 1998-99) 120 endangered species projects (first round 1998-99) Western Australia coastal protection projects (Coastcare 1997-98) 185 NHT projects for Tasmania (first round 1998-99) 949 NHT grants for New South Wales (first round1998-99) 392 NHT projects for South Australia (first round 1998-99) More than 400 NHT projects for Queensland (first round 1998-99) More than 300 NHT projects for Western Australia (first round 1998-99) More than 20 NHT projects for the Australian Capital Territory (second round) $50 million to protect Australia's oceans (September 1998)(1) When were the departmental recommendations submitted to the Minister.(2) When did the Minister approve the department's recommendations. (3) (a) When were the grants announced; and (b) by whom.2440Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Decisions on Natural Heritage Trust projects are made by myself and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Announcements are also made jointly. Therefore, to answer your question comprehensively, I have also included the decision process and announcement schedule of my colleague, the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon John Anderson MP.Environment Australia submitted projects to me for decision by program, except for the Bushcare and Coasts and Clean Seas programs, where recommendations were provided on a State and Territory basis.The then Department of Primary Industries and Energy submitted projects to the Hon John Anderson MP for decision on a State and Territory basis.The answers to parts (1) and (2) of your question are detailed in Table 1.Table 1: Decision process on Natural Heritage Trust and related programs for 1998-99Date departmental recommendations submitted to the MinisterDate of Minister's approvalEnvironment Australia Programs:Bushcare—ACT8 July 1998 27 August 1998Bushcare—Tasmania16 July 199818 August 1998Bushcare—South Australia16 July 199814 August 1998Bushcare—Western Australia11 August 199825 August 1998Bushcare—New South Wales31 July 199827 August 1998Bushcare—Victoria17 August 199825 August 1998Bushcare—Queensland7 August 199825 August 1998Endangered Species Program29 July 199814 August 1998National Feral Animal Program (Environment Australia component)21 August 199826 August 1998 National Weeds Program (Environment Australia component)21 August 199826 August 1998National Reserve System Program7 August 199814 August 1998Wetlands30 July 199814 August 1998Waterwatch27 July 199814 August 1998Victorian major Coastal and Clean Seas projects26 August 199828 August 1998WA Coastal Protection Projects (Coastcare 1997-98)6 June 199814 June 1998Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Approvals:New South Wales5 August29 AugustVictoria26 August29 AugustQueensland24 August29 AugustSouth Australia13 August29 AugustWestern Australia18 August29 AugustTasmania28 July (new projects)14 August26 August (continuing projects)29 AugustAustralian Capital Territory28 July14 AugustThe answer to part 3 (a) and (b) is detailed in table 2.Table 2: Announcement of Decisions on Natural Heritage Trust ProjectsNHT projects announcedDate of announcementPerson making announcementFunding to protect endangered species—Threatened Species Network7 September 1998Senator the Hon Robert HillVictorian major Coastal and Clean Seas projects (September 1998)9 September 1998Senator the Hon Robert Hill and the Hon Marie Tehan MP, Victorian Minister for Conservation and Land Management491 NHT projects for Victoria (first round 1998-99)10 September 1998Jointly announced by the Prime Minster, Senator the Hon Robert Hill and the Hon John Anderson120 endangered species projects (first round 1998-99)13 September 1998Senator the Hon Robert HillWestern Australia coastal protection projects (Coastcare 1997-98)17 September 1998Jointly announced by Senator the Hon Robert Hill and the Hon Graham Kierath MLA, WA Minister for Planning 185 NHT projects for Tasmania (first round 1998-99)16 September 1998Jointly by Senator the Hon Robert Hill and the Hon John Anderson MP949 NHT grants for New South Wales (first round 1998-99)21 September 1998Jointly by the Hon John Anderson MP and Senator the Hon Robert Hill392 NHT projects for South Australia (first round 1998-99)21 September 1998Jointly by Senator the Hon Robert Hill and the Hon John Anderson MPMore than 400 NHT projects for Queensland (first round 1998-99)24 September 1998Jointly by Senator the Hon Robert Hill and the Hon John Anderson MPMore than 300 NHT projects for Western Australia *first round 1998-99)28 September 1998Jointly by Senator the Hon Robert Hill and the Hon John Anderson MPMore than 20 NHT projects for the Australian Capital Territory (second round)28 September 1998Senator the Hon Margaret ReidThe commitment to an allocation of $50 million to protect Australia's oceans, was made in the September 1998 Coalition election Statement, "Our Living Heritage" which set out specific programs and other initiatives that would be required to implement a national oceans policy. That commitment was confirmed in Australia's Oceans Policy, released on 23 December 1998.2442(Question No. 392)3922442Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 December 1998:With reference to the process of `refining' the reserve boundaries for the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA), an area in the Great Western Tiers (Kooparoona Niara) of about 200 hectares was removed from reservation and made available for logging, the precise location is at Bessels Road, near Meander, the centroid of the area is about 6600E, 7950N:(1) On what date was the change made.(2) How is the new boundary different from the boundary agreed between the Prime Minister and the Premier at the RFA signing.(3) What other changes have occurred.(4) Does this mean that the boundaries agreed between the Prime Minister and the Premier at the RFA signing are not fixed. (5) Were about 3 500 hectares of pre-existing formal reserves added to the RFA Western Tiers conservation area to make the figure look good.2442Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Determination of the precise boundaries at the 1:25,000 scale is an ongoing process involving State agencies and is conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) process.(2) Clause 5 of Schedule 6 of the Tasmanian RFA provides that:"Areas shown have been identified as indicative areas at a map scale of 1:100,000 held as an electronic data layer by the State. The State will finalise boundaries of 1:25,000 maps to enable gazettal, refer to clause 24 of the agreement. Finalisation will include identifying best management boundaries. Wherever possible, these will follow easily identifiable features, including natural or ecological boundaries. Finalisation will also consider field verification of values being protected, and appropriate boundaries mapped to protect the identified values."I am advised that the 1:100,000 scale RFA boundary in this section of the Tiers did not follow any specific feature. It included an area which field verification showed had been heavily disturbed by clearfell logging and regeneration a few years ago. The area does not contain any values in the form of under-reserved forest communities, old growth forest, or wilderness which would be necessary for a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system (CAR). Forest roads had been constructed into the area and a productive young regrowth forest established following the logging. The Tasmanian Government decided to exclude this small peripheral area from the final reserve boundaries due to its low conservation value and in recognition of its developed nature. It represents a very small proportion of the 22, 500 ha in the new Great Western Tiers Conservation Area approved by the Tasmanian Parliament. I am advised that in other parts of the Tiers, boundaries were adjusted to add areas outside of the indicative RFA boundary line(3) Any boundary adjustments have been made in accordance with clause 5 of Attachment 6 of the RFA which sets out the process to be followed by the Tasmanian Government in finalising boundaries and have been incorporated into the Regional Forest Agreement (Land Classification) Act 1998.(4) The RFA signed in November 1997 contained a large-scale map of intended boundaries of the proposed reserves. Precise boundaries were required to be finalised based on reserve management principles as agreed in clause 5 of Attachment 6 of the RFA.(5) Any areas of existing or new reserves forming part of the CAR reserve system are counted towards achieving a JANIS outcome.2443(Question No. 396)3962443Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 6 January 1999:(1) In what water systems in Australia is acrolein used, for example, stock, domestic and irrigation.(2) How much acrolein is used in them and what are the minimum and maximum parts per million levels.(3) What are the risks to humans from using acrolein in their environment.(4) Are there any known side effects to using acrolein or being in the vicinity of it.(5) Is it a fact that irrigation districts are the most likely places for exposure.(6) (a) What is a safe level of exposure to acrolein; (b) how much at the highest rates possible is in any irrigation channel being treated; (c) how close do some people in the community live to poisoned channels, in metres or kilometres; and (d) how does the acrolein leave the water to make it safe.(7) Does smelling the chemical over a given period of time pose any risk to the public.(8) Is it used in built up areas. (9) Is it a fact that it has been used in the manufacturing of chemical weapons.(1) (a) Is it a fact that many people living in rental accommodation on farming properties are not informed of its use and still draw water; and (b) are they in danger from doing so.(11) Is it publicly known that rates as high as 150 times or more than the accepted exposure rate could be in channel irrigation within 20 feet of homes.(12) Has anyone ever been poisoned by acrolein in Australia or has the system ever made a mistake in taking proper precautions to protect the public or individuals from its effects.2443Alston, 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) Acrolein is used for the control of submerged weeds in flowing water. It is used primarily in irrigation channels, but in some circumstances it is also used by water supply authorities in sewerage water lagoons and domestic water supplies in rural areas. Acrolein is used only in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia.(2) Varying concentrations are applied, up to a maximum of 15 parts per million, depending on the water flow and weed infestation characteristics. In some areas the concentration is between 0.5 and 1 part per million. The specialised application equipment used ensures that a metered dose not exceeding 15 parts per million is applied.(3) Acrolein is injected under water directly from steel containers, and users are required to use extensive protective equipment. In addition, only certified operators (usually employees of water supply authorities) are allowed to apply acrolein, so there is minimal risk to humans. The risks from using acrolein include inhalation and eye and skin irritation, but such effects would only occur if correct procedures were not followed or by accident.(4) Appropriate studies of acrolein have produced no evidence for carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity or genotoxicity. The main side effects from exposure to acrolein are upper respiratory tract irritation and congestion and eye irritation.(5) The major use of acrolein is in irrigation districts, so they are the most likely places for exposure. Acrolein is commonly only used in the main irrigation supply channels, and water is contained within these channels during and after treatment. Treated water is then released into on-farm channels after sufficient time has passed for the acrolein to dissipate. The method of application ensures that acrolein is not exposed to air except in the event of an accident.Acrolein is transported by road, mainly by the distributing company. It is stored, transported and handled under Dangerous Goods, Pesticides and Occupational Health and Safety legislation. Dangerous Goods procedures include avoidance of urban areas during transport.Acrolein is produced as a by-product in combustion of several substances, and sources of exposure include emissions from internal combustion engines, cigarette smoke, incomplete combustion of wood and plastics, and overheating of fat. Acrolein is a significant industrial chemical, so people working in those industries which use acrolein may also be exposed.(6) (a) The Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for acrolein is 0.0005 mg/kg/day and a daily oral intake of 0.035 mg/day for a 70 kilogram individual should not present an appreciable health risk. Using the above ADI, a health guideline value of 0.002 mg/L has been set, to allow for accidental contamination of drinking water. The safe level of exposure to acrolein in the atmosphere is 0.1 part per million.In the MRL Standard, published by the National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals, acrolein used for aquatic weed control is listed as a substance where Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) are not necessary. Such an entry is made for a chemical where residues do not or should not occur in foods or animal feeds; or where the residues are identical to or indistinguishable from natural food components; or are otherwise of no toxicological significance.Current guidelines indicate that ambient levels of acrolein in aquatic ecosystems should not exceed 0.0002 mg/L.(b) The quantity of acrolein in a channel depends on the volume of the channel and/or the duration of injection. The concentration is maintained at or below 15 parts per million by matching application rates to measured channel flows.(c) Farmhouses may be located within 30 metres and townships within 1 kilometre of treated irrigation channels.(d) Acrolein reacts with water to form a different chemical substance. Studies of acrolein in channels have shown it has a half life of between 3 and 10 hours, depending on water pH and temperature conditions. Other processes that dissipate acrolein in water are volatilisation, adsorption and dilution.(7) Given the volatile nature of acrolein, it becomes present at some level in the air following application in channels. Depending on the concentration of acrolein in air, inhalation exposure may lead to a health risk in humans. Indications from State authorities are that the levels of acrolein present in air following application in water do not reach hazardous levels.(8) Authorities in all States in which acrolein is used have advised that acrolein is not used in built up areas.(9) Acrolein was introduced by the French in January 1916 for use in filling gas munitions, namely grenades and shells. However, because of the inherent instability of acrolein, it was not a successful chemical warfare agent in World War I, and was therefore not widely used. With the introduction of much more suitable agents (eg mustard and subsequently nerve agents), it is highly improbable that acrolein is being used, or will ever be used again, in the manufacture of chemical weapons or in chemical warfare.(10) (a) In States where acrolein is used, adjoining landholders, water users and nearby residents are notified 7 days prior to application of acrolein. While notification methods vary slightly between the States, in most cases people are notified individually. Additional methods of notification used include notices in local newspapers, radio announcements and erection of signs.(b) In addition to the measures described in (a) above, in most situations treated water is not released from channels for 48 hours. This means that acrolein will have dissipated before the treated water is used, so water users would not be in danger.(11) I have no knowledge of the occurrence of exposure to acrolein in channel irrigation at levels as high as 150 times the accepted exposure rate.(12) In Western Australia in 1996 an individual complained of itchy eyes and skin after ignoring warning signs and swimming in a channel. There are no other recorded cases of acrolein poisoning, or complaints about acrolein, in Australia.It is possible that poisonings have occurred from exposure to acrolein emitted from sources other than herbicides. One reported case involved an artist who was overcome by gas while ironing artwork. The gas was determined to have contained acrolein.There have been no reported cases of failures in the registration or control of use systems for acrolein in Australia.