1999-03-093912SENATE244501999-03-09The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice244524452445Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Minister, do you agree with your colleague the Minister for Community Services that there is a need to improve service standards in Centrelink? These comments were made in response to reports that 250,000 phone inquiries to Centrelink go unanswered each day. This equates to a total of over 90 million calls a year. Given those figures, how can the minister justify the decision to axe 5,000 Centrelink jobs? If Centrelink cannot answer the phones now, how does the minister expect Centrelink to cope when it has thousands less staff?2445Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The government is determined to ensure that Centrelink provides good service to Australians. When you look at the magnitude of the task which they face, they are doing a very good job. The call centre system has run into some difficulties because of the popularity of the service. More and more people, in fact, are calling Centrelink all the time.Opposition senators interjecting—BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, there is a great deal of laughter by opposition senators about the call centre system but, since the coming of this government, there have been call centres opened right around regional Australia giving jobs to regional Australians. There has been an announcement of two call centres to be placed in rural areas for a particular focus on rural people with their special needs. Over last Christmas another 300 part-time staff were put on duty to enable the extra demand over the Christmas period to be dealt with.It is true to say that, most times, the call centre system is handling the calls very well. The opposition—I think maybe to help the CPSU agenda—is determined to rubbish the Centrelink staff who are, in fact, providing a very good service.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You are sacking 5,000 of them!BE4Senator NEWMAN—The other day I was speaking to a representative of the Pensioners Union who told me how concerned she was about criticism of members of staff of Centrelink from people who should know better and that the Centrelink staff serve people very well. It is a huge job that they have.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Does that justify sacking them?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many interjections.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—It is a fair question though.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You can ask it at the appropriate time.BE4Senator NEWMAN—The opposition suggests that somehow there has been slash and burn in respect of the Centrelink call centre system. In fact, the Centrelink call centre system is quarantined from cuts to employment. It is intended that the system will be expanded in several ways—as I have said, with more call centres and also with new technology which will allow more people to get through more frequently. The call centre system has been dealing with 80,000 up to 150,000 constituents or callers per day. They find it very hard when occasionally there are a million calls—not people but a million calls resulting from the use of redial buttons and suchlike. No system can cope with that and that, of course, is part of the problem.Centrelink is in a very similar position to some of the other big organisations in our country like banks that have also been trying very hard to encourage their customers to do business over the telephone. Their customers also find it difficult to get through to them at some times. I think all call centre operators would say that it is a matter of when you provide the facilities more and more people want to use them.The Centrelink call centre system deserves the support of the Senate. It is providing a service. It is important that that service be improved and continued. The whole process is very much at the forefront of the government's mind in the provision of resources to the call centres and in support for the people who provide a very good service on that call centre system. I am amazed to hear the representatives of the CPSU coming into this chamber regularly pouring mud on really hardworking people who work for Centrelink. ((Time expired)2446Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm her reported statement saying that people should simply try again or visit their local Centrelink branch? Isn't this `Let them eat cake' response a callous remark considering the problems being faced by tens of thousands of Centrelink clients who are simply unable to contact someone in that agency?2446Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—No. I reject that utterly. I happen to have here an answer to a question which Senator Evans put on notice at the last estimates. The table that has been provided demonstrates that for 1998 the number of calls that were successfully taken by Centrelink increased by a substantial percentage for every month of the year. In 1997 the calls handled by the Centrelink call centre were 14,723,832; in 1998 it was 17,320,811. These are the people who got through and got good service. More than 17 million got that service. That was a 17.6 per cent increase over the previous year and, I call tell you, a substantial improvement over the Labor years. (Time expired)24462446Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Under the Howard government the Australian economy has grown strongly, providing increased job opportunities. I ask the minister: how is the government fulfilling its commitment to provide job opportunities and job security to young Australians?2446Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—There is no more important challenge than providing jobs for Austral ians who are seeking work. This government is clearly committed, as has been demonstrated by its policies. Low inflation, low interest rates and reformed industrial relations have given business the chance to grow and expand and provide jobs. We are pleased that 370,000 new jobs have been created since this government came into office. We are pleased that the percentage of unemployment is lower than it has been for years, but we do recognise that there is still a need to do better.Unfortunately, our determination to do better is continually blocked by the Labor Party, which has no interest at all in reducing the numbers of unemployed in this country. It is interested only in playing the role of opposition, the role of blocking—not in a constructive way contributing to reducing the number of unemployed. We saw it in its attitude in relation to the unfair dismissal provisions for small business. Small business said that government reform could provide an extra 50,000 jobs. So what did Labor do? Labor voted it down.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is impossible for senators to hear. The breach of standing orders is intolerable and the level of noise in the chamber makes it impossible for anyone listening to hear what is happening. I would ask senators on my left to observe standing orders.Senator Bolkus interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, I have just asked senators to stop shouting.BH4Senator HILL—To vote down the chance of 50,000 more jobs in Australia is almost beyond comprehension, but that is what the Labor Party did.RF4COOKSenator Cook—What a lie you are telling!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, withdraw that remark.RF4COOKSenator Cook—If I made an offensive remark, I withdraw it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Unconditionally withdraw it, Senator. I ask you to withdraw.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Don't be such a sook.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my right will stop interjecting. Senator Cook, I asked you to withdraw the remark.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I thought I had, but if you think I have not, I withdraw.BH4Senator HILL—The chance of 50,000 new jobs was lost by the position the Labor Party took on the unfair dismissal provisions. It is the view of small business, but the Labor Party would never listen to the view of small business. Given the chance to act in this place to ensure the continuation of youth wage rates, to ensure the opportunity of more jobs for young Australians, what did the Labor Party do? They voted against that as well. Young Australians wanting the opportunity for work lost that opportunity yesterday when the Labor Party voted against it.Even Mr Carr, the Labor Premier in New South Wales, sees it differently. He said:I think we have got to be alive to the argument that forcing up youth rates can contribute to youth unemployment. I am very conscious of the fact that any thrust in youth rates will see employers simply opt not to employ young people.I would have thought it was obvious. Yet the Labor Party, because they are told to do so by the union movement, come in here and vote against the opportunity to create jobs for young people.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Hill is reflecting on a vote of the Senate. That is against standing orders. He is not able to reflect on a vote of the Senate. You should call him to order and ask him not to do so.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—To say that a vote is wrong and contrary to what the speaker has voted himself is not in contravention of the standing orders. It is not reflecting on a vote of the Senate.BH4Senator HILL—What is interesting is that Labor's leader in waiting, Mr Crean, apparently sees it differently from Mr Beazley. He said, `Labor does recognise that employment growth may be affected by the cost of employing young people.' He recognises it. Yet what did Mr Beazley say when Labor voted down this opportunity of more jobs for young people? He described it as a `great victory'. He said that he was really `chuffed' about the chance of voting down more jobs for young people. That demonstrates the lack of leadership, which is so clear now, within the Australian Labor Party as it searches around—the old way of Mr Beazley, the new way and then the third way. Now Mr Crean and Mr Brereton are waving the baton around and saying that they can do better than Mr Beazley.Anyone who is prepared to stand up for jobs for young people, for legislative reform that will provide more jobs for young people, deserves a go ahead of Mr Beazley. This government is committed to more jobs for young people and will keep introducing reforms into this parliament to achieve that goal.2447Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The leader has enlightened us as to several initiatives that the government has sought to take in the interests of job security for young people that have been blocked by the Labor Party. Could the leader enlighten us further as to initiatives which the government has taken in addition to these which have been of benefit to young people's employment prospects? 2447Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—There have been many. Again, practically all have been opposed by the Labor Party. Remember the mutual obligations through the Work for the Dole scheme? That was opposed by the Labor Party. Our efforts to encourage young people to stay at high school so that they are more employable—no interest in the Labor Party. Our efforts to improve literacy and numeracy among young people—opposed by the Labor Party. Our enhanced apprenticeship scheme—opposed by the Labor Party. It further demonstrates that this Labor Party, focused on opposition, has no interest in providing more opportunities for young people for work or seeing that they are better qualified for jobs that might be available.24472447McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Can the minister confirm that less than one per cent of benefit recipients from whom money is recovered are ever charged with fraud? Minister, doesn't this statistic reflect the fact that for the overwhelming majority of these recipients either Centrelink was responsible for the overpayment or the recipient was simply late in advising of a change of circumstance? Whilst the minister has been proudly touting the amounts this government has been recovering from recipients as proof of a crackdown on fraud, can she now say how much of that recovered money was actually due to Centrelink error or innocent mistakes and delays on the part of recipients? Isn't it true that only a tiny percentage of the total amount of recovered money was actually due to demonstrated fraud on behalf of the recipient?2448Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Senator McKiernan has been in this chamber for long enough and heard me talk about this issue for long enough to know that I do not just talk about fraud. Fraud and compliance are the basis of all the reports which have been tabled in this parliament every quarter since this government came into office. Why did we table those reports every quarter? Because the previous government was not serious about cracking down on fraud and compliance.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Oh, rubbish!N26ABETZSenator Abetz—The intelligentsia at it again!BE4Senator NEWMAN—Nobody has suggested that the relatively small numbers of people who are actually taken through the courts are the only people who have been engaged in fraud.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I wish your side would just tell the truth.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I've been hoping for that for years.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Newman, just a moment. Conversations across the chamber are disorderly.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Also the number of people who are involved in the repayment of debt are not all fraudulent. Nobody has ever suggested that. I certainly have not.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You do, regularly.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—BE4Senator NEWMAN—I certainly have not. If Senator Ray is wanting to use his booming voice to shout me down again, then I would suggest that he is a bit sensitive about this issue because his government was pretty soft in this area, and the Australian people recognised that. The Labor Party recognised it in fact. When we went to the 1996 election, the Labor Party did a study afterwards as to why they lost the election. One of the elements that they thought was important in their losing the election was that they were seen to be soft on social security fraud and compliance issues. This government has done not only what is in the interests of the majority of those decent people who are drawing social security entitlements but also the right thing by the taxpayer who is funding the system. It is very important that nobody is under any misapprehension.The numbers of people who are taken through the courts do not represent all those people who are fraudulent—they never have—but they are the ones who are particularly diligent in their fraud. They are the ones who have taken a lot of money out of the system, often over a number of years with a very deliberate and continuous fraud. It is important that that be seen by the public as being what happens if you are not prepared to do the honest thing by your fellow taxpayers. You are taking the money out of your neighbour's pocket. It is very akin to stealing.Senator McKiernan may not have been at Senate estimates where questions like this have been answered over the last few years. As I recall it, the figure which is consistently given by my department for the level of repayments that are required as a result of an administrative error by the department, now Centrelink, has always been under five per cent. As I stand here I seem to recall the Auditor acknowledging not long ago that recently it has been substantially lower than that.2448McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I had hoped that the minister would take that part of the question I asked on notice and provide the details of it instead of merely relying on her memory. Isn't it true that any future increase in the total amount of money recovered from benefit recipients simply reflects a growing number of errors on the part of Centrelink, which is directly related to this government's further cutting staff numbers to do the work?2449Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Hence the reason for the first part of the question and your disappointment that I was able to give you some hard information about the subject. The proportion of repayments that are required from customers as a result of Centrelink error is going down. I know that is a great disappointment to you because you cannot make a case, Senator.24492449Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Could the minister inform the Senate if there has been a clear consensus amongst policy makers over the last decade concerning government ownership of major business enterprises? Is the consensus based on sound and well-reasoned arguments which are accepted around the world? Has this consensus been reflected through such measures as the privatisation of Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank and Telstra? Finally, I ask the minister: is there any recent evidence that some policy makers have abandoned this consensus for cynical, short-term political opportunism?2449Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Yes. The fact is that, as Senator Crane rightly points out, through the 1980s and into the 1990s there was bipartisan support for a policy of privatisation of the major government business enterprises in this country.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Nonsense!LD4Senator ALSTON—Listen, son, you did not get a guernsey at that stage. You are still irrelevant, so we do not have to listen to you. The Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the airports and pretty much everything that could be privatised was privatised by Labor in government. There is not much left, I admit, but Telstra is one of them. Of course, Mr Beazley, as the Minister for Finance, was in charge of most of these processes. When we corporatised Telstra, there he was as the Minister for Transport and Communications.What did we discover recently? According to Bob Gottliebsen in the BRW, in late 1995 Mr Keating called John Prescott to Canberra and offered to sell Telstra to BHP. Who else would just happen to have his fingerprints at the scene? None other than the then Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. Did he know or didn't he? He has never denied it, but if he does get up and deny it what does that tell you? A monumental vote of no confidence from his leader. This is his problem at the moment, you see. When you start running around calling for unity and telling people to lie down and have a Bex, you are in very big trouble. As Tony Wright pointed out, do not worry about the Breretons; worry about your own performance. That is what it is about.The tragedy of this debate is that your leader runs around in ever diminishing circles and cannot even understand what the issues are. So this morning, when asked if there was any chance for a further sell-off of Telstra, he told Neil Mitchell, `That's in the hands of Senator Harradine at the moment.' What does `at the moment' mean? I suppose it means, `If we get into government, everything will be different.' What the public needs to understand is that if you sell now, you get Telstra lock, stock and barrel in the private sector. If you wait until Labor gets into government—if it ever happens—what you get is a fire sale break-up. In other words, all the good pieces would be flogged off and you would leave the unions with their plaything.Mr Beazley cannot understand this. He says, `Whether it is dumped by the Senate, of course, is not in the hands of the Labor Party.' Excuse me? It's not in the hands of the Labor Party? The Labor Party has got more than the votes we would need to get this passed.Mr Beazley is a great Civil War enthusiast, isn't he, presiding over the best civil wars on his own side of politics many a time. But he might just take a lesson from Jeb Stuart, a cavalry commander during the Civil War who went missing in action at Gettysburg. Mr Beazley is missing in action right now on all the major policy debates. The tragedy is that Mr Beazley yearns for the good old days when a good day's work meant locking yourself in your room and playing for hours on end with your model battleships and your aircraft carriers and your F111s. But it is not as easy as that in opposition. You have got to stand up for what you believe in.We know that he believed in privatisation right down the line. He knows it is in the best interests of Australians. He knows it is the only way he can deliver $671 million worth of initiatives for rural and remote Australia. But, no, he takes the coward's way out: he sits on his hands, he lets Latham and Tanner—the young turks—get out there and argue the case. Of course, they are not opposed to privatisation. The old turkey wobbler, Mr Beazley, does not believe in any of this, does he? Of course he does. He just does not believe in sticking his head up; he is burying it in the sand. (Time expired)2450Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I ask a supplementary question. In terms of Telstra and the failure of the Labor Party to support this particular initiative of the government, could the minister explain to the Senate what opportunities will be denied to all Australians, in particular those in rural and remote Australia, in terms of the expansion of communications and a modern network?2450Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—This goes to the heart of the debate, for Senator Faulkner's benefit, because only by a further sale of Telstra will you have the capacity to spend $671 million—UW4CRANESenator Crane—Madam President, I raise a point of order with regard to standing order No. 197, interruption of a speaker.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Well, don't take a point of order.UW4CRANESenator Crane—I would like to hear the answer to this question because it is of enormous importance to a lot of people.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—This is not a point of order.UW4CRANESenator Crane—Madam President, I request that you bring those on the other side of the chamber to order so that I can hear the answer, in particular Senator Faulkner and others over there, who should set an example. When it says in the paper today, `Beazley cracks whip on team, lift your game', is their interpretation of that to make more noise?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Crane, that is not a point of order. Resume your seat.LD4Senator ALSTON—This is a very critical issue. Does the Labor Party support continuous mobile phone coverage on 11 of Australia's major national highways? Does it support giving people local call access in outer extended zones? Does it support a broadcast fund to extend the roll-out of SBS and to clear up some of the black spots? Does it support new services in King Island and remote island communities? Does it support another $250 million for the Natural Heritage Trust? Those opposite have never said boo on the subject, they have never come out and argued against it. They know that it is the only way to fund it, but they hope no-one will notice. That is called policy gutlessness.As soon as your leader realises that you cannot spend the next 2½ years hoping no-one will notice, the better. You tried to get back in by doing nothing; it didn't work. Now is the time to stand up for proper policy. If you want to help the bush, if you ever want to get another seat back in rural Australia, this is the place to start. (Time expired)24502450Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Is the minister aware that everyone in Western Australia was recently unable to access Centrelink services because the computer system was down? Is she aware that on 15 February this year, the computer was down for most of the morning and that Centrelink staff advised affected clients that the problem is often a national one? Does she agree that, given the size of Centrelink and the number of its clients, even if these periods last only a few hours, it will affect tens of thousands of people? During this time the efficiency of 26,000 Centrelink staff will also be drastically reduced. Can the minister inform the Senate how many times the Centrelink computer has been down over the last 12 months by state and how long those down times have lasted?2451Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—As to the specifics at the end of the question, of course I will be happy to get that information from Minister Truss for you. But I think it would be interesting for you to know that, in a recent exercise in Western Australia, the Bunbury call centre was in fact determined to have been the most successful provider of call centre services, private or public, in the state. So I give that accolade to the people in Western Australia that your party has been rubbishing today and in the media.Of course systems break down. I remember when the Labor Party was in government that the Ombudsman actually reported that the teleservice clients had complained to the Ombudsman's office that they could not get through to the Department of Social Security at all over a prolonged period and that, when they could speak to anybody, they had waited for excessive periods to do so. That is why the opposition has been particularly hard on the call centre people and on Centrelink generally—because it did not have a very good track record when it was in government.I remind the Senate that Centrelink has something like 6.2 million customers. There are eight million individual entitlements. There are 24,000 staff, providing services over 400 sites, but now extending to 1,000 where we have shared facilities with state or local government or with outreach facilities. They send 66 million letters to customers every year. They book over 400,000 office appointments every month. They will handle something like 19 million phone calls this year, and this is expected to go up to about 21 million calls next year. They make some half a million decisions each week. They have 12 million people access their Internet website each year. On-line transactions total 12.5 million every day. The number of payments total $230 million each year. I think in those circumstances, when a computer can go down from time to time, they are doing a remarkable job.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Why don't you have a backup system? Inefficient and imprudent management! 10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, we are waiting for you to stop interjecting so Senator Bishop can ask his question.2451Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the moves to outsource Centrelink's IT, how can the minister guarantee that under a contracted-out arrangement Centrelink will remain accountable to the parliament for the reliability of its computer system?2451Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—This question is a worthwhile one, I must say. It was the Labor Party in government that actually started the outsourcing of IT. Senator, you were not in the parliament when the Labor government outsourced the Department of Veterans' Affairs IT programs. That was, after all, a fairly sensitive action. It was one that the opposition—and then I was the spokesman—supported your government on. The veterans were a bit concerned about it. I believe it has worked pretty well. It was the forerunner, the model, for outsourcing IT subsequently. We are not doing anything extraordinary in that way. The sorts of precautions about privacy, the accountability of the contractors and the contractual arrangements which are tied into the legislation by which, first of all, Veterans' Affairs and now Social Security and Centrelink are bound, are all operative. (Time expired)24512451Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I remind the minister that the Howard government was elected in 1996 promising to bring higher standards to public life—in fact, to restore public trust in parliament. Since then: the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has failed to honour an agreement with the Democrats to abide by the outcome of a review of junior rates by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission; the Prime Minister has failed to honour an undertaking to Senator Harradine that families would be compensated in the tax package for the effect of the youth allowance means test; the Minister for Family and Community Services has failed to fulfil the ironclad guarantees given by Mr Howard to ACOSS that the social security safety net would be maintained; and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has failed to keep his promise to rural Australians that Telstra's service levels would rise. I ask the minister: can you assure us here on the crossbenches that any agreements we reach with you on tax reform will actually be honoured?2452Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—If I could interpret that with just a slight touch of optimism, I would say that I warmly welcome an indication that the Democrats might be prepared to talk seriously about the need for tax reform in this country. There is no doubt that it is long overdue. There is no doubt that a more efficient tax system will help to grow the economy, to build on the advantages that we have introduced through lower interest rates and lower inflation and better IR reform. It will give the opportunity for business to be more competitive and, therefore, to expand and to employ. If the Democrats now appreciate that fact, I applaud their recognition. This is a government that wishes to keep its promises. It is not a government that makes promises with any intention of breaking them. I think that, if an objective assessment is done on the basis of the promises that we made in the lead-up to the 1996 election, you will find that this government did, in fact, implement practically every promise it made in the first term, and the few that were left over are in the process of being implemented now.So, yes, we look forward to the opportunity of sitting down with the Australian Democrats and engaging in a debate which we hope will convince them of the merits of our tax proposals—tax proposals which have to be seen as a whole but which are balanced, which will result in $13 billion of tax being returned to Australians, which will result in a more efficient taxation system in relation to indirect taxes and which will result in a great advantage for Australia's export industry—8U4LEESSenator Lees—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is on relevance. I asked the minister specifically about agreements reached with the crossbenches in this place and how we can get some guarantees that they are actually going to be kept.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I cannot direct the minister on how he answers your question, but I would just draw his attention to the question that was asked and call him to continue.BH4Senator HILL—I was just demonstrating to the honourable senator why she can have faith in us on this particular issue—because the merit is on the side of the tax reform package that we have submitted to the parliament. When the Australian Democrats are convinced of that merit, there is no doubt we will have a deal that will stand the test of time and for which all Australians will be appreciative. So we welcome that discussion and an outcome that we trust will lead to that conclusion. This government does honour agreements it reaches around this chamber, and the proof of that is in our record.2452Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I remind the minister of the record. We had a written agreement with Mr Reith regarding waiting for the Industrial Relations Commission and I remind him that the minister's signature is on that agreement. Minister, I have great difficulty with the assurances—or lack of—that you have just given to us. I ask you again: on the basis that you have not kept agreements so far, either with us or with Senator Harradine, do you acknowledge that there is a need to rebuild trust between the government and the crossbenches? What measures are you going to put in place to begin that process of rebuilding trust?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Have dinner together, and let's get on with it!2452Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I was going to suggest a cup of tea. I thought that was the magic formula; I thought that was the formula for success in the past. It is a serious issue. As I understand it, there was no undertaking by the government that we would not seek to bring in the same reform on youth wages, because it is important for young people to get jobs. We did not ever say we would walk away from that. We said there would be an inquiry, and there is an inquiry. If Senator Lees is suggesting to me that there was a commitment that we would not reintroduce the process until that had been completed, then I would like to see that and we will see if we can take that up with Mr Reith. But it is not as I understand the situation to be.I reiterate: this government does stick by its deals. It is important that there is trust within this chamber, and we would like to deal with you on that basis in contributing to delivering to this country a better tax system.24532453Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Can the minister confirm that over Christmas last year Centrelink made overpayments of up to $800 to some 37,000 clients? Can she confirm that each client was saddled with a debt that must be repaid, a potentially disruptive situation for low income earners? Does the minister stand by the government's explanation that this bungle was caused by human error within Centrelink? Will she state on the record whether she believes that her government's decision to cut 5,000 jobs from Centrelink has made this kind of error more or less likely to occur in the future?2453Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—As Senator Evans would know full well, these are questions which were raised and answered by officials at the estimates committee hearings. Therefore, the answer to the first question is yes and to the second question is yes, they must be repaid. Of course, a lot of people will not have spent the money. They were notified in pretty quick time. The answers that I am giving you now are ones that you were given at the time of the Senate estimates committee.I would like to take issue with you that in fact the decision about changes to the jobs in Centrelink was not a government decision; it was a decision of the Centrelink board. It was a decision of the Centrelink board because at the time—opposition members are not very interested in policy matters, so they may not have studied this—Centrelink was established as a statutory authority, which meant the bringing together of two organisations into one, it was clearly stated that there would be efficiencies from bringing them together and that an efficiency dividend would be expect ed, although it would not be expected in the first year of its operations.The board made its decisions based on the recommendations of its chief executive and her senior executives. The 5,000 people who keep being peddled around is a misleading figure, just as the opposition is constantly using misleading figures to embellish their arguments that otherwise would not hold water. The number of people who were to be made redundant at the time the announcement was made was something in the order of half that number because people had already chosen to leave and take a package before the announcement. There were not a further 5,000 jobs to go; there were about 2,500.As I said earlier, the call centre system was quarantined from that. In fact, there will be an extra, I think, five per cent—I cannot find the exact figure at the moment—increase in jobs in the call centre network. So I think that that probably puts paid to the argument that you were trying to make there, Senator. I do not know whether it is helpful to you, but you did have those answers largely at the estimates committee. Surely, you remember.2453Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I certainly remember. The question, Minister, went to your responsibility for the lack of service driven by your 10 per cent budget cut. It is all very well for you to say it is all a board decision, but you allocate the finance to Centrelink and these questions go to the question of the government allocating sufficient funds.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Your question, Senator?AX5Senator CHRIS EVANS—The question is: do you think it acceptable that we still have these huge numbers of unanswered calls at Centrelink? Isn't that directly affected by your failure to properly fund Centrelink?2453Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I deny utterly that there is a failure to properly fund Centrelink. But, of course, the Labor Party has a very fast and loose approach to taxpayers' dollars, which is why this country got into a $10 billion black hole that we had to take action to fix. You do not have to run a combined organisation by just leaving all the money that the two had and not asking them to be more efficient now that they have come together, Senator. Perhaps that is a message that has not got through to the Labor Party, which is why you are all going to sit on the opposition benches for a long time. Good management is an essential component of good government. That is what the people of Australia are getting from us and that is what they failed dismally to get under you.24542454Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question goes to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Firstly, as a preamble, the naval armaments complex has moved out of Sydney following a decision in 1994 that that would happen by the Olympic year for reasons of safety. Port Wilson in Victoria was chosen with Port Alma near Rockhampton chosen as an option. Twofold Bay at Eden was dismissed for reasons of public safety and cost. Has the government now decided to go ahead with part of that complex at Twofold Bay? If so, is there to be a waiver on public safety due to this facility being so close to the town and people in that region? Can the minister say what public consultations have been undertaken and how much the public, including local residents, have been taken into account in making this decision?2454Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The question relating to the potential for Twofold Bay as an ammunition facility is very important. When I was shadow minister for defence, I was very concerned at the decision made by the previous government to move the ammunitioning facility to Point Wilson. I was interested to see in the briefing note here that in December 1997 the Department of Defence referred to parliament the proposal to construct this facility at Point Wilson but the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works was concerned at the distance of Point Wilson from the Sydney fleet base and exercise area and recommended in its report on 30 June last year that Defence examine alternative locations closer to Sydney for the Navy's ammunitioning requirements. In particular, it identified Twofold Bay near Eden as a suitable location. I, of course, was not on that commit tee, but I agree wholeheartedly with its recommendations.I do not have all the answers today that you would like, but I can take some on notice and give you the rest. The preliminary feasibility studies, I understand, indicate that Twofold Bay on the south coast of New South Wales is suitable for construction of a Navy ammunitioning facility comprising a new wharf and jetty and several storage and administration buildings, and the potential exists for commercial use of the new wharf and jetty.Referral to the parliament is anticipated mid to late this year following further feasibility studies and an environmental assessment. If approved, the proposed works would commence in early 2000 for completion in early 2002, and the order of cost is approximately $59 million. Regardless of the outcome of further studies, interim arrangements will be required to allow the closure of the Sydney operation by the end of 1999, and of course that is what you were referring to in your question. Point Wilson is proposed to be used as the interim facility until the Navy ammunitioning facility is constructed.2454Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask again about the waiver of the public risk which would be involved at Twofold Bay. If this project is to go ahead, is the 700-metre jetty to be built at east Twofold Bay to be in part funded by $8 million of Commonwealth and state money otherwise earmarked for restructuring the forest industry on the basis that there will be whole-log exports off this wharf when it is not being used for naval purposes without downstream processing of those logs, as was the aim of the Regional Forest Agreement?2454Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—As I indicated earlier, I will get additional information, where it is available, from the Minister for Defence. The latter part of the senator's supplementary question, I think, was more for the minister responsible for forestry, and I do not represent him. To the best of my ability, I will get the senator additional information.24542454Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question without notice is to the Minister for Regional Ser vices, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald. Does the minister acknowledge that, notwithstanding that MCEETYA is now assessing the quality of Greenwich University's educational service, the institution is now legally established as an Australian university? Is it not true that, no matter what MCEETYA eventually decides, the horse has effectively bolted and it was the minister who opened the stable door? Can the minister confirm that, given he directed the Administrator of Norfolk Island to assess the Greenwich University bill, there is no capacity for the Governor-General to withhold assent to this law?2455Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—If the senator wants to know about educational matters, he should refer his questions to the relevant minister, not to me. My responsibility, as territories minister, is for Norfolk Island. As I have indicated previously, Greenwich University is set up under Norfolk Island legislation. It is the responsibility of the Norfolk Island minister responsible for higher education, in the same way, as I mentioned yesterday, that the University of Notre Dame is the responsibility of the Western Australian minister for higher education.In accordance with the Norfolk Island Act, the Administrator sought instructions from me on whether he should assent to the Greenwich University bill. My department consulted with other agencies and some state education departments. My department recommended to me that, as no objection had been made, there was no reason not to instruct the Administrator to assent to the bill passed by the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly.I emphasise again that the university may not operate as a university in mainland Australia. The question of bona fides and standards of the Greenwich University is essentially a matter for the territory's government, and that was emphasised some several weeks ago, I might add. It takes a fair while for Senator Carr to catch up with these issues. His colleagues in the other place raised this matter several weeks ago. As I say, that is a matter for the Norfolk Island government. If you want to ask what investigations the Norfolk Island government took, you will have to speak to them and find out what academic record or financial credentials they actually investigated because it was a matter that the Norfolk Island government was responsible for.I understand that the Norfolk Island Chief Minister has recently written to the Chairman of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs asking them to consider the institution. My department, as I have mentioned, is concerned principally with Commonwealth responsibilities in relation to the Territory of Norfolk Island, not with areas of expertise properly the responsibility of other agencies. In this regard, we have emphasised that we are happy to assist both the Norfolk Island government and the proponents of the Greenwich University in their contacts with other Commonwealth or state educational authorities as appropriate.2455Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the minister again: will he acknowledge that it was he as minister who directed the Administrator of Norfolk Island to assent to the Greenwich University bill? Further, under the Howard government's code of ministerial conduct, who ultimately takes the blame for a stuff up of this magnitude?2455Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Obviously Senator Carr should listen. I have already answered that question. I think he likes to hear the sound of his own voice. I have answered the question. I really cannot add terribly much more to that. I just urge Senator Carr to read the answer in Hansard .24552455Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice and Customs. The Australian Customs Service, which is responsible for ensuring the integrity of our national borders, has recently played an integral role in record drug seizures. In light of that latest positive work, the minister may be aware of a recent newspaper article which criticised Customs for allowing in prohibited weapons. What is the minister's response to that article?2456Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank the honourable senator for her question. The Commonwealth's role in relation to dangerous weapons is to enforce import restrictions. Under schedule 2 of the Customs Prohibited Imports Regulations, there is a very extensive list of weapons that are prohibited unless special permission is received. That means that, except in some very limited circumstances—and they are limited—items on that schedule are prohibited imports. That list closely represents the list of prohibited weapons for possession under state legislation throughout Australia, including New South Wales. It is not exactly the same, but it is a close parallel.I was, therefore, amazed to see the article that Senator Payne refers to in the Sun-Herald on 21 February, which pictured a range of weapons that are listed in schedule 2 and claimed that Customs were allowing the importation of these weapons. I think I recall a headline to the effect of, `Take your pick'. These claims are simply incorrect and misleading.Customs have advised me that, based on a careful examination of the photographs in the newspaper, most, if not all, of the weapons are prohibited imports under Commonwealth regulations. Further, one of the knives—a particularly unattractive knife with a curved blade and spiky things that come out of the handle you hold it by—looked very similar, and I am advised that the same knife on the front page of the Sun-Herald was seized by Customs and lent to the New South Wales Police Service. What an ironic twist of fate in an election that Customs lends a weapon in good faith as an example of a dangerous weapon that they are in fact seizing and the next thing we know, in a New South Wales election context, the weapon is on the front page of the Sunday paper as an example of weapons that Customs let in. I have here the letter from the New South Wales Police Service requesting that the article be given to them.It is true that Customs officers can only legally seize goods that are prohibited by Commonwealth regulations. The Ombudsman has, on occasion, rightly criticised Customs officers for being overzealous. Law enforcement agencies should always stay within their jurisdictional limits.As Customs minister, I am always open to suggestions from states and territories as to the types of items they think should be added to the schedule. Where there are weapons that a state has banned the possession of but the importation is not banned, I look to speedily amending the Customs regulations where we can get state agreement. There will always be one state that wants to be tougher than another, but we will happily look at suggestions put forward by the states.What I am sure Senator Payne realises is that this little exercise was drummed up in New South Wales as an election initiative to make the Carr government look good. I would like to take the opportunity in the remaining minute and such other time as might be available to put this in context for you, Madam President, because I know it is important you understand the real facts of crime in New South Wales. I can assure you that Customs is not letting prohibited weapons in on a day-to-day basis. The Carr government don't want you to know that they have the highest crime rate in the nation. They don't want you to know that armed robberies have more than doubled in the last three or four years, and the same with unarmed robberies. They certainly don't want you to know that assaults in New South Wales have increased by 44 per cent since 1995. They wouldn't want you to know that, would they? Furthermore, New South Wales has the lowest rate of finalised investigations of armed robbery of any state. (Time expired)2456Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Are there any other matters in the Commonwealth-state discussions which pertain to this issue which the minister might advise the Senate of?2456Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank the senator for her question. Yes, Senator Payne, I think what is important when the states and Commonwealth come to discuss these matters is that we look at the role the states are playing in law enforcement. The message I would take to such a meeting would be that it is unacceptable for New South Wales to have the lowest rate of finalised investigations of armed robbery of any state. I see Premier Carr saying he does not need more police; I see the Police Commissioner saying he does not need more police. But when you know that they have the lowest rate of finalised investigations of armed robbery of any state, you have to ask yourself, `Why don't they?' They have the lowest rate of finalised investigations of unarmed robbery.We should have used this next fact yesterday on International Women's Day. What is a disgrace for them more than these other things—perhaps I should not put it that way but, in any event, I think it is disgraceful—is that sexual assault in New South Wales is a national disgrace. They have the lowest percentage of offenders proceeded against in sexual assault cases—only 25 per cent in New South Wales. If they don't need more police, I do not know what is wrong with them. 24572457Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. Before you directed the Administrator of Norfolk Island to assent to the Greenwich University bill, were you aware that Greenwich University has a history of appropriating names for itself that in fact belong to distinguished, highly reputable institutions, such as the International Institute of Advanced Studies in Japan and the University of Greenwich in the United Kingdom? Were you aware that the Greenwich University ran a mail-order degree mill in the state of Missouri in the United States with only one condition—that is, that it did not enrol students within that state itself—and that it is currently not accredited in that state? Finally, were you aware that in 1993 the Victorian state government knocked back an application by Greenwich University, which wanted to be formally established as a university in that state?2457Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Carr seems to know a lot about it. Someone suggested he might have got his degree from that university by mail order. I cannot add any more to the answer I gave previously. Although my colleagues can understand it, you have to apparently say it over and over again for it to get within the thinking capacity of the opposition.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—How did you get your degree?YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—How did I get my degree?NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—By mail order?YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I did my studies by correspondence. I did it externally through the University of Queensland. I, unfortunately, was not in your privileged position; I just went to a state school. I worked during the day—9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—Silvertails.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—You are silvertails, you and your mates—all your union mates over there.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Macdonald, you should direct your remarks through the chair.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I was provoked, Madam President. I am proud of the state school that I went to—I do not resile from it—and I am proud that I did my university studies externally. I cannot add anything further. If you want to know about matters educational and about universities, you really should refer them to the relevant minister. I explained that before.2457Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, can I ask the minister a supplementary question: before you approved this university, did you look into the academic qualifications of its chancellor?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, your question should be directed through the chair also.AW5Senator CARR—I ask: did the minister, before he approved this university, look into the academic qualifications of its chancellor, Dr John Walsh? Did he hold discussions with the people that accredited his degree, the Shoshone native American tribe of Nevada?2457Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Perhaps Senator Carr met him there or something at the same university. How many times do I have to say that this is a matter for the Norfolk Island minister responsible. I suggest Senator Carr refer his questions to the minister responsible in the Norfolk Island government.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice2458245815:02:002458Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—On the first day back, I got stumped with a question from Senator Harradine on Australia Day. I now have an answer from the Prime Minister on that and I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Australia Day is a special day of celebration when all Australians can share the sense of patriotism and spirit that makes our country great and unique. Its celebration on 26 January each year provides all Australians with the opportunity to contemplate the past and take pride in our achievements as a nation and to think about the future.While I appreciate that some people in the community would prefer an Australia Day long weekend, the government considers that it is more appropriate to maintain the symbolism of Australia's national day by celebrating the occasion as a national event on 26 January.245815:02:002458Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Yesterday Senator Mackay asked me a question in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services regarding the long-term operating plan of Sydney airport. Mr Anderson has provided me with the following answer.The minister is aware of the letter from the Chief Executive of Airservices Australia, Mr Bill Pollard, sent to a number of organisations including the Sydney Airport Corporation at the end of last week. The letter canvasses the option of Airservices Australia handing over the runway selection to the Sydney Airport Corporation. Mr Pollard's letter does not set out the views of the government, and the government does not agree with the option canvassed in the letter. Airservices Australia has statutory responsibility for air traffic control and the carrying out of the long-term operating plan for Sydney airport. Airservices Australia will continue to be responsible for air traffic control and runway selection at Sydney airport.Senator Mackay also asked me about the comments that were made by my colleague the member for Bradfield, Dr Nelson. I am advised that Dr Nelson agrees with the minister's position set out in this answer.245815:03:002458Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government (Senator Ian Macdonald) to questions without notice asked by Senator Carr today, relating to the accreditation of Greenwich University, Norfolk Island.The Senate today heard an astounding farce from this minister who is quickly becoming known as the Basil Fawlty of this government for the way in which he has approached his responsibilities to Australia's international education industry. His actions—and his actions alone—in directing the Administrator of Norfolk Island to give assent to the bill for the Greenwich University has placed in jeopardy Australia's very valuable international education industry which is now running to the value of over $3 billion a year.We have a proposition from this government which essentially argues that they do not understand what is going on. They have no idea as to what is happening within Australia's education industries and, quite clearly, have no appreciation of the damage that is being done. This minister is one who, when asked a question, throws his hands in the air and basically says, `We know nothing.'It is a case where the minister for education, on the other hand, will argue the Manuel defence. He says that this is the responsibility of the minister for territories, while the minister for territories says that this is the responsibility of the minister for education. The vice-chancellors argue that this is a problem for the vice-chancellor of this so- called new university at Greenwich in Norfolk Island. We would have thought that anyone with any brains at all on the question of education would have asked a few basic questions about an application from an outfit like this at Greenwich.We have a situation where this university quite clearly has been established for some time in various forms in various states in the United States of America where it has been removed from one state after another after various questions have been asked about the irregularities under which it operates. This is an extremely serious matter. If it was not quite so serious, I am sure it would be very funny.We have to ask: did this minister make some basic inquiries, particularly about the organisation that was setting itself up as a proprietary company to run a university? Frankly, under this model, the company University Meats—which is based in Melbourne, just around the corner from my office—could operate a university because it has the name `University' in its title. This is the way in which they run their education policies in this country.What we have here is a chancellor presenting himself as a distinguished academic. He says that, amongst his many titles, he has claims to being the Regent of the French Royal House of Anjou. He says that he is a Justice of the Peace and a Knight Grand Cross of the Sovereign Order of St John. He says that he has various titles associated with St John of Malta as a result of his activities as a great international academic.This is the same Mr Walsh who, as I say, has his qualifications from a university which gives accreditation from the Shoshone tribe of Nevada. He presents himself as Duke de Branagh. He runs the Brimeyer organisation that has set out to support the claims that are being made to the Russian throne by His Highness Prince Alexis II. It has a post-office box address in Norfolk Island as well. So it is a very versatile operation that he is running there.Mr Walsh, as I say, styles himself as `Duke de Branagh and de Ronceray' and describes Norfolk Island as `a former British colony, now a parliamentary monarchy, located in the Pacific Ocean'. As I say, what we have here is extremely serious. However, the government's actions suggest to me that it is being treated as a complete farce. The minister quite clearly does not understand his responsibilities. We have a situation where quite clearly the Greenwich University, while having headquarters in Hawaii, does not seem to have any accreditation in the state of Hawaii. We have a situation where a university has been running a mail-order company, with a Weetbix-packet university degree coming out of Missouri and has been presenting itself as an Australian university.That is the great tragedy of all of this: it has been allowing itself to be presented as an Australian university. We have a university claiming to be part of the great Australian quality education system which is appropriating the names of other great institutions throughout the world, such as the International Institute of Advanced Studies in Japan and the University of Greenwich in the United Kingdom. We have a government that quite clearly does not understand its responsibility to protect the institutions in this country, the 38 universities of this country, that do a very fine job.We have seen the Victorian government face up to its obligations—and I must suggest to the Senate that that is rare for me to say—and say, `This is not on.' This is a rort and quite clearly it is inappropriate for the government to allow it to go on. (Time expired)15:08:002459Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—This again just shows how far this opposition is off the main game. Yesterday in the GST debate we heard those opposite going on about boy scouts, and they were two weeks out of date on that. Today, on this issue with Greenwich University, Senator Carr is off the main game as well. He did bring this matter up in estimates. But that they would bring up this obscure remote situation just shows how little material they have to work on in attempting to attack this government.As a matter of fact, Senator Carr has brought this up in the wrong parliament. This is not a matter for the federal government; this is a matter for state and territory governments. You should know, Senator Carr, that the legislation for the operation of universities in this country is controlled by the states and territories.I would just refresh your memory on territory universities. In this territory we have Canberra University; who controls that, Senator Carr? All the legislative requirements, all the approvals are with the Australian Capital Territory. Then there is the territory of Norfolk Island. Who, Senator Carr, controls the authorities for the curriculum and approval in that particular territory? It is not a matter for the Commonwealth government.You did mention—and it has also been mentioned in the process by Senator Macdonald—that this matter has been referred to MCEETYA. We are very early down the track on the whole approval process. The Norfolk Island Administrator has to give assent. It has been referred to MCEETYA to have a look at. As yet we have not had advice back from MCEETYA on this. In the final analysis, it would be up to the Governor-General to disallow this going ahead. But we are not anywhere near that stage at present.What is the real fear here, Senator Carr? We have, as was set up under your government, what you call the National Unified System. We have Australia's accredited universities operating under the National Unified System, and Greenwich University is not a member of that. You seem to be implying that this will have some effect on Australia's reputation. I would respond by saying that that university will not be part of the Australian system unless it is accepted under the rules of the AVCC, and that may not happen. This is all speculation.If the university were up and operating, giving degrees, and it had been proved that the sorts of courses it was giving were not up to scratch, it might be the time to perhaps bring it up in this chamber. But I think you are well ahead of time, Senator Carr. We are absolutely nowhere near that stage of operation.Senator Carr, you have made several rubbishings of the chancellor of this institution. You should understand that there is a difference between a chancellor and a vice-chancellor: a vice-chancellor runs a university; a chancellor is always a figurehead, often a prominent person in the community. I am sure that, if we went through the records, apart from some very distinguished chancellors—such as the Chancellor of the Southern Cross University, who has eminent qualifications—many others in the positions of chancellor and pro-chancellor do not necessarily have those qualifications and are just distinguished community citizens. Possibly what you have brought up there is a total furphy. I think we need to go back and look at the main issue here, and that is the standard of Australia's universities, which are top rate. Throughout the world, we have a reputation that is second to none in terms of a very fine and comprehensive university system. We have an export market in education and our 36 universities are now bringing in over $3 billion in funding. That is done through excellence and the quality accreditation processes that we have in place in this country.If this particular university in the end does not come up to scratch, it will not be part of that comprehensive system, it will not be able to join the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee, it will not be part of the Unified National System. It will not have that recognition.So, Senator, you have jumped the gun, but I appreciate why. It is because this opposition does not have sufficient matters to raise against this government. It grasps at straws. It criticises what is happening with boy scouts. It criticises Norfolk Island. Get back on the main game. (Time expired)15:13:002460Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—This is a matter of great concern for the Senate. I was very interested to hear Senator Tierney comment that this is not a matter for the Commonwealth. I would remind Senator Tierney that Minister Ellison yesterday, in this very chamber, said: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—that being the Norfolk minister—to include Greenwich University in the AQF registers.If that is not Commonwealth involvement, I do not know what is. Further, Minister Ellison revealed yesterday—and I quote again—that he understands that `the Greenwich University's web site has changed' and it now has gone from being fully accredited, which it was marketing itself as previously, to self-accrediting. Minister Ellison, unprecipitated by this side of the chamber, indicated that the university had changed its web site. I wonder why that happened. I will tell you why it happened.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—You know, do you?9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Yes, I do. The government was advised that the Greenwich University was marketing itself as a fully accredited Australian university on its web site. The government did not know that before. The government did not realise that. When it was brought to the government's attention in the estimates committees, it got on to Greenwich University, or more likely the Norfolk Island Administrator.AW5CARRSenator Carr—The Prime Minister's friend.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—The Prime Minister's friend, thank you, Senator Carr. The government obviously said this mob is not fully accredited. You had better change your advertising, because it is incorrect, and go back to self-accrediting. If that is not an admission that this government has made a mistake, I do not know what is. I will leave the remainder to my colleagues.Then we have the absolutely extraordinary behaviour of Senator Macdonald during estimates where he simply refused to allow his department to answer questions in relation to this matter. He would not let them answer questions. We have Minister Kemp in the other place, Minister Ellison in the Senate on one side and way over the other side in relation to this debate we have Minister Macdonald and everybody running 5,000 miles away as fast as they can from his decision.Minister Macdonald made a decision in December last year which was wrong. Dr Kemp knows it and Minister Ellison knows it. Otherwise, why would they now put in place a rigorous examination and involve MCEETYA in the process? What I think happened was that Minister Macdonald received the request. He made some very perfunctory investigations—although we were not illuminated as to quite what they were—in relation to the matter. He would not allow his departmental officials to respond to the questions, and he went ahead and gave it the tick. He went ahead and gave it the tick far too early. That has now been recognised by not only the Victorian state minister for education but also the federal minister for education and Minister Ellison.AW5CARRSenator Carr—And the AVCC.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—And the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee. That is correct, Senator Carr. You can always tell when the government has made a mistake because it is either the bureaucrats' fault or it is the staffers' fault. In this case, it is Senator Macdonald's fault, but it is not Dr Kemp's fault and it is not Minister Ellison's fault. There is absolutely no doubt that Senator Macdonald made a decision before taking full consultation, and I suspect that the relevant education ministers are now hurriedly scurrying around attempting to ensure that it is rectified.AW5CARRSenator Carr—The horse has bolted, though. That is the problem.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Indeed, Senator Carr. It is too late. The approval has already been given. It is not a matter of a straight rubber stamp from the federal minister in relation to Norfolk legislation at all. What Senator Macdonald kept repeating over and over again was that legislation that emanates from Norfolk Island that he approves only applies to Norfolk Island. If Senator Macdonald can give us the assurance that only the people who live on Norfolk Island will be using Greenwich University, I think we would be happy with that.The reality is that the very time he gave that approval Greenwich University was on the Internet advertising itself as a fully accredited university. This is a mistake. That was a mistake from the very beginning. The investigations were not thoroughly carried out, and you can see that in relation to Minister Ellison's attitude and Dr Kemp's attitude. There is no doubt that Senator Macdonald should reverse his decision. (Time expired)15:18:002462Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—I am delighted that today's question time and this debate of taking note of answers is being broadcast, because it will bring home to the Australian people that the Labor Party—those who would pretend to be the alternate government of this country—are not concerned about the real issues. The real issues are those that Senator Tierney addressed at the end of his speech. I am delighted to be able to follow on from the contribution of my friend and colleague Senator Tierney.When was the last time that we heard a question or a sensible debate in this place initiated by the Australian Labor Party in relation to interest rates, budget deficits, unemployment or industrial relations? There is absolute silence from the other side, because they know they are a policy vacuum when it comes to those fundamental issues. I could include tax reform in that. You will recall that we went to the election with a policy of tax reform. So did Labor. Labor have since dumped all their tax reform proposals, including their shadow Treasurer, Mr Evans. The Labor Party have been scurrying around during question time of late trying to find issues of no real consequence to try to somehow develop into the issue of the day so they have something to talk about, because without these side issues they would be completely and utterly devoid of issues to take before the Australian people.I would suggest to those honourable senators opposite that, if they were genuinely concerned about the reputation of the universities of Australia and the tertiary institutions of Australia, they would join with us in removing one of the biggest blots on tertiary education in this country—that is, compulsory student unionism. If they were genuine about protecting the reputation of these institutions, they would be saying to us, `We agree with you. We will join with you in removing this blot known as compulsory student unionism.'Individuals are forced to pay a student union fee and, if they do not, they are denied an education. We have in our industrial relations legislation, thank goodness, removed the no ticket, no start regime which the trade union officials that sit opposite so overwhelmingly embraced during their term in government. We were able to remove that. Similarly, the no ticket, no start mentality should be removed from university life in this country. But, no, the Australian Labor Party are quite happy to continue with that huge blot on the life of tertiary institutions in this country, because they know that they are the financial beneficiaries of those compulsory student union fees. So they will not be interested in making any changes in that area.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—How? How will we become the beneficiaries?N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator O'Brien leads with his chin and he asks the question: how does the Labor Party become the beneficiary? For example, in Mr Hardgrave's electorate, which I believe is Moreton, the student union spent $40,000 of compulsorily acquired student fees to directly campaign against him. Senator O'Brien asks the question, and I have given one example. Do you want some more?5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—And $60,000 dollars in Tasmania.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—And $60,000 in my home state of Tasmania. If you want some more examples, Senator O'Brien, I am more than happy to give them to you. But the bottom line in relation to this whole discussion is that Norfolk Island is an external territory of Australia. Greenwich University is the responsibility of the Norfolk Island minister responsible for higher education. That is basically the situation. The Labor Party are trying to whip this up into some sort of frenzy.AW5CARRSenator Carr—We're talking about Australia's international reputation.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—I can tell you, Senator Carr, that overseas students are flocking to universities in Western Australia, which is the only state that does not have compulsory student unionism. Why? It is because the international reputation of Western Australian universities is such that they are flocking over there, because the blot of compulsory student unionism was removed in that state by a far-sighted state government. We are going to do the same federally. (Time expired)15:24:002463O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Senator Abetz can never help himself. Whenever he gets an opportunity he has to have a swipe at student unions. I was at the launch of a publication in Hobart recently about the history of the University of Tasmania student union. The photos around the wall of members of that union and the participants at the function included eminent and prominent Liberal members of state parliament and federal parliament, and they seemed to want to participate in the activities of those organisations.But, of course, that is a great digression from what this debate is about. I suppose I can understand Senator Abetz trying to change the subject because the fact of the matter is that what we have here is a minister who directed the Administrator of Norfolk Island to give assent to legislation which would allow this organisation to set up what can only be described as a questionable educational organisation which, apparently, through its activities provides degrees in consciousness studies, depth psychology, new mysticism and applied ecopsychology.Perhaps they are all very valid courses, but one wonders why this organisation setting up on Norfolk Island has 101 people listed on their staff but only two have addresses in Norfolk Island. And why, when you look at the very shady background and claims by the chancellor, Mr Walsh, didn't the minister take the appropriate steps and investigate and determine that this is an organisation that needed a lot more looking into before he was going to exercise his power as the minister to direct the Administrator of Norfolk Island to give assent to the legislation to allow them to set up? That is the issue here.Every time the opposition calls this government or its ministers to account—because making the government accountable is part of the reason we are here—the government senators opposite seem to suggest that we are not asking the right questions. We are not asking the right questions for them, because they are too hard. And we heard Senator Macdonald today duck a number of questions because he does not have an answer to the questions that are put to him. When you really analyse the actions that he took in this matter, they are indefensible. And obviously he did not do his homework before he made the direction, which he is empowered to do as the minister, to direct the Administrator of Norfolk Island to give assent to that legislation in relation to this organisation.AW5CARRSenator Carr—It has brought the rest of the universities into disrepute in the process.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—Senator Carr reminds me of course that this university purports to be part of the network of higher education in this country. This government has a duty to protect the reputation of our higher education system, and they have pointed out to us on many occasions the millions and millions of dollars that the Australian public commits to the system—billions of dollars, in fact. Yet this minister is so cavalier as to take an action without proper regard for what he is doing, which can have the effect of bringing down or damaging the international reputation of our university system.I would say that in my state the University of Tasmania places some reliance on attracting students from overseas for its very viability. I do not think there is any doubt about that, and I am sure that is the case for a great many universities around this country. Any action of this government which damages the credibility of the Australian university system is an action which has to be deplored. If the government is not prepared to deal with a minister who can do that, then it is up to the opposition to expose that to the Australian public.15:28:002463McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—If ever we needed evidence that the Labor Party is really off their game here in this chamber we only need to listen to the debate today. They have really narrowed their target down now—to a minister on Norfolk Island. Norfolk Island does not have any more than 1,300 permanent residents, and it is 14 square kilometres of one of our external territories. That is who you are now picking on. You are picking on the Pitcairners, the Fletcher Christians of this world. That is your new target. That is how far off the game you are. How pathetic! What is more, Senator Carr shows a distinctive ignorance of this territory and the status of Norfolk Island under the Norfolk Island Act. It has a very unique role. Though it is a territory of Australia, it plays a very unique role within our parliamentary system—and within the education system, for that matter.Did you know, Senator Carr, it has an independent—and a fiercely independent—administration? Therefore, establishing the Greenwich University has always been the responsibility of the Norfolk Island minister and, in particular, of the Norfolk Island education minister.We have a fierce reputation to uphold in this country in respect of our university system. We know it is a $3.3 billion industry that has well over 150,000 international students. We do not intend to compromise that. That is why the minister, as he stated in the parliament, is going to place a rigorous examination on Greenwich University so that he can be informed. The department will be undertaking that particular examination and, as a first step, the department has written to the Norfolk Island minister asking for documentation to demonstrate Greenwich University's claims. So, before it can become embedded in the Australian university system, it has to pass that rigorous test. But, as far as their having the ability to establish the university, that is the business of the Norfolk Island government. As far as their attempting to get accreditation on the mainland, the minister has already stated quite clearly what he intends to do there.It is the responsibility of the Norfolk Island minister for higher education in the same way as it was the responsibility of the Western Australia minister when the well-known and successful Notre Dame University was established. It is the same with the University of New England. All these new universities that have been established have been the responsibility of the local authorities. So you are barking up the wrong tree. You have now decided to target Norfolk Island. You have gone completely offshore.AW5McGauran, Sen JulianSenator Carr—I will target Senator Macdonald.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I can assure you, Senator Carr, that this is not the direct responsibility of Minister Macdonald. You are missing the target completely. And as Senator Abetz clearly said: why haven't you raised issues of greater substance than this, for heaven's sake? Why aren't you debating the question of compulsory student unionism? That is worthy of a debate in this chamber and we are going to have it in the near future. Why aren't you protecting the reputation of our universities in regard to compulsory student unionism and the misrepresentation of union fees for well over 30 years—in all the time you were hanging around the university cafe, Senator Carr?Labor's record in education does not warrant their raising this matter. You locked tens of thousands of qualified students out of the universities by funding only government-set enrolment targets. Labor discriminated against Australian students by not letting them pay fees to do their own course of first choice. Added to that, we extended the Austudy entitlements. That is why we now have record numbers of students at all our universities. Courses are there for the choosing; and we have record numbers at our universities.We are not at all worried about this issue. You can continue to target Norfolk Island ministers for all you like. You can continue to target the Pitcairners—the revenge of Captain Bligh. It is just about the most irrelevant issue you have brought to this chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.246410001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:24645DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable Members of the Senate in the Parliament AssembledThe Petition of the undersigned draws attention to the potentially damaging effects of National Competition Policy on small business such as Newsagents.Your petitioners ask the Senate, in Parliament to call on the Federal Government to review the decisions of the Australian 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)246565F4Calvert Sen PaulTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned shows:That services and goods provided by natural and traditional therapy practitioners are an integral component of Australia's health care system and should be included in the health care exempt (zero rated) category under the Government's proposed Tax Reform Package. Preclusion implies a discrimination and could seriously restrict the choice of affordable health care available to Australians.Your Petitioners request that services and goods provided by natural and traditional therapy practitioners be included in the health care exempt (zero rated) category under the Government's proposed Tax Reform Package.Senator Calvert5F4Senator Calvert(from six citizens)246526VJ4Watson Sen JohnTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showethThat the majority of Australians clearly stand united in satisfaction with their existing Australian National Flag which reflects their values, history and heritage,and that they condemn unwarranted attacks on their historic Australian Flag, whenever or wherever made by any Australian citizens.So therefore we do call upon the Senate to ensure that the Australian National Flag, as publicly acclaimed in 1901 and confirmed under the Flags Act (1953), is not changed, replaced or diminished at any time, or in any manner whatsoever, without such a proposal being first voted upon and approved by a majority of Australian citizens in a national referendum.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Senator WatsonVJ4Senator Watson(from 26 citizens)2465378VJ4Watson Sen JohnTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:(1) They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag.(2) They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. (c) The large star depicting a state and the territories of the Commonwealth.(3) They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war.(4) They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism.(5) They are certain that any change to its form or to its acceptance as the sole Australian National Flag will produce division in the Australian community.Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ensure that the existing Australian National Flag should remain sacrosanct from change and remain the sole national flag.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, forever will ever pray.Senator WatsonVJ4Senator Watson(from 378 citizens)Petitions received.Notices24652465Senator Bolkus to move, on the next day of sitting:That—(a) the Senate notes that a range of industry associations and environment groups, including the Australian Industry Group, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, the Minerals Council of Australia, the National Farmers' Federation, the Australian Seafood Industry Council, the Environmental Defender's Office, the World Wide Fund for Nature Australia and the Australian Conservation Foundation, in submissions to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee inquiry into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999], have called for debate on the bill to be delayed; and(b) the time for presentation of the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] be extended to 27 April 1999 to allow for further consultation.2466Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1999, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.Madam Deputy President, I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during this sitting and I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGETherapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999)Amendments are proposed to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 and the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Act 1997 to implement reforms to the regulation of complementary medicines.Consumers, industry and government alike have been beset with anomalies and frustration in the marketing and regulatory control of complementary medicines.Calls for the urgent reform of regulation in this area have come from a large proportion and cross-section of the Australian population. Complementary medicines are having an increasing impact on the Australian population with over 60 percent of Australians estimated to use Complementary healthcare products at least once a year. Complementary healthcare products are now widely available through direct marketing, pharmacies, health food stores and supermarkets. The Australian complementary healthcare industry has an estimated annual turnover in excess of I billion dollars. There are around 17,000 complementary healthcare products on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods and an estimated 6,000 complementary medicine practitioners in Australia (not including massage therapists).This Bill helps clarify the scope of complementary medicine regulation, elevates the status of the expert committee which evaluates complementary medicines, and introduces safeguards to protect against unscrupulous practices.These changes have been canvassed at length with, and agreed to by, the complementary medicines industry, consumer groups, a wide variety of government agencies and health practitioners.A range of administrative and educational reforms are also being implemented to overcome the major perceptual and regulatory barriers for complementary medicines. Legislative change and implementation of these reforms will provide a `one stop regulatory shop' for the complementary healthcare industry.The establishment of the Office of Complementary Medicine, the establishment of a government/industry/consumers consultative forum, new administrative procedures, and enhanced regulations are all due to take effect by 1 April 1999.Introduction and passage of the amendments in this session is urgent in order to overcome anomalies and ensure alignment of the range of reforms being implemented over the coming weeks.(Circulated by authority of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care)Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes the proposal for an international airport on Kooragang Island, Newcastle, a project which would: (i) demolish the largest wetland rehabilitation project in the southern hemisphere, (ii) be directly adjacent to wetlands which come under the protection of three international treaties to which Australia is a signatory, including the Ramsar treaty aimed at protecting migratory birds, and (iii) be close to some of the most densely urbanised areas of Newcastle, exposing them to the kind of flight path noise pollution which has caused Sydney residents so much distress; and(b) condemns the proposal.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for other purposes. Criminal Code Amendment (Bribery of Foreign Public Officials) Bill 1999.24672467Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I give notice that, at the giving of notices at the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name for 23 March 1999 for the disallowance of the Migration Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 11), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 306 and made under the Migration Act 1958.2467Senator Tierney to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) recognises the commencement on 9 March 1999 of the National Youth Roundtable;(b) notes that the 50 members of the roundtable, all aged between 15 and 24, give a cross-section of Australia's youth the opportunity to air their views on a variety of youth issues;(c) applauds the broad cross-section of the community represented in the roundtable, with participants from indigenous, migrant, rural, metropolitan and disadvantaged backgrounds; and(d) recognises the Federal Coalition Government's commitment to youth issues and intention to keep them at the forefront of our agenda into the next century.Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Schacht, to move, on the next day of sitting:That—(1) The following matter be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade for inquiry and report: The adequacy and appropriateness of the existing legislative framework and procedures for the conduct of: (a) military boards of inquiry; (b) military courts of inquiry; and (c) Defence Force discipline.(2) Without limiting the scope of the inquiry, the committee shall give consideration to: (a) the needs of the Australian Defence Force in peace and in the conduct of operations within Australia and overseas; (b) the constitutional and legislative framework within Australia, and particularly precedents established by the decisions of the High Court of Australia; (c) the Judge Advocate General's annual reports; and (d) other reports including, but not limited to, reports of the Parliament, the Commonwealth and Defence Force Ombudsman's annual report for 1996-97 and reports from relevant overseas jurisdictions.Senator Tierney to move, on the next day of sitting:1. Takes note of the astonishing performance of the Newcastle Knights in their 41-18 victory over the hapless Manly Warringah Sea Eagles in Saturday's double header.2. Recognises the successful debut of Stadium Australia, which set a new world record rugby league crowd of 1045833. Considers that it is a tribute to the former State Coalition Government that Stadium Australia will be the centrepiece of the 2000 Olympics which they secured several years ago.4. Congratulates Multiplex, an Australian-owned construction company, which built this magnificent 110,000 capacity stadium, bringing it in before time and on budget.Notice subsequently ruled out of order by the President pursuant to standing order 56.Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that Australia is the only country in the world that has recognised Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor; and(b) calls on the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to withdraw the Australian Government's recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor.Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That—(1) A Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services be appointed, with the same functions and powers as the Select Committee on Superannuation appointed by resolution of the Senate on 5 June 1991, and reappointed on 13 May 1993 and 29 May 1996, except as otherwise provided in this resolution.(2) The committee inquire into and report on: (a) the adequacy of the tax system and related policy to address the retirement income and health care needs of Australians into the new millennium; (b) strategies for building more effective national retirement income and long-term saving outcomes; (c) reforms that could be implemented following the completion of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge phase-in to 9 per cent; (d) the taxation of superannuation, particularly the Superannuation High Income Earners Tax Surcharge legislation and alternative payment mechanism; and (e) the adequacy of consumer protection mechanisms for banking and financial services, other than securities, and the operations of the Australian Security Investment Commission.(3) The committee have power to consider and use for its purposes the minutes of evidence and records of the Select Committee on Superannuation appointed in the previous three Parliaments.(4) The committee consist of 7 senators, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 nominated by other parties or independent senators.(5) The nomination of the final member to be determined by agreement between the other parties and independent senators and, in the absence of agreement, duly notified to the President, the question of representation on the committee of other parties or independent senators be determined by the Senate.(6) The committee elect a member of the committee as its chair.(7) The committee report to the Senate on or before the last day of sitting in June 2000.2468Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Chris Evans) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Evans for today, relating to the disallowance of the Social Security (Meaning of Seasonal Work) Determination 1998, be postponed till 11 March 1999.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That government business notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government (Sena tor Ian Macdonald) for today, relating to the approval of works proposed in the Parliamentary Zone, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 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.Motion (by Senator Mackay) agreed to:That business of the Senate notices of motion nos 3 and 4 standing in her name for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, be postponed till 11 March 1999.Motion (by Senator Allison, at the request of Senator Murray) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 112 standing in the name of Senator Murray for today, relating to parliamentary standards or codes of conduct, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 130 standing in her name for today, relating to International Women's Day, 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.Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 5 standing in his name for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, be postponed till 11 March 1999.Motion (by Senator Woodley, at the request of Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 127 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to International Women's Day, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees246824682468Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator McKiernan) agreed to: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 1999.24692469Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That—(1) The Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy, appointed by resolution of the Senate on 1 July 1998, be reappointed with the same functions and powers, except as otherwise provided in this resolution.(2) The committee inquire into and report on the National Competition Policy, including: (a) its socio-economic consequences, including benefits and costs, on: (i) unemployment, (ii) changed working conditions, (iii) social welfare, (iv) equity, (v) social dislocation, and (vi) environmental impacts; (b) the impact on urban and rural and regional communities; (c) its relationship with other micro-economic reform policies; and (d) clarification of the definition of public interest and its role in the National Competition process.(3) The committee have power to consider and use for its purposes the records of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy appointed in the previous Parliament.(4) The quorum of the committee be 3 members, with 1 member present being appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 appointed on the nomination of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 appointed on the nomination of either the Australian Democrats, the Greens (WA) or independent senators.(5) At least one member of any subcommittee be a member nominated by the Australian Democrats, the Greens (WA) or independent senators.(6) The committee report on or before the last sitting day of June 1999. Notices24692469Motion (by Senator Bartlett, at the request of Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 63, standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to drug use and abuse, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous2469Motion (by Senator Woodley) put:That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Senator Ian Macdonald), no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 11 March 1999, the following document:The Hawke report on the structural review of Airservices Australia which was given to the Minister for Transport (Mr Anderson).15:50:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)35Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K.* Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.34Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H.* Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.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.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Ferris, J.Cook, P. F. S. Tambling, G. E. J.Hutchins, S. Vanstone, A. E.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Matters of Urgency2470247010000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 9 March 1999, from Senator Chris Evans:Dear Madam President,Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move:That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The failure of the Government to ensure Centrelink provides adequate levels of public service to the millions of Australians who rely on Commonwealth income support payments.Yours sincerelyChris EvansIs the proposal supported?More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the Clerks to set the clock accordingly.15:55:002470Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move:That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The failure of the Government to ensure Centrelink provides adequate levels of public service to the millions of Australians who rely on Commonwealth income support payments.It is important that the Senate does debate this matter of urgency today, which relates to the failure of the government to ensure Centrelink provides adequate levels of public service to the millions of Australians who rely on Commonwealth income support payments. It is urgent because the level of service being provided to Centrelink clients is declining, as is evident from the figures provided by the government in response to serious questions raised with them at the estimates committee process. The increase in demand for Centrelink services is not being met, is not being funded, by this government.The government do not seem to want to accept this as a serious public policy question. They want to hide behind the Centrelink board. They want to dismiss it as merely the concerns of unions with members working in Centrelink. But it is a far more widespread issue than that and it is a far more important issue than the government would have the Australian public believe.We have a situation where each day on average 276,000 calls to Centrelink go unanswered. Australian pensioners, families and unemployed people—clients of Centrelink—ring up for advice and service and on an average day 276,000 of them cannot get an answer. In answer to a question from me at estimates hearings the department estimated that one in six of the calls made to Centrelink are successfully connected. Only one person in six actually gets through to speak to an operator.The minister tries to say that there is not a problem. If you are a private company, you would be out of business if that were the level of service that you provided. We say that this is a matter of serious public concern. That sort of service level is not adequate, it is not what Australian taxpayers deserve, and the government should do better.I notice that the minister is not speaking in the debate today, and I think that is a shame, although Senator Payne and others will probably do a better job. But it is important that the minister front up to this issue. At question time today she said, `We have not made any staff reductions in Centrelink. These are decisions taken by the board.' So when it is good news, the minister is out there saying, `It is all to my credit.' When there is a problem, it is the Centrelink board's problem—nothing to do with the government.This is clearly an issue that has to be sheeted home to the government, because it is the government that supplies the funds. The government has imposed a 10 per cent so-called efficiency dividend on Centrelink. That has forced it to reduce services and to reduce staff numbers. What we see in the service provided by Centrelink is a direct result of the service levels it is able to provide with the money that it receives from the Commonwealth. The minister cannot duck this issue. She provides the funding that allows Centrelink to do the job.The government has increased the number of functions that Centrelink has to perform at the same time as reducing its funding and being involved in the process that has seen its staff reduced by 20 per cent. The vast majority of that staff reduction is occurring in this financial year. So what we are seeing is an organisation that is receiving less money and employing fewer staff but, as the minister said at question time, is dealing with a very much increased demand for its services. The minister said today that the number of calls coming in to Centrelink and the demand for its services is increasing, particularly through the call centres. I agree with her. That is evidently the case. What is not increasing are the government resources to meet that demand, to provide the service.The minister mentioned, with some sense of satisfaction, that the number of calls answered had increased. The figure given to us formally in the estimates hearings was an increase of 17.6 per cent in the number of calls answered in 1998 compared with 1997. I do not dispute those figures.What the minister did not say at question time was that the number of calls made had increased by 90 per cent—an increase of 90 per cent in the number of people calling but only 17 per cent more getting through. So the problem is getting worse. I agree that more people are getting connected, but the demand has outstripped the supply of services by a very large factor. We have, on the minister's own figures, 276,000 calls every day not being answered. I think that is a matter of urgency and public concern, and it is not just an agenda for unions involved in the industry.I get hundreds of letters from people dissatisfied with the service they get from Centrelink. Most of them do not actually criticise the staff. In fact, most of them—including the one I have in front of me today—are quite complimentary of the staff. But, as they say, that is when they get through. If they are successful in getting through, the staff are very efficient in providing the service. But the problem is that if they ring they cannot get through, and if they go to the offices they are often faced with very long queues.These are not claims made by the opposition in isolation. These are claims based on the evidence produced by the minister's department through the estimates process. In the last couple of days we have received the latest of the answers to the questions that sought to elicit the information about these very real problems being experienced by clients of Centrelink. So we are not making these figures up. These figures are on the public record, supplied by Centrelink, describing the problems they have in meeting their customers' needs. One in six of their clients gets through on the phone—one in six. It is a hit ratio that is just not good enough in anybody's terms. And 276,000 calls unanswered on an average day is clearly not acceptable.This is a problem that has to be faced up to. The government has to look at what it is doing about adequately resourcing Centrelink. The government is responsible. There is an increased demand. There are needs to be met in the community. The government is allocating more functions to Centrelink by decisions it takes every month and yet it is a service which has had its staff numbers reduced, its funding reduced and its capacity to service the clients seriously diminished.The only thing the government ever says about social security in this country involves fraud, and it has been nailed pretty clearly in the last week or so that the government has been relying on fairly dodgy figures about fraud. A lot of what is claimed are overpayments are made from genuine errors—errors by departmental officers or, I suspect, errors brought about by the fact that, if you want to fix a problem at Centrelink, you cannot get through to them on the phone to fix it even if you want to.What is clear, though, is that the government has dined out on this fraud argument for months. The majority of the minister's press releases seem to be about fraud—not about caring for the people who need assistance in the community, but about the alleged campaign to eliminate fraud. We all support the elimination of fraud. What we do not support is the use of dodgy figures to misrepresent what is really going on in Centrelink. It is clear that Centrelink is not meeting the demands of the clients—the seven million or so Australians who rely on the services of Centrelink to access income support payments and to receive other assistance to allow them to live their lives, and if they cannot get through on the phone, if they cannot get service, then they experience real hardships.Senator Crowley, who is going to speak later in the debate, has shown me a number of examples of correspondence that she has received. I have a number of them here that I have received from constituents which detail their very real experiences. I think I mentioned in the last debate on this issue that I tried to ring the telephone lines to gauge the response, and I had very mixed results. You can get through relatively easily on some lines on certain days by just listening to muzak for a fairly reasonable period of time—which, in itself, is a most painful experience—but on other lines you just cannot get through. At peak times like Christmas and Easter the average figure of 276,000 unanswered calls per day increases exponentially. There are great numbers of people who cannot get service at a time when they need service—when they need access to income support information, when they need the sort of support that the Commonwealth government should be providing to them.It is a matter of urgency that we pressure the current conservative government of this country to do something to more adequately resource Centrelink so it can provide the services those seven million Australians rely on. We must take this issue seriously and not dismiss it because the facts do not suit our argument. (Time expired)16:05:002472Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to rise in this debate to address the urgency motion moved by Senator Evans today on Centrelink. It gives me particular pleasure to address the facts about Centrelink and not just the rhetoric. It would be very easy to deal only in rhetoric on this issue, and that is something that the government certainly does not intend to do. There is one matter on which I agree with Senator Evans, and that is that this is a very serious issue. Some of the allegations that have been flying around in recent times about the operation of Centrelink need to be very seriously addressed.Let us look at some of the facts. Let us look at the fact that Centrelink deals with 6.2 million customers a year, that it employs 24,000 people across 400 sites throughout the country, that it is a service delivery organisation that sends 66 million pieces of correspondence to customers each year, that it deals with over 400,000 booked appointments per month, that it receives over 19 million phone calls a year and that its Internet site now has over 12 million hits a year, conducting over 12½ million online transactions per annum. Centrelink is a service delivery organisation which, in total, makes over 232 million payments each year.It is an extraordinary level of activity from a key government service delivery organisation that is dealing with millions of Australians. It is a service delivery organisation that was innovative at the time of its introduction and continues to be so. It is crucial for the delivery of government assistance and programs. Any assertion that members of the government do not care about those Australians in the community in need of that assistance and in need of that support is absolutely rejected. Senator Newman noted after the launch of Centrelink—as, in fact, did the Prime Minister—that there has not been a more important reform in terms of service delivery to Australians. In putting government services under one roof for the first time, there is now a one-stop shop for information about government assistance, about programs, for Australians from all around the country from a wide range of backgrounds.It is an organisation that was always aimed at being the human face of government with a focus on customer service—without queues or standing in front of counters, with better forms and with more user-friendly correspondence. With only a cursory glance at the statistics that I have referred to, you can actually see that Centrelink is pursuing that aim. For many Australians, particularly those living in country areas, it has been difficult to do business with government offices, particularly as times have become harder. I will return to the special challenges facing rural Australia at the moment. But I do want to look at some of the facts, as I said when I began, in relation to this particular urgency motion.Centrelink make it their business to survey their customers. Extensive customer surveys have indicated that nearly 75 per cent of customers are either satisfied or very satisfied with the overall quality of service delivered by Centrelink customer service centres. They have a customer feedback service. The result was an 11 per cent reduction in the total number of complaints in 1997-98 as recorded—not by Centrelink itself—by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. They continue to meet or to exceed overall performance on timeliness standards for decisions on customer entitlements. They are achieving a 98 per cent performance on accuracy of decisions for customer claims, above their own performance targets.We now have many more places for customers to do business—service is provided in over 1,000 locations, including the recent establishment of 74 new agents to add to the 180 that are already working in rural and remote Australia. The use of technology is opening up access even further. Videoconferencing, electronic kiosks, the provision of fax and personal computer access is giving better access to services for rural Australians. What about opening hours? What about something very simple like that? Call centres are now open longer. There is access to Centrelink from Monday to Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Just a few years ago under the previous government the call centres operated from 8.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. and customer service centres were closed every Wednesday afternoon. Tough, if you chose that time to try to visit. That means there is a 12½ per cent increase in customer access time.Centrelink Call continues to provide service to customers in languages other than English. In key indigenous areas, such as Darwin and Cairns, new call centres have been opened to provide service to indigenous customers in northern Australia. In plain, simple terms, there are now more call centres—22 compared to 17 in the last year of the Labor government—and more operators—now 3,000 compared to only 1,449 in 1995-96—and many of those are located in areas of need like rural Australia.The new national telecommunications platform that supports Centrelink is the most sophisticated in the country. It links all the call centres into a single virtual centre. They are now moving to the next level of automation—better use of voice response—which is more tuned to customer requirements. As I think the minister mentioned in her answer to a question this afternoon, the Centrelink call centre in Bunbury in Western Australia won the most recent award for outstanding private and public call service in Western Australia.These are changes which are providing for Australians who need better access and greater contact. Access also available to customers through the Internet is now responding to over 1,000 requests a week, and that is growing. The personalised service, which I have spoken about in this chamber before, that Centrelink emphasises through the offer of one main contact for each customer will be in place across the board by the year 2000. It is what customers have told the government and Centrelink they want. They will also then be able to have decisions made on the spot.It is a new way of doing business. It looks at the whole customer and their needs at the time of contact based on what is happening with their life. The sorts of life events that Centrelink have been looking at as part of the one main contact model include things like looking for a job, planning retirement or needing help after someone in their family has died. This model will provide a wider range of access also using more electronic service delivery—expert systems to support the staff—in turn providing better service to customers.I do want to go back to the provision of rural call centres because a recognition of the support that this government has provided to customers in rural and regional Australia is distinctly lacking in the offerings from the other side. The minister announced the establishment of a new network of rural call centres in late 1998. The first two locations announced were Maryborough in Queensland and Port Augusta in South Australia. A further three locations are to be identified and announced in a short period of time. They will all be regionally based. They will be staffed by locals. They will be highly visible in communities, which is the key to the Australian society and economy.There is a carefully planned aim to have the locations and catchment areas spread across time zones to allow rural customers greater access outside standard business hours. It is not that easy to phone between 9 and 5. We are going to try to address that very problem. In putting that policy and approach together, Centrelink actively sought the views of customers in rural and regional Australia and, as a result, regard the provision of those services as a key priority, in turn reflecting the view of the government that rural and regional Australia is critical to this nation.Finally, in addressing the issue of whether Centrelink is failing to provide adequate levels of service, as is alleged by those opposite, I do want to briefly look at some statistical comparisons. Let us look at call centres. In 1994-95 call centres dealt with 11.6 million calls annually. In the last financial year, in 1997-98, they dealt with 19.2 million calls. In 1994-95 call centres handled an average of 223,000 calls weekly. In 1997-98 they handled over 403,000 calls. In 1994-95 they had 1,377 full-time equivalent staff. In the last financial year that number had reached 2,980.Some would say the numbers speak for themselves. I think the numbers speak volumes about the commitment of this government to ensuring that Centrelink is an efficient service delivery organisation, that this government is addressing the needs of customers as they are reported to the government through extensive customer surveys and that Centrelink itself has one main priority, and that is supporting and serving those customers who need assistance most.16:15:002474Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Senate this afternoon is examining the issue of the adequacy of the levels of service provided by Centrelink and whether or not the matter is urgent. The government may not think it is urgent, and they can quote all the figures they like—numbers of calls, dollars, staff numbers, et cetera—but it is pretty clear that, in effect, it all boils down to the adequacy of the service.All of us know that this has been an ongoing problem for a number of years—indeed, from before the creation of Centrelink. The telephone call service is completely inadequate. All of us would have had many calls from the public over many years, I am sure, expressing their irritation about the difficulty of getting through and the inadequacy of the advice. They have all been well documented, and the fact that it has not been addressed over such a long period of time highlights why this is an urgent issue.Centrelink serves over six million Australians, including many of the most vulnerable people in our society. At the moment, in terms of the focus of a lot of Centrelink's activities, their prioritisation is economic efficiency over and above their levels of service, and Australians are clearly suffering as a consequence.It is worth emphasising the point the minister raised in question time today, and it is a point I would agree with—that is, the problem particularly relating to the Centrelink call service goes back many years to when it was originally established under the old Department of Social Security by the previous Labor government. Complaints about the inadequacy of that service and the difficulty in getting through go back years, go back to when Labor was in office. It is an ongoing problem, and it shows the whole problem that has eventuated from shifting away from that direct personal service to using a new method of telephone communication, dressing it up as better customer contact, basically to try to save some money.As I have mentioned a few times before in this place, I previously worked for the Department of Social Security as it then was. There is absolutely no doubt that it is enormously beneficial both for the staff and for the clientele, or customer as they are called these days, to have continuity, to have a direct personal contact—somebody who actually knows their personal situation and who does not just see them as being represented by a few sparse details on a computer screen or a few ticks in boxes on a form.They are real people with individual circumstances and situations. If every time they try to contact Centrelink—assuming they can get through—they get a different person who does not know anything about their situation, they have to go over their circumstances again. Those sorts of problems inevitably lead to inadequate service, unnecessary frustration, unnecessary delay and the extra use of Australian people's time—client time, customer time and also staff time.As has been well debated and well highlighted lately, the government has imposed an efficiency dividend upon Centrelink to force it to become so-called efficient. They are not talking about more effective services but about saving money. In fact, the special efficiency dividend of 2½ per cent, not applicable to other departments, has been added to the standard annual efficiency dividend of one per cent. The special efficiency dividend has resulted in $38.2 million being returned to the government in the last financial year. It will continue to be applied and, of course, will result in the loss of thousands of Centrelink jobs.Clearly, all of us know that the service levels are inadequate at the moment, despite the best efforts of the existing staff. At the end of the day, it comes down to the number of people you have trying to assist the unemployed, pensioners, family payment recipients, et cetera. It might be that the department is so-called more efficient—it has lots of nice logos, good corporate marketing, et cetera—but that is of little comfort, I am sure, to unemployed people who are just trying to get a basic service and who are being told that not enough people are employed there to service those who are out of work, on the pension, or whatever the case may be. Over the coming year, Centrelink anticipates substantial reductions in its funding from its client department, so it is likely to have a funding drop of hundreds of millions of dollars over the next three years. Again, that is clearly going to affect the appropriate level of service.It is worth having a look at the business plan which Centrelink announced last year and which identified three stages of development for Centrelink. One of them related to electronic service delivery and how that is to be achieved in the absence of permanent in-house technology staff now that that has been outsourced; and how that is going to be maintained in light of Centrelink's difficulties in keeping its computer systems from crashing and its phone lines open is not made clear in the business plan. At least humans do not crash, not unless they are under the kind of strain that many Centrelink staff are. They have to cope with these cuts on a daily basis and they face further heavy job losses.Another stage of the Centrelink business plan related to establishing `a new identity with a strong emphasis on customer service'. Yet, in its first year of operation, Centrelink has experienced difficulties in delivering effective customer services to the extent that it has had the highest number of complaints to the Commonwealth Ombudsman out of all government agencies. Of course, that relates particularly to the issue that many people point to in relation to the call service, the teleservice. It is not just people complaining about not being able to get through; it is people complaining about the adequacy or the correctness of the advice they get when they finally do get through.Again, this has to come back to the strain and the load that the staff are under—the inadequacy of resources provided to them, including particular training in relation to all the areas that they have to have expertise in, and the ongoing complexity of the Social Security Act and other acts that Centrelink has responsibility for, and changes are almost being made daily to all that legislation. How anybody—let alone people at the end of the telephone and the public—is supposed to keep up with it is beyond me. How are the public supposed to know what their rights and responsibilities are? It is hard to see, and one can hardly expect that anything is going to be done to improve that situation when resources are going to be further cut.The other stage of the business plan related to consolidation. However, consolidation does not mean examining and fixing problems of underresourcing and, therefore, fixing service delivery deficiencies; rather, it is another word for further resource cuts. The stated aim of the organisation during this stage of its business plan is to become a more efficient and competitive organisation, to reduce overheads and costs, to stay in business; it is not to serve the needs of its clients or improve the level of service delivery. That is not the major focus.You then reach the situation where the organisation—no doubt almost unavoidably because of the way it has been structured and set up and the goals and requirements it is required to meet—has to focus on overheads and costs, on staying in business and on being efficient and competitive, rather than the adequacy of the service it provides to millions of Australians, many of whom are in desperate circumstances and need urgent, immediate and correct information about where they can get assistance. To not be able to get through and get assistance or to get incorrect assistance is clearly not only bad news, frustrating and inappropriate for those people; it is socially and economically inefficient.In the interest of saving a few bucks from an organisational perspective, that creates broader social problems for the rest of the community as well as for the people directly affected. Often times, you will find a greater amount has to be spent down the track by all sorts of other agencies to address those issues of poverty and disadvantage that could have been fixed if people got prompt, speedy, adequate and appropriate assistance when they needed it. That probably does not bother Centrelink in a sense, because they are focused on their own overheads and costs. Those other ongoing broader social and economic costs that develop as a result of not having a stitch in time when the need first arises are shared amongst all sorts of other departments, federal, state and local government agencies and non-government agencies. It is a cost shifting exercise that does not impact on Centrelink's own bottom line, so it is not a matter of concern to them.The Democrats believe that this is clearly an urgent matter and is of great concern to many, many Australians. It is a problem that has been around for many years. Both this government and the previous Labor government have not done enough to address this basic need, the most basic aspect—the first level of contact for people who are often facing the most difficult aspect of their lives. (Time expired)16:25:002476Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I rise to speak to this matter of urgency—that is:The failure of the Government to ensure Centrelink provides adequate levels of public service to the millions of Australians who rely on Commonwealth income support payments.That is payments of whatever sort. It is certainly important that we have the opportunity to remind the Senate as well as the community—who have been telling us, actually—just how important this matter is. Some of my Liberal colleagues across the chamber have been jeering that this is just a front for the unions who want us to come in here and say whatever the unions want us to say and that there really is not a major problem out there at all. It is not a Labor Party front, and it is not a union front. It is actually thousands of constituents who are regularly writing to us, and I have two letters here which I will quote from.If the government has not got the message yet that Centrelink is in major trouble, then it is being as blind and obstructionist to this as it was to the Job Network. It took a new government and a new minister to finally admit how wrong you were on Job Network. When are you going to admit that a disaster is in the making with Centrelink? It is a disaster, because something like six million to seven million Australians are outraged at the way they are being treated through the insufficient funding and staffing of this program.I have a letter here from a constituent in Hackham West in South Australia. I do not wish to give this person's name, but the letter states:Dear Senator Crowley,My wife is on the age pension . . . My concern arises from the situation where my wife has to inform Centrelink of her intention to travel overseas, even if, as in this case, only for four weeks holiday. You might rightly ask what is the problem? Well, when we tried to contact Centrelink by telephone, we were advised (by a machine) that there was up to a 20 minute wait! So we decided to visit the local offices, only to find that it was very busy with the unemployed, et cetera, so we left it and I decided to advise them by letter and await a certificate for travel.His letter goes on, but that is not me or the PSU or any other stoolie for government making up this story. This is one of the hundreds of letters from constituents.Here is another letter from a gentleman in Bowden in my own state again. His concern is how he can assist his elderly parents find nursing home accommodation—not an unusual situation for some families. His letter states:The problem is it is almost impossible to get anyone at Centrelink on the telephone. No matter what time of the working day I have rung, I have always met with the engaged signal. I even once rang the Department of Aged Services in Canberra and spoke to someone there who was very helpful who offered to transfer me to Centrelink via their direct telephone so I could get the information I sought. A similar result. After over five minutes of the engaged tone, I admitted defeat and hung up.In the next paragraph, he said that he never did bother to finalise it in terms of his father's arrangements because there was no absolute requirement. He was just defeated. But in the situation of his mother:I was asked by the nursing home to check with Centrelink to find why they had not been notified as to what fees they could charge her. I tried five times that day, on the 11th February 1999, at various times to reach Centrelink, only to be met with an engaged tone each time.He went on to say:I am employed full time, which means waiting over five minutes is very inconvenient and extremely wasteful of my time. However, the nursing home was waiting for a reply. The relevant forms had been sent in some months before. On Friday 12th February 1999, I sat down and phoned, prepared to wait until I actually got to speak to someone. After over six minutes of the engaged signal, I joined part of the queue and listened to four tunes of music interspersed with recorded messages thanking me for my patience, which was wearing very thin. After over 20 minutes, I actually got to speak to an operator who answered my query promptly. The system at Centrelink was at fault, having recorded my mother's position wrongly.He said he found the advice very helpful when he finally got to it. He continued:When I asked though why it had taken so long to speak to anyone, I was told, `This is the norm due to lack of staff and to the increased demand.'Why would you say there is no problem when letter after letter records the same problem? By way of defence, Senator Marise Payne said, `Let me tell you how many calls we take.' That is very good news, but it will not do at all if four times as many people are not getting their calls answered as those who are getting their calls answered. We do not really want to know the good news if it is not telling us the truth—that is, the full truth—and that is the bad news as well.When the Labor government was in office, we often had to listen to criticisms from the then coalition opposition about the problems with the telecall system in Social Security—and there were some. It is better to admit to those problems and try to address them than to say, `Rubbish, go away, we are fine.' Everybody knows that there is a major problem out there with Centrelink. It is not going to be solved by significantly cutting the money to Centrelink and slashing the number of staff. From 18 January to 5 February in 1998, Centrelink failed to answer—people received an engaged signal—81.5 per cent of calls. It was not a one-off, caused by early year peak loads. We know that the system is gridlocked. The government is planning to cut $154 million from it and to take a further 5,000 staff out of the system. It is a disaster that the government refuses to acknowledge. We have a minister saying anything you like—from, `We are answering more calls than ever before,' through to, `It is just the Labor Party telling bad news stories.' That is not the case. There is an urgent need out there for something to be done to address the difficulties confronting Centrelink. The problem will not be solved by cutting staff numbers and by cutting the money.Senator Payne said that there will soon be one person designated to look after a particular client—indeed, a lot of clients would like that—but she also points out that it will not be operative until 2000. One worries about how it will be operative, given that we are supposed to have a system that is operating now and it is not. It is a major concern, an urgent matter, particularly as colleagues opposite want to say how important it is that we meet the needs of people, that we try to assist those who are struggling to get a modest income that is right and on time.People are ringing up because we have encouraged them to do that. We have encouraged them to make sure that they have it right. We have said, `If you have any difficulties, please ring.' It is an absolute insult—to say nothing of it being a great unkindness and inhospitable—to say to people, `Please ring but there won't be a telephone able to be answered.' People are being driven to absolute frustration about these waiting times. It is a matter of considerable urgency.I am terribly interested in why the government are so defensive about this matter. It reminds me, as I said before, of their approach to Job Network. The more they insisted there was no problem, the more the community laughed at them. The community is laughing—except that it may be crying right now because it knows.Often colleagues opposite use the line, `How long is it since you have rung?' Like everybody in this place, I can say that I have rung Centrelink. I have to report that my shortest wait was a mere 20 minutes, which I think is the sort of time that most citizens report. For many people—like those whose letters I have read—it is not a reasonable expectation for people in the work force to have to wait that long to get through. It is a system that is completely ruined, it is not operating, and it is not good enough.I cannot understand why Senator Knowles keeps insisting that it is okay. The problem is that the government seems to be unaware that it matters a whole lot, because the citizens know. I have people in the community ringing up or writing to me saying that they have these massive waits. I do not have to convince the community, but I do need to remind the community that the problem belongs to this government. It belongs to this minister, Senator Newman, and it belongs to this Prime Minister, Mr Howard. They are the ones who say one thing out of one side of their mouths and who reduce the services out of the other—they prefer to cut the staff, to cut the money and to cut the services. Why is that? So that out of that budget surplus they can give tax cuts to the top end of town. (Time expired)16:35:002478Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—The scaremongering of the Labor Party really does know no bounds. Since they have been in opposition they have terrified the aged, they have terrified the ill, they have terrified those using child care, they have terrified the unemployed and they are now setting about terrifying those who need the services of Centrelink. It really is quite disgraceful and quite despicable.I say those things against a backdrop where a government—the Howard government—has had to be the one to increase expenditure in all of those areas. It is the Howard government that has increased expenditure in aged care; it is the Howard government that has increased expenditure in health; it is the Howard government that has reduced unemployment from the million people who were unemployed under Labor; and it is the How ard government that has taken on the role and the responsibility to help those who are least able to help themselves—through Centrelink. It is interesting that Senator Crowley only attacks those who are delivering the services. The Labor Party are now using an interesting tactic in that they keep on attacking the public servants. Senator Crowley said that the members of the CPSU, the public servants union, are government stoolies. If I were a public servant, I would be deeply offended by that.Why do those opposite now hate public servants? I think it is just beyond the pale that, with 99.9 per cent of public servants being totally apolitical in the execution of their jobs, those opposite are getting down to this base political attack—attacking the person, attacking those who are delivering the services.Senator Crowley, who has not bothered to stay around to hear this response, talked about lack of staff. She knows full well that it has been the Howard government that has increased staff numbers. She talked of there being a further 5,000 jobs to go. She also knows full well that that is not true. That has been the subject of a previous urgency motion or matter of public importance raised by those opposite in this very place—and she knows that not to be true.But that does not stop Senator Crowley coming in here and repeating that over and over again. The same is done with issues relating to the aged, the infirm and everyone else. Repeat that it is bad and it will get legs and will never ever stop. She also said that she did not want to know the good news. Of course she does not want to know the good news. Unfortunately, that is the one thing she has in common with Senator Bartlett's contribution. Senator Bartlett said, `Don't worry about the facts.' For Senator Bartlett to say that in this place I think is a sad reflection—don't worry about the increases in staff, don't worry about the increases in calls taken, don't worry about the increases in services provided; just knock Centrelink for the sake of it.Senator Bartlett talked about Centrelink being the recipient of the highest number of calls to the Ombudsman, but he did not bother to add that Centrelink, since 1997-98, has had a reduction of 11 percent in the number of complaints to the Ombudsman. It is a matter of misrepresentation. It does not matter what it is about. It does not matter whether it is about tax. It is just knock, knock, knock and oppose.I am reminded of a comment that Senator Evans—the proposer of this motion today—made at a committee hearing in Sydney only a few weeks ago. He told a witness, `Just a bit of advice for the lot of you concerned about the complexity: just oppose a GST on everything; I find that the easiest way.' That is the philosophy: oppose everything that the Howard government does; do not try to do anything in a bipartisan way for the future of this country.This motion is totally without foundation. One only need look at the hard data which supports what the government has done to improve service levels for the clients of Centrelink, and Senator Payne went through that extensively. Despite inheriting a social security system which mystified even the Labor government and its cabinet ministers, the coalition government has sought to bring into line government assistance to the benefit of everyone in the community and not simply play around with it in the way the Labor Party did for 13 long years.The coalition government has put into place real reforms for service delivery and complaints handling procedures which go way beyond whatever Labor conceived, to say nothing of whatever it did. Yet those opposite have the temerity to come in here and knock, knock, knock. Making the most of technology, Centrelink, as I have said, has been able to reduce the total number of complaints recorded by the Commonwealth Ombudsman by 11 per cent. It has met or exceeded performance indicators for timeliness of handling calls and achieved 98 per cent performance on accuracy of decisions for customer claims.Yet this mob opposite are prepared to come in and complain and grizzle. When are they ever going to say, `Let us put the future of this country first; let us look at something in a bipartisan way and try to get the best results'? When are they ever going to congratulate those workers who are delivering the increased performances? Furthermore, as Senator Payne highlighted, rural Australians are now assisted far and beyond whatever was done for them when the Labor government was in office—yet now, as members of the opposition, they will not give any credit for that.Now there is the use of videoconferencing for rural Australians, Internet kiosks and an additional 74 new Centrelink agents on top of the 180 existing already in these areas. Why didn't the Labor government do this? And why don't those opposite now agree that that is a desirable outcome? How can more call centres—22 now compared with 17 in 1995-96 under Labor—and more operators—3,000 compared with 1,449 in 1995-96 under Labor—be a reduction in service? It is simply mathematically impossible and illogical.But I think the key to this greatly improved approach to service is exemplified by the move to personalised services, and Senator Payne has gone through many of those. Those customers for the first time will have one contact to deal with their issues, and that is desirable. Previously, they were shipped all over the place and had nobody with whom to make contact on a regular basis. Decisions will be made on the basis of individual client need and life circumstances—and not according to some Labor Party edict.I think it is about time that this Labor opposition actually put its nose to the grindstone and came up with some policies of its own, instead of simply knock, knock, knocking every single, solitary initiative that this government has delivered and every single, solitary improvement to a system that they allowed to degenerate.16:43:002480Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I rise to support the motion of Senator Evans, being the failure of the government to ensure that Centrelink provides adequate levels of public service to the millions of Australians who rely on Commonwealth income support payments. It would be easy to go through the long litany of problems that this government has created in terms of its administrative bungles when it comes to the question of social security and income support payments, be they in the social security area itself or in the student services area.But it is not the hardworking staff of government departments—who have been attacked so viciously by this government in terms of their wages and conditions and have been subject to massive lay-offs and downsizing of department structures—who ought be held responsible for that. What ought be said is that, clearly, this is a responsibility of the government, and the problems of this Centrelink service ought be laid directly at the government's feet.We must clearly identify that this is a government that have a long history of abuse when it comes to the question of payments to low income people in this country. They have made political careers out of seeking to demonise people on social security benefits. They have sought to appeal to the lowest and the most base motives of the Australian community in their claims about dole bludging and income receipt from various corners. However, the facts do not support the propaganda efforts by this government to demonise people on social security.In 1996 the government under Minister Newman said that she was going to operate a dob in a dole bludger hotline. What she established was that various articles across the country were planted in such a way as to highlight people hanging over the back fence and sole parents being spied upon. There was a whole series of claims made about the way in which it was alleged the social security system was being defrauded on a widespread basis. What we established after we examined the operations of this so-called dob in a dole bludger hotline was that four out of five claims made by anonymous callers turned out to be totally without foundation. They were totally baseless, and the department has acknowledged that.In August 1996 the government through the Treasurer announced that it was seeking a crackdown on social security fraud. We have heard this minister on numerous occasions in a sanctimonious and supercilious manner suggest that this government is not interested in paying people who are greedy but not needy. This is a government full of ministers who are up to their noses in the trough in terms of ripping off the taxation system through their share registers, their use of trusts and various other mechanisms to enrich themselves. We have seen a government which has had casualty after casualty on the question of enriching themselves through the share market, totally inconsistent with their responsibilities to administer the Crown, the responsibilities of government.In the student area, claims were made by Minister Vanstone who, among many others, has joined in this crusade against people on low incomes. Do you remember the so-called Wright family? I remember the most infamous of press releases put out by Senator Jeannie Ferris who said that there were millionaires on government welfare benefits. We discovered that there was nothing of the sort. We established that it was a fabrication. The department had created a situation under the direction of the government that they were seeking to fabricate the suggestion that there were 5,000 millionaires rorting Austudy.We have seen a similar pattern emerge when it came to the government's claims before the election, using quite extensive advertisements in the press under public funding, to claim that the government was going to save $46 million per week by fraud detection—quite a blatant attack upon people on social security benefits. The truth is that we found out there were hundreds of thousands of Australians who had been overpaid and that actions by the government itself in making mistakes accounted for most of the moneys that the government was now trying to identify as fraud. The great fraud that has existed in this country has been the government. The fraud that it has tried to perpetrate has been on the claims that it has made about the issue of people abusing social security. The fraud has been on the Australian people by this government seeking to misuse statistics, misuse the Public Service for quite clearly partisan political ends. (Time expired)16:48:002481Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—What this motion is really about is nothing less than a full frontal attack on the social security policies of the Howard government. We have heard a litany of attacks from Senators Evans, Crowley and Carr who seem to think that the policies of this government, which have been very positive and progressive, leave something to be desired when compared with Labor's record.Let us have a look at what Labor's record was. Under Labor, Australia's social security system was left in a mess. Some $1.5 billion a year was being wasted in payments to people who were not entitled to benefits. Under Labor, the unemployed could get the dole without looking for work or putting anything back into the community.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—That is a lie.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—That is not a lie. We introduced the Work for the Dole scheme.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Senator Eggleston, could you please resume your seat for one moment. Senator Forshaw, firstly, you are interjecting out of your seat. Secondly, I call you to withdraw that interjection.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I will withdraw, but I did not refer to the speaker as a liar. I said that that was a lie.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—As I said, under Labor, the unemployed could get the dole without looking for work or putting anything back into the community. The social security system under Labor was too complex, making it very difficult for ordinary citizens to even begin to understand their entitlements.What the coalition government has done since it came into office, just a bare three years ago, is that it has set about cleaning up the mess left after 13 years of Labor. Labor has opposed the coalition's efforts to improve the social security system every step of the way. Labor has criticised the coalition's efforts to stamp down on fraud. Labor has criticised the migrant waiting period. Labor criticised the job seeker diary program and, most importantly, as Senator Forshaw has just demonstrated, Labor has criticised the Work for the Dole scheme.Let us have a look at some of the achievements of the Howard government in social security policy. First of all, the Howard government attacked social security fraud and non-compliance, resulting in savings of $46 million a week on future outlays and in 570,000 social security cheats being caught. These are people whom Labor was quite happy to let milk the system while people who really needed social security support were denied benefits. The coalition has introduced the family tax payment, covering 976,659 children in low income families. The coalition has implemented a waiting period before migrants can receive social security. Migrants now have to wait two years before accessing welfare payments, except family allowance and Medicare.The coalition has been the first government to guarantee by law that pensions will be maintained at 25 per cent of total male average weekly earnings. The coalition has extended the eligibility for pharmaceutical benefits and replaced unemployment benefits and Austudy with a single youth allowance. The coalition has developed a package of measures to improve the position of carers. The coalition has reformed the child support system and given older people the chance to work past the previous retirement age of 65. The coalition has tightened the activity test requirements for job seekers and eased the social security assets test, making it easier for older low income farmers to receive the age pension.And, most importantly, to make the whole social security system more efficient and more easy to access, the coalition established Centrelink as a one-stop shop to provide government assistance programs from under the one roof—and that includes social security, employment assistance and child-care assistance.Centrelink's phone system means that people all over the country can access the social security system in an easy and quicker way. Perhaps through this phone system and the use of a modern computerised system there have been some teething troubles, but the teething troubles are just an indication of the popularity and success of the system. It shows that the system is working well and the government is working to improve the services provided.Let us just have look at some of those improvements, which both Senator Knowles and Senator Payne have gone through to some extent. There are more places for customers to do business. Services are now provided in over 1,000 locations, including the recent establishment of 70 new agents to add to the 180 already working in rural and remote Australia. The use of technology such as video conferencing, electronic kiosks, fax and personal computer access means that people have better access to the social security system than they ever did before.We had Senator Bartlett a little while ago—he has now returned to the chamber—wanting to go back to the pre computer days when you walked into a centre and were dealt with by an officer behind the counter. That was fine, but the officer behind the counter did not have access to the broad range of services which under the modern system somebody accessing the computer can provide simply by tapping on the console. They bring up the client's or customer's history. Most importantly, today Centrelink is moving to a new service model which means that instead of a client having to say what they want the officer asks some questions about their life events and offers them a package of social security benefits tailored to whatever their problem is. That is an extraordinary improvement because it puts the emphasis on the officer rather than the client. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.16:56:002482Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam Acting Deputy President, in accordance with standing order 154, I move:That the resolution be communicated by message to the House of Representatives for concurrence.Question resolved in the affirmative.Documents24822482248210000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Audit Report No. 33 1998-99: Audit Activity Report: July to December 1998 .Bills2483r646248316:57:002483McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—On behalf of Senator Crane, I present additional material received by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee during its inquiry into the provisions of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 .Miscellaneous24832483248316:57:002483McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—On behalf of Senator Gibson, I present additional information received by the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee relating to budget estimates hearings for 1998-99.Committees248324832483Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) 4.57 p.m.)—On behalf of Senator Knowles, I present the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on annual reports.Ordered that the report be printed.24832483The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTSenator Knowles)—The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate seeking a variation to the membership of a committee.Motion (by Senator Heffernan)—by leave—agreed to:That Senator Sandy Macdonald replace Senator Ferris on the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee on 12 March 1999, for the committee's inquiry into the employment incentive and education impacts of the Government's taxation reform legislation proposals and on the provisions of the bills implementing the proposed new tax system.Miscellaneous24832483248316:58:002483McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—On behalf of the Government Whip and on behalf of the respective chairs, I present the following legislation committee reports on proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1999, together with the Hansard records of proceedings:Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Report of the committee on its 1998-99 additional estimates hearings and Hansard record of the committee's proceedings [2 vols]Economics Legislation Committee—Report of the committee on its 1998-99 additional estimates hearings and Hansard record of the committee's proceedings [2 vols]Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee—Report of the committee on its 1998-99 additional estimates hearings and Hansard record of the committee's proceedings [2 vols]Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—Report of the committee on its 1998-99 additional estimates hearings and Hansard record of the committee's proceedings [3 vols]Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Report of the committee on its 1998-99 additional estimates hearings and Hansard record of the committee's proceedings [3 vols]Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Report of the committee on its 1998-99 additional estimates hearings and Hansard record of the committee's proceedings [4 vols]Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee—Report of the committee on its 1998-99 additional estimates hearings and Hansard record of the committee's proceedings [2 vols]Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Report of the committee on its 1998-99 additional estimates hearings and Hansard record of the committee's proceedings [3 vols]Ordered that the reports be printed.Miscellaneous248424842484McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—On behalf of Senator Knowles, I present the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998, together with the submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills2484r6742484Debate resumed from 8 March, on motion by Senator Minchin:That this bill be now read a second time.(Quorum formed)17:03:002484Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Mr Acting Deputy President, I know it has now become acceptable to sit in the chamber without a coat, but it is not on that basis that I am not wearing one.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—What about your wig and gown?SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—My wig and gown have been left off too. Mr Acting Deputy President, I thank the Senate for the courtesy of ensuring that I can continue my remarks on the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1998 .I want to say some things about the separation of the Australian Government Solicitor, which will be in a new situation to that which it previously occupied. We used talk about the Australian Government Solicitor as being part of the Attorney-General's Department. It is now the intention of the government to set this body apart, to some extent at least, to put it on a professional basis and to make it comparable to a private firm of solicitors.This is another example of where this government declares a principle but takes that principle only a certain way. If the Australian Government Solicitor is going to be put on the same basis as a private firm, does that mean that the people within the Australian Government Solicitor will be paid on the same basis as members of a private firm? Will the good people now sitting in the advisers' box be rewarded with pay commensurate with a senior partner in a big firm? Will they be given a car and trips to conventions overseas? In other words, will they be treated on the basis that the second reading speech sets out—that the Australian Government Solicitor is now going to be treated as a firm? The probable answer to that is no, they will not be. So we will be asking the Australian Government Solicitor to do all the work expected of people in the private firms but to be rewarded on a different basis. They will be expected to work long hours—they already do work long hours—but they will be rewarded differently.We cannot go on changing the way government services are delivered by setting out in legislation and in second reading speeches that a particular section of the government will now be set up like a firm in the private sector and then use that proposition to get more work from those people, get those people to work harder, but not reward them as they would be rewarded were they in the private sector. The other interesting thing is that the private sector is taking people from the Australian Government Solicitor and the Attorney-General's office more and more and rewarding them very generously, as they should be rewarded. Some of the best legal minds in the private sector originally came from the Australian Government Solicitor. Fortunately, there are still great minds in that department, but it must tax the patience of the people in the department to be treated the way they have been.This legislation, in separating out the Australian Government Solicitor from the department and making it, as it were, a private firm, is saying that the principles that operate in the private firms ought to operate in the Australian Government Solicitor. There are some very fine solicitors in private firms. In fact I am tempted to name some of them, but that would be advertising on a broadcast day.Over the years I have known people from the Australian Government Solicitor who are dedicated to giving public service. In other words, there are people who go through law school and go into the Public Service who want to do just that—to give public service. They are interested in the sort of work they do, whether it be the development of policy in the criminal area or doing constitutional cases or doing work on the international stage or developing principles set out in conventions such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child or those conventions dealing with political freedoms and so on. I think that is an approach that ought to be encouraged. In private firms there are people who want to serve their clients as best they can and with all the ability they have. They also want to make a profit from the fees that they raise, as they are entitled to.Both those approaches—the approach taken by those who go into the Public Service, into the Attorney-General's Department, and the approach taken by those who go into private firms—are very honourable and are to be commended. But there is an important difference and one which should be preserved. The two groups of lawyers, if you like, are after two different objectives. The group in the department is interested in serving the public in a wide sense, as I said, in developing public policy and in seeing that the law, which is the underpinning of our society, is as good as it can be, and in seeing that the overarching rule of law under which we live is preserved and kept in all its integrity. That is a noble ambition. It is one that this bill, because of the principles behind it, attacks and puts at risk. I think that is a great shame.The Attorney-General's legal directions should be subject to disallowance by this Senate. They should be subject to supervision by this Senate and, as the law now stands, they are not. That could easily be cured, and it should be. That is the first proposition I make.Secondly, and more importantly, this bill—it is really a bill that deals with structures, with the way departments are set up—does rest on very important principles that we should not let go through without some opposition. It is symbolic, I think, of a lot of the problems that occur in the Public Service now where the whole flavour, the whole philosophy, the whole culture of the Public Service is under attack. The great traditions that the Public Service has of giving generous service to the public, of looking to the good of the community, are put at too great a risk.17:14:002485Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The bill we are debating today is the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1998 , which has been reintroduced after having lapsed due to the federal election last October and which has been examined in depth by my Democrat colleague Senator Stott Despoja. My comments today are also on behalf of her and the Democrats as a whole. The Democrats as a party have been consistently opposed to economic rationalism. We view this bill with continuing suspicion. The Democrats have opposed, and will continue to oppose, privatisation unless it can be manifestly shown in a public inquiry that there is a clear public benefit in that process. Competition for competition's sake does not justify a divestment of public assets or a loss of public control over those assets. We believe the Australian Government Solicitor is just such an asset. The continuing high quality of legal advice and scholarship is something to be applauded.At its core this bill seeks to establish the Australian Government Solicitor as a statutory authority separate from the Attorney-General's Department and sets out the constitution, functions and powers of the AGS, including the persons and bodies for whom the AGS may provide. In essence, the Australian Government Solicitor will now function as a statutory body rather than an arm of the department of the Attorney-General. While this process is not privatisation, it is certainly a form of corporatisation. It forms a move away from the direction of ensuring adequate public control of public institutions. The Australian Democrats continue to support a vibrant public sector and will continue to oppose the mean-spirited view that the public sector is inherently bad, a view frequently espoused by the proponents of competition policy and privatisation reforms.However, we cannot ignore or hide from what has happened over the last few years in what was previously a very vibrant public sector, and this bill has to be considered in this context. In the last five years over 200,000 public sector jobs have disappeared as funding for many core services has dried up. Instead of slowing, the winding back of the public sector looks set to continue as competition policy, contracting out, corporatisation and privatisation move further into top gear. That means more job losses, lower levels of services, especially in regional areas, higher prices for many services and the potential reduction in the public and parliamentary oversight of what were previously publicly controlled resources.In the Senate the Democrats have provided, and will continue to provide, a strong voice as the defenders of a legitimate and valid role for the public sector. We will continue to demand a proper justification for what are essentially ideologically driven reforms and insist that the interests of the community and the public must be made paramount.The Democrats oppose the contracting out of essential government services where this will lead to less accountability, higher costs to the public or a lowering of standards and access. We are concerned that that may be the case in the circumstances we are discussing in this legislation. We will also continue to defend the independence of the Public Service and oppose efforts to politicise the Public Service through short-term contract employment or linking salary to the achievement of government objectives. The Democrats have frequently expressed our deep regret and strong concern at the massive run-down of Australia's public sector infrastructure, funding for which is now at a 40-year low.We have also repeatedly expressed our support for a strong accountability regime for public sector service delivery including performance standards, a liberal freedom of information regime without ministerial intervention and ready access to the ombudsman scheme. This regime should also apply to corporatised and contracted out public services. We will seek to ensure that those principles apply as much as possible to public services even when they have been corporatised and contracted out because we believe they are fundamental principles. That is the reason that the Democrats as a party have spoken strongly in defence of a legitimate and valid role for the public sector. We believe that the office of the Australian Government Solicitor is one that does have a valuable and important public role.In the first part of his speech last night, Senator Cooney alluded to the AGS being a place of excellence. I would like to add my support to the comments he made. In the past—and I expect it will be in the future—the Australian Government Solicitor has been a centre of legal excellence. Some of our brightest legal public servants have served within this institution. There is, in the view of the Democrats, no demonstrated imperative to alter the present mix.In his second reading speech some time back now, the Attorney-General said:The reforms will contribute to the delivery of more efficient and effective legal service to the Commonwealth.I must say that the Australian Democrats remain to be convinced about that assertion. Competition does not necessarily mean efficiency. On that point, I must question what exactly the Attorney means. Are we to take the Attorney to mean that the present arrangements in the AGS are lacking in that efficiency and are not effective? I find that assertion fairly difficult to accredit, given the obvious high esteem that the AGS is presently held in and the obvious heavy reliance that the Commonwealth placed on the AGS in the past and currently does and will with inevitable future litigation to which the Commonwealth is a party.Indeed, the Attorney did make a salient point:The AGS is not, and cannot be, the same as privately owned law firms. Its unique value to government is based on its government ownership and its expertise in delivering consistent and coordinated legal services to government clients.The Australian Democrats could not agree more with that assertion, but as part of that we also see strong value in the AGS remaining fully within the Public Service. The Attorney suggests that there are legitimate areas of work that the AGS should be engaged in. He cites public international law matters, advice to cabinet, constitutional law and matters concerning national security. The Democrats are in total agreement with that assertion. That is why if this bill passes the second reading stage the Democrats will be moving amendments that enshrine those areas of legal practice. That relates to amendments which have already been circulated in the chamber.As my colleague Senator Andrew Murray in particular and all other Democrat senators have asserted many times in the past, parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, of the government, is essential in maintaining the health of our democratic institutions. To that end, I note with considerable interest the comments made by the Attorney regarding effective scrutiny of legal service directions that are capable of applying either generally to Commonwealth legal work or specifically to work being performed in relation to a particular matter. In a letter to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, the Attorney noted:The Government considers it appropriate for Legal Services Directions that are of a legislative character (these are most likely to be the Directions of general application) to be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. When the Bill was drafted it was expected that Directions of a legislative character would be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny under the Legislative Instruments Bill. The Government remains of the view that this would be the most effective process for subjecting Directions of a legislative character to effective Parliamentary scrutiny.The Australian Democrats are pleased to hear that, but there is something essential in the Attorney's response which has been left out, and that is that the Legislative Instruments Bill did not pass the last parliament. In fact the House of Representatives has not yet dealt with the 30 or so amendments to the bill that were made by the Senate. One of those amendments was to ensure that the Attorney-General could not, by certificate alone, determine that what would otherwise be a legislative instrument under the bill—and therefore disallowable—was not in fact a legislative instrument. Clearly if such a provision were to be enacted, then effective parliamentary scrutiny could be signed away by the stroke of a pen. So the Attorney is not really telling us the whole story in his response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee.I think it is worth mentioning the importance of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which examines legislation not on the grounds of policy but according to basic fundamental parliamentary principles and basic principles of justice. It performs a very valuable and often very underrated role in ensuring the effective law making of this parliament. It is for that reason that its deliberations and the information it provides when it does find an area of importance in the bill should be paid attention to and given proper consideration.I have had the good fortune of being on the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee since the election. That committee scrutinises an enormous number of legislative instruments, of disallowable instruments. It is definitely not high profile work, it is not necessarily exciting work in many senses, but it is absolutely crucial work. Being part of that committee highlights just how huge the amount of delegated legislation has become in recent times compared with what occurred in the earlier years of this parliament since Federation. It shows how widespread the use of delegated legislation is and it shows how important it is to ensure that the sorts of things that are done through those mechanisms are subject to some form of scrutiny—a form of scrutiny that is not as adequate as the full parliamentary scrutiny which occurs with legislation, but which at least provides some opportunity for consideration of what is being done and an opportunity to pursue amendment or prevention of inappropriate things being done.The record of that committee over many years highlights not only that it is important to scrutinise legislative instruments but also the fact that, often not for any deliberate or Machiavellian purpose but simply through drafting errors or mistakes, the instruments do not achieve what they are intended to or have unintended consequences or go beyond the reach that is suggested by them. If that occurs already in a notable number of the instruments that are provided and scrutinised by that committee, then it does give cause for concern that we are potentially leaving open another whole area where the Attorney-General can determine something not to be a legislative instrument and can therefore remove it from any form of scrutiny at all. That is inappropriate not just in terms of what may be undesirable policy actions but in terms of a check and balance, a review over the basic effectiveness of what is being done.The Democrats therefore support the position taken by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee as appeared in the Alert Digest, which states:The committee is concerned that the process favoured by the Government for effective scrutiny of Legal Service Directions is dependent on a Bill, the Legislative Instruments Bill, which has been in existence in one form or another since 1994 but has not yet passed into law. Until the Legislative Instruments Bill is passed into law, the committee favours, at least as an interim measure, provision for Parliamentary scrutiny of these Directions in the Judiciary Amendment Bill.The Australian Democrats support that position and we will be moving an amendment accordingly.I am a bit perplexed at the government's position in relation to this issue, which I am sure will be outlined a bit further when the amendments come on for debate in the committee stage. One cannot assert that a raft of legal services such as national security will not be tendered out and then the government will not be prepared to put their legislation where their rhetoric is. Nor is it possible, on one hand, to claim support for parliamentary scrutiny and then, on the other hand, say, `We will have to wait for that in another bill.' It is just not a credible response.The Senate has heard a lot in the last day or two about the concern of the Democrats, certainly about the amount of faith and trust we can put in the government's word if they guarantee that something will appear at a future date. Without revisiting debates about the youth wages legislation and guarantees about the Youth Allowance and tax packages and that sort of thing, certainly there is an increased degree of concern amongst the Democrats about how much we can be sure that what is said is going to be done will actually be done. For that reason also I think it makes it dangerous to simply rely on a bill that is yet to be passed to deal with a matter which is relevant today in the legislation that we are dealing with now.In conclusion, I emphasise that the Democrats remain unconvinced of the imperative of this bill. We recognise the direction that many Public Service bodies have gone in in recent years and the way that this is in some ways just part of that process, and that is a direction that the Democrats have not supported. Nonetheless, that is what the government has persisted with doing. We continue to have concerns that, if this bill passes the second reading stage, amendments need to be made to ensure that accountability and transparency will be enhanced across all arms of the Public Service. Therefore, our amendments, which, as I said previously, have already been circulated, will be moved to assert that position.17:30:002488Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I want to thank honourable senators for their contributions. Senator Cooney and Senator Bartlett have generously issued an invitation for the delay of the passage of the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1998 until after the passage of the Legislative Instruments Bill.I may seek some advice on whether the Legislative Instruments Bill is the most debated and most discussed bill that has ever been introduced into this parliament. It has had a very protracted debate, and an invitation to postpone this bill until that one is finalised may well be an invitation to indefinite delay. Certainly that is what appears to have happened with the Legislative Instruments Bill, regrettably. Clearly, the government would prefer to pass the Judiciary Amendment Bill and use the opportunity to return the invitation to Senator Bartlett and Senator Cooney to reconsider their position and basically pass the Legislative Instruments Bill after passing this one.This bill gives effect to the government's decisions on implementing the report of the review of the Attorney-General's Legal Practice of March 1997—sometimes called the Logan report. The bill provides for the establishment of the Australian Government Solicitor as a statutory authority separate from the Attorney-General's Department. It gives the Attorney-General the power to issue legal services directions in relation to Commonwealth legal work. Those directions will apply primarily to clients but will be capable of applying to private law firms as well as the AGS. It makes necessary transitional and consequential amendments, including in relation to the duties, rights and obligations of Attorney-General's Department lawyers. The reforms are the logical extension of the reforms to Commonwealth legal services under the previous Labor government. They give the Commonwealth agencies greater freedom of choice, ensure accountability in relation to their legal services and will enable significant savings to be achieved on expenditure on legal services.There are two key reasons why the delivery of legal services to the Commonwealth will be improved as a result of the bill. Firstly, the position of the AGS and its staff will be protected and enhanced and, secondly, the position of the Commonwealth in receiving legal services will, similarly, be enhanced. I will deal first with the position of the AGS and its staff. The reforms will strengthen the position of the AGS and enable it to compete more effectively with the private sector. In particular, the flexibility provided in the terms and conditions on which staff are employed will enable the AGS to take action to retain and recruit excellent staff. Most importantly, the essential terms and conditions which apply to AGS officers at present will be effectively preserved following the enactment of the bill.Terms and conditions, including ordinary leave, will be governed by certified agreements or Australian workplace agreements. APS awards will be a reference point in determining whether the agreements meet the no disadvantage test that applies under the workplace relations act. The AGS proposes to provide for existing maternity leave entitlements to be retained. It is envisaged that a regulation will be made under the Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1973 to continue the entitlements provided to AGS staff. Similarly, there would be no change to long service leave arrangements as long as the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act continued to apply. Overall, this will enhance AGS efficiency and lead to better value for money whether legal services are provided by the AGS in-house lawyers or private lawyers.The overall quality of legal services to the Commonwealth is an important part of the Attorney-General's first law officer role. If the quality of legal services were to suffer—as Senator Bolkus seems to think they will—this first law officer role and the essential operations of government would be jeopardised. The government would not let this occur. I am quite happy to indicate to Senator Bolkus that the government will conduct an independent review of Commonwealth legal services and will take any steps necessary to ensure that Commonwealth departments and agencies have the resources to obtain appropriate legal services. We acknowledge that this is essential for the proper operation of government.The second point made by Senator Bolkus is that the Office of Legal Services Coordination is inadequately resourced. Once again, with respect, Senator Bolkus's point is misconceived. Senator Bolkus did refer to the fact that additional resources had been made available, but he did so inadequately. He did not refer to the fact that the number of lawyers in the office had been increased from two to six, including a senior position which will be filled later this month by an experienced SES band 1 officer.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I specifically said that. You are wrong.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—I note Senator Bolkus's interjection. If I have been incorrectly advised, I will indicate that for the record at a later point in time. It is difficult to be certain about the level of resources that will be required for this office in the future, but the expectations are that the current resources will enable it to do its job effectively.However, the Attorney-General has already referred to the high priority he attaches to the office's function and has indicated that he will not allow its role to suffer because of any lack of resources. The Attorney-General has given an assurance that the resources allocated to the office will be kept under review. In addition, the independent review to be conducted of the cost of Commonwealth legal services will also review the adequacy of the office's resources.The third point made by Senator Bolkus was that the terms and conditions of AGS staff will not be adequately protected. Once again, Senator Bolkus is completely wrong. I am advised that the essential terms and conditions which apply to AGS officers at present will be effectively preserved following enactment of the bill. Terms and conditions, including ordinary leave, will be governed by certified agreements or Australian workplace agreements. APS awards will be a reference point in determining whether the agreements meet the no disadvantage test that applies under the workplace relations act.Under the certified agreement which has been proposed for AGS staff, there will be an overall pay rise of at least three per cent for AGS employees. So much for any suggestion that the government or the AGS will be seeking to make its staff worse off. Similar points can be made about other terms and conditions.The superannuation rights of existing staff who are members of the CSS or the PSS will be protected. The existing membership of current officers has been continued through regulations made in 1998 under the Superannuation Act 1976 and the Superannuation Act 1990. The AGS proposes to provide for existing maternity leave entitlements to be retained. It is envisaged that a regulation will be made under the Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1973 to continue the entitlements provided to AGS staff. Similarly, there will be no change to the long service leave arrangements as the long service leave act will continue to apply.Existing AGS staff who are employed by the new AGS will retain their mobility rights under part IV of the Public Service Act 1922. As a consequence, officers who have been transferred will have the right to apply for APS jobs as if they remained an officer of the APS. They will also have the right to apply for reappointment to the APS if their career in the AGS is adversely affected by a change in the functions of the AGS, if their employment is terminated by the AGS other than on invalidity grounds or if compassionate grounds exist. This will effectively ensure that these existing AGS staff have the same rights to continued employment in the Public Service and voluntary redundancies as existing APS staff.I turn briefly to the parliamentary scrutiny of legal services directions. During the debate Senator Cooney expressed concern that the parliamentary scrutiny of legal services directions of a legislative character proposed under the bill is not available. He refers to the recent report of the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee and its concern that no provision has been provided to allow for parliamentary scrutiny of the directions. I can see the point Senator Cooney was making. We are not opposed to that scrutiny taking place; however, it does remain the government's view that it would be inappropriate to pursue a fragmented approach by amending the bill to deal specifically with the parliamentary scrutiny of the directions. In our view the best way to achieve effective scrutiny of instruments of a legislative nature is by way of a suitable legislation instruments bill. This would provide a comprehensive regime for the scrutiny of those instruments, including legal services directions, that can be made under the bill.In conclusion, there are two reasons why the delivery of legal services to the Commonwealth will be improved as a result of this bill. Firstly, as I said, the position of the AGS and its staff is protected and enhanced; and, secondly, the position of the Commonwealth in receiving legal services is enhanced. The reforms will strengthen the position of the AGS and enable it to compete more effectively with the private sector. In particular, the flexibility provided in the terms and conditions on which staff are employed will enable the AGS to take action to retain and recruit excellent staff.The bill will operate to improve the Commonwealth's position as a purchaser of legal services. The Attorney-General will have the power to issue legal services directions under the Judiciary Amendment Bill, to set general rules and to give specific instructions on the conduct of the Commonwealth's legal affairs. At present, policies operating in this area do not have this status and do not have the same extensive scope of operation as would be possible under the legal services directions.Areas of Commonwealth legal work that are essential to the core operations of government will remain tied to government lawyers, primarily the AGS. These areas are: constitutional, cabinet, national security and public international law. This will ensure consistent coordinated advice in these key areas. In essence, this bill will lead to an improved AGS and an improved framework within which Commonwealth legal services are provided.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.249117:42:002491Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I indicated that I would be moving an amendment during the committee stage. I gather there has been discussion between the government and opposition staff in respect of the point that we were pursuing with our amendment. I also understand that the government is prepared to move an amendment which will substantially cover the same point. In those circumstances, if Senator Vanstone were to move that amendment, then I would not proceed with the opposition's amendment.17:43:002491Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The portion of what Senator Bolkus said that I heard I agree with. I think he has got it right. It is good to put on the record that he has got it right. I do not like to let a special occasion pass, Senator Bolkus. I will read the amendment. It states:Schedule 2, page 18 (after line 23), after item 3, insert 3A Existing Conditions of StaffAn officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 transferred to the AGS under section 81C of that Act is to be employed on terms and conditions no less favourable than applied to the officer or employee immediately prior to his or her transfer.Are they the words you understood were agreed?XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—That is right.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—Good. I move:(1) Schedule 2, page 18 (after line 23), after item 3, insert3A Existing Conditions of StaffAn officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 transferred to the AGS under section 81C of that Act is to be employed on terms and conditions no less favourable than applied to the officer or employee immediately prior to his or her transfer.Amendment agreed to.17:44:002491Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—by leave—I move Democrat amendments (1) and (2) together:(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 14 (line 14), omit ` The Attorney-General", substitute "Subject to subsection (1A), fee Attorney-General".(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 14 (after line 19), after subsection (1), insert:(1A) The Attorney-General must not issue a Legal Services Direction that would have the effect of permitting Commonwealth legal work in relation to the following matters to be performed by a person other than an AGS lawyer or an Attorney-General's lawyer: (a) national security; (b) public international law; (c) constitutional law; (d) matters relating to the Cabinet.I addressed the issues relating to these two amendments in my speech during the second reading debate. They are fairly self-evident from the wording there. Prior to standing up, I had some advice that there was some discussion going on with the government about some matters relating to this. I would not mind some enlightenment on that before I outline and argue my case too forcefully and entrench myself too far.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Maybe Senator Bolkus has something he wishes to throw into the debate.17:44:002491Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—This may in fact short-circuit a long debate, as Senator Bartlett said. The opposition has considered both sets of Australian Democrat amendments—amendments Nos 1 and 2, which Senator Bartlett was about to embark upon, and amendment No. 3. I indicate that, in respect of all those amendments, the opposition probably will not be supporting them.In respect of amendments Nos 1 and 2, we do recognise the intention of the Democrats. It is an intention that we have also sought in the past, but there are definitional problems and technical problems which, for instance, would make it difficult to employ someone outside of the AGS in cases of conflict of interest. There would be problems commissioning barristers. Another problem is in respect of national security. It is not just Attorney-General's but the Department of Defence and maybe other departments that are involved. So those sorts of mechanical problems would lead us to not support Democrat amendments Nos 1 and 2.In respect of amendment No. 3, once again, it is an objective that we would seek to achieve but I understand that the government is prepared to make an undertaking to the Senate that it is prepared to pursue such an amendment in the context of the Legislative Instruments Bill. If that is the case, we will not be supporting Democrat amendment No. 3.17:46:002492Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Bolkus for his indication that, despite seeing some value in amendments Nos 1 and 2, he does understand the technical difficulties that are there, so there is no need for me to recanvass those. He is right in respect of what he says about proposed Democrat amendment No. 3. On that basis, we will not be supporting them either.17:46:002492Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Just on amendments Nos 1 and 2, I did outline the rationale for them in my speech at the second reading stage and obviously still believe that they are desirable as a protection, given the direction that the AGS is inevitably going with the passage of this legislation. Therefore, I think they are mighty fine amendments. But obviously they are not going to get up, so I shall not argue in their favour any further.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that Democrat amendments Nos 1 and 2 be agreed to. Question resolved in the negative.17:47:002492Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I move Democrat amendment No. 3:(3) Schedule 1, item 5, page 15 (after line 12), at the end of section 552F, add:(4) A Legal Services Direction is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.This amendment relates to a legal services direction being a disallowable instrument. Again, I addressed this in a reasonable degree of detail in my speech at the second reading stage. I think they were mighty fine arguments as well—so good I could do them all again, but I shall not.I would be interested, nonetheless, based on Senator Bolkus mentioning it, in the government being willing to give some sort of indication or commitment. I did also mention in my speech the Democrats' view about the strength of government commitments not being quite as strong as they used to be. So I would like some further elaboration from the minister about the nature of that commitment and how the government is proposing to address the issues that the Democrats are focusing on with this particular amendment.17:48:002492Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator Bartlett, my advice is that the Attorney has already agreed that obviously there will be directions which will be caught by the Legislative Instruments Bill. They will be directions that are legislative in character, and those directions will be subject to the bill.17:49:002492Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I seek leave to slightly amend this amendment as it relates to matters which, I understand, are being discussed at great depth by other people while I am sitting here in my seat, and it may make it more attractive to the chamber or a sufficient proportion of the chamber. That amendment is to add the word `general' as the second word. So it will read: `A general Legal Services Direction is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901'. I would like to make that slight amendment, if it is going to make a difference, which is something I would be interested to get clarification on.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted for Senator Bartlett to amend the amendment to include the word `general' as the second word in item 4? There being no objection, leave is granted.17:50:002493Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator Bartlett, you may have been trying to make it more attractive to some, but it is certainly less attractive to us.17:50:002493Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I will try to miss that objection of spirit in the debate by the minister and indicate that, on the basis of the previous assurance, we are prepared to look at this with a bit more time in the context of the legislative instruments legislation.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that the amendment, as amended, be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.2493Bill (on motion by Senator Vanstone) read a third time.Bills2493r637Billsr635Billsr633Billsr636Billsr6342493Debate resumed from 30 November, on motion by Senator Minchin:That these bills be now read a second time.17:52:002493Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—At the outset, Labor wishes to state in clear and unequivocal terms that we oppose the full privatisation of Telstra and, as a consequence, oppose the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . We oppose this bill because it seeks to achieve outcomes not in the interest of Australian taxpayers. Those outcomes are, firstly, the sale of 16 per cent of Telstra immediately and, secondly, the sale of the outstanding 51 per cent of Telstra in a most shoddy and bogus manner. This aspect, in particular, Labor finds remarkable. If it were not so serious, it could almost be described as a farce—that the government could seek to dispose of $A50 billion without further parliamentary scrutiny. This package authorises the sale of the final 51 per cent of Telstra, worth somewhere between $A50 billion and $A60 billion.Witnesses to the recent Senate inquiry into this package of bills almost universally condemned the model proposed by the government for an inquiry into the service levels of Telstra. Witnesses variously condemned the limited time frame of six months, the proposal to conduct the inquiry in secret, the fact that the public would not be asked to make submissions, the refusal of the government to release any terms of reference for the inquiry prior to Senate consideration, the fact that the eventual terms of reference would be set by regulation, not legislation, despite repeated government denials, and the limited nature of the inquiry, in that it only addresses Telstra service levels, not the adequacy or sufficiency of competition within the telecommunications market. I can quote what was variously said by the state of Western Australia, the NFF, ATUG and Optus. The Consumers Telecommunications Network said:. . . we view with alarm the apparent reneging on the government's commitment to ensuring there would be a public process in which there would be public access to information and the opportunity for the public to participate. As we have said in our submission, it appears to us that, despite the fact that there will be a review, that can be conducted in secret. There is no obligation on the minister to reveal the results of the review or, indeed, if the review makes a recommendation there is no obligation on the minister to follow the recommendation . . . The CEPU said:The period of six months is short in the context of a decision whose impacts will be felt for generations. With Telstra management publicly and vigorously committed to full privatisation, it is hard to imagine that the company will not be able to muster the energy to jump the immediate hurdle presented to it.The Western Australian government said:The six months mooted in the Bill as a period under which a measured service performance would be a criterion for the government relinquishing majority ownership would not be acceptable. A period of twelve months is considered an absolute minimum.Finally, ATUG said:I think the Government should have confidence that past experience of an open consultative process has been very successful. Therefore it seems to us very inappropriate to do it that way (in private).But if the disposal of $50 billion to $60 billion of taxpayers' money without parliamentary scrutiny is a disgraceful political act, equally bad are the priorities of the government. Minister Alston has made repeated references to the social bonus involved in the sale of Telstra. The minister has not been so keen to discuss the obscene amount of transaction fees proposed to be allocated to brokers and bankers.The social bonus can be characterised as relatively modest. The Bills Digest breaks up the social bonus as follows: an additional $250 million to the Natural Heritage Trust; $70 million over five years to be expended from the rural transaction centres reserve for modern communication services in rural areas; $150 million over three years to be expended from untimed local calls access reserve to allow or improve untimed local calls access; an additional $81 million for regional communication needs over five years; and, finally, $120 million over five years to be expended from the TV fund reserved for improved ABC or SBS reception. It is a total of $671 million over five years for a series of, at best, relatively modest TV, telephony and communications service improvements. Put another way, an average of $134 million over five years is the social bonus to 18 million Australians. Put plainly, the social bonus is an average of $7.40 per year for five years for each and every Australian.This can be compared with the fees to be paid by the Commonwealth for the sale of shares. The ALP minority report explains the fees disbursement in some detail. At page 60, it says:The Department of Finance and Administration gave evidence to this inquiry that the current value of the Commonwealth's remaining shares in Telstra is $55.4 billion. According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 , fees for the sale of these shares are expected to amount to between 1.5 and 2 per cent of sale proceeds. On this basis, the Government will pay bankers and lawyers between $800 million and $1.1 billion for the sale.If we assume there are 1,000 or thereabouts, which is exceptionally high, persons involved in the sale of the remainder of Telstra—lawyers, accountants, financial advisers, brokers, agents and various consultants—each will receive an average fee of between $800,000 and $1.1 million. This can only be properly characterised as obscene greed and virtual theft. It is simply outrageous.We appear to have in this debate two sets of rules. Firstly, specific amounts are allocated to be spent over a five-year period for modest improvement in select Telecom services. We should note carefully that percentage figures are not allocated. Specific amounts are only allocated by the government. Secondly, when it comes to fees for bankers and lawyers, the fees are set at between 1½ per cent and two per cent of sale proceeds.When the bill was tabled in the House last November, the share price of Telstra was around $6. It is currently around $9. Every time the share price goes up, bankers, lawyers and brokers cream off hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money for private gain. There is no extra work involved with the share price movement. There are no additional requirements. No extra staff are hired. No extra supporting or computing staff are necessary. It is simply a transfer of heroic proportions to a select group of professionals because there is no cap on fees or no fixed fee. Any percentage based on aggregate sale proceeds in a booming telco, booming stock market, is simply greed and waste. Each Australian who funded the growth of Telstra receives in compensation a lousy $7.40 a year for five years. To quote page 60 in conclusion on this point:Opposition Senators condemn the Government for its pitiful attempt at bribery. The residents of rural and regional Australia, far from feeling placated by additional funding, should feel outraged that their telecommunications needs are worth less than the services supplied by the myriad of bankers and lawyers fortunate enough to be aboard the Telstra sale gravy train.I turn now to Labor's rationale for continuing opposition to the privatisation of Telstra. It basically boils down to the reasons spelt out in the ALP minority report. Those reasons are: firstly, service levels in less profitable areas of Australia; secondly, remittances or dividends to government; thirdly, offshore remittances; fourthly, maintenance of Australia's telecommunications infrastructure; fifthly, investment by Telstra in research and development in this nation; and, finally, loss of jobs. I will address each of these points in turn.Since the sale of the first one-third of Telstra, it is clear that service levels in the less profitable areas of Australia have declined. By keeping Telstra in public hands, the federal government will retain the right to direct Telstra to ensure that adequate service levels and access to up-to-date technology are delivered to all Australians, particularly those in remote, rural and regional Australia.Secondly, the money that Telstra generates each year and pays to the government directly benefits taxpayers. As the level of government ownership in Telstra decreases, so does the dividend to government at the end of each financial year. By keeping Telstra in public hands, the federal government will continue to receive these funds—funds which will grow each year into the future.Thirdly, 35 per cent of the profits of a fully privatised Telstra will go offshore. Fourthly, investment in and maintenance of Australia's national telecommunications infrastructure will decline as more of Telstra is sold. Australia's telecommunications infrastructure is too critical an element of the economic, industrial and social framework of the nation to allow any further dilution of government ownership and control.Fifthly, levels of investment by Telstra in research and development for the public good have already begun to decline. Instead of selling Telstra, the government should be ensuring that Telstra continues to invest time, resources and expertise in the innovations and technical infrastructure necessary to take Australian industry into the new millennium.Finally, privatisation gives rise to an environment where the emphasis is on reducing staff and staffing costs. This means fewer workers and degraded workplace conditions for those lucky enough to retain a job. Telstra has shed nearly 25 per cent of its total work force in less than two years, with further job cuts scheduled for both the current and subsequent financial years.As more and more of Telstra is sold, the pressures on the Telstra board to make decisions based solely on economic and logistic imperatives will increase. Profit for shareholders will become the primary and, eventually, under a fully privatised Telstra, the only concern. Bitter experience since the sale of the first one-third of Telstra has shown that, as more and more of Telstra is sold, service levels will decline, particularly in rural and regional areas; investment in research and development for the national good will cease; levels of foreign ownership will increase, with more and more of Telstra's profits going overseas; more jobs will be lost in regional Australia; investment in and maintenance of the telecommunications infrastructure in rural and regional areas will decrease; and any notion that Telstra has a social—and not just a legislative—obligation to provide services to the sick, the disabled, the elderly and the isolated in the Australian community will vanish completely. Turning now to chapter 3 of the ALP minority report, it is clear, as the report identifies, that the current pro-competitive regulatory regime for telecommunications is still in its infancy. However, it is possible to identify failings in the regime's operation. Witnesses to the Senate hearings—industry participants as well as consumer and community organisations—repeatedly asserted there was not, as yet, a fully operative competitive environment in telecommunications in Australia. Each of those groups alleged Australian consumers, particularly those in rural and regional Australia, are paying substantially more for telecommunications services than consumers in other countries—and receiving poorer services.Recent decisions of the ACCC with respect to interconnect charges, access to the Telstra local call network and the issuing of competition notices by the ACCC with respect to customer churn are welcome developments. However, for practical effect, the cooperation of Telstra is essential. Telstra has indicated a willingness to pursue its sole interests in the strongest manner. Indeed, Telstra was the only industry participant to criticise attempts in the proposed bill to improve the current regulatory environment. Telstra said in its submission, and I quote from page 62 of the report:Telstra continues to have concerns with the measures proposed by the Government for amendment to the Trade Practices Act—specifically, increasing the powers of the ACCC to enable it to order disclosure of Telstra's costs to its competitors. Telstra considers this is harmful to competition, because it would enable competitors to price Telstra's costs, rather than their own, which is at odds with the primary aim of the access regime which is to promote the long term interests of end users.Various alternatives were put forward by witnesses to improve the competitive environment. Firstly, ring fencing: this requires Telstra's various entities to deal with each other at arms length. It is unsatisfactory because it is an artificial commercial device. The ALP does not believe it is warranted as yet. Secondly, cease and desist orders: various companies and parties proposed mechanisms to swiftly stop suspected breaches of anti-competitive conduct. Again, their solutions were unsatisfactory, because such orders may involve judicial action by an administrative body and hence breach the doctrine of separation of powers.The ACCC was circumspect in its comments concerning these pro-competition reforms. Both the department and the ACCC seemed to say they had concerns about the current operation of the act and advised that the minister had requested further advice on this aspect. Accordingly, the ALP is of the view there is some strength to arguments concerning anti-competitive conduct. Some of the investigatory procedures under the act simply make speedy resolution of complaints almost impossible.Finally, turning to the issues of competitive tendering for USOs and public disclosure of USO levy cost data, the Senate committee heard a lot of evidence on both of these topics. Most of the carriers expressed an interest in being allowed to bid for the USO on a regional basis. Each of the carriers said that they could provide the service on a competitive and cost-effective basis. A range of other participants—ATUG, the NFF, the Western Australian government and the Consumers Telecommunications Network—entered some concerns, particularly regarding implementation in the event that the successful carrier should fail and withdraw from the market.The ALP has listened to these concerns and makes two comments. Firstly, the ALP is in favour of pursuing further the notion of competitive tendering of the USO on a regional basis; and, secondly and most importantly, our support for that proposition is conditional upon Telstra remaining the only national universal service provider. In respect of disclosure of USO costs, only Telstra opposed full public disclosure because such disclosure might give competitors a commercial advantage. The ALP is of the view that, to date, there has been too much secrecy associated with USO cost calculation. This aspect needs to be reviewed.In winding up, let me repeat four points. Firstly, the ALP totally opposes any further privatisation of Telstra, and we intend to honour to the hilt our 1998 election commitment. Secondly, the current competitive regime is clearly inadequate, and the government should be pursuing an agenda that allows for full competition. Thirdly, the ALP has made a range of practical suggestions concerning the USO competitive tendering and the operation of the customer service guarantee. Fourthly, the government attempt to establish a secret sham inquiry to sell off the outstanding 51 per cent of Telstra without further reference to parliament is a mechanism to achieve a 100 per cent sale of Telstra. It is achieved by an outrageous distribution of almost $1.1 billion in fees, and it should be rejected on those grounds alone.In conclusion, we are again debating the privatisation of Australia's largest, most profitable corporation—a corporation that was built on the labours of Australian taxpayers, both present and past. We are now debating whether or not the remaining 66.6 per cent of Telstra under full public ownership—the part of Telstra that is still owned by all Australians, regardless of their financial position or status—should be given over to the market and sold as shares, a process in which not all Australians may be able to participate.The process of full privatisation leaves nothing for future generations of Australians who follow in our footsteps, except perhaps the right to compete in the marketplace for the opportunity to purchase a tiny part of Telstra or to be lucky enough to inherit shares. These shares are limited in number. Once sold, they leave the control of the Commonwealth and, therefore, cease to provide full benefit for all Australians.The government has provided no new or compelling evidence that the full privatisation of Telstra will bring benefits for all Australians. The opposition remains strongly opposed to the sale of any further portion of Telstra. The opposition condemns the coalition government for its crude attempt to dupe the public and its own backbench and bypass the authority of the parliament by instituting a sham inquiry as the trigger for the disposal of the government's controlling equity in Telstra.We have in this debate, and in the eventual vote, a clear choice between the corporation remaining 33 per cent in private hands and the corporation becoming 100 per cent in private hands. A shift to 49 per cent only—stage 1 of the two-stage process—will result at first only in partial privatisation. The board, as has already been indicated, will ignore government control, will ignore government directions and will make decisions solely on a commercial basis. So when we go from 33 to 49 per cent, the die is already cast. Any opportunity for further review, any further opportunity for restructuring by future govern ment as to the nature and services provided or offered by Telstra to the marketplace, will be void and lost forever.A vote for 16 per cent is a vote sometime in the future for the further 66 per cent. A vote for partial privatisation is a vote for the full privatisation of Telstra. This service provision is critical to all Australians. It is particularly important to those residents of rural and regional Australia. Telstra provides critical and important national infrastructure services to Australians. We should not delude ourselves that, when in due course we vote on the bill, a vote for another 16 per cent is not a vote for the entire sale of Telstra. (Time expired)18:12:002497Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Mr Acting Deputy President, it is very pleasing to see you in the chair and listening to me again. What will be the implications of the privatisation of Telstra for the people of Australia? If the Senate allows this legislation to pass, we will see Telstra sold for a price far below its market value.Telstra shares were listed on the market at $3.40 per share and are now listed at between $8.47 and $8.50—the most significant increase of all major listings on the Stock Exchange. It is not simply that the share price index has gone up since they were listed; it is that Telstra has increased much faster than the average increase in the share market index. Another way of expressing this is to say that the increase in the share price index has been dragged along by the increase in the Telstra share prices. It is one thing to say that it is impossible to predict movements in the share price index; it is another thing to witness an increase in Telstra shares which has set the trend for the index as a whole.Since 15 November 1997, the share price has increased by $5.10 per share, an increase of 150 per cent. I will say that again: an increase of 150 per cent in the space of less than 16 months. At what point do we conclude that the shares were given away at the expense of the taxpayers of this country? The answer is: whenever the Hon. John Fahey has anything to do with a sale.Mr Fahey has not conceded that the fire sale was a disaster. He has not acknowledged that the sale price was too low. He has not acknowledged—and I am quoting at length from different pages of the Audit Office report—that `at the close of the first day of trading, Telstra instalment receipts stood at a premium of 67c, the largest initial premium of any Commonwealth public share offering'. That is in the Audit Office report at page 13. He has not accepted or acknowledged—and again I am quoting—`the trading price of Telstra instalment receipts has risen more than 160 times the increase in the Australian Stock Exchange all ordinaries index and more than 20 times the increase in the ASX's all industrial index'. That is from the Audit Office report at page 14.At the price of $3.40 per share, the offer of one-third of Telstra's shares was more than four times subscribed. That is from the Audit Office report, page 14. The institutional offer was 6.2 times subscribed. That is from the Audit Office report, page 14. The sale costs were $35.6 million plus $4 million in reimbursed expenses. The global coordinator's project management fee comprised a base fee of $16 million and an additional success fee linked to the net present value of the proceeds received by the Commonwealth from the sale of the Telstra shares. The variable component of the fee was intended to encourage and reward the global coordinators for the achievement of increased offer proceeds. However, the benchmarks used were significantly below the September 1996 scoping study estimates of likely sale proceeds. Use of these latter benchmarks would have reduced sale costs by between $5.4 million and $10.3 million by reducing the success fee. Again, that is from the Audit Office report, page 15.Payments made by the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing included project management fees for free shares for which the Commonwealth received no proceeds—fees of $458,492—and shares not actually sold—fees of $26,512. I will say that again: this is paying fees for shares for which there were no proceeds and shares that were not actually sold. The minister who has been party to this is sitting on the other side of the chamber, and he is silent on these issues, just like the Hon. John Fahey. He has nothing to say about these issues. Where are they? They are looking after their mates in the markets. The minister has failed to deal with the criticisms outlined in the Audit Office report or to provide, more importantly, any reassurance that they will not be repeated. What is worse, they have appointed the same people to do the proposed next tranche and the one after that. We have a situation where these people who have made exorbitant fees and charges have been reappointed to finish the job.Where is there in this legislation any sanction that ensures that there will be no repeat of the problems outlined by the Auditor-General? The Howard government is proceeding as if there was nothing untoward in the first sale and as if there is nothing further they have to do to protect the taxpayers' interests. Billions of dollars of taxpayers' funds have been lost by the first sale, and this has been confirmed by no less than the Auditor-General. The response of the Prime Minister is to put the same minister back in charge of the next sale, which is even more significant, with no safeguards or restrictions on his conduct. There will be no change to the team that ripped everybody off last time and we will see the same debacle. To let this minister loose is like allowing a child who has just given away all the goods in your shop back inside to do it again.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—He has only given away a third of the goods so far.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I accept that interjection, Senator Quirke. It is only a third of the goods, but they are bringing them back to give away the other two-thirds. It is not theft we are witnessing; just massive incompetence by a minister who is being encouraged to do it again. On 3 March 1999 the Australian National Audit Office wrote to the Hon. Brian Gibson in his capacity as Chairman of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—That is the bloke they crucified.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—That is the one they crucified. I had been asking some questions of the Office of Asset Sales, and the Audit Office were so incensed by the replies I was given that they have written a three- or four- page comprehensive response. It has been released today by Mr Tanner's office so that people can be absolutely clear about what the Audit Office think of what went on. They are not going to be whitewashed by the department or by the answers that I was given on the record during Senate estimates. This is the sort of thing that they had to say in these documents:. . . the scale of the $35.6 million Project Management Fee paid by OASITO (Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing) to the three Global Coordinators was unprecedented for a privatisation.ANAO (Australian National Audit Office) examined the Project Management Fee against a number of benchmarks—benchmarks which were comprehensive. It continues:Previous Commonwealth public share offers, which had paid project management fees of between $1.25 million—this is on page 38, figure 2.3 of the Audit Office's report. It further states:The customary commercial practice in Australian global industrial offerings . . . that previous project management fees in Australian global industrial offerings have been in the range of $200,000 to $700,000 with the median being $500,000 per Global Coordinator.Practice adopted in the United Kingdom . . . Project management fees were paid on three major offerings between 1991 and 1995, with amounts of . . . $5.6 million and $10.1 million (as per 1995 exchange rates).Against these benchmarks, the $35.6 million Project Management Fee paid by OASITO was significantly above comparable offerings conducted in Australia and overseas . . .I will read that again: $5.6 million and $10.1 million for comparable privatisations in the UK, considered to be the home of privatisation under Thatcher and the conservatives. What did we get for one-third of Telstra? We saw $35.6 million in fees off to their mates. No wonder the Financial Review writes stories about it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! Senator Conroy, you have been sailing very close to the wind. I suggest you read standing order 193, which alleges improper motives. I ask you to be careful because you are sailing very close to the wind.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I will heed your call.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Read standing order 193.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I will happily heed your call. I do not think I have imputed any motives to anybody. Looking after your mates is not imputing a motive.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I have been listening very carefully, Senator Conroy. Read standing order 193.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I appreciate your suggestion. Against these benchmarks, as I said, we paid $35.6 million. You could perhaps read my mind there, Senator Ferguson. Mr Hutchinson, who was giving evidence to me before the Senate estimates, stated—and this is in the Hansard on page F&PA 236—that ANAO is wrong to indicate that the project management fee increased when sale proceeds increased above $8 billion. The following information was obtained from a 22 August 1997 letter signed by Mr Hutchinson and the global coordinators which clearly shows that the project management fee was set at a base of $16 million and increased as the level of proceeds received by the Commonwealth increased above $8 billion. This is a matter that we will be taking up with Mr Hutchinson, but that is what the Audit Office wrote back upon seeing Mr Hutchinson's evidence.Legal advice obtained by ANAO from the office of the Australian Government Solicitor confirmed that the project management fee should be paid only on the proceeds actually received by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth was not required to pay any project management fee on employee free shares, shares not sold or international underwriting discounts. Despite this, OASITO increased the project management fee paid to the global coordinators by $691,128.You begin to think at some stage that the Telstra roadshow consisted of a whole lot of International Olympic Committee delegates from the sort of money that they were getting out of this and what it was costing the Australian taxpayer. You would think they were all on the IOC. The cost of the Telstra roadshow of $3.06 million was more than eight times the cost incurred by the Commonwealth for an earlier roadshow, which was $359,000. Insufficient effort has been made by OASITO and the government to recover the amounts overpaid to the three global coordinators. The government has been incompetent in the management of the sale of Telstra to date and defrauded the taxpayer, as the Audit Office has disclosed—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, you will withdraw that imputation of defrauding the taxpayer.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I am confused—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You will withdraw the words.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, just what has provoked that? Is there a point of order before the chair that we have not heard? And can you tell us on what grounds that ruling is made, please?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There does not need to be a point of order before the chair, Senator Quirke. I warned Senator Conroy before about impugning improper motives and suggested to him that he should be very careful of what he is saying. To talk of defrauding, I think, is unparliamentary, and I suggest that it be withdrawn.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—In due deference to you, on that point of order which I have raised I do not believe that to be unparliamentary at all, so I would like you to seek advice on that please, because I do not think we are going to accept that.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Conroy a few moments ago accepted the proposition that there was not any fraud involved by saying that he attributed this action that he has obviously got himself worked up about as being incompetence. He did that for the very simple reason that he knows that he goes too far to allege anything beyond that. So what is happening now is that he is impugning the motives of all of those who are involved in this decision—`the government' can only be the ministers involved. It is an open and shut case, and whether or not Senator Quirke is aware of the standing orders is irrelevant.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! I ask both senators to resume their seats. I am about to rule on the point of order. Senator Conroy, I have taken advice and I am asking you to withdraw the word `defraud'.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—The problem I have in withdrawing that—if I could just explain, without being provocative—is that there is money missing that is owed to the government, and at the moment its being paid back is being investigated by the Government Solicitor.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—What entitles you to jump to the conclusion that fraud is involved?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, resume your seat. To suggest that money is missing is different from suggesting that the government defrauded, and I am asking you to withdraw the word `defraud'.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—For the sake of sorting out the argument I withdraw.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you. Unreservedly you withdraw.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I unreservedly withdraw.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Mr Acting Deputy President—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Have you got a point of order, Senator Quirke?ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Yes, it is a point of order. I believe that your ruling has gone too far on this point, and I again would like you to seek some advice. And, before my learned colleague over there gets up and says that I do not know the standing orders around here, I suspect that I am not Robinson Crusoe.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, I am prepared to accept your withdrawal.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. What all of this shows—and the sensitivity of the government and the sensitivity of the minister shows—is that they cannot be trusted to do it again. It is incomprehensible that they could ask this parliament, this Senate chamber, to actually support their position when they allowed this to happen the first time and they are planning on allowing it to happen again.Telstra is an important Australian asset with majority ownership still held by all the people of this country. The only protection they have to stop Minister Fahey repeating what he did before is to ask the Senate to stop him, and I believe this is what we should do. The implications of this sale are far greater than those of the first sale in November 1997. If this legislation is passed it will lead to the full privatisation of Telstra without reference back to the parliament.A 100 per cent privatisation of Telstra will have significant implications for all of its customers far beyond existing practice. For example, there will be significant reductions in existing services to rural, regional and remote Australia because the existing services will be too expensive to maintain and the returns to shareholders on the assets too low. Access to up-to-date technology will simply not occur in rural, regional and remote Australia because it will be regarded as too expensive to provide and the return on new assets too low to meet the expectations of shareholders.There will be additional charges for a range of services, as has already occurred with directory assistance calls since the partial sale of Telstra. The general level of service will diminish as priorities move from the needs of taxpayers to the demands of shareholders for higher returns. There is nothing in the legislation which protects existing levels of service or guarantees customers access to new technology.Telstra's performance in clearing faults within one day will diminish, as is already beginning to occur since the partial privatisation. In December 1997 the percentage of faults cleared within one day was 61 per cent compared with 74 per cent in December 1996. The clearing of faults with public payphones will get worse, as has also been the case since partial privatisation. In December 1997 the percentage of faults on public payphones cleared within one day was 47 per cent compared with 67 per cent in December 1996. The source for this is the Australian Communication Authority Performance Monitoring Bulletin March 1998.The government should stand condemned for this. This minister, who has been responsible for driving this, stands condemned for it. Research and development will diminish, especially basic research. We have already seen this occur since the partial privatisation.The legislation proposes the deletion from the Telstra Corporation Act of the capacity of the government of the day to instruct Telstra in accordance with the public interest. This power to instruct Telstra remains fundamental to ensuring that there is effective service delivery to regional Australia and that the response times of Telstra are acceptable to the community. It is now proposed that the performance criteria—which were to be inserted into the legislation—will be determined by regulation. If this remains the case, then they can be changed at the whim of the government at any time. As occurred on a previous occasion, the Senate again might not let this happen.Sale costs or commissions from the next stage of the sale of Telstra will be $800 million to $1.1 billion. By comparison, the community dividend will be only $670 million. That is right: the dividend for the broader community is only $670 million but for all the government's mates there will be up to $1 billion in fees and commissions. It is outrageous, and the government is going to do nothing about it. So, as is the case with all the Howard initiatives, it is the fat cats who are fed first and the rest of the community receives a social bonus which, by comparison, is second-rate chook food.What is surprising is that the National Party, who are renowned for negotiating on any matter—especially if it is a matter of principle—have sold out for a pittance. Where is Mr Katter when there is a fight to be had for regional Australia? Where is the member for Dawson, Mrs De-Anne Kelly, and her willingness to fight for the retention of public ownership of Telstra? Where is the Leader of the National Party in the Senate on the sale of Telstra, Senator Ron Boswell—known throughout Queensland on all matters of principle as `Roll Over Ron'? And where are you, Senator O'Chee?EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: the phrase that was used by Senator Conroy to refer to my colleague Senator Boswell was deliberately provocative. It is also quite unparliamentary to use epithets like that. It is contrary to the good running of the chamber. It is contrary to standing orders. It is not appropriate to refer to people with epithets and I ask for it to be withdrawn.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—I uphold the point of order. Senator Conroy, I ask you to withdraw.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I withdraw. As I have indicated, the government is particularly sensitive and the National Party should be particularly sensitive, because that is what One Nation says to them. One Nation says, `We expect you to represent us.' That is what One Nation voters are saying. They have given up on the National Party.Senator Alston interjecting—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—They have walked away because they have sold out. They have been rolled over by you, Senator Alston. You have been too successful.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, address your remarks through the chair, please.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I draw to your attention the interjections; but, seeing as you missed them, I am sure you will pick them up next time.The government has an obligation to customers to demonstrate how they will be better off—that is, as opposed to being shareholders—by a privatised Telstra. The only way that the government could begin to give confidence to consumers of Telstra services is by enshrining within the legislation certain standards relating to cost and service delivery. This the government has failed to do. Everybody knows that if Telstra is privatised the Telstra Board will attempt to increase the return on shareholders' funds by reducing services, increasing service charges, delaying the repair of faults, applying pressure on government to introduce timed calls, reducing the level of employment of maintenance staff, increasing rental charges, delaying and restricting the introduction of new technology, increasing charges for individual calls, STD calls, ISD calls and calls on mobile phones, reducing research and development activity and increasing directors' fees and senior management salaries to outrageous levels while cutting community benefits.If the government is serious about protecting consumers' rights, it would incorporate within this legislation restrictions on the capacity of the board to make price increases for calls, staff reductions, increased service charges, reductions in the provision of services, increased fees for directors, increased salaries for senior managers and reduced research and development expenditure. This could be achieved by retaining the government's power to direct Telstra. It has chosen instead not to do so, which is why the Senate should reinstate this power. It could reassure Australians by refusing to sell more than 49 per cent. It has, instead, chosen not to do so and, in fact, if this bill is passed, will sell the rest of Telstra without further debate in the Senate.Under this legislation there is no protection for customers. There is nothing to prevent a massive reduction in services and an increase in fees and charges. This is not an idle concern that I am expressing. We have watched the banking industry embark on a massive increase in shareholder funds over the past five years, financed largely by a reduction in services and an increase in fees and charges. The Howard government is now proposing that Telstra should be allowed to do the same, unfettered by government or the parliament. The consequences of this legislation, if it is allowed to pass, will be a disaster for regional Australia in the provision of telephone and telecommunications services, an increase in the cost of telephone services for every household and small business, the potential future loss of a successful and essential business owned by all Australians to foreign interests and no policy influence over the development of—(Time expired)18:37:002502Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I rise today to speak on the telecommunications legislation. The Greens (WA) have put our concerns regarding the privatisation of Telstra on the record during previous debates. The Greens (WA) are clearly opposed to the further sale of Telstra. The government cannot show that it is economically sensible to sell the taxpayers' share of Telstra and the government cannot assure access to affordable and up-to-date telecommunications for the bush; and a truly competitive telecommunications market is still, we all know, a long way away.I would like to address some of the comments made by the government this week so far. The three main lines the government have been running in their spin are: (a) the Senate should pass the bills because the government have a mandate; (b) if the Senate does not pass the bills, the people in the bush will not get their bribes; and (c) if the Senate does not allow the sale, the mum and dad investors will lose out. Let us look at each of those.The government is crying `mandate'—I believe that it is a very inappropriate expression in light of International Women's Day yesterday—and attempting to claim that any debate on or opposition to the sale of Telstra is an illegitimate use of the Senate's power. I must seriously question the integrity of the ethics of a government which constantly tries a political con using the rhetoric of a mandate. Quite obviously there is a whole range of reasons why people vote for a particular party in an election. Maybe they are registering a protest vote. Maybe they want to see some form of tax reform proceed in a certain way. Maybe they liked their local member or maybe they did not like their local member. Maybe it is just the way their parents have always voted or perhaps the opposite of the way their parents have always voted.It is not only misleading but also downright wrong to suggest that the government suddenly has some kind of mandate to sell Telstra. It is absolutely invalid to assume that even half of the electorate was thinking of Telstra when their vote was cast. Of course we all know that less than half of the electorate voted for the coalition.This kind of political rhetoric completely distorts concepts of legitimacy and democra cy. It is a misleading and disruptive way to conduct important debates in Australia. Indeed, the polls have shown that a majority of Australians have no desire to see Telstra in private hands. This government is trying to usurp proper process and public opinion in one fell swoop using constantly the word `mandate'.Let us look at the impact on the bush and the great pork-barrel. The best argument the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts can come up with to sell Telstra is a scare campaign to the bush, telling them in an open letter that the Senate will be denying them $671 million in pure pork-barrelling.Senator Alston assures us that these new projects for the bush are not a bribe but, rather, the government would have to slash a bit more off the education or health budget to pay for them if they did not sell Telstra. That is hardly a credible position. Considering the government feel that they are so rich with taxpayers' money that they can hand out $3.5 billion to diesel and petroleum fuel users through the cuts in diesel excise in the tax package, it would seem that there is some money they are prepared to throw around. It would seem that a mere $671 million compared with $3.5 billion plus annually would be a drop in the ocean. The budget could keep the current excise or even just a part of the current excise and they could come up with this measly crumb to the bush.The people of regional and rural Australia are not fooled by these weak strategies by the government. They have seen Telstra's attitude to customer service in the bush since it has been partially privatised. The statistics do not look too crash hot. Let us look at services provided in country areas. In the December 1996 quarter, 74 faults were cleared within one working day. By June 1998, it was 62. In the December 1996 quarter, 90 faults were cleared within two working days. By June 1998, it was 81. In the December 1996 quarter, 67 payphone faults were cleared within one working day. In June 1998, it was 48. In the December 1996 quarter, 84 payphone faults were cleared within two working days. In June 1998, it was 68. These figures come from the Australian Communications Authority Telecommunications Performance Bulletin, issue 5, June 1998 quarter.People in the bush know they will be the last priority for a privatised Telstra which is focused solely on the bottom line and the profits for shareholders. There is no question that a fully privatised Telstra will have their eyes clearly focused on shareholder profits and will do whatever it takes to minimise their responsibilities for the provision of telecommunications services that are considered to be `uneconomic'—that is, will reduce the profits to shareholders.The advocates of privatisation assume that the universal service obligations can be delivered just as easily under private ownership as long as there is a legislated obligation for their provision. However, that is taking a profit motivated enterprise to act contrary to its own self-interest and the pressure of its shareholders. The interests of the community and the interests of shareholders are often diametrically opposed.For instance, during the committee hearings we heard evidence that telecommunications carriers may find it cheaper to pay the daily credit under the customer service guarantee than to provide the service, so they may actually hold off providing a service and pay the credit instead because it is cheaper. Even if that specific instance could be remedied by increased regulation, this is a perfect example of how Telstra's commitment to the provision of service in the bush is highly equivocal. That is so even now that they have partial private ownership.Senator Alston remarked in the Australian last week on 4 March 1999, page 34, that the parliament can just `impose licence conditions' or `pass legislation setting and enforcing service levels'. It is worth remembering that a fully privatised Telstra will be fighting tooth and nail against any further regulation by parliament. We already know that Treasury have basically given a very strong argument as to why a further regulated environment should not be part of the package before they sell Telstra because it might inhibit the price for the sale of Telstra. We can see what the connections are.In addition, the so-called `independent inquiry' proposed in the legislation is a weak attempt to assure that the customer service levels are adequate before the sale. For a start, we do not even know what criteria the inquiry will use. These will be left up to regulation, as is so often the case with important elements of legislation with this government. So the Senate has no way to judge whether this inquiry will be rigorous or even come close to accurately assessing whether customer service levels are adequate. In addition, the inquiry need only investigate customer service levels over a six-month period. This time frame is clearly too short to establish whether service standards are up to scratch. It would be possible for Telstra to pick up service standards for that short time for the purposes of the inquiry.The critical importance of telecommunications to the bush cannot be underestimated. As people of rural and regional Australia are seeing banks, shops and people desert their towns, telecommunications become even more vital. Affordable quality telecommunications services provide a ray of hope for people in the bush as many other services abandon their communities. Telecommunications services can potentially fill the ever broadening abyss left in areas of finance, education, health, trade and commerce. Without access to up-to-date telecommunications services, people of rural and regional Australia cannot sustain a quality of life equal to that of their city cousins.Let us look at the argument of the mum and dad investors. The Prime Minister continues to throw around the claim that the further sale of Telstra will allow all Australians to have a greater stake in one of the country's great enterprises. The propaganda-like claim that it is the mum and dad investors who will profit from the sale is at best misleading considering the so-called mum and dad investors have a stake in Telstra as taxpayers. It is also misleading in that the reality is that the sale will only be profitable for those with the means to take advantage of it. So we have another situation with the coalition's policies that those already advantaged get richer and most of Australia goes backwards.The situation is summed up well by three esteemed academics who have been researching the ways in which several Australian public enterprises have been privatised. These are Roger Wettenhall, Fran Collyer and Jim McMaster. They say:The `truth' of a share owning democracy is less sovereignty and more social inequality as the Australian people as a whole lose what they once owned through their own hard work and diligence.That quote comes from the Current Affairs Bulletin of June/July 1998 No. 21. The Prime Minister should take note of last week's Australian , which featured a range of articles over four days about Australia's growing underclass. There have been a number of studies recently coming up with the same answer—that is, the gap between the rich and the poor is ever increasing. The huge number of people living in poverty and the number of working poor are increasing while the people at the big end of town are cashing in.The government's tax package is another blatant example of a policy that exacerbates this massive social problem. The reality is that the sale of Telstra will directly benefit those corporations and individuals with a disposable income to buy shares. The CEPU has outlined interesting figures regarding the windfall that Telstra board members gained during the one-third float—that is, over $1 million between an 11-member board. Let us not forget the stockbrokers who get yet another windfall, but the growing underclass will lose their stake in yet another national asset. I have mentioned previously that the government is unable to show that it is economically sensible to sell off Telstra. The government is trying to distract the community in the media by yelling mandate and using these bribes. The government knows that the sale of Telstra is on very economically shaky grounds.Of course, it is in the interests of the government to flog off another 16 per cent of Telstra. It is in their interests now because they will get a nice little cosmetic effect on their budget sheet in a couple of months. A healthy bottom line on that budget sheet is an obvious benefit to the government as it will help in continuing to present them as good economic managers despite the ballooning current account deficit and despite the social and environmental damage caused by their slash and burn mentality. So to ensure a nice bottom line they try to beef up the projected benefits to the community to prop up their image. This does not take note of the impact of the loss of revenue, the ongoing loss of revenue forever down the line.Pretending that we can suddenly have more to spend on social programs is all smoke and mirrors. The accounting conventions belie the economic realities. Indeed, the Treasurer has previously correctly criticised the Labor Party for using asset sales to conceal budget deficits and has focused on the underlying budget deficit which excludes the proceeds of asset sales and repayments of state and government business enterprise debt. The bottom line is that the sale of Telstra will reduce public sector net worth in the long run and will stymie the government's ability to pay for the social and environmental programs and health programs that are needed in Australia.Let us look at the government's claim that there would be an economic benefit. It assumes that the savings in interest through debt retirement will more than offset the loss in dividends. This claim has been seriously questioned. The first gap in the government's projection is the calculation in interest savings on government loans after the full sale. These estimations have been severely questioned as overestimated to the tune of in excess of $1.5 billion. According to Professor Quiggin, a more realistic estimate of the interest savings is $2.5 billion per annum. When you look at this interest saving against the ongoing losses, the hope of net economic benefits is not something to be enthusiastic about.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! The time for this debate has expired.Documents2505250518:50:002505Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document. Labor welcomes the tabling of the Skehill report. It has been some time coming. This is unfortunate because these sorts of delays do not promote confidence in what is a critical issue—that is, air safety. In fact, delays of this length have created suspicion as to what may well be contained in them. There are a number of other documents that we are waiting on. The regulation of air safety needs confidence and trust and we cannot afford any lack of transparency with regard to air safety.There are, as I said before, a number of other documents that ought to be tabled. One return to order went through the Senate today in relation to the Hawke review into Airservices Australia. We are very happy that that has gone through. There is another document that we will be moving the return to order on in the next sitting week, and that is the Hawke review into Airservices Australia, BASI and CASA which was inaugurated by the minister in terms of the events of late last year. We will be moving the return to order in relation to that matter next week. As I said yesterday when we were dealing with the disallowance motion of the civil aviation regulations which would have meant the privatisation of air traffic control services in Australia—we are very pleased that that disallowance was knocked off—we do need transparency. We need a clear view of all the issues relating to air safety and we need to build and strengthen public confidence in air safety.Coming specifically to the Skehill report itself, it is very clear from the report that South Pacific Seaplanes was a problem for CASA. There were `frequent and repeated breaches of various regulatory requirements' and `a failure to honour the numerous undertakings it gave to remedy perceived inadequacies in its methods of operation'. There was a significant turnover of chief pilots. Serious allegations were made against senior management and its attitude towards safety. CASA received at least 21 complaints against SPS and it issued 13 non-compliance notices and grounded SPS aircraft. SPS aircraft were involved in a number of the accidents or alleged near accidents over the five-year period covered by the Skehill report.By April 1997 the situation was so serious that the CASA regional manager of the south-east region at the time, Mr Diamond, issued a notice to SPS requiring them to show why their air operator's certificate or their licence to operate should not be cancelled. Following an informal conference with the SPS management, no further action was taken on this matter. This decision was taken without meaningful consultation with the flying operations inspector that was assigned to SPS. Mr Skehill makes the comment in his report that the flying operations inspector that was assigned to SPS had the most intimate knowledge of the SPS operations and had been the one who had recommended the suspension or cancellation of the AOC.Some senators may not be aware that flying operations inspectors are experienced professional pilots who are employed to regulate pilot standards in Australia. They are critical to the whole field of aviation safety. Flying is not like riding a bike: you do forget, you do fall behind if you do not retain your skills and knowledge, and obviously the best way to do this is to practise. However, the pilot community is greatly concerned that CASA has taken the decision to downgrade the ongoing skill maintenance program for flying operations inspectors. This has undermined their skills confidence and their credibility. And we are also obviously concerned about the major cost cutting measures that CASA has instituted.I have a number of other remarks to make in relation to this report. I see that time is running out, so at the end of my remarks I will seek leave to continue my remarks later. Suffice to say that this report contains much that we are interested in—not only us but all members of the public, particularly those who regularly use planes. We welcome the government's somewhat tardy, but at least there, initiative in terms of the tabling of this report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.250618:55:002506Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document. There are a couple of points that I wish to make at this juncture in relation to the Skehill report. This report details CASA's response to recommendations made in the Skehill report. There were a number of issues raised in the recommendations that are cause for concern, such as the use of borrowed air operators' certificates. This has been an issue for some time and CASA now believes that it has been successfully addressed by CASA itself.The insistence by CASA on the use of a senior pilot where the chief pilot is considered inexperienced is noted by CASA to be in fact inconsistent with the Civil Aviation Act. The Skehill report recommends the removal of the ambiguity about the action to be taken where an operations manual is seen to be unsatisfactory. CASA believes, obviously, that its house is basically in order in this matter but is seeking some legislative amendments to assist to clarify the situation.CASA's previous policy was not to allow the transaction of substantive business by e-mail. As for the recommendation that the policy is to be changed, with back-up systems to be put in place to ensure consistency and reliability, we believe that that is all for the best and is something that ought to be instituted.We also note that CASA has moved to ensure that proper records are taken of important meetings which lead to significant decisions and that reasons for decisions in fact be recorded. This clearly was not always the case with regard to events surrounding the SPS saga, and in fact I have to say was not the case with regard to events surrounding the cancellation of the G class airspace trial. I think that those events have been of considerable public comment, and here again we welcome CASA's intention in this regard.A number of the actions are due to be completed by 31 March and we ask that the minister responsible, Minister Anderson, provide updates to us as soon as practicable to ensure that they, firstly, have been implemented and, secondly, have a time line in relation to completion. We believe that that is important on a number of fronts, so we make that request.Obviously, CASA has some intricate safety systems and checks, but despite all preparations and all goodwill, with systems in place, things can go wrong. That is why we believe, as we have indicated a number of times, in the notion of openness and transparency and in the notion of openness in relation to recording of decisions and release of minutes and so on. We welcome, as I have indicated before, CASA's response to this. We reiterate our position, which has been made clear on several occasions by us, that CASA itself should always be open to review.Clearly there were systems problems and there were areas that could be improved. As we have said publicly on a number of occasions, we think that the government could go further and ensure that the public has a clear view of what is going on in the regulation of air safety. Here again, we are keen to ensure that the government complies with today's Senate decision in terms of the tabling of the Hawke report into Airservices Australia, and we are keen that the Senate support our motion in the next sitting week with regard to the Hawke report into Airservices Australia, CASA and BASI and the issue of air safety. That report is critical and it has been with the minister for many months now.The government needs to understand that the issue of air safety is one in which the public will not tolerate any lack of transparency; it is simply too important. We believe that the government can ameliorate this increasing perception in the community by the production of these documents and ensuring openness. Trust is earned by being open and there is no reason to hide matters. As I said, we are pleased that, after some considerable period of time, this report has finally arrived. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.250719:00:002507Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This document records the BASI investigation into what was a tragic accident and is, in fact, the third document in the series that has been tabled here today concerning the South Pacific Seaplanes issue.The BASI report found that a number of matters contributed to the tragedy—issues such as organisational deficiencies, the management and conduct of the charter operations and the regulation of those operations by CASA. According to this report, issues such as inadequate safety defences also contributed, and a number of local factors were identified, including poor weather conditions, a lack of formal procedures to provide safe methods of operation and commercial pressure.There are some things that obviously cannot be helped. The weather, for example, is something that cannot be helped. But what can be helped is the identification of safety deficiencies in the company concerned and also in the regulator. That is obviously a matter of concern to everybody. Here again, we have a difficulty—as has been identified by others as well—with the dual role of the regulator with respect to both making and enforcing the regulations in relation to air safety in Australia.I also note again with interest the issue of Airservices Australia—not CASA in this case—being extremely concerned in relation to air safety at Sydney airport and requesting that the issue of runway identification be a matter for the corporation itself rather than Airservices Australia. We believe this is a real signal that there is a difficulty with air safety in Australia and is something that ought to be taken up. Here again, I will put in another plug: in the next sitting week, we will be moving for the tabling of the Hawke report—this one not into Airservices, because we have already carried that one today—in relation to CASA, BASI and Airservices Australia and the interrelationship between the three agencies and how they operate in relation to air safety.As I said yesterday in the disallowance speech, the events at the estimates committee hearing into the Department of Transport and Regional Services—aviation, specifically, and CASA and BASI and so on—showed that there is a clear problem. I will not remind the Senate of some of the intemperate remarks made by the chair of CASA but, suffice to say, there has been a reaction from certain members of the public to the committee as a result. I will not take that any further until we have sought advice in relation to them.BASI's reputation, I think it would be fair to say—and probably the least one could say—was attacked at the estimates hearing, and we look forward to the public release of the review into BASI that the minister has announced. We are pleased that the government has indicated that that review will be made public, and we are hoping that it will exonerate the role that BASI played and perhaps lead to a number of proactive resolutions. We have the terms of reference into the BASI report, and we have an assurance from the government that it will be publicly available. When that is publicly available, I suspect I will take note of that document at length. I do not intend to continue further in relation to this matter. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.250819:05:002508Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.In moving that the Senate take note of the Austrade annual report 1997-98, I just want to take the opportunity to say a few words about the Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement which was tabled in the parliament last month.The Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement is the annual report card to parliament and the Australian people on our export successes and the challenges that lie ahead, and Austrade is an initial part of that effort. As an island nation of 18 million people, we have to export successfully to survive, and we have made great leaps and bounds. It is always a constant effort, and Austrade are to be congratulated on the effort that they make.Australian exporters have done remarkably well against the odds over the last 12 months. In 1997-98, Australia's exports reached a record $114.2 billion—up 8.4 per cent on the previous financial year. Market diversification strategies are working. Our exports to non-East Asian markets grew at an average of 18.4 per cent in 1997-98. Exports rose by 41 per cent to the United States, 25 per cent to the European Union and 21 per cent to South Asia. Our very important market of Japan—which takes some 40 per cent of our exports—is in the most difficult grip of the Asian crisis, and we can only hope that they work through that because it is a very important market to us. Quite frankly, without our Japanese export markets we would all be starving.The government has no illusion that 1999 will be anything but a difficult trading year. The growth prospects for the world economy are subdued and a number of our trading partners in Asia remain in recession. While our exports to East Asia grew at 5.7 per cent in 1997-98, figures for the calendar year 1998 show a softening due to the regional crisis. Global uncertainty emphasises the need to pursue market access opportunities on all fronts—multilaterally, regionally and bilaterally.In the early weeks of 1999 there have been encouraging signs that trade will feature prominently on the international agenda this year. President Clinton's recent support for a new round of global trade negotiations is good news for the world economy and it is good news for Australia, but there remains much more to be done in coming months to secure wider support for a new round to shape the detail of future trade negotiations.There is a very clear role for Australia in leading this debate. There are a number of initiatives that the government has already taken. Firstly, just last week the Deputy Prime Minister and trade minister, Mr Tim Fischer, visited Iran, which is most important for our wheat, Turkey, Indonesia and India. Secondly, legislation to extend the Export Market Development Grants Scheme for another two years will be introduced in this session. Thirdly, the government will launch in May a major new study on the prospective economic benefits of the millennium round of the WTO, which is being held later this year. Fourthly, for the first time we are seeking public submissions to help refine our WTO negotiating agenda. Fifthly, a new study is to be prepared on agrifood export opportunities to the Asian region—a very important priority for the government and one that has already been shown to be so by the Supermarket to Asia commitment.The rationale behind our trade strategy is a simple one. Increasing our exports means more and better jobs for all Australians. Nearly 1.7 million Australian jobs—one in five, in fact—depend on exports. The strong trade framework we have put in place—as I said, multilaterally, regionally and bilaterally—the continuing strength of the Australian economy and the strong commitment of Australian industry to export quality goods and services mean that we are well equipped to deal with the opportunities and challenges in the coming year. And, as I said, Austrade is an integral part of that.Question resolved in the affirmative.250919:10:002509Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I have had this report of the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in my hand only a short time, but it deals with an issue which in recent times has come to my notice. This is in relation to a twofold agreement. One is the 1994 agreement by the Coalition of Australian Governments—and that, in effect, is the various state governments with the Commonwealth government. That links into the competition policy agreement which was cemented rather ignominiously in legislation in 1995. However, what has come about is a fairly extensive framework for reform of the water industry. It is interesting that it is called the water industry. We are talking about an investment in Australia of over $90 billion of infrastructure and apparently annual revenues of $5 billion.What is being looked at is the whole concept that water in Australia has not necessarily been priced or, if it has been priced, has not been priced consistently. Even within the environment movement there will be debate about the issue. I know there are various opinions as to whether or not you can protect or deal with the resource of rivers adequately by having tradeable water rights. But we do know that simply providing free access to anyone who happens to have a river running by their property does not necessarily mean justice. You cannot necessarily have someone dam a river and say, `This is mine,' because it affects people upstream and people downstream. It is now, I guess, the time when the various government bodies in Australia are trying to look at the issue of water quality, land and water degradation, and the conservation of a totally vital resource—fresh water, potable water and water for agriculture in Australia.Water pricing, institutional arrangements, water allocation in trade and the environment, water quality, public consultation and education have all been looked at. As I said, this is linked to the national competition policy. How? Basically, it is part of the carrot and stick approach that the government has entered into with the state governments: if certain processes have been completed by specified dates, then the states gain some benefits through payments that come from the Commonwealth that have been set aside under national competition policy.I realise that these issues have been the source of some debate in states like Queensland. I realise that various states have taken different approaches to this situation. It is interesting to note the statement by the ministers themselves. In the meeting communique of the meeting of the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand in Adelaide on 20 November, the ministers state:The Water Reform Framework agreed to by all Australian Governments in 1994 was developed against the background of concern about the state of the nation's water resources and the need to ensure sustainable development into the future.This recognition is obviously very necessary. There does need to be further debate about the means by which this occurs and it should not be simply a means of privatising rivers or privatising access to rivers. It should be part of a process by which we work out what the needs are for our water resources, for rivers to continue to function—rivers clean, provide environmental resources and support eco systems—and for the economic functions that clean rivers provide. It is also an indication that, if we muck up this resource, we will be not only mucking up the environment but having a severe economic effect. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.251019:15:002510Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I do not intend to speak for very long on this report. This report, Australia and the IMF —the International Monetary Fund—is the annual report to the parliament under the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947. Briefly, on page 30 there is a list of Australia's reserve positions. It is actually mentioned in SDRs, which is Australia's special drawing rights. It means that Australia's drawing rights have increased, probably indicating that we have made an increased contribution to the International Monetary Fund.We put bills through this parliament a couple of years ago which actually said that Australia signed up to assist in what happened in relation to the meltdown of economies later. I suppose we did not all know what was going to happen, but Australia did sign up to bailing out the banking systems or the economies of various countries who were involved in the IMF and the World Bank.It is important that, at some stage, we look at the actual cost to the Australian taxpayer of the ongoing bail-out and whether or not the decisions that were made at the time ought to be revisited and revised in the light of what we now know, whether or not we made wise decisions at the time and whether or not all the implications of those decisions on the budget and the implications for the development models that have been encouraged by the International Monetary Fund and the intrusion, I guess, of the World Bank on a number of these economies are leading in the socially, environmentally and economically correct or beneficial directions. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.2511Motions to take note of the following documents were moved, and debate was adjourned:Australia and the Asian Development Bank 1997-98Australia and the World Bank: Annual Report 1997-98Telecommunications Carrier Industry Development PlansAdjournment251110000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Order! There being no further consideration of government documents, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.251119:18:002511Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Mr Acting Deputy President, as you would probably be personally aware, in the north-west of Tasmania, the Drug Education Network Incorporated, under the direction of Elvie Hales, conducted a survey during 1997 amongst young people aged 12 to 18 years to examine the knowledge, perceptions and beliefs surrounding the use of the drugs cannabis, alcohol and tobacco as well as the levels and patterns of use of those drugs. While some studies have been conducted in other areas of Australia, at that time there had been no comparable studies undertaken in Tasmania which would provide up-to-date and locally based information.Fifteen schools, both government and non-government, participated, and a total of 1,264 students completed the specially designed questionnaire administered during normal school hours. Care was taken to ensure the uniformity of the environment during the administration of the questionnaire and variables were controlled as much as possible. The results of the study showed that participants' knowledge about drugs in general is varied.While tobacco, cannabis and tranquillisers are acknowledged as drugs, 26 per cent thought that alcohol was not a drug. Some 32 per cent of participants reported they had tried cannabis in the past and 28 per cent said that they use cannabis now. Males reported a higher percentage of use, both past and present, than females. Levels of use increased with age, and `occasional use' and `at parties' are the most common times reported. Some 73 per cent of cannabis users report that they do not want to quit using cannabis.A high percentage of participants, 91 per cent, said that there were health problems in using cannabis. Brain damage and memory loss were strongly identified as risks from using cannabis. However, the benefits of using cannabis for general pain relief and in the treatment of pain in cancer patients were also strongly identified. Relaxation and maintaining calmness was another reason for using cannabis, which was reported by a high percentage of participants. Peer pressure to use cannabis or not to use cannabis was identified as an issue for many participants. This pressure came from within the group to which the person belonged and desired to be part of. The risk of becoming addicted to cannabis was also identified.Reported alcohol use among participants was quite higher than that of other drugs. Alcohol, for example, is used on a regular basis and within a broad range of social settings. Some 74 per cent said that they had used alcohol at some time in the past and 56 per cent said that they use alcohol now. The majority of those who reported that they use alcohol do so on an occasional basis or at weekends only. There is a low reported incidence of daily alcohol use, with slightly more males than females reporting daily use.Beer is the most common alcoholic drink, closely followed by spirits and wine, or a combination of both. Males choose to drink more beer and females more wine and spirits. Some 84 per cent of participants reported that they do not want to quit using alcohol. While a very high percentage of participants recognised a general health risk from using alcohol, the risk of addiction, along with personality changes, was also acknowledged.The main problem identified in relation to alcohol is the violence associated with its use—this from 12- to 18-year-olds in our community who are still mostly living at home. Of all the participants, 56 per cent said they have used tobacco in the past and 34 per cent said they use it now. Even though both males and females report the same percentages of having tried tobacco, the results indicate that more females than males say they use tobacco at present.There is a marked difference in use levels between age groups, with an increasing usage trend reported as age actually increases. Of those currently smoking, 58 per cent report they would like to quit. General health issues, such as risk of cancer, heart disease and addiction, were identified.Overwhelmingly, where participants reported a high level of use of a substance by family members and/or friends, they also reported using themselves. Conversely, where participants reported a low or nil level of use by family and/or friends, they reported a similar low level of their own use. Peer pressure does seem to play a part in influencing decisions about drug use and can help determine whether a person uses or not. The wish to be included in groups is an important component of this, and responses were consistent for all substances in the survey.From the issues identified in the report, it was recommended that a working party be established to explore strategies and develop action plans and that the working party be made up of representatives from both government and non-government agencies, including the health and education sectors, police and local government. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Elvie Hales and her team from the Drug Education Network on such a comprehensive and enlightening report.Research undertaken by my office indicates that people on the north-west coast of Tasmania are becoming more and more concerned about the increasing use of drugs and, alarmingly, we are told that the amount of drugs around is incredible. This has got to stop. Money is pouring into Tasmania for drug and alcohol problems, but we are told that a lot of it is wasted. It appears services are targeting the easy cases.The crazed drug users are creating mayhem in our community. They are violent, out of control and highly manipulative. We must focus on these people and look at why they are like they are. It is alarmingly obvious that more of the same is just not working. We need a variety of programs for different types of drug users.I believe that every thinking person in Australia must be very alarmed at our increasing crime rates. Not only do we have increasing crime rates; we have increasing violence associated with those crimes. Drug users need access to cash. They commit crimes and, drug crazed, they use violence.It is common knowledge throughout the police force and, indeed, the community on the north-west of Tasmania that most burglaries and home invasions are related to drugs. We also have handbag snatching in supermarkets, elderly women robbed in broad daylight in city areas, elderly people bashed and robbed in their homes by intruders, drugs stolen from ambulances and armed hold-ups. It concerns me greatly that we have a federal government fighting drugs and state governments, through local police forces, policing drug users and supply. There does need to be greater coordination.I am also concerned that we have a huge problem with powder drugs on the north-west coast of Tasmania, yet seldom do we read of drug busts. I ask: why not? The drugs issue is bigger than any of us have contemplated, and every Australian wants us as politicians to face up to it and do something about it. Tasmania, being an island within Australia, could be used as a test area for all drug related experiments, and I recommend this action to all levels of government. Drug related problems mostly stem from drug addiction. Why we develop drug addictions is the issue we must address. Soft options, I believe, are not the answer, neither is more of the same.251219:25:002512Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—In the past few weeks, the government's Tough on Drugs initiative has come under increasing scrutiny. A Herald AC Nielsen poll indicated last week that almost two-thirds of people surveyed thought the Howard govern ment was doing a poor job on the drug problem. Mr Howard recently met with Mr Louis Freeh, from America's FBI, after expressing significant interest in implementing zero tolerance strategies as a means of addressing the country's growing drug problem.To most Australians, it is fairly obvious that there is very little logic in asking the Americans for help with our drug problem. The US has failed to arrest its ever increasing drug problem, despite years of `Just say no' drug education programs reinforced with rigorous policing measures. An examination of the American approach to solving the drug problem reveals a system that has metered out extreme punishments for years to the detriment of users and the broader community.A recent article in the Seattle Times titled `Reduce crime without obscene prison-building binge' gives a good indication of widespread disillusionment with the American approach to the so-called war on drugs. Traditionally, the American answer to social problems such as drug addiction has been incarceration. Consequently, 1.8 million Americans are currently behind bars in federal and state prisons and local gaols.America imprisons more of their citizens than any other nation on earth, including Communist China. They have the highest incarceration rate in human history for non-political offences. Some may interpret this to mean that all their dangerous criminals have effectively been rounded up and taken off the streets. Not so. Fewer than a third of American prisoners have committed a violent crime. Drug related cases predominate. Due to mandatory sentencing, drug offenders spend more time in gaol than rapists. The average sentence is 82 months for a drug offence and 73 months for rape.Nelson Rockefeller introduced mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenders in the US in the 1970s. As a result, 1,000 new prisons were built across America in the 20 years that followed. These prisons are now full and overflowing. According to the Seattle Times article, California alone now has more inmates than France, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, Singapore and the Netherlands com bined—445 people per 100,000 are now in gaol.The author of the article goes on to question whether crime could have been reduced in America without what he calls the `obscene prison-building binge'. He concludes in the affirmative, asserting that prisons in America have become nothing more than `a revolving door for poor, highly dysfunctional, often illiterate drug abusers'. The article asserts:Diverting some of the billions now going to the prison-industrial complex for drug treatment and other prevention efforts could start us on a much saner course.Another recent article, this time in the New York Times , bears further testimony to the rejection of zero tolerance strategies in the US. The article, titled `The War on Drugs Retreats, Still Taking Prisoners', points out the glaringly obvious, and that is that neither the US nor Australia can afford to fight a war on drugs based on complete prohibition for any extended amount of time. The article begins with some more extraordinary facts on incarceration rates in the US:Every 20 seconds, someone in the United States is arrested for a drug violation. Every week, on average, a new jail or prison is built to lock up more people in the world's largest penal system.The article contains comments from Barry McCaffrey, the four-star general who heads the National Drug Control Policy Office in the US. `We have a failed social policy and it has to be re-evaluated,' says General McCaffrey, `otherwise we're going to bankrupt ourselves because we can't incarcerate our way out of this problem.' General McCaffrey goes on to say that the quarter of a million Americans in prison for drug offences could be better dealt with in treatment programs, saving the taxpayer up to $5 billion a year.It strikes me as somewhat strange that the Prime Minister is initiating talks with the FBI when there is another national body in the US working specifically to address the drug problem. If Mr Howard had talked to the experts in the National Drug Control Policy Office, he would already realise that zero tolerance is certainly not the way to go. Even more pertinent is the fact that, even if it were deemed to be a good idea, the drug problem in Australia is of such magnitude that we could not afford to build enough prisons to fit all the drug users in anyway!A recent US study examining government data and independent research has drawn equally damning conclusions about the US drug policy to date. The Network of Reform Groups study concluded that the drug war has not deterred children from using illegal drugs, nor has it resulted in fewer deaths and injuries from drug use. In fact, drug overdose deaths are up 540 per cent since 1980. Thirty-three people per day are infected with HIV from injection drug use in the US. The price of heroin and cocaine has continued to drop since 1981, while the purity of both drugs has also increased.It is time for the Prime Minister to stop ducking and weaving and to make some tough decisions. He needs to stop putting the taxpayers' money where his mouth is and wasting valuable resources on punitive zero tolerance measures that have already been proven ineffective overseas.The availability of naltrexone is a valuable step toward increasing the treatment options available to Australian heroin users. Since 1 March, Australian GPs have been able to prescribe naltrexone for heroin addiction. Once again, however, the government's failure to grasp the magnitude or nature of heroin use has prevented a worthy initiative from delivering its potential benefits.Mr Howard has overlooked the glaringly obvious need for naltrexone to be covered by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Consequently, a month's supply of 30 tablets costs $280, putting the treatment out of the financial reach of many heroin users and their families. What is the point of releasing a new treatment when no-one can afford it? The point is supposed to be to reduce the incentive for users to commit property crime. How can this be achieved when treatment is so expensive?I received a call last Thursday from a mother who has two sons using heroin. She was absolutely devastated because she had just found out how much it would cost her to treat them both with naltrexone, and she could not afford it. This lady had hoped that naltrexone might provide some hope for her sons who had failed on the methadone program. `Bitterly disappointed' does not go far enough to express how this mother felt when she found out she could not afford it. Mr Howard should not even entertain the notion of instituting zero tolerance policing when there is not enough money being spent on treatments that work.It is now decision time for Mr Howard. Does he really want to emulate the American system by instituting the unsustainable mass incarceration of people for personal drug use? Does he really want to turn normal people into criminals, ultimately leaving no room in our gaols for rapists, murderers and the like? Does he want our gaols to become `revolving doors for poor, highly dysfunctional, often illiterate drug abusers'—as has occurred in the US?I think it is time for him to put his own prejudices aside and recognise this problem as a health issue that can be addressed in the long term through a more thorough range of widely available treatment options. It would be foolish to follow the Americans down the zero tolerance road when it has failed to work, and they are now realising the benefits of treatment as opposed to incarceration.In my opinion, the heroin trial is an inevitability in the long term. Last year in Australia, 600 people died from heroin use alone. It is not appropriate for the Prime Minister to be digging in his heels on a matter of life and death for many Australians. He should admit he made a mistake in panning the heroin trial, and let us have one as soon as possible so that this year some of those statistics might be avoided. The more treatment options we have up our sleeve, the more chance we have to successfully address the problem.251419:36:002514Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I refer to my adjournment speech in this chamber on 16 February this year, in which I highlighted the numerous serious problems with the aspect of the Constitutional Convention's model that deals with dismissal procedures for an Australian President. Today I would address yet other serious deficiencies with that model, this time in relation to the appointment procedure that it puts forward.That model is often referred to as a bipartisan or two-party model. For a start, presently in the House of Representatives there are three parties; and in the Senate, including Independents, there are six parties. So we start with a model which has an inaccurate and limited vision of our multiparty democracy.As senators would be aware, the Constitutional Convention recommended that, in the event of Australia becoming a republic, the head of state should be nominated by the Prime Minister, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, and finally approved by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of both houses. Putting to one side the merits of appointing an Australian President rather than electing one, senators should note that this model presents real problems of a constitutional nature from both legal and historical perspectives.We obviously need to view the legislation that the government puts forward to go to referendum to see exactly how this model is to be transformed into law. I have had a look at the preliminary draft, and I am not reassured. Without pre-empting that process, it is important to appreciate that, at the least, the model as it stands will require entrenching into the Constitution the office of Prime Minister and office of Leader of the Opposition. These entities are hitherto unknown to the Constitution.I do not want to address here the not insubstantial definitional and power issues that that exercise would entail but rather want to focus on the bold assumption contained in the model that a single formal Leader of the Opposition will continue to exist in Australian federal politics in the long term. Given that our Constitution needs to remain workable during the course of the 21st century, it is essential that such an assumption be soundly based.Yet it is clear from our parliamentary history that the House of Representatives three-party system of today—with the coalition and Labor, notionally two parties—has not always been so entrenched. Up until 1931, for example, 30 years after Federation, the office of Leader of the Opposition—which of course to this day is not recognised in our Constitution—had no status in the standing orders of the House of Representatives. Further, the Liberal Party, as we now know it, was only formed in 1944 out of the remnants of the United Australia Party and 13 other anti-Labor organisations.Looking to the experience of other countries is also instructive in terms of whether a notional two-party system is likely to remain in the longer term. Significantly, a survey of OECD nations reveals that, out of 29 countries, 23 have multiple parties in opposition as opposed to a formal single-party opposition.Even in other Commonwealth countries with systems relatively firmly based on the Westminster tradition, and electoral systems as unrepresentative as that employed in our own House of Representatives, we have witnessed the emergence of strong new opposition parties. In Canada, for example, out of the 301 seats in their lower house, 145, or 48 per cent, are shared between four opposition parties. Even in the distorted electoral system of the United Kingdom's House of Commons, the Liberal Democrats have emerged as a genuine opposition party, currently holding a third the number of seats as are held by the Tories.It is therefore apparent that the complexion of contemporary politics is considerably more flexible than has been the case for the last half century in Australia. Had fundamental electoral reform of the sort that has taken place in New Zealand occurred in Australia, these dramatic changes would have been enhanced.The point of highlighting these facts is that, in the face of them, it would be naive in the extreme to simply assume that Australia's existing major party system will not undergo significant changes over the coming century. Therefore, proposed constitutional change should not be so short-sighted as to be founded on the view that the notional two-party system is here to stay.Current practice in the House of Representatives is that official opposition status is conferred on that non-government party which has the numbers. In the event that the numbers do not make it clear who the official opposition is to be, it is for the Speaker to decide which group shall make up the official opposition. If it were the case that opposition parties with equal numbers were to be elected to the House of Representatives, it would be absurd—following the Constitutional Convention's bipartisan model—for the Speaker to be put in the position of choosing who was to second the prime ministerial nomination for President.Taking this further, given that this process is apparently to be entrenched into the Constitution, the party in the House of Representatives not recognised by the Speaker to second the nomination could challenge the appointment of that President in the High Court. We would then have the intolerable situation of dragging the High Court into what is really a political matter—and this violates fundamentally the doctrine of separation of powers.In view of these serious difficulties, a more flexible and far-sighted approach is required than one requiring mere bipartisanship. The Prime Minister should seek not just the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition for his or her nominee to be put to a vote in parliament but the backing of the leaders of all recognised parliamentary parties. This would allow the appointment of a President following an electoral outcome that gave rise to two or more distinct opposition parties in the lower house, without the constitutional dysfunction to which I have just alluded.The other considerable benefit of this move is that parties elected in the Senate are given a voice in supporting the prime ministerial choice. This house, the Senate, should not be snubbed in the nomination process, especially given that our numbers, in terms of a joint house vote, will be overwhelmed by the members of the other place. This move would also help to eliminate the possibility of the present two major parties coming to some cosy arrangement that sees their past loyal servants taking the presidency in alternating terms. Such a scenario would be possible under the two-party model currently being put forward. Once entrenched in the Constitution, that would be practically impossible to change, given the vested interests of the major parties.The Senate should ensure that structurally such an arrangement cannot be made. Requiring the support of the leaders of all parliamentary parties for the Prime Minister's nominee will do precisely this, ensuring that a consensus that better reflects the wishes of the Australian people is reached prior to the nominee being put to the vote. In closing, I should indicate that, despite the fact that I am seeking amendments to the bipartisan Constitutional Convention model, I remain convinced that the direct election option should be put to the people of Australia.251619:44:002516Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—The uranium debate throughout the world has reached a point where I think it is rather negative. However, I intend to speak on this issue tonight in the minutes that are available to me. Australia is the Saudi Arabia of uranium deposits in the world. In other words, we have the biggest economically recoverable uranium reserves in the world, as Saudi Arabia has the comparable amount of oil in the world. We have 30 per cent of the world's known economic deposits, and we could mine about 650,000 tonnes of those on an $80 per kilo basis.During the eighties, there was a three-mine policy—effectively a two-mine policy—that inhibited and prohibited the export of uranium so that only two mines effectively operated. This policy cost Australia billions of dollars. One would have to ask what it achieved. It achieved nothing, except that it made the Rossing mine in Namibia the biggest in the world and it made Canada the biggest exporter in the world. Canada, with about 10 per cent of uranium deposits, had 30 per cent of exports of uranium. Australia, with 30 per cent of the world's reserves, now has 16 per cent, but it had much less than that in the eighties. South Australia has two deposits of uranium ready to be mined—the Beverley and the Honeymoon deposits—and the Jabiluka deposit in the Northern Territory is imminently mineable.Uranium is a vexed issue with a lot of people, but what cannot be argued is that uranium is the cleanest, most efficient, cheapest and least dangerous—in terms of lives lost—form of generating electricity in the world. Australia exports to France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Japan. Sweden is a model that the Labor Party and others opposite here tend to copy a lot. Certainly in my state of Western Australia, those discredited premiers during the eighties used Sweden as a model for Western Australia. Yet in those times Sweden generated 48 per cent of its electricity from uranium.Among the 440 uranium power stations throughout the world, the United States at some of its nuclear power plants generates electricity at 2c a kilowatt hour or unit, as opposed to something like 8c, 10c or 12c a unit in Australia. We have lost, as I have mentioned, billions of dollars in export income because of the policy of not exporting uranium by the previous government. I see uranium as a commodity, one that is in demand throughout the world. If the recipients of our uranium meet the stringent criteria that the Australian government lays down with respect to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and others then we should continue to export uranium to them unless the destination conflicts with other Australian exporters of uranium.I must say that the Western Mining Company had a delineated deposit at Yeelirie in WA that was effectively stopped by the Hawke administration and could have earned hundreds of millions of dollars in export income for Western Australia and Australia and would have generated hundreds of jobs in the process. This was not to be. In fact, during the election of the last Bannon government in South Australia, the federal government gave its permission to export and, as a result, gave the start-up to the Olympic Dam, one of the biggest uranium deposits and multi-metal deposits in the world. So it can be done.What I do find surprising is that in Queensland in 1996 two Western Australian companies—Summit Resources and Resolute Ltd—were given permission by the then Minister of Mines and Energy in the Goss government to proceed with mining of uranium ore and exploration at the Valhalla deposit, which is about 40 kilometres north-west of the magnificent mining town of Mount Isa, which is represented, incidentally, so ably by the Hon. Bob Katter MHR, the member for Kennedy. What I find disturbing is that when the then minister in the Goss government, Mr McGrady, formed a government with Premier Beattie in Queensland, the new government said that it would never consider uranium mining. This is after the joint venture between Summit and Resolute had spent over $5 million in exploration and were prepared to spend another $8 million in exploration to delineate an economic deposit. That deposit, I understand, has a 20-year life and could have earned over $3½ billion over that period. What that has led to is the possibility of litigation and the recovery of damages by Summit Resources and Resolute Ltd, which were given permission by the then Minister for Mines and Energy, Mr McGrady, in 1996 under the Goss government, to proceed.The futility of philosophically denying the export of uranium is borne out by the fact that Canada has increased its exports at the time that the Rio Tinto Zinc deposit in Namibia of Rossing became the biggest uranium mine in the world because of the inhibitions and the prohibition placed on the export of uranium ore from Australia. It meant nothing to the supply. All of those 440 and growing power stations throughout the world that use uranium as their heat medium flourished, producing cheap, unpolluting energy for the world. Some $3.6 billion will be lost to Queenslanders. One thousand jobs will be lost to Queenslanders in the construction stage of the Valhalla mine. A promise has been made that the joint venture partners will not fly in and fly out, as has been the practice of mining companies brought about by the iniquitous, unfair and, some would say, nefarious taxation policies applying to mining companies. These companies have promised and undertaken to have their work force live in Mount Isa. You might recall, Mr Acting Deputy President Sherry, that the town of Mount Isa, a great mining town in Australia, one of the great mining towns of the world, which has produced millions of dollars in export income for Australia, has atrophied in the past decade from a population of over 30,000 down to just over 20,000. One-third of its population has been lost. Here is a company that was going to open up a new area, going to live in the town of Mount Isa, going to supply 230 permanent jobs, going to supply 1,000 jobs during its construction period, which was denied under the most duplicitous reasons of the Goss and Beattie governments.I find that decision making and that duplicity very, very disturbing. It is not good for Australian mining companies. It is not good for Australia. It is not good for the reliability of our export commodities that we are known for. It is enough for this nation to struggle with respect to its mining with native title without having governments act in this manner. And if this is going to be duplicated in other areas of Australia all I can say is God help us. We in this country are known worldwide not just for our political stability but for the reliability of the supply of our resources. That is why Japan and other countries choose Australia above the other countries that supply commodities internationally. They choose Australia because of our political stability and the reliability of our supply.I want to say in closing that this problem has to be rectified. I will support mining companies throughout Australia because they supply the standard of living that we have become used to. We cannot have a minister that on the one hand says, `Go ahead,' and then when he gets into a new regime and a new government with a new leader says, `It is all over. Go back to Western Australia.' (Time expired)251819:54:002518Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—There has been much discussion on food and grocery prices and the expected impact of the tax reform package on these prices throughout Australia. This discussion has been particularly lively in the Northern Territory and has ranged across a variety of matters relating to the issue. I am concerned that Mr Snowdon, the federal member for the Northern Territory, gave a speech on 15 February in which he quoted from a report published by Territory Health Services on the impact on community stores. Mr Snowdon simplified a very complex issue in a devious manner for political ends and he did not give proper credit to that report—Survey of NT remote community stores —and the issues that it very properly raised about providing a better quality of food in those shops and a better standard of management that is so important in so many of these areas.The majority of communities in isolated areas require very special attention to the issues of consumers and supply in the whole process. There needs also to be a very special education process to make sure that store managers appreciate and do rely very heavily on what should be a store committee function and a store committee role. Groups like the Arnhem Land Progress Association do provide healthier food for members of the communities in which they operate. I implore those communities that do not have an active store committee to begin the process of developing one and to address any management problems that they have. In an increasingly litigious world one could envisage a possibility of a legal test case on a charge as serious as manslaughter against a store manager who has been negligent in supplying food not to a nutritious standard. The whole issue of lack of competition opens up issues for us in dealing with community stores and in fact also urban stores in Northern Australia.The tax reform package will address many of these issues, both directly and indirectly. The changes that will come from providing much more consumable cash in the pockets of Territorians is important, but so are the diesel fuel excise changes and the wholesale sales tax removals. The income tax cuts, of course, are very important, but it is also important in this issue to look at the major grocery stores. The tax reform package will certainly impact on them, as I hope will the various reports of the Northern Territory committee that is currently looking into this matter in the Territory parliament on Territory food prices and the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector here in this place.We need to look very carefully at the issues that should be canvassed and require investigation. Particularly, we need to look at the predatory purchasing practices of the major supermarket chains and at their purchasing, marketing and contractual arrangements in order to counter the very unfair and unscrupulous acts of many of those particular organisations. I believe there are questions that should be asked both of the Territory committee and the federal committee that go to the heart of the promotion of products in stores, and I will be making questions available to Dr Lim in the Northern Territory and Senator Boswell here in Canberra to ensure that these matters are properly pursued.19:58:002519Senate adjourned at 7.58 p.m.Documents25192519The following government documents were tabled:Administrative Review Council—Report for 1997-98—Erratum.Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration—Statements and supporting applications of issues—December 1998.January 1999.Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand—Record and resolutions—14th meeting, Adelaide, 20 November 1998.Aquatic Air Pty Ltd—CASA actions arising from the Skehill report, 1 February 1999 (incorporating actions to 9 February 1999).Regulation by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Aquatic Air Pty Ltd (trading as South Pacific Seaplanes)—Review prepared by Stephen Skehill, October 1998.Australia and the Asian Development Bank—Report for 1997-98.Australia and the IMF—Report for 1997-98.Australia and the World Bank—Report for 1997-98.Australian Hearing Services—Report for 1997-98. Australian Trade Commission (AUSTRADE)—Report for 1997-98—Erratum.Australian Wheat Board—Report for 1997-98.Copyright Agency Limited—Report for 1997-98.Department of Transport and Regional Services—Bureau of Air Safety Investigation—Air safety report—Investigation report 9802830—Cessna 185E floatplane, VH-HTS, Calabash Bay, NSW, 26 July 1998.Telecommunications carrier industry development plans—Progress report for 1997-98.Documents25192519The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Instrument No. CASA 50/99.Higher Education Funding Act—Determination under section 15—Determination No. T25 of 1998.Lands Acquisition Act—Statement describing property acquired by agreement under section 40 of the Act for specified public purposes.Answers to Questions on Notice2520The following answers to questions were circulated:2520(Question No. 12)122520Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Is the Treasurer aware that Macquarie Bank is mounting a High Court challenge to provisions in the Trade Practices Act 1974 that enable Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd to sue the bank for false and misleading advertising with respect to traffic volumes published in the prospectus it issued for the Eastern Distributor (Sydney Morning Herald, 30 June 1998, Tollway fight goes to the High Court).(2) Is it the Government's intention to join this case to defend these provisions in the Act from an assault that is designed to protect Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Pty Ltd from publicly defending its traffic forecasts.(3) (a) Is the Treasurer concerned that in the event of a successful challenge, the rights of ordinary citizens to mount public interest challenges to commercial transactions in which they have no financial interest would be at an end; and (b) will the Government defend this vital democratic check on business malpractice.2520Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Government is aware that Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd commenced legal proceedings in the Federal Court against Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Limited Pty Ltd and that constitutional issues have been raised, including in relation to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974. On 20 November 1998 the High Court ordered that the matter be removed into that Court. It is to be listed for a directions hearing in the High Court in February 1999.(2) Now that the matter has been removed into the High Court, consideration will be given as to whether the Attorney-General should intervene on behalf of the Commonwealth in the High Court and, if so, the submissions which should be put.(3) It is inappropriate to speculate about the Government's response in the event that the challenge to validity is successful when the matter has not yet been heard or reasons for judgement delivered by the High Court.2520(Question No. 13)132520Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 10 November 1998:(1) Have the guidelines for CDEP been changed.(2) Is it permissible for CDEP to compete with private enterprise for contracts.(3) If so, does this mean that Government subsidies are being used anti-competitively.(4) If so, will the Minister review the guidelines to determine whether it is permissible for private corporations to contract with CDEP where CDEP is in competition with other small businesses.2520Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question:(1) The CDEP guidelines are changed when necessary to accord with reviews of the scheme or changes in other programs that interact with its administration. For example, some recent changes have been introduced in response to the Independent Review of the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Scheme (Ian Spicer's Report) and changes to Youth Allowance.(2) In keeping with the CDEP Scheme's objectives to create employment, the guidelines permit the establishment of CDEP enterprises that may operate in a commercial environment. CDEP organisations that tender for private contracts are subject to the same regulation as their private sector competition.(3) A primary objective of the CDEP scheme is to move participants into full time employment. In meeting this objective CDEP projects involved in the establishment of enterprises receive government subsidisation until they are able to operate independently. In the majority of these cases CDEPs are establishing business where none previously existed or where services are not provided. In this respect ATSIC does not consider the use of the program as being anti competitive.(4) The aforementioned Spicer review, and associated economic development strategies for indigenous peoples, have recommended a greater role for CDEP in establishing indigenous businesses. Important considerations include developing a cooperative relationship with other businesses and/or measures such as joint venturing or partnership arrangements.2521(Question No. 18)182521Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 10 November 1998:(1) What was the level of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) funding distributed in Western Australia for each of the past 5 financial years, including an estimate for the current financial year.(2) What was the level of funding allocated to each of the ATSIC regions in Western Australia for each of the past 5 financial years, including an estimate for the current financial year.2521Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question:(1)—FINANCIAL YEARAMOUNT1998/99$208,068,0871997/98$213,142,9491996/97$190,194,7271995/96$188,043,3141994/95$186,577,964(2)—* 1998/99WA State Office$16,351,743Perth Region$28,662,736Kalgoorlie Region$28,501,795Geraldton Region$16,674,150Hedland Region$23,216,768Derby Region$38,065,985Kununurra Region$32,580,648Broome Region$24,014,262TOTAL FOR 1998/99$208,068,087* The 1998/99 figures are as of 30 November 1998.1997/98WA State Office$23,025,165Perth Region$28,514,102Kalgoorlie Region$29,124,668Geraldton Region$15,071,876Hedland Region$27,254,541Derby Region$34,202,276Kununurra Region$31,761,193Broome Region$24,189,128TOTAL FOR 1997/98$213,142,9491996/97WA State Office$20,410,484Perth Region$24,521,505Kalgoorlie Region$27,031,552Geraldton Region$12,227,512Hedland Region$20,227,071Derby Region$34,518,615Kununurra Region$28,435,843Broome Region$22,822,145TOTAL FOR 1996/97$190,194,7271995/96WA State Office$23,717,801Perth Region$20,895,049Kalgoorlie Region$26,377,946Geraldton Region$11,620,990Hedland Region$19,152,808Derby Region$34,435,979Kununurra Region$30,232,954Broome Region$21,609,787TOTAL FOR 1995/96$188,043,3141994/95WA State Office$23,913,966Perth Region$20,257,406Kalgoorlie Region$36,985,759Geraldton Region$10,640,625Hedland Region$11,989,367Derby Region$30,185,799Kununurra Region$30,841,931Broome Region$21,763,111TOTAL FOR 1994/95$186,577,9642522(Question No. 207)2072522Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) What is the value of advertising placed by (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the Minister's portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996.(2) What proportion of advertising placed by the Department or portfolio agencies since March 1996has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) television; or (d) other, and give details of other forms of advertising used.(3) (a) What proportion of advertising placed by the Department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been placed through the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); and (b) what mechanism has been used for that advertising not placed through OGIA.2522Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The following information is provided in response to the honourable senator's question:(1)—DateCostsMarch 1996$20,581.42April 1996$15,901.86May 1996$8,075.72June 1996$4,922.23July 1996$1,852.76 September 1996$259,479.17October 1996$413,089.88November 1996$5,123.50 December 1996$24,529.60January 1997$7,215.52February 1997$4,806.92 March 1997$17,943.99April 1997$7,574.31May 1997$19,860.30 June 1997$29,178.30July 1997$8408.30August 1997$7,965.95September 1997$13,022.63October 1997$7,930.50November 1997$9,914.66December 1997$10,219.01January 1998$5,925.62February 1998$7,291.18March 1998$3,628.26April 1998$12,746.34May 1998$8,708.34 June 1998$50,832.45Total$986,728.72(2) What proportion of advertising placed by the Department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) televi-sion; or (d) other, and give details of other forms of advertising used.Newspaper$585,817.71Television$226,503.00Radio$165,723.00Gazette$8,685.01Total$986,728.72(3) Finance Direction 25D states that Departments must go through OGIA for their advertising requirements. Departments must, also, through OGIA, obtain the approval of the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications before embarking on communications projects or campaigns.While the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) is a statutory authority, itutilises the services of OGIA and its master agencies as they are able to negotiate highly attractive rates through the central advertising system.ATSIC has placed 99.8 per cent of its cost associated with advertising through OGIA and its master agencies. The remaining 0.2 per cent was placed directly with Aboriginal Media Organisations as they were of a non-campaign nature and required no creative input.Office of Government Information and Advertising$709,074.27TMP worldwide$266,689.44Australian Government Printing Service$8,685.01CAAMA Radio$1,500.00Imparja Television$730.00Umeewarra Media$50.00 Total$986,728.722524(Question No. 218)2182524Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) Which firms pitched for the Department of Social Security's market research project into community perceptions of social security fraud.(2)Which firm was awarded the contract.(3) What was the total value of Commonwealth funds expended on the project.(4) To whom were the results of the research made available.2524Newman, 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) See (2).(2) The market research firm, Research Advantage, was awarded the contract on a single tender basis. Research Advantage is a member of the Centrelink Market Research Panel, a group of 18 companies appointed in May 1998 following an open tender process.(3) $96,410(4) The results of the research were made known to the office of the then Minister for Social Security, Centrelink, the then Department of Social Security and the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications.2524(Question No. 222)2222524Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What was the total value of market research sought by the department on a month-by-month basis between March 1996 and November 1998.(2) What was the purpose of each contract let.(3) In each instance, what was the involvement or otherwise of the Office of Government Information and Advertising.(4) In each instance; (a) how many firms were invited to submit proposals; and (b) how many tender proposals were received.(5) In each instance, which firm was selected to conduct the research.(6) In each instance, what was the estimated or contract price of the research work and what was the actual amount expended by the department. 2524Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The total value of market research sought by the Treasury between March 1996 and November 1998 is as follows:. 1996—Nil. 1997—Nil. 27 May 1998—$93,850. 1 June 1998—$2,875. 24 June 1998—$16,900. 17 July 1998—$29,750. 5 August 1998—$221,350. 25 November 1998—$28,000(2). May 1998The purpose of the contract was to provide qualitative research into community views regarding the taxation system and taxation reform.. August 1998To undertake qualitative and quantitative research to provide benchmark, tracking and evaluation research.. November 1998To market test the `look and feel' of two booklets (householder booklet and working for small business booklet) which were developed as part of the tax package.(3) The Office of Government Information and Advertising provided comments on the initial research brief for the provision of market research services as well as providing a list of suitable consultants to undertake the work.(4) (a) Six research companies were invited to submit proposals to undertake market research.(4) (b) Two research companies submitted proposals.(5) Worthington Di Marzio was the firm selected to conduct the market research.(6) The contract price for the May contract was $143,375 and actual amount expended on the contract was $141,499. The contract price for the August contract was $221,350 and the actual amount expended on the contract was $130,350. The contract price for the November contract was $28,000 which was equal to the actual amount expended on the contract. 2525(Question No. 228)2282525Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What was the total value of market research sought by the department on a month-by-month basis between March 1996 and November 1998.(2) What was the purpose of each contract let.(3) In each instance, what was the involvement or otherwise of the Office of Government Information and Advertising.(4) In each instance; (a) how many firms were invited to submit proposals; and (b) how many tender proposals were received.(5) In each instance, which firm was selected to conduct the research.(6) In each instance, what was the estimated or contract price of the research work and what was the actual amount expended by the department.2525Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Market research sought by department on a month-by-month basis between March 1996 and November 1998 is:Mar-96$0.00Apr-96$0.00May-96$0.00Jun-96$0.00Jul-96$26,000.00Aug-96$0.00Sep-96$0.00Oct-96$0.00Nov-96$0.00Dec-96$0.00Jan-97$0.00Feb-97$26,000.00Mar-97$0.00Apr-97$0.00May-97$68,502.00Jun-97$42,295.00Jul-97$46,900.00Aug-97$0.00Sep-97$24,600.00Oct-97$58,964.83Nov-97$24,600.00Dec-97$0.00Jan-98$39,010.46Feb-98$0.00Mar-98$22,619.00Apr-98$0.00May-98$99,745.40Jun-98$133,225.00Jul-98$0.00Aug-98$0.00Sep-98$0.00Oct-98$15,000.00Nov-98$32,352.00Total:$659,813.69(2) to (6)—(2) Purpose of Contract(3) OGIA Involvement (see note 2)(4) (a) No. of Firms Invited to Submit(4) (b) Tenders Received(5) Firm Selected(6) (a) Estimated Contract Price $(6) (b) Actual Expenditure $Survey of community attitudes to Defence careersYes44New Focus Pty Ltd410,738321, 462Survey of youth attitudesNoneUnknownUnknownTrotman Australia(see Note 1)29,50029,500Feasibility study of tele-marketing in DFRONone33Mercadier Pty Ltd82,00082,000To gauge changes/trends in attitudes towards Defence issuesNone11Director of Research School Social Science ANU5,0006,000To gauge DSTO-industry attitudesYes63Roy Morgan Research Pty Ltd31,35232,352To survey community attitudes towards DefenceYes54Frank Small and Associates39,00052,000To survey community attitudes towards Defence rescue of round the world YachtsmenNone11Frank Small and Associates4,5004,500To survey community attitudes towards Defence (major benchmark research)Yes55Market Attitude Research Services117,000117,000To survey community attitudes towards DefenceNone11Market Attitude Research Services15,00015,000NOTE 1: The research undertaken by Trotman Australia was against an on-going contract and no source documentation is available.NOTE 2: Where OGIA was involved, assistance was sought in (a) the preparation of the Statement of Requirement, (b) the recommendation of appropriate market research agencies to nominate for the contract, and (c) assistance in the Tender Selection process.2526(Question No. 230)2302526Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What was the total value of market research sought by the department on a month-by-month basis between March 1996 and November 1998.(2) What was the purpose of each contract let.(3) In each instance, what was the involvement or otherwise of the Office of Government Information and Advertising.(4) In each instance; (a) how many firms were invited to submit proposals; and (b) how many tender proposals were received.(5) In each instance, which firm was selected to conduct the research.(6) In each instance, what was the estimated or contract price of the research work and what was the actual amount expended by the department.2526Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)—1996Eureka Strategic ResearchAGB McNairDBM ConsultantsTotalMarch143,550143,550AprilMay161,900161,900JuneJuly93,00093,000AugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberTotals305,45093,0000498,4501997JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMay174,930*174,930JuneJulyAugust161,600161,600SeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberTOTALS00336,530336,5301998JanuaryFebruary73,40073,400MarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugust70,00070,000SeptemberOctoberNovember Totals143,400143,400* A proportion of this cost was to The Open Mind Research Group subcontracted to DBM Consultants Pty Ltd. The Open Mind Research Group conducted the qualitative and creative concept testing research.(2)—Eureka Strategic ResearchOn 1 March 1996 a contract was entered into with Eureka Strategic Research for work associated with the CBA3 sale. The purpose of this contract was to conduct quantitative research to evaluate specific groups of potential investors, their propensity to invest and estimated demand for shares to assist in determining marketing and communications strategies.The contract with Eureka Strategic Research was varied to also conduct continuous tracking research for CBA3. The purpose of this extension to the contract was to conduct market research to track the effects of the retail communications campaign.AGB McNairIn August 1996 a contract was entered into with AGB McNair to conduct post-sale market research for CBA3. The purpose of this contract was to provide input to the evaluation of the sale of CBA3.DBM ConsultantsOn 30 September 1997 a contract was entered into between the Joint Global Co-ordinators for the Telstra sale and DBM Consultants Pty Ltd for the conduct of qualitative and quantitative market research for the sale by the Commonwealth of one third of Telstra. The purpose of the contract was to understand attitudes to Telstra as an investment, assess which components of a share offer may be most appealing, estimate the number of prospectuses required, estimate the number of likely investors, and overall retail demand, and creative concept testing research for advertising the offer.The contract was varied with DBM Consultants to conduct continuous tracking research for Telstra. This was done to track changes in the retail market against previously established benchmark, assess the effect of advertising and further refine the key demand estimates. As part of the tracking research additional quantitative research was conducted on preregistration, high value investors and applicant's awareness of various features of the Telstra Share Offer.The contract was also varied with DBM Consultants to conduct post sale research on the Telstra sale. The purpose of conducting post sale research was to contribute to the evaluation of the sale of Telstra.On 4 September 1998 Telstra Instalment Receipt Trustee Limited entered into a contract with DBM Consultants for the conduct of market research for the Telstra final instalment collection process. The purpose of the contract was to establish the extent of awareness among Telstra Instalment Receipt holders about their final instalment payment obligations, provide analysis of the key issues and concerns of Instalment Receipt holders in relation to the final instalment payment arrangements, and investigate issues relevant to persons from non-English speaking backgrounds and those with disabilities.(3) In each instance the involvement of OGIA was:Eureka Strategic ResearchOGIA provided a list of firms to be invited to tender, was a member of the selection panel and generally assisted in the selection process. OGIA was consulted on the extension of the contract for Eureka Strategic Research and generally assisted in the selection process.AGB McNairOGIA provided a list of recommended firms to be invited to tender. OGIA was on the selection panel and generally assisted with the selection process.DBM ConsultantsOGIA provided a list of firms to approach to invite to submit a proposal. OGIA attended the Question and Answer sessions for the prospective tenderers, provided comments on the request for tender, was on the selection panel and generally assisted in the selection process for the qualitative/quantitative market research.OGIA was consulted on the variation of the contract for DBM Consultants and generally assisted in the process. OGIA was consulted on the variation of the contract for DBM for the conduct of post sale research, provided comments on the draft request for tender and provided comments on the proposal from DBM Consultants.In the market research for the Telstra final instalment collection process, OGIA provided advice on all aspects of Government communication, was consulted in preparing a request for proposal, attended Question and Answer sessions with prospective tenderers, provided a list of firms to approach to submit a proposal and served on the selection panel.(4) and (5 )Eureka Strategic ResearchThere were four firms invited to submit a proposal. 3 proposals were received. Eureka Strategic Research was selected to conduct quantitative research. The two unsuccessful firms who submitted proposals for quantitative research were also asked to submit a proposal (based on sample size proposed by Eureka) for continuous tracking research. Two firms submitted a proposal. Eureka was selected to conduct the research.AGB McNairThere were four firms invited to submit proposals. 3 firms submitted proposals. AGB McNair was selected to conduct the research. DBM ConsultantsThere were six firms invited to submit proposals for qualitative/quantitative market research. Four firms submitted proposals. DBM Consultants Pty Ltd was selected to conduct the research. The Open Mind Research Group conducted the qualitative research subcontracted to DBM Consultants.The request for proposal for market research for the Telstra final instalment collection process was sent to five firms. Three firms submitted proposals. DBM Consultants Pty Ltd conducted market research for Telstra final instalment collection process.The table below indicates the agreed price and actual expenditure against each contract.1996Eureka Strategic Research (CBA 3)AGB McNair (CBA 3 evaluation)DBM Consultants (Telstra 1)TotalContracted Price305,45093,000336,5301 73,4002 70,0003Contracted PriceActual Expenditure323,71296,850374,2374 85.798 77,13351 Sale Research2 Post Sale Research (Evaluation)3 Final Instalment Collection Research4 Additional costs incurred in the conduct of market research for the Telstra Share Offer related to extensions to the scope of work that were not foreseen when the contract was signed.5 Additional costs incurred in the conduct of market research for the Telstra Final Instalment Collection process related to extensions to the scope of work that were not foreseen when the contract was signed.2529(Question No. 238)2382529Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Worthington Di Marzio since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Worthington Di Marzio.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Worthington Di Marzio (open tender, short list or some other process). 2529Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Refer to Answer to Question 222.(2) Refer to Answer to Question 222.(3) Refer to Answer to Question 222.(4) The tender for market research under the Community Education and Information Program was conducted under due processes including the involvement of the Office of Government Information and Advertising and the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications.2529(Question No. 239)2392529Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, 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). 2530Macdonald, 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:In responding to the question, the word `provided' has been interpreted to mean a contract awarded by the department or a portfolio agency.(1) The department has entered into one contract with Worthington Di Marzio Pty Ltd since March 1996.(2) The firm was engaged by the Federal Office of Road Safety as research and marketing consultants to evaluate the 1997 Young Driver Campaign, the third in a series of public education campaigns targeting young drivers.(3) The cost to the department of the contract was $35,000.(4) Worthington Di Marzio Pty Ltd were selected from a competitive short list to evaluate the first campaign in 1994. Based on the satisfactory performance of the earlier work and a need to continue with the same methodology for comparative results, Worthington Di Marzio Pty Ltd were sole sourced for the 1997 contract.The department is not aware that any portfolio agency has provided any contract to this firm since March 1996.2530(Question No. 244)2442530Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Worthington Di Marzio since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Worthington Di Marzio.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Worthington Di Marzio (open tender, short list or some other process).2530Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) to (4) None. 2530(Question No. 250)2502530Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry 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).2530Alston, 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) Nil(3) Nil(4) Nil2530(Question No. 254)2542530Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What contracts had 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).2530Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) None(2) Not applicable given (1).(3) Not applicable given (1). (4) Not applicable given (1).2531(Question No. 255)2552531Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, 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).2531Macdonald, 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:In responding to the question, the word `provided' has been interpreted to mean a contract awarded by the department or a portfolio agency.(1, 2, 3 and 4) From the information available, the department has not entered into any contracts with Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since March 1996.The department is not aware that any portfolio agency has provided any contract to this firm since March 1996.However, it is noted that a subcontract to the then department's contract with ACIL was let by ACIL to Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd in 1997. The report of that subconsultancy was recently released by Dr Peter Shergold to Mr. Lindsay Tanner under FOI.2531(Question No. 260)2602531Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since March 1996. (2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd (open tender, short-list or some other process).2531Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) to (4) None.2531(Question No. 266)2662531Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, 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).2531Alston, 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) Nil(3) Nil(4) Nil2531(Question No. 270)2702531Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Canberra Liaison since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Canberra Liaison. (3) In each instance what has 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).2532Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) None(2) Not applicable given (1).(3) Not applicable given (1).(4) Not applicable given (1).2532(Question No. 271)2712532Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, 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).2532Macdonald, 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:In responding to the question, the word `provided' has been interpreted to mean a contract awarded by the department or a portfolio agency.(1) The department has entered into one contract with Canberra Liaison Pty Ltd since March 1996.(2)The purpose of the engagement was to provide public relations expertise to the department in the preparation, communication and dissemination of government decisions on the future of Australian National and National Rail.(3) The cost to the department of the contract was $5,600.(4)Canberra Liaison Pty Ltd were sole sourced for the contract.The department is not aware that any portfolio agency has provided any contract to this firm since March 1996. However, it is noted that a subcontract to the then department's contract with ACIL was let by ACIL to Canberra Liaison Pty Ltd in 1997. The report of that subconsultancy was recently released by Dr Peter Shergold to Mr. Lindsay Tanner under FOI.2532(Question No. 276)2762532Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Canberra Liaison since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Canberra Liaison.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Canberra Liaison (open tender, short-list or some other process).2532Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) to (4) None.2532(Question No. 284)2842532Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What was the total cost of the market research conducted for the Commonwealth in support of the community education and information program on taxation reform.(2) Which firms were engaged to conduct the market research.(3) What was the nature, in each instance, of the market research conducted.(4) What was the cost, in each instance, of the market research conducted.2532Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Refer to Answer to Question 222.(2) The firm Worthington Di Marzio was selected to conduct the research under the Community Education and Information Program.(3) Refer to Answer to Question 222. (4) Refer to Answer to Question 222.2533(Question No. 285)2852533Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) On which occasions was the Office of Government Information and Advertising engaged by Treasury to compile a list of firms for selective tender for the community education and information program on taxation reform.(2) Which work was sought without the use of a selective tender, a short list of firms or other mechanisms to obtain multiple quotations.(3) In each instance where a short list was compiled, how many firms were on the list.2533Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Under the Community Education and Information Program, an advertising firm, market research firm, and public relations firm were engaged. In each instance, the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA) and the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications were involved. In each instance, OGIA provided a list of tenders.(2) None. OGIA provided a short list of tender for all the components of the CEIP—advertising, market research and public relations.(3) Advertising: final round = 4; Public Relations: final round = 4; Market Research: final round = 4.2533(Question No. 288)2882533Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What advice was provided, either formally in the written brief to the market research consultants or during the oral briefing sessions, as to the time frame for any tax reform education program.(2) Was any market research commissioned by the Commonwealth which sought to evaluate the impact of a tight time frame for a tax reform education program.2533Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Advice provided to the market research consultants as to the likely duration of any tax reform education program was that it was indeterminate.(2) No.2533(Question No. 289)2892533Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What advice was sought from the market research consultants, either formally in the written brief or during the oral briefing sessions, on the issue of the impact, success or otherwise, of past tax reform campaigns.(2) Was material on past campaigns provided to the consultants.(3) Was any material from the 1993 Australian Labor Party/John Singleton election campaign provided to the market research consultants.2533Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) None.(2) No.(3) No.2533(Question No. 290)2902533Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:What advice was sought from the market research consultants, either formally in the written brief or during the oral briefing sessions, on the issue of the potential effectiveness of competing messages on tax reform and the ability of any Commonwealth campaign to withstand or counter those competing messages.2533Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Treasury undertook market research to inform the development of an effective communications strategy and program.2533(Question No. 291)2912533Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:What advice specifically was sought from the market research consultants, either formally in the written brief or during the oral briefing sessions, on the effectiveness or otherwise of aspects of John Singleton's advertising campaign on behalf of the Australian Labor Party at the 1993 Federal Election.2534Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:None.2534(Question No. 292)2922534Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:To whom, including names, responsibilities and departments, etc, were the results of the market research campaign conducted under the community education and information campaign made available.2534Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Aspects of the market research were available to:. CEIP Team. Treasurer's Office. MCGC. Tax Policy Group SES.2534(Question No. 293)2932534Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What was the total cost of the benchmark, tracking and evaluation market research undertaken for the tax reform package information campaign.(2) What was the survey methodology used; for example, how many surveys were conducted, on what dates and what was the type of survey.(3) What was the cost of the qualitative component of the research.(4) (a) How many focus groups were conducted and where; and (b) what were the demographic characteristics of each of the focus groups.(5) What was the cost of the quantitative stage of the research.(6) What were the sample sizes used in each instance. (7) On how many occasions were the results made available to the Taxation Policy Division; for example, how frequently were the progressive results of the tracking research passed on to the Taxation Policy Division.(8) Who, precisely, received copies of the research.2534Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Refer to Answer to Question 222.(2) Refer to material tabled in the House of Representatives on 11 November 1998 detailing all methodology and surveys.(3) Refer to Answer to Question 222.(4) Refer to (2) above.(5) Refer to Answer to Question 222.(6) Refer to (2) above.(7) The process was continuous.(8) Refer to answer to Question 292.2534(Question No. 294)2942534Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:What was the total cost to the Commonwealth of the travel to Canberra by the consultants in support of the market research undertaken for the community education and information campaign.2534Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:In general, invoices for fees for market research undertaken for the Community Education and Information Program do not separately identify amounts for the cost of the travel to Canberra by the consultants.2534(Question No. 295)2952534Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:What was the total cost to the Commonwealth of any management fee paid to Worthington Di Marzio as a consequence of market research undertaken in support of the community education and information program. 2535Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:In general, invoices for fees for market research undertaken for the Community Education and Information Program do not disaggregate the total fee into their individual component amounts.2535(Question No. 340)3402535Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja3I6SAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 7 December 1998:(1) (a) What correspondence has been received by the Department or the Minister from Deakin University, or any other organisation, relating to the maintenance of ABSTUDY `away-from-base' funding for Deakin University's Indigenous community-based education programs; and (b) can copies be provided of any such correspondence.(2) What action, if any, has been taken by the department or the Minister in response to this correspondence.(3) Can an update be provided on what impact the cuts to ABSTUDY away-from-base funding had at Deakin University and at other universities.2535Ellison, 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) (a) There has been extensive communication between Deakin University, the Minister and the Department on `away-from-base' issues during 1997 and 1998 including meetings between Deakin representatives, the Department and the Minister's Office.(b) It is not general practice to forward correspondence addressed to the Department to third parties. On 21 December 1998, however, Ms Wendy Brabham at Deakin University was advised in writing that the Minister had approved funding under the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program (IESIP) for the continued delivery of current Indigenous Health courses and related away-from-base arrangements at Deakin University through to the end of 1999.(2) The Department wrote to Deakin University on 30 October 1997 and again on 22 July 1998 advising the changes to `away-from-base' funding. As Deakin University, along with other institutions, had concerns about the short lead in time to the ABSTUDY changes, 1998 was allowed as a transition year. This was to give institutions a full academic year to plan their courses within ABSTUDY provisions. Funding under IESIP will be made available to the institution in 1999 to supplement the funding available under ABSTUDY.(3) No statistical data on the impact that ABSTUDY policy for `away-from-base' funding may have in 1999 is not available as the academic year has not as yet commenced. The Minister recently announced changes to the provision of away-from-base funding commencing 1 January 2000 which will make provision of the payment more flexible to improve "mixed mode" course delivery for Indigenous students.2535(Question No. 344)3442535O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 December 1998:(1) (a) Is the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) radar at Williamtown being used in the Class G airspace trial technically inadequate for the task, on occasion not detecting aircraft in the airspace; and (b) is this because the RAAF radar was designed to do different tasks in different areas.(2) Have Airservices Australia technicians altered the radar `mosaic', that is, which of the Mount Boyce, Sydney terminal approach radar and Kings Tableland radars provide coverage in which `squares' of the radar picture.(3) Can it be confirmed that the RAAF surveillance radar (SURAD), the old `green screen' non-synthetic radar, can interrogate only one aircraft's radar transponder mode C altitude at a time, and only gives an instantaneous level read-out.(4) Can it be confirmed that the RAAF SURAD is located in the tower and does not provide data labels, making it difficult to identify unknown traffic.(5) Can it be confirmed that the RAAF has been opening all its restricted airspace, and for later in the evening, using the interim radar display system (IRDS) display downstairs in the approach cell.(6) (a) Does this require four staff members to man the system and require the RAAF standing down its staff on Friday evening for the weekend; (b) does the RAAF have sufficient staff to provide this service long-term; and (c) is the RAAF meeting all costs associated with the delivery of this service.(7) Can it be confirmed that the RAAF SURAD system is not compatible with IRDS, the Airservices Australia radar display system used in Brisbane and Sydney, and the system already has the maximum number of radar inputs available. (8) Who will provide radar coverage from the Williamtown area during the Christmas break, when traditionally the military stand down for a month.(9) What radar coverage is available outside RAAF hours, that is, down to what level in the Williamtown area.2536Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question:As the honourable senator would be aware the Class G Airspace trial was cancelled by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in December 1998. However the following information is provided in response to your questions.(1) (a) and (b) No, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Air Traffic Control (ATC) at Williamtown use two radar systems, the Air Force Surveillance Radar system (SURAD) and the Interim Radar Display System (IRDS), which are regarded as complimentary and are not regarded as technically inadequate.(2) Airservices Australia technicians did carry out some work to optimise low level radar coverage in the Williamtown-Taree area, as displayed on Airservices equipment. This involved adjustment to the radar mosaic. However, the results of this adjustment were equivocal. The original mosaic picture has been restored.(3) Yes. The SURAD is an older generation radar that has been in service since the mid 1970's. Many older generation radars have inherent limitations of this nature when compared to newer equipment. However, this does not make them less safe, it just means that they do not possess some of the more `user-friendly' features of modern equipment.The honourable senator may be interested to know that all SURAD radars across Defence will be phased out within the next two years and replaced with state-of-the-art radar systems purchased under Project AIR 5186, the Australian Defence Air Traffic System (ADATS).ADATS will deliver the latest technology in the areas of primary solid-state radar and monopulse secondary surveillance radar. The system will provide all of the modern features, including automatic labelling and constant altitude updates.(4) The RAAF SURAD radar picture is available in both the tower and approach control facilities. However, most of the control relating to the identification of air traffic occurs in the approach facility, not the tower.Tower control is based on separation devised by controllers who visually sight traffic and issue control instructions. The SURAD picture in the tower is used by controllers, primarily, as an aid to acquire a traffic picture. The controller observes the radar position and then visually scans the corresponding area to sight the inbound aircraft.On the occasions when tower and approach control are operating in what is referred to as `combined mode', approach control will be conducted using the tower SURAD screen. This, generally, only happens when limited services are required outside of normal operating hours, or when traffic density is very low.With respect to difficulties in identifying unknown traffic, even modern labelled displays cannot perform this function unless the aircraft is in receipt of a transponder code and the aircraft's transponder is squawking, or transmitting, that code. The only other means of identification is for the controller and aircraft to be in two-way contact; which allows the aircraft to communicate a position, the controller to instruct the pilot to execute a turn which can be observed on radar, or for the controller to instruct the pilot to activate what is called a specific position indicator, or SPI, which generates an identification symbol on the controllers screen. SURAD is compatible with each of these methods(5) During the Class G Airspace trial the RAAF ATC section at Williamtown provided additional services for a limited two-day period between 6am and 10pm on 4 and 5 November 1998 and from 6am and the commencement of normal RAAF flying operations on the morning of 6 November 1998. During these periods of extended services both the SURAD and IRDS systems were used to control traffic.(6) (a) No. Normal services at Williamtown require a minimum of seven controllers to be on duty. As previously mentioned during the Class G Airspace trial this service was extended beyond normal operating hours for a limited two-day period, this extension of operating hours and the extra commitment was absorbed by the manning resources available.Regarding the standing down of staff on Friday , this is normal practice at Williamtown, as RAAF flying at the base is, for the most part, conducted on weekdays. RAAF air control services are not available on weekends unless prior arrangements are made, and the activity requiring those services is deemed to be operationally essential.(b) No, extended services would not have been able to be sustained long term. Air Force Headquarters had informed both Airservices Australia and the CASA that the RAAF would only extend operating hours for a limited period.(c) Yes, the RAAF met all the costs associated with the limited period for which it supplied extended services. Defence sees itself as having a responsibility to assist, where it can, in the management of the national airspace system. In this instance, existing resources allowed Defence to make a limited, but important, contribution towards the continuation of the Class G Airspace trial. Before that commitment was made there was extensive consultation with Headquarters Air Command, and the air traffic control section at Williamtown, to ensure that ATC resources allowed for the limited extension of operating hours. When it was established that Air Force could assist, the decision was made to provide extra services in the interests of aviation safety.(7) Yes, the SURAD is not compatible with IRDS. However, this incompatibility does not compromise safety, as mentioned in the response to question 1 the SURAD and IRDS complement one another, one is used for low level close-in control, while the other is used for medium and high level activity.Regarding the maximum number of radar inputs, as previously pointed out the SURAD is an earlier generation radar with limited capability when compared with modern systems, being an old system it was only designed to accept one input. That input comes for the radar antenna at the Williamtown base.The Airservices Australia IRDS at Brisbane uses up to 4 inputs. Brisbane operates at capacity. Sydney can handle 4 but currently uses 3.(8) This issue was addressed by the cancellation of the Class G Airspace trail.(9) Radar coverage in the airspace surrounding Williamtown, outside those hours during which the RAAF provide a service, is the responsibility of Airservices Australia.2537(Question No. 379)3792537O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 15 December 1998:(1) What provisions of the WTO agreement require a member country to report the existence, outbreak, or spread of a disease or pest in plants and plant products that may present a risk to industries in importing countries.(2) When did Australia become a signatory to these provisions.(3) When did the United States of America (US) become a signatory to these provisions.(4) What was the value of imports of fruit and vegetables from the US to Australia by month in 1998. (5) What was the nature of these imports and what percentage of those imports was sourced from the West Coast of the US.2537Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The WTO Agreements do not contain provisions that require a member to report the existence, outbreak, or spread of a disease or pest in plants and plant products that may present a risk to industries in importing countries.The International Plant Protection Convention (the IPPC) requires, however, in its Article VII, that each contracting party report periodically to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations, the existence, outbreak and spread of economically important pests of plants and plant products which may be of immediate or potential danger.After the FAO system for disseminating such reports was disbanded two years ago due to lack of resources the IPPC was revised to provide an improved process for reporting incursions or outbreaks of plant pests and diseases. The necessary processes are under way in Australia to allow Parliament to decide whether it is in Australia's interests to ratify the revised IPPC.(2) Australia became a member of the WTO on 1 January 1995 when the WTO entered into force.Australia signed the IPPC on 30 April 1952 and ratified it on 27 August 1952.The revised IPPC was approved unanimously by the FAO Council (of which Australia is a member) at its November 1997 session. Two-thirds of the contracting parties are required to ratify the new agreement for it to enter into force. The necessary processes are under way in Australia to allow Parliament to decide whether it is in Australia's interests to ratify the revised IPPC.(3) The US became a member of the WTO on 1 January 1995 when the WTO entered into force.The US signed the IPCC on 6 December 1951 and ratified it on 18 August 1972. The US is a member of the FAO Council which unanimously approved the revised IPPC at its November 1997 session.(4) The following monthly import figures into Australia from the United States for fruit and vegetables for 1998—being the latest recorded data available at the timeJanuary$14,072,000February$10,735,000March$9,733,000April$9,469,000May$6,936,000June$7,149,000July$7,083,000August$6,928,000September$9,622,000October$8,858,000(5) The following is the composition of fruit and vegetable imports by value from the United States for the first ten months of 1998. The data is sourced from STARS, the Statistical AnalysisRetrieval System in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The headings are preceded by the four digit Harmonised System classification number:0703 Onions shallots garlic leeks and other alliaceous vegetables fresh or chilled$4,243,0000708 Leguminous vegetables shelled or unshelled, fresh or chilled$353,0000709 Other vegetables including: cabbages and cauliflower, lettuce, root vegetable legumes or cucumbers fresh or chilled$730,0000710 Vegetables including potatoes, legumes, peas, beans, spinach and sweet corn (uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water, then frozen)$4 239 0000711 Vegetables provisionally preserved (for example by sulphur dioxide gas in brine in sulphur water or in other preservative solutions) but unsuitable in that state for immediate consumption$6 0000712 Dried vegetables whole cut sliced broken or in powder but not further prepared$11,352,0000713 Dried leguminous vegetables shelled whether or not skinned or split$5,114,0000801 Coconuts brazil nuts and cashew nuts fresh or dried whether or not shelled or peeled$29,0000802 Other nuts fresh or dried whether or not shelled or peeled$14,360,0000803 Bananas including plantains fresh or dried$6,0000804 Dates figs pineapples avocados guavas mangoes and mangosteens, fresh or dried$1,691,0000805 Citrus fruit fresh or dried$16,809,0000806 Grapes fresh or dried$3,146,0000807 Melons (including watermelons and papayas) fresh$3,0000809 Apricots cherries peaches (including nectarines) plums and sloes fresh$751,0000810 Fruit other than bananas dates figs pineapples avocados guavas mangoes mangosteens citrus fruit grapes melons papaws apples pears quinces apricots cherries peaches (including nectarines) plums or sloes fresh$101,0000811 Fruit and nuts uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water frozen whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter$6,607,0000812 Fruit and nuts provisionally preserved (for example by sulphur dioxide gas in brine in sulphur water or in other preservative solutions) but unsuitable in that state for immediate consumption$139,0000813 Fruit dried other than bananas dates figs pineapples avocados guavas mangoes mangosteens citrus fruit or grapes; mixtures of nuts or dried fruits including: apricots, prunes, apples and peaches$2,353,0000814 Peel of citrus fruit or melons (including watermelons) fresh frozen dried or provisionally preserved in brine in sulphur water or in other preservative solutions$20,0002001 Vegetables fruit nuts and other edible parts of plants prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid$488,0002002 Tomatoes prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid$596,0002003 Mushrooms and truffles prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid$10,000 2004 Vegetables other than tomatoes mushrooms or truffles prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, frozen$1,947,0002005 Vegetables other than tomatoes mushrooms or truffles prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen$6 662 0002006 Fruit nuts fruit-peel and other parts of plants preserved by sugar (drained glace or crystallised)$NIL2007 Jams fruit jellies marmalades fruit or nut puree and fruit or nut pastes being cooked preparations whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter$1,303,0002008 Fruit nuts and other edible parts of plants otherwise prepared or preserved whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit not elsewhere specified or included$7,524,000The STARS system in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade utilises data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Customs. The data does not permit identification of the origin of imports on a regional basis, including whether imports originate from the West Coast of the United States.2540(Question No. 386)3862540O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 15 December 1998:(1) Was the statement by the Minister on the `Sunday' program of 15 November 1998 that the disposable income of medium-size beef and wool properties would increase by $5 400 per year as a result of the Government's tax package based on advice from the Department of the Treasury.(2) What assumptions did Treasury use in its calculation of the impact of the tax package in these farms.(3) What definitions of medium beef and wool properties did the Minister in that example use.(4) Can a copy be provided of the Treasury report on which the statement was based.2540Alston, 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) No. The statement made on the `Sunday' program of 15 November 1998 that the disposable income of medium-size beef and wool properties would increase by $5 400 per year as a result of the Government's tax package was based on a study undertaken by the Centre for Agricultural and Regional Economics Pty Ltd.(2) Not applicable. (See comments below.)(3) The definitions of medium beef and wool properties are those used by the Centre for Agricultural and Regional Economics Pty Ltd in its study.(4) Not applicable. (See comments below.)Comments: As the study was undertaken by the Centre for Agricultural and Regional Economics Pty Ltd, these questions have been answered as not applicable. If Senator O'Brien wishes to be provided with details of the modelling used by the Centre for Agricultural and Regional Economics Pty Ltd, this information could be supplied.2540(Question No. 388)3882540Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 December 1998:With reference to the following agreed milestones in the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement, signed by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage in 1997: (1) Can a list be provided of the new reserves which have been proclaimed (clause 24b).(2) (a) What world heritage assessment has been made (clause 39); and (b) can a copy be provided.(3) Can a copy be provided of the compliance audits of the Tasmanian Forest Practices Act 1985 and the Code of Reserve Management (clause 94).(4) Can a copy be provided of the review of sustainable high quality sawlog supply levels (clause 98).(5) Can a copy be provided of the review on pricing and allocation policies for commercial government-owned forestry operations (clause 99).(6) Can a copy be provided of the digital 1:100 000 scale maps of the Tasmanian lands listed in the Register of the National Estate (attachment 1.6).(7) Can a copy be provided of the strategic plan for implementing the comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system program on private lands (attachment 8.2).(8) Can details be provided of the mechanisms introduced by the state in respect of private land to encourage native vegetation retention and management (attachment 9.8).(9) (a) Can a copy be provided of the threatened species protection strategy (attachment 10.3); and (b) how and when it has been implemented.(10) Can a copy be provided of the silvicultural guidelines for the management of commercial forest types (attachment 11.1).(11) Can a copy be provided of the methods of calculating sustainable yield on public land including for special species timber sawlogs (attachment 11.2).(12) Can copies be provided of the compliance audits for codes of practice and monitoring of forest regeneration success and trends (attachment 11.3).(13) Can a copy be provided of the management decision classification system (attachment 11.4).2541Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Schedule 4 of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (Land Classification) Act 1998 lists the new Forest Reserves that have been proclaimed.(2) Of the Australia-wide themes referred to in Clause 39 of the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA), and which are specified in Table 1.7 of the Tasmanian World Heritage report, only the theme related to eucalyptus-dominated vegetation is being progressed in the context of the RFA program. Other themes identified in Table 1.7 require further information beyond the scope of the RFA program before work can commence. The Commonwealth and the States have now agreed on arrangements to elaborate and assess the eucalyptus-dominated vegetation sub-theme. The first stage includes a workshop drawing together Australia's foremost experts in aspects of eucalypt distribution, biology and ecology, and the development of a technical report. Assessment will proceed, in consultation with the States, when full data sets are available from all RFA regions.(3) I am advised that the Tasmanian Forest Practices Board completed the annual compliance audits related to the Forest Practices Act and Code as part of its Annual Report process. The Forest Practices Board Annual Report has been tabled in the Tasmanian Parliament and is publicly available. The Code of Practice for Reserve Management is not due to be completed until 2000.(4) A copy of the Post Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) review of sustainable high quality eucalypt sawlog supply from State forest has been provided to the Commonwealth by the Tasmanian Government and will be forwarded to Senator Brown by my Department.(5) A copy of the Review of Pricing and Allocation Policy of Native Forest Hardwoods in Tasmania has been provided to the Commonwealth by the Tasmanian Government and will be forwarded to Senator Brown by my Department.(6) The Commonwealth and Tasmania agreed that finalisation of the National Estate boundaries on 1:100 000 maps should be informed by the more detailed 1:25 000 mapping of reserve boundaries (Attachment 6.5 of the RFA), to ensure accuracy and consistency. This work is currently under way.(7) A copy of the Strategic Plan for the Private Land Component of the CAR Reserve System has been provided to the Commonwealth by the Tasmanian Government and will be forwarded to Senator Brown by my Department.(8) The Commonwealth has been advised by the Tasmanian Government that this issue will be addressed as part of the development of the Tasmanian Biodiversity Strategy. The Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Water, and Environment plans to undertake the work this year and there will be opportunity for public comment before the Strategy is finalised.(9) The Commonwealth has been advised by the Tasmanian Government that the Preliminary Draft Threatened Species Strategy has been circulated to key stakeholders for comment prior to releasing the draft for wider public comment.(10) A set of the silvicultural guidelines for the management of commercial forest types has been provided to the Commonwealth by the Tasmanian Government and will be forwarded to Senator Brown by my Department. (11) A copy of the document Calculating the Sustainable Yield of Tasmania's State Forests will be forwarded to Senator Brown by my Department.(12) The Tasmanian Forest Practices Board published information on compliance audits for codes of practice in its 1997-98 Annual Report. The 1997-98 Forestry Tasmania Annual Report includes information regarding forest regeneration. A process for monitoring and reporting of regeneration success and trends is still being developed by the Forest Practices Board and Forestry Tasmania. The results for the first year were not available in time for the 1997-98 report, but will be included in future reports.(13) The document describing the Management Decision Classification System has been provided to the Commonwealth by the Tasmanian Government and will be forwarded to Senator Brown by my Department.2542(Question No. 395)3952542Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KnowlesTH4WALP10 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 24 December 1998.To ask the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs—Can details be provided ofthe total cost to the Commonwealth Government of the Yorta Yorta native title claim of the following:(1) Funding provided to the Yorta Yorta Murray Goulburn Rivers Clan Inc. through the Native Title Fund.(2) Funding provided by grants to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission to assist the Yorta Yorta Murray Goulburn Rivers Clan Inc. to fund the native title claim.(3) Any and all other funding provided to fund the Yorta Yorta native title claim.2542Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The following information is provided in response to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) informs me that it is not aware of a Native Title Fund and assumes that Senator Knowles is referring to ATSIC's Native Title Program. The response to (2) below refers.(2) To date ATSIC has provided from its Native Title Program a total of $3,151,180 to support the Yorta Yorta native title claim. Allocation of funds on an annual basis are as set out in the following table.1993/941994/951995/961996/971997/981998/99$250,000$100,000$260,000$1,117,180$924,000$500,000(3) I understand that ATSIC has no information regarding any other funding provided to support the Yorta Yorta claim.2542(Question No. 9998)99982542Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray3M6WAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, on 17 February 1999, the following question without notice:Is it true that there are 2.4 million people employed in small business? Is it true that federal unfair dismissal applications for small business have halved to 2861, a minute percentage of those employees? Has the minister read the evidence from Australia Business Ltd (sic) that small business is woefully ignorant of the 1996 changes to the unfair dismissal provisions within the Workplace Relations Act? Since the government spent nearly $20 million telling Australians about tax before legislation was even introduced, how much has the government spent and how much does it intend spending on educating one million small businesses on the changes to the federal unfair dismissal laws which did pass the parliament and are working well and have halved the rate.2542Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—In my reply I undertook to obtain further information:I have consulted the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and he has provided the following response:According to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, 1.3 million employees (excluding business proprietors) are employed in firms employing 15 or fewer employees (excluding agriculture). (Source: unpublished data from the ABS Business Growth and Performance Survey 1996-97 ).Statistics obtained by the Australian Industrial Registry indicate that 35% of employers against whom federal unfair dismissal claims were made between December 1997 and December 1998 employed 15 or fewer employees. Applying this percentage to the total number of unfair dismissal applications filed annually, it is estimated that in 1998, 2865 applications were filed by persons employed in firms employing 15 or fewer employees, compared with 5087 such applications in 1996 and 2614 in 1997. Whilst the number of applications brought against employers employing 15 or fewer employees in 1998 was just over half the 1996 figure, it is relevant to note that there was an increase in applications in 1998 compared with the 1997 figure.Whilst the number of small businesses that have been involved in federal unfair dismissal claims represents only a small percentage of the total number of small businesses, unfair dismissal laws, whether federal or State, are widely regarded by small business as a disincentive to engaging new employees. Small business concerns about the litigation risks of terminating staff translate into a concern about the hiring of new employees. This point has been made repeatedly through surveys and representations made by employer organisations on behalf of their members and by small employers directly. A small business need not have experienced an unfair dismissal claim in order to form a view that the laws are a disincentive to recruitment. There is a wealth of information about the operation of the laws in the public domain, including information produced by my Department that is specifically aimed at small business.It should also be noted that the International Labour Organisation Convention No 158, on which the federal legislation is based, specifically contemplates a small business exemption from unfair dismissal laws.The 1996 federal legislation introduced reforms to discourage baseless claims and make the hearing process fairer. However, it did not include any measures that would reduce the cost of defending a claim. It is the right of access to litigate in the jurisdiction against a small business that initiates concerns about the litigation risk.The costs associated with preparing for and attending hearings and, where necessary, engaging specialist assistance, were unaffected by the 1996 changes. Any unfair dismissal system imposes preparation and hearing costs that compel many small businesses to settle claims for commercial reasons, irrespective of the merits of the application. The risk of being pressured into settling a baseless claim is a significant issue for small businesses, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which they operate, as the majority report of the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business & Education Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 indicated. The payment of money to dismissed employees to settle unmeritorious claims is overlooked by Senator Murray when he says that 53% of claims are settled in favour of employers. That figure relates to less than ten per cent of the total applications dealt with by the AIRC since 31 December 1996. It is the percentage of arbitrated claims determined in favour of employers, plus applications that were dismissed before conciliation because there was no jurisdiction or because an extension of time to apply was refused. Most cases are settled either during the conciliation process, or after conciliation but before arbitration. Payments are commonly made to settle unmeritorious claims. This has been made clear in representations made to me by small businesses and by employer organisations on their behalf, as well as extensive submissions put to the recent Senate Inquiry.The (then) Department of Industrial Relations conducted an information and education campaign when the Workplace Relations Act 1996 commenced. The cost of this campaign, which included a national telephone helpline, targeted newspaper advertising, written material and seminars was $244000.I am advised that in addition to the general information and education campaign, my Department has, since January 1997, conducted over 160 seminars on Employment and Termination issues. These seminars have covered good recruitment practices and employer obligations generally as well as unfair dismissal laws. The seminars have been conducted in capital cities and major country centres and have been attended by about 14000 people. A further round of seminars is scheduled to commence in March 1999. The government is already doing, in an appropriate way, what Senator Murray suggests should be done. The costs of these seminars are met through the payment of registration fees by participants.The Department also produced a handbook called Managing Employment and Termination Issues, which is a practical guide for employers. It was first produced in 1995, and then revised in 1997 to take account of the 1996 legislative changes. Approximately 17000 copies the 1997 version of the handbook have been sold.I am also advised that the Department's web site includes four publications that provide information on the unfair dismissal laws;- The Workplace Relations Act: A Guide for Micro Business- Workplace Relations for Small Business- A `Fact Sheet' (which is a basic guide) on Termination of Employment and Unfair Dismissal- A User Guide (which is a more detailed publication than the fact sheet) on termination of employment. In addition, both employers and employees have access to advice on the unfair dismissal laws through the Department's telephone enquiry service.It would, however, be wrong to conclude that educating and informing small businesses about the unfair dismissal jurisdiction would ameliorate these problems. Indeed, the opposite could quite possibly be the case. Whilst education and information sharing is not opposed in principle, the disincentiveimpact is evident when those businesses with experience in the jurisdiction inform other small businesses, employer organisations and policy makers about those experiences. Small businesses exposed to the actual level of regulation and complexity in the workplace relations system (for example, in awards, unfair dismissal jurisdictions and statutory obligations) could understandably be even more concerned about the level of workplace regulation than they already are.