1999-03-103912SENATE254501999-03-10The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous2545Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell, at the request of Senator Ian Macdonald) agreed to:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 , the Senate approves the proposal by the Joint House Department for construction of the Western Formal Gardens.Business25452545Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: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.Bills2545s2012545Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for other purposes.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.254509:32:002545Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table the explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The purpose of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to provide for new offences prohibiting the bribery of foreign officials within and outside Australia by Australians or companies incorporated in Australia. The offences are designed to implement the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Officials in International Business Transactions which is a very significant response by the international community to the problem of transnational corruption.The provisions of the proposed bill would enable Australia to ratify the Convention.The bill is very much one of the consequences of globalisation. We live in a time of unparalleled social and cultural interactions which demand that we have an international perspective in relation to our ethical and value systems as well as the conduct of business.I believe the bill and subsequent ratification of the Convention will convey a message to the world and the Australian community that the Government takes the problem of bribery seriously.There are those who believe official corruption is part of the way of life in some countries. However, it is almost always illegal and I doubt that it really reflects the true community values of the country concerned. However, where laws are not enforced for any reason, corruption will thrive.While an organised international response has taken some time to materialise, the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions is a very significant initiative.OECD countries account for approximately 80 per cent of global GDP. The OECD includes the world's 3 largest trading nations, the United States, Germany and Japan and includes all major European countries, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand and Australia.In December 1996 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Declaration Against Corruption and Bribery in International Business Transactions. Indeed, the United Nations Economic and Social Council Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice continues to monitor progress on implementation of the declaration. The effort to combat international corruption is not limited to the OECD. Indeed 5 countries that are not members of the OECD, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Bulgaria and the Slovak Republic have signed the Convention. So there is scope for many more countries to join the international effort to stamp out corruption.It is important that Australia should support the OECD's initiative to combat the bribery of foreign public officials and take a principled stand against corruption. While I am sure we would all agree it will not completely solve the problem of corruption, implementation of the Convention will reduce it and provide a strong statement about Australia's values and our confidence in the soundness of those values.There is good business sense, as much as morality, in introducing this legislation. Bribery distorts attempts at international competitive bidding, bribes themselves are non-productive and are therefore paid from profits, and bribes distort trade in that contracts are not based on merit and can lead to production of poor quality goods and services.In the aid context bribery can lead to a very poor selection of projects and this can in turn lead to diversion of resources away from areas of greatest need.Australia considers this to be a serious international issue which is best tackled by multilateral action and Australia considers it important that it be in a position to be part of that multilateral effort.The bill therefore follows the requirements of the OECD Convention on these matters and, as such, keeps our standards in line with those proposed for other highly industrialised countries.The great majority of the other OECD countries either have passed the necessary legislation or are in the process of doing so. Indeed the Convention was able to come into force on 15 February 1999 because sufficient countries have passed the implementing legislation and ratified the Convention. These include Germany, Japan, the USA, Korea and Canada.As Honourable Senators may be aware an earlier version of the bill and the Convention was examined in detail by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties whose Report was tabled on 2 July 1998.The Government is very appreciative of the contribution that the Committee's Report has made to this issue and believes that the bill is being introduced in a form which is consistent with the Report's recommendations.I particularly thank the now retired Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Mr Bill Taylor, and other members for giving consideration of the Convention priority and for their comprehensive public consultations. I also thank Senator Helen Coonan for her important work as Chair of the OECD Bribery Sub-committee.I believe that the Government's establishment of a process for careful examination of and consultation on treaties prior to their signature is working well and ensures there is a full and wide appreciation of what is involved in the obligations before Australia is bound by them. The consideration of this particular Convention is an example of how well that process works. The bill proposes that the Criminal Code Act 1995 be amended by inserting part of a new Chapter 4 into the Criminal Code which prohibits the bribing of a foreign public official.The main provision is clause 70.2. Subclause 70.2(1) prohibits providing or offering a benefit which is not legitimately due to another person with the intention of influencing a foreign public official in the exercise of his or her duties. For it to be an offence, the benefit must also be provided or offered in order to obtain or retain business or obtain or retain a business advantage that is not legitimately due to the recipient or intended recipient. The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment which is consistent with the penalty recommended for the same type of offence in the Model Criminal Code.Subclauses 70.2(2) and 70.2(3) make it clear that something is not legitimately due just because the benefit may be customary or because of its value or official tolerance of corruption.Clause 70.3 provides for a defence. A person cannot be guilty of the offence if the activity is lawful in the country of the foreign public official. I would doubt whether corrupt activities would be lawful in many countries, however it follows that there should be a defence in those circumstances.Clause 70.4 provides for another defence. It provides that a person is not guilty if the person's conduct was engaged in for the sole or dominant purpose of expediting or securing a routine government action of a minor nature. The bill concerns large scale bribes which warrant special offences which reach beyond the usual jurisdictional reach of Governments. Small payments are something left for local officials to stamp out and it is not appropriate or practical for foreign governments to be concerning themselves with expensive international prosecutions. This approach reflects what is provided for in the Convention and is similar to legislation in the USA and Canada.Clause 70.4 also requires those wishing to rely on the defence to produce a contemporaneous record of the payment to establish their bona fides. I agree with the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties that there should be strict recording requirements and the bill requires compliance with these before the defence can be utilised.Clause 70.5 deals with the extraterritorial reach of the proposed bill. Consistent with the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the bill has been adjusted to reflect the overwhelming majority view of submissions that jurisdiction should not only be based on there being some territorial connection to Australia, but on whether the accused is an Australian citizen or a body corporate incorporated by, or under, an Australian law. The Joint Standing Committee favoured going further and also covering conduct outside Australian by residents of Australia who are not citizens and also conduct outside Australia by body corporates which merely do business in this country. It is the Government's view that those groups are the responsibility of their home jurisdiction where the conduct is outside Australia.Clause 70.6 is a savings clause in relation to other relevant laws, including State and Territory laws. In some circumstances there will be an overlap with State and Territory secret commissions offences. The Government would not want to disturb any prosecution which is initiated under State or Territory legislation. I expect in the vast majority of cases the prosecutions will be initiated under the proposed legislation because it has a higher penalty.I believe this bill will make a significant contribution to Australia's ability to influence the conduct of international business transactions to ensure that decisions are made on the basis of the merits of the product or service and not on the basis of extraneous matters which have no place in development of trading and business relationships.In any case, the bill is also morally right and should be enacted on that basis alone.I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned till the first day of sitting in the winter sittings 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills2547r637Billsr635Billsr633Billsr636Billsr6342547Debate resumed from 9 March, on motion by Senator Minchin:That these bills be now read a second time.09:33:002547Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Yesterday I was saying that the sale of Telstra will generate significant ongoing losses in, first of all, public sector savings produced by profits of over $1 billion per annum, either paid into the Commonwealth via dividends or used as retained earnings by Telstra to finance investment. Secondly, there will be an impact on tax revenue through the loss of franking credits and company tax. The government currently does not claim franking credits. However, private shareholders are sure to claim these credits. Professor Quiggin estimates that this would be a cost to revenue of $600 million, rising to $1.8 billion within three years if Telstra's profit continues to grow at its current rate. This is short-term thinking.Professor Quiggin has estimated that by the year 2007 Australia would have sustained a loss of $9 billion, and beyond that time the loss will increase more and more. So for the short-term political gain of contributing to the surplus, or appearing to contribute to the surplus, Australia will lose a revenue stream that could contribute to any number of socially desirable outcomes in the future. Consequently, the Greens (WA) are of the belief that the government should heed the warnings that the sale of Telstra is likely to produce a net loss at the current valuation of $40 billion that is being tossed around.This is short-termism. It is similar to the concept that trade is about export opportunities, forgetting—oops, did we?—that we have imports as well and suddenly turning around some years later, once we go into so-called `free trade', and finding that our trade is very much out of balance, forgetting that there are two sides to the equation. Of the two sides to this equation one is revenue from a sale. However, the other side, which is our loss and which will be our ongoing loss, is the revenue from the income stream from Telstra. This is not what the public deserves. It is ideology at the expense of the long-term benefit to the Australian taxpayer and the public purse. For all the rhetoric about `Don't we want money for schools and health?' this is going to have a more detrimental impact on an ongoing basis on schools and health and those public programs that we all agree are important than any other short-term project. It is not good enough. The Greens will not be supporting this very shoddy move.09:36:002548Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—The Australian Democrats will not be supporting the sale of the remainder of Telstra. We will not be supporting the sale of 16.6 per cent, which will take the Commonwealth's holding down to 50.1 per cent. Nor will we be supporting the sale of the remaining 50.1 per cent, even if it is subject to an inquiry into Telstra's performance. Even if we were interested in the government undertaking some sort of inquiry into Telstra's performance for whatever reason, we would not be so disrespectful of the Australian people as to put forward an inquiry process which envisages absolutely no public involvement and does not even give the public the right to know or to consider the findings of that inquiry, let alone the right to make submissions and appear before the inquiry.The Democrats have said all along that the figures just do not add up. The government is suggesting that the country will be so much better off subsequent to the sale of Telstra because of the dent that the sale proceeds will make in our public debt. But our concern is that the interest saved, when combined with the reduction in government revenue which occurs as a result of shareholders claiming franking credits, will be less than the amount the government receives in dividends from Telstra. To put it crudely, it is like killing the goose that lays the golden egg.Notwithstanding that, we have raised this concern for some time now. The government has at no time come to us and said, `Here are the figures. Here is the reduction in interest payments. Here is the loss of revenue because of franking credits. Here are the potential dividends from Telstra. When it is all added up, we are financially better off if we sell the asset.' No-one in the government has been prepared to put those figures before us to prove its case.But of course money is not the only issue. Service provision is an area of major concern to the Australian Democrats. For my part, when I pick up a telephone, I know it will work. I know that I can connect to the Internet from my home and get a fast and reliable connection. I can transmit a fax in a couple of seconds. I have a mobile phone. I rarely ever think to myself, `Will it work in this location? Do I have coverage here?' Quite simply, I take those things for granted. I think that most of us in this chamber probably do as well. However, there are people in rural and remote areas who do not have a sufficiently good telephone line to give them Internet access at a reasonable speed. For some people it can take up to 12 months just to get a telephone connected, and these are the people that the Democrats are concerned about.The Australian Communications Authority reports quarterly on Telstra's performance. That performance is assessed against the customer service guarantee criteria. I will not go into those figures here today because they are available to all senators from the ACA's site on the Internet, but Telstra's performance in rural and remote areas simply is not good enough to give us confidence that in the future rural and remote customers will be provided with a standard of service that is comparable to that received by people in the cities.That brings me back to this inquiry that the government proposes to conduct before it sells beyond 49.9 per cent. That is the inquiry which will assess Telstra's performance against as yet unknown performance criteria. That is the inquiry which will not call for submissions from the public and will not be interested in hearing customers in rural and remote areas talking about their perception as to the quality of services they receive. It is also the inquiry whose findings and recommendations will not necessarily be implemented by the government. In fact, those findings will not even be made public. What is proposed is that this inquiry will be conducted by someone appointed by the minister. It will consider criteria which are yet to be set by the minister. Ultimately, it will simply hand a certificate to the parliament stating that the criteria are not satisfied. `Why get the public involved?' must be a question that the government asked—`They only complicate things and slow things down.'I would also like to mention the social bonus—that is, the $671 million which the government says will be spent out of the sale proceeds on things like improving mobile phone coverage on highways, extending access to untimed local calls and providing a further $250 million to the Natural Heritage Trust Fund. The Democrats are very happy with the commitment to spend this money, but we have two major concerns. Firstly, there are no guarantees that the money will not be used for pork-barrelling. What we have been given so far are a disparate collection of promises designed to appease the National Party and to attempt to engender support from the rural community for the sale. But there has not been any systematic investigation resulting in the decision to spend these moneys. There is no strategy behind that expenditure so that it will start to make inroads into the disparity of service provision between cities and rural communities. In our view, the government needs to come up with a strategic plan to address that disparity. The fulfilment of that plan needs to be funded out of the budget rather than one-off asset sales.What happens when we get to the end of the allocated funds and find that there are still areas which could benefit significantly from improved access to communications services? Do we simply say, `That is bad luck. The money has run out. You almost made it, but not quite'? This is why this program has to be properly thought out, the funds need to be distributed in accordance with the recommendations of the committee of experts and the projects need to be funded on a recurrent basis. We would much prefer to see the social bonus funded directly out of Telstra dividends.Our second concern in relation to the social bonus is the amounts that have been allocated in respect of rural transaction centres, extending access to untimed local calls and improving television reception. A total of $360 million is to be spent by the department. The Democrats would like to see better targeting of that money. We advocate establishing a committee made up of people with rural expertise to determine how that money will be best spent. I foreshadow some amendments which I will be putting forward to establish an independent committee to undertake the task of determining the best way in which this money can be spent to maximise the benefit for rural and remote areas.The customer service guarantee and the universal service obligation are, without doubt, the two most significant aspects of the telecommunications regime to the ordinary telephone user. We commend the government for supporting the customer service guarantee at the beginning of last year, but I think it would be letting consumers down if we simply left it at that. Both the CSG and the USO should be dynamic. They should be the subject of constant review to ensure that Australians have available to them the highest standard of communication services and equipment.In the case of the customer service guarantee, the time to connect new services should be falling continually because of the availability of new technologies. Connecting a phone service no longer necessarily means digging a ditch and burying some cables. In the case of the universal service obligation, it is about increasing the standard of service that must be provided to all Australians by the universal service provider. I will be putting forward amendments in the committee stage which respond to a press release by Dr Wendy Craik of the NFF the other day. Our amendments will legislate for the availability of ISDN equivalent service to all Australians at an affordable price. Dr Craik expressed her disappointment with the report on the sales bills. I take this opportunity to direct her to the Democrats' minority report where she may find some satisfaction.In any event, both the CSG and the USO should be the subject of regular independent review, and I will be putting forward some amendments in the committee stage to entrench that in the legislation. The issue of costing the USO is of great concern to all of the carriers.Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—Senator Campbell, you will get your chance a little later, I understand. The Democrats take the view that, because the other carriers are effectively required to collect a levy from their customers to fund the USO, they are entitled to fully scrutinise the amount which Telstra claims it is losing in fulfilling the USO. Until now, the scrutiny of the USO has been exclusively left to the ACA, but we believe that the carrier should be entitled to full information about Telstra's method of costing and the figures and assumptions which have been used to arrive at the cost claim. This is, of course, subject to Telstra not being obliged to disclose information which would cause it significant harm.In conclusion, the Democrats have not been persuaded that the sale of a further 16.6 per cent or the sale of the remainder is in the public interest. We will take this opportunity to improve the lot of rural Australians in particular, but we cannot support the sale of this most important and valuable Australian asset.09:46:002550Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—The Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 and the associated legislation before us provides initially for a further sale of 16.6 per cent of Telstra, leaving the government with 50.1 per cent majority control. If, and only if, an independent inquiry certifies that Telstra is meeting prescribed service standards for at least six months will more of Telstra be sold.Since the debate last year, I have been into rural and regional Australia many times to listen to their telecommunications infrastructure needs. The message continues to be that they need the equivalent of untimed local calls, local call Internet access and projects which bring the bush on-line in business, health, education and community areas. The only possible way to do all these things, to commit the huge expenditure required, is to pass this legislation. Telstra cannot spend the money to upgrade services. Telstra has to compete and make high risk investments in new technologies and capabilities. The money cannot be found from the budget without cutting back on already committed expenditure on health, education and roads or without raising taxes.This is a one-off opportunity for the bush, and they support it. Families in rural and regional Australia need this legislation. They cannot get on-line without it. They cannot make untimed local calls without it. They cannot lock into new ventures, new contracts or new ways of accessing basic services without it. By opposing this bill, Labor is sentencing the bush to the past by locking them out of the future.The bill delivers $671 million of improvements to telecommunications and the environment in regional Australia. The Natural Heritage Trust will receive a quarter of a billion dollars from this further sale to clean up our rivers and coasts and help with desalinisation and planting native vegetation. What do Labor propose as an alternative? They do not have any other answers.The Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, recently made a leading contribution to the debate about securing the future of regional and rural Australia. In his address to the National Press Club, he painted two scenarios for the bush—one where everyone was forward looking and equipped with the necessary facilities and services to prosper and another where the bush was constrained by shrinking markets, outdated technologies and social and economic decline. The minister said:Governments cannot impose opportunity on communities, but we can provide our innovative, hardworking and strongly independent country citizens with the tools that they need . . . We can't choose a district or town and declare that it will be developed, but we can help deliver the infrastructure, educational opportunities, health services and communication capabilities that will give people the best shot at finding their own best way forward.The social bonus from this sale of Telstra will open up enormous possibilities for many rural and regional Australians. If the Senate does not pass this bill, it is denying rural Australia a fair go. It is saying to the bush, `We will do nothing to stop the decline, and we refuse to give you the tools you need and deserve for your generation of contributing to the development of this country.'This legislation will provide the telecommunications infrastructure needed to give untimed local call access to the 37,000 previ ously forgotten families in the outer extended zone. Without this sale, that $150 million upgrade could not and would not happen. Together with the new preferential call rate, a grazier will effectively receive 2.4 hours of untimed calls a week to his or her service centre outside the zone.Some $36 million from the sale of Telstra will go towards installing local points of presence for the Internet across rural Australia so that all Australians will be able to access the Internet for the cost of a local call. This will equip rural Australians with the tools for e-commerce, education, health and communication. This has been singled out by many in the bush as one of the most important parts of the Telstra social bonus package.At the moment, country residents have to pay STD rates to access the Internet. The idea of local call access is stimulating all sorts of projects and plans in the bush. Without local call access, these projects identified by communities themselves will falter. I say to the Democrats and the Labor Party: you cannot let these people down. This sale puts more funds into the highly successful Rural Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund and another $20 million for the really remote communities. This popular fund, financed from the first one-third sale of Telstra, has been used by local communities to identify their own needs.At the last election Labor promised to abolish this fund. I can tell the Senate that the RTIF projects enjoy enormous grassroots support in the bush. Over $20.5 million has already been spent in Queensland alone. I was pleased to formally launch recently the BridgIT project run by the Queensland Rural Women's Network.The RTIF provided $2 million to finance Internet training throughout western Queensland. The people out there know where their future lies. They see the opportunities ahead and they are excited about the potential for reviving their communities, rural lifestyles and economies. Another example is the GrowZone online project. Some $2.7 million is going to provide 29 local shires in Queensland's southern inland with equitable access to the Internet, training and education opportunities.The vital point in this debate is the right of rural Australians to services and telecommunication reform so they can keep up with the rest of the world. It is their right to a competitive and viable future. That is what is at stake here. Senators must not forfeit that right when public ownership can no longer deliver what the people need and must have.The bush needs the $70 million from the further sale to establish rural transaction centres to return banking, Medicare Ezyclaim, postal, phone, Internet and fax services to small towns across the inland. These will be run by local businesses or communities. In the future they may well provide expanded electronic services, such as videoconferencing, health conferencing and other government services, and telemedicine.Another $25 million from this further sale will go to improving mobile phone coverage along the highways. There will also be $120 million to expand SBS reception to over a million regional Australians and fix up transmission black spots. Commercial television broadcasting is expanding into rural Australia. In Queensland two broadcasters—North Queensland and Imparja—are now carrying between them the commercial channels 7, 9 and the best of 10.The broadcasters carry the cost of installing transmitters in the larger regional towns, but there is another smaller category of towns which have to find their funds elsewhere. These are known as self-help towns. There are some 68 of these in Queensland and many throughout Australia. The ones in Queensland include Injune, Georgetown and Laura.When the first commercial service was transmitted years ago, these towns gathered the money together themselves for transmitters through levies or local council funds. Now that the satellite coverage has been extended, these towns are faced yet again with an expensive investment in transmitters of between $10,000 and $30,000 each, or some $15 million across rural Australia. It is not commercially viable for the broadcasters to set up their own transmitters.Unfortunately, many of these self-help towns are also suffering from a decline in their rates and economic base following droughts and the low wool price that has been effectively at marginal levels for the last nine years. They are in no position financially to provide all the necessary funds.I have taken this matter up with the minister. These remote Australians should not be out in the cold as far as commercial TV reception goes. There needs to be some kind of arrangement for these self-help towns. It could perhaps involve the cooperation of government, broadcasters and the local towns themselves. These small towns are entitled to enjoy commercial TV and watch their favourite footy and other programs like any other city Australian.The government has also announced that all Australians will have access on demand to a high speed 64 kilobyte per second service. If this bill is not passed, there will continue to be Australians who do not get any untimed local calls. Every time people in the outer extended zones make a call, even to their neighbour, it will be a timed call. And every time they make that call and pay the price, they can thank Labor and the Democrats for blocking this bill.If this bill is not passed, 37,000 householders across 80 per cent of the land mass of this nation will be stuck with the timed pastoral call rate of 25c per 4.5 minutes. They will miss out on the preferential new call rate of 25c for 12 minutes, which is double the average phone call length. They will miss out on effectively 2.4 hours a week of untimed local calls to a service centre outside their zone.A change in ownership in no way reduces the carrier's obligations to service. Telstra will remain subject to a range of appropriate regulatory powers, including ministerial directions to protect consumers. The existing 35 per cent total and five per cent individual foreign ownership limits will continue to apply. The chairman, headquarters and majority of directors still have to be Australian. In addition, two directors have to have regional experience. The time frames for installation and repairs has been tightened and tougher penalties and fines set for non-compliance. All carriers are legally bound to meet guaranteed consumer safeguards.The new Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 brings together all the legal protections available for phone users. These safeguards are: the universal service obligation, which ensures that standard telephone services and pay phones are reasonably accessible to all people on an equitable basis wherever they reside or carry on business; the national relay service for people with hearing or speech impediments; access to untimed local calls and comparable benefits for rural customers outside standard zones; price caps and power to regulate charges for the defined universal services; directory assistance to users of a standard telephone service; an emergency call service; the customer service guarantee, which sets standards for installation and fault rectification by all providers and sets damages payable to customers when standards are not met; and a new systemic problems provision enhances this.This allows the Australian Communications Authority to direct providers to ensure compliance, with penalties up to $10 million. Other safeguards include a scheme to protect customers' payments in advance against default by a service provider, and an industry ombudsman. The ACCC will be responsible for monitoring and reporting on Telstra's compliance. There will be ministerial power to direct compliance with the act. A change in ownership is a vehicle to restore services and deliver a well-funded vision for telecommunications in rural Australia. Failure to pass this bill condemns rural Australians to a third-class telecommunications infrastructure when they should be travelling first class. Far from compromising regional employment, this massive boost to infrastructure spending will help underwrite the revival of regional and remote communities.Having travelled around rural Queensland, I can tell the Senate that people in these areas are excited about the opportunities awaiting them. New businesses are springing up and planning to use the Internet to market their goods overseas. Existing businesses are learning how to do more and better business using new technology. Women in particular are latching on to the business, education and training opportunities, and they are taking the initiative to use them to restore the social and economic basis of their communities. When I launched the BridgIT Project in Brisbane recently, one of the organisers was openly passionate about the pluses for rural women and their communities which come from selling Telstra. They do not care who owns Telstra so long as their services are safeguarded and the infrastructure is upgraded. This is the main message I hear from regional Queensland. This is the main message coming from the emerging leaders of the bush who see where the future lies and want desperately for their families to be part of it. The government's commitment to hundreds of millions of dollars in telecommunications reform is being warmly welcomed.The Internet training project for outback Queensland, BridgIT, epitomises the new way ahead for the bush—provided they can get the funds. As one of the BridgIT organisers commented after the launch when people were already queuing for places in the program, `It's good to be able to implement something that is really needed.' That is what government is all about. This $½ billion package of reforms for rural Australia is really needed. It is hundreds of millions of dollars worth of cheaper, better, more reliable, more advanced, versatile and clever phone calls.This legislation before us will allow a new generation of pioneers to take leaps forward in some of the most depressed rural areas in Australia. Less than a decade ago, we were still replacing party lines in the bush. Today, we have the opportunity to get the bush online and give it a future.The Nationals have gone in to bat hard for this package for the bush, because everyone—from the National Party in Queensland to the NFF, to the CWA and to the Isolated Parents and Children's Association—has demanded telecommunications reform. We have discussed these matters at length with the Prime Minister and the minister, Senator Alston, until we came up with what the bush really needs. I am proud of what we have achieved on their behalf. I urge the Senate in the strongest possible terms not to cheat the bush out of this new vision for rural and regional Australia.10:03:002553Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—It is only eight months since the Senate voted against the full privatisation of Telstra. Today we see once again the government spouting outrageous claims of doom and gloom as well as outrageous claims being made by coalition members as to the benefits of privatisation. We have seen nothing new in the package that is being presented, other than the fact that the National Party in a most grovelling manner has capitulated once again to the interests of city capital and, in this case, to the interests of foreign capital. You have gone right around this country claiming that you are the champions of regional Australia, only to find that the One Nation Party has been waiting for you, expressing quite clearly the view that you are not capable of adequately representing the interests of rural Australia. What you have done here today has proved yet again that you are not capable of representing the interests of your constituents. 10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! Senator Carr, please address the chair and not the senator.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—What we have is a package before this parliament which I would have thought even the National Party, with all their limited abilities, would have been able to appreciate is nothing more than tinsel dressed up to present an image of something that glitters. We all know that not all that glitters is gold.What we have here is tinsel in the form of inadequate safeguards to accessibility and affordability, and tinsel in the form of a proposed independent inquiry into the performance of Telstra which every independent body in this country has demonstrated has declined under privatisation. We have seen report after report coming forward saying that the standards of service have declined as a direct result of privatisation. Directly as a result of this government's policy of privatisation, job cuts have ripped the heart out of regional Australia and ripped the heart out of the infrastructure of many of the great towns and cities.What we have heard from this National Party yet again is the notion that some sort of technological El Dorado will be the saviour for regional Australia. But, in fact, under this proposal already disadvantaged people will be further disadvantaged. The National Party has failed in its duty to defend those interests of regional Australia by supporting this government in these measures. What Senator Boswell and the National Party have quite clearly missed the point on is that there is a fundamental difference between the issue of ownership and the issue of competition. I agree with Senator Boswell to this extent: whoever owns Telstra has an obligation to provide consumer protection. But that has nothing to do with the privatisation of Telstra. In fact, under public ownership the opportunities to ensure public accountability are greater.As we have seen with the Casualties of Telstra cases, which both Senator Boswell and I have been working on, it is only as a result of our capacity to intervene through the political process, through the public process and through the parliamentary process that we have some measure of accountability being held up to protect consumers, the citizens of this country, from the enormously unequal market power that comes with the concentration of political power that arises from such organisations as Telstra.There is no guarantee that we can see anywhere in this legislation. There are no guarantees of change in the face of dangers that such privatisation of Telstra holds for the people of this country, particularly those in our rural and regional areas. The reasons for opposing privatisation, in my view, remain the same. Now, from examples based on experiences with the partial privatisation of Telstra, we have seen what those dangers involve.We have seen employment levels drop, and continue to drop, in Telstra. One-third of the company has been sacked. We have seen a greater emphasis, in fact a complete shift in the culture of Telstra, as we now concentrate on the issue of private shareholder value—irrespective of the consequences for community values; irrespective of the consequences for social infrastructure values; irrespective of the obligations of Telstra, as a telecommunications corporation, to the 18 million Australians who currently enjoy majority ownership of that corporation.What we have seen is the quality of service continuing to decline. We have heard all sorts of spurious arguments; the apologist for privatisation has come into this chamber and argued that it has been the drought, it has been bad weather, it has been some catastrophe or another. I can tell you that in Victoria there has not been heavy rainfall or drought; there has been, however, quite substantial job losses and massive declines in the standards of services that are being provided. We can say that that is quite clearly and irrefutably the case.Incorporated in this bill we have alleged safeguards which do nothing but confuse the poor simple-minded members of the National Party, in that they can agree to a proposition for the full privatisation of Telstra without ever coming back into this chamber—because that is what this bill does. It proposes a sham inquiry, which will see no return to the parliament, as some sort of stitch-up deal is done behind closed doors to allow for the full sale of what is probably one of Australia's greatest companies.With this proposal we are looking at the privatisation concerns that have been raised throughout the community—and those concerns have not been answered. Telstra has been completely unwilling to fund uneconomic services; it has been reluctant to contribute its fair share to research and development. Telstra has, of course, seen the fall away of skill formation in terms of its training commitments. We have seen employment conditions in the industry plummet, and we have seen employment opportunities throughout rural and regional Australia also plummet.It is quite apparent to me that what we have seen through the partial privatisation of Telstra is a narrow and short-term profit objective being pursued at the expense of the community as a whole. What we will see through this proposal, under this government, is more of the same. I am quite disappointed—although, I suppose, not surprised—that the National Party has been duped so completely by this government. That this should happen with the once great National Party is a great tragedy—the National Party which, in the past, has been able to see through things and defend interests in an effective way. We do not see that any more. What we see is this grovelling capitulation to measures that are designed quite clearly to advance the interests of the few at the expense of the many.What is being proposed by this government, in order to cover up its intentions, is a bandaid measure. We have seen skyrocketing share prices which have risen in direct correlation to the decline in the number of jobs in Telstra. We have seen 22,000 jobs lost so far. We have seen, particularly in rural and regional areas, services decline. These things have occurred as a direct consequence of Telstra being able to do things much more cheaply and extend the profits arising through its activities. It is not for the benefit of the whole country as a whole, though. It is for the benefit of those shareholders who currently enjoy the minority shareholding. The share price is good news for those people, but bad news for the rest of the country.What we have is a current valuation of some $US6,000 per access line. By international standards, this is overvalued. What we see is that there will be an attempt to maintain value by continuing to cut costs. That will mean still greater job losses. There also is the expectation that there will be some 27,500 jobs lost by 2001. There will be further centralisation of functions at the expense of rural and regional Australia. There will be greater outsourcing of operations and increased casualisation of work within the industry. We will see reduced investment in research and development—and mainly to keep up that share value. That, of course, is one of the great tragedies of the privatisation process.We have seen job losses to date, particularly from commercial and consumer business units; these service residential and small business customers. Of course, that is directly related to the data on the decline in services that have been provided by the commercial and consumer business units. What is important is that there is a direct link between job losses and deteriorating service quality and increases in profit per access line. The Australian Communications Authority has stated: An area of concern for the ACA is the apparent decline in service levels for the provision of telephone services and the repairs of faults, particularly in the country.Results of consumer satisfaction surveys commissioned by the ACA showed that service provisioning and fault restoration levels were causing significant dissatisfaction among customers.I would have thought Senator Boswell would have known that. I would have thought the National Party would have understood what the empirical evidence is, the hard facts, now on the table. It is curious that Telstra tries to deny that service quality has declined—but, based on those particular facts, it is quite irrefutable.With the sale itself, there are serious implications for general public sector revenue. Revenue forgone from the sale of even 16.6 per cent, the figure being touted in press speculation, amounts to some $498 million. Savings from the sale of Telstra in terms of interest on government debt, according to the analysis in yesterday's Financial Review, were some $400 million per annum. This represents a net loss to the public sector worth some $98 million.It actually costs money to sell Telstra. That is what I find quite extraordinary. As I say, even the National Party should be able to understand that. Indeed, it has been noted that, with the cost of government debt relatively low and profits growing, the loss has got bigger each year. We can see quite clearly that those in rural and regional Australia are being dudded by this proposal. The government has promised great handouts for the bush, particularly for Tasmania and Queensland. That is the carrot that has been promised—and we saw that last time with the way in which Senator Colston's vote was purchased.You ought by now to understand the nature of this government. You cannot rely upon even their most shady commitments. Their quiet little deals in the corner amount to nothing. The sordid manner in which the partial privatisation of Telstra was organised last time ought be a lesson to you now. The government has promised some $671 million in funds for rural telecommunications infrastructure. What we have seen is the so-called social bonus—examples of initiatives to upgrade infrastructure and service outside the metropolitan area; initiatives which they say are only possible under privatisation.If you look at the figures and the facts, you will notice that the funding initiative is only a drop in the ocean compared to what Telstra produces by way of profit every year. The total dividends are about $1.8 billion. The government's share of that is $1.2 billion. Dividends of 16.6 per cent of Telstra would be about $298 million. For 1998-99 the expected half-yearly result will be $1.8 billion, says the Financial Review today. On this basis, Telstra's full-year profits will be some $3.6 billion. Total dividends would be $2.1 billion.Assume a 60 per cent payout of the ratio. The government's shares of that have to be in the order of $1.4 billion. Even with regard to the 16 per cent sell-off, this would mean a loss of annual dividend of some $358 million. This is clear evidence that the bush is being ripped off by this government, and you would have expected that the National Party would have understood that. The government's spending commitments for the 16 per cent sale amount to $671 million over five years. Some $421 million of that is for the rural telecommunications project. The rest is for natural heritage top-up funds.Over five years, 16.6 per cent alone would generate some $1.5 billion in dividends, even without the growth of profit, and more than twice the total the government is committing to the sale bill and three times what it is giving to the telecommunications project. Further, we see from the expected half-yearly result that profits are growing strongly. So there will be even more dividends from this than I have already indicated.If we look at the future growth potential, even at a 3.5 per cent return per annum, we see total earnings accruing to the public sector over five years at a minimum of $6.5 billion—10 times what the government are proposing to spend on their social dividend. Senator Boswell, you have been dudded; completely and totally dudded.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr, would you please address the chair.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The National Party has been completely and totally dudded. What would one expect? You would hope for better, but one is constantly surprised by the depths to which they will sink in their grovelling to the Liberal Party, their grovelling to the city interests. Quite clearly, a simple analysis of the figures shows that the National Party has been completely and totally dudded by this proposal.Senator Harradine has indicated in a number of speeches that he was interested in the privatisation of Telstra on the basis that he did not accept the economic theory that in any way justifies the sale of a natural monopoly and that to sell a natural monopoly is to sell a licence to tax. In fact, Senator Harradine is on record saying that the reasons he supported the one-third sale was to avoid a double dissolution and the possibility that Telstra would have been sold entirely.The government's intentions have now become abundantly clear. Senator Harradine has been criticised in the press today for making his position clear. I would have thought anyone who had any knowledge of these issues would have heard Senator Harradine express these views that have been expressed in recent times on many occasions, particularly prior to the last election, when he stood before the people of Tasmania seeking their support to be returned to this chamber. This is what he said on 28 September 1998:Now, on this particular occasion . . . the Government is suggesting that there will be an inquiry. Now, in my view, I think we've got to have certainty about these matters—I made that decision in August and I'm going to stick with it. So far as I'm concerned, there will be no sale of Telstra out of the hands of the Government. . . . . . . . . . On the last occasion where there was a third sale, and that of course doesn't mean it's out of the public's hands, there were benefits flowing to regional Australia, and there were substantial negotiations. On this occasion, I would think that there would have to be a very, very substantial bonus.I will be keeping a very close eye on the nature of the negotiations that occur between now and when this bill is finally voted upon. I am sure every member of the opposition will be keeping a very close eye on those negotiations. I am particularly concerned about the nature of what is said to be `very, very substantial dividends', particularly to states like my own.What we have seen in the last round of sordid arrangements which were entered into which were never honoured were claims made that there would be job savings in Tasmania and Queensland. Jobs have been lost in those states, contrary to those agreements entered into. What was the minister's defence? `Well, I did not enter into any agreement, it was Mr Blount. Mr Blount was the one who entered into agreements with Senator Harradine.'We have seen disproportionate jobs lost throughout the rest of Australia, particularly in my state of Victoria. There have been disproportionate levels of removal of workers from regional centres. But we still have not seen the jobs created that are said to be created in Tasmania and Queensland. And there has been a decline in services. Speaking of Mr Blount, before he was replaced as the chief executive of Telstra, he said:I think that there will be probably five large telcos long term. I know that people here don't like privatisation of their assets like Telstra—he is dead right about that—but they better get used to it, because in this industry we're going to see a lot of aggregation.Aggregation such as we have seen between Vodafone and Cable and Wireless in recent times. We have seen once again movement of major assets out of Australian hands into the hands of international capital. This bill does not protect that. This bill does not stand against the movement of international capital. It is only through public ownership that there can be a means to protect Australian interests, particularly when it comes to the advance ment of powerful international telco companies which are seeking to gobble up all before them.Finally, I turn to the issue that the government has placed particular emphasis upon—that is, the management of Telstra, who no doubt will enjoy huge benefits from the privatisation as their market share improves and as they are able to attract much larger salaries on the world stage. They have argued that hybrid systems of ownership do not work. I disagree very strongly with this proposition. In Telstra's answer to a question on notice that was placed before the telecommunications committee, they said that it was `not possible to comment on whether they have produced unsatisfactory outcomes' in terms of the international experience of hybrid forms of ownership.The overseas experience again points to the fact that it is possible to get hybrid ownership models which actually do work. I do not support the privatisation of Telstra. I have never supported the privatisation of Telstra or even the partial privatisation of Telstra. Only a minority of OECD countries have fully privatised their principal telecommunications carriers. Most telecommunications carriers throughout the world do exist with a measure of public ownership. Despite the rhetoric, and especially because of Australia's unique social, geographical and demographic conditions, a measure of public ownership is required throughout the telecommunications industry. In particular, a major company, a very successful company, like Telstra should remain in public ownership. (Time expired)10:23:002557Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I rise to speak against the telecommunications legislation, as my colleague before me has just done so eloquently. I support wholeheartedly all of the sentiments of my colleague because I think he encapsulated what this debate is about. I believe the electorate want an efficient and effective telecommunications system in this country. It is crystal clear from this bill that the government is neither committed to this nor indeed legislating for this.Rural and regional Queenslanders have nothing to look forward to with the further sell-off of the asset they already own. Here we have the government wanting to sell the rest of Telstra. These people have not benefited from the sale of one-third of Telstra. They have lost jobs and lost services. Rural and regional Queenslanders are faced with a company which once had public ownership and a broad public and community focus becoming, under private ownership, a company with a narrow focus consumed by the compelling and overriding need of making a profit. Not that there is anything wrong with making a profit. There most certainly is not. But when profit becomes the overall compelling and driving force in the obligation to shareholders, then it is wrong.This fear that people hold is rightly held, and it has been held by people such as Mrs De-Anne Kelly, the National Party member for Dawson. I will quote from her speech on the second reading. I think it encapsulates what this argument is about. She says:It cannot be any wonder that people who are enduring a substandard service are hostile to full privatisation, knowing that a fully privatised Telstra would be devoted to bottom-line results. In essence, Telstra, by necessity, would have its eye on the bottom line and not the back paddock.I think that is really what this debate is about—the fear that is quite well held, even by National Party members such as Mrs Kelly, that people in rural and regional areas, including those in Queensland, are going to suffer further, as they already have suffered under the privatisation of Telstra.This bill to sell the remaining 66 per cent of Telstra is in two parts. The first part involves selling 16.56 per cent, making it a total of 49.9 per cent that will be sold, and then the remaining 50.1 per cent to be sold after that. Once the 16.56 per cent has been sold, control will be effectively lost by the public, and full privatisation is all but inevitable. The bill says that the final stage of selling the remaining 50.1 per cent may proceed only after a minimum period of six months, during which certain criteria must be met. There is no comfort in this at all. If you look at item 2 of schedule 3 of the bill, you will see that it is so wide you could drive a truck through it.1X4WESTSenator West—A big truck or a little truck?7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—A big truck, Senator West. That is how wide it is. You could drive anything through it. This is supposed to be the fall back position, which has sucked the National Party in, to ensure that if the next 16 per cent sale of Telstra does not go correctly then the further privatisation will not go ahead. But if you look at item 2 of schedule 3 you will find that the government has proposed that Telstra's performance during this time is to be monitored by an independent inquiry. This inquiry is to issue a certificate and provide it to the minister to allow the further sale. It is just unreal.Who will sit on the board of inquiry? No idea. Who will be chosen and how will they be chosen? No idea. What are the credentials of the people who will sit on the inquiry to be? No idea. How many ordinary citizens will participate in this inquiry? No idea. How will they participate? No idea. Will it be in person, will it be by email, fax, writing or public hearings? No idea. The minister could pick the Three Stooges for the board of inquiry to give the government the outcome they want. Quite simply, they could pick anyone who gives them the result that they want. That is left completely open in this piece of legislation.The board of inquiry could be a committee of one. Everyone knows about a committee of one. It is always the most efficient way to run an inquiry and get the result that you want. So the requirements are not specified. This is supposed to be a fail-safe mechanism, if the further partial sale does not proceed as it should, to prevent the sale of the then remaining 50.1 per cent.Clearly, it is an ineffective mechanism. When you look further at item 2 of schedule 3, you find that it talks about the prescribed criteria which are to be used in determining whether the sale of a further 16.56 per cent has been successful. Of course, the prescribed criteria are not set out in the bill, but they are to be specified by regulations which do not even exist.We have no idea of the composition of this committee. We do not have the criteria for determining whether the sale of a further 16.56 per cent should proceed. And the government is putting this up as some sort of panacea to the people out in the rural and regional areas, who are fearful of even a further 16.56 per cent being privatised. Trust the government? Who can? We have heard that repeated in this chamber on a number of occasions this week.Does the minister want an inquiry which is going to give him the answers that the government is seeking on the further privatisation? It seems that that is the case. Under these conditions, the government can sell the remainder of the Commonwealth's share without any reference to parliament whatsoever.We saw how the dissatisfaction in rural and regional Queensland manifested itself in the form of strong support for One Nation. At the last state election the disillusionment produced staggering support for One Nation of up to 30 per cent in some parts of Queensland. The rise of voter cynicism and the community being let down by the political system is something which we must all address.In my home state of Queensland this has had a major effect on all the parties, but in particular we saw the collapse of the National Party vote across Queensland in seats like Barambah, Burdekin and Mareeba. Although the One Nation Party has torn itself apart, there still is strong residual dissatisfaction with politics, political parties and politicians. In other words, they do not trust the government and they certainly do not trust us—but obviously to a much lesser extent.Cutting services and support to the bush will not address this issue. The government should be well warned. There are two major concerns to be raised: firstly, the lack of services to regional and rural communities; and, secondly, the shedding of jobs. Both of these have been addressed by my colleague Senator Carr before me, but it is worth while looking at what has happened in the area of services. As he rightly pointed out, the service performance of Telstra since its privatisation has fallen.That is clearly outlined in a table in the Bills Digest No. 55 1998-99, which particularly refers to services provided in country areas. That table shows that new services connected on or before the ACD amounted to 82 per cent in the December 1996 quarter and 73 per cent in the June 1998 quarter. Faults cleared within one working day amounted to 74 per cent in the December 1996 quarter and 62 per cent in the June 1998 quarter. These are the sorts of figures that concerned Mrs Kelly in her speech at the second reading stage in the other place. The table further shows that the faults cleared within two working days amounted to 90 per cent in the December 1996 quarter and 81 per cent in the June 1998 quarter. What we see are falling standards under the partially privatised Telstra. So the concerns that are being expressed by me and by Mrs Kelly and Mr Katter in the other place are obviously falling on deaf ears in relation to some of their colleagues in this place.In speaking on the issue, Mr Katter tackled the difficult issue of cross-subsidisation. An article in the Financial Review of 27 November last year referred to the participation of Mr Katter and Mrs Kelly in the debate in the other place. The article states:Referring to the large tracts of rural Australia that rely on cross-subsidy arrangements for communications services, Mr Katter told Parliament: "The privatisation of telecommunications in a country like the United States is probably a very good idea. In a country like Australia, it most certainly is not."They are concerned for obvious reasons. If you go back to the report of the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Telstra: to sell or not to sell , of September 1996, you see the 1994-95 cross-subsidisation figures. We have no up-to-date figures, but the figure for Kennedy, the electorate of Mr Katter, was $10.7 million, and the figure for Dawson, the electorate of Mrs Kelly, was $2.76 million. Those are not unsubstantial amounts of money. The cross-subsidisation figure back in 1994-95 for the state of Queensland was in the order of $50.97 million—a substantial amount of money indeed. Mr Katter rightly identifies this as being a major issue for rural and regional consumers in Queensland. Of course, there are no guarantees, when profit is the driving force within Telstra, that the issue of cross-subsidisation in the longer term will be properly addressed by this government. There is no doubt that it will not.The recent floods in Queensland highlighted the fact that in areas such as Cooktown and shires in the Far North including Douglas, Cardwell and Johnstone, a high level of emergency technical support was required. At times these areas were cut off completely from all forms of communication. Of course, with the downsizing of the work force in Telstra, these emergency services take longer and longer to restore.There is another issue which concerns me—that is, the job losses. With the one-third sale of Telstra, there were job losses. They will undoubtedly continue to be there with the further sale. The CEPU has advised me that 2,000 jobs alone have been lost in Queensland since the government's initial part-sale of Telstra. Last Thursday I was advised that a full staff meeting of the MobileNet Memo section of Telstra, which is located in Eagle Street in Brisbane, was notified that operations would be closing in August this year. This affects a further 180 employees. This is just one example of job shedding and the so-called economic management that goes with the privatisation of public organisations such as Telstra. As my colleague Senator Carr indicated, all this does is go to beefing up the share price. The more you sack, the more the price goes up. That is a well-known maxim out there in the commercial world. Is it any wonder then that people are concerned about what impact this is having on the service levels in remote areas and on employment opportunities?We can be assured of two things under the government's proposal. Firstly, the government coffers will be swollen for future pork-barrelling of the Australian electorate, and not any higher motive than that can be attributed to what the government is doing. The second thing that you can bet on is that profit will be the driving force within Telstra, and the only driving force. Under a fully privatised Telstra, the question must be asked: what incentive is there to make effective and equitable service delivery? As the communication revolution continues and rural and regional Queenslanders increase their usage of the Internet, what obligations and assurances are users offered? Remote education is becoming increasingly reliant on the Internet. What guarantees are provided for the continued access to these services? Modern communications are essential for rural producers to develop markets in the Asia-Pacific and other regions, and thus state-of-the-art telecommunications advancement must continue to be made available to them. Second or third best is not good enough. That is what they will face long term with a fully privatised Telstra—a second-rate service; and second rate is not good enough.The member for Dawson and the member for Kennedy showed what they thought of this legislation when they spoke about it in the other place. They both spoke forcefully in that debate against the privatisation. But when push came to shove in that place, it was noticeable that the two members abstained from voting. What a shame. This is no surprise as both of these National Party members would probably have been properly pulled into line and told not to cross the floor. But the concerns that they were expressing were the real concerns of people in rural and regional Queensland. They were the real concerns that people have about the further privatisation of Telstra. It is no surprise that they were stood on and gagged to a large extent when it came to voting on the issue.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—When did you last cross the floor?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Now, now!7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Now, now! What we have is a situation that the government cannot face up to. They have people out there—Senator O'Chee interjecting—7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Senator O'Chee, you should take note of this. I am waiting to hear your speech, Senator O'Chee, coming out solidly against this bill that the government has before us. Senator O'Chee knows, as his colleagues in the other place know, that it is no good.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—It's a good bill.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—He knows that it is no good.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I have been grossly misrepresented. I do not share the view that it is a bad bill. In fact, I think it is a good proposal.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—There is no point of order but I would request senators to listen to Senator Hogg in silence.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Thank you for your protection, Mr Acting Deputy President. I thought it was grossly uncalled for from Senator O'Chee. It was very provocative.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—Bullying.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Bullying, that is right. We will see Senator O'Chee probably roll over and cave in, as they normally do in these circumstances. At least one could say that there was a limited amount of leadership from Mr Katter and Mrs Kelly in speaking forthrightly against this. The unfortunate part was that, when push came to shove, they were not there to be counted.What we have, as we know, is a bill that will do nothing for places such as Queensland. It has great prospects for people in the Canberra-Sydney-Melbourne triangle, but if you are outside that triangle then you are going to be left out in the cold. We have seen that the bill will do nothing to increase the services for Queenslanders. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It will take away from the services that will be made available to Queenslanders. In total, this bill will prove of no value to those rural and regional people who have suffered at the hands of this government in many other ways. They do not want this bill to be foisted upon them at this stage. Queenslanders deserve better. Australians deserve better than what this bill will provide. When you look at the slipshod manner of the further privatisation which can take place under item 2 of schedule 3, one needs no more convincing of the bad nature of this bill. It is bad legislation. It definitely has no advantages for Queenslanders or the Queensland community or Australians.10:44:002561West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—This is the third or the fourth time I have risen to discuss the sale of Telstra. The Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill, if passed, would authorise immediately the sale of up to 49.9 per cent of Telstra and effect full privatisation without further reference to the parliament following a six-month inquiry into Telstra service levels in regional Australia.So whilst the government will stand here and say that we are only debating the sale of a further 16 per cent or so of Telstra, effectively this bill means that we are debating the sale of the whole of Telstra. But what is the government going to do with the terms of reference for this inquiry? We do not know what the terms of reference are. This is another example of the government saying to people, `Trust us, we are from the government.' It is buying a pig in a poke again.This government excel at this type of legislation. They expect us to stand here and approve something that will occur after an inquiry. But we do not know what the inquiry is going to be. We do not know what the terms of reference of the inquiry will be. We do not know who will chair the inquiry, who will be on the committee of inquiry or just how it will take place. This is very slipshod government and administration. There is no clarity. There is no apparent due process to be undertaken. We do not know what the due process is. This government is obviously very arrogant in its attitude and in the way it treats the people of this country. It has no concerns about what people might think. It is going to ram through an inquiry and, six months after the bill is passed, in all probability, we will see the sale of the rest of Telstra.We know that once more than 50 per cent of Telstra is sold by the government, the minister will have no power to direct. Telstra will be able to do as and what it pleases. The minister will have no powers. With the sale of the first third of Telstra one thing the opposition was able to do was to get an amendment successfully moved to ensure that the minister did retain his ministerial power provision. That is very important because there are many organisations and people out there who have problems with Telstra. Telstra has for many years thumbed its nose at what people have thought and gone on its merry way. You only have to look at the number of inquiries, estimates hearings and reports that have come out of this place to know that Telstra has a long history of ignoring what people might be saying, what we might be saying and the questions we might be asking. It is only with the full threat of the powers of the Senate applied to them that Telstra have come to the party and delivered the goods and the answers.When Telstra is privatised, there will be no recourse to the oversight and the supervision of their powers. That will be left to the shareholders, and 35 per cent of those shareholders could be overseas. I know the government will tell us that overseas shareholders are allowed to have only five per cent of the shareholdings as one single shareholding. Initially, the Prime Minister had promised there would be A class shares and B class shares, that B class shares would be sold to people overseas and they would have very few rights. But he could not do that. He could not deliver that. He had made that promise to the people of Australia but he could not deliver it. Anyone who has a share in the Telstra company has the same rights as any other. This means that 35 per cent of all the dividends get repatriated overseas, rather than staying in this country. It means that, say, seven large overseas entities that buy five per cent each will have significant power. They will have more power than all the mums and dads this government talks about as owning shares in Telstra.So you have to look at the relative powers of individuals and groups and entities when you are looking at the share situation. The mums and dads do not have as much power. At most shareholders meetings maybe a couple of hundred people turn up. This government says it wants everybody in Australia to own shares in Telstra. There is no venue big enough to take all the people who would turn up if that were the case. If you had such a large number of small shareholdings in Australia, it would certainly dilute the word and the power and the strength of the Australian shareholdings as opposed to the possible small number of significant shareholdings from overseas interests. The government needs to think about this. I am not opposed to overseas investment in this country, but I do have some concerns about our major telecommunications system, the one that is tasked with the universal service obligation. But this government cares not for that.The opposition is opposed—as we have said before and made fairly clear on every other occasion—to the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . However, we do not have so many objections to some of the other bills because they do some good things. A package of bills is being debated here. We need to be very careful because we do think that consumer protection service standards should be improved. That is not a problem. We think some of the aspects of the customer service guarantee should be clarified. We need to make the network carrier liable to pay compensation to customers' carriage service providers when a delay in the provision of service to those customers is caused not by any fault of the carriage service provider but by a fault in the network carrier's network.We also support the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , but call for an urgent review by the government of the adequacy of the competition regime, as described in part X1B of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The government—we hope—might amend their own legislation in response to suggestions because Telstra's competitors actually made those suggestions. We also support the Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Amendment Bill 1998 and the NRS Levy Imposition Amendment Bill 1998 .So to say that the opposition is totally opposed to the whole package is incorrect. But we are opposed to the sale of Telstra. We think that the sale of Telstra is wrong, but we also think that improving universal service obligations and customer guarantees is absolutely essential irrespective of what happens to Telstra. The opposition are not about being totally negative and totally disruptive in this whole show; we are trying to be constructive and look at making sure that people in rural areas actually do get a reasonable telecommunications service.Senator Carr spoke about the reduction in the number of staff who have been employed by Telstra. We also know from the ACA's 1997-98 information that there has been a 10 per cent decline nationally in the number of new connections completed by their agreed date. That is an overall percentage, but there has been a 16 per cent decline in country areas. We know that there is a 10 per cent decline in the proportion of faults cleared within one day of notification nationally. Compare that with the 20 per cent decline in country areas. When you take into consideration the fact that that 10 per cent is skewed by the 20 per cent in rural areas, then obviously the city areas are getting a far better deal.Let me tell you about complaints I have had from people in the Glen Innes-Inverell area. There was a big storm last year that knocked out the system. They had to wait for people to come and repair it. They drew a line through the town: north of the line was fixed by a crew from Toowoomba, which is a couple of hours drive away; and south of the line was fixed by a crew from Griffith, in the southern area of New South Wales, which is many hours drive away. Neither would cross the dividing line so people in the top half the town had the telecommunications back on before people in the bottom half had the telecommunications back on. That is what is happening out there in the real world, not in the world of the minister, in the world of the government and on paper.What the government has proposed might sound fine in theory, but it does not work in practice. You only have to ask the people in north-west New South Wales. One has to wonder what the devil is going to happen. You only have to talk to people in the rural areas who are waiting for Telstra to come and fix a problem. They have so few crews who have to travel. I wonder—and it is probably a good question that somebody should put on notice; I have not got around to doing it yet—what is the amount of overtime they are paying, the amount of on-call they are paying and the distances that some of these crews have to travel to fix a fault. These are all issues that remain very pertinent to people in rural areas.I have had my own problems with Telstra in the delivery of services in recent times. They made some changes to faxstream in about August of last year. Did they tell everybody? We certainly did not find out about it. We only found out about it when our faxstream service was not working. Every time my staff rang Telstra to inquire, they were told, `Are you sure you have got your faxstream plugged in? Are you sure you have got the paper in the right way?' That was the answer my staff got every time they rang. My staffer became quite expert on how to work faxstream. We then were given a piece of equipment to install which meant we could use faxstream, but then we could not use anything else on the fax.At the beginning of this year when I finally had enough and threatened that I would do all sorts of diabolical things to them and raise all sorts of problems, we got a gentleman who came and fixed it quite rapidly. He could not work out why the original piece of equipment had been given because that was technology that was three or four years old. It would appear that there are only a couple of people in Telstra who can maintain and understand faxstream. Telstra go ahead and change things without telling customers. My staffer was threatening to make some complaints under the customer service guarantee because she figured somebody needed to be paid some compensation—her for the amount of hair she had pulled out probably. But this is the sort of slack service that happens on occasions. It is not going to get any better and we do not have recourse to ministerial direction and to other forms when they can totally ignore what is said.Senator Boswell spoke glowingly of the Natural Heritage Trust. There have been some good grants with the Natural Heritage Trust, but I am having difficulty comprehending what the criteria are for the allocation of those grants. Wellington Council put in a request for a grant to do some work on the Bell River banks, which is upstream of Wellington but is in the council area. They have a significant tourist attraction there at the sunken gardens. They wanted, I think, a five-figure sum because the banks were in danger of eroding. They did not get a grant. Yet nobody cared to go and look at the situation. This was an eminently sensible request for the grant. It needed it. The council was saying it was in danger of severe erosion, but there was no grant.The council did not have enough money to fix the problem because it required a large amount of money. So what happened? There were big floods in August of last year in the central west of New South Wales and about a hectare of the land is now downstream at about Bourke or beyond. About a hectare of land was lost with this erosion when the floods came through. It is now going to be a six- to seven-figure sum to repair it. If the criteria of the natural heritage grants were meaningful, then situations like this would have received a grant. Maybe they would not have got the maintenance done before the flood came, but who knows. They might well have had the problem overcome. So the government is not just looking and caring about the whole situation. Rural areas obviously are suffering.We also have a situation with the universal service obligation. We still have no major changes to that. It still is basically, as I understand it, the provision of the copper wires that provide the basic handset service. Senator Boswell spoke glowingly of the RTIF and what wonderful things have been done to Queensland. Senator Boswell forgets, of course, that a rort was done when that was agreed to, and the per capita funding varied markedly between states. Queensland and Tasmania were the ones that received the greatest per capita amount. Senator Boswell is now reaping the benefits of a deal that was done, and he is able to say it is wonderful because the people in Queensland are getting all this money. The people on Christmas Island and Cocos Island, who are part of Australia, cannot access any of this, and the people in New South Wales are also getting less access to this.The RTIF money is a one off. What happens two or three years down the track when we find that technology has moved on? People in the city areas will be able to access it because the communications companies will be offering all sorts of wonderful deals. What will be happening to people in the bush, the people who are benefiting now from the RTIF? There is no recurrent funding in this. It is a one off. They will remain caught in the time bubble of 1999, at the latest. Senator Boswell said the RTIF will work because the sale of Telstra will bring in this money they cannot afford out of budget. What happens down the track? These people will be no better off in two years time. They will still be technologically behind the rest of the country because there is no money in the budget and, according to the government, once Telstra is sold, there is no other way of financing it.The government is using this to cloud the issue and to remove its need to sensibly and permanently address the long-term needs of the whole of Australia, including that four per cent who live outside the USO areas, and to actually assess the total telecommunications needs of all Australians. It is using this grant to cover up the issue and to put off into the never-never an issue that it will have to face, but it will have to face it with less dividend coming from Telstra. It will actually have less revenue from Telstra with which to face that problem.Talking of less revenue, we are already seeing a decline in the level of investment by Telstra in research and development for the public good. We predicted this would happen, and it has already begun to happen. The government should be ensuring that Telstra invests for the future because Telstra has been a world leader in the provision of services to small communities, to remote areas and to areas with harsh terrains. Many developing countries have benefited greatly from this provision of research and development that Telstra has undertaken, but we now know that the amount of money that is being invested by Telstra in research and development is declining. That will be to the detriment of people in rural and remote areas of Australia and people in developing countries.The Telstra sale bill needs to be opposed because it is again buying a pig in a poke. We do not know what the criteria for the review will be, and the minister obviously does not care, does not want to come and tell us. The government has no concerns about the needs of people in rural and remote Australia.11:04:002565Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I want to make a couple of points at the outset. Firstly, it has been said in this cognate debate on the sale of Telstra that, if this bill gets through this place, we will create the largest number of shareholders per head of population anywhere in the world. Some 600,000 people, I think—whatever the figure is—went out and bought Telstra shares, and presumably that figure will rise and we will be this great shareholding democracy. We are already that. We already own it. Every Australian owns a piece of Telstra.1X4WESTSenator West—Less than they used to.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Senator West interjects that they own less than they used to. That is very true, Senator West, but every Australian is a shareholder in this particular enterprise, and that is as it should be for one very sensible reason: the future of this country depends primarily on telecommunications. In the last 25 years, we have seen how the tyranny of distance has been conquered in this country by an increasing reliance on telecommunications, not only on the traditional telephone services that have been around for longer than the last 25 years but also on the facsimile revolution that took place in the early 1980s, using that existing system of infrastructure that Telecom at that stage had strung around the countryside.We have seen since then the quantum leap in technology which the first generation of mobile phones gave us, and then the digital mobile phones and the various other technologies that have come into play with mobile telecommunications in this country have made business so much easier. They have made personal communication so much easier. They have made communication in this country very much on a par with our competitors overseas and very much at the forefront of First World economies in terms of what is available to us.We have seen, particularly since the creation of Telecom back in 1974—I think its 25th anniversary of being separated from the postal services will be celebrated some time this year, though I doubt by this government—a great deal of research and development into a whole range of different services that we now all take for granted. Indeed, the money that has gone into research and development and into building and infrastructure—that is now in Australia probably the best in the world—is something that we should be celebrating.A few years ago, the government decided they were going to sell off—as the Trojan Horse for the complete sell-off of Telstra—a tranche of one-third. The legislation came into this place and the usual arrangements occurred with various offers being made. I have not looked at it all that closely but I believe that some of the offers were then withdrawn, or there was some doubt about who those offers were made by and whether or not they would ever be kept. But it is now a statement of historic fact that one-third of Telstra has been sold to a share-owning section of the public who are very happy with their investments. The reason, of course, that they are very happy with their investments is that they paid about $14 billion in total for that shareholding, and I think it was actually done in two stages—you paid so much up-front and then you had to pay the rest within the next 12 months.I decided on principle not to get involved in this particular activity—and so did my wife and my family—because we took the view that it was inconsistent to come in here and vote one way and have a public position on this particular matter and then go and get hold of shares. This particular attack of principle that I had cost me a great deal of money. The reason it cost me a great deal of money was that some of the people who got hold of these shares must have realised what the real value of the whole thing was.The government approached this question a bit like the two Steptoes when they go around to a particular individual's and value the old piano: it is whatever you can get for it. We were told initially that they might get $8 billion to $9 billion for the first third of Telstra. They got $14 billion and, lo and behold, what do we find out now? We find out that the company is not actually worth the $42 billion or $43 billion that that sale was based on or, indeed, the $30 billion that was the figure before it. We find out it is now worth $100 billion, and at one stage—on the basis of the shareholding—it could have been worth as much as $120 billion. The reality is that these people do not know what it is worth. They have no idea what it is worth. I suppose I should say to the 600,000, or whatever the number of shareholders it is out there—2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—1.8 million.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I have just been told it is 1.8 million. Those 1.8 million people have done pretty well out of this whole exercise. However, they have done it at the expense of the rest of the Australian community. Indeed, raising $14 billion—if the valuation of the company is $100 billion—means there is $16 billion that we do not have to refurbish hospitals. There is $16 billion that we do not have to string a few more wires around the place or put a few more satellites up to provide better communications in the bush and in other remote and regional parts of Australia. There is $16 billion that we do not have for schools. There is $16 billion that we do not have for a range of other services that Australians require.Now we are told that this particular exercise before the Senate is to sell off another tranche and then we are going to have an inquiry—which, if this lot can get away with it, will be a sham inquiry. It will come down with the relevant findings—and even if it doesn't it does not matter, because they are going to try to sell off the rest of this particular company. One really questions why they are in such a hurry to do this. They flogged off $30 billion worth of shares for $14 billion to get the money in a hurry. Why was this done? Was it because they feared that telecommunications in the future was going to lose money? If they do, they are the only people in the world who do think that way.One of the reasons there is a queue of people to buy these shares is that everybody knows that telecommunications in the last 25 or 30 years has been virtually a licence to print money. In fact, there is not a printing press in the country that can print money as fast as Telstra can generate it. Telstra not only is a very profitable business but also is at the core of every business in Australia. Whether you are a single farmer out there in the sticks or you are operating a small business—a store, a delicatessen—or you are operating BHP, telecommunications is an absolutely essential ingredient. It is the lifeblood of enterprise and commerce in this country.I would have thought that a government that is purporting to lead us into the next century would not be in such a hurry to flog this off but would say that it is absolutely essential that there be a pivotal government role in the future of telecommunications in this country, that it is essential that the government oversee where we are going well into the next century, instead of selling off as much of Telstra as it can, putting the future of telecommunications in this country into the hands of a board of directors who will pursue—because they have to under legislation that has previously gone through this place—the profit motive at the expense of any other considerations.I am not saying that Telstra is a good corporation. In fact, I have formed views about Telstra after I have sat on the phone many times waiting to get through to various of Telstra's services. In the old days—which is not that long ago, until about five years ago—it was impossible to find the complaints section in the phone book. There was a good reason for that. They did not want you to find it because they were not going to be bothered addressing the problem for some time anyway.The last government perceived some of these problems and brought competition into this area—a measure which I had some reservations about at the time. But I now must confess that I think it was a far-sighted and sensible way to proceed, because it taught Telecom—soon to become Telstra at that point—that they had a community obligation. They had an obligation to every business in Australia, whether it be in Sydney or out there in the outback of Australia in whatever state, to provide services to that particular customer and, if they did not, they were going to lose that particular share of the market. The reality today is that Telstra is still the key communications provider in this country and will be into the foreseeable future. So although competition has come in which has sharpened Telstra's focus, the reality we find today is that, overwhelmingly, Telstra is at the cornerstone of what communications will be provided to business and commerce in this country well into the next century. I want to make some other points about the National Party. A number of people have made comments about it. I think the group in Australia that is likely to get burnt the most if this bill goes through is those people who live in regional Australia. I live in Adelaide, which is a regional economy with a population of about a million people, so I guess all the telecommunications carriers are going to look after us in Adelaide. They may not want to look after those who live north of the Barossa Valley; they may not be all that keen on looking after those who live north of Elizabeth; they may not be all that keen on looking after some of the more remote parts of South Australia.However, a large part of the population of South Australia, 84 per cent, lives in Adelaide. Those people who live in Adelaide are probably going to get looked after because it will be in the interests of those telecommunications carriers to look after a million people and make sure that they are well connected, that they are happy and that they can make their mobile phone calls, because they are going to make a quid out of it. That is going to be the motive if this legislation is passed here today.You can pass all the universal service obligation bills you want through this place, you can get reports on it into the future, but if there is not a quid in it these carriers are just not going to bother. We already get reports in this place on how bad service is in the bush. Has anyone done anything about it?YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—That is under public ownership.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—You ought to stick to your big trucks, Senator, you seem to understand them a bit better. You have just walked in here a couple of minutes ago. If you want to join this debate, why don't you? No, you do not want to join this debate. You and your friends purport to represent country interests but then, when the issue comes up, you run away from it.The Prime Minister is dazzled by the amount of money that he can get for this particular enterprise. The fact that 10 years—or even five years—from now it may be a mistake would not enter into his head because, unfortunately, he is of a mind that he is going to do whatever he can to get the money, and hang the consequences. Regional economies in this country are absolutely important. The bush is absolutely important.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—You would not know about it.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—In fact, I do get out to the bush quite regularly. I have a lot of friends out there in the bush that I go and visit. I am amazed at what they put up with. The thing that saddens me quite often is the way in which they put their faith in your crowd when you were going to come to government in 1996 and how bitterly disappointed they are now. They are bitterly disappointed because this government on every index has let them down.I want to finish my remarks by saying to the National Party that they should not think that One Nation has necessarily gone up into the ether. The seething discontent which led to the rise of that particular crowd has not gone away. What has happened with the politics of One Nation is that all of the psychopaths who are running it have obviously shown how capable they are. I could list the names in there.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—John Elliott.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I make no comment on Mr Elliott's comments because I have not had time to read the paper yet. But, at the end of the day, the Pauline Hansons of this world seem to be incapable of getting on in the same telephone box. Eventually, some organisation might become more efficient at running a political party. They might understand that there are some rules of how this goes. I say to the National Party: they got away with it last year when they got real lucky at the last minute. But they will not want to be supporting this sort of legislation too often out there.Despite all of the sugar that is being put on top of this particular bill, the reality is that a few years from now there will be reports coming into this place saying how miserably the service obligations have been fulfilled out there in regional Australia. Why is that? Because there is not any money in it. No carrier is going to go out there and fulfil these obligations when there is no money in it.I want to digress a bit now to when I was a state member. I must say I had some good contact with Telecom as it was and then Telstra, when I had constituents who had a problem. I remember one case in particular where a person was dying of cancer. They had made an application to have a phone put on, but they did not have much money. That person really needed the phone so that the doctor could be contacted through the hours of the night, over the weekend or whatever, to come and administer important pain-killing injections. It was a terminal case. It was a sad case because it was going to be some months before the person's demise. I rang the secretary to the state manager of Telecom, as it was, and I must say that that phone was put on within two hours.There were a few other episodes, although not as dramatic as that. Sitting back and thinking about it, I asked myself: how can Telstra respond so quickly? The answer was: firstly, it has the money, in that it has generated the income to be able to operate that way; and, secondly, it really does understand that it is a public service it is providing—an important public service.In the case of that family, it was just a small kindness which Telecom provided. But that has stopped me on many occasions when I have wanted to ring Telstra up about some of the more infuriating practices it used to have—most of which by today, I think, have disappeared. Certainly, in the event that this legislation gets through this chamber, I believe we will have the situation where board rooms will not be as responsive as this company has been; that managers will not be able to respond in the way I have described. Indeed, in many areas of Australia where they just simply cannot make a quid, we will see the rug being pulled out from underneath very important parts of our economy.In finishing my remarks here today, I want to say that I have no doubt I will speak on this issue again; if the government do not get it up this time, they will bring it back again. No doubt, if they do get this up, they will try to sell off the rest of Telstra. I think every senator in this place ought to have an opinion on this. I am rather saddened by the fact that a large number of those supposed country representatives have disappeared from the chamber and have made no attempt to contribute to this debate. You have to hand it to Senator Boswell; at least he fronts up. He does not come in here and make mindless objections, as some senators and even some ministers do. (Time expired)11:24:002568Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—Labor continues to oppose the further privatisation of Telstra because we believe that Telstra is a vital part of Australia's community, of its economy and of its regional infrastructure. I speak today firstly as a Labor senator, but particularly as a senator from regional Queensland.That all Australians have the right to have equitable access to a modern, comprehensive, national and international telecommunications system I would have assumed in 1999 was a fundamental on which we all could agree. Yet still the experience of so many people in rural and regional Australia is that they cannot rely on normal communications that are taken for granted by all the rest of us.In recent months I have received particular representations from Karumba—and I note that Senator Macdonald is in the chamber. I am sure that he will be concerned and, I hope, convey his concern to Senator Alston about this particular situation in Karumba. Many senators will get individual letters about a particular concern but, as senators will see, I have a whole sheaf of them. I have about a dozen letters from the Carpentaria Council and from Karumba small business.Let me just give you some examples of the kind of experience that these people have. For example, on 11 January this year, the Managing Director of Karumba Steel Fabricators wrote:For the past three months we have experienced continual disruptions with our telephone which have included days without total telephone contact and calls which drop out while in conversation. We have contacted the Telstra office numerous times and have been given various excuses. These excuses were, in the main, very helpful but sometimes not pleasantly handled, particularly when we were told to use our mobile phones if the lines were out. As we do not have a mobile service in our area, you can imagine our frustration.He then details, from November 21 through to December 6, the times at which Karumba residents had no access to telephone communication.Ruby Marine Engineering have sent a similar letter, stating:During the past few months we have had many problems with our telephone lines. On several occasions we have had no lines out for hours at a time. They would just drop at any time and you had to keep checking the telephone for when you were able to use the phone again. Also when you pick up the phone to dial out and have a line, the line drops out as soon as you start dialling.A letter from a photographer states:. . . not working at all. You dial the number required. When the person at the other end answers, the line drops out. But of course Telstra still charges for the call.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—It is all under the public ownership, Margaret.XI4Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDS—Exactly, Senator. How much worse will it be under your government's proposals?YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Can it be worse?XI4Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDS—At least we do have some response from Telstra now, since I have raised this.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—But you have all these problems.XI4Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDS—But, Senator, the Carpentaria Shire—and perhaps you should talk to shire officers about it—have written saying:The Normanton telephone exchange was changed to a digital service in November 1998. Since this change, telephone problems have been experienced in both Normanton and Karumba. Examples of the type of problems have been:members of the public calling council to complain that the phone is continually engaged when the activity at the council has not increased;council officers are unable to get a line out; andcouncil officers are finding that they are constantly getting an engaged signal.I could go on reading from a number of the other letters. But the issues for country Australia are very, very serious indeed. The ACA, in its report on Telstra's carrier performance for the December 1997 quarter, found evidence of a serious decline in relation to Telstra's delivery of services—particularly to country areas, Senator Macdonald.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—That is under the current system.XI4Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDS—From a sample of the data—this was December 1997—there is a 10 per cent decline nationally in the number of new connections completed by their agreed date, compared with a 16 per cent decline in country areas. There was a 10 per cent decline in the proportion of faults cleared within one day of notification nationally compared with a 20 per cent decline in country areas. State or local governments from Tasmania, Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales have already expressed their strong concerns about service level deterioration and have voiced their ongoing support for the view that full privatisation will see this trend continue.In the time remaining I want to focus on the issue of public safety. In January during the holiday period there was a major issue affecting people reliant on 000 calls. In 1996 a Telstra media release stated that Telstra's enhanced 000 service saves lives in Western Australia, because this new enhanced 000 service displays the caller's phone number and address to Telstra's 000 operators. However, this new system could not locate the state from which a mobile phone user was calling. There were tragic consequences highlighted by the death in Tasmania of a woman and a subsequent coronial inquiry.There have been a number of other incidents that could have also had tragic conse quences. This was caused, I am advised, by `overflowing', which is apparently the technical term, at a Telstra 000 emergency call centre which patched the caller through to an emergency service in the same named town but a different state. These problems occurred before Telstra began centralising its services, but by April this year Telstra is to reduce the number of emergency call centres from eight to two—one in Sydney and one in Windsor, Victoria. If the fatal incident of the past and some of the other problems occurred with some state based local knowledge, we can only wonder what the situation will be when there are only two call centres.From all the media attention surrounding the Tasmanian incident and the subsequent coronial inquiry, Telstra has decided to review the situation in that state. But, as honourable senators will be aware, Telstra and the government seem particularly concerned about the level of service delivery in Tasmania. I note that Senator Mackay is in the chamber. I would want to see good service delivery in Tasmania, but I would like to see the same level of service in every state. Yet we continually hear that there is to be a review for Tasmania in relation to this issue. I took this issue as a Queensland senator to both the minister and to the head of public safety in Telstra. I have asked whether leave will be granted to table these documents. Leave has been given by the previous whip. I seek leave to table these documents.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—I haven't seen them.XI4Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDS—They have been sighted by the previous minister.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Can we have a look at them?9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—You already have agreement from the previous minister.XI4Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDS—I had agreement from the previous minister.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—I have not been told and neither has the whip.XI4Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDS—The previous whip was told.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Neither of us know about it.XI4Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDS—I am happy to wait until the end of my speech and then seek leave.I was very concerned with the minister's response when I raised this question with him. He refers to these incidents—this is a matter of a death and some very potentially serious situations when the 000 service failed—in the following way:The recently reported incidents involving 000 are disappointing.`Disappointing' is not the word I would use when there has been a coronial inquiry. It is not a word I would use when you consider how 000 is concerned with so many life and death situations. He continues:In particular, the Minister has asked for a report from Telstra on the incident . . . The ACA has also sought information from Telstra. Telstra itself has undertaken a number of remedial measures.The letter does not detail what those remedial measures are. On page 2 of the letter he states:You also suggest that developments in Tasmania indicate that Telstra should be forced to review its plans. Since you wrote, Telstra has announced an independent review of 000 call handling arrangements in Tasmania. Telstra has advised that this review is restricted to Tasmania because it involves issues unique to that State, including the fact that the 000 communications link with the mainland is a single optic fibre cable. These circumstances do not relate to States.I do not know where the minister gets his information, but I can tell him quite clearly from advice I have from the CEPU—after all, they are the experts working in the field out in regional Australia—that much of coastal Australian services are connected by what is called a national loop. However, many central and more isolated areas have only a single one-way link. In actual fact, there are at least over 60 such places in Queensland. I will detail them in a few moments. I am sure there are similar places all over Australia. Yet Telstra seems particularly sensitive to Tasmania. As people know, Tasmania was my home state for many years, and I am very close to Tasmania and Tasmanians, but I want to see equity across Australia. If it is good enough to review the 000 service delivery for Tasmania, then what about Queensland? What about Western Australia?Let me just detail the places in Queensland that are reliant on a single optic fibre connection. The following towns will be isolated if the one-way link into them is lost: Winton, Longreach, Barcaldine, Blackall, Mitchell, Charleville, Cunnamulla, Surat, Moura, Cooktown, Boreen Point, Karumba, Normanton, Kowanyama, Weipa, Thursday Island, and so the list goes on. In tabling the minister's letter, I ask him to have another look at the reason that has been given for Tasmania needing special consideration. Clearly, all over Australia there are isolated areas and central areas that are just as dependent on a single optic fibre link.The Manager, Telstra Public Safety has detailed a number of issues relating to 000 services. Again, I will seek leave to table this letter because I think it contains some vital information for honourable senators. What really concerns me about her letter is an answer to a question on page 8. I asked:Does Telstra have the longer term goal of selling off this Public Service obligation once it has been centralised?This is Telstra's policy. They are going to save $3 million by reducing the numbers of 000 call centres. They will save $3 million in the first year. What is their plan further down the track, depending on the outcome of this bill? Her answer is interesting. She says:At this point Telstra is merely improving its operations in order to ensure that 000 like all its products, is helping OAS to meet its vision of best practice and cost reduction.I am not quite sure how you can improve services by cutting $3 million in the first year, but that is another question. She goes on:Telstra makes no judgment about any call and adds no value to the emergency provision. Telstra is currently obliged to provide this service—note `currently obliged'—by regulation and we do so at the cost of around $14 million per annum.That is a different figure to that provided elsewhere in her letter. She goes on:Telstra believes that the best provision of an emergency call service is to have callers answered by specialist emergency call takers . . . This is not the core business of Telstra. We will continue to work with all those involved . . . Again, in tabling this letter, I would ask the minister to have another look at just what guarantees he can give to the Australian public in relation to 000 service provision. Is that something that will be privatised fully in the future and we will find that some of those more isolated areas cannot be guaranteed access to a 000 service?I would like to conclude by giving some details about the number of job losses from 000 centralisation. This is an issue that does not seem to concern the minister or indeed Telstra itself. There are 140 full-time job equivalents at the moment at 000 call centres, and under the centralised model this will be reduced to 76. Seventy-six in two centres? I query these figures. The current list of staff numbers in different areas is: Sydney, 12 positions—and suddenly they are going to need all these extra positions when they are dealing with calls from all over Australia; Windsor, 12 positions; Gosford, eight; Canberra, 12; Hobart, four; Ipswich, seven; Weymouth, six; and Perth, six. Where will those staff members go after the call centres have been taken off-line? Are they all going to be offered jobs in Darling Park and Windsor or are some of them going to be offered redundancy packages? That is certainly something the minister suggested would happen in his letter.There are a number of other issues that I could raise, but I see my time is running out. In conclusion, in any consideration of this legislation, we have to think first and foremost of people in the bush, people in isolated regional areas of Australia, places where they cannot rely on an automatic link that so many of us take for granted, whether it is the mobile or the standard office or home phone. Many of us, even those of us who visit these areas, really cannot imagine how different our lives would be if we did not have that ready access. I believe that, if we are serious about considering the needs of rural and regional Australia, Minister Alston should be reconsidering and providing some answers to this chamber. I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, and a letter from the Manager, Telstra Public Safety, Maria Simpson.Leave granted.11:44:002572Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—In speaking to the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 and related bills, I say from the outset that we are opposed to these bills, as we were opposed to the first one-third sale of Telstra, for very good reason. The Telstra bill proposes to allow for a further 16½ per cent sale of Telstra and then to allow the government to sell the remaining Commonwealth shares in Telstra without any approval of the parliament. That is what the government is proposing to do with this legislation.This is the government that said that they would never sell any more than one-third of Telstra. The line would be drawn under that and never would any more be sold. Indeed, they accused us time and again. With regard to the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas, they said, `But we would never do this to the Australian people. We would never do what the Labor Party did. We are going to sell one-third and not one share more.' But after winning government it took them such a short period of time to then propose to sell the rest. We have to remember that it was not 16 per cent initially but the lot, when they were caught up in the euphoria of being re-elected.From a commercial point of view, the first one-third sale of Telstra was successful and, yes, people bought shares in it. But that denies the importance of this national infrastructure. It denies the community service obligations and the importance of the services it provides to a whole range of people. Over a period of time we will see those services becoming more expensive for some than they are for others. Right now, we all pay an equal amount of money to have the telephone put on. That is a fact of life that Australians have got used to. I know that there would not be one Australian citizen that would want to see that change. The government will tell us, `Yes, we will lock in all of that in legisla tion,' but we know that that simply is not going to be the case.This bill proposes to get parliamentary approval for a further 16½ per cent sale of the Commonwealth shares in Telstra, which brings the total sale of Commonwealth shares up to 49.9 per cent, with 50.1 per cent remaining in Commonwealth ownership. After an inquiry, the government wants to allow the remaining shares to be sold by regulation, with no approval of the parliament at all.The government says, `We need to do this because we need to provide services to the bush. The only way we can guarantee that these services will be provided is if we sell the whole of Telstra.' I was very interested to see Mr Peter McGauran get up in the House of Representatives yesterday and talk about the $671 million that is going to be used to provide a whole range of services to rural and regional Australia. That figure of $671 million is actually less than the money made by the brokers involved in the first one-third sale.The first tranche of Telstra that was sold raised almost $40 billion. The money made by the brokers involved in selling those shares was much greater than the $671 million that this government now proposes to give to rural and regional Australia from a further 16 per cent sale. This has to be the greatest ever sleight of hand attempt on the Australian people. It is even worse than the government's commitment that they would never ever sell more than 33 per cent, like the `never ever' GST.The expected profit to be announced by Telstra—I think tomorrow—is in the order of $1.8 billion. About 60 per cent or two-thirds of that $1.8 billion goes to the Commonwealth. Why can't the Commonwealth commit $671 million for the expenditure being proposed from the two-thirds of the $1.8 billion profit to be announced very shortly? As we know, Telstra's expected profit will continue to rise and rise years out.Let us look at the $671 million in terms of the money that will be raised from the 16½ per cent sale, which is expected to be around $15 billion. What a piddling amount of money is to be offered from the sale.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Oh, what!FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Senator Macdonald says, `Oh, what!' I say to him that when the first 33 per cent of Telstra was sold, the brokers—the people involved in selling the shares—made more than $671 million. They made more than you are offering. Let us look at what is being offered. There is $250 million towards the Natural Heritage Trust; I will come to that a bit later, because it is interesting to see how that works. There is $120 million to establish and fund a television fund to expand SBS and to eradicate black spots. There is up to $150 million to install telecommunications infrastructure to give access to certain people for untimed local calls. There is $70 million to establish rural transaction centres. The comment has been made `and the list goes on'. Yes, the list goes on.I want to go back to the first one-third sale. Tasmania, my home state, did fairly well. I congratulate Senator Harradine for negotiating $58 million, which was to go into the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. That money was to be spent over five years, like the government's proposed further $671 million. As I said, Tassie got fifty-eight million bucks. Senator Reynolds asked, `Why are we so special?' I think we are special. I will be standing here defending our $58 million. What is interesting about that money is trying to find where it has gone, how it has been expended. I have got a list here that sets out expenditure for some $21,663,405. What did Tassie get for that? In terms of telecommunications infrastructure, not much. As Acting Deputy President Calvert knows, because he is also from Tasmania, you can drive up through the Central Highlands and not get a mobile phone service. Tasmania is not that big, and yet we have islands that do not have mobile phone services and there is a huge chunk of our mainland which does not have a mobile phone service. I would have thought that one of the critical factors in telecommunications infrastructure, from a safety point of view alone, was to have a phone service where you can go and pick up a phone and ring. Sure, we have a general phone service in terms of payphones dotted here and there, although some of those have been removed.When we look at the other aspect of this, I can remember Senator Alston saying that Tasmania was going to get a lot of jobs from this $58 million, so many jobs. The factual position—and I know this is something that has played very heavily on Senator Harradine's mind—is that we have done nothing but lose jobs. There has been a significant decline in the number of people employed in telecommunications and by Telstra in Tasmania, and that decline continues. We have had one call centre. I think we may have two now.Senator Mackay interjecting—FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—We have three. One has just slipped in recently. But the fact remains that there is a net job loss, and by a significant margin. I would like to go through some of those things that our $58 million has been spent on. This is not to say that some of these things are not worthy, but I would have thought that they were worthy of expenditure from other areas, not from money that was supposed to provide a better telecommunications service to our state. That is the very fundamental point.The Tasmanian Electronic Commerce Centre, which is a very worthwhile thing to have, got $4.5 million. But why did it come out of this money? It should have been funded from other areas. Then there is phase 1 of the Tasmanian integrated community network process and marketing. What is interesting about this—and I want to come to a letter from the Central Highlands Council—is that we spent $377,000 on a study to establish something.The Central Highlands Council in Tasmania were given some money to put in a submission about having a mobile phone service established through the Central Highlands of Tasmania. When they put their submission in, they could not get any money because they were told that it did not meet the criteria. I would have thought, given the number of people that I know and the Acting Deputy President knows who visit the Central Highlands of Tasmania, that that would have been one of the most important things that some of that $58 million could have been used for.As we know, tourism is so important to Tasmania. We have mainly a coastal based tourism industry. What is important in terms of our tourist industry and use of the sea, et cetera, is a mobile phone service, from a safety point of view. It is fundamentally important, yet we still have not managed to progress to that stage. We have in some areas, but we are a long way short of what we really should have in terms of telecommunications services, particularly mobile phone services.It is the same on the islands and for Internet services for the islands. There is one Internet service provider on Flinders Island, in the local council chambers—one. If the school kids want to use it, that is where they have to go. If the people around the town want to use it, the same thing applies. I think that some of that $58 million could have been well spent on some of these things. We could have had a much better service. That was certainly the indication the government gave us. That was certainly the way I perceived things would happen—that is, we would have some assessment of what services were required and we would get them.If you look at the whole plan of Telstra and its expenditure with regard to the long-term provision of telecommunications services, you see that many of the things that have happened, and even some that the government tries to claim credit for, were planned anyway. So, in effect, we got $58 million. I have tracked down around $21 million of it. It was supposed to be spent over five years, and we are into the last two-year period. I would be very interested in ascertaining, difficult as it is, even through our estimates process, how much of that money has been absorbed by administration costs. How much was it? What are the proposals to spend whatever money is left? Despite Senator Harradine's best intentions, we have been sold a pup of monumental proportions. I am not criticising all of the things that the money has been spent on because some of them have been worth while, without any shadow of doubt. In fact, they have all probably been worth while, but many of them should have been funded through other sources.We have a government which prior to the election said various things to the people about what it would and would not do. That is what we now have to look at in terms of where we are at. The government has said in the first instance that it would not sell any more than one-third, bottom line. It also said that we would never have a GST. The former opposition leader, the now Prime Minister, said, `Never, ever. It's off the agenda.'We had the government in the euphoria of the first one-third sale saying, `This is popular. All the mums and dads out there want to get their hands on this.' You could see the dollar signs in the Treasurer's eyes and hear the bells ringing in his ears about how much money he could get out of all of this and what the government could do with it. The government completely ignored the universal service obligation and the customer services that this piece of national infrastructure provides to the Australian public because it is in public ownership. Even with it being in public ownership, the executive director has been arguing with regard to the cost of the universal service obligation, which for many years, or at least recently, was put at around $250 million a year. Then all of a sudden it bounced up to $1.8 billion and we had the management of Telstra saying `This can't go on.' This is at a time when we still own two-thirds of it.This is at a time when we still have ministerial direction, which is another thing the government wants to remove and, I think as Senator Mackay pointed out, they have never used. Those are the sorts of things that will go. They will be gone forever. As has been the experience in every other country where this has happened, the installation cost of a normal phone service will become discriminatory dependent upon where you live.As we said when we argued against the first sale—and we can look at the regionalisation and cross-subsidisation that occurs in my own state—there will be significant phone costs. I appeal to all of my Tasmanian colleagues—I know I do not have to appeal to the ones on my side but I certainly appeal to those on the other side—and I appeal to Senator Harradine, who has indicated that he is going to stand firm with regard to this. I certainly hope that he does because never will there be a more important decision with regard to what is one of the most important pieces of national infrastructure that we have under public ownership.We must keep the remaining two-thirds of Telstra in public ownership to ensure that the Australian public receives the sort of service and technology that they rightly deserve. If we let that go, we will have information rich and information poor in this country, without a shadow of a doubt. It will all depend on where you live. If we let that happen, then as a parliament we will have abrogated our responsibilities. The government that said it would never do it will be judged at the end of the day. It may take time for some of these things to happen, but people will feel the brunt. It is bad enough in the bush and in the rural regions of this country as it is. We know that banks are reducing services, that they are struggling in economic terms. But we should not allow this government to impose the removal of services that will occur if it is allowed to get this bill through this chamber.12:04:002575Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—At stake in this debate is $671 million of improvement to telecommunications and the environment in regional Australia. This package will be funded from the next 16 per cent sale of Telstra, which will leave the government with 50.1 per cent majority control. This sale bill will not allow us to sell any more of Telstra unless an independent inquiry certifies that Telstra meets acceptable service standards. This is particularly vital to country people.When the coalition came to power in 1996 we found a couple of things. We found firstly that we inherited a $10 billion black hole for the 1996-97 budget and secondly that the tens of billions of dollars from Labor's privatisations—the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, CSL and others—had been spent on running expenses. They wasted the money that they received from the sale of public assets. That was unforgivable and people need to be reminded of it. We inherited an econ omy that had substantial public debt and budget debt and we have set about fixing that economy. We have put in the hard yards and, whilst there is still a lot more to be done, we have made an encouraging start.I put on record some of the things we have done. Interest rates are the lowest since the 1960s, a saving to average home buyers of about $4,000 a year in interest payments. Inflation is under two per cent, there is healthy consumer confidence and throughout 1998 our growth rate was an impressive 4.7 per cent, ahead of Britain, France and Germany. In spite of the Asian downturn and recession for most of our major trading partners, they look at us with great envy. I am not saying that there are not areas of regional Australia that are not doing it tough. I more than anybody appreciate how difficult things are in regional Australia. I feel for those people because I am one of them.As we flagged prior to the 1996 election and despite Labor's illogical opposition, we sold one-third of Telstra. I listened to Senator Murphy saying that we promised to sell one-third and that now we want to sell more. I remind Senator Murphy that we have just won another election, in October 1998. I do not think anybody could have imagined that we were not going to continue on and try to sell Telstra, subject of course to the compensation package for regional Australia.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It was our policy.CX5Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALD—It was our policy. It was a mistake for Senator Murphy to try to run that line. We sold one-third of Telstra and we received about $14 billion. Just to remind Senator Murphy, the selling charges for the sale of Telstra were about $180 million, substantially less than the compensation package. He said that the compensation package for the bush is less than the selling charges from the first tranche of Telstra. That is incorrect. I just want to put that on record.We used a substantial part of the proceeds of that first tranche of Telstra to retire public debt, unlike our Labor opponents. When they got public money from the sale of public assets they spent it on things like Mr Keating's new prints for his cabinet room. We used $250 million to create the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund, which enables communities to improve local communications services using local solutions. We created the $1.25 billion Natural Heritage Trust, Australia's most impressive and comprehensive program of on-ground environmental work to date. I doubt that anybody anywhere would disagree with the good work that the Natural Heritage Trust is doing. That trust has been a resounding success, funding major projects in partnership with state agencies through to the activities of hundreds of volunteer Landcare groups and school children across the nation.We also funded the Centenary of Federation Fund. I do not think anybody would disagree that those hundreds of projects right across regional Australia have been a terrific success. As we move now to the centenary of Federation, there are a lot of wonderful facilities like the Tamworth regional entertainment centre that would not have been built if it had not been for the provision of that money out of the sale of the first tranche of Telstra.Under the provisions of the bill presently before us, we will deliver a more impressive telecommunications upgrade Australia wide. The benefits conditional on the sale of this further 16 per cent of Telstra have been detailed by previous government speakers, but as someone from regional New South Wales whose neighbours have poor TV reception and do battle with mobile phone black spots along the New England Highway and as someone from a region where Internet services are slower, if they exist at all, and more costly than in the city, and where people have often waited more than a decade for SBS television, I can say that regional communities are clamouring for this package of benefits.The abolition of the pastoral call rate and the provision of untimed local calls in extended zones in remote Australia, as discussed by Senator Boswell, are just simply wonderful initiatives. They are simply wonderful initiatives which those people will be grateful for and which they should have had years ago.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Which the National Party achieved.CX5Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALD—They did, absolutely. In mid-1998 we had extensive debate about the relationship between telco ownership and service levels in regional Australia. Together with my National Party colleagues and other colleagues from regional areas—and my colleague Senator Ian Macdonald was here just a minute ago—we argued for two things: a continued sell-down of Telstra, but only with reassurances that regional customers would not be left behind by a fully privatised carrier, missing out on essential upgrades and technological advances. In fact, it is only with this sale that we can provide the funds for infrastructure and customer service guarantees that are essential.People forget that a publicly owned Telstra has not provided all that regional Australia wants. The freeing up of this capital will allow the government to direct funds to regional areas. We recall that the corporatised Telstra of Mr Beazley took the brunt of the substantial loss of jobs after 1989 and the services that regional Australia require were certainly not provided by a corporatised Telstra. People should be reminded of that again and again. A publicly owned Telstra has not necessarily met the expectations of regional Australia. This is the only chance we have to free up capital and allow this money to be used by the government to provide that infrastructure that is essential.In this bill we see the results of that determination. It will provide a better deal for country customers with $150 million to be spent on major rural infrastructure upgrades; the resolution of a longstanding rural customer grievance in the abolition of the pastoral call at the cost of $150 million; an additional $250 million for the Natural Heritage Trust, which I said before was a wonderful project and has met the expectations of a whole range of community people; an additional $20 million for the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund; and a move to full sale only when we have rock-solid guarantees that Telstra is meeting its customer service obligations in every part of Australia.A by-product of the 1998 debate was closer scrutiny of Telstra service performance in regional areas. I am very pleased about that. The government has been monitoring Telstra's performance in this area, but in 1998 we announced even tougher penalties for the national carrier if businesses and residential customers have to put up with excessive delays in phone connections or repairs.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—The other mob never had any penalties.CX5Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALD—That is right. If any telephone carrier is more than five days late in fixing a telephone fault, it must pay customers a fine of $40 a day. Telstra has two days to fix phone faults in regional Australia and three days to fix phone faults in remote areas before late fees are charged. This government introduced late fees because we are determined that telephone companies, whoever they are and whatever their shareholding, will meet the customer service standards that we set.Telstra no longer has a natural monopoly of communication services in Australia. When a provider of an essential service like telecommunications no longer has a natural monopoly, as is the case here, the arguments put up against privatisation have to be stronger than what we are hearing from our Labor opponents. People in regional Australia are concerned about service and value. The ownership per se is substantially irrelevant to many people, except in the crude political value that it has to some people in the Labor Party and the telecommunication unions.So Labor's position that the government should remain the majority shareholder to ensure acceptable service levels and technological development is totally wrong and irrelevant. We know from the views of those people prepared to put their private views down publicly in the many books being produced by Labor MPs and senators—a veritable publishing house on Labor's frontbench; it was described more as a book club than a frontbench—that selling Telstra has long been in the back of Labor Party members' minds, including Mr Keating, Mr Tanner, recently Mr Latham and the well-known understanding of Mr Beazley's private views put to Mr Blount when Mr Beazley was the minister for communications and when Mr Blount was still the Chief Executive Officer of Telstra.Labor have nowhere to go in this debate. They will say here today that, yes, we need better communications services, but they will offer no ideas about how to fund them. After all, they had 13 years to do something about regional communications and did very little. All we will get from Labor will be antiprivatisation cant, all of this from a group of legendary privatisers. As I said earlier, they sold public assets, took the money and ran away. The same people who sold off Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have the hide to suggest that we have not formulated this policy with the best interests of Australia and Australians at heart—all this from a party with no policies and no future until they get some.12:15:002577Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I rise to speak about a government bent on destroying any public infrastructure. The Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 and related bills seek to remove from public hands one of the most innovative and successful telecommunications enterprises in the world and seek to allow any profits generated to be put into the hands of private owners, not given back to the public.As more is sold, smaller returns of the profit will be given back to the Commonwealth. In 1996, Telstra returned well over $1 billion to the Commonwealth that then could be used by the government. If Telstra were privately owned, all those profits could eventually flow offshore and eventually telecommunications could represent another burden on our balance of payments.They may bleat about ownership being open to everyone, but only those with spare money can afford to buy shares, and that also rules out the young. If the youth award goes through, they will not have any spare money to spend, let alone invest for the future. So the ideological position of the Howard government is still on track, the ideology that continues to concentrate wealth and access to civil societies in the hands of the few instead of the many.We have seen it with health, employment and social support and now this government wants to interfere with communications. How long would untimed calls remain if Telstra were privatised? How long before there would be extra charges for speaking at length to loved ones, particularly loved ones in the same area? In smaller communities, the elderly rely on local calls to keep them in touch. They chat for hours on the phone to their loved ones as their age may preclude them from being mobile. Can you imagine the social tragedy some of the elderly would face if their social lines were disconnected or timed?Privatisation often means job cuts. As the profit driven agenda supersedes any concerns regarding customer service or long-term research and development, the service times become longer and rural needs come a poor last. The proof of labour cuts is evident as the sale of one-third of Telstra meant the loss of over 20,000 jobs—over 20,000 jobs that were most likely concentrated in rural Australia. These were not jobs rural Australia could afford to lose, nor were these job losses without consequences.One glaring example pertains to my home state of Tasmania where the emergency numbers are in the process of being rationalised, although there is nothing rational about this process. An unfortunate person had an accident and an emergency call was placed, but the person who took the call was in another state and did not know there was a place with the same name in Victoria. Thus, an ambulance was dispatched not only to the wrong place but to the wrong state.This event and many like it show how ill-conceived the staff cuts were. Figures from the Australian Communications Authority show that, from December 1996 to June 1998, new services connected were down by nine per cent, faults fixed in one day were down by 12 per cent and faults fixed in two days were down by nine per cent. For payphones—the phones the poor people have to use because they cannot afford to keep a phone—the situation is even worse. The public phone one-day turnaround dropped by 19 per cent and the two-day turnaround dropped by 16 per cent. These figures reflect the national average. In rural Australia, the situation is significantly worse. Remember, these changes occurred after only one-third was sold. Would the situation be three times worse if we sold it all? If that is the case, rural Australia had better brush up on its morse code.Again, we are faced with a government driven by the bottom line. Like the Titanic—they saw the iceberg but could not change course—we have in this government Captain GST and his crew of privatisation pirates driving the ship of the Australian nation onto the rocks of privilege and division. The selling of Telstra, like the GST, is old, unimaginative policy left over from the 1980s. The rest of the world is moving from the soulless and heartless policies of Thatcher and Reagan, yet this Howard government is still trapped in the fog created by the illusion makers called economic theorists. These theories, not facts, with low rates of accuracy when predicting the future of economic outcomes, drive this government.How can we measure the cost of social isolation? Imagine one young person in rural Australia who is depressed, depressed due to having no work, depressed because they have to rely on the family. They head for a phone box to call one of the support lines but, unfortunately, the phone does not work because there just is not the maintenance staff to fix it and records kept on the use of that phone show it is just not economically viable. Thus, they leave it until one day the phone is removed. There are no performance indicators that measure the feelings of that young person and there is no way of knowing what action could have been avoided if the phone had been fixed.The government may say they will pass legislation to ensure basic services will not be compromised, but we heard that last time. We heard the false promises that services, especially to rural areas, would be maintained, that maintenance would not be run down and, most importantly, that essential services would not be interfered with or decline. But as the facts show, this is not the case and never could be the case.Private companies do not look after the average Australian and especially rural Australia. There is no conspiracy here, but the goals of private industry are to maximise the return of shareholders. They cannot and will not look after the communication needs of sectors that cost them more money than they generate. No amount of legislation can stop the inevitable—that is, they must return a profit to their shareholders—and any legislation to protect non-income or revenue negative services will be eroded over time, leaving the poor and rural communities without equal access to communication, one of the most important tools for emotional wellbeing and commerce in the world.The cost of privatisation was $275 million, and the Auditor-General found that the price received was considerably under value. So not only did it cost the taxpayer money to sell that asset but, when it was sold, we gave it away. We certainly got no value for the $275 million we paid to sell it. So underpriced were our shares, we would have received more for the 16.7 per cent we were going to sell than for the 33 per cent we have already sold. With these sorts of business strategies, we cannot afford to sell it as it would cost too much. The only way to guarantee adequate service provisions in nonprofit returning areas is to ensure that Telstra remains firmly in the hands of the public. As vividly demonstrated since the part-sale, private ownership means an erosion in maintenance service and the erosion of access to minimum standards of service in rural Australia. Any further sale of Telstra may mean that not only will rural Australia have no services, they will not even be able to ring and let anyone know.An example of this government's telecommunications policies in rural areas was highlighted by the member for Braddon, Mr Sidebottom, after a recent visit to King Island. Sid described a community without mobile phones, with poor Internet services, an unreliable fax system, an outdated landline phone system, poor television reception, no SBS and, again, numerous problems with the 000 emergency system.We have discovered the Howard government's strategy for rural Australia—dis connect them. This government is establishing a reputation for dissent. It is called the cone of silence, and that is what any further sale of Telstra would mean for rural and regional Australia.12:26:002579Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I have just come from my room where I have been speaking to an old friend of mine—in the sense that I have known him for some years—and his name is Lindsay Rose. He is up visiting this part of the world with his wife, Norma. Why do I mention Lindsay and his wife, Norma, in the context of the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 ? I mention him in this context because he is a very successful business man. He started off with a garage in Richmond, a suburb of Melbourne, and has now got a flourishing business, a big business, that deals with helicopters and services to that sort of aircraft. He has done a lot of research in Australia looking for mineral deposits.The business that he has built up is marked with his character and his determination. He knows how to run that business because he has grown up with it and it has taken on his character, and a good character it is, too. That is how I like to see businesses established—people invest in an idea and, having invested in that idea, build up a successful business based on that idea.If this bill goes through and more of Telstra is sold, what is being sold is not a business that has been built up by the energy, the drive and the ideas of a particular person, the sort of person we need to increase the wealth and the ability of Australia to find its place in the world. We are not doing that. If we go ahead with this legislation, we will sell a business which will suck money out of the community which could be better used in establishing other businesses, whether they be small, medium or big.The point I want to make about this legislation is this: this is an attack on the investment funds of Australia, an attack in the sense that those funds are going to go to a secure business that has been set up in a particular way with a particular character over many years. As this business becomes more and more private, what sort of character is it going to have; what sort of vision is it going to have; what sort of culture is it going to have? It is going to obviously have a very different culture and a very different character from what it has had up to now. Are people—such as the people in the country that we have spoken about—going to get the service that they now expect?There are two points I want to make. First, this is not a bill that gets businesses going in the sense that Lindsay Rose got his business going. This is a bill that takes money out of the community, which might have been better spent in establishing a Lindsay Rose type business, and uses it for a well-established business, one that is already going.Secondly, this bill will introduce investment into a company that changes its character and culture in such a way that we really do not know how it is going to work—except that we know this: it is going to threaten the provision of services to the country and remote areas. Why do I say that? I say that because there is a determination on the part of the government to regulate and to make sure that services are provided in the country or in remote areas. If this privatisation were such a good thing, why do we need such heavy legislation or regulation to make sure that the people who are entitled to services get them? I noticed the following statement on the third page of the second reading speech:An additional $81 million over three years will be provided to the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund, which was established from the proceeds of the one third sale of Telstra—which has already taken place. It goes on:$20 million of these additional funds are for enhancing telecommunications in remote and isolated island communities such as the Torres Strait, the Cocos (Keeling) group; Christmas, King, Norfolk, Flinders, Kangaroo and other Islands; and the Australian Antarctic Territories.Senator Denman spoke eloquently about the situation in King Island. Mr Acting Deputy President Calvert, as a Tasmanian yourself, you would know King Island is part of the great state of Tasmania. In fact, it is the very island on which I was born. As I listened to Senator Denman speaking of the disadvantages that people on that island were suffering in terms of communications, I was worried as to the way things will now go once the character of Telstra starts to change and people are looking more and more to see what sort of return they get for their shares rather than looking at what services they can provide to places like King Island.It does change the character of Telstra, because it is only fair that people who buy shares in a company get a reasonable return on them. The shareholders of a company—in the theory of some, in any event—are the owners of that company. Having committed capital to acquiring a share in the ownership of a company, they are entitled to a return. That could certainly lead—and this has been spoken about again and again in speeches before mine—to a tension between the need to have Telstra bring services to places which do not have the sort of profit hoped for and the entitlement of people to have a fair return on their money. The less of Telstra that is sold, the less that tension becomes an issue.The fact that one-third of Telstra has been sold already is by no means justification for saying—if people came to this point—that up to 49 per cent of it should be sold, because that will not make any difference. It will make a difference for the reasons I have already outlined. First, you have to have a return to the shareholder, which creates a tension between that shareholder's entitlement and the reasonable expectations that people have in remote areas and other places where profits cannot easily be made—in fact, in which there may be losses. That tension will increase with the increase in the private ownership of the company. The second point is that the culture and the character of this company changes as more of it is sold off. I notice, too, that quite substantial figures are mentioned in this second reading speech as to what will be given to what is called the social bonus. It states:The Government has included in the Bill its election commitments regarding the social bonus from the first tranche of the further sale. The social bonus funding is automatically allocated from the proceeds of the next partial sale when those proceeds reach $671 million, which is the total cost of the social bonus elements. I believe that the profit made by Telstra in the last 12 months or so is about to be announced—I think I am right in that. Two-thirds of that profit go to the public, the taxpayers, the citizens of this country generally; and one-third goes to those who, as private individuals, hold shares in Telstra.Let us suppose that, when that profit is announced, the amount coming to the public purse is in excess of $671 million. How good does the statement I have read out look then? In other words, if what the public will get from the profits of Telstra exceeds the various promises as to the amount of money that will be spent upon the social bonus, things will be in a pretty state indeed. The amount of money to be spent on the social bonus will be spent only once if Telstra is sold; whereas the amount of money able to be spent from the profit of Telstra year by year is a bit like the magic pudding in that the profit keeps repeating itself and thus does give an ability for government to take that profit and spend it in a social bonus way. So to talk about selling Telstra and to say, `Look, from these proceeds, we're going to do all these sorts of things,' does not seem to be very sensible at all. Indeed, that is a point that has been made again and again in this debate.My next point is this: even though this sale of Telstra has been debated again and again on a number of occasions over extensive periods and with there having been inquiries into it, I think there is still a question mark over what the benefit will be from the sale of any more of Telstra. What will the social benefits and disadvantages be to the public from the sale of Telstra? What will the cultural benefits and disadvantages be?There are many cultural issues that go with Telstra. For example, there is the length of time you can speak on the phone. Will there now be—and we are assured that there will not be—a pressure to time phone calls, both local and overseas, to ensure consistency? If that happens, it will change the way we carry out our social intercourse and the sort of culture that we have, because the conversations we have with others determine to a considerable extent the sort of culture we follow. Has that been looked at? Have the mechanics of getting all Telstra's facilities into the country been looked at in the detail necessary, if those in the country are to be assured they will get the services they want?For example, we hear a lot about Telstra needing to go into a worldwide net, if you like; that it would be much easier for Telstra to become a world body, part of a world net of telecommunications, if it were private and, therefore, unhampered by the pressure that might be brought to bear by national interests, by the fact that a government has to look to national interests. If Telstra were privatised, perhaps that would not be an issue. Also, if Telstra were privatised, it might be easier to become part of a worldwide organisation. But if Telstra becomes part of a worldwide organisation, what sort of regard will it have for remote places like King Island, like the rural areas in many parts of Australia? Has that issue been looked at in detail? I have the feeling that it has not.Yet we are going to rush down the path of trying to sell the whole of Telstra. That is what the legislation we are now discussing purports to do, although it seems to be quite clear from what Senator Harradine has said that that will not happen. But for us simply to say, `Look, we're not going to sell all of Telstra but we're going to sell an extra percentage of it,' which will bring the amount in private hands up to 49 per cent and leave 51 per cent in public hands, leaving the public with control because the government still has 51 per cent of it, and that therefore it is all right, is logic of a sort I believe to be unsound.As I have said before, the more of Telstra that goes into private hands, the more likely it is that we will be faced with those sorts of things I have been talking about—becoming part of the worldwide net, looking legitimately to the profit that goes to shareholders and coping with the cultural effects there might be. All those issues still remain. I think we would be taking a very unfortunate step in selling any more of Telstra than has been sold already. The previous sale of one-third of Telstra has brought about bad returns already. It is leading further and further to a regime where regulation will be more and more the order of the day.What has happened is that the government has sold a third, and it wants to sell more. The government, having seen all these problems arising, rushes to the regulatory regime. It is a bit like saying, `Yes, we want to privatise this because it's going to bring all these good results. But we know that, once we privatise it, either wholly or in part, we're going to have all sorts of problems; and the only way we can do anything about that is to bring in a strong regulatory regime.' Like a lot of the regulatory regimes this government has brought in, there is always the question of whether that regime will be enforced. That is the great issue.Debate interrupted.Matters of Public Interest258210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—Order! It being 12.45 p.m., I call on matters of public interest.258212:45:002582Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I am pleased to be able to stand today to discuss yesterday's joint announcement by the Attorney-General and the Minister for Aged Care that the government will abolish compulsory age retirement limits for statutory office holders. That is subject to suitable exemptions for particular office holders, such as those in the military service.Many in this chamber may remember back when Labor was in government when Senator Baume and I teamed up time and time again to move amendments to enable people serving on boards of statutory authorities to remain in those positions after the age of 65. Labor always found some impediment or some excuse as to why they could not bring in a bill to do this in an overall manner. Every time a bill came into the chamber which had a particular statutory authority associated with it, Senator Baume and I would move amendments to eliminate the compulsory retirement age. There was absolutely no commitment at all by Labor to abolish discrimination in this form against older people.It is especially appropriate that the progressive amendment of legislation to abolish age requirements for statutory office holders occur during this year, the International Year of Older Persons; a year in which the government is committed to looking across all portfolios to address issues of ageism. The department will look to do something to promote older people, to make life easier for older people or to do something that will facilitate things for older people. Every department is committed in the celebration of the International Year of Older Persons to addressing their own portfolios to see whether there are things that can be done. I am delighted to see that this is just one example of the outcome of our planning over the last 18 months for this international year.Labor's record of inaction on age discrimination is nothing short of shameful. In 1990 the then minister for social security, Graham Richardson, gave an undertaking to remove age discrimination from all existing federal legislation. The promise was never delivered. In 1993 Senator Nick Bolkus stated:The Attorney-General's Department is working towards the development of a comprehensive Commonwealth age discrimination policy.That was never delivered. As I said, Senator Baume and I, in that environment and that climate, teamed up to move amendments to enable people serving on boards of statutory authorities to remain after the age of 65.When I was shadow minister for senior citizens, aged care, women and the arts, I visited the National Maritime Museum. They gave me a perfect example of a retired naval officer who was just 65, who had been serving on the National Maritime Museum with all his maritime experience, with all his naval experience and was going to have to retire from the museum board because he had turned 65. Yet only yesterday I heard on the radio of an Australian doctor who is working in Ethiopia, serving the people in Ethiopia, women in particular who have fistulas and who are outcasts in their communities as a result of the incontinence that comes from that. She is 75 years of age and still operat ing. She had come home to have a cataract removed so that she could continue her work. She is still operating and says that she has no intention of retiring. There she is at 75, an Australian doctor over the last 40 years making a tremendous contribution to Ethiopia. She is a tremendous example of the work that Australians are doing here and overseas well into their 70s and 80s. To say that somebody has to retire at 65 is absolutely outrageous.Labor had no will and no determination to do anything about it. They always found an impediment. They always found a problem with allowing people over age 65 to serve on statutory authorities and to continue working in the Public Service. The weak argument they kept bringing up with regard to people over 65 working in the Public Service was about compensation. When would compensation end if they got sick? It seemed to be within the wit of almost every other state jurisdiction to find out how to solve that, but not the Labor Party when it was in government.There was absolutely no commitment by Labor to abolish discrimination against older people. There was absolutely no recognition by them, in turn, that people over 65 had anything to offer in terms of wisdom and experience. Under Labor we were losing wisdom and experience, losing a contribution that older people could make. By contrast, the abolition of compulsory retirement has been part of Liberal policy since 1988. But, unlike Labor, who are all talk and no action, we have done something about it.The coalition has always believed that it is in our national interest to ensure that our mature and skilled work force is productively employed as long as possible. In 1992 I introduced the Public Service (Abolition of Compulsory Retirement Age) Amendment Bill. It was in the Senate and it lapsed. We had an election, and I resubmitted the private member's bill in 1995. The bill lay on the table of the Senate. There was no action from the Labor Party. They would not bring the bill on for debate. They always found some excuse.It has taken a coalition government to put into action real and effective changes to address this inequity. We did it in opposition as far as we could by bringing in amendments. We had agreement from the Democrats to support those amendments. It took the coalition to begin planning for the International Year of Older Persons and to see this legislation, which was announced yesterday about the elimination of compulsory retirement at 65 for statutory authorities, brought on for debate.We had a Public Service Bill before this chamber in the last parliament which had a number of reforms which would have allowed for a dynamic and flexible Public Service. The bill was vital for good government and effective delivery of quality of services to the public. We saw a huge number of amendments from Labor that, as Dr David Kemp said, were a great `backward leap'. He went on to say, and I quote from a press release he put out:They are unduly prescriptive and contain excessive regulatory controls, which could lead to reduced levels of service to the public and less satisfying work conditions for staff.That bill was brought in here twice. The opposition parties tried to amend it. The government would not accept those amendments. But hidden in that event was the loss of the abolition of the compulsory retirement age of 65, because in that bill were a number of clauses which would remove compulsory retirement for public servants.I cannot tell senators how often public servants have come up to me—attendants here in Parliament House and various people I come in contact with—when I brought those private member's bills in and said, `I would like to be able to continue working but I cannot.' I see people like my father, who at 76 is still running a factory and working five days a week, and that doctor I mentioned, who at 75 is still working in Ethiopia.There are some public servants, not a huge number, who would like to continue working, especially those public servants who have been on lower incomes. They may have come into the work force later. They may be women who have come back into the work force or have been widowed or, for some reason, their incomes have been low and who would be eligible for the pension at 65. If they were able to continue working in the Public Service on a part-time basis for 20 hours a week, if they were eligible at 65 for the pension—and there could be women who are a little younger, as we are phasing in the pension age of 65 for women—and able to continue working for five years, they would be eligible for a bonus of $21,000 tax free for a single person or $35,000 for a couple. For many of those people that is an amount of money they would never save in their whole lifetimes. But because that legislation was defeated in the chamber in the last parliament, that chance is not there for them.They miss out in two ways: not only those who want to continue working will miss out on being able to continue working but also those who would be eligible for a pension and who would have been able to continue working will miss out on the bonus. I want honourable senators, when Minister Kemp returns that bill to this chamber, to think very carefully about what they are doing. It might not matter for people in here who stand to get a pension. What they are doing is denying those people who are on the cusp—aged 63, 64 or 65. They do not have time to wait for us to fiddle here. They want the answer now. They want that discrimination taken out of the bill now because it affects them personally.I want honourable senators to think about that when that bill returns, as no doubt Dr Kemp will again attempt to reform the Public Service. The Public Service Act has been around for 75 years and been subject to hundreds of amendments. It was due for reform. It was due to be changed. But my particular interest in the Public Service Bill was the clauses that abolish the compulsory retirement age of 65.I commend the Attorney-General and I commend the Minister for Aged Care for bringing this reform forward to eliminate the compulsory retirement age for statutory office holders. I think it is a great contribution and another example of eliminating discrimination within our society, within our community, and yet another example of the government's commitment to the International Year of Older Persons.258412:58:002584Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The Labor Party has on a number of occasions in this chamber raised serious issues about the behaviour, history and ethics of the Liberal Party's pollster, Mark Textor. We have done this for two reasons. Firstly, Mr Textor's sordid history raises serious concerns about his fitness to obtain the many government research contracts which increasingly appear to be going his way. Revelations about his past behaviour in the Northern Territory and as the pollster behind the disgraceful Canberra by-election push polling scandal show his actions to be unethical, illegal and immoral.Secondly, we raise these matters to expose—and by exposing we hope to end—the disturbing rise of wedge politics of which Mark Textor is an unashamed practitioner. Wedge politics operates on the cynical and shameful political calculation that you can win in politics only when you divide the community. His research methodology is designed to identify, exploit and inflame division for the benefit of his political clientele.Understandably, Mark Textor is not happy with the attention he is getting over the allegations we have brought into this place. He and his political masters are best served by his ongoing anonymity and lack of accountability. His defence has been a mixture of flat denial and counterattack in the face of overwhelming and irrefutable evidence. Mark Textor thinks he is a brilliant pollster who strikes fear into the heart of the Labor Party. He no doubt delights in that self-delusion. His defenders in the Liberal Party also claim that we are out to get him because he is a strategic genius. He is and they are sadly misguided.The Labor Party is not frightened of Mark Textor. We regard him as far from brilliant. We are not intimidated by his strategic genius, because we see no evidence that he possesses any. The only genius uncovered in Mark Textor's polling in 1998 should be attributed to the Labor Party campaign. If you believe his figures published in the Bulletin, Labor's primary vote jumped by seven points over the course of the campaign period.We were also intrigued by the Liberal's failure to exert pressure on Labor in a number of areas where our own research showed us to be a little vulnerable. We waited and waited, but the assault never came. Instead, we watched as the Liberal Party resorted to polluting the letter boxes of elderly Australians with direct mail on our capital gains tax policy—a scare campaign that singularly failed to make a dent in our support, even amongst the groups it targeted.We object to Mark Textor because as a market researcher and pollster he is ethically unscrupulous, unprofessional and—judging by his outlandish poll numbers published in the Bulletin before last year's election—incompetent. As a concrete example of Mark Textor's unethical and unprofessional research methods, the Labor Party has obtained videotapes of focus groups Mark Textor conducted in 1993 in the Northern Territory as director of his front company, Territory Focus Consulting. Territory Focus Consulting had entered into a contract with the Northern Territory government to conduct focus group research into community perceptions of government policy and programs.The use of taxpayers' money for government research can be for legitimate purposes. An example would be the testing of community perceptions on the provision of health or education services using legitimate research methods. This was clearly not the case with the research performed under the contract Textor signed with the Northern Territory Chief Minister's Department on 14 April 1993 and through which Textor was paid $740 a day of Northern Territory taxpayers' money. The contract, issued without any tender process, was hastily put together at the behest of the Country Liberal Party. It was arranged by Mr Paul Cowdy, who at the time worked for CLP Chief Minister Marshall Perron. Textor wrote to Paul Cowdy on 19 April 1993 in an attempt to present the research as a bona fide use of taxpayers' money. Cowdy also witnessed Textor's signature on the $740 a day contract. Cowdy now sits at the right hand of the current CLP Chief Minister, Denis Burke, as his senior political adviser. Andrew Coward, the confessed co-conspirator, supervised the contract as the key operative in Marshall Perron's office.We have stated earlier that this contract was a sham. The videotapes of the 1993 focus groups now provide graphic evidence that this contract represents a blatant and improper abuse of the established convention that taxpayers' money should not be used for covert party political purposes. The videos—of two separate focus group discussions held on the same day in April 1993—show that Mark Textor relentlessly pursued political lines of inquiry, such as:Who is the Chief Minister and how would you describe him? Have you heard of the Leader of the Opposition before today? If there were one word to describe him, what would it be? So we are on Brian Ede—what do you think of him? How would you describe him? Why is land rights a bad thing? Would you vote for the crowd that is in or the crowd that is out? Just before I give you your dough, let's go around the table. If you had to make a hard decision, which way would you go?This is the stuff of political focus groups, pure and simple. And it should have been paid for by the end user of the research data—the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party. This is simply a more direct version of the 1990 strategy devised by Mark Textor and enacted by Brian Sweeney and Associates where Northern Territory taxpayers paid the overwhelming majority of the cost of the focus groups and where two reports resulted, with the more useful and detailed report going exclusively to the CLP.The videos also show Textor testing out divisive issues to be slotted into CLP wedge politics campaigns, with direct questions on land rights, ownership and control of national parks and excessive government interference in the Territory's unrestricted lifestyle. He was teasing out language and concepts for the use of the CLP in the 1994 election. He was doing it on the payroll of the Northern Territory government in direct breach of at least section 45 of the Northern Territory Self-Government Act.As he grilled these unsuspecting participants for their political insights, in a room nearby on closed-circuit television sat a number of CLP political operatives, including Andrew Coward from the Chief Minister's office. Think about this for one moment—a party official sitting in on party-political focus group research corruptly commissioned by the Northern Territory government and funded out the pockets of taxpayers.And now we come to the lies. In the course of the focus group sessions, Mark Textor wilfully lied repeatedly. He lied about his client. He claimed on one occasion that he was working for businesses down south and on another that he had no client at all but would sell the research to the highest bidder once completed. In fact, when specifically asked whether he was working for the Liberal or Labor governments, he explicitly denied that. In fact, his nominal client was the Northern Territory government—at least that is who paid his fee. His real client was the CLP.He lied about the video. He claimed that the video was for his use only and would be taped over or destroyed immediately after the session was completed. In fact, it was not a stand-alone video recorder but a closed-circuit television beamed into a neighbouring room for the benefit of interested but unidentified onlookers. And the video was never taped over or destroyed but was kept indefinitely in the files of the CLP.He lied about himself. He claimed he knew nothing about the Northern Territory, having, he said, only spent six months there a few years ago. In fact, Mark Textor was born and raised in Darwin. It was where he cut his political teeth. As a member of the Market Research Society of Australia, he is bound by the professional code of conduct that governs the industry. Under these guidelines Mark Textor is not obliged to reveal his client, and that is fair enough. But creating fictional clients to appease concerned participants is a clear breach. Lying about his own personal history was simply gratuitous dishonesty.A market researcher is permitted to take video recordings of his focus groups, but only when he or she explicitly spells out what they intend to do with them and gains approval from the interviewees. He is also obliged under the guidelines to inform the group if a closed-circuit television is in use and, if so, who is watching. He did neither. As a market researcher he is further obliged to protect the security of the tapes and thereby the privacy of the participants. The fact that in 1999 we have obtained copies of the five-year-old tapes amply illustrates that he failed to do this as well.Irresponsibly, Mark Textor plied the participants with alcohol—no doubt in an attempt to elicit their innermost feelings—and then stood by as many pulled out their car keys and made their way home. Mark Textor was consistently and flagrantly in breach of the code of professional conduct that governs his profession. He lied, allowed unauthorised parties to witness the proceedings, failed to protect the privacy of the participants and calmly watched them leave to drive home, intoxicated from the alcohol he provided.This new evidence shows he is a market researcher of the most unethical, irresponsible and deceitful kind who, through his actions, has brought his profession into disrepute. Along with Andrew Robb, Mark Textor has been forced to pay a price for his corrupt and despicable actions as a Liberal Party political operative, specifically in paying substantial damages and apologising to the Labor Party candidate in the 1995 Canberra by-election. This was a specific admission that Mark Textor and the Liberal Party had used push polling techniques during an election campaign.There have been more recent examples of the Liberal Party using these abhorrent push polling methods, where personally damaging lies are knowingly peddled to sway individuals' voting intentions under the guise of polling activity. The Labor Party is aware of at least two instances where this has been used by the Liberal Party recently—during the by-election in the NSW state seat of Sutherland and in Drummoyne during the current NSW state election campaign.Similarly, the Labor Party has a range of serious questions regarding the federal government contracts going to Mark Textor's main company, Australasian Research Strategies. For instance, just before the 1998 election Mark Textor received contracts to undertake polling research in two highly political and controversial areas—namely, community attitudes on the environmental issues for the Natural Heritage Trust and on industrial relations issues for the research document attached to the leaked Reith letter to the Prime Minister.In regard to this very recent polling, we ask the Howard government: how much did these two research contracts cost the Commonwealth taxpayer? Was a proper competitive tendering process undertaken for these contracts? Was there any political interference in this tendering, the contracting, or the drafting of the tasks to be undertaken? And, most importantly, how can Commonwealth taxpayers be assured that the highly political data gathered by Mark Textor and paid for by the Commonwealth taxpayer was not passed on to the Liberal Party for use in the 1998 federal election campaign?The evidence we have outlined today demonstrates the tactics used in recent years by Mark Textor and the Liberal Party in abusing Commonwealth taxpayers' money to conduct blatantly political research. We now require the Howard government to come clean on how these fraudulent tactics have been used to spend public funds on political research for the 1998 federal election campaign. If the government will not come clean on these matters, it is our view that parliament may need to seek full details of Mr Textor's taxpayer funded political research through a wide-reaching parliamentary inquiry. The Labor Party is not raising these questions through partisan politics motivated by jealousy or self-interest on our part. Indeed, it is in our interest that the Liberal Party continues to rely on such wildly inaccurate polling. The true act of partisanship here would be for the coalition to continue to protect and defend Textor when that defence taints them with the very corruption and moral bankruptcy that he represents.258713:11:002587Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Today I want to speak in this debate about a concern I have with the federal government, particularly with their decision to de-fund the Acid Sulfate Soil Research Program of CSIRO. I am not only concerned about this; through this speech I urge the government to restore that funding because there is no doubt that this is an issue which concerns the whole of the east coast of Australia, for occurrences of acid sulfate soil problems really are endemic up and down the east coast. Without going into the scientific or technical aspects of acid sulfate soil, just to illustrate the problem, the main reason for what we call concrete cancer in the foundations of buildings is the release of acid sulfate soils. When released those soils are oxidised and sulfuric acid is formed, and that is what eats away at the steel reinforcing in concrete and causes concrete cancer.The larger problem, however, which concerns me today and which I want to illustrate is not only that it affects the foundations of buildings but also that acid sulfate soils are a very serious threat to our coastal wetlands. With the release of that material, not only is there serious pollution of those wetlands but there is destruction of flora and fauna as well. I want to illustrate this by referring to a problem in the area where I live. It is just a local issue that I have become involved in and it is simply an example of the overall problem. In the coastal area where I live there has been for some years a sandmining operation, which has now closed down. The most recent owner of that operation is the very large international company CSR, and the gravel and sand which were taken from that area were used mainly in producing ready-mix concrete. Now that the mine has been closed down there remains a very large tailings dam—very close to Elimbah Creek, which is a large creek which empties into the Pumicestone Passage, which runs between the mainland and Bribie Island and from there into Moreton Bay.Recently, the environment department of the Caboolture Shire Council produced a report which was backed up by one of the senior water officers of the Department of Natural Resources. In that report they expressed concern about the residues in the dam; they expressed concern about the erosion of the creek bank which may, in the end, breach the dam, so that what is in there could flow into Elimbah Creek; they were concerned about the possibility of recent heavy rain flooding across the dam and into the creek; and they were concerned about leaching of material in the creek itself. All of these issues have been raised both with CSR and with the Caboolture Shire Council.I recently attended a meeting chaired by the Caboolture Shire Council, at their invitation, in order to look at this issue. At the meeting, I questioned CSR about the council report and the Department of Natural Resources support for that report. Unfortunately, I did not get an answer. This was not necessarily entirely CSR's fault, because the meeting jumped all over the place. However, I was concerned about the behaviour of CSR as a very large international company. They seemed to want to focus on just one person in the Caboolture community who has been raising this issue for some years. I was interested that officers of CSR made statements like, `Mr Rob King has been persecuting CSR for years.' We are talking about a large international company claiming to be persecuted by an ordinary citizen. If it wasn't so laughable, one could cry.They continued to attack Rob King, who was present at the meeting, by accusing him of telling half-truths and of putting before that meeting and other meetings evidence which they said was not true. But they really did not, in any sense, attack the evidence presented or deal with the issue. They seemed to want to spend the whole time attacking the person. There were other people at the meeting—although I do not know how they got there, because I was notified by the council of the people who would be there. These other people also seemed to support CSR by attacking Rob King. They inferred that he had a mental condition et cetera. I was horrified by these tactics. After all, in the end, it is the issues that count; and to personally attack someone who has, at his own expense, taken samples, who has gone out of his way to try and get the scientific evidence which could be considered by both sides in a calm way, seems to me to be a very strange tactic indeed.I hope that the Caboolture Shire Council will seek further scientific evidence, because that is the only thing that can decide these kinds of issues. The issue is not about whether this person or some other person has caused problems for the council or for a large company; it is an issue that really ought to be decided on the evidence. To that end, I invited a friend of mine, who is a marine scientist, to spend half a day in the area examining the samples which were available and also looking at the documentation—much of it from CSR itself. He works for the United Kingdom environment body and also for the government in Great Britain. He lives in Australia but spends some months every year in Great Britain doing that work, as well as in Canada. I hope that the council will take seriously his research and his suggestions about what needs to be done. The concern I have is not only about the old tailings from the old mine but also about the fact that CSR is now proposing a new and much larger mine which would be located only a short distance from where the old mine is. They are proposing to mine many hectares of land, to a depth of 18 metres. I might add that this new mine will be between two large creeks, Elimbah Creek, which I have already mentioned, and Bullock Creek, both of which empty into Pumicestone Passage, which runs between the mainland and Bribie Island, as I said, and thence into Moreton Bay.We are already having serious problems with the environment of Moreton Bay. There have been a number of reports released about the serious pollution in that area. Now we are again proposing to put that whole area further at risk. Not only is this new mine between two large creeks, but we also believe the hydrology of the area is such that both of these creeks are joined by underground streams. The new mine, as with the old mine, needs careful assessment. It is in an area which regularly floods. It is a wetlands area with a couple of rare species in it—a particular species of frog and also some colonies of the false water rat.I know that, at the moment, the possibility of a restraining order being placed on the council by one of the environment groups is being discussed. I hope that that will not be needed. I urge the Caboolture Shire Council to act responsibly, to seek the scientific data which is needed and to do that independently of the company, so that we can all have on the table the kind of evidence which we need to make responsible decisions. My appeal to the Caboolture Shire Council today is, rather than to continue the kind of social dispute which we have had in that area, to do the work which is needed, to seek the kind of evidence which we should have and to put it on the table, so we can all be satisfied that, whatever decision is made, it is one that has been made on proper evidence.258913:22:002589Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—Last time we had a matters of public interest debate in the Senate I spoke about the developing drug crisis in this country. That evening, there was a public meeting in Newcastle on the drug crisis. When we set up that meeting, I thought we might get 50 to 80 people. When I turned up to the meeting, there were 120 people there and I was quite pleased with the turnout; that was about 10 minutes before the meeting was due to start. Over the following 15 minutes, the number in the hall rose to 528. What we had was a community enormously concerned with the extent of the drug crisis in this country. On the eve of the state election, we are now seeing an enormous amount of belated activity from the current Labor government in New South Wales, an enormous amount of media commentary on the issue, and people coming forward and stating how this terrible drug crisis has affected them. Interestingly, it was the media which kicked off this issue. It is funny the way the media works. Something very small and very simple might very graphically and dramatically—in this case, one photo—demonstrate the problem we have. That, of course, was of the child—he was claimed to be 12 at the time but turned out to be older than that—being helped to shoot up in a back alley in Redfern. That photo galvanised the community. There has been enormous concern and an outpouring of comments on public radio and in newspapers; people have written articles about it and made speeches in public forums—as we have tried to grapple with this terrible worldwide problem.We need to look at what we are doing in this country and what is happening, because we do have a crisis that is spinning out of control. We have a very large road toll in this country, but the toll from heroin is just as dramatic and yet does not get as widely reported. I want to congratulate the Herald-Sun in Melbourne, which, when I was looking at a copy of their paper two weeks ago, reported on the bottom of page 2 the road toll to date in Victoria as being 62 and the drug death toll—from heroin overdose—as being 68. I think if that sort of public recognition of what is happening in our country becomes more widespread, we will have greater concern that state governments—who have the major responsibility in this area—actually do something effective about it.We do not see the spectacular effects of those drug deaths. If this was something like a jumbo jet crash with over 600 people killed in one hit, it would make dramatic news; but this is not what happens with heroin overdoses. In this country, these people generally die in ones and twos. Quietly, each day, they slip away. And, as a result, it does not get much public notoriety. The extent of the problem, though, is increasing at such a rate that, in most families, people will tell you either about family members or friends or people at work or people in their street who are involved in this epidemic. The experts do not seem to have any magic bullet solutions; Premier Carr admits that his policies are failing; the New South Wales Police Commissioner announced that we had lost the war on drugs; but the question really is, `Did that war ever start?'Confusion reigns in the minds of youth and the wider community as policy makers send mixed messages based on competing philosophies. We hear about harm minimisation and about Tough on Drugs—as if keeping our children alive and giving them back their lives were mutually exclusive. Our children have been educated about the danger of drugs but that does not stop them from experimenting and getting hooked. Even a gaol sentence does not help many addicts to kick the habit. We have a recidivism rate amongst our gaoled drug addicts of 70 per cent; they are back out on the streets again. Their families can spend much time putting their children through rehabilitation and other programs, but it is often to no avail—a gram of coke can be scored when the child returns to the street.I recently visited a drug addict in a prison in New South Wales. We had known this lad from a very early age and had lost contact with the family over the last 10 years. When asked how their child was going—we will call him, for the sake of this, `Jack'—we were told, `Jack is in prison; and he has been there nearly two years. Since the age of 14 he has been a heroin addict.' Jack was released from prison two weeks ago. We keep in touch with his mother. She does not see very much of him. He is back on the streets. He is back into his old habits again.Ironically, the minister for prisons in New South Wales, in a letter in response to this public meeting, rubbished the ideas which came out of the meeting about rehabilitation. He said, `We have got custodial rehabilitation in this country already—we have got it in the gaols. We have rehabilitation programs in the gaols.' Well, we see how effective it is from Jack's story. If we multiply the Jacks that are out there, we come to a situation where 70 per cent of those who are on drugs re-offend. They go back into the old cycle of drug use—many of them go back into crime, which creates danger for the community, and then they go back into gaol, at a cost of $59,000 a year each. Policies are currently failing. At this time in our state of New South Wales, we have 68,000 addicts that we know about who are shooting up on a daily basis—plus a much wider range of casual users. Faced with this enormous problem, the Carr government's response is one of considerable policy confusion.What was the Carr government's response to the photograph I referred to earlier of the boy shooting up in a back alley in Redfern? It immediately shut down that needle exchange in Redfern—just in Redfern. It did not shut down the others. That was a total knee-jerk reaction to public pressure. How can you operate public policy on that basis? When there is some negative reaction in the community, they say, `We've seen what's happening there, we'll shut that down', but they then leave the rest of the needle exchanges open. Is the Carr government in favour of needle exchanges or isn't it? We do not know from the policy confusion that it has created.They just axed one of the methadone programs yesterday out in Cabramatta, which had 300 clients. That is one of the major drug using areas in Australia and it is the lax attitude and approach to policing in that area that has created such a major problem. But, instead of putting resources into policing initially, they try a bandaid solution and try to fix the problem with methadone, which has increasingly come under criticism as a program, and there is policy confusion again. They shut down the Cabramatta methadone clinic but leave the others open. Where is the public policy direction in what they are doing?The greatest failing of the Carr government's policy is its failure to provide sufficient detoxification units for people on drugs. They are absolutely desperately needed. There is one in my area in Newcastle with an inadequate number of beds. There are units in Sydney with an inadequate number of beds. But what about the Central Coast? Two hundred and fifty thousand people live on the Central Coast but there are no detox facilities. Where are the government's priorities in the rehabilitation of people on drugs when they are opening programs then shutting them down, and setting up things like detox units but not enough of them?An even more serious situation is developing with policing. The Carr government has actually slashed the number of people policing drugs from 300 to 50. This is at a time when there has been a 50 per cent increase in heroin deaths in New South Wales since this government was voted into office. The Carr government's do-nothing policing policy means that the odds of a drug dealer getting caught in New South Wales now are about one in 2,500. That is what has happened as a result of their so-called policing policy. It is a pretty safe bet for a dealer who is aided by this understaffed police force. They would also like to turn a blind eye, because, if they catch these people, they have to put them through the court system, the gaol system and rehabilitation systems, which also creates a lot of cost. What this Carr government seems to have been doing for the last few years is actually turning a completely blind eye to the situation. The result is the enormous drug tragedy that we have before us in this nation today.Parents in the community are demanding answers. They want effective policies developed and they want the government to get really serious about what is happening with the drug crisis and what is happening with their own children. It is interesting by historical comparison that we are not in a new situation. As the 19th century drew to a close there was a major drug crisis in this country. The crisis was alcohol—the demon drink. At that time the community responded in quite an extensive way. Temperance movements were set up across the country. There was a major reduction in alcohol consumption in the early part of this century, when it went down by an enormous amount due to public pressure and what was happening in the temperance movements.In dealing with our current drug problem—narcotic drugs—we have the first glimmer of a community based approach and the public taking responsibility and initiative. This occurred in Newcastle a few weeks ago when 528 people came along to the meeting. The people who came were interesting. Because of the way we had set the night up, a lot of them had the opportunity to speak. We had drug addicts, ex-drug addicts, parents who had lost their children to drugs, health and community professionals, police officers, prison officers, church ministers, members of parliament and concerned citizens, who all gathered for three hours in search of solutions. Many of them, as I said before, had the opportunity to speak.We heard from anti-drug campaigners Susan and Allan Forrester, who told the meeting that they had spent seven years and $50,000 fighting the heroin addiction of their daughter. They saw what drugs had done to their family and they did not want to see it happen to others. Youth Off the Streets convenor, Father Chris Riley, delivered the central message of the meeting—that most of the kids want their lives back and they want innovative rehabilitation programs that will help them.Angela Wood, mother of Anna Wood, told us in her inspirational talk about what she does in the New South Wales schools, educating many youth to avoid drugs. At the end of her talk at the meeting one of the senior high school pupils got up and said, `Please come to my school.' Hope for the future came from what we were told about the Swedish experience where a get tough on drugs approach, combined with education of both parents and children, has over the last 20 years reduced drug addiction dramatically.The current programs that we have are not working effectively. The scale of the drug crisis that is upon us requires all levels of government, community, families and individuals to become involved in finding wideranging, effective measures. No matter how much government spends on protecting our borders, fighting drug crime, education and drug rehabilitation, it will never be enough to rid Australia of this scourge. The response needs to be at a community, family and individual level. The Newcastle meeting was a start. It is a community based model that other towns and cities should emulate for our children's sake.259113:37:002591Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—Today I want to talk about a very important event that is occurring in Geneva on Friday, when the Australian government will report back to the special committee responsible for monitoring Australia's meeting of its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.It is probably unusual for me to commend and praise the Attorney-General, because on a whole range of human rights issues praise does not often come from me to this government. But I want to pay tribute to the Attorney-General today, and I am sorry that Senator Vanstone is not still on duty in the chamber. Legislation had been introduced to abolish the position of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. This position had been held very ably by Mr Mick Dodson, who continues to be a very strong advocate in the Australian community for the recognition of indigenous human rights.It was an original decision of government that the position could disappear, or at least be linked with the race discrimination position. Now, to his eternal credit, the Attorney-General has rethought that policy, announcing only last week that the position has been reinstated. He has announced the appointment of Bill Jonas, formerly of the National Museum, but before that I knew him for his excellent work at the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. That is the first piece—and I fear the only piece—of good news that the Australian government will have to present to the committee in Geneva on Friday. But I do give due credit to the Attorney-General for at least ensuring that that concern expressed by the United Nations has indeed been met.However, I would like to draw unfavourable comparisons between the report that has been prepared and presented by the Attorney-General's Department and that prepared by ATSIC. The government has prepared a 16-page report compared with ATSIC's report, which is 132 pages in length and is extremely thorough. It is an extremely useful document, because it covers a range of issues from the time when Australia last reported, when Robert Tickner himself appeared before the committee.While Australia was praised for a number of initiatives, in 1994 there were a number of areas of concern. What we are concerned about—and certainly the ATSIC report indicates that they are concerned—is that the relevant suggestions made by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 1994 relating to the pursuit of an energetic policy of recognising rights and furnishing compensation were not implemented by my government in that period between 1994 and March 1996, and more particularly there has been a downgrading of indigenous recognition since 1996.The detail speaks for itself. The social justice package process has been abandoned. The Howard government has announced that self-determination is no longer the policy in relation to indigenous affairs. The capacity of ATSIC to fulfil its statutory mandated functions has been consistently undermined. The process of reconciliation—while it was announced by the Prime Minister to be a focus of his second term—has been undermined since by virtue of the attack on the Aboriginal tent embassy, for example. As soon as the Reconciliation Council puts out a draft document that states how important an apology is, the Prime Minister immediately jumps in and says, `Oh, no, no. We cannot have an apology.' Mr Howard is now one of only two current Australian leaders who has not been prepared to stand by a formal apology on behalf of his government. It has been done in every other state. It was not done in Queensland under the Borbidge government, but Peter Beattie certainly made his position clear during that debate when the resolution was not successful.We have a new Chief Minister in the Northern Territory; I do not know his position. But at the moment it could be that, if the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory is prepared to issue a formal apology, then Mr Howard, as Prime Minister, would be the only leader not prepared to make that statement and all that goes with it in terms of its meaning to indigenous people.There are a number of areas of concern and obviously these will be more fully scrutinised in Geneva on Friday. I hope that the government will ensure that there is a public report of that process and a public statement as to what the government is prepared to do as a result of being hauled before the special committee in Geneva. This is the first time a developed Western country has been asked to explain its policies to the United Nations committee. In moving on from the specifics of what the committee will be concerning itself with, I want to particularly focus on two policy areas. I want to mention mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory, particularly the gaoling of the Mirrar elders and their supporters. Clearly, there is not very much in either of those policies that is going to foster reconciliation, that is going to assist Australia's reputation vis-a-vis ensuring that we give every indication that we are totally committed to eliminating discrimination. Australia has had a good record on human rights, and a number of governments on both sides of the political divide have done a great deal to promote human rights in Australia and indeed internationally. But I fear, and I think the fact that Australia has to appear on Friday indicates, that this reputation is in some state of jeopardy at the moment.I want to focus now on bilingual education in the Northern Territory. In the 1994 report—which, of course, was about the Keating government—the committee in Geneva said that there had been an ever-increasing deference on the part of the federal government to state and territory governments. That was a failing of Labor governments; it is an ongoing failing, I believe, of the current government. When the Northern Territory government announced that bilingual education would no longer be pursued in the territory, there was not a word in opposition to this from a government member.Anyone who knows anything about education should know that the benefits of bilingual education are enormous for Aboriginal children in terms of self-respect and their capacity to learn at an early stage when they are still very reliant on their mother tongue. There was not a word from the education minister, there was not a word from the Aboriginal affairs minister and there was not a word from the Prime Minister. We had to listen to Radio National's Lingua Franca for an excellent contribution by Christine Nicholls from Flinders University. She said:It is difficult to interpret the territory government's decision which is endorsed by the federal government as anything but a direct attack on the relatively few remaining strong Aboriginal languages and the human rights of their ever-decreasing number of speakers. The decision will also mean job losses for many of the dedicated bilingual education workers in remote rural communities, the majority of whom are Aboriginal people. In turn, this will translate into even higher levels of unemployment amongst rural Australians, and the question of employment is significant. And she talked about the numbers of adults employed in the program. I really recommend this program—the transcript of which is available. It was on 5 March, and is an excellent coverage of the issues that we in this chamber should be addressing. I would like to remind honourable senators that commitment to bilingual education has already been given by Australian governments. We have signed on to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We have signed on to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 30 in our report to the UN committee monitoring compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child states:In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language.Indeed, we actually reported favourably on that point in our report in 1997. We said, and we boasted:Australia is a multicultural society—we actually used the `m' word—and recognises the rights of people from minority and indigenous groups to enjoy their culture, profess and practise their own religion and use their own language.This is what concerns me about the way in which the present government is dealing with our very fragile reputation in regard to indigenous rights and human rights more generally. We say things in a certain report and then we come home and forget all about it. We are committed under those two conventions. As recently as 1997 there was a statement of recommendation from the General Assembly of United Nations which called on state parties to recognise and respect indigenous distinct culture, history, language and way of life.It has been said before, and I am sure it will be said again and again: Australia cannot afford the luxury of turning its back on these fundamental rights of indigenous peoples. We are under close scrutiny. We are under close scrutiny because of our history, because of the White Australia policy, and this will only escalate in the lead-up to the Olympic Games. I call on the education minister, the Aboriginal affairs minister and, indeed, the Prime Minister—if he is genuinely committed to reconciliation and to forging a strong relationship with indigenous peoples—to talk directly to the Chief Minister in the Northern Territory and ask for a review in relation to bilingual education and call for a review in relation to mandatory sentencing. They are two policy areas in the Northern Territory that will bring shame to Australia, and we cannot afford to let this moment pass without the Prime Minister or one of his senior ministers taking direct action to try to persuade the Northern Territory government to bring its policies into line with what Australia has already agreed to.259413:52:002594Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—The subject I want to bring up today—parthenium weed—may not be a subject which rivets city based members and senators, but I can assure the Senate that the parthenium weed is a curse to many people in rural Australia. The parthenium weed came to Central Queensland in the early 1960s from the US. Since then it has spread a considerable distance not only on pasturage but also into pristine country and national parks. It grows so tall that it is difficult to see and muster cattle in it. At a height of only four inches, it can seed at any time of the year and it then proceeds to choke everything around it. It regenerates quickly with little rain, which is why it is causing so much trouble now, following the drought in Queensland.From Clermont originally, the parthenium weed is now to be found around Charters Towers, Julia Creek, the Central Highlands and the Northern Territory border. It is in the upper reaches of the Murray-Darling system and in the Bulloo and Cooper catchment areas. It can be found from Wide Bay to Roma to just outside of Rockhampton to Injune. Queensland, New South Wales and the Northern Territory are affected, and other states will follow if something is not done soon.The parthenium weed travels by water, farm and earthmoving machinery, stock trucks and stock and chicken feed. It causes serious allergies in humans and respiratory problems, particularly for asthma sufferers. Treatment has included washdown facilities and spraying on properties. This is extremely costly and time consuming. Properties in the wool growing areas no longer have the resources to contain the spread of the weed. One property, for example, employed 10 men for a week and still could not complete the treatment.A national coordinated approach is needed. State governments have done very little, which is why the problem now facing us is so large. What was once a self-manageable problem has now gotten out of control and must be addressed. There is hope that a rust or fungus treatment may prove successful in the future following further research into biological control methods.The federal government is taking this matter very seriously. Only last month, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry announced a $150,000 grant to the Parthenium Action Group. The Nationals and Liberals will continue to pursue this issue and the assistance options available to Landcare groups and property owners at a state and federal level.Sitting suspended from 1.55 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice259425942594Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is directed to Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Has the minister's attention been drawn to recent claims by the Epworth Hospital in Melbourne that digital television test transmissions almost wiped out the hospital's cardiac monitoring system? Is it a fact that public and private hospitals have been using channels 6, 8 and 9A of the VHF spectrum for medical telemetry for many years? Was your department's advice sought when the federal government decided to sell licences to that part of the spectrum to com mercial television stations in 1997? Is it a fact that hospitals were neither consulted nor even informed of this decision and that Epworth Hospital, which has long been a registered user of the spectrum, only found out when Channel 7 began test transmissions in preparation for the government ordered switch to digital broadcasting?2595Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Conroy for the question. I think I read that in the papers a couple of weeks ago. I am pleased that Senator Conroy has got up to pace.Senator Faulkner interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner, cease shouting across the chamber. I call the chamber to order and ask that the minister be heard.VW4Senator HERRON—I am pleased that Senator Conroy reads the papers and that he is informed about this matter. I think Senator Conroy would also be aware that responsibility for this issue rests primarily with the Australian Broadcasting Authority and the Australian Communications Authority.This issue arises because some medical telemetry equipment operates in frequencies in the broadcasting services bands which will be needed for digital television transmission. Medical telemetry equipment operating in frequencies primarily provided for broadcasting services do so under a class licence made by the Australian Communications Authority which permits the operation of equipment but does not provide protection from interference by other equipment.I am pleased that the opposition is listening, because that is an unusual occurrence. Not all medical telemetry equipment operates on frequencies within the broadcasting services bands. Senator Conroy may be interested to know that equipment operating outside these bands will not be affected by these trials.Contrary to the suggestions made in the newspaper article, the Australian Communications Authority and the Australian Broadcasting Authority have been working over many months with the Therapeutic Goods Authority, the College of Biomedical Engineers and product suppliers to raise awareness amongst the users of this equipment of the implications of digital transmission trials. I am advised that the Therapeutic Goods Authority recommended to hospitals that they conduct an audit of their telemetry devices and that they contact their local television stations about the timing of possible test transmissions.In the case highlighted by the Age newspaper, HSV7 placed a notice in the Age on 3 February 1999 of its intention to conduct trials following the issue of a test permit by the Australian Broadcasting Authority. Subsequently a meeting was held with a number of hospitals, health care networks, the Victorian Health Care Association, the Victorian Department of Human Services and telemetry service organisations, and arrangements were made to ensure that hospitals were informed of the trials and that HSV7 was aware of those hospitals likely to suffer interference. HSV7 conducted trials at relevant hospitals and concluded that, at the signal levels proposed for the trials, interference was unlikely.The ABA is requiring television stations seeking licences to conduct digital trials to liaise with their local hospitals to minimise the risks of interference. The ABA is also contacting all state and territory health departments to advise them of test transmissions. At the same time, the Australian Communications Authority is examining the spectrum requirements of medical telemetry equipment in the light of changed demands on the broadcast services bands.2595Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that mobile cardiac monitoring units are unable to distinguish between the signals coming from the patients' hearts and the incoming television signals? Given that a cardiac telemetry system in Sydney was obliterated for more than a day in a not-for-profit hospital due to a digital transmission, what obligation does the Commonwealth government have to notify hospitals of these changes? Who is going to foot the bill for the $400,000 that it will cost Epworth to replace its equipment? When will hospitals be informed of which part of the bandwidth they will be able to use?2595Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Conroy obviously did not listen to the answer. I will repeat the answer for his benefit. A meeting was held with a number of hospitals, health care networks, the Victorian Health Care Association, the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services and telemetry organisations and the ABA is contacting all state and territory health departments to advise them of test transmissions.As hospitals are the prerogative of the state health department, I suggest that they contact Mr Carr, the Premier of New South Wales, who is responsible, and Dr Refshauge, the health minister in New South Wales, if they have a problem with the delivery of health care.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—It was actually a Victorian problem.VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Conroy is not aware that hospitals are the prerogative of the state divisions.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Epworth is in Victoria.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I raise a point of order. The supplementary question referred to a hospital in New South Wales, and we have got a pack of hyenas here all being allowed—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, withdraw that.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—We have got a gaggle of senators from the other side prepared to interrupt Senator Herron and not even allow him to answer the question that was asked.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. The noise coming from senators on my left is such that it is absolutely intolerable and totally in breach of standing orders.VW4Senator HERRON—Madam President, I was asked a question about a hospital in New South Wales and I replied. (Time expired)25962596Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The latest ACCI Westpac survey of industrial trends has provided further confirmation of the strong performance of the Australian economy under the Howard government. How does this sustained strong performance of the economy fit in with the government's commitment to provide in creased job opportunities to the unemployed, particularly young Australians?2596Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—It is true that a strong economy is the basis for further job opportunities. It is the starting point. Without a strong economy you are simply not going to achieve the employment growths that are desirable. We are therefore pleased that we have been able to deliver to this country a strong economy, arguably the strongest economy in the world now, the strongest economy in the OECD, even stronger than all of the G7 countries. That is quite an achievement when you consider that we took office with a $10 billion deficit left by the previous Labor government. In just three years we have been able to deliver economic growth of 4.7 per cent, which most commentators regard as remarkable. Out of that growth we can give low interest rates and low inflation, and we have given reform to industrial relations, that really does offer better job prospects for all Australians, particularly young Australians.But a strong economy, as I said, is not enough. Further reforms are necessary. Reforms to taxation, of course, are necessary to enable business, in particular small business, to continue to grow and employ. But other policies are necessary as well, and youth wage rates are a part of that package. The Labor Party on the other side wishes to abolish youth wage rates, wishes to offer to the young people of this country a legacy of less hope, less chance for the future.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That's not true. You can't tell the truth, can you?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Cook, stop shouting. You are behaving in a totally disorderly fashion. There is an appropriate time for you to debate this issue if you have some disagreement with the minister.BH4Senator HILL—Senator Cook, part of a Labor government which gave to this country a million unemployed, stands there and condemns the government that gives the lowest unemployment for years. What do commentators in industry say about the youth wage? Charlie Bell from McDonald's, who employs nearly 45,000 young people, said of labour:This will reduce the employment in Australia, and this is a big issue. It should be one of the burning issues on the mind of every community leader and every business person.Also from McDonald's, Julie Owens said:We'd have to stop recruiting young people virtually immediately and assess the situation. The existing staff I think would get fewer hours. We'd have to look seriously at doing business a little bit differently to remove some of the labour from the stores.This is the Labor Party position. It results in less jobs for young people. Phil Naylor from the Australian Retailers Association said:It has the impact of probably eliminating between 170,000 and 180,000 jobs from the retail industry.Rob Gerard said:A diabolical day for Australian youth.What did Mike Paterson from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry say? He said:Getting rid of junior rates will drive some young people out of work, will raise business costs, will push prices up. Where any good can come from this is hard to see.What did Mr Beazley say to this? He said he was chuffed that the Senate threw out the government's reform. That is Mr Beazley's attitude to the young who are looking for jobs. He is chuffed that they are going to get less opportunity for jobs. The Labor Party ought to read the Sydney Morning Herald editorial of today, which said:. . . it allows Labor to pretend that it stands for "fairness" and against the "exploitation' of youth when in reality it is standing in the way of labour market reforms that would benefit young people—and their parents.Opposition senators interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—That is what the policyless Labor Party is all about today.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left.BH4Senator HILL—Mr Beazley has cleaned the slate and wiped out all Labor—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There has been persistent shouting on my left during the answer to this question. This is in contravention of the standing orders, which every one of you knows. I ask you to abide by the standing orders and behave in a way that others are able to hear the answer.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I raise a point of order. The point of order is that the standing orders for question time provide that ministers in answering questions will not debate the issue. Senator Hill is debating the issue about what Mr Beazley is alleged to have said or not and misleading the Senate as to the truth of the Labor Party position. Because he is debating the issue and misleading the Senate as to the truth of the Labor Party position, it is, I submit, with respect, understandable that that would marginally agitate us on our side. Madam President, if you would be kind enough to direct Senator Hill to conform to the standing orders, not debate his answers and stick to providing the information the question seeks, then there will be a less rowdy chamber, I suspect.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. The level of interjections is unacceptable.BH4Senator HILL—I will finish with the Sydney Morning Herald editorial. It states:If Mr Beazley wants his party's policies to stand up to closer scrutiny—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Time.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator, your time has expired.BH4Senator HILL—He is going to have to tailor them to the needs of the times rather than the prejudices of the past.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Sit down.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, I will draw the minister's attention to the time.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Well, why don't you sit him down?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, when the clock went off I immediately called order to Senator Hill. You were shouting so loudly he did not hear it.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—He kept talking.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You were shouting and your behaviour is unacceptable.Honourable senators interjecting —10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! This is supposed to be question time and the behaviour in the chamber is unacceptable.25982598Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister tell us on what legal grounds the Department of Health and Aged Care is continuing to refuse to disclose the dates of signature on the MRI contracts signed prior to last year's budget?2598Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—There have been calls for an inquiry into the allocation of MRI licences, and that is what Senator Evans is referring to. There was considerable questioning during the Senate estimates committees in that regard. By way of information, I should tell you that this government introduced new and expanded funding and delivery arrangements to improve Australian's access to MRI services from 1 September 1998. Medicare benefits are now available for MRI services and consumers now have access to a wider range of MRI services and greater choice as services provided by both the private and public sectors are now eligible for funding.Prior to our coming to government they were restricted to the public hospitals. There was considerable demand. There has been an enormous advance in the availability of MRI scanning to the general community. This enormous advance—the Labor Party had no program when they went to the election to introduce this; we have introduced it—has allowed freedom of choice within the community. We have funded that.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Madam President, I take a point of order. I would appreciate it if I could get an answer to the question. The question asked what legal grounds the government had for refusing an answer to the question. I am not interested in general debate about MRI.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The minister certainly cannot give legal advice but I would draw his attention to the question that was asked and ask him to deal with it.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I take a point of order. My point of order is this, Madam President. The minister was not asked for legal advice. He was asked on what grounds the legal advice was refused. That is a very different issue.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have drawn the minister's attention to the question and also pointed out that he cannot give legal advice but should apply himself to the question.VW4Senator HERRON—Madam President, I thank you for explaining to the opposition the standing orders of the Senate, which they seem to be unaware of. You have commented yourself on the incredible behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate this afternoon.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, I draw your attention to the question that you have been called to answer.VW4Senator HERRON—Thank you, Madam President. As they should know, any advice that the minister may have sought in this regard is something that has been discussed previously. I think it has been discussed in the Senate estimates hearings. I will check with the minister to see if he has anything further to add to the answers that were given in the Senate estimates committees.AX5Senator CHRIS EVANS—By way of supplementary, again I would ask the minister to detail on what legal grounds he is refusing to disclose that information. Will the minister also undertake to provide to the Senate details of both the number of contracts under investigation and the dates of the signatures on the contracts signed before the 1998 budget decision? That is the public policy question we want answers to.2598Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The premise of the supplementary is again absurd. Senator Evans knows that it is not necessary to seek legal advice about letting contracts for the purchase of MRI equipment. All they have to do is fulfil the requirements of the government in the tender process. As I said in my previous answer, this whole witch-hunt, which has been carried on for some months now, has nothing in it. There is a paucity of policies from the opposition. They are a policy free zone, lost in space out there, looking for something. They are dredging up matters. If there wasn't a leadership battle within the Labor Party at the moment we would not have these fatuous questions in the Senate. The whole of their response this week has been related to the leadership of the Labor Party. (Time expired)25992599McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. As you are aware, Minister, the government's Work for the Dole project has given thousands of young Australians the chance to get a start. Will you inform the Senate of the success of the Work for the Dole projects? Is the minister aware of any attempts to undermine such projects?2599Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—As Senator McGauran, I am sure, is very much aware and indeed as those on this side of the chamber are aware, Work for the Dole does offer young Australians, in particular, hope, experience and opportunity. It not only provides them with necessary work experience but it engenders a work ethic; it makes it relevant to their lives. Indeed, the Daily Telegraph's editorial today said:The scheme creates a work ethic for young people, provides training and nurtures a sense of responsibility and achievement that cannot be attained through merely collecting the dole. It gives them credibility in the eyes of prospective employers.It is not, as some members of the union movement would have it, a punishment for young people who cannot find employment.To date, over 18,000 young Australians have benefited from their personal involvement in Work for the Dole schemes. To date the success rate is around 32 per cent in getting participants into paid employment, comparable to or better than the failed labour market programs under Working Nation and far more cost-effective. The people's paper, reflecting the views of ordinary mainstream Australians, understands that this is a very sensible and enlightened initiative that does offer every encouragement to young people. Why is it that such an initiative can be opposed root and branch by the Labor Party? For example, Martin Ferguson on radio a couple of years back said:Are you trying to tell me that 1½ or two days per week is going to give these people the discipline of work? They go home and go back to bed or watch TV for the rest of the week.That is what Mr Ferguson thinks the work ethic is all about.This has most recently been highlighted by the fact that in New South Wales the trade union movement has been given an absolute power of veto. This is a disgraceful and appalling state of affairs. It is a tragic abdication of responsibility. It sends an appalling message in the lead-up to the New South Wales state election. The Premier of New South Wales made it very clear that it is important for all union organisations and others contemplating offering these sorts of arrangements to consider—meaning consult, meaning allow them to roll over you—with the New South Wales public sector unions.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Are you plagiarising the Telegraph again?LD4Senator ALSTON—The spokesman for the AWU should know all about this. They have got their seat in the Senate chamber and he has a lot of other mates here as well. The New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service actually wrote—Senator Carr interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—You do the shouting, the unions call the shots—we understand it. If Kim Beazley cannot even show sufficient leadership to intervene in Victoria and straighten things out—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, I draw your attention to the question.LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, I was very much wanting to make the point that the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service actually wrote to a project sponsor saying that unfortunately the unions would not give their approval for the projects to go ahead. What a damning indictment! What does that tell you? It tells you that the state government and the federal opposition are not in the slightest bit interested in anything that conflicts with the unions' view of the world. They are not interested in helping young people get into work and obviously, as we discovered yesterday, they are not inter ested in reducing youth unemployment. Indeed, Mr Beazley is out there saying he was very chuffed with the result. Of course he is chuffed because he has delivered to his masters once again. It is a great tragedy that this is what leadership on the Labor Party side of politics is these days. All you do is go around telling people they can like it or lump it, but you do not actually address any issues. Mr Beazley has got his opportunity next Tuesday. He is making a `vision statement'. (Time expired)26002600Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. I ask the minister if he is aware of a recent article by Mr Gatjil Djerrkura, Chairman of ATSIC, in which he states:ATSIC is the most accountable government authority in the country and yet the present minister and his staff have set about creating a totally false impression. While the Prime Minister talks of reconciliation, Senator Herron flies around the country at taxpayer expense preaching and practising recrimination. He has little or no understanding of the need to recognise—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, resume your seat. I cannot hear the question that is being asked for the noise on my right. Senator Faulkner and Senator Alston, stop shouting across the chamber.XE4Senator BOLKUS—The quote continues:He has little or no understanding of the need to recognise genuine political advocacy on behalf of indigenous people.What hope has the government got of achieving its proclaimed goal of national reconciliation when the minister responsible for Aboriginal affairs is at such loggerheads with the leader of the key national representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people?2600Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Bolkus for the question. I am aware of that newspaper article and I am aware of another that says:. . . the new minister was doing the usual and travelling all over Australia to meet Aboriginal people. His line then: "It is essential that we achieve a fundamental shift from Aboriginal Affairs being a combat zone to an arena of bipartisan co-operation and moving forward."That was written on 6 January 1996. It goes on:Welcome to the tortured life of Robert Tickner, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Your classic sincere leftie.It also stated:Paul Keating calls him "boofhead". Insiders call him "the beachball", constantly tossed between the main players with no power to change the play—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—On a point of order, Madam President: I asked this minister a serious question about the prospects of reconciliation when he has offended the peak key Aboriginal body in this country and its chair, a person he appointed, and he is rambling on about some issue some four years ago. Can you bring him back to the question?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The minister has discretion as to how he answers a question, but I would draw his attention to the content of the question.VW4Senator HERRON—Madam President, I was, by way of preamble, mentioning that that is not an unusual occurrence in relation to this portfolio. I plead for a bipartisan reaction. You will recall Senator Bolkus said that the reaction to the tent embassy protesters was `a cowardly act of racial violence'. Former Senator Gareth Evans accused the Prime Minister of enjoying `bashing black fellows'. Daryl Melham, my opposite number, accused the government of being like the Ku Klux Klan with his `white sheets and burning crosses' slur.Senator Bolkus should be aware that for 30 years there has been a difficult relationship with the aspirations of some indigenous leaders of this country and the responses of the government of whichever political colour is in power at the time. The effect of 13 years of Labor produced that article that I just referred to in the Sydney Morning Herald on 6 January 1996 where my predecessor was pilloried in the press with far more serious allegations than the content of what Senator Bolkus referred to. I am available at all times to the ATSIC leadership. In fact, I had discussions with Mr Gatjil Djerrkura yesterday. It could well be that the media department is run by the ALP, as far as I know.AW5CARRSenator Carr—It goes from bad to worse.VW4Senator HERRON—It could well be—I am not suggesting that it is, but it is worth investigation. Frequently the reportage of events is done in a political context to achieve a certain outcome. Perhaps Senator Bolkus should consider it in that context.2601Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—That is an astounding answer. I remind the minister that Mr Djerrkura said that Senator Herron flies around the country preaching and practising recrimination. Does the minister acknowledge that ATSIC is the key national representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and that, in the words of its chairman—a person you appointed, Senator Herron—`ATSIC feels marginalised by this government'? Further, how does the minister respond to Mr Djerrkura's statement that it is `the attitude of this government that will stymie the achievement of true reconciliation in this country'?UW4CRANESenator Crane—On a point of order, Madam President: I think that question is totally out of order. Senator Bolkus said that Senator Herron flies around the country practising personal incrimination against Aboriginal people. I think that should be withdrawn. It is out of order. It is untrue and it is a reflection on our minister.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I understood Senator Bolkus to have been using a quotation.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—On that point of order, Madam President: that is precisely the point. This is a statement from the chairman of ATSIC appointed by this government. It is a statement about the operations of this minister and this government. It is that particular point that I have raised for Senator Herron to answer. It cannot be out of order. This is precisely the comment from the chairman.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Terrific point of order!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. Senator Faulkner, you have been persistently interjecting today. I ask you to cease doing so.2601Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am happy to respond to the supplementary question because the reality is that there is a very good working relationship with ATSIC. There are items on which we differ. ATSIC is the peak body representing indigenous advice to the government and will continue to be so. Unfortunately, only 25,000 of the Aboriginal population actually vote in ATSIC elections. I would encourage them to get enrolled and vote at the next election.There is nothing new in the substance of what Senator Bolkus said. A Sydney Morning Herald article on 6 January 1996 stated:But even publicly he sounds a bit burnt out . . . Tickner's term began with the task of bedding down the result of Hand's romance with self-determination, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), a body now almost universally reviled within the Aboriginal community and the bureaucracy.It is incumbent on Senator Bolkus to get out into the community. For three years I have never seen Senator Bolkus in an Aboriginal community. (Time expired)26012601Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I refer to the minister's defiance of the order of this parliament to table all documents on Jabiluka over the specified 16-week period. Is the minister aware that much of what was tabled was already on the public record? Is the minister aware that all of those categories of withheld documents have been tabled by his government in response to previous orders? The minister is now in dispute with an order of the parliament, and I ask again: will he now table all of those documents, or does the minister really believe that the executive should have immunity from scrutiny of the parliament?2601Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I certainly do not believe that. I believe in the accountability of the executive to parliament and, by and large, I think this chamber does a good job in holding governments accountable. Occasionally, however, there are senators who abuse that responsibility and seek the passage of orders with the intent of making the operation of government, in effect, unworkable, requiring government to stop carrying on the business of government and fulfil ridiculous demands in relation to documentation that can be of no interest to the honourable senators at all.My department provided what they believed to be all the key documents. The honourable senator said that some had been tabled previously pursuant to previous orders of the Senate. I was not aware of that, but it does not surprise me. I seem to be responding to so many of these orders. I gave reasons for not tabling those key documents that I was unwilling to table. Those reasons were in accordance with accepted practice in this place; practice over a long period of time of which the honourable senator would be well aware. Briefly, therefore, yes, I accept my responsibility to meet the requirements of the Senate in this regard, and I will do my best to do so.2602Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for providing me with the description of the documents he refuses to table. Could the minister explain what he means when he says in this letter that the documents should not be disclosed on the basis of public interest immunity? Is it not the case that the list has descriptions that are so vague that it is impossible to understand if these documents could freely be tabled without damaging our international relations? Would the minister agree to appoint an independent third party, one who was acceptable to all parties, to examine the withheld documents before the next sitting week with a view to then tabling as many as is reasonable? Is this perhaps a way the minister can still fulfil his dual responsibilities to serve the public interest and to comply fully with the order of the Australian parliament? Will the minister agree to this compromise?2602Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—With goodwill across the chamber, there have been efforts in the past to reach compromises on these matters. However, when an honourable senator wants documents in an effort to undermine the national interest—as is the intention of the Australian Democrats, demonstrated by their behaviour in writing to third parties overseas making misrepresentations about the position of the Australian government in relation to a particular matter—it is not surprising that the government has less sympathy than might be occasioned in different circumstances.In this instance, the Australian Democrats have sought to undermine the position of the Australian government in protecting our national interest. They have done it, and with the support of the Australian Labor Party that wrote similarly, in a way that is not in the best national interest. Goodwill works two ways, Senator. You show a bit and we will show a bit in return.26022602Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Is the minister aware of the report released last week by the Sydney University Institute of Criminology which concluded:Given that nearly half of all people placed in custody for public order offences are indigenous, any police strategy which increases arrests for these types of offences will have a dramatic and discriminatory effect on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.Would the introduction of a zero tolerance policing strategy have a dramatic and discriminatory effect on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people?2602Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator George Campbell for the first decent question of the afternoon. He should be on the front bench.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Herron, I draw your attention to the question that was asked.VW4Senator HERRON—It was just that this is the first substantial question that has come from the opposition this afternoon and it deserves a serious response.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, senators on my right will cease interjecting. Senator Herron needs to be heard.VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Campbell talked about zero tolerance. `Zero tolerance' has become a catchphrase for a whole bag of issues. For example, there have been many different responses to the very position that Senator George Campbell has put. The Prime Minister has talked about zero tolerance of drugs in schools and zero tolerance of drug pushers. The Commonwealth is not arguing that zero tolerance of all petty crime would be an appropriate way of policing Australia's indigenous communities. Policing and law enforcement is primarily a matter for the states. For clarity of debate, let me outline the result of zero tolerance in New York. It has been reported that felony crime rates halved and murders decreased from 2,245 in 1990 to 767 in 1997. These reductions in the crime rate tell us that something important might be happening.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—What about John Elliott?VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Conroy may be pleased to take some interest in this. There are a number of contributing factors to the reduction in the crime rate in New York and the United States. There was a sustained period of economic growth; a significant reduction in crack cocaine use; the stabilisation of cocaine markets and a reduction in gang warfare; the ageing of the baby boom generation beyond the crime prone years; concerted efforts to restrict teenagers' access to firearms, particularly hand guns; increased police/community cooperation; longer prison sentences, particularly for perpetrators of violent crimes; and crime prevention programs, particularly early intervention programs for children with little supervision. In New York, so-called zero tolerance policing methods were a part of this picture.The policing in New York was designed to create an environment hostile to predatory criminal behaviour. It involved focusing on crime hot spots, making local patrol commanders accountable for crime reduction in their areas of responsibility, intelligence based analysis of specific crime problems and increasing the overall number of police officers.AW5CARRSenator Carr—It is no good reading another minister's brief. You've got to try to answer the question.VW4Senator HERRON—It is obvious that Senator Carr does not understand the answer. The relevance, for Senator Carr's benefit—as I am sure everybody else in the chamber understands—is that there have to be specific programs in relation to indigenous people in this country, who unquestionably suffer all the disadvantages to a greater degree than anybody else in the community.The problem of family violence, as I mentioned on Monday, is intergenerational. I thank Senator Newman for drawing to my attention that it is intergenerational. Once you grow up in this sort of situation, it almost invariably occurs in the subsequent generations.The point I am making is that this issue is multifactorial as it applies to indigenous people. They come from an enormous social disadvantage, have inadequate opportunities for education in remote areas, in particular, and suffer from family breakdown. The statistics are appalling in relation to violence and murder as a cause of premature death, particularly in the Northern Territory where there are adequate statistics available. I sympathise with the import of the question that Senator Campbell has put to me but, as I am sure he knows, there is no simple answer to this problem. Many factors need to be considered in the solution to the problem. (Time expired)2603Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Would the adoption of zero tolerance policing be consistent with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody?2603Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Following on from the answer I gave and answering the supplementary question within that context, as I said to Senator Campbell, the phrase `zero tolerance' has been taken up by many different people to mean many different things. The main thing that needs to be done is to improve the economic and educational opportunities for indigenous people in this country so they do not come in contact with the legal system. It has to be stopped before we get to the stage of contact with the legal system.26042604Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I refer the minister to advice from the Australian Government Solicitor dated 6 August 1997 in which the Senior General Counsel, Mr Morris, advised that Jervoise Bay lies beyond the geographical limits of the state of Western Australia and is consequently in Commonwealth waters. Has the minister considered this issue in the context of his determinations about the environmental assessment for the proposed harbour and facilities in Jervoise Bay? Is he satisfied with the determinations made by the WA government about the environmental impact of the proposed development, given the EPA's damning assessment?2604Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have not seen that opinion, but it would seem to me that, under the offshore constitutional settlement, it would still fall within the jurisdiction of Western Australia. Even if it did not, I do not think that would necessarily make any difference, because the test under the Commonwealth EPIP Act is not related to the location. At issue is whether there is a common action that triggers that legislation. In this instance, there was such an action in any event, and that was the action of the Commonwealth government agreeing to provide funds to this development under its Federation Fund program, subject to satisfactory environmental assessment and various other matters.Whether this particular location fell within Commonwealth jurisdiction or state jurisdiction, I do not think makes any difference. But, in any event, I think it is within the state jurisdiction and the Commonwealth act was triggered by the former minister, Senator Parer. An assessment was duly carried out cooperatively, as I recall, with the Western Australian authorities. Western Australian Minister Edwardes made a determination that the project could go ahead subject to various conditions. My department has considered her advice and given me advice on the basis of the materials that were put before the Western Australian assessment. I have considered that and made recommendations to the action minister, who is now Senator Minchin. As I understand it, he is considering my advice and will make a decision in due course.2604Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has indicated that the Commonwealth do have a responsibility here, and I thank him for that. Given that the WA EPA assessment indicated clearly that the crucial environmental issue is water quality—in that the proposal is likely to reduce flushing times in an area where the nutrient levels and chlorophyll are already too high—and ultimately concluded that `the proposal is unable to be managed to meet the EPA objectives for this issue', how can the minister be satisfied that the WA government has given proper consideration to the environmental implications of the development in this very important area so close to Perth? What is he going to advise the action minister to do about it?2604Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—As I said, we consider all of the circumstances ourselves. My department has done so and given me advice. I have made certain recommendations which, upon the decision of Senator Minchin, will be made public. That is the usual process.There is no doubt that this is an intensely industrialised region. Whenever you have an intensely industrialised area, there are detrimental environmental consequences. Sometimes in these instances it comes to weighing up whether the economic advantages of jobs and so forth outweighs the environmental detriment. We certainly in all these instances look for ways in which we can minimise any environmental damage and, generally speaking, there are a number of options that can be adopted to that end.26042604Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is it true that the three-person selection committee appointed by the department of health for the new head of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency includes the director of ANSTO, which is the main organisation subject to licensing and regulation by ARPANSA? Doesn't this fatally compromise the independence of the chief executive officer of ARPANSA?2605Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Forshaw for the question. I do not have a brief within the folder to answer this question. I would be happy to refer that to the minister to see if we can get an answer for Senator Forshaw. So I will take that question on notice.2605Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I am rather surprised at your answer—given that you seem to have such a good memory about what happened four or five years ago and you can't remember what happened at the estimates only about three or four weeks ago. Minister, this matter was raised at estimates when you were in attendance. But I also ask the minister: wasn't it you who assured the Senate in the second reading speech of the ARPANSA legislation last year that the chief executive officer of ARPANSA would be totally independent in regulating and licensing nuclear activities and ensuring that they comply with the legislation? How can this be so—and given that you have said it in a second reading speech—when the organisation being regulated is given such a key role in the appointment of the regulator?2605Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Contrary to the ALP, we usually involve experts in decisions rather than just consulting the trade union movement. We are all inclusive and we get expert opinions. Virtually everybody on the other side has been a trade union official, unlike my colleagues on this side who represent the whole spectrum. They would expect that we would consult the people—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order on the question of relevance. Is it reasonable to come to the conclusion that the minister does not have a clue what he is talking about in his answer to this question?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The minister has certainly strayed from the question. I would invite you to apply yourself to the supplementary question, Minister.VW4Senator HERRON—I thought the supplementary question was quite fatuous because I had said that I would take the question on notice and get a response from the minister.26052605Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I draw your attention to articles published in the Age , the SundayAge and other media outlets claiming that crews and passengers flying in British Aerospace 146 jets are being exposed to toxic fumes. Are you aware of an incident in July 1997 where a pilot on a British Aerospace 146 flight into Melbourne was incapacitated by exposure to fumes and was forced to hand over to his co-pilot? How long has the Civil Aviation Safety Authority been aware of this problem and what, if any, recommendations have been made by CASA to the government for taking action?2605Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Woodley raises a matter of great interest to all Australians, particularly to those of us who fly regularly on the BAe146s. I might say they are—in my very limited knowledge—very good aircraft and I enjoy flying on them.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Waffle.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Senator Faulkner's contribution to the debate is to say `waffle'. He lives in Sydney. He would rarely have to travel any distance and he would not even know what a 146 is.I am aware, Senator Woodley, that a former Ansett employee has been given leave to sue the airline for negligence and loss of earnings for chronic illnesses which are alleged to have been caused by the impact of certain aircraft fumes. The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation have known about it since July 1997, when they issued a preliminary report on a National Jet Systems BAe146 flight during which the crew had suffered some temporary incapacitation apparently due to contaminated air in the cockpit. Odours in the cabin were believed to have been due to the ingestion of hydrocarbon by-products from the engine exhaust. However, maintenance procedures appear to have reduced the transfer of these odours to the interior of the aircraft.The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has liaised with the Civil Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom and British Aerospace about the issue, and a suite of modifications is now available for BAe operators to improve the cabin environment. The issues are of concern and BASI is undertaking an investigation. Ansett has invited CASA to participate in trials with the American Society for Heating, Refrigeration and Conditioning Engineers to perform cabin air analysis on the BAe146. This will be a world first in the range of measurements being taken and could form the basis of new standards covering quality of cabin air in that particular aircraft.2606Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. Could the minister also tell me whether this BASI-CASA investigation would include the medical consequences of exposure to these toxic fumes? If not, how will the public health issues arising from these incidents be addressed?2606Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Woodley, in his supplementary question, expresses a concern that all Australians would have and makes some assumptions. But the technical experts who understand these matters are looking into them. The government and the minister, Mr Anderson, will be doing everything possible to continue Australia's excellent and world-first record in aviation. As I have mentioned, it is a concern. The widest possible investigation will be held. We are determined, as is CASA, to ensure that those problems are investigated, sourced and then repaired.26062606Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware that private health funds are offering cheap policies, as low as $240 a year for singles, with very high excesses—in many cases, over $500. Isn't it a fact that these policies are simply a means of avoiding the Medicare surcharge? For example, someone on $70,000 who would normally have to pay a surcharge of $700 can buy a $240 policy and get $80 back with the 30 per cent rebate, thereby avoiding having to pay the $700 surcharge. Doesn't this mean they end up $540 ahead, the health fund pockets $240 and the government loses $780? Furthermore, the person continues to use the public health system in order to avoid the $500 excess and so there is no reduction in pressure on the public system. Why does the government continue to approve these policies?2606Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Reynolds would be aware that there is a whole spectrum of private health insurance opportunities available to private health insurance agencies, the primary concern being that they are viable. I know that it is in the interests of Senator Reynolds and her party to destroy the private health industry—but that is not ours. AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—It's a rort. They still use the public hospitals.VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Evans says that they can still use public hospitals. That is what freedom of choice is about, and I would refer that to Senator Evans. If there is anything further to add to that answer, I will be happy to refer it to the minister.2606Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, I think I heard you say that you will refer my question to the minister. Would you please refer it and report to the Senate on how the government will monitor the situation in regard to examples such as the one I have given?2606Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Reynolds would be aware also that the Private Health Insurance Association is in frequent contact with the department. All these proposals are considered; they have to comply with the act. That will be the government's attitude towards them. But I certainly will refer any other material to the minister and come back to the Senate.26062606Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. Given the importance of providing jobs for young Australians living in country areas, will the minister outline the government's latest initiative to improve services in rural and regional Australia which will provide the stimulus for better employment opportunities?2607Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I thank Senator Eggleston for that very good question on a very serious policy issue. I know Senator Eggleston, as a former distinguished mayor of Port Hedland and a representative of the largely rural and regional state of Western Australia, has an ongoing interest in this matter, as do many of my colleagues.I am pleased to be able to report that this government is committed to addressing the decline in the provision of services to rural communities and to providing real jobs for rural and regional Australians. My colleague Senator Alston mentioned the benefits of the Work for the Dole scheme. But can I tell Senator Eggleston that, so far, the Howard government has created 412 Work for the Dole projects in regional Australia; that is a total so far of 15,199 places for regional Australians.That contrasts so greatly with the record of the Labor government who, for 13 years, ignored rural and regional Australia. Under Labor, the great bulk of federal funding was directed to projects in the city. Who can forget the Better Cities program? Where was the better bush program or a better life for those in regional Australia? It did not happen under Labor. Labor neglected regional Australia, resulting in crucial economic and social infrastructure being run down. Labor took no action over 13 years to address the adverse impacts of bank closures in rural and regional Australia. In addition, under Labor the number of postal outlets fell by some 277 during its last six years in office—and no action was taken by the Labor Party to reverse that decline.Madam President, we in the coalition government are attempting to build jobs in rural and regional Australia—just as were my coalition colleagues in Queensland when they were in government. What is the Labor Party doing for jobs in rural and regional Australia? I can only refer you to the strike at the Sun Metals refinery in Townsville at the very moment. That project, supported by the Queensland and federal coalition governments, is building real jobs and real capacity in rural and regional Australia. What is the labour movement doing? What are you doing, Senator Gibbs?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Macdonald, address your remarks through the chair.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Madam President, there is an inter-union dispute that has shut that plant down—not a dispute over conditions but a dispute over which union will represent workers. Three unions are there, and another two want to muscle in on them. Bill Ludwig—who put a couple of those opposite into the Senate—has told the CMFEU and the builders labourers union to buzz off. So the whole project has shut down because of a strike.What does the Labor Party do about it? The Labor Mayor of Townsville has had a bit of a crack at it. But what has the Queensland government done? Queensland Labor parliamentarians actually joined the picket line—not there, but at Gordonstone. They have got themselves arrested for stopping jobs—stopping the creation of wealth and jobs in Queensland. And the Queensland Labor government does nothing about it at all.Opposition senators interjecting—YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Bill Ludwig put you into parliament. Apparently his son is coming here—and what is he doing?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Macdonald, that is out of order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Interesting as this might be to Senator Ian Macdonald's branch members in Queensland, isn't this rave completely out of order, given the question that Senator Eggleston asked?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I was attempting to draw to Senator Macdonald's attention that it is out of order and it is certainly out of order to be shouting across the chamber at another senator in the manner in which he did. Senator Macdonald, I draw your attention to the question that was put to you.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Madam President, the question was really about jobs in regional Australia. I am saying what we have done about it. I am particularly drawing attention to the Sun Metals refinery in Townsville. I am asking why the members of the Labor Party do not get that project back to work. Why don't they and Mr Beattie, their lackey in Queensland, do something about that because it is chasing away jobs and chasing away investment in rural and regional Australia? The Labor Party simply allow the unions to have an inter-union dispute.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ian Macdonald, I would ask you to withdraw the reference you made to a state member of parliament in the way that you spoke of him.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Madam President, I am sorry, Mr Pearce was arrested in a picket line.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That was not what I was referring to.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I am sorry. What was it?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There was another expression that was used. It was a reference to the Premier of Queensland. I ask you to withdraw the reference you made with respect to the Queensland Premier.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—It is interesting that you did not even hear the comment. I withdraw, as it is suggested to you by your advisers that I should. I would not have thought it was relevant, but I will withdraw it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The time for answering the question has expired.2608Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Apart from the issues of improving employment in regional areas, which Senator Macdonald has dealt with, I wonder if he would quickly outline the government's plan for improved services in areas like banking, post and access to Medicare Ezyclaim?2608Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Again, I thank Senator Eggleston for reminding me of this great initiative of this government. Tomorrow John Anderson and I will be announcing the regional transaction centre initiative. We will be issuing the guidelines. It is a $70 million project that will deliver services to regional Australia. It will provide for basic banking, Medicare Ezyclaims, fax and phone facilities that left the bush under Labor. It will provide those banking services to replace banks in small communities which left because Labor did not help them at all.It will create jobs. It will provide those services for those smaller rural communities that the Labor Party have no interest in, do not understand and do not give a damn about. But we do, and I am very grateful that tomorrow I will have the opportunity of announcing the guidelines, issuing the application forms and encouraging rural and regional communities to get involved in this very worthwhile government initiative.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Personal Explanations260815:03:002608Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Madam President, I seek leave of the Senate to make a short personal explanation on the grounds of misrepresentation.Leave granted.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I thank the Senate. I claim to have been misrepresented. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has on several occasions over the last few days and most recently again in the House today claimed that there was no agreement with the Democrats on junior rates other than to have a review of junior rates.This morning on Radio National he asserted that I was not even at the meetings and that he had never agreed that youth wages would be referred to the Industrial Relations Commission for determination. I quote from the transcript I have of that discussion. The journalist said:Sure, but you also did that deal with the Democrats in support for them supporting your legislation. One thing they thought they were getting was a deferral of any move on youth wages to the commission.Mr Reith responded:No, no, that is not right.The agreement with Mr Reith could not have been clearer. On the first page it states:This document outlines the agreements reached in these discussions. It also outlines a few areas where agreement could not be reached.On page 20 the agreement goes much further than merely setting up an inquiry process. It states:The act will empower the AIRC to extend the exemption for junior rates on an award by award basis in accordance with guidelines which are established by a Full Bench of the Commission convened by the President.The act does this in section 143(1E). I was at the meeting where this was hammered out, and it was a full and comprehensive settlement of the youth wages issue. Youth wages were not included in the list of items where the government foreshadowed it might change its position later. It was agreed comprehensively not only on how the issue would be dealt with up to June 2000 but also beyond that date. Indeed, Mr Reith told the House on 28 October 1996:That is a fair response to our concerns. So we have the exemption continued on for three years. Beyond the three years, we have a process which would allow that exemption to be granted basically on an award-by-award basis. We will have a much more considered and measured appreciation and analysis of the issue in the meantime.That was the agreement. That was Minister Reith's acknowledgment of it. The compromise was that the Industrial Relations Commission must consider the Democrats' concern about age discrimination and the government's concern about unemployment in its deliberations.Questions Without Notice2609260915:06:002609Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron) to questions without notice asked today.Today we have seen another pathetic performance from the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. We know that he is only there because he is the Prime Minister's mate. We know he wanted to go straight after the election, but the Prime Minister kept him in the job. On the basis of his performance today, and on the basis of his performance in the job, he should not be holding this position.I think it is fair to say that relations between the current federal government and the Aboriginal peoples of this country have never been worse. That is not my line. That is not my quote. That comes from a speech given by the Chairman of ATSIC, this government's appointment, Gatjil Djerrkura, just a few days ago: `Relations have never been worse.' It is the same Mr Djerrkura who in an article published quite recently said:While the Prime Minister talks of reconciliation, Senator Herron flies around the country at taxpayers' expense preaching and practising recrimination.This minister has lost the confidence of the people with whom he should be working. This minister has lost the confidence of broader Australia. For the reasons of poor performance, he should go.Mr Djerrkura's comments, as mentioned in question time today, are basically a plea from Aboriginal Australia. They are a plea for a sane recognition of their problems. They are a plea for decency and fairness from this government and they are a demand for an end to victimisation. It is quite symbolic that Mr Djerrkura is making these comments, because he is another moderate black leader, a former conservative candidate, as he calls himself, condemning this government and this minister for his inept, poor and victimising performance in this portfolio. It is symbolic because this is one of a long list of moderate Aboriginal leaders who have basically had it with this government. They have been wasted by this government.We have seen a whole generation. We have seen the Dodsons. We have seen Tilmouth. We have seen Lowitja O'Donoghue. We have seen David Ross. We have seen Peter Yu, and the list goes on and on. The moderate leadership of indigenous Australia has lost confidence in this mob. Unfortunately for those people in Australia who want reconciliation, who want sanity in relations in this country, if you move the moderates out, if you disengage the moderates, if you disillusion the moderates, who will you get talking to government? You will not get the voice of reason. It seems as if this government is basically planning for this and is quite happy with it.Mr Djerrkura's comments over recent weeks have shown the frustration of the leadership of indigenous Australians. He said that relations have never been worse. He goes on to say that the Prime Minister is only prepared to listen to the voices of ignorance. In terms of his most telling statements, he says that this government has only one policy for reconciliation and has another for recrimination. Mr Djerrkura says, `From where I sit, the policy of recrimination is being actively pursued. Reconciliation is not.'As I say, Mr Djerrkura was not just any appointment; he was hand-picked by the government, a former conservative political candidate—not an appointment whose views you would dismiss, not an appointment whose views you should ignore, not an appointment this parliament should ignore. What is he actually saying? Mr Djerrkura is saying that it is not merely that this minister has failed, not merely that ATSIC and its constituent groups of indigenous Australians have been victimised, not merely that this minister is, in essence, a waste of space in this portfolio, not merely that this minister does not understand the problems, not merely that this minister does not even try to understand indigenous communities, but that this minister is part of a deliberate campaign to denigrate and that should be of grave concern to all of us.`The present minister and his staff have set about creating a totally false impression,' says the Chairman of ATSIC. `Senator Herron has been preaching and practising recrimination,' says Mr Djerrkura. We have to be concerned when such an eminent person makes these sorts of comments. It should be of concern not only to this parliament but also to the broader community. This minister was missing in action when the real issues relating to indigenous Australians were being discussed. He was not here for Wik. He has not been here for reconciliation. He is never here in terms of the service delivery and support services for indigenous Australians. He is a failure. I have to say that the performance in this parliament here today epitomised why Senator Herron is a failure. Basically, he is the Forrest Gump of this ministry. He has no idea where he is or what he is doing. Unfortunately for all Australia, the direct implications and impact of his ineptness are felt across the country. (Time expired)15:11:002610Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—This afternoon we have heard a most extraordinary summary from Senator Bolkus against the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron, talking about poor performance, deliberate campaigns to denigrate and preaching and practising recrimination, and suggesting in his closing remarks that Senator Herron is never there to assist indigenous people. Let us have a look at the record of Senator Herron. Let us start with the record of Labor that Senator Herron in 1996 inherited when he became the minister in our government.After 13 years of Labor, what did we have for indigenous communities? We had a life expectancy for Aboriginal people 15 to 20 years less than the general population. Infectious diseases were still 12 times higher than for the average Australian. Indigenous infant mortality was a particularly tragic figure—three to five times higher. Only 33 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children completed schooling compared with the national average of 77 per cent. In a particularly disgraceful record, 120 remote Aboriginal communities did not have adequate water; 134 communities lacked appropriate sewage disposal; 250 communities were without electricity; and 176 communities had unsealed roads. So during 13 years in government the indigenous communities in this country were given almost one of these buildings, almost a parliament house, every year in the equivalent of cash and programs. That is the disgraceful record that Senator Herron inherited.Labor made a mess of the Native Title Act in this place, and recognised that with the Brandy amendments that were put in. When this parliament changed, we took office and set about reforming the Native Title Act. Under Labor, and this is particularly relevant to my own state of South Australia, the Hindmarsh Island protection debacle cost the taxpayers of this country more than $4 million. The coalition government has made health, housing, employment, education and economic development its priorities. It is working for self-reliance through greater economic independence, which is the ultimate goal to enable indigenous Australians to create their own businesses, to generate employment, and generally to create a more positive future for themselves, their families and their communities.This is a subject very close to my own heart. Over the last few weeks I have been working with indigenous communities in South Australia to establish two women's round tables, which I am very privileged to say will take place in South Australia next week—one in the city and one in the country. The women themselves, who have been working with me to establish these round tables, have identified domestic violence as the key issue that they wish to discuss. So it was particularly pleasant for me on Monday to learn from Senator Herron that he also has defined this as a key priority.The statistics that he offered on Monday in response to a question from me were devastating. I know that I speak for other women on this side of the chamber and probably all women in this place when I say how devastating it is that injury resulting from interpersonal violence is the major cause of hospitalisation of indigenous people, especially indigenous women. A study of the Cape York indigenous community showed that 51 per cent of all injuries and 88 per cent of all assault injuries were alcohol related. The indigenous communities themselves can and must take action to restrict the sale of alcohol.We are making this a priority. We have defined this as being one of the issues that indigenous communities themselves want to deal with. This government has inherited a disgraceful record relating to indigenous communities and Senator Herron has done a magnificent job of tackling the key issues. He is delivering the outcomes. He has done far more in his two years than the previous government did in 13 years. (Time expired)15:16:002611Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron, stands condemned for his performance in the chamber today. Today he had the opportunity to repudiate a mutual friend of yours and mine, Senator Ferris—John Elliott. He did not mention that name.VJ4WATSONSenator Watson—You didn't ask him to.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—A minister should not need to be asked, Senator Watson. He should know that, when attacked like this, he should defend in this chamber the people he is meant to be representing—the Aboriginal communities in Queensland, his constituents. What we saw yesterday was an extraordinary performance, to quote a newspaper, by the former Elders chief at the Institute of Chartered Accountants lunch in Melbourne. Apart from labelling the current Prime Minister `a shade boring', he is reported as going on to say that issues like the republic and Aborigines were not `unimportant in their own right, but they aren't what creates the wealth of the nation'. He said that they aren't `making the pie bigger'.Senator Ferris has just listed some of the shameful statistics relating to Aboriginal people in this country over time. What does Mr Elliott have to say? He says that they are not creating the wealth and health of the nation; they ain't making the pie bigger. He says that we are entitled to ignore them. This is from a bloke who lashed out at Australians who voted for politicians who offered largesse. He is reported as saying:That's the only way Australians even know how to vote. They've voted from the hip pocket all their lives, a very stupid race of people. . .This is the man who ripped off Elders shareholders, who stole from Elders shareholders. This is the man who was involved in the H fee—$66 million worth of shareholders funds—FF4CHAPMANSenator Chapman—I raise a point of order. As I understood it, the issue under debate in the debate on the motion to take note of answers relates to questions asked of Senator Herron this afternoon in question time. The comments being made by Senator Conroy have absolutely no relevance to any of the answers that Senator Herron gave whatsoever.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order, Madam Deputy President: as you know, in debates on the motion to take note of answers to questions, it is common and proper for senators to range widely on these issues. I draw your attention to the fact that Senator Herron was asked questions in relation to comments that Mr Gatjil Djerrkura made, and of course he was not able to answer those questions. Senator Conroy, in my view quite properly—he is certainly in order—draws attention to the fact that while this is occurring we have extraordinary comments made by Mr Elliott. It seems to me that in this circumstance, as has been your practice and the practice of those who have preceded you in the chair when presiding over a debate on the motion to take note of answers after question time, Senator Conroy's contribution should be ruled in order. In fact I hope he is encouraged to continue his remarks, because I think he is developing a very interesting line of argument.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. Questions directed to the minister did relate to Aboriginal affairs.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—The reason that I am standing on my feet today is that the minister for Aboriginal affairs failed at any point in his contributions today—he had most of question time—to rebut and deal with the comments from Mr Elliott along the lines of:We've got to keep Johnny Howard, and I think he's good enough, to stay worrying about economic growth and not worry about saying `sorry' to a forgotten race.The minister should be ashamed for not taking John Elliott to task. He had ample opportunity, in talking about these sorts of things, to reflect on Mr Elliott. He should be doing this speech, not me. He should be pointing out what a crook John Elliott is, how he belongs behind bars, because when he stole $66 million from shareholders and was taken to court—BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The point of order is whether or not defaming someone like that is strictly contrary to the standing orders. It is necessarily well beneath the normal standards we expect in this place where we seek to respect the interests of those who do not have the opportunity to defend themselves. I would guide you to suggest to the honourable senator that he could make a contribution to this debate that does reflect the high standing that this chamber has traditionally held rather than debase it in the way that he is doing at the moment.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Deputy President, on the point of order, I would submit to you that that was a very spurious point of order—a non-point of order—from Senator Hill, deliberately designed only to try to interrupt the full flow of debate and the development of the argument that Senator Conroy is so articulately placing before this chamber.These matters are relevant. They are matters of very significant public interest. They are certainly matters that are significant in terms of contemporary political debate in this country. I believe that a chamber like the Senate is the right place for them to be said, particularly given the circumstances that we have a minister for Aboriginal affairs who is so unwilling to say them.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—Madam Deputy President, on the point of order: there is a very simple point to be made here on this point of order—that is, there is a conclusion being drawn by Senator Conroy in relation to Mr Elliott's conduct. Mr Elliott, so far as I understand it, has not been convicted, and to accuse him of being guilty of a crime when he has not actually been convicted of that seems to me to reflect badly on Senator Conroy. The standards in the Senate certainly require that one be very careful about the sorts of allegations one makes about any citizen, particularly one who certainly has not yet taken the opportunity to defend himself. The ability to defend himself is certainly one that is a delayed ability. It is not an instant one. In my submission on the point of order, it is certainly not one that ought to be allowed to proceed.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. However, I would urge that Senator Conroy perhaps might like to curb some of his language. I draw people's attention to resolution 9 of the privilege report.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Do you remember that one?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I have visited Privileges a few times to discuss these sorts of issues. This is the Mr Elliott who was asked about his speech, and this is what Mr Elliott said:He said that he wrote his speech at 7.00 a.m. yesterday after a heavy weekend at the grand prix, a Carlton practice match, horse races and the ball.He goes on to say:He said that after reading it—that is, his own speech—it makes no sense at all.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I suppose this is one way to fill in an afternoon, but I thought that the debate was about an answer given by Senator Herron to a question on Aboriginal affairs and in particular the comments that Senator Herron had made. It seems quite legitimate in this taking note debate to debate the strength of the answer given by Senator Herron, but to spend five minutes on this personal attack upon a third party seems to be well beyond the tenor of this debate and therefore is irrelevant and out of order.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, but I hope the Senate is debating the answer given by Senator Herron to questions. As I say, I draw your attention to resolution 9 relating to privilege and the exercise of the freedom of speech.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I absolutely endorse Senator Hill's comments. I am debating the strength of the answer given by the minister—the very lack of answer, the lack of opportunity, the lack of follow-up by the minister, a minister who wants to talk about former ministers. He talked about Mr Tickner. I did not see any points of order about all the nonsense we were seeing from that side. There was absolutely nothing when Senator Herron wanted to talk about former Labor ministers. No, you were not looking to try to cover for Mr Elliott like you are now. I do not blame you for wanting to cover for him. He is an embarrassment. Even Jeff Kennett, who has been his mate for the last few years—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Even the Premier of Victoria, Mr Jeff Kennett, has gone on radio this morning and said that Mr Elliott is a forgotten man. That is all we needed from Senator Herron. That is all we needed—the forgotten man, this person who is discredited in the Melbourne business community and who should be up on charges before courts at the moment got away with a shonky judgment in the trial—(Time expired)15:26:002613Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—In her remarks a few moments ago, Senator Ferris showed very clearly what a hide Senator Bolkus has in criticising the Howard government's positive record with regard to Aboriginal affairs and indeed Senator Herron's very effective stewardship of this portfolio as minister. She gave specific examples of Labor shortcomings in Aboriginal affairs. The point of those specific shortcomings that Senator Ferris identified is that it reflects Labor's administration of policy generally, and that was reflected in its administration of Aboriginal affairs which is typical of its general administration in government—that is, if you have a problem, you throw money at it and you hope the problem will go away.You do not make any assessment of the performance and the results of the expenditure of those taxpayers' dollars. You do not have any measurement of performance in place. You do not audit whether the programs have been effective. You do not make any judgments as to whether beneficial outcomes and beneficial results are being achieved for the people on whose behalf that money is being spent. That is why during 13 years in government Labor spent $16 billion on Aboriginal affairs and yet there was no measurable improvement in the living conditions or the health conditions of Aboriginal Australians. There was no improvement whatsoever despite the expenditure of those funds. In addition to that, Labor in government made a complete hash of the Native Title Act. When we amended the act to make it work able, Labor tried to block those amendments in the Senate.With regard to my own state of South Australia, we saw Labor waste $4 million of taxpayers' money with regard to the debacle of the heritage protection of Hindmarsh Island. In contrast to that, Senator Herron as minister and this government are providing practicable and responsible solutions to the urgent problems being experienced by indigenous Australians, particularly those in remote areas. Rather than simply throwing money at this portfolio willy-nilly, what this government is doing is not only increasing funding and providing more money than the Labor government but also focusing that money on areas of real need. It is making health, housing, employment, education and economic development the priority for the funding of Aboriginal affairs. That contrasts markedly with what occurred under the Labor government. Not only is the funding being focused on those areas, it is also being ensured that there are measurable outcomes and measurable benefits being achieved for indigenous Australians as a result of the expenditure of that money.So in contrast to Labor, which failed indigenous Australians by perpetuating a handout mentality that many indigenous people themselves want to change and indeed resent, and in contrast to Labor, which was big on rhetoric, promising billion dollar health programs, fresh water programs and treaties which they never delivered, and in contrast to Labor, which has attempted to block reform in the Senate, this government is delivering for indigenous Australians. We are concentrating on priority areas. With regard to funding, this government will spend some $700 million more in real terms on indigenous specific programs over the years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 than was spent in the last four years of Labor's failed government. Funding for indigenous specific programs will increase from $1.722 billion in 1995-96 to $1.887 billion in 1998-99. That represents a real increase after inflation of 2.4 per cent.One of the main emphases of the coalition government's expenditure is on health. In that area, expenditure will increase by some $73 million over the next four years from this current year onwards for a range of initiatives, including a national indigenous immunisation strategy.5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—Fantastic.FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—It is a fantastic program which will provide measurable and direct benefits to the indigenous community, in direct contrast to the failed policies of the Labor government. The government will spend a total of $386.9 million in the current financial year on indigenous housing and infrastructure programs—a very important initiative of the present government. Funding for indigenous education programs is $334 million in the current financial year. Under the community employment and development program there is further funding. (Time expired)15:32:002614Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—We have heard a lot this afternoon about comparisons with the previous Labor government. Let us have a look at what Gatjil Djerrkura had to say about the times of Malcolm Fraser, Fred Chaney and Ian Viner. He says that they were in power `at a time when all sides of politics worked together to address the appalling levels of the disadvantage that our people continue to suffer in this country'. He goes on to say, `The division which troubles us now is clearly with this current government.' That is from the chair of ATSIC, Gatjil Djerrkura, a person who lives in my own electorate, appointed by this government, heading up a body that is supposed to advise this minister, who has shown us today that he is not interested in his portfolio. He does not want to know about what is happening in his portfolio.Early last year, ATSIC moved a vote of no confidence in this minister and he has since not met with ATSIC. He meets with the Executive Council or groups of councillors under ATSIC but he has still not met with that whole board. When I questioned him about this in estimates his response to me was: `It's their problem.' Well, it's not their problem. He is the minister responsible for this group of people in our country, these electors, these voters—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of this country. It is his problem. He has done nothing to rectify it or sort out the dilemma he finds himself in with a board that is supposed to provide him with advice at a peak level in this country.Even today this government's own Youth Round Table is saying: `Apologise to the indigenous people of this country.' So we have even the youth of this country being more astute about the direction this government ought to be taking in terms of its relationship with Aboriginal people than this minister can show us he is. We have had no leadership from this minister in terms of an apology. We have currently in the Northern Territory the stolen generation case and we have the Commonwealth acting against these people. There has been no comment by the minister in relation to why the government has taken this action.Today in the Northern Territory the Chief Minister made an announcement that in relation to Alice Springs the plan ought to be that Aboriginal people do not get social security benefits unless they stay in their community. No other citizen in this country has to stay in their own backyard to be entitled to social security benefits. That is a proposal being put forward by Denis Burke. We still have no comment from the federal Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs about any of these outrageous statements from most of his conservative mates.We have seen today that there is no leadership in this minister when it comes to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. He doesn't want to know, and he doesn't care about what happens to these people. We see him flit around the country. Gatjil Djerrkura is right when he says that. He touches down at Uluru, at Warburton and last week at Daly River, but what this government fails to remember—Senator Hill interjecting—7Y6Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN—What Senator Hill fails to remember is that this government lost the seat in the Northern Territory. It lost that seat in the House of Representatives after the last election and the voters reinstated Warren Snowdon. One-third of the voters in the Northern Territory are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. What they said to you resoundingly on an eight-to-one basis was: `We don't like your attitude to Aboriginal people, we don't like your policies, and we prefer the Labor Party.' So when the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs stands up on the other side of this chamber and says that the government has won back the hearts of rural and regional Australia and that they are there to represent Aboriginal people, that is just not so. The voters have proved with their feet that that is just not so. They turfed you out of the Northern Territory seat, got rid of Nick Dondas at the last election and put Warren Snowdon back in because they understood that the Labor Party at least cares about what is happening with these people, that we have policies that are better than yours and we stand up for their rights.We have apologised to the stolen generation. We have a policy on reconciliation. At least we know when Reconciliation Week is, unlike your Minister for Reconciliation in the Northern Territory last week. We do support Aboriginal self-determination and we are there for Aboriginal people when they need us. This minister is not there for those people. They need him now and he is nowhere around.15:37:002615Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Taking note of answers given during question time this afternoon covered a range of topics in relation to Aboriginal health and other issues, but what followed was a disgraceful personal and vindictive attack on a great Australian, and I refer to Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. This shocking attack spoke only in generalities. It did not look at his achievements. It did not look at what he has done for Aboriginal people.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—He doesn't have any achievements.VJ4Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSON—I remind you, Senator Faulkner, that he has indeed achieved a great lot in a difficult environment. While many of the militant leaders have been less than generous in their attitudes towards Senator Herron—and it is unfortunate that a number of senators in this place have just repeated those ad lib this afternoon—I think you will find that behind the scenes, behind some of those people in their well paid positions, the ordinary indigenous people actually appreciate what Senator Herron has done for them and speak far more generously and very highly of his achievements. Being one of Australia's eminent cancer surgeons, a man well qualified in health matters, he is able to identify the nub of health issues. He goes to the central core of some of the problems in relation to Aboriginal health. He actually has a great record of achievement in this area.He is criticised for travelling widely. The Aboriginal community is widely spread across the Australian community. He is going out there to see the real needs of the ordinary indigenous people, not taking for granted what is said to him by one or two leaders from their armchair positions. So I say congratulations to Senator Herron who takes his hat off and goes and speaks with these ordinary indigenous Australians and delivers programs that are real achievements in terms of health care for these people. He has been a successful surgeon and, I maintain, one of Australia's most successful Aboriginal ministers.Senator Herron has continued building on the primary health care infrastructure, that infrastructure which is so essential to improving indigenous health. Not one word of criticism was heard about that. No, it was a personal libellous attack on the credibility of a man whose achievements stand high in terms of successfully meeting the needs—and the needs are great—of these Aboriginal people. Improving this infrastructure of development involves the expansion of a network of services, particularly in the remote regions, to improve access to primary health care as well as resourcing services to adapt best practices in areas such as clinical protocols and patient recall systems. These are some of the real achievements—building up that infrastructure where the ordinary people in the remote areas can gain most benefit.So I submit to you today that Senator Herron is delivering needed services to those in most need in remote areas. The government has also put in place a number of specific strategies to tackle the conditions and the high prevalence of disease within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Not a word was mentioned about these strategies, not a word about these achievements, and they go back to one man—Senator Herron for his great achievements. We have two great major initiatives in the indigenous sexual health strategy, and that was launched in March 1997. I remind you that, in the last budget, $10.5 million was allocated over five years to provide a chain reaction testing for STDs. Other major initiatives include the expansion of mental health, emotional self and social wellbeing, including trauma and grief. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Personal Explanations261615:42:002616Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I seek leave to make a brief personal explanation on the grounds that I have been misrepresented.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted? There being no objections, leave is granted.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Page 13 of today's edition of the Daily Telegraph attributes to me the claim that I have `labelled Labor's assessment of the Howard government's policy on women (delivered by Macklin) as a "cheap political stunt"'. This does not reflect my opinion nor the opinion of my party.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Did she say that?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—In response to Senator Lundy, I did not say it. It would appear that the quote in the column is a paraphrase of a press release issued not by me but by Senator Jocelyn Newman on International Women's Day. Her press release reads:Labor claims that the Government is "tough on women" ignores the facts and is simply yet another example of cheap political opportunism, Senator Newman said today. So for the record I hope to have caused no distress or concern to Ms Jenny Macklin. Again I reiterate that that was not my perspective, it is not my view and it does not represent those of my party either. It was of particular concern that it appeared in today's paper, just after International Women's Day.15:43:002617Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I also seek leave to make a brief personal explanation on the grounds of having been misrepresented.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—Yesterday in the matters of urgency debate in this chamber on the issue of service levels in Centrelink, following my contribution Senator Knowles spoke and purported to quote me and said:Senator Bartlett said, `Don't worry about the facts.' For Senator Bartlett to say that in this place I think is a sad reflection . . . It is a bit hard for me to clarify what I actually intended to say because what she said I said bears absolutely no resemblance at all to what I said in my speech, so I do not know which bit to use to explain. Given that I cannot read the whole speech out again, I think the bit she is probably grossly misrepresenting is my saying that it is not a matter of the government quoting all the figures they like—numbers of calls, dollars, et cetera—but it all boils down to the adequacy of the service, which it did all boil down to and that is why the Senate agreed it was a urgent matter. I did not say, `Don't worry about the facts.' For Senator Knowles to have stated so bluntly that I did is clearly misleading, to put it mildly.261710001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:2617180TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate Indonesia's continued denial of human rights to the people of East Timor.Your Petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian government to: (1) actively support all United Nations resolutions and initiatives on East Timor;(2) actively support the right to self-determination of the people of East Timor;(3) work for the immediate release of all Timorese political prisoners;(4) repeal the Timor Gap Treaty; and(5) stop all military cooperation and commercial military activity with Indonesia.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 180 citizens)261777TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate, that the first sale, one third of Telstra, cost the Australian taxpayer $10 billion, the windfall gains of the wealthy share owners. In addition, the service levels of Telstra have fallen sharply since that partial sale as the effect of shedding 25,000 staff to boost shareholders' profits flows are felt.Your petitioners request that the Senate reject any further sale of Telstra. Since the sale of the first third was a failure, any further sale would exacerbate and compound these problems. Such sale would create a powerful new company in Australia, twice the size of BHP or National Australia Bank—reliant entirely on its ability to resist Government regulation for its profitability. That does not offer a fair deal for Telstra's household or small business customers.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 77 citizens)2617162TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows that we are opposed to the uranium mining of Jabiluka, which damages a World Heritage site and compounds the present problem the industry faces of further large quantities of nuclear waste, the toxic end product radioactive for over 200,000 years. There is no known safe way of disposing of this waste, reason enough, we consider, to cease mining uranium.Your petitioners request that the Senate respect the rights of the Mirrar aboriginal people, whose land the Jabiluka site is on and who unequivocally oppose the mine.Further we call on the Senate to refrain from any uranium mining throughout Australia.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 162 citizens)Petitions received.Notices261826182618Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Pursuant to notice given at the last day of sitting, I now 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 1958.2618Senator Lundy to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) Australian Bureau of Statistics figures reveal that only 19 per cent of Australian households have access to the internet, and (ii) only 31 per cent of adult Australians accessed the internet between November 1997 and November 1998;(b) given that the internet is the medium that represents the point of convergence for computing, telecommunications, entertainment, information and, increasingly, government services, calls on the government: (i) to recognise equity of access to the internet is a right for all Australians, and (ii) to acknowledge that rural Australia is at a massive disadvantage with respect to internet access; and(c) calls for urgent attention to address this significant disadvantage.Senator Bourne to move, on the next day of sitting:That Resolution 1 of the Privilege Resolutions of 25 February 1988, relating to the protection of witness, be amended by adding the following paragraph:(19) Without limiting the right of members of committees to ask any relevant questions of witnesses in accordance with the rules of the Senate, committees and their members shall conduct all their dealings with witnesses with courtesy.Senator Mackay to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes the Howard Government's long-term agenda to cut wages for low income work ers which will see women, who dominate low-paid, part-time and casual occupations, significantly worse off;(b) rejects the Government's intention, signalled by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith): (i) to abolish the no disadvantage test, removing what little protection many women workers have when moving to Australian workplace agreements, which will result in the wage gender gap widening, (ii) to exempt small business from award provisions, and (iii) thus penalising women workers who are more likely to exit and then re-enter the workforce; and(c) notes that: (i) women workers still have not achieved equal remuneration in Australia, (ii) as a result of the Government's deregulation of the labour market, the gender gap in wages and conditions is growing steadily, (iii) women workers are systemically discriminated against in Australian workplace agreements, and (iv) women workers are increasingly suffering a loss in basic conditions like maternity leave.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that foods, which are, or contain, genetically-modified materials, are available for sale in Australia;(b) recognises the community concern over this issue and repeated attempts to have it debated properly in this place;(c) acknowledges that the European Union has developed and implemented mandatory labelling of genetically-modified food; and(d) expresses concern that there are still no laws in Australia setting standards for labelling of foods, which are, or contain, genetically-modified materials.Senator Tierney to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that trade unions have blocked four federal work for the dole projects in New South Wales which would have taken on more than 500 unemployed people;(b) recognises that: (i) the Australian Workers Union's veto of one of the contracts involving the National Parks and Wildlife Service was based on a December 1997 directive from the office of the Premier of New South Wales (Mr Carr), and (ii) this program would have had a major role in assisting jobless people find work and would have had a positive impact on the environment in the area; and(c) notes that, through programs like work for the dole or Green Corps, the Federal Government has shown its commitment to youth issues, particularly unemployment and the environment, and the New South Wales Australian Labor Party Government, through this action, has shown its rejection of both.Senator Harradine to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the murder on 23 January 1999 of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his sons, Timothy and Philip, in the eastern Indian province of Orissa, (ii) the beheading of a 46-year old Jesuit priest in October 1998, (iii) that at least 32 churches and church halls have been attacked since Christmas Day 1998, and further notes other acts of violence against the minority Christian population, including the beating of priests, raping of nuns, burning of bibles and attacks on mission schools and hostels, (iv) that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh party has a 3-year target for removing all Christians from India and that the Hindu fundamentalist group Vishwa Hindu Parishad (Hindu World Council) has issued an ultimatum to all Christian missionaries to leave the Nasik in Maharashtra state by 31 March 1999 or face dire consequences, and (v) that the Indian Prime Minister, Mr AB Vajpayee, and the Indian President, Mr KR Narayanan, have condemned the murders;(b) expresses its condolences to Mrs Gladys Staines, her daughter Esther and other relatives of Graham, Timothy and Philip; and(c) calls on the Indian Government to: (i) ensure the perpetrators of the murders are brought to justice, (ii) ensure the safety of Mr Staines' widow, daughter and other Australian missionaries, and (iii) take every step to protect India's 23 million Christians and put an end to the communal violence and restore religious harmony.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that the Australia New Zealand Food Authority has released a proposal to water down current food content and labelling regulations as part of a review of food standards to be completed by 1 January 2000;(b) expresses concern that: (i) such changes will jeopardise Australian food icons, including the meat pie, as current regulations requiring a 25 per cent minimum meat content will be abandoned under the proposal allowing substitution for quality meat of cheaper imitations, including offal and brains, lungs and mammary organs, and (ii) such government mismanagement of food safety regulation will have a detrimental effect on consumer health, safety and confidence and therefore the Australian retail, hospitality and tourism industries; and(c) urges the Government to: (i) dismiss such proposals, and (ii) impose mandatory truth in labelling regulations for all food products, including genetically-modified foods, ensuring informed consumer choice, consumer health and consumer confidence in Australian industries.Senator Bourne to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that 10 March 1999 marks the 50th anniversary of the Chinese invasion of Tibet and the 40th anniversary of the Tibetan national uprising which led to the Dalai Lama fleeing his homeland for a life of exile in India, (ii) that, to commemorate the event, the Australian Tibetan community and many of its friends and supporters held a peace march which began in Canberra on 17 February 1999 and finished in Sydney on 10 March 1999, with the objective of raising awareness among the Australian people of the situation in Tibet, and (iii) the continuing grave human rights situation in Tibet, which is having a dramatic and destructive effect on the culture, language and identity of the Tibetan people; and(b) calls on the Chinese Government to respond positively to the Dalai Lama's call for unconditional dialogue on the future of Tibet.Committees2620262026202620Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the third report of 1999 of the Selection of Bills Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—REPORT NO. 3 OF 1999(1) The Committee met on 9 March 1999.(2) The Committee resolved to recommend—(a) That the provisions of the following bills be referred to committees:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateRadiocommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyEnvironment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts26 April 1999Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 1999 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyEnvironment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts26 April 1999Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 1999 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyEnvironment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts26 April 1999Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyEconomics13 May 1999(b) That the following bills not be referred to committees:. Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1999. Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999. General Interest Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998. National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Amendment Bill 1998. National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment Bill 1998 . Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999]. Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 1998. Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 1998. Primary Industries Levies and Charges (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998. Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1998. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1998. Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999.The Committee recommends accordingly.(3) The Committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 8 December 1998). Customs (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998. Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998(deferred from meeting of 16 February 1999). Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999]. Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999.(Paul Calvert)Chair10 March 1999Appendix 1Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bills:Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1999Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 1999Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 1999Reasons for referral/principal issues for considerationSerious concerns with some of definitions within the bills.Industry continues to raise concerns about some details of the bills.The bills deal with issues currently proposed to be scrutinised in the recently announce Productivity Commission review of broadcasting.Possible submission or evidence from:. Industry. Government departments/institutionsCommittee to which the bills are to be referred:Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s) :Possible reporting date : 26 April 1999signedKerry O'BrienWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 2Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration(1) To address industry concern about the nature of the legislation and the scheme that will be introduced.(2) Discussion of the necessity for the review before future change in tariff rates.Possible submission or evidence from:TCTUA, TFIA, AIG and other interested parties.Committee to which the bills are to be referred:Economics Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s) :Possible reporting date : 13 May 1999signedKerry O'BrienWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberNotices26212621Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in her name for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 132 standing in his name for today, relating to the proposed international airport on Kooragang Island, Newcastle, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That general business notices of motion Nos 96, 98 and 99 standing in her name for today, relating to uranium mining, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 63 standing in her name for today, relating to drug use and abuse, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 136 standing in her name for today, relating to the appointment of a Select Committee on Superannua tion and Financial Services, be postponed till the first sitting day of April 1999.Committees262226222622Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That the following matters be referred to the Procedure Committee for examination and report:(a) whether the procedure for taking note of answers to questions is serving the purpose for which it was introduced;(b) whether changes to the allocation of the call to the various parties or to the total time available for taking note are warranted; and(c) any other issues relating to the procedure for taking note of answers to questions.Miscellaneous26222622Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 127 standing in my name for today, relating to International Women's Day and equality of women in the work force, be taken as a formal motion.2622Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I seek leave to make a brief statement on a historical matter.Leave granted.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—The motion says:. . . expresses concern that although equal pay for equal work was granted by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in 1972 . . .That was not actually the decision of the commission in 1972. That decision was equal pay for work of equal value. That is what the trade union movement was supporting. The 1969 judgment was `equal pay for equal work', which everybody was unhappy about because it required women to do the same jobs under the same conditions as men—lifting the same weights, et cetera.I suggest that the motion be amended. Instead of saying `equal pay for equal work', it should read, `equal pay for work of equal value'. I am sorry. I think I got one of the very first equal pay decisions in an award about 10 years before that.2622Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I seek leave to amend the motion in the way suggested by Senator Harradine.Leave granted.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I move the motion, as amended:That the Senate—(a) notes that 8 March is International Women's Day and that, in 1998, Australian women comprised only: (i) 7.6 per cent of all board members, (ii) 9.7 per cent of non-executive directors, (iii) 1.3 per cent of all executive directors, (iv) 34 per cent of all academics, (v) 13 per cent of all academics above senior lecturer level, and (vi) 21.4 per cent of all members of Federal Parliament;(b) expresses concern that although equal pay for work of equal value was granted by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in 1972 women's full-time earnings are only 84 per cent of men's; and(c) supports equality for women in all areas of Australian society.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills262226222622O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Bolkus, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 131 standing in the name of Senator Bolkus for today, relating to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999], be taken as a formal motion.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is an objection to this being taken as a formal motion8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—At the request of Senator Bolkus I move:That general business notice of motion no. 131 be postponed till the next day of sitting. Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous2623Motion (by Senator Bartlett) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that the company Pangea has written to the Australian Government and made public statements that it would like to site an international nuclear dump site on Australian soil; and(b) will never, under any circumstances, support or allow an international nuclear dump site to be developed in Australia by Pangea, any other company or any government.Committees262326232623Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Schacht) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous262315:39:002623Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I seek leave to have general business notice of motion No. 135, standing in my name for today and relating to East Timor, taken as a formal motion.Leave not granted.262316:00:002623Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Brown moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to General Business notice of motion No. 135.This is an important motion that deals with the unique and historically damning position of Australia in 1978 giving recognition to the takeover of East Timor by the Indonesian military. On 20 January 1978, the then Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Andrew Peacock, announced in his press conference of that day, `Today the government of Australia has decided to accept East Timor as part of Indonesia.' At that stage it was well known to the government of the day that East Timor had fallen under the yoke of a very brutal military dictatorship and that already scores of thousands of people had died, were imprisoned or were living in fear of their lives.A decade later, in 1985, the then Labor Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, made it clear that Labor followed suit when he said on 25 July, `We recognise the sovereign authority of Indonesia'—that is, in relation to East Timor. No other country in the world, besides Australia, moved against the spirit of the United Nations determination that the East Timorese should be given their right to self-determination. Australia decided to side with the Suharto dictatorship and recognise the cruel occupation which was occurring in East Timor.I applaud the recent move by the Labor opposition in this country to come to terms with that history and the move by the government itself—albeit belatedly and behind the passage of events in Indonesia and East Timor—towards recognising the inalienable right of the East Timorese to self-determination. It is somewhat surprising to me that, when we have an opportunity through this Greens' motion to call on the Australian government to remove from the books at this stage Australia's continuing position of recognising the military occupation of Indonesia, it is the Labor Party which has blocked this motion coming to a vote. I would have thought that Labor would be able to express the position now which said that Indonesia's military occupation of East Timor is not valid, is not what the world wants and, much less so, is what the people of East Timor want.For those who do not understand procedure in here, Labor has blocked this motion coming to a vote. I have now moved that we have a debate on the matter. The division which will come up after this debate is as to whether a further debate should be allowed before the matter comes to a conclusion. But it would appear that Labor is going to side with the Howard government in not allowing it to come to a vote.I would have thought that Labor, like the government, would take this opportunity to say, `Well, events have changed. The past is no longer with us.' This is an opportunity for us to make amends, to clear the record and to bring Australia into line with the rest of the world, with United Nations resolutions on this matter and in particular with the aspirations of the people of East Timor. The Greens look forward to the East Timorese, as our nearest neighbours, becoming an independent and sovereign people, aided as quickly and as much as possible by Australia—although belatedly after 20 years of a pretty damning history of Australia abandoning those people.This is an opportunity for us to make some amends. I find it very frustrating and mystifying that the Labor Party—for procedural reasons presumably—is not allowing this motion to come to the vote that we ought to be having here today, which would recognise that part of the forthcoming independence for East Timor must come through Australia withdrawing its 20 years of support for military occupation in that country.16:05:002624Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The government opposes the suspension of standing orders for two reasons. Firstly, the normal process or usual practice in this place for motions of this nature where there is not immediate urgency—and nothing in Senator Brown's speech demonstrates urgency for this debate to take place today—is that it be debated at the appropriate time on Thursday. Senator Brown has chosen not to do so because I think he wants a bit of a grandstanding opportunity here.Secondly, and more importantly, we oppose it because we do not believe that it will constructively assist the process of change that is occurring in relation to Indonesia and East Timor at the moment. The question of Indonesia's sovereignty over East Timor is one that has been accepted by the past Labor government and this coalition government. It was formalised by the coalition in 1979, maintained by the Labor government and, in August 1985, explicitly confirmed in a statement to the parliament by the then Prime Minister, Mr Hawke.The issue now is—bearing in mind, as Senator Brown acknowledged, the changing picture in this region—what Australia can constructively and positively do to help. Simply to take a different stand after so many years of recognising a particular situation would not constructively assist at all. It might be the theatre that Senator Brown desires. Our approach is rather to look at ways in which, as I said, we can constructively support the process of change that is occurring.And beyond that, the motion put by Senator Brown is misleading in that it suggests that there is only one country in the world that has recognised Indonesia's rule in East Timor—Australia—when, in fact, that is not the case. In fact, some 31 countries have done so. Of course many countries have signed treaties with Indonesia which contain clauses defining East Timor as `that territory which is deemed by the laws of Indonesia to be subject to Indonesian sovereignty'. Of course several countries have made public statements explicitly recognising Indonesian sovereignty, including India and Papua New Guinea.In saying I do not think bringing this motion on today—or even the carriage of it, if it was brought on—will help the people of East Timor, I certainly would not want that to be misinterpreted as suggesting that in any way Australia approves the circumstances of the Indonesian acquisition of East Timor. We do not. We have not done so. But we have recognised the reality for many years, and that position will continue until there is a change, which would seem to be in the process of occurring at the moment.16:08:002625Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The opposition will not be supporting the motion for the suspension of standing orders on this particular matter. As Senator Brown indicated, he is moving a motion that if agreed to by the Senate will allow a full debate on motion No. 135 on the Senate Notice Paper . The issue of course for the Senate to give consideration to this afternoon is whether this particular motion deserves priority over those other matters that are before the chamber.In this case the opposition believes the matter of public importance that has been placed before the Senate by Senator Lundy, and of course the substantive debate on government business that we have at the moment in relation to the government's outrageous proposal to fully privatise Telstra are matters of great significance—as is, of course, the issue that Senator Brown is keen to see the Senate debate in relation to East Timor. That is the balance. You have got to make a decision on what takes priority in terms of the limited hours and sitting time that the Senate has to debate all these questions, which I think every Senator would agree deserve the full and appropriate consideration of the Senate.Let me explain why some members of the opposition may have requested that this matter not become a formal motion. Senator Brown properly says that at least one member of the opposition also called this matter not formal. He is right in saying that, and there is a very good reason for that. It is something that I have mentioned previously in this chamber. Do not forget that formal motions are very blunt instruments in this place. We in the opposition have always believed that they are not appropriate instruments for formulating or conveying positions on foreign policy issues. You can either support the motion before the Senate or you can oppose the motion before the Senate. No senator has a capacity to amend a proposition. You only have a choice in a vote like this to agree completely with the words that the senator has placed in his or her notice—in this case, the notice that has been moved by Senator Brown—or to vote against it, and sometimes that just does not fit the nuances of the position of other senators. In this case it does not happen to suit the opposition. We do not make any excuses for that and we do not back away from that position.There is not one senator or one reasonable person in the community who can say that the Labor Party has not given the issue of East Timor—about which Senator Brown's motion is concerned—a very great priority since the last election. I do not think any fair or objective commentator on Australian politics could argue that we have not given this particular issue very great significance and demonstrated in public debate and also within the parliamentary Labor Party caucus that this matter has very great importance and priority. No reasonable person could come to any other conclusion, and I think our public record stands in that regard. I must say that one or two of the comments in relation to the opposition's approach to this particular motion from Senator Brown were a little churlish in that context.The issue before us is not the substantive policy issue but whether we go into a full policy debate or not. We say the issue that Senator Brown has placed before the Senate is a very important one, but other issues are very important also and at this point deserve priority. But if we are going to have the debate let us have it in full and let us not have such a blunt instrument which senators can either vote in favour of or against. (Time expired)16:13:002625Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—Honourable senators will be aware that the sovereignty of East Timor has been dear to the hearts of all Democrats since 1978. In fact, I imagine there are several members of this and previous parliaments who think it has been dear to the hearts of Democrats in a rather tedious fashion, because we have been going on and on about it over many years, right from our inception in 1978. I remember working for Senator Colin Mason, who was the first of our Democrat senators from New South Wales. It was one of the issues most dear to his heart and he was fairly constantly talking about it, both inside and outside the Senate. I remember the Democrats being alone on the floor of the Senate in our objections to Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor. I think we are in a most wonderful situation now where we all seem to agree that the East Timorese deserve their self-determination. I really enjoy not being abused for having that opinion now, which happened fairly frequently in the past.I would debate this most important issue at any time. It goes to Australia's sense of our own dignity as much as that of the East Timorese people, and I think that it should be raised at any time and in any forum—as indeed should any human rights issue. We have a duty in all human rights issues but particularly we have a duty to make sure that the East Timorese people are able to determine their own future for themselves. That now looks like it is happening.I am really looking forward to a very thorough investigation by the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into Australia's future relations with East Timor—whether it is an autonomous region or an independent region. I hope it will be independent but, of course, that will be up to the people of East Timor to determine. We could now discuss many things in relation to East Timor. We could discuss where Indonesia is going. We could discuss what is likely to happen at the Indonesian elections on 7 June and how that will affect the future of East Timor. We could discuss the current medical crisis in East Timor, or the current crisis of civil servants leaving East Timor. There are huge gaps in the knowledge of this parliament about what is going on in East Timor at the moment.Only yesterday I was at a briefing given by Mr John McCarthy, the Australian Ambassador to Indonesia. He was very informative about what is going on in Indonesia and how that will affect the future of East Timor. I know he gave a briefing to the press and there were some articles in the newspapers today. We could discuss those. We could go into what Australia intends to do and, indeed, what Australia is doing. Australia does have a few initiatives that the Foreign Minister is introducing in relation to East Timor and I think they should be discussed as well. I would like to discuss that right now. I think it is an issue which Australians want to hear discussed and the Australian parliament deserves to be well informed on. But, unfortunately, I do not think that is going to happen right now. I will look forward to the Senate inquiry, because that discussion will happen under the Senate inquiry. I would like it to happen in the Senate chamber, but I fear that will probably not be the case.16:18:002626Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—There is an interesting background to the issue we are dealing with today. It certainly is urgent; there would be very few people in East Timor or Indonesia or amongst the international community who do not think this issue is urgent. From the point of view of Australia's standing, if at some point we were able to say we recognised that there had been an error in Australian government judgment—whether it was coalition or Labor, it matters not—it would make a great deal of difference to the people of East Timor. If it was not for that error of judgment, we would not be standing on one foot and then the other trying to work out what we are going to say about this issue at the moment. We would be beyond the situation of always having had good relations with Indonesia—we would have had it on an honest basis.There is an incredible amount of debate going on about this issue in the wider community. It is very disappointing to see a politician like Gough Whitlam using this as a means of making personal attacks within the Labor Party. I am very sad that that is happening, because I am one of those people who found a lot to be admired in many of the policies and actions of Gough Whitlam. I also believe many of his policies and actions were what could be considered courageous—some of them in the Sir Humphrey way of depicting courageous; others in a way that we had never seen before, involving standing up for what were believed to be issues of commonsense and principle for many in the community. However, that does not mean that one person is necessarily right on all issues.This is one of those areas where the mature—and urgent—thing for Australia to do would be to admit that maybe we made mistakes in the past, whether it was Andrew Peacock announcing that Australia had decided to accept East Timor as part of Indonesia—which, despite what Senator Hill said, no other country had actually done—or whether it was Gough Whitlam taking what he considered to be the right action at the time. The mistake was in not taking what I believe was the honest action, in not accepting the reality that the rest of the world accepted and dealing with Indonesia on a true footing. By doing what we did we put ourselves behind the eight ball in any negotiations in relation to East Timor. We put ourselves—I would say deliberately—in a compromising position in relation to any further discussions with Indonesia when it related to East Timor and, perhaps, when it related to any of the other areas in the world where such situations existed. But East Timor was particularly important to Australia because of its proximity. It was, I believe, an incorrect recognition historically; and there is no time which is too late, I believe, to acknowledge what might have been an incorrect judgment in the past.I should explain to the Senate that in the first place I alluded to the Labor Party having decided that, on issues of foreign affairs with parties like the Greens or the Democrats, its first response is no. Senator Faulkner has said that there is no chance to amend such amendments. That is not true. There is always the possibility to approach any mover of any motion and ask for the wording to be changed. I have done it on dozens of occasions. People have approached me and asked that motions be put off for a certain amount of time. They have asked for there to be different wordings and that they be given different background on it. They have asked for words to be amended, for paragraphs to be taken out and for words to be added in. It has happened on countless occasions with motions that I have been involved with. It is always possible for that to happen. Therefore, it is not correct to say that it is not possible and that each motion has to be `take it or leave it'.There might necessarily need to be better communications between the parties. It might mean that we also need to communicate more effectively. However, it is not correct to say that these are `take it or leave it' motions. There are means by which, in the Senate, you can make amendments to motions that are put. I think what is happening is that there are some embarrassments on foreign affairs. (Time expired) Question put: That the motion (Senator Brown's ) be agreed to.16:27:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.53Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cooney, B. Crane, W.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Ellison, C.Evans, C. V. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hogg, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lundy, K.Macdonald, I. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Minchin, N. H. Murphy, S. M.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K. *O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Notices26282628Motion (by Senator Murray) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 112 standing in his name for today, relating to parliamentary standards or codes of conduct, be postponed till the first sitting day of the next sitting week.Matters of Public Importance2628262810000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—The President has received a letter from Senator Lundy proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:The government's failure to take early and decisive action to prepare all facets of the Australian community for the negative social and economic impacts of the year 2000 problem, to initiate a public education campaign to ensure that the Australian community is informed of the potential effects of the Y2K problem, and to facilitate transparency of government activities on Y2K.I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that informal agreements 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.16:34:002628Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—This discussion will hopefully draw attention to the government's failure to take early and decisive action that would prepare all Australians for the possibility of disruptive social and economic consequences arising from year 2000 problems. This urgency motion calls upon the government to embark upon a sensible public education campaign to inform the community about the potential for year 2000 problems. It is equally critical for them to facilitate transparent accounts of government activity so that we are informed about the state of compliance of all government departments and agencies at a federal level, and seek the cooperation and involvement of state and local governments.The US government have responded to this challenge, and last week they released the findings of the US Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. I will refer on several occasions during this debate to this US report, because the US are one of the few administrations that have comprehensive background data and activity on this issue. Their report is the most comprehensive statement into the preparedness of American organisations and institutions with respect to the year 2000. The report, a 160-page analysis of what is commonly called the millennium bug, gives a clear indication of the problems we face and has particular relevance to Australia with respect to our compliance progress.According to the Senate chairman, Robert Bennett, almost every sector of the economy is vulnerable to Y2K problems. However, while this report noted that there is no need to stockpile food, money or essentials as the world will not end on New Year's Eve, there are nevertheless serious disruptions and system failures that will occur in some areas.The US Senate stressed that there is a major problem separating fact from fiction with respect to the year 2000 problems, and this has resulted in the emergence of doomsday type cults who are predicting the end of the world as a result. What the US Senate has found is that, first, disclosure of Y2K compliance is, in their words, `poor' and this has resulted in many organisations beginning remediation way too late. Second, the US government is itself underprepared for what will happen on 1 January 2000. Third, 50 per cent of small to medium sized businesses have yet to become compliant, although larger organisations are more focused on what is required. Fourth, although there are not expected to be any major power blackouts, there are expected to be regional outages as only 50 per cent of electricity utilities have completed Y2K remediation. Fifth, public transport does face serious disruptions as many international airports and the maritime shipping industry have not moved aggressively enough to become compliant.The most important aspect emerging from the Senate report is that there is no proper national strategic plan in place to ensure that critical infrastructure will function adequately. The many layers of governments involved exacerbate this problem—a situation that Australia is clearly facing. The coalition government failed to take early and decisive action in addressing Y2K issues, and their inability to demonstrate leadership in this area will result in many sectors not being fully compliant in time. Instead, the leadership on this issue in this country has come from the Australian Stock Exchange in their pressure on companies listed to become compliant and setting effective deadlines to ensure that is achieved.Because the government has taken so long to introduce legislation pertaining to encouraging Y2K voluntary disclosure, many people remain unsure of the state of compliance with respect to key industries. Indeed, the value of the Good Samaritan style legislation has been as much in the profile it has brought to this issue as in the legislative mechanisms it builds.In America, over 80 per cent of the public telecommunications networks have been tested and deemed compliant. This is the kind of information that must be forthcoming from the government and currently it is not. More and more we find that information is coming forth through a range of publications where the editors and journalists have taken the responsibility to present the issues constructively before the public. I commend them for this activity.We find that US financial services are ahead of most other industries in their compliance and that 95 per cent of banks and credit unions have been deemed compliant. Yet the best that Minister Alston can come up with is to tell business leaders that they will lose their jobs if their organisations are not compliant and problems arise.In terms of transport, those in the US say unequivocally that there is no possibility of planes falling out of the sky on New Year's Eve. This information is contained in the US government released data on America's 670 domestic airports and acknowledges that some disruptions may occur because they did not begin compliance measures in time. Contrast that detailed information with Minister Alston and Minister Howard, whose only response has been to say that they are prepared to fly on New Year's Eve. This government has always had a propensity to dumb things down, but this is very insulting to members of the community who are gravely concerned.There are also some key sectors such as the agriculture sector who have only now just begun to address Y2K—295 days away from the year's end. Only this week they are sending information kits with details about how Y2K will affect irrigation systems, storage and handling equipment and automatic milking and feeding systems.The US Senate has reported what the Labor Party has been arguing all along—that a lack of leadership at the highest level is retarding the compliance progress. The year 2000 problem is not just a problem for government and big business. Its repercussions will ripple throughout the community and the economy and that is why leadership is identified as crucial. The slowness of the coalition to respond to the challenges of the year 2000 has left many departments and agencies vulnerable and underprepared, as was demonstrated by the independently pursued Australian National Audit Office review of six government departments and agencies.While over 90 per cent of Australian businesses are aware of Y2K, barely 60 per cent have taken action or intend to take action to fix potential problems. Of those businesses that are not intending, or have not begun, to take action, the main reason they have not done so is that they are unsure about what they need to do. A quarter of these businesses are not doing anything about claims that they will not be affected and a staggering 16 per cent are unaware of what the problem is. This is despite quite diligent efforts to date with respect to the Y2K task force and remedial efforts by the government to raise the issue.There is also tremendous confusion about the costs involved in compliance, with over 50 per cent of Australian businesses estimating that it will cost them up to $10,000. Many Australian businesses and organisations are looking to the federal government for direction and assistance and they are time and time again disappointed with the level of information available. Anecdotally I have heard of a caller to the National Office of Information Economy who was politely told to go and check out the Y2K web site. That was the extent of the advice. That is why I am calling on the government to begin a public awareness campaign immediately.I am aware that, as a result of Senate estimates recently, a public awareness campaign is being explored by the government at this point in time and indeed only a few weeks ago they were at the stage of considering engaging a consultant to begin market testing on the style of campaign that is in fact required, but we are less than 300 days out. Is it not a little late? Not only are many businesses unaware of what to do, there is also a question mark surrounding how government departments will fare in the New Year. Whilst I have great confidence that there will not be wholesale failures of government services, there has been a failure of this government to respond to the demands for information. That is of major concern to all citizens.It is interesting that when Bill Clinton first proposed their Good Samaritan legislation in July 1998, he was criticised by technical experts who claimed it was `too little too late'. The Clinton administration was attacked for being too slow in setting national priorities and preparing national contingency plans. President Clinton set March 1999 as a deadline for all federal government departments to be compliant. While they have not achieved that goal, with 13 of their government's 24 largest agencies yet to reach mission critical compliant status, at least they have been open and up-front in releasing information.Contrast that with the actions of this government and of Minister Alston, who have had to be pushed every step of the way to release information about the progress of our agencies and departments. This includes voting down several efforts on behalf of the Labor Party late last year to initiate a disclosure of compliance reports to date. So it is more than fair that Labor is highly critical of the coalition government for taking so long to take the necessary steps to encourage the disclosure of Y2K within the Commonwealth government. Whilst we actively called for and indeed supported Minister Alston in introducing Good Samaritan legislation, we also had to push all the way for amendments that strengthened the bill with respect to disclosure.Another frustration about the government's slow introduction of Y2K legislation is that the government must be active in dispelling the myths about the millennium bug. There is so much curiosity and there is so much temptation to sensationalise and I am receiving ever increasing numbers of queries from concerned constituents about what is being done by the government in terms of compliance. More and more, I have to admit that it is not enough.Part of the problem is that there is confusion about what Y2K actually means and what is involved in becoming compliant. Despite all the hoopla surrounding the year 2000, the problem is not about the year per se. The real problem is about how computers have been programmed to read dates. Those computer systems that are not Y2K compliant and rely on specific dates are the ones that need to be addressed.Leap years, for instance, pose a specific problem. The year 2000 is a leap year. Leap years occur in years that are divisible by four, except for years that end in 00, which must be divisible by 400 to be leap years. Hence the years 1700, 1800 and 1900 are not leap years, but the year 2000 is. As a result, all date calculations after 29 February 2000 would be off by one day if a computer were not year 2000 compliant.There are also specific dates that will pose problems to non-compliant computers. In the 1980s computer programmers used special-meaning dates to indicate particular functions, such as 9/9/99 to indicate the expiration date for archived data to be designated to have `no expiration date'. Because different systems use different special dates for mainframes in many computers, no-one is really sure exactly what impact this particular problem will cause. Although we have always known that these applications would eventually cause problems, little was done about it until recently. Unfortunately, there is no universal law or ruling governing the Y2K problem and so we have an ad hoc approach that by and large leaves the fixing of the problem to individual companies and governments.So we find ourselves fewer than 300 days away from the year 2000 and some countries have done virtually nothing with respect to compliance, while others will be all but prepared. Australia is better positioned than most countries, and I am confident that the effects of non-compliance that will no doubt be felt throughout next year will be manageable. However, these disruptions or glitches, or whatever will occur, could possibly have been lessened had the problem been recognised earlier and had the government acted more expeditiously.To sum up the situation, let me read what the US Senate concluded about the year 2000 problem. They reported:[We] still cannot conclusively determine how extensive the Y2K disruptions will be . . . some disruptions will occur, and in some cases Y2K disruptions may be significant [however there is] no data to suggest that the United States will experience nation-wide social or economic collapse.I have no doubt that the minister will use his time in this debate to hit back at the Labor Party for raising these issues in this way, but I challenge him to make a constructive contribution and to use this opportunity to present before the Australian people more information about what the government's intention is to increase their awareness and facilitate their education about the implications of the Y2K problem.There is a great opportunity for leadership on this issue, not just here in Australia but in the whole Asia Pacific region. I have men tioned before that, relatively speaking, Australia stands in a strong position. I believe that that in turn places a responsibility on the government of this country to facilitate and share their expertise with those nations in the region who are struggling in confronting the demands and challenges of compliance with respect to the Y2K. This is the real challenge that presents itself before this government.I anticipate that over the next few months the government will in fact bring forth more information to the Australian public. I anticipate that we may in fact see some sort of public education and awareness campaign. I am sincerely hopeful of that fact. But what we really are looking for, as we have with the coalition government through so many issues, is decisive leadership so that all aspects of the Australian community can feel confident as we approach 1 January 2000.16:51:002631Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I listened with interest to that contribution read by Senator Lundy, Senator Lundy being the shadow minister assisting the shadow minister for industry and technology, who in fact puts out a letterhead which simply describes her as the shadow minister assisting on information technology. How anyone except the insiders—this is inside baseball stuff—would know what that meant, I do not know. Nonetheless, it has provided a sufficient platform for Senator Lundy to think that somehow she can get into the point-scoring business on an issue which I had thought had considerable bipartisan support.This is a unique problem—one that we can never determine the precise nature and extent of in advance, although we know the date, so it is quite unlike normal man-made disasters or emergencies. It is nonetheless a problem that is being taken increasingly seriously around the world.But to stand up in this parliament and somehow suggest that the Australian government is off the pace simply ignores all of the facts about what is happening internationally. As I would have thought Senator Lundy would be aware, the efforts of this government have been acknowledged worldwide. The OECD and the Gartner Group regard Australia as being right up there with the US.In the Congress only last week the Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem found that Australia ranks in the top tier of preparedness together with the US, the UK and Canada. They are not saying that we are No. 1, 2, 3 or 4. They are saying that we are in the top tier and there is no-one doing any better than we are. That is their finding. The fact is that we have been working very closely with state and territory governments and peak industry bodies since 1996, since we came to government—in other words, about three years. There are people who have done more than that. Telstra started work some four years ago, but when we came to office in March 1996 there was basically no-one home. So we have had to start from scratch. We have put in place all sorts of important requirements for disclosure.Senator Lundy says that this is an ad hoc approach because it is being left to individual countries and companies as though somehow there is a template that fits across the globe, which is a preposterous and ridiculous proposition. Anyone would know that different countries are at different stages. We are at the top. I came across a country recently which was going to conduct a seminar on `Is it too late to start?' I would have thought that they are not quite up to scratch. I also came across a European country recently that had put in place a national committee about nine months ago, but it had its first meeting in January this year.We have had a national steering committee looking after the requirements for reporting of companies to the Stock Exchange which has been looking very closely at industry performance. We have had ABS surveys. Senator Ian Campbell has been doing the rounds assiduously and talking to all of those with a keen interest in the subject. What you will find is that Australia is doing very well indeed. It is not a question of complacency. It is not a question of saying that we have done enough, but you have to keep powering on, and we have been.Senator Lundy seems to think that, for example, one of the things we should be doing is taking advantage of a great opportunity for leadership in the Asia-Pacific region. If she had bothered to surf the Net last night she would have seen a speech I gave yesterday on the Gold Coast to the International Telecommunications Union entitled `Year 2000 Compliance and Telecommunications Workshop for the Asia-Pacific Region'. There was substantial attendance. They all accepted the proposition that Australia had a great deal to offer and they were very interested in looking at the initiatives we had taken.In relation to the awareness program that we are launching, as I came into the chamber I heard Senator Lundy saying things like `recently the government said in estimates that they were exploring or examining the possibility of commissioning'. This is what Senator Lundy said in the second reading debate on the Y2K information disclosure bill:We heard just last night at an estimates committee that the government has finally, albeit belatedly, commissioned research in preparation for a public awareness campaign.She comes in here and says that we are exploring and examining possibilities, and yet here she is accepting that we had commissioned research in preparation for it. The fact is that I took the opportunity yesterday to announce the strategy. The government is developing a strategy to address the concerns of the general public about the risks or otherwise of service failures emanating from the Y2K problem in addition to, but coordinated with, the Y2K industry program. The strategy aims to stimulate public confidence in measures undertaken by Australian governments, state and federal, and industry to achieve Y2K readiness, to minimise the scope for unnecessary contingency planning by the public and to raise awareness of Y2K issues among groups where remediation progress appears to be slow.In Australia, unlike some other developed countries, we have been fortunate that the press has taken a largely responsible and balanced approach to reporting and commenting on the issue. However, if we want the public to continue to receive balanced messages, then we have an obligation to make available information concerning our preparedness. We have been on the case now for many months and years. We are constantly updating and improving the disclosure arrangements. As Senator Lundy well knows, since 1997 the Australian government has been requiring reports from its own agencies and departments.I noted also that Senator Lundy said that we had voted down on two occasions attempts to require the provision of more information. The fact is that, as you should know, there are quarterly reports which we have been in the practice of making available. Because of the election, it was not possible during the caretaker period to provide the relevant report at the normal time. We therefore brought the two together and released them in December. No-one that I am aware of has in the slightest degree been critical of that proposal. Senator Lundy, no-one comes to me complaining that we are not up with world's best practice.You say that you get a lot of complaints and concerns from people all around the community. It is odd. If they are asking you what the government is doing, then presumably they are ALP branch members who are incapable of writing to me or Senator Ian Campbell. If they want to know what the Labor Party is doing, would they ask me? If they want to know what the government is doing, they ask the government. They are not asking me; therefore, they are branch members. So you can have your telephone box conversations about the issue, but the fact is that out there 92 per cent of the public are aware of the dimensions of the problem.The challenge is to focus on those who are not taking it perhaps as seriously as they might, like SMEs. We will be conducting workshops and other activities to ensure that they do understand the dimensions of the problem. We had a meeting on 17 December last year attended by representatives of all state and territory governments. Once again, there was general agreement in principle to provide further disclosure, particularly in relation to utilities which are the responsibility of the state and territory governments.We have consistently made it clear that we have a target date of July 1999 for all agencies to achieve Y2K compliance. We are confident that that date will be met. As I said earlier, since September 1997 all Commonwealth government agencies have been reporting quarterly on the state of readiness of their mission critical systems. Summaries of the last two reports have been published to provide an opportunity for business in the community to monitor Y2K progress of essential government services. The next quarterly report will provide detailed information concerning the preparedness on a portfolio by portfolio basis. Shortly after that we will release information concerning the preparedness of individual Commonwealth departments and agencies.So we stand ready to take on board any constructive suggestions. If Senator Lundy, who I think has already had briefings on the matter, wants any further information we are more than happy to make it available. We regard this as an issue that should not be the subject of political point scoring. Those who are interested in ensuring that there isn't a scare campaign out there—that there are not people hoarding food and taking money out of the bank and leaving the country and digging holes in the ground—have a responsibility, particularly if they are in elected office, to ensure that they are fully informed and that they work as closely and as cooperatively as possible with all those stakeholders in the issue.We are prepared to take that approach, but I must say I don't think it adds a great deal to either the sum total of human knowledge or public awareness to be rabbiting on about `the government's failure to take early and decisive action to prepare all facets of the Australian community for the negative social and economic impacts of the year 2000 problem, to initiate a public education campaign to ensure that the Australian community is informed and to facilitate transparency'. You have an obligation to point to what has already been done and to show where it should go further. It is always your tired response to say, `Well, you are doing all the right things but you should have done them a bit earlier.' I don't remember you being out there when Clinton made an announcement in the middle of last year. I didn't get any correspondence from you. I didn't see any press releases from you. This is all after the event.All you have done is realise that you cannot oppose it, that it makes a lot of good sense. These things may not deliver as much as we would all hope, but it is a step in the right direction. The most you can say, as people have always said—we even started yawning when we said it in opposition—is, `You are on the right track but you should be going a bit faster.'As far as your economic approaches were concerned you weren't going fast enough except, I suppose, on privatisation, where you were privatising everything you could get your hands on. But beyond that, it is a pretty thin criticism to say, `I agree with what you are doing but I wish you had done it a bit faster.' We could all say that with the benefit of hindsight. The fact is that your obligation is to look at what we are doing, tell us what more you think should be done and, if you do come up with constructive suggestions, I can assure you—7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—What are you doing with the public education campaign? Have you commissioned it?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I have just told you that. You conceded that we had commissioned research. I announced yesterday that the Australian government considers that `it has a national role to coordinate and improve the quality of information available'. We are developing a national communication strategy to address the concerns. Okay; you say it should have been done yesterday. If we had done it yesterday or six months earlier you would have said, `That's fine, but you should do another one because everyone has forgotten,' and then you will say that we should have done twice as many. One can never get those things right. If you want a public awareness campaign, we're having one. Okay?Next issue. What are the other problems that you are serious about? You supported the legislation. You presumably support a national communications strategy. What else are you asking for? You are asking us to facilitate transparency. I would be very surprised if you can point to any other regime in the world—7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—It doesn't matter; we are asking you—LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—It doesn't matter? How can you say that world's best practice is not enough? What do you want us to do? Do you want us to have a field day, where we all leave Canberra, where we leave the keys at the airport and invite every citizen to come up, help themselves, trawl through the systems, open them up, take away all the reports and somehow be brilliantly informed? What they want is the decision makers to get on top of the issue. It is very interesting that you can rabbit on without notes when others are talking, but when it comes to delivering a contribution you cannot look up for a moment. In other words, you have to stick to the brief because those who have written it for you have told you, `There is a bit of a political line we can run here.'You know that the things we are doing are all that ought to be done. We are leading the world in many respects. We are not taking it for granted for a moment. We believe there is more that can and should and will be done. But at the end of the day you will need to offer a lot more than that if you are to move from shadow-boxing to shadow representation. At the moment you are a couple of steps away. All I can say is that if Mr McMullan is reading this he won't have too much to worry about. He will no doubt want your assistance in drafting, but if he is looking for ideas he wouldn't have got them from today, unfortunately. So by all means next time you have any good suggestions, let us know.17:05:002634Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will be supporting the motion before the chamber moved by Senator Lundy. We are particularly concerned not to treat this as a political point scoring exercise, but to ensure that members of the community do have full and informed education about the year 2000 problem, that they are informed of the potential effects of that problem and, being Democrats, we strongly support transparency and accountability of government activities in general, but in particular in relation to the Y2K problem.I note with interest the minister's comments suggesting that perhaps members on the opposition side weren't around when he and President Clinton or others were making statements in the last year or so. It prompted me to look up some of the work that the Democrats have done on this issue. Lo and behold, exactly this time last year—I am not sure if this is particularly cosmic, given that we are dealing with so many interesting dates here—on 10 March 1998, on behalf of my party I moved a motion, one of a number that have related to information technology issues, for the Democrats.This one read, `That the Senate notes the potentially serious consequences of the year 2000 computer bug', and `the possibility of considerable economic and social cost from this phenomenon' and noted with concern the report in the Australian of that particular day regarding the apathy setting in over this phenomenon. It went on to express our concern that the government was `not taking a leading role in assisting the Australian community to understand and to deal with this phenomenon' and lastly noted that the government had allowed—at that stage, March last year—`another six months to pass without concerted action' and had kept to itself, at that stage, quarterly progress reports.In response to the minister's accusation—I know it was aimed at the opposition, but I thought it is worth putting on record—there have been a number of people in this place, not just on our side of the chamber and not just the Democrats, people including Senator Lundy, who have drawn attention to this matter on a number of occasions so far. I acknowledge before Senator Ian Campbell interjects that there has been some concerted action, certainly in the last couple of months. We saw the passage of the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 , a bill that was supported by the chamber—with amendment, of course.As we stated at the time, the Democrats have been very concerned and remain concerned about the handling of this issue by this government. During that debate I explained that the disclosure legislation is only one component. It must be regarded as only one small part of the required government response. A comprehensive approach, particularly addressing public education and government transparency, is also required. That is needed to reduce the risk of serious negative consequences within our community.It is true that, within our community, there is still great uncertainty—among experts as well—as to the real consequences of the turn of the millennium. Certainly, Senator Lundy outlined the US Senate's special committee report and some of its findings, but this is still one of the greatest and most significant challenges to face the information technology industry in any country.Perhaps through a lack of understanding, many people remain convinced that this is not a real problem at all. There are also many with their heads in the sand and those whose greatest interest lies in continuing ignorance. On the other hand, at the other extreme, there are a number of self-styled experts predicting all sorts of apocalyptic nightmares. I am sure the answer lies somewhere between these two conflicting views, but it is not simply a matter of splitting the difference. This is an issue that demands a prepared and informed community. The government surely has a central role to play in informing the community about the possible impacts of the year 2000 problem. From a party that has had a long-term interest in this problem, I still find it difficult to sort out some of the facts, fictions and extremes in this debate. It is certainly not helped by governments when they put this issue often in the too-hard basket, as does happen with a number of information technology and information economy related issues.Recently my office attended a Y2K conference in Sydney where the issue of community preparedness was addressed. At that conference the Electricity Association of New South Wales indicated that the problem was under control thanks to a number of characteristics specific to the electricity supply system. At the time it was indicated that the network wide data acquisition and control systems might be vulnerable, but that all other systems should be able to cope, provided there were no radical or massive changes in supply or demand. When it was suggested by one of the participants that electricity patterns might not be stable at the time, the question apparently was diplomatically dismissed.This is not the sort of response that the community wants from such crucial organisations as electricity suppliers. So clearly there are still unanswered questions out there. In view of this style of response, it is crucial that the government takes a leading role in informing the community and preparing the community. We all love logging on to Senator Alston's web site. It is unmitigated joy for most of us. I know that he spends many nights surfing the Net, and that is good in an information economy minister. However, not all people are simply taking advantage of that fact.I found it absolutely spurious for the minister to suggest that, if people have a problem, they go straight to government. This is the role of elected officials. Of course people are going to approach Senator Lundy, me and others if they have a problem. If they are a constituent, a small or medium sized business or even a large business, why shouldn't they address their local representative? We should be able to hand to them information that is clear, concise, transparent and informative so that some of their concerns are alleviated. This is not a suggestion that we induce panic in our society, but a request that Australians be informed of the problems that may affect them. I believe that the government needs to take a role in advising the community on how to be prepared. This is not because I am certain that there is going to be a problem, but I do believe that any kind of ignorance or uncertainty is also not conducive to a calm and appropriate response.I was quite curious to see the Prime Minister considering—and perhaps accepting—the invitation from the minister for the information economy to take a flight on New Year's Eve. I wish them well. I am scared enough of flying as it is so I will be at the airport waving them off. But I am one of the members of the community who does have reservations about some of these things. If legislators are concerned about some of the probable impacts, then members of the community are going to be also.If we take decisive measures now to keep the community informed, we will avoid some of the problems that may occur towards the end of the year. They are avoidable problems because they could result from lack of access to accurate and timely information rather than result from a millennium bug on a computer system. A simple way of understanding the process of preparation is to view it as a three-stage cycle in which we go from awareness to understanding to action. From action we can reach greater awareness and the cycle begins again. At the moment I do believe—contrary to the minister's suggestion that 92 per cent of the population are out there feeling quite comfortable about the issue—we are at a very low level of awareness. It is looking increasingly unlikely that we will fully understand the consequences before the year 2000 actually arrives. So we must take action in preparation. If the government genuinely believes that everything is going all right, then we should be telling the community that. We should be alleviating their concerns, not simply leaving them with their heads buried in the sand.So I call also for an increase in the transparency of the government's activities. It is odd that the government speaks so highly of information disclosure when there seem to be still great difficulties in getting information on record and providing accountability. It seemed that the threat of amendments to the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill was enough to change government policy towards openness. We have had great difficulty in getting transparency.Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I will take that interjection. Senator Campbell disputes that. If we look at the return to order as attempts by the opposition to get access to information on this issue, that is quite true.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—They have been given all the information. You have been offered it and they have been given it.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Certainly, I acknowledge that. I acknowledge that the government has been forthcoming in offering briefings. That is fine and it is very important that you provide the information to us, but you are not providing all the information.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Yes, we are; every single bit.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Senator, you are not providing all the information. So the Democrats join the opposition today in calling on the government to be open, fair and accountable in its communications not only with us but also with the Australian people about their preparation. We do not believe it has been the case so far. We do recognise many efforts of the government, but they have not been the best. I continue to believe that the `your government knows best, don't worry' approach is not an appropriate way to address community concerns, especially on an issue such as this. We have long called for an adequate, prompt and transparent response to this problem, but we also recognise this relates to much broader issues in the whole information economy debate as well.17:15:002637Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The speakers so far in this debate on this matter of public importance know more about computers and about the problems that will come up in the year 2000 than I do, so I have to look at those who have spoken. Senator Lundy, I know, has been recognised as being quite outstanding in this area and, of course, Senator Alston is the minister.Senator Alston has assured the Senate—indeed, assured the people listening to the debate today—that Australia is right up there with the best. He said that we have been on the case now for many months and years, so everything is quite good, and that Senator Lundy has reacted in a partisan and overemphatic way to the problem. I was reassured until I saw an article published on page 19 of today's first edition Daily Telegraph, Wednesday, 10 March 1999. It reads:Business chiefs could lose their jobs if they continue to ignore possible computer chaos on January 1, 2000, the Federal Government warned yesterday. A collapse in the chain of supply to business as a result of the millennium bug would hurt customers and dramatically affect profits.I thought this must have been somebody in government who is not on top of the issue, but the next paragraph states:In his strongest warning yet, Communications Minister Richard Alston said "senior heads could roll" unless business acted on the millennium bug. "There is one big difference between governments and businesses, at least major businesses," Senator Alston said."The latter have nowhere to hide if they do not take the necessary corrective action—profits could be severely affected and senior heads could roll."Senator Alston told a telecommunications conference in Queensland there would not be any "silver bullet" solution for unprepared businesses.Yesterday Senator Alston was in Queensland and today he is here. In his speech today, he acknowledged that, yes, that was the speech he gave, but that seems quite out of kilter with the speech he gave today. He has assured us here that everything is right, that we are making a mountain out of a molehill, that there is nothing wrong. That sort of language today does not gel with the sort of language he used yesterday. I thought that perhaps the press had written it up incorrectly, that it gave more emphasis to his warnings than was the reality. But, following the publication of this article, he told us today that the press had taken a responsible position. So he has endorsed what the press said.When you look at yesterday's speech and compare it to today's speech, you see that what Senator Lundy has said does describe the true situation. In his speech yesterday, the minister agreed with the very sorts of things that she and Senator Stott Despoja are saying today—that is, there is a problem, there is a need to get things moving, there is a need to give strong warnings. That is exactly what Senator Lundy was saying.The other thing that reassured me, until I looked a bit further, was the statement the minister made here today that Australia is right up there with the best of them—with the United States of America, with Canada and with the United Kingdom—and that Australia was doing very well indeed.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—The US Senate said that, not the senator.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Senator Alston did not say that?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—No, he said that the US Senate special committee said that in February 1999.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I understand what Senator Campbell is saying, but the point I am making is this: the minister said that we are comparable with the United States, with the United Kingdom and with Canada. If you look at the Hansard , that will bear it out. If you look at the executive summary from the US Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, which Senator Lundy gave me, this was said in terms of the overall observations:Many organisations critical to American safety and wellbeing are still not fully engaged in finding a solution. And again:National emergency and security planning for Y2Krelated system failures is just beginning.At another point it says:Self-reporting has yielded unreliable assessments from most industry sectors. With few exceptions, disclosure of Y2K compliance is poor.The point I make—and no doubt Senator Campbell will reply to this—is that, in comparing Australia to the United States of America, we are being compared to a country whose Senate says that things are very poor and that the sort of action that Senator Lundy was talking about ought to be taken. On the basis of the minister's own speech, the terms of Senator Lundy's matter of public importance are well and truly borne out. She has acted in a most responsible manner in bringing a warning to Australia and Australians about the problems, the same sort of warning, may I say, that the minister himself gave yesterday. And yet the minister came in here today and condemned Senator Lundy for doing what she should do and what she has done.17:22:002638Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10— Senator Cooney makes two very important points in this debate, and I think they are the most important points made by honourable senators in this debate—if not the only points. Firstly, as the minister has said, we would be very keen to receive any new idea or policy proposal from anywhere around this chamber or anywhere else in Australia to defeat the potential of the so-called millennium bug—so-called, because it is not really a millennium bug; it is really a date change bug—to affect the Australian economy. We have not heard any new ideas today. We have effectively heard that Senator Lundy heard we were coming up with a national campaign. She was told that we are having a national campaign, that we are going through a sensible process to do market testing and that we are coordinating with the states. We do not want to repeat what the states are doing; we want to complement what they are doing.Some of the states are doing an enormous amount. In my home state of Western Australia, they have had a program in place for three years. In Victoria, they have had an extraordinarily good program. Some states—similar to the United States, as I think Senator Cooney very sensibly and constructively suggested—have been lagging. Some states have been seriously lagging, and you could name the states in which utilities are lagging seriously if you wanted to play cheap politics, as Senator Lundy seeks to do with this. But we are not going to be in that business.The very important point Senator Cooney made was that the problems alluded to in the US Senate special committee report are very comparable to Australia's. This government, realising that there was a black hole of information coming from some states—a serious black hole from some states and utilities—called together a meeting of all the states and territories, including the utilities, on 17 December and got an agreement that there be a common format reporting standard. We expect to have those reports—although there are delays we are not happy about from some states and utilities—in very fine detail in the next couple of weeks. It is very important to get these reports in a common format so that they are understandable and do, in fact, fill what is clearly an information black hole.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—So you admit it. I'm glad to see that you admit that there is an information black hole.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—There is very much an information black hole, and that hole is something that the Commonwealth, through cooperating with the states, has sought to ensure is filled. The information black hole, very much alluded to in the US Senate special committee inquiry and referred to by Senator Cooney, is one that should be filled. It is no use the federal government having the best transparency, the best information provision regime in the world, if the states—who run most of the day-to-day services, such as traffic lights, water, sewerage, power, hospitals and all of these things—do not have a regime and if the utilities are not telling their customers what is going on. That has clearly been the case in a number of the states, but I am not going to name them, because people who take a close and serious interest in the Y2K issue know what states are lagging.The US comparison is an important one because, as Senator Cooney mentioned, you do need to have a cooperative approach. International commentators are saying that we are the best in the world—not our minister, not our government; that is being said by others. That does not actually mean much to us, because we know that, in the next 296 days, there are a whole range of things that we must be doing. That is why I am genuinely saying to senators opposite and on the crossbenches that we will listen if they have a new idea—not an old idea of a national communications strategy. That is an idea we agreed on before I got into the portfolio. It was obvious that you needed a communications strategy during 1999. You certainly did not want a massive public education campaign much earlier than now. In fact, the timing of it is an issue that is quite critical. If you want to spend $10 million on a campaign, you make sure you spend it at the right time.Another issue needs to be raised here. Senator Cooney, you say that you are not a computer expert and that therefore you do not know much about the problem. You and Senator Stott Despoja made very important and serious points—you by pretending you do not understand computers and Senator Stott Despoja by, I think genuinely, saying that this is the `greatest challenge'—to paraphrase her, I suspect—`that faces the information technology industry in our country'. It certainly is a challenge that confronts information technology, but it is not an information technology problem and, Senator Cooney, it is not a computer problem.The important thing for people to understand is that this is not a computer problem. Senator Cooney, the computer side of it is actually the easiest bit to fix. The most serious problem is the embedded chips in building control systems, air conditioning systems, access systems, fire systems, transport systems, and in massive industrial machinery in ports and at airports. Senator Cooney, the best slogan you can go around with if you want to talk to people about Y2K is to say that it is not a computer problem.I will just hit another few things on the head. The request for an information program—which we are being asked to consider via this matter of public importance—is a little bit too late. This government, in cooperation with the states, has been running a comprehensive public information campaign for years now. I have just quickly gathered together a range of materials and advertisements that have been placed by the Commonwealth government in cooperation with the states and complementary to the states. In July last year, there were full-page ads saying, `The millennium bug: it is time to step on it'. I will table the ads that appeared in all national newspapers in July 1998, which went into a whole range of information about the millennium bug. Another ad was headed `You spent years building your business, now spend a few minutes saving it' and went on with a nice sharp message which helped to launch a 1800 information number for anybody who wanted to ring up and find information about the bug.Another ad appearing in all national and major metropolitan newspapers last year stated: Wait 20 seconds before reading this.I do not have 20 seconds to wait here, so I will just have to fast forward:See, you can't.Nobody can.Time is your most precious commodity.While you're sitting around twiddling your thumbswaiting to see what effectthe Millennium Bug will have on your business,you're wasting time.Time your business rivals probably aren't wasting.And it goes on—a nice, sharp, succinct message on a full-page ad appearing in all national and major metropolitan papers last year. There are a range of other ads. Senator Lundy would have us believe that some states are not doing enough. The states of Victoria and Western Australia have both run exceptionally high quality ads not only appealing to business but also appealing to the community in general about problems and solutions for Y2K. We have established web sites; we have promoted web sites; and we have set up registers of people who can assist businesses, organisations and community groups with Y2K remediation.We are working on a range of other measures which will ensure that quality information gets out to Australians. But quality information will not get out to Australians if we have people wanting to make cheap politics out of this issue. I again appeal to Senator Lundy, and I have done this three or four months on the trot now, to come forward with a new idea or a new policy—not one that she has heard at estimates that we are doing and then coming back and saying that we should do it. In other words, get one of our ideas and bring it forward saying we should do it—knowing we are going to do it—and then, when we do it, claim credit for it. Did you get that? I will say it again: we come up with an idea, she hears about it through estimates, and then she comes into the chamber and says we should do it. This shadow minister for shadow ministers for shadows came in here and said, `We are dragging them kicking and screaming. We're working really hard to get this done, but they didn't quite do enough.'Senator Lundy is one of the few people in Australia who does not think this government is doing an enormous amount on this problem. She says we should have started earlier. But when this government came into office there were empty files. There were no files marked `Y2K'; there were no cabinet submissions. The only way we could have started earlier in Australia is if the Australian Labor Party had seen that there was a problem when they were in power, but they did not do anything.Under the leadership of John Fahey and his portfolio, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and under the leadership of Premiers Kennett, Court and others, we find an enormous amount going on. Do we have any constructive ideas coming from the opposition? No, just carping, just whingeing, just opposition, just obstruction, just delay—not a new idea, not a new policy. Come up with something, Senator Lundy. Don't criticise where there are no positive grounds for it. (Time expired)10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Order! The time has expired for this debate on the matter of public importance.Bills2640r646264017:32:002640Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I present the minority report of the opposition members of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee in respect of the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 .Ordered that the report be printed with the report tabled on 8 March 1999.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.This is the minority report of the opposition members of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee in respect of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . As senators will recall, there was some debate on Monday of this week when the report of the majority—that is, the government senators—was tabled, together with reports presented by other members of the committee from the Democrats and the Greens.I just wish to say a few words today about this minority report and the views of the opposition senators on this legislation. No doubt we will all have a much more extensive opportunity to debate these very important issues when this legislation comes before the chamber—whenever that is. And `whenever that is' is a good question.As we indicate in our opening statements in the report, we were told by the government that this legislation was so important that, when it was decided that the committee would conduct an inquiry on the legislation, the committee had to report to the Senate by the first day of sittings this year. We objected to that at the time, along with other senators from the Democrats and the Greens. We argued that far more time needed to be made available to the committee to arrange public hearings, to take evidence and to consider the issues—quite important issues, as everyone knows, having regard to the history of the forest debate in this country in recent years—and therefore we needed a later date for reporting.But our pleas, our arguments, fell on deaf ears. The government maintained a position that it wished to proceed with this legislation expeditiously as soon as the Senate resumed this year. Of course, they then quickly changed their mind when the committee hearings got under way and they found that they needed more time to consider certain issues, particularly constitutional and legal issues that had been raised during the hearings, and the time for the report was extended. We say that, notwithstanding that short extension, there was not sufficient opportunity for the committee to hear from all of those people that were interested in expressing a view. Nevertheless, we had to do our duty. I think that in the time available we went to great pains to try to hear from as many witnesses as possible, covering a range of views on this issue. The submissions that were presented to the committee are summarised in the majority report, together with the details of the legislation, short as it is—only some eight clauses. We did not see it as necessary to merely repeat all of that evidence in our report. But what is clear from the evidence—despite the best efforts of many people—is that there are still many divergent views about the forest industry in this country, and that will no doubt continue.Industry representatives and state government representatives from Tasmania argued that the legislation should be passed, and they quite correctly noted that this legislation is part of a package, a package that commenced with the national forest policy statement under the previous Labor government and continued by this government. It is a package which involves the development of regional forest agreements based upon in-depth scientific assessment of the forest areas within those regions, looking at the full range of values of those forests and the needs both from a conservation perspective on the one hand and economic and social objectives on the other.The national forest policy statement sets out 11 objectives and goals to be achieved through this process, and it is the opposition's view that the process is one that should continue. It is the best hope that we have for getting a rational, realistic and—hopefully, in the end—harmonious situation with respect to the use of native forests in this country.We, therefore, do not agree with the proposition that this legislation should be simply opposed for the sake of it—a view that was put by many conservation and environmental groups in the proceedings. They argued that in their view the process was not only inadequate but in some cases grossly abused—they had no confidence in it—and the process really should be abandoned, this legislation should be shelved and we should all go back to square one. I think at the heart of that view for many of those witnesses—and I say this with due respect to the integrity of the views that they hold and, indeed, in many cases for the detailed material that they put before the committee—is a philosophical position that there should be no logging or no forestry operations at all in Australia's native forests.The problem, of course, with that position is that it is not consistent with the national forest policy statement itself nor indeed with the Janis criteria that have been developed as a result of that approach. Our forests are still available and will still be available under a proper regional forest agreement process for economic use by the timber industry as well as for environmental and conservation purposes.We certainly acknowledge that we have to move towards a plantation system in the future, but we cannot accept simply throwing this legislation out. We have proposed—and no doubt we will have extensive debate about this when the legislation comes on—that there should be a disallowance procedure inserted into the legislation. That procedure would enable the Senate, this parliament, to oversight regional forest agreements once they have been negotiated and signed by the relevant state and federal governments. That would be a process whereby the agreements can be brought back to this parliament and be subject to a disallowance procedure. It would provide an opportunity for the details of those agreements to be considered by the Senate in line with the objectives outlined in clause 3 of the legislation and the objectives and principles outlined in the national forest policy statement.I will have far more to say about that of course when we come to the debate on the legislation and we put forward a detailed amendment to enable a disallowance process to occur. But what it means in the end is that if an RFA has been properly negotiated, if the conservation and other goals and principles that should be in there are reflected in there and if the scientific analysis has been done correctly, then no state government, no timber industry interest nor any other interested group should fear that their RFA would be rejected. But, equally, if those processes have not been properly followed, then an opportunity would be available for this Senate to scrutinise them.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Who is going to decide on all of this?656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Senator Calvert interjects. We have a problem at the moment, Senator Calvert, as you know, of a major brawl going on between the federal Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Tuckey, and representatives of a wide range of groups within his own state of Western Australia regarding a proposed RFA over there. I ask you, Senator Calvert: what responsibility are you or the government taking for solving that impasse? Rather than having that debated out in the political arena it should be properly addressed in the parliament. (Time expired)17:43:002642Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—What a disappointment this dissenting report is for the 70 per cent—or in Western Australia's case, 87 per cent—of Australians who do not want to see native forests continue to be destroyed on the altar of the export woodchip industry controlled by just a handful of major corporations in this country. Labor has ducked its responsibility to provide real opposition in this parliament on this issue of supreme national importance. What we are seeing in the Regional Forest Agreement legislation, which will be dealt with in the Senate presumably in the next few weeks, is the Commonwealth abandoning its environmental responsibilities and in the legislation by which it can enact those responsibilities withdrawing them and leaving basically the unprotected forests of this great nation to the woodchip corporations.And Labor says, `Well, we have got a few amendments. We are not going to review the regional forest agreements which already have been signed between Prime Minister Howard and state premiers in Victoria and Tasmania and which are leading to the total destruction of hundreds of thousands of hectares of forests—including some of the tallest forests in the Southern Hemisphere, world heritage valued forests, rainforests and the wildlife that is in them—by the clear felling logging techniques of these corporations.' Instead of saying, `We are going to review those RFAs, bring them before the parliament'—and I can tell Labor that I will be moving to have them brought back before the parliament for review—they are saying, `We will look at the regional forest agreements being signed in the future.'People out there in the electorate who are concerned that these forests should remain, as a delight for this country into the future and as a job-creator for the service and tourism industry, are going to be dismayed that Labor, again, has buckled at the knees for the big woodchip corporations. It is saying, `Let us bring these future regional forest agreements'—presumably including Western Australia and New South Wales—`before the parliament for review.' But look at the record of the Labor Party: on the one hand it says, `Let us have them reviewed'; on the other hand it says it will support this legislation which removes the teeth that the Commonwealth currently has to do something about it. It is window-dressing, and it is a very small amendment to this horrendous legislation—this destructive legislation—which is going to wreak havoc in the remaining unprotected forests of this country.The best the Labor Party could say is, `We want to put a stop to that because there are good alternatives.' But, no, it is not doing that. Instead it is saying, `We will have a look at future regional forest agreements in the parliament' which will have had removed, because of Labor's vote—if we read this report correctly—the current teeth that the Commonwealth has to protect those forest environments around the country. In other words, Labor is saying, `Let us have a look at the horses after they have bolted from the stable.'I would have thought Labor could have, at least, moved in the interests of its workers—the people it says it represents. Remember that 20,000 jobs have been lost out of the logging industry in this country since the first woodchip mill set up at Eden in 1969, followed by the mill at Triabunna in Tasmania in 1970—although, in recent years, the corporations have been cutting more trees than ever before in history. As they cut the trees faster, they shed the jobs. Why do they do that? Because they are agglomerating, they are closing small sawmills, they are bringing in new technology which displaces jobs and, above all, they have got their eye on the profit line, and the way to maximise profit is to get rid of jobs.This legislation, which Labor is going to support, gives those woodchip corporations a guarantee that, if any future forests are protected through federal action, the taxpayers will pay compensation to those woodchip corporations for the forests protected. These are forests for which the woodchip corporations have never paid a red cent. The very people who own the forests—the people of Australia—will be paying millions of dollars of compensation through this prescription, if in future the federal government moves, in the national interest, to protect more of these forests. Labor is accepting that in this legislation.Why has it not then called, in this report, for a similar guarantee that the corporations protect the jobs that currently exist in the industry? Where is the guarantee required of these corporations by Labor? I would have thought that would have been fundamental. But there is no indication that Labor is going to stand up for the workers in anywhere near the way it is standing up for the woodchip corporations in the existing legislation through that compensation provision—section 6 of the Regional Forest Agreement legislation.And why is Labor not saying through this legislation that there will need to be a guarantee of downstream processing of the forest being cut in this country? Because that would not only produce jobs here, instead of exporting them to Korea and Japan, but it would ensure that the profit from the downstream processing was available in this country. But there is no mention of that; there is not even a timid move towards getting such a guarantee, on behalf of the Australian people, for their forests—in an industry which is wholly oriented towards exporting. This legislation will give greater strength to the boards in the woodchip companies as against the strength of this parliament to be able to protect the national interest.There is a win-win situation. The plantation establishment is already available in this country—and I mean mature plantations available now—for processing to meet this nation's needs. We are in the extraordinary situation where we are going to keep cutting into native forest simply because it is a revenue earner for the big woodchip corporations. The Regional Forest Agreement process did not even look at the feasible and prudent alternative of having the industry wholly based on plantations. Many people will think—and presumably this includes many of the Labor senators, and their colleagues in the House of Representatives who have already passed this legislation—that this is something strange. Let me inform them that 75 per cent of the wood products in Australia already come from plantations or recycling; it is a matter of dealing with the other 25 per cent—and the wood base is available in this country outside our native forest to provide that 25 per cent. But there is no reference to grabbing hold of such a historic opportunity in this dissenting report from the Labor Party.Maybe we should not have expected it from the Howard government—which has been the biggest wrecker of the environment, at least for the last half century—but I would have thought an opposition in its second term could have come up with better than this. I would have thought they could have done better than a Deputy Premier from Tasmania who came before the committee and basically supported the interests of the woodchip corporations. In Tasmania these corporations work against the interests of both the workers and the hospitality and tourism industries, which already create more jobs in taking people to see our grand forests than the woodchip industry provides in cutting those same forests down and exporting them to the paper mills and the rubbish dumps of the Northern Hemisphere.What a disappointment this dissenting report from Labor is. What a failure it is in providing constructive opposition. What a mealy-mouthed way this is for Labor to show its continued subservience to the woodchip companies against the interests of the wider populace and the workers whom it should be representing.17:52:002644Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I also rise to speak on the motion to take note of this minority report which has been tabled by Labor senators of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legisla tion Committee inquiring into the provisions of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . I suppose that, in some respects, it is better late than never—although using the word `better' in relation to this report probably is a bit dangerous.The Democrats minority report, which was signed by both my colleague Senator Woodley and me, was tabled at the start of this week. It was submitted last week out of session, as was required by the committee. Our report is an excellent one—but, if we had had more time, it could have been better. Unfortunately we did not have more time because we had to meet the deadline. It is interesting that Labor on this occasion, somehow or other, found itself unable to meet the deadline. Also, it is a pity that the deadline was not extended to give everybody the opportunity to have the same amount of time to contribute more fully in the compilation and presentation of their reports.More importantly, it is an even greater pity that there was not more time for public input. Clearly, as I said in my comments on Monday in relation to the tabling of the main body of the report—the part of the report that was put in on time—this particular committee inquiry process has been one that has not reflected well on the Senate. Clearly, the provision of time for it has been inadequate. I am sure that the vast majority of people who have tried to involve themselves in the committee process with the examination of this legislation have become far more cynical about the parliamentary and political process because of the clearly inadequate provision of time for examination of the issue and of the evidence. For that reason, it is an even greater shame that more time was not provided.It is not a matter of opposing this legislation, as Senator Forshaw suggested, for the sake of it. It is a matter of opposing this legislation, and some of the regional forest agreements that have already been signed off on, for the sake of not only our forests and the timber workers in the forestry industry but Australian value adding, workers more broadly, the tourism industry and, indeed, upholding our responsibility as a Commonwealth parliament to ensure that we fulfil our obliga tions as they exist under Commonwealth legislation and international agreements which have been signed by past federal governments. All those things go out the window with this legislation.I thought perhaps, from Senator Forshaw's explanation on Monday about why the Labor senators had not got their report in on time and their need for extra time to table it separately from the main committee report—basically, an extra week—that we would be getting a big, thick encyclopedia, a comprehensive insight of all the evidence that was presented. With all the extra time they had to read all the extra submissions, I thought we were to be provided with a really thorough analysis.But, in fact, what we have got is a 10-page document, less than half the size of the Democrats report. So, obviously, it was not that the Labor senators needed extra time to assess the evidence and more comprehensively reflect on the widespread public opinions that were put forward; they needed extra time to figure out what the hell they were going to do. Obviously, the Labor Party has found this issue to be a very difficult one—but they needed that extra week to decide to sell out the forests, to sell out Australia's timber workers, sawmills, tourism, greater value adding export opportunities and, of course, to sell out their responsibilities here as parliamentarians at the Commonwealth level.Indeed, the evidence that was given by North Forest Products—and it is quoted in this minority report we are discussing today—expresses concern that any form of parliamentary review of RFAs would move to drag the Commonwealth back into the forest debate. The Democrats are at a loss to see how we could ever suggest that the Commonwealth should not be involved in the forest debate. We have clear legislative responsibilities, we have international responsibilities.One of the most shameful things about this bill is that it seeks to remove those responsibilities for the period of the life of the regional forests agreements—20 years. They are the responsibilities we have under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, under the World Heritage Properties Conser vation Act, under the Australian Heritage Commission Act. All those responsibilities that we have at federal level this legislation attempts to opt out of. It attempts to remove any opportunity at all for us to fulfil our responsibilities to protect the Australian environment—not just for the sake of future generations in terms of ecological values, but for the sake of current generations in terms of future industry opportunities, whether for tourism or existing timber workers. We received heaps of evidence, not just from environmentalists but also from unions, about the fact that forestry agreements that already have been agreed to are not protecting those values. This report sells out all those things and simply goes to protect corporate profits instead.I think it is important to emphasise not just what this says about the committee members who have put this together but also what this says about the leadership of Mr Beazley himself. Mr Beazley of course is from Western Australia, which at the moment is the focal point of huge community concern over the future of our forests in that area and a clear recognition of the inadequacy of the RFA process. That is a concern that is spread across the whole community, and it is something that Mr Beazley, as a Western Australian as well as someone who obviously is in touch with important public issues, would be more than well aware of.There is no way this position would have been reached without Mr Beazley's knowledge and, indeed, involvement. I am sure that his involvement was quite substantial, in terms of Labor's difficulty over the last week or more in trying to figure out what position its senators could possibly come to in relation to this matter. That he has allowed, endorsed or enabled this particular position to come forward is a sad indictment of Mr Beazley's leadership. It is a position that clearly spells major problems for the future of our forests and the future development of Australian value adding industries—a position taken to protect the profits of the woodchip corporations.It is certainly a disappointment, and it is a great concern to the Democrats. It is obvious that this issue is not going to be resolved via this legislation, whenever it comes before this place. Again, it is worth pointing to the lack of reliability of the government in their suggestion that this legislation had to be rushed through a committee because it had to be dealt with urgently in the first week, and then it had to be dealt with urgently this week. We have talked a lot this week about the fact that we cannot rely on the word of the government. I think this is another example of that.The parliament is being forced to act in a way that, in effect, brings it into disrepute by putting inadequate time into its duty of considering legislation and doing that under the pretence of the legislation having to come on at a particular time, upon the indication from the government that that was the case. Clearly, that has not happened. Clearly, once again, we have been misled as to what the government intends to do and given a false indication. As much as anything, that lack of ability to trust the word of this government shows why the federal parliament should not give up its ongoing responsibilities to oversee the future of our forests.If we sign off on this legislation, if we allow it to go through, it leaves the parliament out of it completely. The Commonwealth still has a role, because the Commonwealth government can still sign off on RFAs or not. It can still play its politics if it wants to. The Labor members on this committee make comments about the role of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Wilson Tuckey, in relation to the proposed Regional Forest Agreement in New South Wales and his lack of willingness to support that. But it completely removes the parliament's responsibility and the parliament's rights. It is simply saying, `We will trust the federal government.' I am sorry, but many, many instances have been raised this week about how we cannot trust the federal government.On the issue of the environment and the future of our forests, the Democrats believe we cannot trust either this government or previous Labor governments, going by their record with the future of our forests. For that reason, the Democrats believe it is completely inappropriate for the parliament at the federal level to remove its ability to fulfil its responsibilities in protecting our environment for future generations.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—Which of you two gentlemen is next: Senator Murphy or Senator O'Brien? 18:02:002646O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I am, Acting Deputy President. I fear that the photo finish was not operating on that occasion.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Shane really got up before you.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—There has been an interjection from Senator McGauran, who is out of his place, that Senator Murphy got up before me. If he is any sort of a judge on that, the same as he has been a judge on other matters, I am sure that I was up first. In terms of the opposition's minority report on the RFA legislation, firstly, let me say that Senator Bartlett will learn in time that you have an opportunity to present a minority report after the deadline. That is the advice that the opposition took, and that is the reason that our report has been presented today. Senator Bartlett, you learn something every day, and today you have learnt that you did not have to rush your minority report last week if you were not ready to. If you were, then it is fine that you had it in at the time that you did.The opposition was not keen to rush what it considers to be a report on a very serious matter. It has presented a report in which we outline a number of areas in which we will be seeking to amend the legislation before the Senate. Those amendments go to some very critical issues. When Senator Bartlett and other senators have had a proper chance to review the report, they will see that it is a set of constructive proposals which are to do with, amongst other things, allowing this parliament or future parliaments to review future RFAs in the way that they review the regulatory powers of government. If our amendment is carried, it will have the ability to not give the protection of the legislation to particular RFAs which do not meet the tests which have been laid down in the policy documents and in the legislation in the intent and spirit of the establishment of the RFA process, which was the job of the previous Labor government.Senator Bartlett did not seem to be aware of that when he made the suggestion that we were simply going to close our eyes in relation to what took place with particular RFAs. If he were aware of the amendment, he would not have said that. I guess he has to be excused on the basis that he has not had the opportunity to read the opposition's dissenting minority report.Let me come to the suggestions made by Senator Brown about the import of the opposition's position on this matter. Senator Brown's usual position is to oppose any measure which would permit any sort of industrial activity in native forests. I respect that he has a right to take that view. He has a right to argue that native forests should be closed to all industrial activity in this country. I respect that right, but I do not have to agree with it, and neither does the opposition. When he says that the passage of this legislation, amended in the way that the opposition suggests, will destroy native forests, he is quite wrong. He knows, as I think every member of the Senate knows and members of the public listening know, that native forest naturally regenerates when it is permitted to. There are a number of ways in which this occurs. Where selective logging or clear-felling takes place, in the appropriate conditions natural regeneration takes place. There is the opportunity where clear-felling takes place to plant plantations of native species as well as pine.There appears to have been a wavering emphasis by some members of the conservation community as to how they regard plantation forestry. It seems to me that one of the aims of the RFA process is to encourage the establishment of plantation forestry. It is clear from the briefing that I attended recently by the Forestry Commission of Tasmania that there will be a very significant growth in the level of plantation forestry in that state arising from the RFA which has been agreed.Managing forests for one purpose or another is not new to this country. I am sure that many people are aware that the indigen ous inhabitants of Australia managed forests, for the purposes of hunting more than forestry, with fire for thousands of years. Forests regenerate after fire. Fire is of course a naturally occurring phenomenon, but the indigenous inhabitants of Australia for centuries managed Australia's forests with fire. What is proposed with an appropriate RFA process is that the forests be managed so that they are used sustainably and that a significant proportion of the pre-1750 forests are preserved. I can say in relation to the Tasmanian RFA that certainly is the case, because I am aware of that particular RFA and feel confident to speak about it.It is not the case that industrial activity per se, logging or forestry activity per se, will wreak havoc necessarily in the native forests of this country. Properly managed and sustainable forestry will permit ongoing use of the forest, and the reserve system which arises out of the RFA process will ensure that significant areas of native forests remain untouched. There is a question mark as to whether some of those native forests will be degraded over time, unless they are visited by natural fires, and whether there will be a natural die back in some of those areas, but I think that is an argument we do not need to have.The fact of the matter is that, for the foreseeable future, properly managed forests will ensure that we have viable native forests available for all purposes but certainly available for industry. Arising from that, there will be a significant number of jobs available to members of the community in Tasmania and other states. For that reason Senator Brown is wrong when he says that the Labor Party has no regard for jobs in this industry. He may say, as he does, that 20,000 jobs have been lost out of the forest industry since the establishment of the first woodchip mill. That is not entirely because of woodchipping; it is also because of the locking up of areas of forests.Nevertheless, we would agree that there is a need for better use of Australia's native forest resources and that there is a responsibility on the companies that use the forests to maximise the job opportunities. For that reason, we are proposing an amendment in our report to establish a wood and paper industry council which will involve representatives of employers in the industry, so that there is a focus on the activities of industry in using native forests and so that the opportunities for downstream processing can be maximised as far as possible. But it is not possible, in our view, to simply put a clause in legislation which sets some parameter in relation to downstream processing. It is a much more complex issue and needs to be handled not in a legislative way but by a body which is charged through the legislation with overseeing the industrial aspects of this process.The opposition will be pursuing the amendments that it proposes. They relate to the legislation. We believe that the forestry industry has a role, just as we believe the tourism industry has a role, and that both will continue and prosper under the legislation amended as we propose it in our report. If we do not have the support of the government or minor parties for our amendments, then perhaps the outcome will be a lesser outcome than what might be if the minor parties, the Democrats and the Independents support Labor's view.18:12:002648Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—In speaking to the motion to take note of this report, people ought to understand from the outset what the RFA legislation that we have before us is all about. This bill is really the warranty or the insurance policy for the regional forest agreements. As part of the Regional Forest Agreement process, the states and the Commonwealth were required to commit to putting into place certain legislative measures so that there would be no problem in the future with regard to what was required of either party. If we go back into history we can see that in one form or another there has never been security for an industry in this country because of the potential for the Commonwealth, and even in some instances the states, to take courses of action that would be of detriment to the industry and to the development of the industry.So we have to understand that the legislation is underwriting what has been put in the agreements. The agreements are the crucial aspect to all of this. When we were last in government we started a process through the national forest policy statement, which finally all premiers and territory leaders signed off on. The fundamental commitments were set down in the agreements. Insofar as we are concerned, we have been looking at the legislation to see whether or not it is sufficient or has the capacity to ensure that the outcomes, objectives and commitments in the regional forest agreements will be delivered. In our view, I do not think that is the case.We believe that the legislation must be amended to ensure that the objectives and outcomes can and will be met. That is a very clear statement that was agreed to by all premiers and territory leaders of this country. If we had had a government which had been up to the mark of ensuring that regional forest agreements contained sufficient measures to make sure that there were processes to ensure that reviews, outcomes and objectives were met, then maybe we would not have to be going through this right now.I want to go to some of the criticisms that have been made by Senator Brown and Senator Bartlett. We have no problem with agreeing to criticism of the lack of time given for consideration of this piece of legislation, which is very important, taking account of this country's trade deficit in forest and paper products. That is why it was so important that ultimately we got to a position where we were able to say to the industry, `There is now security.' But we also have to say to this industry that they have to get on with the job. This is where this process has fallen down.There was not sufficient time for us to consider this legislation. The parliament did need more time to make an objective critique of this legislation, which relates to areas which are geographically dispersed around this country. We needed to go out and have a look at places where regional forest agreements were already in place to see whether or not they were working. We needed to be able to make some assessment in that regard.I acknowledge that Senator Brown has been the champion of the environment movement and has seen some very significant changes come about with respect to the preservation of Australian forests. But I cannot accept his criticism that we are allowing the current native forests, particularly old-growth forests, to be cut down at the behest of woodchippers. At the end of the day, that is a state issue, although in the past we have had some capacity at a Commonwealth level to regulate the volume of wood exported under the export controls, but that has not been the best process for us to deal with industry development.I know that Senator Brown wants to see the sawmilling and processing industry continue. That is the industry that will need continued access to native forests. If we are to have a sawmilling industry into the foreseeable future, it will be important that we have access to native forests.Statements were made about the plantation resource. We do have a plantation resource, but it is primarily being managed for the production of pulp wood. We hope that that will change. There is a softwood resource; we can go into all those arguments about softwood replacing hardwood in the building industry and so on. But if we are to utilise many of the hardwood species throughout our native forests in an appropriate way, we have to ensure that there is a change in the management culture. That is a state issue. When the Greens held the balance of power in Tasmania, they did not want to know about issues relating to changing the management culture, and I was very disappointed about that.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—They wanted an inquiry but Labor would not have it.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Senator Brown, you know that I wrote to your colleagues about an inquiry and your leader at the time, who is no longer in parliament, did not even respond to my letter.We are proposing amendments to this legislation simply to ensure that the outcomes and objectives that are set down in the regional forest agreements can as best as possible be delivered. We want to make sure that that happens. That is why we have looked at a range of matters. The one I particularly want to deal with is the development and setting up of a wood and paper industry council, which we proposed to set up when we were last in government.The present government gave a commitment pre- and post-election to establish a wood and paper industry council. It never did. When we were debating a disallowance motion moved by Senator Brown with regard to the removal of the quota controls on export woodchips, the government gave a commitment to Senator Harradine that the wood and paper industry council would be established if he supported voting down Senator Brown's disallowance motion. He did that, but did we get the wood and paper industry council? No. That is why we will be moving an amendment to ensure that the wood and paper industry council is set up in legislation. That is the only way that we can guarantee that it will actually happen. On no more than three occasions this government has dishonoured its commitments. We are not going to accept that.We have had some debate on the signing of regional forest agreements. We will be proposing that the legislation be amended to ensure that, where the officers at the Commonwealth and state levels have reached agreement on the clauses of a Regional Forest Agreement, the minister must sign that agreement within a 21-day period. That is to ensure that we do not get continued political hanky-panky with regard to regional forest agreements. We are not going to cop, as we have for many years, unnecessary interference in making sure that the wood and paper industry can survive.I think I heard Senator Brown or Senator Bartlett say that there was no mechanism for the review of regional forest agreements. As it currently stands, there is a five-yearly review. I do not accept that either. A five-yearly review is insufficient, given that this government has failed to negotiate sufficient review processes and given that processes to ensure that outcomes and objectives are delivered have failed to be incorporated in the RFAs.The majority report by government senators proposes that we have an annual review of the process and that a report be tabled in the parliament. I think that is a significant step forward—still insufficient, but a step forward. We will be supporting that.The fact that the minority report is only 10 pages long is irrelevant. We have looked at and taken account of all the issues. I hope all senators will support our amendments when we move them in the committee stage of debate on the bill. I hope the government give their support, because they are the ones who have said that it was so important for so long. (Time expired)18:22:002650Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The clear message that has come out from today's late presentation of the Labor Party's report in relation to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 is that no matter what happens the bill will be passed. They said that they hoped the Senate would support their amendments, but they have not made any statement that their amendments, however pathetic some people might think they are, are a requirement for passing the bill. We have heard nothing to indicate that the bill will not go through no matter what happens. This will be of some disappointment to people in the Labor Party in Western Australia who have been challenged on public radio by journalists saying, `Look, you're making some statements about a critique of the RFA policy in Western Australia, but your colleagues in the House of Representatives in Canberra have already passed the bill, no problem. What do you say to that?' They say, `Oh, yes, but it's still to go through the Senate.' Well, guess what? This is what has happened—the best part of very little.The opposition said that they based their position on the national forest policy statement. That is the problem. It is a bit like the debate we had on the East Timor issue earlier—that is, because we made these statements earlier we have to keep to them. No. Here we have a situation where quite clearly the national forest policy statement has been shown to be flawed in many ways over time. Instead, we should have had the maturity to say, `Well, maybe we've learnt something from that experience. Maybe we've learnt something from the high level of community concern across Australia,' and in my state in particular, `and maybe we've learnt and maybe this time we're not going to compound our errors.'Senator Forshaw said that the national forest policy statement contained the full range of values. No, it does not. I have mentioned before in this chamber that one particular statement was very central to that policy and to the current government's and the previous government's way of looking at forests. That statement says that the ecological values of the forest balanced against the needs of industry. When I asked questions again and again during Senate estimates, I said, `Which industry are we talking about? Are we talking about the many sunrise industries who rely on the forests in their living form for their employment creation?' They looked at me strangely and said `No, Senator, we're talking about the forest industry.'So we were not talking about balancing out the full range of issues and values; we were talking about balancing, if they were, ecological values against the needs and desires of the forest industry. That is not good enough. So we and the Labor Party are basing our whole premise on a flawed process. That is just one example of a flawed process. It is pretty darn central to this debate. If you have the majority of the employment in places like the south-west of Western Australia which is associated with the forest being left out of the equation, you should go back and admit that you have it wrong and you need to look at it again. They are doing that in Western Australia.The Labor Party, though slow in catching up, are beginning to do that in Western Australia, and they have the federal Labor government around their neck holding them back. I will not say that I fully applaud everything the Western Australian Labor Party has done, but here they have a situation which is going to be an ongoing embarrassment to them. On Monday in this chamber we expressed our concerns about what was going to come out of this minority report from the opposition. We were told, quite loudly I recall, `You just wait till Thursday. You just wait. You'll see. You just wait till Thursday.' We have seen that exactly what we feared happened. We did wait. We waited and we waited and we waited for such a long time. The people of Western Australia have seen how they have been let down.The question I and most people need to ask is this: just who is the opposition representing here? Who are you representing? Are you representing your members? I would say that if you polled your members in your party you would find that the vast majority of them would show similar concerns on forest issues. Are you representing your electorates, the people who voted for you? If you are, you would find that the vast majority of those electorates would say that they were very disappointed with your position. Are you representing the people of Australia? It is the same thing on every level.We are only left with two things. We are left with a situation where we know there have been strong representations from specific unions involved. I can understand the necessity to listen to those views, but I would think that you must say that this is not just an industrial relations issue. Even if it was just an industrial relations issue, you would have to ask if the main union involved with the forest industry in Western Australia, the forest products union, have been good in representing their workers. You would have to say that they have not. There has been a long debate within Western Australia about wages and conditions and even about whether or not people could keep their houses once they got kicked out of their jobs in Western Australia. Have the forest products union looked after their workers? I would say that they have not.Is the Labor Party serving those members well by simply listening to the forest products union in Western Australia? I would say that they are not. So just who are you representing? We even have a situation in Western Australia where the CFMEU have been critical of the way the forest products union have handled the issue of sustainability, the forest and their own members. We know that part of it is a debate about who is handling which workers. However, we have a situation where it is time that some people stood up on principle. The Labor Party are pretty far behind on this particular principle. You will find that your members, your electorates and the general public will not be backwards in coming forward to tell you.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees2651265126512651Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I present the third report of 1999 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 3 1999 dated 10 March 1999.Ordered that the report be printed.265126512651O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—I present the annual report of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee for 1997-98.Ordered that the report be printed.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to have my tabling statement incorporated in Hansard and to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—It is with a sense of achievement that the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances tables its Annual Report 1997-98. By way of background, the Committee is established under the Standing Orders to scrutinise all disallowable legislative instruments to ensure that they comply with non-partisan principles of personal rights and parliamentary propriety. Apart from certain committees dealing with internal parliamentary matters it is the oldest Senate committee, having been established in 1932.The Committee does not concern itself with the policy merits of legislative instruments, which complements and strengthens its non-partisan operation. Instead, it applies parliamentary standards to ensure that legislative instruments are of the highest quality. It does this by writing hundreds of letters to Ministers each year, drawing attention to apparent defects in tabled instruments. The Committee has the power to recommend to the Senate that an instrument or a discrete provision of an instrument, be disallowed, but in practice Ministers almost invariably agree to amend the problem provisions or explain the difficulty to the satisfaction of the Committee. The Committee does, however, give numbers of protective notices of disallowance of instruments in suitable cases, to preserve its options and to make sure that it receives early replies from Ministers.The Committee also makes special statements to the Senate on matters of particular interest and the Report includes these. Also included are papers presented to three conferences describing aspects of the operation of the Committee.In relation to its core scrutiny function the Committee looked at 1888 instruments during the year, with 313 of these apparently defective or in some way worthy of comment. The Report sets out in detail the types of matters which the Committee raises under each of its four principles, which are set out in the Standing Orders. The following is a brief survey of these matters.Principle (a): Is delegated legislation in accordance with the statute?The Committee interprets this principle broadly. It includes technical validity, with the Report noting instruments which appeared to be invalid for subdelegation, prejudicial retrospectivity, unauthorised incorporation and failure to comply with requirements of the enabling Act. There is also a substantial segment on possible breaches of parliamentary propriety, illustrating the vigilance of the Committee in raising anything which may impinge on the rights of Parliament. The Report also details numbers of drafting and procedural defects which breached the Committee's position that the drafting and presentation of legislative instruments should be of a standard not less than that for Acts.Principle(b): Does delegated legislation trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties?The Report includes many instances of the Committee questioning instruments which appeared to be unfair, with particular emphasis on protection of the rights of individuals and lessening burdens on business, particularly small business. This principle also includes action by the Committee in relation to the right to privacy and to harsh or unusual aspects of government fees and charges. This segment hopefully illustrates that there is little in the way of breaches of personal rights which escapes the net of the Committee.Principle (c) : Does delegated legislation make rights unduly dependent upon administrative decisions which are not subject to independent review of their merits?This segment of the Report includes scores of instruments, all questioned by the Committee, which provided for officials to make decisions which may adversely affect individuals or busines ses, but which did not appear to provide for merits review. These were so numerous that it was most convenient to set them out by portfolio.Principle (d): Do legislative instruments contain matters more appropriate for parliamentary enactment?This is a principle not raised by the Committee as often as the other three principles, but it is nevertheless an important aspect of parliamentary propriety, complementing the first principle. For instance, the Report relates how, following extended correspondence in relation to one instrument which appeared defective on this ground, the Committee advised the Parliamentary Secretary that it did not accept her advice that it was acceptable to deal with the matter by regulation rather than by Act. In this case, however, the Senate then disallowed the regulations on policy grounds, which precluded any further formal action by the Committee.In summary, the Report is a comprehensive description of the activities of the Committee, which it hopes will satisfy the Senate that it has carried out its scrutiny and reporting mandate in a satisfactory manner. The Committee would like to thank its Legal Adviser, Professor Jim Davis, and the Committee staff for their assistance. The Committee is also grateful for the support which it has received from the Senate.Debate adjourned.Bills2652s189265226522652O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Payne, I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 [1999] , together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Committees2652265210000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have received letters from party leaders and an independent senator nominating senators to be members of committees.Motion (by Senator Ellison)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Community Affairs References Committee—Substitute member: Senator McGauran to replace Senator Tierney on 12 March 1999, for the committee's inquiry into the impacts of the Government's taxation reform legislation proposals on the living standards of Australian households and on the provisions of the bills implementing the proposed new tax systemEconomics Legislation Committee—Appointed: Senator George CampbellDischarged: Senator CookEmployment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation and References Committees—Participating member: Senator MackaySocio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy—Select Committee—Appointed: Senators Coonan, Crane, Margetts, McGauran, Mackay, Murray and Quirke.Bills2653r7112653Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ellison) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.265318:32:002653Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The Privacy Amendment (Office of the Privacy Commissioner) Bill separates the Privacy Commissioner from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and creates a statutory Office of the Privacy Commissioner.The establishment of a separate Office provides an opportunity to expand the profile, and thus the effectiveness, of the work of the Privacy Commis sioner and of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.The Privacy Commissioner plays an important role in the protection of personal privacy.Currently, the Privacy Commissioner is an independent conciliator in relation to complaints about breaches of privacy in the public sector and, in limited circumstances, in the private sector. The Privacy Commissioner assists the public sector to develop and implement good privacy practices in accordance with the Information Privacy Principles set down in the Privacy Act 1988, advises the Minister and agencies in relation to matters relevant to the operation of the Privacy Act, undertakes educational programs to promote the protection of individual privacy, and encourages corporations to develop programs for the handling of personal information consistent with the OECD Guidelines. This bill will not change any of the Privacy Commissioner's functions and the Privacy Commissioner will continue to have involvement with both the public and private sectors.The Privacy Commissioner has, to a certain extent, always operated separately from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. This is similar to the position in other countries, where Privacy and Data Protection Commissioners are generally separate offices. This bill brings the Australian Privacy Commissioner into line with the situation in other countries. The creation of a separate Office of the Privacy Commissioner will formalise the practical arrangements that have been in place to date.The Privacy Commissioner has always been supported by dedicated Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission staff. In addition, the Privacy Commissioner's focus has been somewhat different from that of the other Commissioners. The Privacy Commissioner seeks to promote good information handling practices across agencies and organisations by focusing on practices and systems to protect the privacy of individuals. Unlike the other Commissioners, the Privacy Commissioner has audit powers which are used to fulfil an educative function and allow the Commissioner to focus on preventative measures. Traditionally, the Privacy Commissioner has emphasised settlement of complaints between the parties, viewing the use of formal procedures for hearing complaints under the Privacy Act as a last resort.In formalising the current arrangements, this bill will provide the Privacy Commissioner and the Office with the opportunity to increase the effectiveness of their work.I am pleased to inform the Senate that the Government has announced that it will address the important issue of privacy protection in the private sector by developing a light-touch legislative regime to support and strengthen self-regulation in the private sector.The Government will bring forward a separate bill to implement this decision. The Government is committed to getting the new scheme right. Consultation with stakeholders is already underway as an integral part of the development of the scheme. The bill that will result from this process will deal with any required changes to the Privacy Commissioner's functions.The establishment of a separate statutory Office of the Privacy Commissioner will create an administrative structure that will assist the Privacy Commissioner to play a meaningful role in the protection of privacy across the public and private sectors.This bill will provide the Privacy Commissioner with an excellent vehicle for building on, and progressing, the important work that has been done to date. I am sure the new Privacy Commissioner will build upon and expand the good work done by previous Privacy Commissioners.In summary, the increase in profile of the Privacy Commissioner that will be facilitated by the creation of a separate Office of the Privacy Commissioner underlines the Government's commitment to the protection of privacy.Debate (on motion by Senator Quirke) adjourned.Bills2654r720Billsr7232654Bills received from the House of Representatives.2654Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.265418:33:002654Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I move: That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—AIRPORTS AMENDMENT BILL 1999The Government's airports sales process and the post-sale regulatory regime is well on the way to establishing Australia as a world leader in airport ownership and management.None of the proposed amendments represent changes to Government policy. Rather, they have been identified as necessary to facilitate more effective administration of the Airports Act 1996 and Federal Airport leases. The successful completion of both phases of the leasing of federal airports has uncovered a number of issues that require some readjustment of the act. This will ensure that world's best practice, a principle to which the Government is committed, continues to be brought to the development and management of Australia's major airports.The Airports Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 will make several amendments to the Airports Act.Firstly, they will extend the time available to the new owners of the regional airports privatised in Phase 2 of the sales process, to have access undertakings to airport services approved by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).Section 192 of the act provides for the automatic `declaration' of `airport services' under Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 12 months after airports are leased to private sector companies, unless the airport lessee has an access undertaking approved by the ACCC. Section 192 applies to the core regulated airports listed in section 7 of the Airports Act.The Phase 1 lessees, that is Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth airports, did not have access undertakings approved by the ACCC within the designated period. As a result, services for these airports were effectively `declared' by way of Ministerial determination on 23 July 1998.The approval of an access undertaking by the ACCC sets a framework for commercial negotiations between airport lessees and service users. An access undertaking sets clear parameters for the provision of services and resolution of disputes.The 12-month time-period was originally imposed to assist speedy development of access arrangements, so that those seeking access to leased airport services would have a convenient and tailored process by which to do so. The Government believes that it is entirely appropriate to give the remaining core regulated airport lessees a longer period of time in which to develop and finalise their access undertakings.Secondly, the amendments will enable regulations to be made that capture activities of a non-structural nature that intrude into protected airspace and impair the ability to pilot an aircraft.The Airports Act establishes a regime whereby people and organisations who want to undertake certain activities that affect protected airspace around airports require permission from the Department of Transport and Regional Services to do so. The mechanism by which the permission is given is set out in the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations. The regime is an important protection to ensure that developments around airports do not impinge on the safety, efficiency and regularity of current and future air transport operations.The bill proposes to expand the definition of "controlled activity" in section 182 to include activities of a non-structural nature which cause an intrusion into protected airspace through either the intensity of glare from sources of artificial or reflected light, air turbulence or reduced visibility from discharges into the atmosphere.An example of activities which can affect the safety, efficiency or regularity of aircraft operations include industrial plants discharging a heat plume, which may endanger or restrict aviation operations within the protected airspace due to the resulting air turbulence or reduced visibility.Another is direct lighting (such as sport stadium lights or laser beams) or reflected lighting (such as that created by solar power farms) which can adversely affect aviation operations by causing glare or impeding the clear perception of aeronautical navigation lights on the ground.This clause also enables the Commonwealth to make regulations specifying standards associated with such activities. My Department will be developing these standards after consulting the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and other interested parties. Until the Commonwealth makes regulations specifying these standards, the activities listed in the new paragraphs (d) to (h) will not be controlled under the Part 12 regime.It is important to note that new controlled activities will not extend to ordinary domestic or household activities, which have virtually no impact on the safety, efficiency or regularity of air transport around airports. Neither will they extend to activities arising out of the operation of aircraft, which are regulated under other Commonwealth legislation.If required, the Minister will be able to apply for an injunction under Part 15 of the act to prevent any of the new controlled activities from proceeding.Thirdly the amendments will make a series of minor technical changes to the Airports Act to overcome some practical difficulties associated with day to day administration of airport leases.The definition of "airport lease " in section 5 of the Airports Act will be repealed and a new definition substituted. The new definition of `airport lease' overcomes some practical difficulties with variations to the boundaries of leased airports through acquisitions and disposal of land, by removing the requirement that the site which is the subject of the lease must include a runway.I should add that section 14(5) of the Airports Act requires that all airport leases must provide that the use of a site must be connected with its use as an airport. This means that even though the definition of airport lease will no longer require that an airport site must include a run way, it will not be possible to use an airport site for a purpose unconnected with airport operations.The new definition also removes the distinction between airport leases for joint-user airports and other airports. In practice, however, the only area leased subject to the act at joint-user airports will remain the civil part of the airport. The runways and defence part of the airport will remain under the control and jurisdiction of the Department of Defence.There are a number of interests in land which do not involve the exclusive use or possession of it and it was never intended that the Commonwealth would maintain detailed control over those types of property transactions at leased airports. However, concerns have been expressed in some quarters that the existing provision could be interpreted to include all interests in land.In order to put the matter beyond doubt, the amendment excludes subleases, licenses, restrictive covenants, easements and similar interests from the definition.Lastly, some minor technical amendments will clarify how various Parts and Divisions of the Airport Act apply within the boundaries of the airport site for that airport.Airport lessees are already requesting amendments to airport sites to enable minor land acquisitions and disposals at airport boundaries. While the current provisions of the act probably do not prevent partial surrender of airport lessees, the new section 163A will provide greater certainty by making it clear that airport lessees may seek to vary airport boundaries without surrendering the whole lease.BOUNTY (SHIPS) AMENDMENT BILL 1999The purpose of this bill is to amend the Bounty (Ships) Act 1989 to implement key elements of the Government's arrangements for the Australian shipbuilding industry by:. extending the shipbuilding bounty at the rate of 3 per cent until 31 December 2000;. introduction of a three year phase out period for the production bounty; and. establishment of an industry specific bounty scheme for eligible research and development expenditure, to be called the Shipbuilding Innovation Scheme (SIS), which will come into effect on 1 July 1999.In doing so, the bill gives effect to the framework of assistance for the shipbuilding industry announced on 8 September 1998 and 16 December 1998.Under the terms of the present legislation, prescribed shipbuilding activities are eligible for bounty payments at the rate of 5 per cent until 30 June 1999. These arrangements were introduced in 1997, pending a review of the industry. This was in response to concerns that the termination of the production bounty could erode the competitive position of Australian shipbuilders while their main overseas competitors continued to be heavily subsidised.In January 1998, the Government established the Shipbuilding Review Panel to undertake an independent review of the industry. The aim of the review was to examine the long term strategic direction of the industry. It also assessed the assistance arrangements of competing nations and progress in implementing the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement.During consultations leading up to the establishment of the review, the Australian shipbuilding industry publicly acknowledged that the bounty should terminate when an effective OECD Shipbuilding Agreement came into effect. Such an agreement would remove measures and eliminate practices which distort competition in the international market for commercial shipbuilding and ship repair.The Shipbuilding Review Panel reported in June 1998. The legislative amendments introduced today respond to the recommendations of the review.Extension of the shipbuilding bounty The bill gives effect to the extension of the bounty for registered shipbuilders at the rate of 3 per cent of eligible costs from 1 July 1999 until 31 December 2000.The bill also introduces phase-out provisions which will operate over the period 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2003. The present phase-out provisions will be extinguished, with effect from 1 January 1998.The bill contains transitional provisions to allow shipbuilders to be registered and claim a benefit within 30 days of the bill receiving the Royal Assent. This will cover the period from 1 January 1998 to June 1999.The phase-out arrangements for the new bounty will cover the eligible construction costs for a bountiable vessel that is contracted for sale before 31 December 2000 and delivered on or by 31 December 2003. Australian shipbuilders will then enjoy phase-out arrangements which are comparable with those being adopted in the European Union. This should minimise the risk of distortions unfairly impeding Australian shipbuilders' ability to compete in global markets.Establishment of the Shipbuilding Innovation Scheme (SIS)The bill provides for the establishment of an industry specific bounty scheme for eligible research and development. This scheme will be called the Shipbuilding Innovation Scheme. The Shipbuilding Innovation Scheme will entitle shipbuilders registered under the Bounty (Ships) Act 1989 to the payment of a benefit, at the rate of 50 per cent of expenditure in eligible R&D activities, up to an amount equal to 2 per cent of eligible production costs of a bountiable vessel.The bill contains provisions to prevent firms which elect to claim benefits, where they have received a benefit under other Commonwealth innovation support schemes from also receiving a benefit under the Shipbuilding Innovation Scheme for the same eligible activity. There are also provisions to limit the amount of offshore R&D expenditure eligible for benefits under the Shipbuilding Innovation Scheme to not more than 20 per cent of the eligible R&D expenditure undertaken in Australia.SummaryThese measures continue to provide transitional support for Australia's lightweight shipbuilding industry which has been a successful competitor in global markets. They are designed to sustain the industry through a period of uncertainty pending the introduction of effective measures to eliminate subsidies and other market distorting practices in the international market place. The new emphasis on innovation will help underpin the long term competitiveness of the Australian industry. The package will provide certainty for the shipbuilding industry and secure investment.I commend this bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned till the first day of sitting in the winter sittings 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Miscellaneous265718:34:002657Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:That item 1301 of Schedule 1 of the Migration Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 9), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 304 and made under the Migration Act 1958 , be disallowed.The regulations that we are looking at today cover a broad range of changes. We are looking at the disallowance of Migration Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 9) Statutory Rules 1998, No. 304. They amend various definitions to accommodate new agreements with New Zealand. They allow for certain commuter applications, refund and exempt certain applicants from visa charges, lay guidelines for communication between the department and applicants and update health insurance and financial criteria for retirement visa holders.But the regulations also have one small section tucked amongst them that relates to bridging visa applicants, or asylum seekers. Item 1301 limits eligibility for a Subclass 050 Bridging Visa (General) to those who have not previously sought ministerial discretion, that is, the minister's power to substitute a more favourable decision for the decision of a review body, that is, the Migration Review Tribunal, the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Previously there was no defined limit on the number of requests that an applicant could put to the minister or perhaps the minister could consider.This aim may seem innocent enough. We all know that applications for migration and humanitarian entry into Australia are increasing by the year. We all know that the minister and the minister's staff manage a complex portfolio fraught with recurring efforts to balance national and humanitarian interests. I can imagine that one of the last things the minister's office wants is another application for intervention in the public interest on a case that the minister has just rejected. I imagine that subsequent applications are seen for the most part as fraudulent attempts to prolong the applicant's stay in Australia and commonly as a misuse of the minister's time and the taxpayers' money.If we were to consider item 1301 in this light, I agree it would seem quite reasonable to legislate against more than one request to the minister, but I think we have to look for a moment from the point of view of a person making a subsequent request. We also need to view the changes within the overall context of migration decision making.Primarily, the people affected by this regulation are asylum seekers, since it is asylum seekers who are granted a subclass 050 visa. This means that the people we will be prohibiting from returning to the minister are potentially refugees by international standards. This in itself does not warrant endless reviews, but we must be sure that, if they are genuine refugees, our system will detect them. To be quite honest, I do not think our system is doing this.The pressures that we are placing on asylum seekers I believe are so great that people who are refugees are being turned away. We have seen the changes occurring to make it more and more difficult for refugees to be granted asylum under this government. Our system for refugee determination is laudable in some respects, but it is not an ideal one. The retention of the opportunity to make more than one request to the minister also is not ideal—it does cost time and money—but it is necessary, I would say essential, in a system where intervention by the minister will effectively be the last point of call for people who struggled through numerous pressures against having their cases properly assessed.The pressures I am talking about here first of all are with legal aid. We have seen the Commonwealth funding for legal aid slashed to the point of almost crippling our legal centres. As at 1 December 1998 there has been no legal aid available to asylum seekers putting a request to the minister—none. If applicants are to submit a well-argued case, as the minister encourages, they are going to need competent legal assistance. In the ab sence of this, the person's file will go straight from the department to the minister in a severely abbreviated form and it is upon these few lines of information that the minister will make his or her initial assessment to reject the person or not. This might be once only rejection if we do not disallow this instrument.It is quite conceivable that the minister could be unmoved by a genuine case that, unfortunately, has been very poorly represented on the first request because of the lack of legal assistance. Applicants may quite legitimately need the option of a second request. They need time and resources to prepare their well-argued case and to obtain necessary documents and medical reports. They will especially need this if they have no right to legal assistance.Just imagine for a minute if we had a provision like this in relation to people who put in mining applications, notices of intent, which are patently inadequate. Can you just imagine what the uproar would be in the mining industry if you said, `This is a waste of our time. You keep putting in shoddy documents. You get one chance only.' These are people with resources. Compare this with the situation we are talking about. The minister consistently encourages migration agents to appeal their clients' cases to him as a preferable alternative to tying up the court system. If such an inducement is going to be given, it would seem necessary that appropriate legal assistance be available to lend efficacy to the process.The absence of legal aid is not my only concern, unfortunately. I am not exactly sure why the minister has sought to limit subsequent requests, because almost no public comment has been offered. Judging from the general argument emanating from his office, however, I would say the regulation has some aim in deterring what are considered to be bogus requests. If this is the case, then I would submit that there are already enough measures in place to deter bogus applicants. We saw in December last year that Senator Bartlett unfortunately was unsuccessful in disallowing statutory rule 210. This meant that, as of 1 July last year, work permission has been uniformly denied to all refugee applicants seeking ministerial intervention. Since asylum seekers are not eligible for any form of government benefit, this leaves them without an income for the duration of their request or requests. I would say that having not one cent of income would seem a fairly strong deterrent. It might also be a fairly strong deterrent in getting proper legal assistance if there is no legal aid available.The Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre does well to list a range of other deterrents. They conclude:We find it surprising that there are thousands of bogus requesters who are willing to live in abject poverty, without access to Medicare, on short term bridging visas where their whereabouts are closely monitored, with conditions that make requesters feel they are being treated like criminals, unless they had a pretty strong and genuine desire to stay out of their own countries. The list of acute disadvantages s417 requesters are already subject to is long and draconian. Making a request to the Minister was, even prior to 1 December 1998, clearly not a very attractive option.That is from page 12. When you see this list, it is hard to imagine too many people making repeat requests for the benefits they can gain from doing so. We need to give these deterrents time to take effect rather than pulling yet another rung from the ladder facing asylum seekers, leaving them dangling, sometimes leading to their death.These deterrents are an attempt to restrict the avenues for review of onshore refugee decisions. This curtailment is a general trend in Australia's recent refugee policies and the present regulation needs to be seen in this light. Quite simply, it may be the case—and I certainly hope it is not—that access to the courts will be practically blocked for all migration decisions. With this possibility comes the urgency of retaining an openness in what might be the only option for review past the Refugee Review Tribunal stage. For this reason alone I believe disallowance is warranted.Insurance measures aside, ministerial intervention is already on shaky grounds. It hardly meets the robustness called for by an alternative to judicial review. The minister is not compelled to consider any case. It is claimed that the minister never personally sights most requests and documentation. Recently we have seen one case of a Somali asylum seeker falling through the minister's safety net causing an international incident. Statistics are also hard to find and are discrepant. Out of the thousands of cases appealed to the minister last financial year, somewhere between 64 and 69 people, depending on where you get your figures from, were granted protection visas by the minister. Some degree of these had been successful after more than one request. We could take from those figures that those people granted asylum at the second request, those people who are genuine asylum seekers, will be denied access to the minister because of this range of reasons.The process as it stands is opaque, unsystematic and infrequently exercised. There is ample room for the minister to exercise his or her power and for the practice of ministerial intervention to reflect greater certainty for applicants. It is not at all clear why so many are rejected or even if the merits of their case are fully considered. Such looseness, in my mind, warrants a second chance.In conclusion, the bottom line is that, for those who appeal for ministerial intervention, the minister becomes their last chance. If unsuccessful, they will have 28 days to leave the country. Worse still, the applicant, along with any other family members included on their application, will be carted off to detention. Unless they can pay for their plane ticket, which the majority cannot because, remember, they have not been able to work or get social security during this time, there will be no option for release prior to departure.These are harsh consequences indeed. In the absence of legal assistance and possibly court review, in the non-compellability of the minister exercising his or her discretion and the range of deterrents against non-genuine appeals, I am seeking—no, I am imploring—a valuable opening for potential refugees to remain open. I hope senators will support me in this move.18:46:002659Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate that we will not support the motion moved by the Greens to disallow this item, which, for the record, is related to the disallowance of item 1301 of schedule 1 of the Migration Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 9), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 304 and made under the Migration Act 1958. Listening to Senator Margetts move the motion to disallow, there was much that she said in her remarks that was of substance and thoughtful, and she made a number of good points about why this regulation should be disallowed. I also have to say that, no matter which way you take this argument for or against this regulation, you are dealing with complicated procedures that are a matter of judgment of fairness and getting the balance right.I agree with Senator Margetts that there are a number of aspects that, if the regulations as proposed by the government were used in a draconian way and without commonsense, could result in a number of unfortunate circumstances and applicants being unfairly dealt with. Again, this is a matter of judgment in a democracy. There is the availability to debate the issues. There are people around who are not intimidated to speak out or raise issues. There is the availability to raise issues in the media.Senator Margetts raised a recent case in favour of her argument about the Somali refugee. That got enormous press coverage. It was not as though someone was going to disappear secretly and never be heard of again. There was a public debate about it. There was public demand that this person may have been unfairly treated. So the informal processes of a democracy in an open society such as ours were part of the protection. Senator Margetts sort of winces when I say that, but I have to say that it is true. If the minister was about to make a mistake, as you allege, and maybe he was in this case—she said he was about to fall between the cracks, fall between the stools—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—He had already. He was being kicked out of the country.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Yes, but what happened?DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—A second chance, and you're taking that away!4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Senator Margetts, I was trying to explain to you that there was debate, that there was an argument in the community.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—But he won't be able to hear those arguments. You actually legislated to take away his ability to consider it, twice.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—We are not legislating to take away your right to raise any individual case in the Senate. Neither I nor anybody else in the public is taking away the media's right to examine the case.Debate interrupted.Documents2660266018:51:002660Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.Each year, at the tabling of the Northern Land Council's annual report, I am forced to make statements which are almost invariably negative about the council's practices and outcomes. Indeed, the recent review of the land rights act by John Reeves QC and the research of Walter and Turnbull some years ago have served to further reinforce my concerns associated with the absolute power of larger land councils.The problems have been again highlighted in the recent and ongoing Northern Territory Supreme Court case regarding an unfair dismissal claim by former Northern Land Council employee David Hansen. Of particular interest is evidence given by Mr Hansen on Tuesday, 17 November 1998 relating to a meeting held at the Northern Land Council in early January 1993. In attendance at the meeting were Mr Warren Snowdon, the then and now current member of the House of Representatives for the Northern Territory; Mr Mick Dodson, who was then the Director of the Northern Land Council; and the staff of Mr Snowdon and the NLC, including Mr Hansen. Mr Hansen stated under oath in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory—and I refer to page 77 of the transcript—that at the meeting Mr Snowdon asked Mr Dodson, `As in past practice, what can you do to help me get re-elected?' Mr Hansen then stated that Mr Dodson responded as follows:We'll do the usual stuff. We'll help as much as possible with vehicles and staff but we'll help with the mobile polling. And Peter will give you whatever help he can in promoting your re-election through Land Rights News.It is obviously standard procedure for the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council—where Mr Snowdon was an employee for many years—to provide assistance to the Labor Party at federal and Territory elections. Anyone who has been involved in an election in the Northern Territory would know that this has been the case for many years.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I have listened to Senator Tambling's remarks and I would ask you for a ruling. Firstly, it seems to me that Senator Tambling is reflecting upon another member of parliament, which I understand is out of order.Secondly, as I understand it, he has quoted from a transcript of proceedings in the Supreme Court regarding evidence given by one witness. I am not aware of whether or not this matter in the Supreme Court has been finalised. If it has not—and I would ask Senator Tambling to advise us on that—I would have thought that, if it is not out of order, it is at least a matter of some disquiet that a transcript regarding evidence in a case that has not been completed is being referred to in these proceedings, particularly to attack a member of parliament. As I said, I am not aware of whether or not the case has been finalised. If it is only evidence from one witness in a case that has not been finalised, then that raises all sorts of issues6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING—On the point of order: I would point out that I am certainly quoting from the transcript of evidence. That transcript has been widely reported in the Northern Territory News and other media, including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and it has also been extensively debat ed already in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I do not believe anything I am doing contravenes the rules of sub judice.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—On the point of order: there are two matters. The first is that Senator Tambling was not reflecting in an adverse fashion upon a member of parliament, so there is quite clearly no point of order. He just mentioned Mr Snowdon, and all of a sudden people on the other side started to worry.The second matter is whether it is inappropriate for Senator Tambling to quote from the transcript in question. The answer to that quite clearly must be that it is not inappropriate for him to quote it, because nothing which Senator Tambling is doing is reflecting upon the deliberations of the court proceedings which may be taking place. All he is saying is that this information, which has been publicly reported elsewhere and debated in another parliament, has a bearing on a completely different matter. Whilst he does not venture into the area which is before the court for determination, it is quite proper for Senator Tambling to quote from the proceedings of that court case.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Further to that point of order: I understand that this matter has not yet been deliberated upon by the court, that in fact it has not been finalised and that the proceedings—regardless of whether they indeed have been reported—are still continuing before this said jurisdiction. My understanding of that is that, quite clearly, that is sub judice. What is proceeding here now is a speech which is using material that may indeed be a transcript from the trial and may indeed be in the newspaper or any of the rest of it but, under the standing orders of this parliament, it cannot be broached until the matter has been legally finalised by the jurisdiction concerned.6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING—Further to the point of order: I point out that the case in the Northern Territory is between the Northern Land Council and Mr David Hansen. It is not a matter of a case that involves either the Labor Party or Mr Snowdon. These facts are well known, and many of them were put on the evidence by me in Senate estimates in 1994.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—I have taken note of all the contributions to this point of order. I think it is fair to say that there is no point of order regarding speaking ill of a parliamentary colleague. As to the second matter, I think you are skating close to the wind, Senator Tambling. If there is no case before a jury, then I am advised that it is a somewhat different matter. Either way, if these proceedings are still in the court, I believe you would be well advised to proceed very cautiously. I will be listening very closely.6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING—What we are seeing is the Northern Territory Labor Party and the management of land councils colluding and misappropriating valuable resources that should be being used for the benefit of Aboriginal people, not the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory. Mr Snowdon has never declared any of this support on his candidate returns, and this will be a matter that I will follow up with the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.The politicisation of the land councils has been going on for a long time, as anyone in Northern Territory politics is aware and as reading the reports tabled today reveal. I would refer senators and those listening to a speech I made in this place on 3 March 1994. In that speech I made the following comments:Again, I am critical of the politicisation of much of the activity of the Northern Land Council. . . . . . . . . .Both the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council far exceed the charter given to them under that organisation, and the politics would happen better in other places.It saddens and angers me that nothing at all has changed since then. The Northern and Central Land Councils should not be political organisations. They are not branches of the Labor Party and must cease giving support to the Labor Party, Warren Snowdon and another former director, John Ah Kit.Warren Snowdon must also act in an ethical manner and declare all the support that he has received from land councils in the past six federal elections, as he has conveniently left these details off his candidate returns to the Australian Electoral Commission.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator, I think that last remark does overstep the boundary about what is allowable in terms of reflection upon a parliamentary colleague.6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING—With respect, Madam Acting Deputy President, my comment was `Warren Snowdon must also act in an ethical manner.' I do not believe that is in any way reflecting on him.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Your use of the word `conveniently' in that sentence is the word that I ask you to withdraw.6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING—I withdraw the word `conveniently'. The Central Land Council and the Northern Land Council must re-examine how they view themselves and their role in the Northern Territory. This inequitable, unethical and illegal collusion between the land councils and the Labor Party must stop. It is an infringement of Aboriginal people's rights and a waste of money that could be so rightfully used in other areas such as Aboriginal heath.I will be pointing out the matters raised in the Hansen court case, along with several other issues, to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, which is inquiring into the Reeves report on the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. I will also raise the issues with the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs.19:01:002662Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I wish to contribute to the debate on this report. Senator Tambling gets to his feet and seeks to take note of a report that has been presented in the Senate today—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Northern Land Council, annual report of 1997-98—which is a report regarding the activities of the Northern Land Council for the 1997-98 financial year. I would have thought that Senator Tambling, being a senator representing the Northern Territory—a territory which has a large Aboriginal popula tion—might have addressed some of the issues in that report and might have addressed issues pertinent to the position of the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and in this country. But what did he do? Under the guise of dealing with this report, Senator Tambling gets up and drops a bucket on another member of parliament and a bucket on the Labor Party. He makes some incredible accusations based upon—he says—evidence given in a court case.I saw recently an example in Sydney—and I do not wish to go into details—where a newspaper printed an article regarding a court case that was going on in Sydney between two family members, a dispute within a family, where one party had laid a complaint for assault against a relative. The case started and evidence was presented from one witness on the first day. The next day in the Daily Telegraph a huge article, which was a terrible story, made out as if all of the accusations made by this particular witness were true.But, interestingly, when the full case was heard it was thrown out, and the magistrate very strongly condemned the fact that the action had even commenced. But what had happened? That person's reputation had already been maligned in the newspaper because they only reported part of the evidence to the case. That is what we have had here tonight from Senator Tambling. This case has not even been finished, but Senator Tambling says, `I can just grab the transcript, rely upon that and get stuck into a member of parliament.'One of the things that I have learned in the law is that you have to be very careful when you start going public. I believe senators and members of parliament have a specific and greater obligation here to ensure that they do not just take evidence from one side of an argument in a court case to suit their political objectives and use it to malign and defame the character of other people. They should be very conscious of the sub judice rules.It may not necessarily conflict with those principles on this occasion, but senators and members of parliament have a higher duty to be aware at all times that their words can damage very severely people's reputation. If Senator Tambling is of this view, I say to him, `The door is just over there, Senator Tambling,' and, as they say, walk the 10 steps to courage and let us see how that is dealt with.What was this government's response when it was faced with legitimate inquiries, legitimate questions, about its activities and its ministers' activities in that disgraceful conspiracy on the waterfront? Its response was, `We can't tell you anything about that, it is all sub judice. It's all being dealt with in the court.' So this government hid behind the sub judice principle then. But the truth came out in the end—the truth came out in the court decisions about what a disgraceful conspiracy, scandal and operation it was that was supported by this government.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The honourable senator on the other side has accused the government of being involved in a conspiracy. Now, a conspiracy is a criminal act. Either the honourable senator should withdraw the allegation that members of the government were involved in a criminal conspiracy or he should make it clear exactly what he was suggesting. I am sure that Senator Forshaw, through his knowledge of the law, would know that it would be inappropriate to suggest that members of the government were involved in a criminal conspiracy.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—On the point of order: I think the word `criminal' was not used. The word `conspiracy' can have criminal overtones if it is used in the same sentence, as in `criminal conspiracy', but the word `conspiracy' itself does not necessarily imply a criminal conspiracy. So I think the senator has jumped too far on that particular matter. I suspect the only conspiracy around here is his vest right now.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—I will make the ruling that I thought you prefaced it by such words so as not to convey the intent as picked up by Senator O'Chee. So you can continue.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Thank you. I was very careful in what I said, and the Hansard will bear that out. I have never heard so much hypocrisy as I have heard here tonight from Senator Tambling.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: he cannot accuse an honourable senator of hypocrisy and it should be withdrawn.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—That is right. That will have to be withdrawn.10000Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—I withdraw. This is a time when the Senate gets a brief opportunity to consider the reports. And what do we get? We get nothing but a bucket job—as I have said, absolute defamation if it was repeated outside—against another member of this parliament. That is quite contrary, I would suggest, to the standing orders. (Time expired)19:07:002663Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I will not take too long. My colleague Senator Forshaw said a moment ago—and he withdrew it—that he had not heard as much hypocrisy in his life. In fact, I actually have heard a bit more hypocrisy. I have heard other debates in this place and elsewhere where, in fact, one side of a particular case is used quite deliberately, obviously with the intention of gaining some sort of media coverage the next day—and this sort of thing may indeed have some impact on the proceedings that are going on right now in the Territory.I just want to say this, and I want to steer well away from any kind of proceedings that may be going to the court: I would have thought that Senator Tambling, if he wants to talk about political sleaze in the Territory, should have come in here and told us all about Mark Textor and his mates; should have come in here and put up some sort of plausible explanation; should have said that some of the allegations—not aired by me but aired by others in here—were wrong. He should have said that Mark Textor did not do the sorts of things that have been alleged in here on at least three occasions I can think of; that indeed the organisation of which he is a member in the Northern Territory and a representative down here in Canberra did not go about the sorts of things that were alleged—the push polling and all the other stuff that was done up there.But did we hear anything about this? What we get is absolute silence. We do not get any defence here of poor Mr Textor, who may well have been maligned, although I am sure that that is not so. We do not get any of that. What we get in here are some untested assertions about the use or abuse or otherwise of certain assets by a person who was actually working for this organisation when he was running for parliament. We do not get any defence. I thought that at some stage someone in here, particularly someone from the Territory, was going to have to come in and defend what had happened up there.It is like this: if you want to talk about these sorts of things, that is fine. That is all right. We have got plenty of ammunition on what happens up in the Territory because we know what it is like and we know what happens up there. We have only just scratched the surface of it. Before I finish my remarks and hand over to Senator Bolkus, who has got the precise details on this, I want to say that not only do I find this exercise here today to be less than fruitful but I just hope that it does not have any impact on the legal proceedings that are taking place up there.19:10:002664O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—We have had an interesting response from the Labor Party to Senator Tambling's contribution on this report. Not one of the two senators on the other side of the chamber who have spoken in this debate even made reference to the report in question. It was just a series of fulminations. They felt injured because Senator Tambling had shown that the resources of the Northern Land Council, which are supposed to be applied for the benefit Aboriginal people, were in part being applied for the benefit of the Labor Party. And the real substance of the complaint that we have heard in the last 10 minutes was that they felt injured that somebody might in fact question whether what was good for the Labor Party was good for Aboriginal people. It is the height of the arrogance of the Labor Party that they assume that what is in their best interests is in the best interests of Aboriginal people.What Senator Tambling was saying here is, `Here is the Northern Land Council, which receives $10 million in royalty from mining, and yet this is the purpose to which money is being applied whilst Aboriginal people who live within the area covered by the Northern Land Council still have substandard levels of health and substandard levels of academic achievement—not through any fault of their own, but through the fault of the Northern Land Council indulging in political activities.'It is interesting also to note some of the fairly political comments about land rights which are made in this report. And, of course, the Northern Land Council also receives, according to this, $11 million or $12 million of government assistance. Some of the most amazing repainting of history in terms of the Northern Territory land rights act is contained in this report. Some of the most amazing repainting of history in terms of native title is contained in this report. And what Senator Tambling has stated here, and what the Labor Party senators on the other side of the chamber have been incapable of answering, is the fact that this is being run like a political organisation—that is the substance of what Senator Tambling has said, and to that there is no response on the other side of the chamber. All we had was a smoke and mirrors performance—you would sometimes wonder what they had been smoking.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Wearing a shirt like that you shouldn't be making those comments.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Listen, Senator Quirke, I understand you have visions like that when I am not wearing this vest. I know that the Labor Party are desperate to do anything to deflect attention from their close relationship with the Northern Land Council. I know that they will do anything to hide the fact that the Northern Land Council is a major contributor—ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I just wonder if the speaker could speak a bit louder. We can't hear him over his vest!10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—There is no point of order.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The Labor Party will do anything, as you have just seen, to interrupt and cause difficulty to anybody who wants to criticise their very close and peculiar relationship with the Northern Land Council. That is what this debate is all about, hence the petty performance that we have just seen from Senator Quirke over there—good fellow though he is. The old tribal loyalties in the ALP run very deep on the other side of the chamber. That is why, for them, any time an honourable senator queries their conduct in elections or queries the conduct of people who are associated with them in elections, it touches a very raw nerve indeed. It is a raw nerve because they know that the things that Senator Tambling has outlined in this chamber tonight are correct. More importantly, they know that it is entirely appropriate for Senator Tambling to rise in this place and say, `I will be raising these matters with the relevant ministers.' That is in fact honest, open and accountable government. It is honesty and openness from a member of parliament so that everybody can see what he is doing. And yet, for the Labor Party, that is anathema because, for the Labor Party, everything has to be done behind closed doors. They do not like the light, they do not like the truth, they do not like their poor behaviour or the poor behaviour of people associated with them being shown for all to see.19:15:002665Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I also rise to speak on this report. I say to Senator O'Chee that this is a bit rich coming from you: someone who has tried to live and pursue a political life off the backs of Aboriginal Australians, particularly in Queensland; someone who politicised the Wik debate to such an extent that it became inflammatory. We expect very little from you and, unfortunately, we got very little from you in this debate.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—I take a point of order.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—What for? You just want to waste my time.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Will you sit down? My point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, is very simple. It is quite clearly an imputation of an improper motive to suggest that somebody has tried to live a political career off the backs of other people. That is quite clearly an inappropriate comment. It is unparliamentary, it is malicious, it is intentional and, of course, it should be withdrawn.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—I agree. Senator Bolkus, you will have to withdraw that offensive remark.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I withdraw, Mr Acting Deputy President. This was an opportunity to talk about the report and the Northern Land Council. I have gone through the report a number of times and I commend the Northern Land Council for the work that they have done. We often do not agree with them, we often do agree with them, but the reality is that they are in the business, as Gatjil Djerrkura says, of political advocacy on behalf of their members; and they do it well.That is what we should have been talking about today, but Senator Tambling came in here a little while ago and dropped a bucket on the Labor Party and Warren Snowdon. We are used to that from Senator Tambling. It is a reflection on the standards of the executive in this country that Senator Tambling not only was promoted to the position of parliamentary secretary, but also continues to hold that position. If he was honest and open in this place, Senator Tambling would have acknowledged that the case is proceeding, that evidence was adduced last week which rebuts the allegations made by the person he quoted in his contribution—Mr Hansen.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Mr Acting Deputy President, I have a point of order. We were treated to a number of points of order from the Labor Party, or a number of contributors on a point of order, saying that it was inappropriate to refer to these court proceedings. If it was inappropriate for Senator Tambling to refer to these court proceedings and Senator Crowley, whilst in the chair, warned Senator Tambling not to do so, then quite clearly it must be inappropriate for Senator Bolkus to continue discussing the very same case. Senator Bolkus is now saying that these matters were refuted in court. It is quite clearly a case of where the rule applies to one, it must apply to all.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I think that is fair enough. Senator Bolkus, from the chair I must draw your attention to the fact that we do not, in this chamber, know sufficient progress of the case and therefore I would urge great caution in referring to the case at all.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Mr Acting Deputy President, in sea life there are animals that feed off the low levels. We have had, in the last half hour or so of this debate, a reflection of that: Senator Tambling is feeding off the backstreet, the guttersnipe, and from behind the newsstands of Darwin he comes in here with those sorts of allegations. Senator Tambling, you ought to know better. Your reputation is not enhanced.I table a document which is a letter sent by Warren Snowdon to the Australian Electoral Commission refuting all your allegations. You ought to go outside of this chamber and either say what you have just said in here or apologise. Low-level behaviour reflects on the executive, reflects on the Prime Minister; a Prime Minister who stands there like Pontius Pilate, wiping his hands of your low-level behaviour. Senator Tambling, go back to behind the newsstands of Darwin and indulge in it there. I seek leave to table the letter.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Before that takes place, Mr Acting Deputy President, I have a point of order—XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to table the letter.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted? We had better hear the point of order.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—My point of order is a separate matter, after which we will deal with the letter. It is quite inappropriate to accuse the honourable senator of low-life behaviour. That is in fact the allegation that was made and it should be withdrawn.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator, I ask you to withdraw.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Mr Acting Deputy President, I think you are being excessively cautious. I was talking about marine life. I did draw an analogy but, if the cap fits, basically you wear it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It has to be withdrawn.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—What part needs to be withdrawn?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The referring to a particular senator as a `guttersnipe' et cetera.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—What did I say? What do I have to withdraw?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I think you know very well what you have to withdraw. It was unparliamentary. Will you withdraw?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I withdraw whatever is in your mind as offensive, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I would actually like you to tell us what it is.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Okay. It has been withdrawn. You have sought leave to table a document?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I have indeed.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. We have not seen the document but as a courtesy to Senator Bolkus and in response to a courtesy which was not offered to us, we will allow him on this occasion to table the document; but he well knows that, when people seek leave to table documents, they must first provide them to the other side.Leave granted.Debate interrupted.Adjournment266610000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Order! It being 7.20 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.266619:20:002666Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I rise tonight to speak on the issue of voluntary student unionism, which has been a matter of great debate in this country over recent years. We now have a bill about to come into the parliament, so I would like to lay down the case for voluntary student unionism tonight.I have spent a total of 25 years in universities as a student and an academic and I currently have four of my children in four different universities in the country. So I have had a longstanding interest in and appreciation of student life, having observed from very close quarters and also from a distance, as a student and as the father of students, the operation of student unions in this country.I do not believe that student unions should be disbanded. I believe that they have a lot of worthwhile services and products to offer to the student population. But, as a former student union member who over many years has contributed a lot of money to student unions, I do feel they should be restructured. Those organisations should become much more efficient and be tailored to the demands of students, who should be free to choose, just as they will be free to choose when they leave university.So far I have only hinted at the essential point, that is, the right to choose. That is one of the foundations of our democratic system. Compulsory student unionism, as it stands, is an infringement on the right of free association, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Free association is a basic human right and a cornerstone of our free society.Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, a Democrat, has said that she believes in `universal membership' of a student organisation. That is a loosely veiled term for the current system—a system of `compulsory universal membership'. This contradicts not only the human rights declaration but also the Workplace Relations Act of 1996.Higher education and what happens there should be brought into line with what is now happening in the rest of the community. Individuals have the right to associate or dissociate at will. At present students are denied these rights—firstly, by being forced to join; and, secondly, by being forced to pay a fee, under threat of not being able to graduate if such fees are not paid. Some universities do offer people who dissent from joining the right to donate funds to charity. But this is not widely publicised and rarely is it invoked.Failure to comply with joining a student union has resulted in these outcomes. In 1994 a student at the University of Tasmania who had achieved a position on the Dean's Honour Roll was expelled for refusing to pay union fees. In 1980 I was doing a PhD and was greatly concerned that my fees were being used at that time to send money to the Palestine Liberation Organisation. I objected to that and refused to pay the fees. The union said, `That's fine, you just won't graduate.' It holds that stick over the student's head—you do not graduate if you do not pay the fees. In a free society, that is an absolutely disgraceful situation.We find that student newspapers are run that are not necessarily in accordance with what students would want. We have found newspapers with subversive material in them, such as how to shoplift.An opposition senator interjecting—O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—You might laugh, Senator, but I do not think that teaching students to break the law has very much to do with education. This was at La Trobe University in 1995, the publication was Rabelais and the article was on how to shoplift. Are you really condoning that, Senator? If you are, perhaps you should stand up and put it on the record.These publications, under a voluntary student unionism system, would be forced to appeal to a wider section of the community. Unviable services under such a system would also be forced to close. Basically, under VSU, you end up with the services that the students want. At the moment we have large amounts of money being poured into clubs and societies which have very few members and receive large grants. These sorts of funds would be moved into areas of wider appeal.As Senator Synon pointed out in her 16 February adjournment speech, the Western Australia Student Guild at the Edith Cowan University has struggled financially—not because of VSU but because, before VSU was introduced, it pursued a whole lot of political ends, wasted student money and ended up with the university having to bail it out to the tune of $100,000. Recently in one of our party meetings, an MP highlighted, by passing around material, what some of this funding ends up doing—that, of course, is being spent on anti-government propaganda. In one electorate, compulsory student fees were spent in attempting to unseat a local Liberal member; $40,000 of student money was spent on that exercise in Victoria. Such political endeavours are supported by a minority of students who elect who controls the union.But students do not want this. What they want are services pertaining to their degree. They want value for money. But they have an invisible hand directing the flow of their compulsory contributions; and that is done by the small minority. They want accountability and responsibility. Although only 20 per cent of the student population voted in student elections, the National Union of Students spent $100,000 on a `Put the Liberals last' campaign in 1993. Such abuse of guaranteed funds is not in the best interests of the student population. With trade union backing, similar amounts were spent on anti-coalition material in 1998, targeting marginal seats. Prime Minister John Howard was subjected to abuse from 100 protesters with laser printed placards while his daughter attended her graduation ceremony at university.In contrast to these things which in recent times have been happening in Australia in five out of six states, including New South Wales, I would briefly outline the Western Australian experience. In that state, since 1995, voluntary student unionism has worked very successfully. That has been as a result of the Western Australian parliament passing amendments to the Student Guilds and Associations Act 1993. It disallowed any compulsory fee being levied on students for non-academic services.It is the most comprehensive, simple and successful model of VSU available. Initially, when introduced, it meant that membership went from 100 per cent down to 20 per cent. But as student groups adapted to what students need, it rose again to half the student population. The other half did not think it was worth while and they asserted their democrat ic right not to participate. Since that time, membership prices in Western Australian universities have dropped, and the guilds have been made accountable, efficient and responsible to the demands of the student population.Increased services have come in since 1994. Curtin University gained a casual employment service, resume writing and employment services and printing services. These are degree and career related things which the students wanted. Murdoch University gained a hairdresser and a cafe, and the University of Western Australia gained two cafes and a market day. This is further evidence of the market adapting to student taste.Opponents consistently argue about the cost legislation will have upon the students. The federal government has a very effective and generous student support scheme, the Youth Allowance, and loans are available for those in need, with payments up to $340 a fortnight. VSU was designed to save students several hundred dollars on top of the Youth Allowance scheme. The solution to the very problematic CSU scheme, therefore, is VSU, where students are given the choice of those organisations they wish to join and fund, where money is redistributed to worthwhile causes and students benefit from the savings.266819:31:002668O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I want to speak about a couple of matters tonight. The first issue I want to talk about is the management of the Northern Prawn Fishery. During the recent estimates hearings, I asked some questions about the management of the Northern Prawn Fishery, fisheries worth $120 million a year. It is, therefore, a valuable economic resource. I was told by officers of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority that work has been going on since 1993 to try to get an appropriate management regime for the Northern Prawn Fishery in place. This work was largely carried out by the Northern Prawn Fishery Management Advisory Council, known as NORMAC.Despite attempts to control the catch in the fishery in 1993, the capacity of the fishing effort has been increasing at about five per cent per annum, largely as a result of increased efficiency. Further, the controls put in place at that time—a limit on vessel size and engine horsepower—have been the subject of manipulation. Mr Meere, the Acting Managing Director of AFMA, told the committee that NORMAC recommended to AFMA a shift from A-class units—a system based on boat size and engine capacity—to units based on net size. He said that the AFMA board has accepted the NORMAC recommendation. Mr Meere also told me that this new system is far more flexible than the A-class unit system, enabling future changes to capacity without major disruption to operators.He said that AFMA undertook a process of public consultation, in accordance with section 17 of the Fisheries Management Act, in relation to this new system. That process involved, firstly, the release of a draft plan and then extensive consultation. I asked Mr Meere about the actual decision making process in relation to this plan, and he confirmed that AFMA is a statutory authority charged with the responsibility to maintain a sustainable fishing industry. Mr Meere also confirmed that, in relation to the operation of AFMA, the role of the minister is limited. The minister oversees AFMA through key accountability provisions in its legislation. These provisions require the minister to approve the AFMA corporate plan and annual operational plan and formally accept management plans determined by the authority.There is also provision for a formal ministerial direction to the authority but only in exceptional circumstances. The power of the minister in this regard, therefore, is very limited. For example, he could not base such a decision on the adverse impact of a measure on one particular group of operators. He would be obliged to look at the matter in terms of the management of the fishery itself.The limitations placed on the use of this power have seen no formal direction given to AFMA since it was established in 1991. The officer advised me at estimates that AFMA provided the minister, Mr Vaile, with its agreed statutory management plan for the Northern Prawn Fishery for his formal endorsement at the beginning of February this year. Some smaller operators in the fishery do not support the AFMA plan. They argue that smaller vessels are disadvantaged.There was, however, a plebiscite organised by some licence holders to apply pressure to the minister to overturn the AFMA recommendation, but I understand that most of the participants in that vote are based in Queensland or Darwin. I also understand that most of these boats carry licences to fish in the Queensland East Coast Fishery and the Torres Strait Fishery as well as the Northern Prawn Fishery. As I said, this group is seeking to have the minister overturn the recommendation, and, through the member for Leichhardt, Mr Entsch, is applying considerable political pressure to that end.The AFMA plan accommodates these concerns by including a provision to allow smaller vessels to adjust to the new arrangements over a period of two years. I assume that will enable the trading capacity over a period so some operators will sell out and some will increase their size and enhance their economic viability. Proper process has been followed in developing this new plan, and the evidence that was given to the estimates committee was that there is a great need for control on the utilisation of the resource if it is to be maintained at a sustainable level.It is important that the minister meet his responsibilities under the Fisheries Administration Act and endorse the AFMA plan. It is important that the sustainable future of this important economic asset be put ahead of both the sectional interests of one part of the industry and the political interests of the local member. If that does not occur, we will see a serious deterioration in the prawn stocks in the fishery, which will jeopardise the future of the industry generally.I was not intending to go beyond those comments tonight, but the comments that Senator Tierney made earlier about voluntary student unionism, particularly those about the application of funds of student unions to political campaigns and campaigns against the coalition, reminded me of the actions of this government prior to the last election when it spent up to about $20 million of public money for an election campaign, in effect, to promote what it proposed as laws, matters which had not even been presented to the House of Representatives let alone passed through the parliament. But it chose, without the authority of the Australian people, to expend money by executive fiat in the sum of almost $20 million to promote what was essentially its campaign at the ensuing election which was to occur shortly after the release of those funds.For opposition senators, be it Senator Tierney today or Senator Abetz yesterday, to complain about those activities in relation to this issue of voluntary student unionism is, I suggest, quite hypocritical. I think they need to have a close look at themselves. If they are going to purport to take the high moral ground on the question of the activities of student unions, they had better have a good look at the government of which they are part.267019:38:002670O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—I wish to raise a matter which is of great importance to many Australian consumers—that is, the use of infomercials to make outrageous claims about products. But one particular product gives me reason to rise here tonight—that is, a herbal product, which claims to be medicinal, by the name of MemAd. MemAd has an interesting claim to fame because the promoters of this drug claim that it will, amongst other things, maximise your memory, maximise your brain power and make you an overnight success in exams.Today I saw this product advertised at 9.30 a.m. on Win Television, but it was not the first time I had seen the infomercial run. I first saw the infomercial about a month ago on late-night television. The infomercial is marketed through Telemall Shopping, but they do not actually produce the product. I understand the person who is licensed to produce the product is Olga Sawtell. Olga Sawtell happens to also be the aunt of a rather unfortunate individual by the name of Adam Rixon, who used to be a first grade football player. Adam Rixon appears frequently through the infomercial because they claim that he went from being nearly a vegetable to having full mental capacity again simply because he took this wonderful product called MemAd. A tape of the program reveals that the compere, Ms Suzanne Paull, asked of Adam Rixon's aunt, Olga Sawtell:So you gave Adam the MemAd and what sort of difference did you then see?Olga Sawtell said:Well it was all but miraculous, it all seemed to happen one day . . . and then just one day out of the blue and he said to his elder sister "but Kylie you just said" and, and, and we all cheered. Here was our breakthrough and it just, since that day it has just got better and better . . . today everyone who knows him, every member of his family, feel he has all his short term memory back and its, its just a miracle!The problem is that MemAd is not a registered product under the Therapeutic Goods Act. The reason I sound this warning is that I do not want gullible people being suckered into a scam which would appear to have no more basis than one of Peter Foster's weight loss teas.The fact is that not one of the claims made by the producers of MemAd has been scientifically proven. It has never been registered under the Therapeutic Goods Act. As a result, it is quite clearly illegal for these people to make these claims. The whole thing is a con, but some of the claims are really quite outrageous. Not only did we have Adam Rixon appear and his aunt and his mother but for good measure we also had his cousin. His cousin told us that he had received a letter from his school telling him he would have to leave unless his grades improved. But that was before he took MemAd. After taking the product, he said, `When it comes to the crunch, you can write down your maths formulas and your English quotes. It's all there.' He said that he went from `coming third last in the grade to the top 3½ per cent in the state'. The compere then asks him: `Did they suspect you of cheating?' He says, `Yes. They thought I was cheating. It was just so good.'7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Bryce Courtenay—The power of one .EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—The power of one —it is not just one tablet, Senator Lundy. I will get on to that in a minute. There are many gullible people or desperate people who would love to succeed in exams and who feel, having watched this program, that all they have to do is buy the product. They might be even further duped into the buying the product because they are told that the Prime Minister of India uses the tablet. They did not say which Prime Minister. They also claimed that the No. 2 man in South Africa—and they were referring apparently to Chief Buthelezi, but they could not get his name right; they referred to him as Chief Buthali: obviously they had not taken enough of the MemAd tablet themselves to remember the name—was in fact a regular user of the tablet.When I phoned up a month ago, I pretended to be interested in buying MemAd. When I phoned up and asked about the product, they told me that the drug would `maximise brain potential'. They were their words.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—You were a victim in the first instance, Bill. Admit it. You thought you were going to get smarter.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—They shied away from specifically saying that it would restore brain damage, but I was told that it would do pretty miraculous things. I then made a complaint to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. I will get on to how they dealt with it in a minute. I should point out that anybody suckered into buying this product—and I have not bought the product—7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Why not?EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Because I am not as gullible, Senator Lundy, as maybe some of your colleagues might be. Anyone who is suckered into buying this product, buying herbal tablets, will be up for $60 a month.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—If they remember to buy them.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—They always get the money first, Senator O'Brien. I made a complaint to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. They then raised the matter with the licensee of the product. They made it very clear—and I want to pay tribute to the TGA—that this product was not a registered product. It was listed, but it was not registered on the schedule, and they were not entitled to make any of these representations.It is my understanding that the TGA told the licensee of the product that, if they agreed to withdraw the infomercial, no further action would be taken against them, which is a very reasonable position by the TGA. I think it showed a great degree of commonsense. Unfortunately, the licensees of the product and Telemall Shopping have absolutely no regard for the law or for the Therapeutic Goods Administration or for the people to whom they sell this product.One month after my original complaint, they aired the infomercial again—not at 1 o'clock in the morning, but at 9.30 in the morning, to get even more exposure, to sucker even more people in. They are told that if they ring in within an hour they will get a special offer—two months supply for the price of one.This is a mammoth scam. It is a con. It is designed to pray on gullible people. It is quite clearly the case that there are many very good complementary medicines and many complementary medicine companies that act within the law, with restraint, with decency, with genuine concern to provide good products and good services to their customers. But MemAd is not such an operation.MemAd is a scam and I warn all Australians to be aware of this product. I have already raised the matter with the parliamentary secretary and with the TGA. I trust that suitable action will be taken in the near future to protect people, to ensure that they do not fall victim to these people, who are preying on the gullible.267119:46:002671Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I rise this evening to make comment on the event that has been taking place here in Parliament House and around Canberra over the last few days—the Youth Round Table. It has been an interesting process and one that the opposition has provided much comment on since the idea was first mooted by the government. Our consistent position has been that any initiative that engages dialogue with young people in this country within the political parameters of this parliament is a positive thing. But we have also consistently maintained that in fact this round table should be supplementary to the adequate and well-established consultative processes that have existed previously.This issue is well on the record of the government's decisions over time to cut the support and the funding that makes the consultative peak of particularly AYPAC able to express a voice and put forward a view on behalf of the youth of Australia. The Labor position has consistently been that we actually need to build up these layers of consultation with youth in this country rather than diminish the layers and undermine their voice.After observing the deliberations of the Youth Round Table over the last few days, I have a number of comments that I would like to make. Before I do so, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of all the young people that participated in the round table and congratulate them on their deliberations and their outcomes and wish them luck in their future endeavours with respect to their roles and responsibilities related to the Youth Round Table.My comments go to the actual structure of the Youth Round Table and how it has been managed on behalf of the government over the last few days. No doubt there has been a flurry of activity. One of my concerns about that process is the status of this group in the eyes of the government.The round table participants have been led to believe that they will be providing a critical voice and will be key influencers over government policy direction in the near future. This has been reinforced by several statements by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, and has been taken at genuine face value by the participants in the forum.Words come so cheaply in politics; it will be actions that determine whether or not the government has any credibility in this regard. It is in fact too early to judge whether or not the government will follow through with this profound commitment that they have given this group of 50 young Australians.I would like also to raise the status of the Youth Round Table with respect to the role that was previously filled by the peak youth consultative group, AYPAC. That group provided a role of bringing together information from youth organisations right around the country, consolidating it and expressing it in an articulate and concise way to governments, to oppositions and to minor parties participating in the parliament at any point in time. It seems to me that, with the marginalisation and the cutting of funds to the AYPAC youth consultative peak, the government is hopeful that the Youth Round Table will fill this great gap in the voice of youths in this country.The question that needs to be asked—I certainly made this representation to the participants of the Youth Round Table—is whether the government looking for a focus group with this gathering of young people or whether it is looking to create a new youth peak consultative body. It seems to me that the structure of the Youth Round Table primarily is geared towards providing the government with a very succinct insight into the views of these young people. This is incredibly important, but it also clearly defines the exercise as one of being a focus group, an opportunity for a political party or indeed, in this case, a parliament—I will come back to that point—to try to look inside the minds, the thoughts, the feelings and the values of this group of young people and allow them to express themselves and then to use that information to shape policy directions. This in fact is what the government has asked of this group of dynamic young people. I believe that they have actually delivered, in providing that inspiration, those thoughts, the directions to the government.If this government is wanting more from these young people than to tap into their values and use that information for their own future development in policy, strategy and government initiative, then what are they expected to do? How will this group of people be resourced to the point that they can actually meet what is a very demanding and great responsibility, performing the role of what was previously provided by the youth peak consultative body in this country?I watched with interest over the course of the last few days as these expectations certainly became clearer to me as to what the ongoing task was for the members of the Youth Round Table. Indeed, it is quite comprehensive. It is so comprehensive that I am gravely concerned that the government has not provided adequate resource support or information to actually allow this consultative process to occur.I am also gravely concerned that the demands on these people as a result of this expectation will start to impinge on their lives. It would be awful if it started impacting on their lives in a negative way. It is a plea for clarification by the government as to whether or not the round table is a worthy focus group or if it is a consultative peak body of young Australians.How on earth can you replace an organisation such as AYPAC that has established networks, communications, a skills base and a volunteer base with a group of well-intentioned young people and expect them to be able to fulfil what will be no doubt a very high public expectation of their role? My own view is that I am sure they can do it with the appropriate levels of support, but I think the Australian community will understand the importance of distinguishing those points and seeking clarification from the government as to exactly what the expectation and role of this group is.I would like to make a couple of other points about it. I am concerned that during the week there have been a number of structural changes to the actual meeting of the round table including the cutting of focus groups and the fact—and I think this is what concerns me most as a member of this parliament—that there was no record kept of what these young people have said over the last three days. Maybe it is because I am used to being in parliament and we have a fantastic departmental parliamentary reporting service that does record the words that are spoken in this place and provides them in perpetuity so we as politicians can forever use them as a fundamental resource. This did not occur with the round table.In fact, I have found great difficulty even accessing the outcomes of this forum, given that I was unfortunately, depending on your perspective, in the chamber dealing with Senate business this afternoon when this group was reporting back to members of parliament in the Main Committee room. I am obviously concerned about this because I missed the event and there is no written or recorded record of the deliberations of these young people. As a member of this parliament and as a member of the opposition, I want to know if I am going to get access to this information. It is very important that my political party and I, as a member of parliament concerned about youth issues, do get the opportunity to also hear what these young people have said.My final point is one of political manipulation. I believe the Youth Round Table is a resource to the Australian parliament. If it is just a resource for the coalition, for the government, then these young people are being manipulated. If it is in fact a resource to parliament and something that we can all participate in and get involved in, then we expect to see the information supplied to us and we expect to be invited to participate in the week's events at the next round table to a far greater degree than we were during this week.267319:56:002673Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Last weekend Melbourne hosted the Grand Prix again. Yet again the city was inundated with tobacco advertising. That tobacco advertising would normally be banned. Window displays with chequered flags and cigarette packets are only just starting to come down now. I might say that it is quite unclear whether the numerous cigarette shops, newsagents and supermarkets that carried cigarette displays have been paid by tobacco companies in cash or in kind or have even been threatened by them in order to put up those displays. We saw women, paid no doubt by tobacco companies, trawling suburban streets illegally handing out cigarettes; and no doubt they have now gone, too.I do not think there is much doubt that through this yearly event Australia is reversing the gains of decades of anti-smoking activism. While the Grand Prix lasts only a few days, as we know all, media coverage lasts for almost a year. Tobacco company W.D. & H.O. Wills used the race to launch a new range of Lucky Strike cigarettes. From having barely promoted the brand in Australia, the Lucky Strike logo was reportedly heavily promoted at the race itself. Only last month the wholesale prices for these new products were listed in the government Gazette. Last year I tabled in the Senate a number of magazines crammed with cigarette advertising thanks to the Grand Prix photographs.There is absolutely no reason why media photographs or footage should not be airbrushed or digitally altered to remove tobacco company logos. After all, if Channel 7 is able to superimpose advertisements on crowd scenes, then surely it is possible to do the reverse. As it is, Australians are being exposed to tobacco advertising from other countries when we broadcast these sporting events. An example of that was last year's broadcast of the South African National Rugby Series. A plea on these grounds made late last year by the group Action on Smoking and Health to the Australian Broadcasting Authority failed. The ABA wrote that the necessary technology was not universally available to the commercial networks. They said:The Seven Network do not . . . currently possess the ability to eliminate via computer existing advertising signage which may be visible at overseas sporting venues. However, the Seven Network has stated that it should have the necessary ability in approximately twelve months.But this really is a matter of political will. The federal government and the Victorian government have singularly shown that that political will is lacking. Every year the federal health minister, Dr Wooldridge, exempts the organisers of the Grand Prix from bans on tobacco advertising. The caveat on the minister's approval of an exemption was that the corporation would be required to `give an assurance that no further breaches will occur'.Save Albert Park's most recent report, Parkwatch, listed numerous breaches occurring in the 1998 race. These included tobacco advertising being displayed without the required warnings and the sale of merchandise that did not comply with the exemption. Of course, nothing was done about them. I doubt the minister had any mechanism for checking unless all of those senators and members who were there as guests of tobacco companies were keeping an eye open. But the links between the coalition and tobacco companies are very well known. We all remember that Phillip Morris sponsored the Liberal Party's national conference dinner late last year and donated $86,400 to the coalition in the financial year before the federal election. (Time expired)20:00:002674Senate adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Documents26742674The following government documents were tabled:Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Reports— No. 53—Tempe Downs and Middleton Ponds/Luritja land claim no. 147. No. 54—Central Mount Wedge land claim no. 154.Australian Securities and Investments Commission—Reports— Investigation into Burns Philp & Company Limited, December 1998. Special investigation into Spedley Securities Limited, December 1998.Building on land rights for the next generation—Review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 by John Reeves. Q.C— Appendices, August 1998 (second edition). Report. August 1998 (second edition).Central Land Council—Report for 1997-98.Northern Land Council—Report for 1997-98.Tiwi Land Council—Report for 1997-98.2674The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Census and Statistics Act—Australian Bureau of Statistics—Statement No. 1 of 1999.Customs Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 35.Lands Acquisition Act—Statement describing property acquired by agreement under section 125 of the Act for specified public purposes. Answers to Questions on Notice2675The following answers to questions were circulated:2675(Question No. 197)1972675Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:With reference to the Commonwealth's 1996 allocation of $48.5 million for capital projects for Victorian governments schools; given that the Victorian Education Department was exempted from having to produce a list of capital projects amounting to this sum, due to the State's budget cycle:(1) How much of the $48.5 million was ultimately spent in 1996 on capital projects in Victorian Government schools.(2) Does the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1992 allow the money to be retained by Victoria.(3) Has the Commonwealth requested a refund of any remaining 1996 Victorian capital funds granted by the Commonwealth.(4) (a) How many schools and school authorities received exemptions from the Commonwealth programs for schools 1996 administrative guidelines; (b) who were they and what were the exemptions for; and (c) what section(s) of the Act or other rules or regulations permit such exemptions.(5) (a) How many schools and authorities received exemptions from the Commonwealth programs for schools 1997 administrative guidelines; (b) how many from the 1998 administrative guidelines; (c) who were they, in each year, and what were the exceptions for; and (d) what sections of the States Grants Act or other rules or regulations would permit such exemptions.(6) What provisions are there in the quadrennial schools funding arrangements for 1997-2000 that Commonwealth schools' monies (whether recurrent or capital) are spent for the specific purposes in the year for which they are allocated.(7) (a) Was the "program administration" requirement in Schedule A of the agreements between the Commonwealth and each school or nominated authority, regarding "literacy, languages and special learning needs' funding, included for every school or nominated authority which received Commonwealth funds, namely, the requirement that: "To permit appropriate program monitoring, the nominated authority will advise the Commonwealth in writing of: principles applied in allocating funds; and arrangements for consulting with the relevant educational authorities and community groups on program priorities and targeting; (b) was the same requirement included for 1998 "literacy and special learning needs' for funding, for all schools or nominated educational authorities; and (c) will this requirement continue for the funding years 1999 and 2000.(8) Of the schools or nominated education authorities with which there are such agreements, how many have provided the required Schedule A "program administration' details.(9) Can the names of those which have not provided these details in 1997 or 1998 be provided.(10) What measures have been taken in response to cases where the required details have not been provided.(11) Given the vulnerability of the school children for whom these funds are being provided, what monitoring is taking place to ensure the principles and consultation are being adhered to and are actually adequate for ensuring an optimum school education.(12) Given that under the national equity program for schools (NEPS), under which similar funding was provided up until 1996, these principles and consultative arrangements were specified in a schedule in the agreements, and the agreements themselves were public documents; is it possible for members of the public to obtain the principles and consultative arrangements supplied to the Commonwealth which have been provided pursuant to funding agreements; if so, from whom.(13) Do details of consultative arrangements continue to include provision of names and category being represented of all members or consultative groups or committees, as was the case with NEPS; if not, why not.2675Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The following answer to the honourable senator's question has been provided by Dr Kemp for your information:(1) All of the initial allocation of $48.5 million for Victorian government schools was committed in 1996.The Victorian Government, because of the timing of its budget cycle, was unable to submit a complete schedule of capital projects for Common wealth funding in 1996 at the beginning of the 1996 program year. Dr Kemp, the then Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, agreed that under these circumstances the Victorian Government should be able to submit a further schedule later in the year, which it did, and which committed the remainder of its 1996 allocation.(2) If the State of Victoria had not committed all of its allocation for 1996, the Minister, under the Act and the agreement between the Commonwealth and the State made under the Act, would have been entitled to withhold funds not committed in 1996.(3) No, because it is not applicable.(4) (a) Two.(b) The Independent Schools of Queensland Block Grant Authority sought and obtained a relaxation of the requirement that 50 per cent of projects be in respect of existing student places. It was agreed that 35 per cent of projects would be for existing places because of the profile of projects submitted for Commonwealth funding in the year.The Victorian Government sought and obtained a relaxation of the requirement to submit all capital projects it proposed for funding, in one instalment at the beginning of the year. Since the granting of this concession it has been determined that, for practical reasons, all States should be able to submit schedules of projects in more than one instalment.(c) These conditions of funding are set out in the Administrative Guidelines to which States and block grant authorities are bound under their agreements with the Commonwealth. These agreements are required under the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1992. Subsection 47(4) of that Act applies to capital grants for government schools and paragraph 15(1)(a) to capital grants for non-government schools. The parties to agreements may agree to amend them.(5) (a) Two.(b) None(c) The South Australian Department of Education and Children's Services sought and obtained a relaxation of the requirement to submit schedules of projects within two weeks of their being publicly announced. This concession was granted because of delays attributable to the holding of State elections.The Victorian Government sought and obtained an exemption to the requirement to advise schools of the exact amounts of Commonwealth funding allocated to each project. This exemption was granted because the original cost would have been out of date by the time a Commonwealth representative attended an opening. (d) These conditions of funding are set out in the Administrative Guidelines to which States and block grant authorities are bound under their agreements with the Commonwealth. These agreements are required under the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1996. Part 2, Division 1 of that Act applies to capital grants for government schools and Part 2, Division 2 to capital grants for non-government schools. The parties to agreements may agree to amend them.(6) Part 2 of the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1996 contains provisions (at sections 11(a) and 16(4)) which require the State or nominated authority to provide a certificate stating whether the amount or sum of amounts of financial assistance paid to the State or nominated authority under the relevant provision of the Act for that year have been spent in respect of that year for the purpose for which the assistance was granted.(7) The Agreements between the Commonwealth and each education authority for 1997 specified that for program monitoring purposes in respect of the Literacy, Languages and Special Learning Needs Programs, the authority would provide the Commonwealth with:. the principles applied in allocating program funds; and. the arrangements for consulting with the relevant educational authorities and community groups on program priorities and targeting.The same arrangements applied for 1998. In addition, in relation to the Literacy Program, authorities were asked to provide a strategic plan on how schools would ensure that students meet the national literacy standard by the end of Year 3.The administrative arrangements for 1999 will not be significantly different from those that applied for 1998. The arrangements for 2000 will be finalised towards the end of 1999.The Agreements apply between the Commonwealth and education authorities, not individual schools.(8) All education authorities have provided the required information for 1997 and 1998.(9) All education authorities have provided the required information for 1997 and 1998.(10) All education authorities have provided the required information for 1997 and 1998.(11) All education authorities have provided the required information for 1997 and 1998.(12) The Schedules to the Agreements for Literacy, Languages and Special Learning Needs contain a requirement for State Governments and nominated authorities to advise the Commonwealth in writing of the principles applied to allocating program funds and the arrangements for consulting with the relevant educational authorities and community groups on program priorities and targeting.(13) Details provided on consultative arrangements include the category of membership of consultative groups and committees. The Commonwealth is concerned that a range of relevant advice is sought in considering funding arrangements to schools, rather than the details of the particular individuals2677(Question No. 216)2162677Crossin, Sen TrishSenator Crossin7Y6NTALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) Is the Minister aware that Peron Island, a popular fishing area, off the coast of the Northern Territory, currently has no radio coverage, and that if anglers encounter trouble, there is no way for them to place an emergency call for help.(2) Can an indication be given on when radio coverage over Peron Island will be available and why the Government has ignored this important marine safety issue.2677Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Commonwealth operates a coast radio station network for distress and safety communications purposes covering the Australian search and rescue region. Peron Island falls within the Australian search and rescue region. The Island is covered by the Commonwealth's distress and safety communications network. This network is provided principally to meet the needs of the merchant shipping industry under the provisions of the International Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention. However, smaller vessels and pleasure craft fall outside the scope of the SOLAS Convention. The responsibility for providing communication services for such vessels rests with State and Territory Governments. This reflects an agreement by Commonwealth and State/Territory Ministers for Transport in 1990. The services provided by coast radio stations are available free of charge, to pleasure craft and fishing vessels that have the appropriate communications facilities, within the radio service areas. If anglers in the vicinity of Peron Island wish to use the Commonwealth's distress and safety communications network, they may do so, free of charge, provided they are equipped with suitable communications facilities. (2) The Commonwealth's distress and safety communications network has provided radio coverage for Peron Island for many years. Under the present contract that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) has negotiated with Telstra, the coast radio station network, which includes the coast radio stations in Darwin, Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Townsville, will continue to operate and provide radio coverage within the same service areas as have been covered to the present time. AMSA will continue to manage the provision of safety radio services by maintaining its existing levels of service until a suitable long term replacement is implemented or until 2005, whichever is earlier.2677(Question No. 220)2202677Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, 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.2677Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) I am advised that the total value of market research sought by the department on a month-by-month basis between March 1996 and November 1998 is as follows:(i) $64,000—May 1996; (ii) $36,284—October 1996 (funded by Environment Australia); (iii)$9,000—September 1997; (iv) $16,250—February 1998; and (v)$30,000—July 1998.(2) (i) Quantitative research survey of community attitudes on issues related to reconciliation.(ii) Qualitative research in support of a national information campaign for the Regional Forest Agreement process and outcomes. The objective of the research was to gather information relevant in determining the most effective methods of communication for an information strategy.(iii) To assist in the finalisation for publication of the document "Republic—yes or no?' by testing it for readability and clarity.(iv) Focus testing of a possible advertisement on indigenous issues, including native title.(v) To provide broad market evaluation of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation's magazine Walking Together.(3) (i) The Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA) advised that quantitative research should be undertaken following earlier qualitative research to quantify the extent of opinions and attitudes across the community and in particular segments (eg by age, gender, socio-economic status) to lay the basis for developing an integrated communications strategy for the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.(ii) OGIA provided advice on the research brief and the tender process, and provided contact details for five consultants.(iii) OGIA had no involvement in the market research.(iv) OGIA recommended market testing.(v) OGIA had no involvement in the market research.(4) (i) (a) One*(b) One(ii) (a) Five(b) Four(iii) (a) Six(b) Four(iv) (a) One**(b) One(v) (a) Public tender(b) Seven* Brian Sweeney and Associates was the only organisation invited to submit a proposal as they were already familiar with the qualitative survey and were considered capable of quickly and effectively designing a quantitative survey.** Brian Sweeney and Associates was the only organisation invited to submit a proposal on the basis of their previous work relating to the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.(5) (i) Brian Sweeney and Associates(ii) Keys Young Pty Ltd; (iii) Golsby-Smith and Associates; (iv) Brian Sweeney and Associates; and (v) Rush Social Research Agency(6) (i) $64,000—$64,000; (ii) $36,284—$36,592 (funded by Environment Australia); (iii) $9,000—$12,390; (iv) $16,250—$17,050 and (v) $30,000— $13,250 (contract not completed as at November 1998).2678(Question No. 227)2272678Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, 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, what was the estimated or contract price of the research work and what was the actual amount expended by the department.2678Newman, 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) to (5) To obtain the information requested by the honourable senator would involve considerable use of resources to research and compile the material. I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure of money, time and effort involved in assembling such information.2678(Question No. 237)2372678Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 25 November:(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).2678Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade have provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) None(2) N/A(3) N/A(4) N/A2679(Question No. 247)2472679Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Worthington Di Marzio since March 1996.(2) In each instance what as 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).2679Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The department and it's agencies have let nine contracts for six different projects to the firm Worthington Di Marzio since March 1996. These projects are:(a) Creative concept testing, benchmark & tracking research to aid in the development and evaluation of a Public Information Program about New Apprenticeships and National Qualifications. (contract numbers 96/0214, 97/0111, 96/0354 and 97/0112.)(b) Development of a package to promote awareness for the uptake of New Apprenticeships under Australian Workplace Agreements & Certified Agreements (Contract no. 97/0204)(c) Evaluation of Stage Two of the Promotional Strategy for the Key Competencies Program. The contract was signed on 2 November 1995 and concluded on 10 March 1997. (Contract no. 95/0222)(d) Research on Target Audience Perceptions of HECS and the Communication Effectiveness of Advertising for HECS information products. (Contract no. 97/0270)(e) The provision of market research into the Higher Education Contribution scheme information booklet—"HECS—Your Questions Answered". (Contract no. 97/0365) (f) Research to assist with a campaign on the program options for young Australians. (Contract no. 97/0509)(2) In each instance the purpose of the work conducted by Worthington Di Marzio was:(a) To conduct creative concept testing, benchmark and tracking research to aid in the development and evaluation of a public information program about New Apprenticeships and National Qualifications.(b) The purpose of the research, as described in the project brief was: "to develop a package, to a stage ready for printing, to promote the uptake of New Apprenticeships under AWAs [Australian Workplace Agreements] and CAs[Certified Agreements]. This package will be in a format that compliments the Local Area Marketing Kit that underpins the Departments ongoing national marketing campaign for New Apprenticeships." Further, Schedule 1(a)(2) of the contract dated 24 December 1997, in part states: "The consultant shall develop an information package about the introduction of changed workplace relations arrangements for employers and intermediaries with regard to the take up of New Apprenticeships."(c) To evaluate the effectiveness of Stage Two of the Promotional Strategy for the Key Competencies Program and provide ongoing feedback to enhance the effectiveness of the strategy.(d) The purpose of the January 1998 HECS contract was to test the creative concept and communication effectiveness of proposed radio and press advertising for the "HECS Your Questions Answered" booklet and HECS hotline.(e) The purpose of the May 1998 HECS contract was to test the creative concept and communication effectiveness of the "HECS Your Questions Answered 1998" booklet.(f) To conduct developmental research, concept testing, benchmark and tracking research to aid in the development and evaluation of a public information campaign about programs available to young people.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract?(a) $239,503.49; (b) $29,050; (c) $40,500; (d) $11,800; (e) $24,400; and (f) $148,700.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Worthington Di Marzio (open tender, short list or some other process)?(a) A shortlist of five firms was prepared in consultation with the Office of Government Information and Advertising.(b) An exemption from tender (minimum standard of procurement) for the New Apprenticeships consultancy was approved on the basis of pre-eminent expertise and expedience.(c) A shortlist of eight firms was prepared in consultation with the Office of Government Information and Advertising.(d) An exemption from tender (minimum standard of procurement) for the HECS advertising consultancy was approved on the basis of pre-eminent expertise and expedience.(e) A shortlist of three firms was prepared in consultation with the Office of Government Information and Advertising.(f) An exemption from tender (minimum standard of procurement) for the options for young Australians consultancy was approved on the basis of pre-eminent expertise and expedience given previous work for the Department on similar issues.2680(Question No. 251)2512680Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 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).2680Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)—(4) The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has no records of any contracts being awarded to the firm Worthington Di Marzio since March 1996.2680(Question No. 253)2532680Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 25 November:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Australasian Research Strategies since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Australasian Research Strategies.(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 (open tender, short list or some other process).2680Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade have provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) None(2) N/A(3) N/A(4) N/A2680(Question No. 259)2592680Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, 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).2680Newman, 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) This portfolio has no record of any contracts being provided to Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since March 1996.(2) to (4) Not applicable.2680(Question No. 267)2672680Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 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).2681Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)—(4) The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has no records of any contracts being awarded to the firm Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since March 1996.2681(Question No. 275)2752681Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, 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).2681Newman, 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) This portfolio has no record of any contracts being provided to Canberra Liaison since March 1996.(2) to (4) Not applicable.2681(Question No. 283)2832681Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 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).2681Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)—(4) The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has no records of any contracts being awarded to the firm Canberra Liaison since March 1996.2681(Question No. 296)2962681Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) On how many occasions did the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications meet to decide issues pertaining to the market research work commissioned in support of the community education and information program on taxation reform.(2) What decisions were required in each instance.(3) In relation to each decision, on what dates did the committee meet.(4) In each instance, who was on the committee, including details of proxy-style arrangements.2681Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised that:(1) The MCGC approved the research brief and list of consultants out of session on 7 May 1998. Subsequently the market research company appeared before the committee on four occasions.(2) On these occasions the market research company provided advice to the Committee of its findings on the creative material under development.(3) The research company attended Committee meetings on . 1 July 1998. 15 July 1998. 20 July 1998, and. 7 August 1998.(4) The then Special Minister of State, Senator the Hon Nick Minchin, provided the out-of-session approval. Committee members present on 1 July 1998 were Senator the Hon Nick Minchin, Mr Petro Georgiou MP and Mr Tony Nutt. Mr Anthony Smith represented the Treasurer. Committee members present on 15 July 1998 were Mr Petro Georgiou MP and Mr Tony Nutt. Mr Phillip Gaetjens represented the Treasurer. Committee members present on 20 July 1998 were Senator the Hon Nick Minchin, Mr Petro Georgiou MP and Mr Tony Nutt. Mr Phillip Gaetjens represented the Treasurer. Committee members present on 7 August 1998 were Senator the Hon Nick Minchin, Mr Petro Georgiou MP and Mr Tony Nutt. Mr Anthony Smith represented the Treasurer.2682(Question No. 336)3362682O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:(1) What has been the average delay, and what is the maximum delay, in pilots making contact with the Search and Rescue Watch (CENSAR), since 1 July 1997.(2) Can it be confirmed that pilots are having great difficulty getting through to CENSAR to report their safe arrival.(3) Has advice been sought as to whether these unacceptable delays are leading to pilots not reporting their arrival; if so, what advice was received in relation to this matter and when; if not, will that advice be sought as a matter of urgency.(4) Has advice been sought as to whether pilots are failing to participate in the CENSAR procedure at all, because of the unacceptable delays in accessing the service; if so, what advice was received in relation to this matter and when; if not, will that advice be sought as a matter of urgency.2682Macdonald, 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:Airservices Australia has advised that:(1) Statistics on such delays are not automatically generated by CENSAR. Information gathered from random checks carried out by Airservices staff indicate that the average delay has been approxi mately 53 seconds and the maximum approximately 2 minutes.(2) The area covered by CENSAR was expanded on 5 November 1998. In the period immediately after this, the level of pilot familiarity with the new systems and method of operation resulted in some delays and several complaints were received. A number of initiatives to reduce delays were taken at the time and since then Airservices has not recorded any complaints.(3) and (4) No specific advice has been sought in this regard. Airservices is continuing to monitor the operation of CENSAR to ensure customer demand is met and if unacceptable delays become evident, appropriate action will be taken to rectify any ongoing difficulties.2682(Question No. 347)3472682O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 8 December 1998:(1) Can it be confirmed that the interim radar display system which is based in Sydney does not have multi-radar tracking.(2) Does this mean that if the Sydney radar is tracking an aircraft, that aircraft may not appear on the air traffic controller's radar screens in Brisbane and Melbourne.2682Macdonald, 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:Airservices Australia has advised:(1) Yes.(2) No. Under the Interim Radar Display System (IRDS), whatever appears on a Sydney radar controller's display will be the same as appears on a Brisbane radar controller's display, provided that the displays are focused on the same area. The same applies in the case of the AUSCATS radar system in Melbourne.2682(Question No. 353)3532682Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris EvansAX5WAALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 7 December 1998:Why does after school hours care provided by private operators on school property, or property other than licensed child care centres, not attract child care assistance to parents. 2683Newman, 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:The Commonwealth provides funding and access to Childcare Assistance to eligible organisations such as incorporated non-profit community organisations, local government, religious and charitable or school boards/councils to provide care for school age children before and after school and during periods of school vacation. School age care services may be located in schools or other non-licensed premises such as community halls. Currently only the ACT license outside school hours care services.New services are only approved for Commonwealth funding in areas of high need.State/Territory Planning Advisory Committees comprising Commonwealth, State and local government representatives, banks, investment advisors networks and other relevant groups consider relevant demographic and local government planning information and provide advice to Government on priority areas which require additional child care places for work-related care.Currently private-for-profit operators are ineligible to apply for funding to operate outside school hours care services. However, the Government is looking at future options, which may open the way for private operators to become sponsors of school age care services.2683(Question No. 363)3632683O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:(1) Have the states raised concerns about the 1997 assessment and approval process associated with funding from the Natural Heritage Trust; if so, what was the nature of those concerns.(2) What action has the Government taken to address those concerns.(3) What action has the Government taken to improve and streamline management arrangements for the assessment process.(4) What level of resources was made available for community assessment processes and the evaluation of program outcomes in 1997.(5) What level of resources have been made available for community assessment processes and the evaluation of program outcomes in 1998.(6) What is the basis upon which resources were allocated for the administration and management of the Natural Heritage Trust, at a Commonwealth, state and territory level, in (a) 1997 and (b) 1998. (7) What was the basis upon which funding was allocated between community, agency, on-ground, and investigations projects through the Natural Heritage Trust in 1997.(8) What was the basis upon which funding has been allocated between community, agency, on-ground, and investigations projects through the Natural Heritage Trust in 1998.2683Alston, 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:Responsibility for the Natural Heritage Trust lies with the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board, which comprises the Minister for Environment and Heritage, and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. This reply has been prepared in consultation with the Minister for Environment and Heritage.(1) The Natural Heritage Trust represents a more than doubling in funding for natural resource, environment and sustainable agriculture programs in most of the States. In our opinion, processes are working effectively to deliver the range of programs managed through the Trust.1997 was a transitional year for the Natural Heritage Trust during which many of the arrangements were being put in place. In particular, this concerned the concluding of a Partnership Agreement between the Commonwealth and each of the States and Territories. The Agreements were developed in consultation with the States and Territories and set out the roles and responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the States and Territories for the delivery of most of the Trust programs. Under these Agreements, parties agreed to jointly develop consistent guidelines for project assessment and approval.There are a number of fora in which States and Territories can express their views about administration of the Trust. These include the Australian Landcare Council and Ministerial Councils such as the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. In addition, the Commonwealth has regular meetings with stakeholders, including the States and Territories and community representatives, to seek feedback and recommendations for improvement to the delivery of the Natural Heritage Trust. Recent stakeholder meetings were held in February and December 1998 to discuss Natural Heritage Trust processes and in July 1998 to discuss the guidelines.An issue of concern to the States and Territories was that funding priorities identified by regional and state assessment panels were not in some instances accepted by the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board. However, the majority of proposals was accepted and those that were not successful were judged not to meet Commonwealth priorities. Additionally, States felt that the level of resources offered by the Commonwealth to support program administration was insufficient.The February 1998 stakeholders meeting discussed a range of issues including arrangements for continuing projects, development of regional approaches to Natural Heritage Trust delivery, improvements to Trust processes and better integration of Trust administration.The December 1998 meeting considered issues such as Natural Heritage Trust monitoring and evaluation, project payment and accountability, project reporting and alternative delivery models.(2) The 1999-2000 Natural Heritage Trust Guidelines have incorporated many comments made by a wide range of State and community stakeholders who attended the guidelines workshop in July 1998. Particular changes to make the application process more accessible have included improvements to the layout and flow of the document, the inclusion of flowcharts and additional information to explain the application and assessment processes, a more generous definition of `small projects' which are not required to provide as much detail as larger projects, the consolidation of all eligibility questions into one chapter and the setting out of a step by step process for completing the application. In addition, the guidelines were released much earlier this year, to provide applicants with more time to develop their proposals.In the 1998-99 round, project announcements were made considerably earlier than for 1997-98.Assessment panels have been given wider access to technical advice. This is being provided by the States and Territories and was a recommendation of the February 1998 stakeholders meeting.A monitoring and evaluation strategy is being implemented and uniform project reporting requirements have been developed in consultation with State and Territory representatives.The Commonwealth also has undertaken to provide improved feedback on reasons for project rejection. Besides helping proponents to refine their projects, this will also maintain confidence in the assessment process.(3) The actions outlined above, together with the regular stakeholder meetings, are intended to improve the management arrangements for the assessment process.(4) Natural Heritage Trust funding was provided to States and Territories in 1997-98 to assist with administration, assessment and initial evaluation activities. The level of funds provided is detailed below. States and Territories also contribute resources to Trust administration. Decisions about the level of funding for administration take into account continuing community concerns about program funding being diverted to bureaucracy.1997-98 Actual ($m)- Australian Capital Territory0.061- New South Wales0.387- Northern Territory0.112- Queensland0.298- South Australia0.265- Tasmania0.210- Victoria0.338- Western Australia0.304Total State and Territory1.975(5) Tasmania is the only State which has signed an agreement with the Commonwealth for administrative support for the life of the Trust and is receiving an amount of $260 000 in 1998-99. The Commonwealth has made an offer to other States and Territories for administration, assessment and initial evaluation for 1998. States and Territories are currently considering the offer.(6) (a) in 1997 Commonwealth: During establishment of the Trust, the resources required to administer the Trust and its programs at the Commonwealth level were determined by Ministers and the Departments in consultation with the (then) Department of Finance taking into account benchmarks and the information provided in the 1997 Australian National Audit Office performance audit "Commonwealth Natural Resource Management and Environment Pro grams—Australia's Land, Water and Vegetation Resources".State and Territory: Funds are allocated to assist in coordination of activities at the State and Territory level, particularly administration and assessment process expenses, plus an interim contribution from the Commonwealth for evaluation and monitoring costs.In general, funds for evaluation, administration and assessment support were allocated on a pro rata basis. That is, the available funds were allocated to each State and Territory in the same proportions as the distribution between States and Territories of total Trust funds for 1997-98. The approach was modified to accommodate smaller jurisdictions to reflect a loss of economies of scale.(6) (b) in 1998Commonwealth: As for 6 (a).State and Territory: As for 6 (a).(7) One-Stop-Shop ProgramsPrograms included in the One-Stop-Shop Guide to applications in 1997 were Bushcare, Landcare, Murray-Darling 2001, Rivercare (including Waterwatch), Fisheries Action Program, Farm Forestry, National Reserve System, National Weeds Program, Endangered Species, National Wetlands Program and National Feral Animal Control Strategy.For the first six programs listed, funding applications were assessed and prioritised by community based Regional and State Assessment Panels. As such, the funding allocation largely reflected the priorities of these panels. The panels determined their priorities against the framework of the Partnership Agreements which set out, for each State and Territory, their natural resource management strategies and priorities. Commonwealth Ministers provided advice to State and Territory Ministers outlining Commonwealth priorities prior to the commencement of the assessment round.- National Reserve System Program- Endangered Species Program- National Wetlands ProgramApplications were assessed by technical panels relevant to each program and ranked according to national priorities determined against program objectives.- National Weeds Program- National Feral Animal Control Strategy(see below)National Weeds ProgramThe National Weeds Strategy Executive Committee (comprising representatives from state environment, forestry and agricultural and resource management agencies) has been established to oversee the implementation of the strategy and will identify priority weeds for national attention. The type of activity to receive Commonwealth funding will be decided on a weed by weed basis eg the funding priorities for one weed may be on ground activities, whereas for another weed funding may be directed to research.National Feral Animal ControlThe agricultural component of the program, administered by the Bureau of Rural Sciences of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, supports a wide range of activities which will assist the development and adoption of best practice pest management.The focus of the agricultural component is applied research that is likely to have a direct link to improved pest management at the property level. The program will generally not fund pure background research (e.g. ecology/biology of pest animals) or routine pest-management activities.FarmBis—Farm Business Improvement ProgramFarmBis consists of two components; a national component and a State based component. Minister Anderson approved the use of all the Natural Heritage Trust FarmBis funds for the State based component. A State Planning Group in each State then determines how funds are allocated according to State/industry/community agreed priorities in relation to training and education within their regional communities/rural sector.National Land and Water Resources AuditThe Audit is a four year, Natural Heritage Trust program undertaken in partnership with States, industry and community groups to provide an independent, objective assessment of the extent of natural resource degradation and include an economic analysis of each problem. Primarily, the focus of the Audit will be on the needs of the Commonwealth and State agencies. An Advisory Council has been appointed to develop and manage implementation of the Audit.Riverworks TasmaniaFunding was allocated to projects according to recommendations made by Consultative Committees comprising community and government representatives.National River Health ProgramThe National River Health Program is a research oriented program. The National River Health Strategy, which the Minister for the Environment and Heritage approved on 14 December 1997, sets out the basis for funding under the program. The program is implemented by State and Territory agencies (in accordance with Trust Partnership Agreements), researchers and research organisations and has no community grants component. As an interim arrangement for 1997-98 only, Environment Australia entered into an agreement with the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation (LWRRDC). LWRRDC was responsible for the disbursement of funds under the Australia Wide Assessment of River Health component of the program.Coasts and Clean SeasCoasts and Clean Seas (CCS) has no formula for allocation of funds between these categories. CCS encourages partnerships between community, government and non-government organisations (the Coastcare program has a stipulation that applications be submitted jointly by a community group and the local management agency). CCS funding may be paid to any of the joint applicants as long as the organisation receiving funding is a statutory or incorporated body. Both on-ground and appropriate investigation projects are eligible for funding, however the focus of CCS is on practical actions and on-ground works.Waste Management Awareness ProgramProjects are agreed to by the Minister on the basis of merit in meeting the WMAP objectives which were agreed to by the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board. Funding is not allocated to projects according to `community', `agency', `on-ground' and `investigations' criteria.Air Pollution in Major CitiesFunding allocations are based on addressing the program's priorities. The program funds projects with a national focus, rather than a regional or state focus.Allocations in 1997 were limited to standard development (National Environment Protection Measures), continuation of a national community action program (SMOGBUSTERS) and an Independent Inquiry into Urban Air Pollution in Australia.World Heritage Area ManagementWorld Heritage funding is provided to States only (not to community groups). The States were invited to provide detailed project proposals. All proposals had been through a systematic consultation and assessment process (involving community and scientific advisory committees in each WH property). The State then prioritised each project and submitted the proposals to the WH Unit, which then assessed these proposals and included its own priority lists (based primarily on existing management plans), before submitting the projects to the Minister for his consideration.(8) One-Stop-Shop ProgramsIn 1998, programs included in the One-Stop-Shop were Landcare, Rivercare, MD2001, Fisheries Action Program, Farm Forestry, Bushcare, Endangered Species Program, National Reserve System Program, National Wetlands Program and Waterwatch Australia.For most programs, funding applications were assessed and prioritised by community-based Regional and State Assessment Panels. As such, the funding allocation largely reflected the priorities of these panels. The panels determined their priorities against the framework of the Partnership Agreements which set out, for each State and Territory, their natural resource management strategies and priorities. Commonwealth Ministers provided advice to State and Territory Ministers outlining Commonwealth priorities prior to commencement of the assessment round.For Endangered Species and the National Reserve System, applications were assessed by a technical panel and ranked according to national priorities, taking account of comments from State Assessment Panels.FarmBis—Farm Business Improvement ProgramNational Land and Water Resources AuditNational Feral Animal Control ProgramNational Weeds ProgramAs for (7).National River Health ProgramThe basis for the allocation of funding has not altered for 1998-99, except that disbursement of all funds is now undertaken by Environment Australia.Coasts and Clean SeasAs for (7).Waste Management Awareness ProgramAs for (7).Air Pollution in Major CitiesAllocations in 1998 were directed to priority programs identified in the report of the Independent Inquiry described in (7). Individual projects were developed in consultation with Commonwealth and State agencies to meet the objectives of the program which were agreed by the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board.World Heritage Area ManagementAs for (7).2686(Question No. 374)3742686Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BartlettDT6QLDAD00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:(1) What has been the cost of landscaping and/or gardening work conducted on the department's Tuggeranong, ACT, site in each of the past 4 years. (2) Are there any plans for further landscaping work to be conducted on the site in 1999; if so, what is the projected cost of that work.2687Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The costs for landscape maintenance at Tuggeranong Office Park are detailed below. Minor works expenditure such as plant replacements for financial years 95/96 and 96/97 are not readily available.1995/96—$114,440.001996/97—$118,868.001997/98—$127,594.001998/99—$119,889.00 (includes contracted payments for the remainder of the year).(2) There are no plans for further landscaping work to be conducted on the site in 1999. Projected expenditure, which covers the contracted payments for grounds maintenance, for the upcoming financial year 1999/2000 is $97,118.00.2687(Question No. 389)3892687Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 21 December 1998:(1) (a) What audit or review of Tasmania's integrated quarantine service has been carried out in 1997 and 1998; (b) Who conducted the review; (c) What were its terms of reference; (d) When was the report completed; and (e) What did it recommend.(2) Can a copy be provided of any such audit or review.2687Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions:(1) (a) A review of current arrangements in place for the delivery of international quarantine and export inspection services was undertaken in Tasmania, Western Australia and the Northern Territory commencing in August 1997. The review followed the release of the Government's response to the Nairn report on quarantine in August 1997.(b) The review was conducted by senior officers from the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the respective States and Territory.(c) Recommendation 49 of the Nairn report, endorsed by the Government, called for consistent, efficient and effective national delivery and reporting of quarantine services. In the accompanying text (section 8.3.3) to the recommendation, the following comment was made "the principles underpinning the goal of quarantine are that quarantine programs should be delivered effectively, efficiently and with a consistent national approach. To ensure these principles are achieved, one agency should bear the full responsibility for provision of quarantine services. The Review Committee believes that Quarantine Australia should be that agency."This formed the central focus for the review.(d) The report was completed in May 1998 when the Chief Executive Officers agreed to it.(e) The report discussed a number of options relating to the delivery of international quarantine and export inspection services which were identified from the review. The summary, on page 20 of the report, provides a synopsis of the seven key actions arising from consideration of the options; these were accepted by the respective Ministers.(2) A copy of the report has been provided to Senator Brown and copies are available from the Senate Table Office.2687(Question No. 393)3932687Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WoodleyHX5QLDAD00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 December 1998:(1) Has the Government calculated the compliance costs of imposing a goods and services tax on the charity/ not for profit sector; if so, what is the cost.(2) Will the Government reimburse this sector fully for these compliance costs.(3) Who will determine the amount to be paid to each entity within the sector.(4) Does the Government agree with the Vos report on the charity/not for profit sector.(5) Who will be on the body which will advise the Government on compliance costs and reimbursement for this sector.(6) Will the charity/not for profit sector be able to nominate members to any body appointed by the Government to oversee the application of these measures.(7) Does the Australian Taxation Office have a training manual to help implementation of the Government's tax reforms; if so, will the manual be made public; and when will it be made public.2687Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Government has not calculated the compliance costs of imposing a GST on specific sectors in the economy. The Government's Regulation Impact Statement estimates average net recurrent compliance costs for 2000/02 of $130 per registrant.Compliance costs are likely to be reduced for charitable institutions by the Government's proposed grouping provisions, which will allow all members of the same non-profit association to nominate one member to represent the group for GST purposes.(2) The GST has been designed and will be implemented such that compliance costs are kept to a minimum. The Government has not offered to reimburse any sector of the Australian economy for any compliance costs which might flow from a GST. The Government will spend up to $500 million to defray the start-up costs of small and medium businesses implementing the GST. The Government will consult with business through a Small Business Consultative Committee on the most effective options for delivery of these incentives. In addition, under existing provisions of the income tax legislation, many of the start-up costs associated with the GST will be tax deductible for businesses.The Small Business Consultative Committee has also been asked to provide ongoing advice, and where applicable, options to address the compliance cost for small business.(3) The Small Business Consultative Committee's Terms of Reference includes advising the Government on the distribution of the incentives announced in the Government's tax reform plan, A New Tax System. The Government will then decide how the incentives will be applied.(4) The Government has accepted all the recommendations made by Tax Consultative Committee, which was chaired by Mr Vos, including those relating to the charitable sector. In addition, the Government extended the GST-free provisions to include income tax exempt charities as well as entities eligible to receive income tax deductible donations.(5) and (6) The Government announced the establishment and membership of a Small Business Consultative Committee on 6 December 1998. Membership details are:Chairman: Mr Curt Rendall, member of the NSW Small Business Development Corporation and Chairman of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Australia Small and Medium Enterprises Committee.Members: Mr Greg Evans, Executive Director of the Wool Council of Australia (Deputy Chairman of the SBCC); Ms Angela Ryan, Director of Taxation, Australian Society of Certified Practicing Accountants; Associate Professor Neil Warren, Australian Taxation Studies Program, Faculty of Law, University of NSW; Mr Ian Baldock, Chairman, Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia Ltd; Ms Dorothy Jellett, Managing Director of DFP Recruitment Services and a member of the Executive Council of the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Mr Peter Siekmann, President of the Australian Small Business Association; and Mr Steve Chapman, Deputy Commissioners of Taxation for Small Business, Australian Taxation Office.(7) To assist with implementation of the Government's tax reforms, the Australian Taxation Office will conduct information and communication programs to inform both the general public and business communities about the changes to the tax system.2688(Question No. 394)3942688Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KnowlesTH4WALP10 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 December 1998:Can details be provided of the 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.(4) The approximate cost of the Native Title Tribunal's unsuccessful efforts at mediation.(5) All and any costs incurred by the Commonwealth for Native Title Tribunal legal representation.(6) The cost to the Commonwealth of the tribunal's referral to the Federal Court.(7) All and any cost incurred by the Commonwealth for Federal Court legal representation.(8) The total cost of all legal action associated with the Yorta Yorta native title claim.2688Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)—(3) I am advised that answers to these questions have been provided by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs in his response to Senate Question No. 395. (4) Direct costs expended by the National Native Title Tribunal on mediation of the Yorta Yorta Native Title applications amounted to $22,576.Indirect staff and member costs for file and mediation preparation are estimated at $5,998.(5) and (7) The Commonwealth, through the Attorney-General's Department, provided financial assistance under s.183 of the Native Title Act 1993 to a number of respondents to enable them to be legally represented in the proceedings before the Native Title Tribunal and the Federal Court. Because of the manner in which statistics are maintained it is not possible to provide a breakdown of costs between the National Native TitleTribunal and the Federal Court. However, the overall costs incurred in providing financial assistance in both the NNTT and Federal Court proceedings as at 31 January 1999 were $3,369,713. Other than the costs of providing financial assistance the Commonwealth did not incur any other legal costs in respect of legal representation as it was not a party to the proceedings.(6) The total cost to the Commonwealth of the Tribunal's referral to the Federal Court was $309,989.(8) The total cost of all legal action associated with the Yorta Yorta native title claim is $3,708,276 (ie the total of costs outlined in parts (4), (5) & (7), and (6) above).